The WSM and nationalisation...

big stereo, what with 12 minutes delay

LOL! That's a good one John..

Back in the real world though, I've gone on before about the problems with the forum on this site so I'm not going to again. You obviously think differently but as far as I'm concerned libcom has the worst forum out of all the ones I visit and this prevents it being a place for serious discussion.

How many forums do you visit for crying out loud? There's a limit to how seriously you can take someone who visits more than two.

Setting aside traditional anarchist lines for a moment...

The WSM's position, as I understand it, is quite reasonable. It is critical of nationalization yet supports it in this case as a short-term reform which is the only alternative to private ownership which can realistically forward working-class interests, given the state of class conflict in the current situation. Furthermore, I don't really see the position as a demand for nationalization on principle but rather as a pragmatic response to the observation that nationalization is on the table and is supported by much of the (far) larger, (far) more influential, (far) better established (not so far?) Left. Given the situation at hand...and this is the core of my argument, I suppose...there is no realistic third alternative between nationalization and privatization as broad categories, at least.

The WSM could--as most here seem to advocate--call for immediate and direct workers' take-over and control of the industry in order to distribute resources for the material benefit of currently unformed (in the sense of mass-consciousness and organization), hence somewhat illusory 'working-class community'. They could do this...but it would be a waste of time and contribute to further marginalization and irrelevance in the name of ideological purity (something the purist communist ideologues seem to have no problem with--no offense to all of you purist communist ideologues) Now, feel free to correct me if this is a distortion of anyone's views, but since nobody has actually said a single word that could be taken as anything near constructive criticism--as in suggestions for what the WSM ought to advocate in the situation in question--you can't really blame me if I've constructed a straw-man!

So...easing up on my personal attacks and getting back to my argument...what is the 'correct' Anarchist line in the current situation, if we are to look at the current reality and the opportunities it presents none of which include anything resembling communism? It could be argued that the current political realities (in which true, unmediated socialization isn't possible) create a situation in which unconstructively arguing against nationalization can be effectively equated with arguing for continued privatization. Nationalization has serious problems and arguing for it obviously creates very serious contradictions from an Anarchist perspective...but our role, first and foremost, is that of forwarding the interests of our communities...not of being consistant and pure Anarchists (Anarchism is a theoretical and practical outlook informing and serving working-class militancy, it should not be mistaken as the working-class militancy in and of itself).

The Anarchist content in the WSM position is obviously not in a call for nationalization (yet, on the other hand, they are not advocating pro-nationalization parliamentary campaigns nor are they supporting pro-nationalization pro-parliamentary organizations and parties). What they are calling for is a grassroots struggle intended to pressure the government (who's authority they have no hope of seriously challenging in the current situation) to take the route regarding the oil industry which is least harmful to working-class interests and offers the greatest opportunities for forwarding working-class interests, both in terms of material conditions and the building of consciousness. They do not see nationalization as an end in and of itself...they see it as a step in bringing these revenues to a level where they can more effectively be mobilized for public goods and the benefit of working-class communities. And they intend to carry out this conquest of resources (as limited and mediated as it may be...but again, there is no realistic alternative) through a non-parliamentary, mass-based working-class movement--the activity of which will be infinitely more effective in advancing material and ideological conditions than shrill cries for ideological purity and revolutionary action in nonrevolutionary times.

To conclude, I don't think that the real argument against the WSM should be that their position is non-Anarchist, but rather that it is not immediately revolutionary (accusations of reformism, however, would be unfounded since--as we all know--struggling for immediate reforms isn't what makes a reformist or even a non-revolutionary). I feel, however, that such an accusation shouldn't be seen as an insult at all...but rather as an aknowledgement of what is required for truely revolutionary politics under prevailing conditions.

edit: I just saw the 'Working class/communist demands' thread, so I'll get started on reading that, too. I sure hope it is better than this one.

You are the ones that wired it up

Yeah, they're the voice of moderation. Calling for this-or-that is a mug's game. What picture are they presenting? A man in a suit signing a piece of paper. Prevailing conditions? We created them ourselves. "Truely revolutionary politics" is its own precise opposite.

Are you saying that the WSM aspires to be the 'man' in question? Or that their approach assumes that 'the man' is ultimately the one in power?

