How to avoid the state re-forming?
Sep 1 2008
I am fascinated by the idea of libertarian-communism, but I am somewhat puzzled by it. As a libertarian communist I understand one must be in favor of abolishing the state and breaking down of hierarchical power structures.
But without an overarching authority, how does this society prevent people from colluding together to resurrect these old power structures? Are there laws to prevent this kind of coercion? If there are - how are they enforced? Is it assumed that under such a society there will be no attempt to capture this power?
Sep 1 2008
#2
people often assume that if you want to abolish the state you want to create a power vacuum. for libertarian communists at least this definitely isn't the case, there are various suggestions what organisational forms a libertarian communist society should take (federations of workers councils or workplace/community syndicates being two of the most prominent), but the idea is to replace the top-down goverment of the many by the few with the bottom-up self-government of everyone, across both and economic spheres (i.e. workplace democracy too) so that there's no vacuum for a re-formed state to fill.
Sep 1 2008
#3
But surely in the face of a united and organized threat, exercising power or even naked force - a loosely knit collection of diverse and divided groups would be difficult to mobilize. In order to neutralize the threat wouldn't these syndicates have to take on the role of the state - even if temporarily? Wouldn't they have to employ the methods of power that libertarian communists so abhor?
Sure the nature of such a society might discourage such organizations, but it wouldn't prevent them.
Sep 1 2008
#4
nocompromise wrote:
In order to neutralize the threat wouldn't these syndicates have to take on the role of the state - even if temporarily? Wouldn't they have to employ the methods of power that libertarian communists so abhor?
this is an ongoing discussion between anarchists and 'transitional state' marxists. my short answer would be that workers organisations engaging in say the armed defence of occupied workplaces are significantly distinct from a state to merit the use of a different term (a historical example being the anarcho-syndicalist militias in the spanish revolution being clearly distinct from the re-formed republican army. indeed the destruction of the militas became one of the primary objectives for defenders of the state for this very reason).
Sep 1 2008
#5
Joseph K. wrote:
this is an ongoing discussion between anarchists and 'transitional state' marxists.
care to point me in the direction of any of these discussions/literature?
Joseph K. wrote:
my short answer would be that workers organisations engaging in say the armed defence of occupied workplaces are significantly distinct from a state to merit the use of a different term
in a democracy giving the arms to the state at least means the bearers of arms are held to some standard of accountability, but in libcom system how would these armed organisations be brought to bear for crimes/atrocities?
i suppose this problem is not unique to libcom, and in fact exists in any modern system of political thought - what is to stop the current military establishing a coup in say the united states were it so inclined? but I wonder in a more loosely organized system such as this one, it might be far easier to seize the reigns of power?
Sep 1 2008
#6
Not particularly, in fact the only way of defending against a military coup is mass rebellion against it - something republics and the like are notoriously bad at, because the top bods usually work out which way the wind is blowing and simply help the coupists.
Sep 1 2008
#7
nocompromise wrote:
care to point me in the direction of any of these discussions/literature?
there was a really good discussion on here about 'the dictatorship of the proletariat' a few months back, but i can't find it now. the basic 'transitional state' argument was that for a period the working class must forcibly suppress the former ruling class, and thus act as an armed body of class rule, i.e. a state. the counter-argument (that i made, amongst others) is that if the working class seizes power and the means of production, the bourgeoisie cease to be a class as they are defined by their ownership of that stuff, so class has been abolished rather than one class ruling over another, and so it muddies the waters unneccessarily to talk about a 'workers state', and opens the door to leninists who would dictate over the proletariat.
nocompromise wrote:
in a democracy giving the arms to the state at least means the bearers of arms are held to some standard of accountability, but in libcom system how would these armed organisations be brought to bear for crimes/atrocities?
well in practice the accountability in a 'democratic state' is practically nil, bar the odd scapegoat if something really terrible gets caught on camera (abu grahib, my lai...). but in any case i'd say any claim you can make for the accountability of the military via a 'democratic' state applies even more strongly to militias responsible to directly democratic workers councils/anarcho-syndicalist unions etc.
