Realities of a post revolutionary world
Apr 3 2009 12:25
Hello all; I am new to this forum and not an anarchist, but interested in understanding the ultimate goals of the movement. My questions concern how the populations of "developed" countries conduct their daily lives after you (anarchists) have won the revolution. Specifically, are services developed during the industrial age (such as electric power generation and delivery, sewage management, water delivery) abandoned in favor of a return to life as it was 150 years ago; or is there some expected take over of such facilities?
Assuming such facilities are expected to continue operation: is it that they do so with all decisions made by communal groups of workers in each individual facility? Given that premise, what happens when a mutual decision can't be arrived at? If the answer is that there is a final arbiter (someone with the power to override the group) then doesn't that run counter to the theory of anarchy?
I'm also curious about trade (payment) for goods. I assume monetary payment is replaced by bartering/trade for goods and services. If the power plant needs desks and chairs, then I assume the normal course of events is for them to barter with the furniture manufacturer and trade electricity for furniture. But what happens when the power company brings on more staff and needs more desks and chairs, but the furniture manufacturer already has sufficient power? Is the furniture company expected to provide more goods in exchange for the same amount of electricity?
I could obviously go on with further examples, but I trust my point is taken. Essentially, in a world with no rules and no decision makers, how are situations that clearly require decisions and rules handled, especially as regards complex technology such as power generation, communication facilities, medical equipment, etc? It appears to me that anarchy (at least, as I understand it) only works well in a pre-industrialized world.
I hope my questions aren't taken as critical or flippant. I am genuinely curious about how such things would be handled.
Thanks.
D.H.
Apr 4 2009 06:55
#2
Feighnt
Quote:
this is gonna be a relatively quick reply
If that was quick, then I am really impressed at how fast you can type (and think). 
Apr 4 2009 08:03
#3
D.H. there was a somewhat similar thread on Libcom not too long ago. I got into all kinds of hot water with some of the folks on here for a couple of my suggestions, but I think it is worth repeating that no one model for anarchist organisation in a post-revolutionary world is or should be possible. That is kind of the point. To give Feighnt his due, he has alluded to the fact that different anarchists hold different positions, but perhaps he hasn't made it clear enough that in a post-revolutionary world there would very likely, and in my opinion, hopefully, be a profusion of diverse responses to the challenges of life amongst the communities of the new era.
In a libertarian future, the days of a capital or a regional centre shaping the lives of every community, handing down precise forms of organisation according to one blueprint, will be over. The most obvious practical reason why this should be the case is that people vary, communities vary, bioregions vary and the impact of events varies from one place to another. It is precisely the lack of "variety" that makes top down government such a catastrophe from beginning to end, and precisely the proximity to problems needing solutions that qualifies the folks on the spot to design their own solutions.
So, here's what lies underneath the idea of one globalised system: control and the myth of The Revolution that will "end history". I am going to suggest to you that it is much better to envisage allowing people and whole regions even to make their own mistakes than to imagine that some folks somewhere can hand down a "one size fits all" programme for anarchist utopia. Either you believe in liberty and giving people the room to dance or you don't......... when I say "liberty must defend itself" that is not the same as saying "and I'm coming over there to give you a dose of the very same liberty that I have".
None of which goes to say that we should not try to have a strong fraternal confederation of regions and within those regions communities, but the word is confederation not federation. A confederation is there to help, to work for the commonwealth not to dictate terms to its members.
Apr 4 2009 09:25
#4
waslax wrote:
FeighntQuote:
this is gonna be a relatively quick replyIf that was quick, then I am really impressed at how fast you can type (and think).
i'm kind of a self-parody 
every time i start a message with some variation of "i'll try to make this quick," i invariably end up writing a fricking essay 
that said, i COULD'VE written a lot more 
and, a quick note to D.H.:
i partly agree with what Ariege says - very likely, there would be multiple systems in existence simultaneously, some of which may differ drastically. of course, in my view, this could be both good and bad, for reasons you could probably guess... but i didnt mention this, mostly because i figured you were looking for a more concrete answer, and i choose something which is a *little* bit more traditional (at least, i *think* it is...).