If the first one, I disagree and I think that would be a distortion. If the second one...that's simply the way it is. There's something to be said for the direct action tradition of acting as if one is already liberated but there isn't much use for that approach in this case...'the man' can be coerced into putting oil revenue toward social ends. Millions on the streets or thousands on the platforms and in the refineries really can't do it...not at this point, at least not directly without mediation through 'the man'. Pretending we can just leads us to waste our time in the name of ideological purity.

Again, the complete and utter lack of constructive criticisms or alternative proposals makes these criticisms appear to be exceedingly weak.

Sort of...but even if I accept this claim in the totalizing fashion in which you assert it, it does little to change the tactical considerations we must take into account.

Again, the only alternative that seems to be possible from the hyper-critical perspective (true socialization) is impossible at this stage. Is this why so many communists today are pretty much advocating petty, small-time theft and shirking in lieu of pursuing actual, substantive gains...fetishizing our weakness and recasting it as strength?

Neither. I mean it literally. Action is a thing you can take a photo of. What does a photo of a nationalisation look like? It doesn’t look like a programme of public works, and it never has, it’s of a bureaucrat signing a bit of paper that gives legal direction of the enterprise to precisely the same class as it would in “private” hands.

Ha ha. A line that’ll be trouped out for the opposite proposition, in the unlikely event it comes up for deliberation amongst the political establishment.

If they’re so “weak” then why take a nationalisation position at all? It’s not a competition in debating talent. The alternative “proposal” to stepping in some dog shit is to not step in some dog shit. What do you expect their detractors to do, hold a pro-privatisation demonstration? I tell you what, if “anarchists” really want nationalisation they should do precisely that and play the reverse psychology card. If you must do something, make something happen that can be photographed. Compel people to move their muscles and so make the picture real.

Why must we take them into account? What good are they? The logical implications of these considerations is to implore the government to strike the best bargain they can for their country within the international community, which is precisely how we got here.

So local people will have no say in how their resources will be used? So if, for example, the "world community" decides to turn Ireland into a nuclear waste ground then the inhabitants should just shrug their shoulders and start mutating? Or if, for example, the people in Iraq did not want to produce oil would the "world community" force them to?

Communism will involve decentralisation of decision making and that will mean that local populations will have some say in what happens to their resources. Otherwise you are talking about some highly centralised system -- which, in practice, would mean a bureaucracy would own everything.

And I should note that decentralism will be combined with federalism so that narrow localism would be discouraged by discussion. Still, I prefer narrow localism to centralisation any day...

The WSM may be faulted for some of their language but I guess that reflects a positive desire to make their ideas understandable to non-political people.

The problem of whether or not this-or-that should be nationalised is already perfectly understandable to non-political people. If the idea is that “nationalisation is in our best interests” then it’s mysticism and so will never be properly understood by anyone, except those deluded enough to accept the mantel of victimhood assigned to us by the left.

Territorial sovereignty is a question of degree. Modern communism loves dilemmas though, so no wonder it remains ambiguous on the matter. No doubt, revolution means conquering territory though. What else does revolution mean?

The two key interconnected motor forces of change in capitalist society are competition between capitals and the class struggle.

'Nationalisation', 'privatisation' etc are the capitalist states response at particular historical junctures to the pressures arising from these.

It may be in some cases that the capitalist state chooses 'nationalisation' as it's best response to containing the class struggle over resources and may in the process concede some temporary reallocation of resources, but it is the strength of our class in struggle that is the key and it is not necessary for anarchist communists to advocate this particulr capitalist reform in that struggle. To do so in fact simply adds to the mystification which allows capitalist politicians of both left and right to use such legal/administrative devises as a distraction from the anarchist communist objective.

As with it's the WSM's recent approaches in advocating capitalist options for reform of the Irish Health system this approach to 'nationalisation' of natural resourses demonstrates a consistent reformist politics which is in no way detracted from by it's (currently) anti- parliamentary political stand.

The WSM also has a soft nationalist element to it's thinking which is distinct from other communist and green anarchist strands of decentralism and federalism that do not relate to current geo-political boundaries.

The WSM it seems, in a genuine effort to disinguish itself from other theoretically and organisationally dysfunctional varieties of anarchism has simply ended taking on board old fashioned leftist politics.

Too true. I wonder what it is they should do. What's it all about comrade?

There are some interesting discussions here, but very often they degenerate into name calling, sectarian bickering and silly jokes. It's really a shame, because I think this forum could be much more useful with just a little effort from moderators and regular users. It is quite ironic though, that many of the posters who complain the most about this site, at the same time behave just as bad themselves...