nocompromise wrote:
i suppose this problem is not unique to libcom, and in fact exists in any modern system of political thought - what is to stop the current military establishing a coup in say the united states were it so inclined? but I wonder in a more loosely organized system such as this one, it might be far easier to seize the reigns of power?
libertarian communism is not a loosely organised society. it's highly organised, but in a directly democratic way, with mass assemblies instead of bosses and parliaments, mandated delegates instead of elected representatives etc. in fact it is precisely this organisation that is the best defence against a coup; a centralised state is relatively easy to seize, but how does one seize a federation of workers councils, or order a directly democratic militia to move against them? some people like to talk about a 'horizontally' organised society replacing our 'vertical' one (which makes the point well, though i'd say it oversimplfies the way we are governed under capitalism, but that's another discussion really).
Sep 1 2008
#8
I think that Rob Ray and Jospeh K have already made good points - another thing to consider is that ending private property means that there wouldn't be a class of people with the financial means to support those 'colluding together to resurrect ... old power structures'.
People seeking to do this would not simply have to sieze power in a coup - ie take over organisational structures of command - they'd have to fundamentally alter structures of decision making. I think there are dangers there, but I don't see the struggle for a libertarian society as something that's completed as soon as politicians and bosses are toppled. It's a process rather than an end point.
Edit: I also think it's important to bring up and discuss these sorts of issues. Some anarchists have a tendency to wave away such concerns, as if 'the revolution' will solve all problems and we'll all be getting along like the people on those paintings in Jehovah's Witnesses pamphlets.
Sep 2 2008
#9
tigersiskillers wrote:
Some anarchists have a tendency to wave away such concerns, as if 'the revolution' will solve all problems and we'll all be getting along like the people on those paintings in Jehovah's Witnesses pamphlets.
For the last 5 years I have been telling everyone that Jehovah's Witnessses are communists. srsly.
Sep 2 2008
#10
I think this question is an important one and personally, I'm not yet totally satisfied with the typical answers. The usual answer is that people will change their attitudes and psychology once society is "fixed". I'm not certain I buy it. I think if you take a room of 10 people and present them with a problem, natural leaders tend to step forward. These natural leaders attract followers and so on and so forth. Wouldn't even a slight imbalance of power or resources (guns etc.) destabilize the libcom system? I don't think that today is much different from the past in terms of greed or dissatisfaction. I think there is a reason that if you look everywhere, you see governments. I'm beginning to expect that they are the natural gravitational structure of society. It doesn't have to be intentional or rational or ideal. I simply suspect that it may always tend towards this structure as a natural point of stability. In other words, it may be easier to keep a society vertical than it is to keep it horizontal.
Perhaps it helps to reverse the question. What keeps a society with goverment stable? Why do we all see to agree to have things work the way they do? Why does a democratic president not take over as dictator is some countries (what compels the military he commands to stop him)? At the end of the day the laws are only as good as the enforcement, right? So what makes us enforce them? What differences can we see in countries that stay stable (US, UK etc.) versus those with constant turmoil and government turnover? Perhaps if we can get at the underlying forces that keep society as we know it working, when can apply it to libcom and see if it sticks.
Sep 2 2008
#11
Quote:
I'm not certain I buy it.
It's a system of organisation, not an attempt at fraud - libertarian communists would make the worst confidence tricksters ever 
.
Of course some people are more forthright than others, and in some cases yes there are natural leaders. But stop thinking in terms of traditional leadership for a second. Who are the best people to 'lead' a railway? Mouthy sods from London, or railway workers? Who'd be able to tell you most about keeping the water flowing, a leadership caste bussed in from elsewhere or the people on the ground?
Anarchists aren't against leaders emerging, but unlike in a traditional hierarchy if they end up in a leadership position it is a) not permanent b) needs to be constantly justified by their actions c) does not give them the authority to discipline their 'inferiors' without any checks put on their behaviour. If you look at most forms of anarchism, there is the delegate system, where people are given a direct mandate by the workforce around them, and can be instantly recalled if they make bad decisions. As a concept it's light years in front of the incompetance, petty abuse of power, greed and theft our current system enables - and encourages.
