Revolutionary Freetown
Feb 11 2009 08:37
The idea of creating a revolutionary Freetown came to me slowly, as did my ascension into anarchism and socialism. The first thing I did was analyze the problems of society that I felt needed to be addressed. Obviously the size of the problems are massive. Here are the top 3 problems I see facing our society today (America)
1. Lack of political power in the hands of the people (representative democracy)
2. Lack of economic power in the hands of the people. (wage slavery)
3. Suburbs and badly designed infrastructure (modern American suburbs with big houses, separated usage ((i.e. business parks, housing developments, strip malls)), dependence on cars and emphasis on cars rather other alternatives, and badly designed roads ((hierarchy system)) and buildings ((parking lots in front of buildings, 1-story space-taking 2D buildings (((Wal-Mart))).
These are the problems that I observed. Keeping the problems in mind, I also applied my other beliefs to the idea of a revolutionary Freetown.
These beliefs are:
1. Non-violence (except self-defense)
2. A market economy works the best for an economic system
3. DIY, lead by example
4. We can change the world, and that real change starts in the minds of people like myself
5. A new culture, which would be more open and free, would be developed in the open space of a revolutionary freetown
6. Leaders must "lead by obeying"
7. To create this revolutionary Freetown, we must not abandon our principles. (i.e. the ends don't justify the means)
8. Rejection of class struggle, in favor of a alternative which is essential the same meaning, but without the separation and divide it creates. This would be; instead of Proletariat and Bourgeoisie, there would be the Controllers and the Controlled. The goal being to combine the 2 groups into one. The creation of the Controllers and the Controlled would prevent classifying of certain professions as bourgeoisie, for example bankers. It would also make it so even if someone is rich and powerful, if they are not a controller (i.e. person making the ultimate decision in government affairs), then they are under the controlled category. This would result in a more inclusive movement (which could include rich and powerful people), and eliminate things like what happened with Kmer Rouge (elimination of anyone labeled as Bourgeoisie).
The one belief or issue I'm struggling with, though, is the issue of private property. On one hand, I know private property has worked in the past, but on the other hand it may restrict personal freedom because then the state, county, town (whatever authority) would be able to control me because I would not have my own land.
Anyways, aside from the issue of private property many of my ideas are hashed out for this revolutionary Freetown. The Freetown would essentially be like this:
The basic idea of the Freetown would be to maximize freedom and democracy.
It would be a town that would be created from scratch or a series of vacant buildings occupied. The towns layout would be built in a New Urbanist style. A organization to spread the word of a new Freetown and to organize meetings and discussions would be made. The organization would be created in the manner in which the new government of the Freetown would be created. This manner would be direct democracy or delegate democracy and maybe at times consent democracy. The organization would be built so it would be a bottom-up organization through the 3 kinds of democracy's I just stated.
The government of the new town would also be based on delegate democracy and direct democracy (anarchism). Any delegates could be recalled anytime if they did not do their job correctly. There would be weekly or more than weekly meetings of the residents of the town is govern and organize the Freetown. Subcommittees would be created to oversee certain tasks. At all major intersections there would be a vote by the people. Majority rules, but minority is taken into account, and if possible included.
The economic system would basically be a free market system where the workers control the product of their work (socialism). That is, companies would still compete with each other, but the companies would be worker-controlled or be co-ops(although their would still be corporations). Now this is where it gets tricky. Because the Freetown would be based on maximizing freedom and democracy, the town could not outlaw corporations, because if someone wants to start a corporation then that is their choice and must not be limited.
---
Also, worker-controlled business's and co-ops have problems. Having worker-controlled business's is easy if there is a plant take-over, but starting from scratch is hard. The first problem is investments. In a corporation investments come from stockholders and therefore a company is able to start. But then these stockholders get a piece of the company (or share). The stock-holders in a corporation then control the corporation because they own the shares. So if there were worker-controlled business's then each worker would have to invest and get shares. This could work, because a worker could pay his shares slowly overtime. But there is another problem. The problem is that the original investor, or investors would not give up their shares to new workers who didn't share the same amount of risks that they did. This would have to be remedied by having a larger amount of original investors, thus spreading the risk, and therefore making the shareholders more willing to sell. The last problem is that if a individual wants to create his own business, he would have all the risks and shares. It would make sense, then, for this original investor to create a corporation and not a worker-owned buisness's. This could not be prevented, and so I go back to my statements in the last paragraph that "their would still be corporations". Corporations are therefore unavoidable, but they can be minimized with a town bank and tax incentives.
This bank that I mention would provide worker-owned and co-ops startups. The bank would get its revenue through taxes, and therefore the community would be supporting worker-owned business's over corporations. Also, there would be higher taxes on non-worker-owned business's, and so there would be a increased incentive to have bottom-up workplaces where workers are their own bosses.
----
This Freetown would work within the United States, and would actually be the reality of many of the beautiful founding principles of our country such as: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I don't have any illusions of this project fixing every problem, making a utopia or pure communism, but I do think it would create a revolutionary example for other towns to be built like it.