The silly jokes are the best bit! Who the hell are you anyway?

Its hardly that controversial, i'm not up with the inner workings of irish gas but lower costs for the company will probably result in more expansion, quicker economic growth, lower gas and electricity bills ober a long period and more consumer spending, so its all swings and roundabouts as far as the governments concerned. Hence why we don't argue for the nationalisation of an already privatised industry, we simply say in crude terms ''they could have done x (privatiation options) or y (nationalisation options), x is bad because of reasons abc and y is also bad because of reasons abc, but only the working class can do z'(workers control) which is good because of abc''. Now i know you agree with that, but all your stuff on the shell oil thing seems pretty muddled and doesn't express anarchist basics clearly at all.

I hardly think its the be all and end all of things and i don't think you lot are out and out suporting nationalisation but i think what your doing is fundemantally dishonest, because your argueing for something that quite clearly you don't seem to fully beleive in and don't have any desire to defend as shown by your ''we're not going to discuss it publically on libcom'' nonsense. Sure some people are going to be a bit over hostile about this to prove their points, but pretending the worlds all cozy and you don't have to argue with people is pathetic.

Anarcho:
"[i]So local people will have no say in how their resources will be used? So if, for example, the "world community" decides to turn Ireland into a nuclear waste ground then the inhabitants should just shrug their shoulders and start mutating? Or if, for example, the people in Iraq did not want to produce oil would the "world community" force them to?"[/i]

Where did I say that the local population would have "no say" in how local resources will be used? That would be contrary to a council-type mode of organisation. What I am disputing is the idea that after the revolution local resources are the property of local people, or that the factory belongs to the workers who work in them at any given time. Just as communism involves ablishing the notion of the separate enterprise, so the idea of 'local' ownership would also go out of the window.

The idea that a communist world community would decide to turn certain areas of the planet into a nuclear wasteland or 'force' people into producing oil shows a rather strange conception of what a communist society would be like.

Good post, Spikeymike

Or suppose the people in Iraq decide they're not getting enough chocolate in exchange for "their" oil and decide to stop producing until the "world community" gives them more? All of these scenarios are predicated on a concept of ownership be it individual or national, which inevitably creates commodity production, etc. which is the basic seed of capitalism.

Assuming a global communist society is still dependent on this then it's obvious it has to be produced. If the "people of Iraq" decide not to produce oil, then other people would have to go there to do it because without it communist society would cease to exist. The "people of Iraq" would then have to find some other contribution to make to the community because one of the most basic principles of communist society is "he who does not work, does not eat".

Finally, it's not a case of "local people having no say in how their resources will be used". They will have some say as will every other human being on the face of the planet - their opinions would probably carry particular weight in the international councils if a proposed plan was going to have a disproportionate effect on them. But, no, they wouldn't have a veto - this is simply another form of minority rule.

Centralisation is a relative thing. The modern nation state (even before the massive growth of the state in the 19th century) is far more centralised than feudal society ever was. So why limit yourself to talking about the people of Iraq or Ireland? Why not the people of this or that oilfield, this or that village, this or that ethic community, etc? How small does a particular group have to be until their ownership rights can be superceded by the interests of the whole community?

Decentralised decision making is no defence against oppression, especially when coupled with the kind of "community ownership" you describe. It simply shifts the balance of power back to those communities who have valuable resources as opposed to those who don't. How will these communities interact with each other? Trade? Or through a system of allocated resource distribution? In which case who makes those allocations? A small community with a very rare resource will inevitably have more bargaining power than a far larger community with no resources in such a scenario. More to the point, who is it who decides where one particular community ends and another begins? How close do I need to live to an oil-field to have a "claim" on it? Will those in a resource-poor community want to move to a resource-rich one because of the obvious advantages? Doesn't all this sound horrifyingly familiar?

The only solution to such problems is the complete and total abolition of all concepts of ownership on any kind of local basis. The benefits of the worlds resources must be distributed as equally as possible across the globe as must the demands - as far as possible - for labour and the occasionaly negative aspects of production.

epic lolz

Revol, stop being silly. What is your opinion about the concept of 'local ownership' being discussed here?

Concepts are immaterial. An opinion is an electro-chemical event.