Apr 4 2009 11:00
#5
"are services developed during the industrial age...abandoned in favor of a return to life as it was 150 years ago"
Short answer: no. Long answer: you may have come across 'anarcho-primitivism' or 'anti-civilisation'? I'm no expert on those sorts of positions, but you can definitely look at the 'anarcho' bit separately from the 'primitivist' bit: most anarchists are not opposed to the industrial revolution per se.
"what happens when a mutual decision can't be arrived at?"
As has been said, the obvious and straightforward solution to intractable disagreements is voting. I'd just add that as I understand it, the option of individuals or groups separating from whatever larger group they are associated with remains as a 'last resort', so there's a limit to what 51% are able to impose on the rest.
Also, though, I think it's not unreasonable to feel that, while disagreements and conflicts will continue, the removal of antagonistic classes and competitive and hierarchical institutions will mean that a major source of systematic conflict is gone.
"But what happens when the power company brings on more staff and needs more desks and chairs, but the furniture manufacturer already has sufficient power?"
Feighnt has already responded well to this, (as to other issues) so I'll just add a few things. Money/markets have the great advantage over barter that they avoid the need for each individual interaction to be an equal exchange (i.e. if I provide cookers, and need food, I don't need farmers to buy cooker after cooker from me).
At the same time, both monetary and barter systems share the features that 1) private groups are left more-or-less responsible to arrange their own interactions, and 2) people are assumed to be looking for their own personal advanatage in each interaction.
So while money might be better than barter, both would ideally be supplanted by, in the loosest sense of the word, 'planning', i.e. public organisation of resource distribution based on public processing of information about what people need.
This of course is a point where you will probably find differences between anarcho-whatists and anarcho-thatists. Since this site is lib"com", you'll probably get communist or more broadly socialist answers here.
And, again agreeing with Feighnt, "no rules and no decision makers" isn't really a good characterisation of anarchy. No government/no state is better, and more broadly, 'no' (or minimal) authority/hierarchy. Decisions still get made, but as far as possible on the basis of equal power.
Apr 5 2009 08:40
#6
In a socialist society, there will be no money and no exchange and no barter.
Goods will be voluntarily produced, and services voluntarily supplied to meet people's needs. People will freely take the things they need.Socialism will be concerned solely with the production , distribution and consumption of useful goods and services in response to definite needs . It will integrate social needs with the material means of meeting those needs . Common ownership means that society as a whole owns the means and instruments for distributing wealth. It also implies the democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth, for if everyone owns, then everyone must have equal right to control the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth.
By the replacement of exchange economy by common ownership basically what would happen is that wealth would cease to take the form of exchange value, so that all the expressions of this social relationship peculiar to an exchange economy, such as money and prices, would automatically disappear. In other words, goods would cease to have an economic value and would become simply physical objects which human beings could use to satisfy some want or other.
The disappearance of economic value would mean the end of economic calculation in the sense of calculation in units of value whether measured by money or directly in some unit of labour-time. It would mean that there was no longer any common unit of calculation for making decisions regarding the production of goods.
Socialism is a money-less society in which use values would be produced from other use values, there would need no have a universal unit of account but could calculate exclusively in kind .The only calculations that would be necessary in socialism would be calculations in kind. On the one side would be recorded the resources (materials, energy, equipment, labour) used up in production and on the other side the amount of the good produced, together with any by-products. Calculation in kind entails the counting or measurement of physical quantities of different kinds of factors of production. There is no general unit of accounting involved in this process such as money or labour hours or energy units. In fact, every conceivable kind of economic system has to rely on calculation in kind, including capitalism. Without it, the physical organisation of production (e.g. maintaining inventories) would be literally impossible. But where capitalism relies on monetary accounting as well as calculation in kind, socialism relies solely on the latter. That is one reason why socialism holds a decisive productive advantage over capitalism by eliminating the need to tie up vast quantities of resources and labour implicated in a system of monetary/pricing accounting.