I got my ideas from:
1. Freetown, Christiania, Denmark
2. Zapitistas, Chiapas, Mexico
3. Spanish Anarchism during the spanish civil war (1936)
4. The soviets in revolutionary russia (1918)
This idea is still in progress. I really want to know whether people would think it would work in the real world. I also want help with the issues of work-owned business's and private property. Please post responses.
Jeremy
Feb 11 2009 10:50
#2
Jeremy, what value do you see in setting an example? Existing workplaces and communities are not organised along capitalist lines for lack of a better example to follow, but because they exist under capitalism.
Feb 11 2009 11:13
#3
Quote:
3. Spanish Anarchism during the spanish civil war (1936)
4. The soviets in revolutionary russia (1918)
I don't understand the relationship between these examples and the anarcho-capitalist enclave with property and a market you are talking about building here.
"Setting examples" is always going to lead to defeat - any "examples" we can create exist within capitalism and are subject to its dynamics. Just look at the co-ops which can only stay solvent through their workers putting in loads of unpaid hours, or keeping their wages down, or in many cases hiring wage-workers as non-members.
The perspective that most people on here share and which is taken from the examples of Spain and Russia amongst others is that the process of creating a new kind of society is going to have to be collective and class-based. It will have to grow out of the inherent conflicts of capitalism and be consistent in suppressing the state, private property, commodity production and all of the other elements of capitalism. This means free communism - the suppression of the market. Maintaining capitalism under "workers control" isn't very appealing.
I mean, the principle of Soviets (workers councils assuming economic and political power) is totally at odds with the idea of worker-controlled co-ops competing on a free market.
But setting blueprints for a future society is much less important than building a working class capable of fighting in its own interests, as a conscious and militant working class is the only thing which will allow us to get beyond capitalism.
Feb 11 2009 21:57
#4
madashell wrote:
Jeremy, what value do you see in setting an example? Existing workplaces and communities are not organised along capitalist lines for lack of a better example to follow, but because they exist under capitalism.
1. I don't see why a Freetown cannot work within the framework of America. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the United States is a capitalist society. The one thing in the constitution is protection of private property. This could be remedied by having the everyone living in the town pool together money, and buy the land, and therefore, the town would own the land.
2. I consider a workplace that is worker owned and controlled to be socialistic, so therefore it would a socialistic workplace and with a market economy. This can exist in the current state.
"I don't understand the relationship between these examples and the anarcho-capitalist enclave with property and a market you are talking about building here."
1. I said I wasn't decided on private property.
2. This would not be anarcho-capatalism because:
a. There would be workers "collectives" or worker-owned buisness's and all transactions would be democratically decided by the workers. This is my interpretation of socialism.
b. Anarchism and Socialism can exist with a market, the only other alternative would be a planned economy, which has shown it hasn't worked.
"Setting examples" is always going to lead to defeat - any "examples" we can create exist within capitalism and are subject to its dynamics. Just look at the co-ops which can only stay solvent through their workers putting in loads of unpaid hours, or keeping their wages down, or in many cases hiring wage-workers as non-members."
I answered the first part of this above. In response to the second part; Co-ops have worked, and have continued to work. For example Group Health co-op, REI, and Riceland foods. So your claim that they can only stay solvent as long as people work unpaid hours and keep their wages down is false. On the contrary, without bosses, workers at a worker-owned business would get higher wages and history has shown that there has been increased productivity (collectives in spain)
"The perspective that most people on here share and which is taken from the examples of Spain and Russia amongst others is that the process of creating a new kind of society is going to have to be collective and class-based. It will have to grow out of the inherent conflicts of capitalism and be consistent in suppressing the state, private property, commodity production and all of the other elements of capitalism. This means free communism - the suppression of the market. Maintaining capitalism under "workers control" isn't very appealing."
What isn't appealing about maintaining a market with a socialistic form of worker control over production and distribution? It raises wages, eliminates bosses, empowers workers to own and control their own workplaces, and does it non-violently.
"I mean, the principle of Soviets (workers councils assuming economic and political power) is totally at odds with the idea of worker-controlled co-ops competing on a free market."
I don't see how this is at odds because the government would be directly controlled by the people it governs. So therefore you have "workers councils" assuming political power, and worker-controlled business's would assume the economic power. There would just be a separation in power.
"But setting blueprints for a future society is much less important than building a working class capable of fighting in its own interests, as a conscious and militant working class is the only thing which will allow us to get beyond capitalism."
As I said earlier, I don't think "class struggle" is a good term for what you are trying to convey because it separates people into "classes" and advances a struggle against the other class. The goal shouldn't be to struggle against the other class, but to merge the two "classes" (The controllers and the controlled) together, to create a government and economic system where the people are the controlled and the controllers (i.e. their own bosses, or worker-controlled business's and citizen-controlled government).
Please respond,
Jeremy
Feb 11 2009 22:44
#5
There is so much badness here I don't know where to start.