There's no such thing as a 'natural' form of society. Most of history was a case of monarchs, aristos and churchmen in charge through 'divine right'. It's only recently that capitalism has come forward - and similarly, it is in no way inevitable that it will continue, no matter how much the people at the top would like us to think it is.
What keeps a society with goverment stable?
Continued economic growth, backed by a strong military. However the first is unsustainable, and the second relies on horrific levels of violence, either threatened or made real, to maintain its sway. The UK has augmented this with a complex system of credit, extensive and well-organised media and a schedule of slow erosion of rights to maintain itself. However this stability is by no means assured - just look at the French CPE riots, or a little further back, the poll tax riots. In the near future, stability is likely to erode again as the economy falters.
Sep 2 2008
#12
nocompromise, there's a pamphlet on the period of transition from the ICC online here. It's not the complete version - the print version charts the debates they had on the question in the 70s - but it is perhaps an introduction to the Marxist "transitional state" position from a left-communist point of view.
Sep 2 2008
#13
neverfox wrote:
I don't think that today is much different from the past in terms of greed or dissatisfaction. I think there is a reason that if you look everywhere, you see governments. I'm beginning to expect that they are the natural gravitational structure of society.
the naturalisation of the status quo is one of its strongest ideological weapons for most of human existence not only did we not have government we didn't have agriculture, or writing. is illiterate hunter gathering our 'natural' structure of society? as Rob Ray says, the idea of a single 'natural' society is misguided, as is the static conception of society it implies.
neverfox wrote:
I think if you take a room of 10 people and present them with a problem, natural leaders tend to step forward. These natural leaders attract followers and so on and so forth. Wouldn't even a slight imbalance of power or resources (guns etc.) destabilize the libcom system?
this is precisely why libertarian communists are not anti-organisation, as i discussed above. a leader in any given situation is not the same thing as a ruler by a long shot. the point is to have highly organised, directly democratic structures (such as decision making power resting in mass assemblies, and mandated, recallable delegates) to act as a check on the ambitions of any individuals. just think how quickly even the most charismatic politician can lose support for an unpopular policy (Blair/Iraq springs to mind), and then think if they could simply be instantly recalled. simple. and i'd expect a society based on the practice of self-organisation to be far less prone to the promises of charismatic leaders, as the typical techniques of politicians rely on the powerlessness of the rest of us (this isn't idle pyschological speculation, you can't promise people the earth if they already have it ).
this is not to say there isn't the potential for careerist individuals to try and weild inordinate influence (e.g. this happened to an extent in the CNT during the spanish revolution in 1936), just that their triumph is by no means predetermined, far less natural.
Sep 2 2008
#14
To be honest, I don't think the problem with the room of 10 people is that some are 'natural' leaders - I'd want the process of creating a libcom society to move all of them to be leaders. At the moment through socialisation, education, upbringing, social norms etc etc some people can ride on confidence and social expectations to appear to be 'natural' leaders. In many ways, in that example I might be as far away from 'natural leadership' as possible - I spent years with agoraphobia and am still screwed up around having to deal with people, social situations etc. Yet there are some parts of my life where I can be in the posiion of a 'leader'. Not the bedroom sadly
I'm nicking this off someone else I think, but think of the uses of the word authority. You can be in authority, have authority or be an authority. It's the first that is the problem, not the second two. Being in authority means occuping a position of power, which is pretty arbitrary, whereas with the other two you might pay attention when someone speaks because they've got a lot of experience, or are known for describing a situation and relevant arguments clearly, or will seek the opinion of a water engineer when looking to make decisions on sorting out the sewers.
In terms of stability, it's the positions of command and control that we have to abolish, not any form of governance. I don't see why governance from below through a system of federated councils/assemblies is inherently less stable. It's not like I'd want a society of isolated communities each getting on with their own thing.