Socialism is a decentralised or polycentric society that is self regulating , self adjusting and self correcting , from below and not from the top . It is not a command economy but a responsive one .
Planning in socialism is essentially a question of industrial organisation, of organising productive units into a productive system functioning smoothly to supply the useful things which people had indicated they needed, both for their individual and for their collective consumption. What socialism would establish would be a rationalised network of planned links between users and suppliers; between final users and their immediate suppliers, between these latter and their suppliers, and so on down the line to those who extract the raw materials from nature. The responsibility of these industries would be to ensure the supply of a particular kind of product either, in the case of consumer goods, to distribution centres or, in the case of goods used to produce other goods, to productive units or other industries. Planning is indeed central to the idea of socialism, but socialism is the planned (consciously coordinated and not to be confused with the central planning concept ) production of useful things to satisfy human needs precisely instead of the production, planned or otherwise, of wealth as exchange value, commodities and capital. In socialism wealth would have simply a specific use value (which would be different under different conditions and for different individuals and groups of individuals) but it would not have any exchange, or economic, value.
Needs would arise in local communities expressed as required quantities such as kilos , tonnes , cubic litres, or whatever , of various materials and quantities of goods . These would then be communicated according to necessity .Each particular part of production would be responding to the material requirements communicated to it through the connected ideas of social production . It would be self -regulating , because each element of production would be self-adjusting to the communication of these material requirements . Each part of production would know its position . If requirements are low in relation to a build-up of stock , then this would an automatic indication to a production unit that its production should be reduced . The supply of some needs will take place within the local community and in these cases production would not extent beyond this , as for example with local food production for local consumption .Other needs could be communicated as required things to the regional organisation of production. Local food production would require glass, but not every local community could have its own glass works . The requirements for glass could be communicated to a regional glass works . The glass works has its own suppliers of materials and the amounts they require for the production of glass are known in definite quantities. The required quantities of these materials could be passed by the glass works to the regional suppliers of the materials for glass manufacture . This would be a sequence of communication of local needs to the regional organisation of production, and thus contained within a region .
Local food production would also require tractors , for instance , and here the communication of required quantities of things could extend further to the world organisation of production . Regional manufacture could produce and assemble the component parts of tractors for distribution to local communities . The regional production unit producing tractors would communicate to their own suppliers , and eventually this would extend to world production units extracting and processing the necessary materials .
Production and distribution in socialism would thus be a question of organising a coordinated and more or less self-regulating system of linkages between users and suppliers, enabling resources and materials to flow smoothly from one productive unit to another, and ultimately to the final user, in response to information flowing in the opposite direction originating from final users. The productive system would thus be set in motion from the consumer end, as individuals and communities took steps to satisfy their self-defined needs. Socialist production is self-regulating production for use.
Stocks of goods held at distribution points would be monitored, their rate of depletion providing vital information about the future demand for such goods, information which will be conveyed to the units producing these goods. The units would in turn draw upon the relevant factors of production and the depletion of these would activate yet other production units further back along the production chain. There would thus be a marked degree of automaticity in the way the system operated. The maintenance of surplus stocks would provide a buffer against unforeseen fluctuations in demand .The regional production units would in turn communicate its own manufacturing needs to their own suppliers , and this would extend to world production units extracting and processing the necessary raw materials .
We are seeking ultimatelt to establish a "steady-state economy" or "zero-growth" society which corresponds to what Marx called "simple reproduction" - a situation where human needs were in balance with the resources needed to satisfy them. Such a society would already have decided, according to its own criteria and through its own decision-making processes, on the most appropriate way to allocate resources to meet the needs of its members. This having been done, it would only need to go on repeating this continuously from production period to production period. Production would not be ever-increasing but would be stabilized at the level required to satisfy needs. All that would be produced would be products for consumption and the products needed to replace and repair the raw materials and instruments of production used up in producing these consumer goods. The point about such a situation is that there will no longer be any imperative need to develop productivity, i.e. to cut costs in the sense of using less resources; nor will there be the blind pressure to do so that is exerted under capitalism through the market.