You are describing a self managed capitalism. Worse, an illusionary self-managed capitalism within a wider capitalist society.
You've totally misunderstood what capitalism is, what socialism is, what anarchism is, what class struggle is.
Class struggle is the struggle against classes, the negation/dissolution of class society. It's not a fight between people in cloth caps and people in top hats.
Working for a wage in a company competing against other companies is not socialism. Shareholding, banking, transferable money is - oh fuck it, I'm going to bed. A leisurely wank and a good night's sleep is preferable to the aneuryism I'm developing.
Edited for exasperated bad typing.
Feb 12 2009 00:35
#6
This isn't anarchism. It isn't even remotely anarchism. You'd have to be completely oblivious to the basic principles of anarchism to think this is anarchism.
Feb 12 2009 01:50
#7
Feb 12 2009 05:15
#8
Your right, I wasn't talking about Anarchism. I was talking about Economic Democracy.
Some of the ideas are the same, which got me confused.
Feb 12 2009 09:52
#9
Quote:
As I said earlier, I don't think "class struggle" is a good term for what you are trying to convey because it separates people into "classes" and advances a struggle against the other class. The goal shouldn't be to struggle against the other class, but to merge the two "classes" (The controllers and the controlled) together, to create a government and economic system where the people are the controlled and the controllers (i.e. their own bosses, or worker-controlled business's and citizen-controlled government).
I think its clear that you don't really have any familiarity with socialism or anarchism . Thats fine, but it probably means you should read around sites like this before posting plans of action on them. The library is really good, have a look round it.
Class in understood by most posters on this site and the organisations that many of them belong to as being a material relation with capital. The working class is the class which has nothing to sell but its ability to work - its labour power - in return for a wage. The ruling class is the capitalist class, which either owns or administers capital, and class struggle is something which is going on whether or not politicos advocate it. Its is inherent in capitalism, as the interests of workers (to work less for more money) and capital (to get more work for less money) are opposed. Its not about people in fustian jackets and waistcoats clobbering each other. And class struggle politics aren't about turning workers into collective capitalists, but abolishing the class relation, and seeing the possibility for this as growing out of the struggles inherent to capitalist society.
Quote:
I answered the first part of this above. In response to the second part; Co-ops have worked, and have continued to work. For example Group Health co-op, REI, and Riceland foods. So your claim that they can only stay solvent as long as people work unpaid hours and keep their wages down is false. On the contrary, without bosses, workers at a worker-owned business would get higher wages and history has shown that there has been increased productivity (collectives in spain)
A collective in the Spanish revolution and a co-operative in a capitalist society are pretty different things. A petit-bourgeois capitalist enterprise owned by the workforce and the collectivisation of a large section of the economy by revolutionary workers are different things. There were various different forms of self-management in Spain (one of its weaknesses) but in Spain this often meant communisation of large sections of the production process. In some places there was something like a market, in many places the market was suppressed. The "efficiency" of collectivised industries in Spain was sometimes positive (rationalising food production in cities) and sometimes negative (rationalising production for the antifascist war and defence of the republic). But either way you are confused if you think this is representative of a free market system of co-operatives and respect for private property. It also was a planned economy, planned by the workers, so it contradicts your claim that "planned economies have been shown not to work" if you are using it as an example.
As for co-ops, I didn't say they don't "work" - that is, remain viable businesses. I said that from my experience they stay viable by being capitalist businesses, and that means demanding sacrifices from the workforce, having the workforce volunteer itself for a higher rate of exploitation. Of the three co-operatives I have dealt with all of them paid low wages, made use of unpaid hours, and some hired wage-workers as non-members. But the point is that a co-op is a capitalist form, and pointing to it as being representative of a future society means that the future society is a capitalist one.
Quote:
What isn't appealing about maintaining a market with a socialistic form of worker control over production and distribution? It raises wages, eliminates bosses, empowers workers to own and control their own workplaces, and does it non-violently.
Its capitalism. My politics are anti-capitalist. I want to see the abolition of wage labour, property, capital, money and the market, and the creation of a society based on a material human community. I don't want to self-manage my workplace as a capitalist business. Its shit and would still be shit if we were in charge of it. Its socially useless work which capitalism requires.
Quote:
1. I said I wasn't decided on private property.
2. This would not be anarcho-capatalism because:
a. There would be workers "collectives" or worker-owned buisness's and all transactions would be democratically decided by the workers. This is my interpretation of socialism.
b. Anarchism and Socialism can exist with a market, the only other alternative would be a planned economy, which has shown it hasn't worked.
If you are going to use Spain as an example to back up your case then you can't really claim that "a planned economy has shown it hasn't worked".
Capitalism isn't about formal ownership. Its characterised by the process of money becoming capital becoming money, hence the name. And this is through the production of commodities for circulation on the market and the extraction of surplus-value from workers who are paid a wage in return for selling their labour (the wage is by definition less than the value they create in the work process). If this process is self-managed its still there, and is still capitalism.
This is a gigantic pile of junk. You are wasting space on the internets with it.