I also think complexity and interdependence is a strong safeguard against imbalances of power. I could imagine a few people taking effective control of an isolated community, either through brute force or manipulation and force of character. I think it's more difficult to maintain this in a society where I might be a member of my local assembly, in a workplace council with people from other neighbourhoods, where the resources in my community are dependent on co-operation with other communities, where mandated delegates go to higher level assembly meetings, where there is hi tech individual and mass communication, where there is not a class of property owners or decision makers, etc etc.
I'm not saying there aren't dangers, and I think there will need to be vigilance, especially in a transitionary period. But I do think that an organised democratic egalitarian society has its own checks and balances - it's not the free for all that most people (sadly including some anarchists) imagine the aim of an anarchist society to be.
Sep 2 2008
#15
Quote:
just look at the French CPE riots
sorry it's off topic, but it needs correcting.
I took part in the CPE movement as a student, and I can assure you it was not rioting. just a big college/student movement, and some days with mass protest college/student/workers. but no riots.
Sep 2 2008
#16
Sorry yeah I meant the banlieus riots. Doing well with the mis-namings this week.
Sep 2 2008
#17
nocompromise wrote:
how does this society prevent people from colluding together to resurrect these old power structures? Are there laws to prevent this kind of coercion? If there are - how are they enforced? Is it assumed that under such a society there will be no attempt to capture this power?
Perhaps I'm being dense but I don't see where the motivation would come from for individuals to intentionally try to form a traditional authority. Given the abolition of all forms of property and the greatly increased production of all things 'necessary' for human life, people would not need to follow any other person for their own benefit, they would surely have nothing to gain? And why would any person want more than getting all they need to another's detriment? I'm assuming that we're talking here of an ovewhelming 'revolutionary mass' which destroys capital altogether to form a new society.
Sep 2 2008
#18
Daniel Brennan wrote:
Perhaps I'm being dense but I don't see where the motivation would come from for individuals to intentionally try to form a traditional authority. Given the abolition of all forms of property and the greatly increased production of all things 'necessary' for human life, people would not need to follow any other person for their own benefit, they would surely have nothing to gain? And why would any person want more than getting all they need to another's detriment? I'm assuming that we're talking here of an ovewhelming 'revolutionary mass' which destroys capital altogether to form a new society.
Because they'd rather have people work for them than work themselves? Because they want a greater share of luxury items? Because they felt they were personally better off under capitalism? Because they have a twisted psyche? Because there might be teething problems in creating a new society? Because they get off on the idea of controlling others? Because they believe they are better or more deserving than others? Because some people may have differing value systems?
Don't get me wrong, I don't think there's something dark at the heart of the human soul, but equally I don't think we'll all be angels come the day of the revolution. I do think the further we are away from a society that rewards greed and power seeking the less we'll see of those traits, but we can't assume away human failings.
Sep 3 2008
#19
Rob Ray wrote:
Of course some people are more forthright than others, and in some cases yes there are natural leaders. But stop thinking in terms of traditional leadership for a second. Who are the best people to 'lead' a railway? Mouthy sods from London, or railway workers? Who'd be able to tell you most about keeping the water flowing, a leadership caste bussed in from elsewhere or the people on the ground?
I understand the concept of leadership in terms of organization, but I'm thinking of something more sinister. What's to stop someone from gathering followers? Think Manson or Jesus even. And then what's to stop them from reintroducing a form of currency? I can easily conceive of a domino of events where capitalism pops right back up (especially in a world where there are people who still remember it). It really wouldn't be that hard to do. All you would need is an idea that only you could carry out (specialized knowledge), enough believers and the ability to sieze those resources and you're right back where you started. It would spread like a disease I imagine. It did once before.
Rob Ray wrote:
Anarchists aren't against leaders emerging, but unlike in a traditional hierarchy if they end up in a leadership position it is a) not permanent b) needs to be constantly justified by their actions c) does not give them the authority to discipline their 'inferiors' without any checks put on their behaviour. If you look at most forms of anarchism, there is the delegate system, where people are given a direct mandate by the workforce around them, and can be instantly recalled if they make bad decisions. As a concept it's light years in front of the incompetance, petty abuse of power, greed and theft our current system enables - and encourages.