It will also create a ecologically benign relationship with nature. In socialism we would not be bound to use the most labour efficient methods of production. We would be free to select our methods in accordance with a wide range of socially desirable criteria, in particular the vital need to protect the environment.What it means is that we should construct permanent, durable means of production which you don’t constantly innovate. We would use these to produce durable equipment and machinery and durable consumer goods designed to last for a long time, designed for minimum maintenance and made from materials which if necessary can be re-cycled. In this way we would get a minimum loss of materials; once they’ve been extracted and processed they can be used over and over again. It also means that once you’ve achieved satisfactory levels of consumer goods, you don’t insist on producing more and more. Total social production could even be reduced. This will be the opposite of to-dayus Capitalist system's cheap, shoddy, “throw-away” goods and built-in obsolescence, which results in a massive loss and destruction of resources.
sorry for this SPGB -slanted long- winded reply
Apr 6 2009 00:00
#7
D.H., you might want to take a look at this thread, from a couple of weeks ago:
http://libcom.org/forums/theory/few-questions-anarcho-communist-theory-11032009
Apr 6 2009 03:39
#8
Wow, very good reply ajjohnstone.
Yes, from what I understand, there would be no barter economy or monetary system. It would be a economy based on need. Therefore, a consumer would have a need, and there would be a communication system set in place that relays that need to the producer. The producer create the product, and then send the product back to the consumer, and the need would be satisfied.
Apr 6 2009 05:00
#9
I strongly suggest the following article, in order to have a deep comprehension of what a post-revoluciotnary society could be:
Apr 6 2009 08:44
#10
D.H. wrote:
Hello all; I am new to this forum and not an anarchist, but interested in understanding the ultimate goals of the movement. My questions concern how the populations of "developed" countries conduct their daily lives after you (anarchists) have won the revolution. Specifically, are services developed during the industrial age (such as electric power generation and delivery, sewage management, water delivery) abandoned in favor of a return to life as it was 150 years ago; or is there some expected take over of such facilities?
No anarchists don;t want to turn the clock back. Anarchists beleive in unfettering humanities potential which will result in more technological innovation not less.
Quote:
Assuming such facilities are expected to continue operation: is it that they do so with all decisions made by communal groups of workers in each individual facility?
Yes, and histrocially anarchists beleive in majority voting not consensus
Quote:
I'm also curious about trade (payment) for goods. I assume monetary payment is replaced by bartering/trade for goods and services.
Any economy is a balance between supply and demand, these are the basic economic determinants that drive economic growth and production.
So to take a practical example of a hypothetical anarchist supermarket. In this supermarket goods are free, ie someone can come in and take what they want. Probably one would assume they have to scan a card for it or summat, but there is no monetary limit to what they can have.
Your hypothetical anarchist food store staff will place orders to central depots based on predicted demand, ie they will look over the last few months and see how much of different products were bought etc and will order for the next few months accordingly with a little suprlus on the order if the goods do not perish quickly. The depots will place future order according to the collected figures of demand to factories and farms and so on.
This is much the same aas the modern market, except that demand here is not driven by the ability to pay but by human need.
Apr 6 2009 10:40
#11
I guess the question then though cantdo is what happens when say, something new is invented or something is upgraded, which a lot of people want but the productive capacity is not yet there to handle it - to take an example, flashcards which started at 125MB but within a couple of years were at 1GB etc.
Millions of people will want one to move their files around, and those who got the original 125MB version will want an upgrade. How is that transitionary period handled? Do the people who got 125MB one have to wait until the latecomers have all got their 1GB versions? How do we avoid jealousy from people who don't have one at all driving them to steal it, or manipulate the system to get one?
Part of the answer is social - in a post-revolutionary scenario a stigma will be likely attached to hoarding useful items, and a corresponding assumption that people will share would help undermine notions of 'look at me I've got a new flashcard'. Assuming a societal/education system which is functioning properly, the human tendency to 'keep up with the Joneses' would be a) reduced and b) transformed into a drive to be the most generous and productive member of society, this being the only real indicator of worth and guarantor of influence following the elimination of class division.
Related to this would be that although the advance would be shared worldwide for any interested scientific/industrial collectives to start producing, it would not be advertised and hyped to drive up public interest in the latest 'must have' gadget, thus demand would be much more related to actual need than to an artificially inflated desire.
Targeted distribution would also be part of this, ie. someone working in archiving and IT would get upgrades first because it is directly related to their work, with leisure users receiving it second (maybe by ballot, or incorporating a limited early request function to take account that some people will be more enthusiastic than others about the product).
In industries likely to be affected, there might be a section which is tasked with keeping up with related technologies and if they are found to be absolutely vital, they might put an initiative to a regional forum asking for skilled personnel to take on a project to expand productive capacity in that technology. If it's found to be necessary, the forum could look at where spare labour power is available, and request that sites be built.
All this is of course hypothetical, but is mainly designed to show that the beginnings of such a system are perfectly feasible even from our current vantage point.
Apr 6 2009 10:49
#12
"We are seeking ultimatelt to establish a "steady-state economy" or "zero-growth" society"
I'm curious about this - both in terms of, what does it mean, and also, how long has it been promoted (i.e. is it new-fangled environmentalist stuff, or old-fangled 19th-Century commie stuff?)
Obviously we need to stabilise our consumption of resources, and obviously we want a situation where we can freely choose our level of growth, rather than being forced into it. But there's so much good stuff that would seem to count as 'economic growth' that I don't much like the idea of 'zero-growth'.
For example, even if we've got to the point of getting all energy from wind, solar, geothermal and hydroelectric sources, it'll still be awesome when someone invents cold fusion, because energy will become much more abundant at no extra environmental cost.
Similarly, more efficient computers, an HIV vaccine, life-extension, ways to learn a new language in a month, ways to communicate more easily with other species, whether they come from new knowledge and skills or from new technology, all seem like awesome things that would count as 'economic growth'.
hi D.H. - this is gonna be a relatively quick reply, as i'm going out soon, but if you'd like to ask further questions or want elaboration, feel free to ask. i'm not the cleverest Anarchist out there, but i'll do my best to try to answer your questions.
no, Anarchists dont want to turn the clock back 150 years
or any amount of time at all - we're focused more-so towards the future. yes, Anarchists definitely are aiming towards a take-over of such facilities (dont look at "take-over" in the sense that a bunch of Anarchist commissars rush into an electrical plant and start directing the workers or somesuch - the goal is that the workers would communally run their own factories, although there would undoubtedly be some input from external sources, and, of course, attempts to supply these workplaces with technical or economic advisors when necessary).
you're thinking of concensus decision making, no? there are some Anarchists who are really big on that, but, historically, Anarchists have believed in majoritarian voting - most of the people who post on this site agree with this, as concensus has the possibility of being a *much* more abusive system (the idea that a very small number of people - possibly just one! - could veto the stance of the rest of the group is a pretty terrible breach of the democratic goal). so, when it comes to decisions which need to be made by the factory (or broader community/etc), it would be through discussion, followed by a majority vote. this, of course, doesnt mean that *all* decisions need to be made communally - various people would have various specific positions and responsibilities in their workplace, and it would be overly bureaucratic to have everyone involved on every little issue.
perhaps, in certain situations, something akin to an arbiter may be called for - there *is* the matter of practicality, and ensuring that a community has electricity/water/etc is, of course, quite important. the major thing is that this person is not allowed some sort of permanent position as an arbiter - it would have to be fairly specific. in *some* cases, it's just sensible - would you consider someone like a chairperson of a meeting to be an arbiter? if so, this is just fine, lots of Anarchist organizations have such things.