But what keeps it that way? By what order? Are we to expect a mass psychological change in the entire human population?
Rob Ray wrote:
There's no such thing as a 'natural' form of society. Most of history was a case of monarchs, aristos and churchmen in charge through 'divine right'. It's only recently that capitalism has come forward - and similarly, it is in no way inevitable that it will continue, no matter how much the people at the top would like us to think it is.What keeps a society with goverment stable?
Continued economic growth, backed by a strong military. However the first is unsustainable, and the second relies on horrific levels of violence, either threatened or made real, to maintain its sway. The UK has augmented this with a complex system of credit, extensive and well-organised media and a schedule of slow erosion of rights to maintain itself. However this stability is by no means assured - just look at the French CPE riots, or a little further back, the poll tax riots. In the near future, stability is likely to erode again as the economy falters.
I agree with you here but I also recognize that capitalism did arise. If it can, then what reasons would it not again if you somehow managed to stop it for a time? By government law? Oh wait... Again, it seems that libcom rests on one pillar: a society that fully buys into the concept and agree to put the idealogy above all. In The Dispossessed, Le Guin made it clear that the libcom society of Anarres functioned because people knew little else and believe religiously all together in the concept. Is that a realistic starting point?
Sep 3 2008
#20
Daniel Brennan wrote:
Perhaps I'm being dense but I don't see where the motivation would come from for individuals to intentionally try to form a traditional authority. Given the abolition of all forms of property and the greatly increased production of all things 'necessary' for human life, people would not need to follow any other person for their own benefit, they would surely have nothing to gain? And why would any person want more than getting all they need to another's detriment? I'm assuming that we're talking here of an ovewhelming 'revolutionary mass' which destroys capital altogether to form a new society.
What started it (since we once lived in a hunter/gatherer 'utopia')? What keeps them doing it now? What makes a rich man want more?
Sep 3 2008
#21
Just a couple of very quick points, realise I'm not fully addressing your argument, but should have already left the house:
neverfox wrote:
I understand the concept of leadership in terms of organization, but I'm thinking of something more sinister. What's to stop someone from gathering followers? Think Manson or Jesus even. And then what's to stop them from reintroducing a form of currency? I can easily conceive of a domino of events where capitalism pops right back up (especially in a world where there are people who still remember it). It really wouldn't be that hard to do. All you would need is an idea that only you could carry out (specialized knowledge), enough believers and the ability to sieze those resources and you're right back where you started. It would spread like a disease I imagine. It did once before.
A form of currency would have to be widely accepted to work, and serve an economic purpose. Remember capitalism refers to quite a specific economy, not just one where there is money and some form of market. Capitalism is a relatively recent human creation in terms of the period of written history.
neverfox wrote:
I agree with you here but I also recognize that capitalism did arise. If it can, then what reasons would it not again if you somehow managed to stop it for a time? By government law? Oh wait...
Not government law, but such a society would have laws. Laws decided on democratically and enforced through democratic institutions, but laws nonetheless. Laws against child rape, or acts of violence, or in this case attempting to reinstitute wage slavery.
Without a time machine we'll never know precisely how hierarchy emerged in human society. Engels and Bookchin have speculated. What we can say is that these situations arose in small scale communities. Complex, mass societies are a different thing, especially where having been created through a social upheaval that involved an overwhelming majority of the population, social norms are likely to be strongly biased against and watchful for a return to the old society.
Witholding information or expertise is something that Bookchin identified as a possible early step towards a form of hierarchy in ealry societies, as the old kept hold of their knowledge and experience. But in a mass, modern society how will that work? You'd have to have all doctors decide that they were going to deny treatment unless they were treated as a new superior caste.
Sep 3 2008
#22
Quote:
Oh wait... Again, it seems that libcom rests on one pillar: a society that fully buys into the concept and agree to put the idealogy above all.
Show me where anyone said this? Even once? I have to say I do get really tired of the ‘oh wait’ merchants, you seem to think that you’ve stumbled upon some big flaw that no-one else has thought of when in fact all you’re doing is repeating the oldest straw man going. No anarchist worth their salt would ever argue that the sole basis for anarchism is everyone being a nice co-operative type.*
What keeps any organisation in order? What stops a prime minister from declaring himself king today? No-one here is relying on some sea-change in psychology for this, we’re relying on people being pragmatic. There’s no long-term gain for the majority in handing over their control to a boss once they have established an equitable system, just as there is no long-term gain for the current bourgeoisie in handing Gordon Brown command powers over say, corporation tax. Selfishly, if I get into a position where I’m being valued as a member of the team, have a real say over my future and get more benefits than could be expected under a boss, I’m not going to give that up without a fight.
* Most of us would argue that the mass psychology of society would change for the better, but this is not the same thing as a saying everyone would become perfect.
Sep 3 2008
#23
neverfox wrote:
What started it (since we once lived in a hunter/gatherer 'utopia')? What keeps them doing it now? What makes a rich man want more?
if you're going to pull the 'it's human nature to be ruled' straw man you're going to have acknowledge that resistance to rulers appears to be as old as social hierarchy, so all you're left with is the fallacy that we don't have global communism yet, therefore it's impossible. the same flawed logic would have ruled global capitalism impossible in 1500.
even if you can demonstrate that people by nature endlessly lust after more wealth (and there's substantial anthropological evidence to the contrary), the fact is this aspect of their alleged nature still has to be pursued according to the laws, institutions and customs of a given society. without the institutions of private property and a state to protect the class who owns it, the most harmful expressions of this aspect of 'human nature' would be severely attenuated. and if you're going to 'argue from human nature', you're also forced to admit the co-operative, social tendencies of the species, which even capitalism couldn't function without. thus the purpose of social organisation is to accentuate those capacities which are most positive and attenuate those which are negative.
so the second fallacy you fall into is the naturalistic fallacy, if it could be demonstrated that the urge to rape is as natural as you suggest the urge to accumulate wealth is, should we also make rape a foundational principle of our society alongside accumulation?
Sep 3 2008
#24
Quote:
What's to stop someone from gathering followers? Think Manson or Jesus even. And then what's to stop them from reintroducing a form of currency?
Leaving aside the fact that the situation you are describing is not remotely comparable to Roman-occupied Palestine, or the capitalist society of 1960s America, this is quite far-fetched. A currency is a universal equivalent of value, we'd have to be dealing with a massive number of people falling in line behind this charismatic leader to implement a working currency in a high-tech society such as ours. In that case, we'd have the situation of everyone simply believing the same for it to work, which you say is impossible as a foundation of libertarian communism (and which Rob points out is a strawman).
Sep 3 2008
#25
Quote:
What started it (since we once lived in a hunter/gatherer 'utopia')?
Who said anything along these lines? No one said that primitive society was a utopia, just that your historical narrative is incorrect. There is a huge amount of difference between "primitive communism" and a high-tech communist society, and everyone who posts here is explicit in their rejection of primitivism.
Sep 3 2008
#26
the quickest way to create a state may be to have a power vacuum-no fair ,structured process for dealing with social problems in the community
Another quick way may be to throw a bunch of random people together who have been raised in hierarchy and have no libertarian ideas.
I'm thinking of the post-Katrina situation.
I've heard that common ground collective in New Orleans was created by anarchists and Black Panthers but it was a liberal state by May of 2006 that relied on the New Orleans Police Department when things got dangerous.
Sep 3 2008
#27
I think nocompromise's response to my first post has been adequately dealt with by others so there's no need for me to rehash here.
tigersiskillers wrote:
Because they'd rather have people work for them than work themselves? Because they want a greater share of luxury items? Because they felt they were personally better off under capitalism? Because they have a twisted psyche? Because there might be teething problems in creating a new society? Because they get off on the idea of controlling others? Because they believe they are better or more deserving than others? Because some people may have differing value systems?Don't get me wrong, I don't think there's something dark at the heart of the human soul, but equally I don't think we'll all be angels come the day of the revolution. I do think the further we are away from a society that rewards greed and power seeking the less we'll see of those traits, but we can't assume away human failings.