*this* is a much more complex, and contentious issue. i will say, at least, that most Anarchists dont believe in the barter system - *personally*, i'd rather keep the monetary system rather than reverting to barter. that said, perhaps for *national* trade (ie, trading great quantities of something the country produces with products from another country), something akin to barter might make some sense. *many* Anarchists are for eliminating the monetary system altogether, and desire that workplaces produce based on economic analysis, where their products will be distributed to stores (or distribution centres or whatever one might want to call 'em) where people would be able to pick things up, ideally, for free. but there are lots of possible caveats in this, and it's still something which attracts a lot of discussion amongst Anarchists. the most important things are that it works, and that it does not allow capitalistic accumulation so that class division occurs. there's another discussion in this section of the forum, about "labour notes" - i didnt look too much into it, but it's another discussion about possible replacements for the typical monetary system.
as far as the examples you gave, of furniture manufacturers and electrical companies - a typical idea is that a committee would be responsible for dealing with such issues, and it likely woudnt be handled *directly* by these two workplaces... or, alternately, that the electrical company would deal with one of the above-mentioned distribution centres specifically, to ensure that their order would be met. but, do keep in mind - broad economic issues are viewed by many Anarchists as a communal issue - not *just* limited to an individual workplace, but the wider society as such. there *would* be large, important organizations within an Anarchist society, with specialists, who would deal with these important issues. this, of course, doesnt mean that individuals working in such organizations would not be subject to *possible* censure, in specific cases - their organization, itself, would not be allowed to be a little collective economic dictatorship which was not subject to the scrutiny of the public.
but this goes into much more complex issues.
you know, if you have some time on your hands, you might find this interesting:
http://membres.lycos.fr/anarchives/site/syndic/aftertherevolution.htm
it's been some time since i last read this, but, if i'm recalling properly, this piece deals much more specifically and comprehensively with just the sort of stuff i've been mentioning. it's called "After the Revolution," by Diego Abad de Santillan. this was written during the Spanish Civil War, when the Anarchists had started working on actually controlling and directing *some* parts of Spain's economic and political life, so the piece is obviously much more informed than an answer you'd get from me. of course, be forewarned - some parts can get fairly dry. but it would likely clear up a lot more of your questions much better than i could ever hope.
well, the problem with what you just said is... Anarchism *doesnt* aim at a world with no rules and no decision makers
there will be rules in an Anarchist society - likely TONS of rules. you could even call these "laws" if you want and i'd not squirm (though some Anarchists dont like that specific word - it's kind of a taboo i think the movement needs to get past). the decision makers would depend greatly on the issue - if it's an issue of broad, national interest, it would be voted on by the whole nation. it would start with smaller communities coming together to discuss the issue, and, with majority-vote, come to a resolution and choose a delegate amongst themselves who would argue for their decision. that delegate would then go to the next higher level of discussion (for instance - it might start with local communities, then go to the city-wide level, then the provincial level, then national, etc) - this delegate would *publicly* discuss these issues with the other delegates, who would then vote - again, majoritarian - and bring the issue to the next higher level (etc) until the end.
if the issue is smaller, it would involve a smaller group of people - something which is only, or mostly, important to a single city, would be decided by no power higher than the city. if there's an issue which only involves a factory, then let the factory workers deal with it democratically themselves. and, finally... if it's the specific job of a person to deal with something, then that person deals with it his/herself, unless the person is shown to be unable to do it. in the meantime, there would be various sorts of specialists on all sorts of matters who would be able to offer advice to the various groups, in order to facilitate stability and growth.
no worries! i hope my answers have managed to make at least a little bit of sense (aah, my wonderful writing skills
), and that they've cleared up some things. ... and hopefully havent managed to sour you to the idea of Anarchism in the process 
welcome to the forum!