To the first question, I don't see what would be gained by having people work under you in a society where necessities are amply supplied (and when I say necessities I don't mean to imply I know fully what this entails) regardless of an individual's spent labour. This is not to mention the resistance of those prospective underlings.
Regarding the second point, what luxury items are you referring to here? If ownership is abolished altogether then where is the temptation to hoard? There would be no societal advantage in a community where the emphasis was on a communal spirit.
I am not entirely able to answer your third question except to say that I don't know for sure that there is a single person who would count themselves better off under capitalism when given the freedom to consider the question fully.
Your fourth, sixth and seventh points are nonsensical. These problems arise either because of organic problems in the mind or because of societal pressures which I will be bold enough to venture are caused solely by the present systems in place.
Your fifth and last point are in many ways linked and the only thing I can offer is that aforementioned. I think under living in an anarcho-communist society would benefit every member of that society, compared with any historical period.
Sep 3 2008
#28
Daniel Brennan wrote:
To the first question, I don't see what would be gained by having people work under you in a society where necessities are amply supplied (and when I say necessities I don't mean to imply I know fully what this entails) regardless of an individual's spent labour. This is not to mention the resistance of those prospective underlings.
Regarding the second point, what luxury items are you referring to here? If ownership is abolished altogether then where is the temptation to hoard? There would be no societal advantage in a community where the emphasis was on a communal spirit.
Well, what if there are teething problems in organising production and distribution? Or debates and disagreements about how this is actually done? What about people who think that capitalism is a better system - for philosophical reasons, or because they think they'd benefit from it more? What if you get off on power? What if you'd prefer to have your share without contributing in any way? I didn't mean reinstituting wage slavery within a communist society, I simply meant thinking fuck it, if I play my cards right through manipulation, brute force or whatever I can live off the efforts of other people.
Getting beyond scarcity doesn't mean super abundance. You might want a full range of sex dolls rather than using the stinky one from the neighbourhood store. You might want to possess a Rothko rather than going down to the art gallery. You might want to have a Playstation 7 all to yourself even though not enough have been produced for individual consumption. I would regard these kind of attitudes as abberant, but that doesn't mean people won't think like that.
Daniel Brennan wrote:
I am not entirely able to answer your third question except to say that I don't know for sure that there is a single person who would count themselves better off under capitalism when given the freedom to consider the question fully.
Bill Gates? Closer to home, a complete turd of a boss I could point you to?
Daniel Brennan wrote:
Your fourth, sixth and seventh points are nonsensical. These problems arise either because of organic problems in the mind or because of societal pressures which I will be bold enough to venture are caused solely by the present systems in place.
Well, if they arise from organic problems in the mind they may still arise then surely? Look, some people are cunts. That's not a psychological diagnosis, I grant you, but some people like to bully, to inflict pain and so on. Do you think noncing will disappear after the revolution? Do you think on day one after The Revolution we will all behave like we're in a hippy dream?
Yes, in most cases I don't think that they are in essence cunts, but are behaving like cunts due to any number of factors. The longer an anarchist society goes on, the fewer of these triggers to cuntitude there will be, but it will be a slow process, and we will not completely abolish cuntdom.
Daniel Brennan wrote:
Your fifth and last point are in many ways linked and the only thing I can offer is that aforementioned. I think under living in an anarcho-communist society would benefit every member of that society, compared with any historical period.
Well yes, you might think so, and I might think so, but other people might not, especially if they've been brought up in a society based on the ethics of competition and greed.
I'm not trying to say it can't work - I've been arguing the exact opposite on this thread - but I don't think we do ourselves any favours if we just wave away these kind of concerns by relying on everything to be ok come the revolution.
Sep 3 2008
#29
To assert that an uprising or revolution is impossible in a libcom society would be false, but I don't believe anyone is arguing that.
What is being stated is that because of a greater accountability held by those with power, separate self organising power centers and organisations and the lack of private property - any attempt in a coup faces a far greater set of obstacles to overcome.
A representative democracy has a centralized point of failure, a libcom society does not. Neither is immune to a power grab.
Sep 3 2008
#30
tigersiskillers wrote:
Well, what if there are teething problems in organising production and distribution? Or debates and disagreements about how this is actually done? What about people who think that capitalism is a better system - for philosophical reasons, or because they think they'd benefit from it more? What if you get off on power? What if you'd prefer to have your share without contributing in any way? I didn't mean reinstituting wage slavery within a communist society, I simply meant thinking fuck it, if I play my cards right through manipulation, brute force or whatever I can live off the efforts of other people.
I think here I may have gotten my wires crossed I'm afraid. The teething problems you speak of I take to be a part of 'the revolution' rather than a leftover, so perhaps I've misunderstood the original post. Obviously there would be the sort of counter-revolution types you've mentioned but I would dimagine these are dealt with by more revolutions of the original type. Or rather that counter-revolutions would be met with counter-counter-revolutions and so on to the point that those people who have tried to reform a hierarchical system become revolutionaries themselves due to so much contact with it.
tigersiskillers wrote:
Getting beyond scarcity doesn't mean super abundance. You might want a full range of sex dolls rather than using the stinky one from the neighbourhood store. You might want to possess a Rothko rather than going down to the art gallery. You might want to have a Playstation 7 all to yourself even though not enough have been produced for individual consumption. I would regard these kind of attitudes as abberant, but that doesn't mean people won't think like that.
I consider the want for private property to arise from the existence of ownership itself. Again I'm not saying that everyone's views will simply assimilate into that of the revolutionaries but there'll be no use for privately owned things when there is so much shared. Given the number of people moving from 'useless' into 'useful' industries, I think the kind of communal ownership would improve an awful lot.
tigersiskillers wrote:
Bill Gates? Closer to home, a complete turd of a boss I could point you to?
Apart from no longer getting off over the power, these people would not be worse off. To go all hippy, "they'd be free of their material shackles".
tigersiskillers wrote:
Well, if they arise from organic problems in the mind they may still arise then surely? Look, some people are cunts. That's not a psychological diagnosis, I grant you, but some people like to bully, to inflict pain and so on. Do you think noncing will disappear after the revolution? Do you think on day one after The Revolution we will all behave like we're in a hippy dream?Yes, in most cases I don't think that they are in essence cunts, but are behaving like cunts due to any number of factors. The longer an anarchist society goes on, the fewer of these triggers to cuntitude there will be, but it will be a slow process, and we will not completely abolish cuntdom.
Firstly, cuntgratulations on the use of cuntitude and cuntdom in the same sentence.
Yes I agree that the organic problems would still arise but that's a whole different thread. I have no immediate answer to that question so I'll have to shut up and think on it some more. sorry.
tigersiskillers wrote:
Well yes, you might think so, and I might think so, but other people might not, especially if they've been brought up in a society based on the ethics of competition and greed.
I'd assert revolutionising society would mean that the overwhelming majority of people would agree that the new system is more preferable, otherwise we have another bolshevik rebellion where a general feeling of discontent is capitalised upon.
tigersiskillers wrote:
I'm not trying to say it can't work - I've been arguing the exact opposite on this thread - but I don't think we do ourselves any favours if we just wave away these kind of concerns by relying on everything to be ok come the revolution.
Nothing to disagree with so nothing to say.
There's various strand of thought on it, but the major one is that a libertarian communist society would simply have to be vigilant, educate its membership and use robust organisational structures to discourage such behaviour. Ultimately there's no cut and dried answer, except for the majority to keep an eye out. Over time the chances of such groups emerging would lessen as the principle of mutual aid and solidarity ingrains itself - bear in mind we live in an age where greed, manipulation and self-service is the norm.