Good grief. It looks like the communists' objection to imperialism is that the incumbent bourgeoisie got there first. A case of sour grapes, as they say.

So basically what yoru saying here is that under your idea of communism we would be banned from going on strike or 'witholding labour for whatever reason because this would be ''minority rule' and that the ''international councils'' (whatever you mean by that) would send in scabs, one would assume forcibly crossing over any picket line that might be set up, in order to resume production of a good otherwise communism would apparently ''collapse''....
What a load of backwards bolshevik nonsense.

Can't do:
So basically what yoru saying here is that under your idea of communism we would be banned from going on strike or 'witholding labour for whatever reason because this would be ''minority rule' and that the ''international councils'' (whatever you mean by that) would send in scabs, one would assume forcibly crossing over any picket line that might be set up, in order to resume production of a good otherwise communism would apparently ''collapse''....
What a load of backwards bolshevik nonsense.

You could at least ask the question 'what stage of communism are we talking about'. You seem to be talking about a transitional stage where elements of exploitation or competition still exist. Assuming that is the case, then perhaps we could discuss the position that the left communists, particularly the Italian left, arrived at after reflecting on the defeat of the Russian revolution: that there could be no question of banning or suppressing workers' strikes in defence of their living conditions and no relations of force within the working class.

Yeah cantdo, everyone knows territorial sovereignty is to be defended in the transitional stage, and suppressed after judgement day.

I'm not talking about a transitional phase, i'm talking about the fact that in any society, no matter what ''phase'' its in or how perfect you seem to think it hypothetically might be, you are going to have disagreements and some of these disagreements are going to take the form of industrial disputes. they culd be over health and safety, availiabiity of transport to a workplace, rules and regulations regarding whether a colleague might need to be struck off etc etc

I couldn;t give a monekys about the italian left, what demogorgon effectively suggested was that if there were mass strikes in iraq and people refused to export oil because they had x, y and z demands, the 'internatinal councils'' should break their picket lines, send in scabs and live up to the idea that ''he who does not work shall not eat'' , a quite frankly mental slogan in 2007, perhaps he could call this mad program he has for stamping down on dissident iraqi workers ''oil for food''

The stage we are talking about is rather important. In a fully communist society the idea that the earth's resources 'belong' to humanity as a whole would be deeply rooted; and there would be a rational distribution of the productive forces around the planet, so the kind of dispute you are imaging would not be the norm.

This is what Demogorgon actually said:
Assuming a global communist society is still dependent on this then it's obvious it has to be produced. If the "people of Iraq" decide not to produce oil, then other people would have to go there to do it because without it communist society would cease to exist. The "people of Iraq" would then have to find some other contribution to make to the community because one of the most basic principles of communist society is "he who does not work, does not eat".

There's no mention of strikes or pickets. We're imagining a situation where no one in Iraq wants to work in an oil field. Fine. Maybe if there are still coalmines, no one in that particular area near the mines wants to work in a mine. Fine. Then other people will do that particular work, after a discussion in the councils or whatever they are called. If we are really talking about a global community, or at least an international network of workers' councils, why can't these disputes be sorted out through debate? Are you not confusing a real international community with some power above the community imposing its will through force - in other words, a state, a ruling class, and all the rest?

Why is 'he who does not work does not eat' mental in 2007? It will certainly be valid in the transition period, when humanity still faces the problem of scarcity, as a means of establishing that all play their part in the creation of communism. Obviously that doesn't mean that those who through age or impairement cannot work are forced to work. It is a prescription against the attitude of those who are able to work but prefer to live off the labour of others. You could argue that the prescription will cease to be valid in a developed communist society, where people have grown up in a community where individual and collective needs are no longer at war with each other and it will not occur to many that they should do nothing while others produce their livelihood for them.

About as important as which province of Middle Earth is in question...

Because debate is for losers. Why can't these disputes be sorted out through gladiatorial combat?

No doubt “communism” is as much part of that theoretical dysfunction.

Good point...I suppose we shouldn't even bother fighting to get bosses to sign labor agreements while we are living in a fantasy land! Pretty much anything you do outside of the immediate community (and lots of things within it) are, for the time being, going to include a man in a suit signing papers. You, of all people should be able to get over petty aesthetic considerations like this.

So you mean 'strength of our class in struggle' in the abstracted way that leads to 'the Revolution' (speaking of 'mystification')? Because I understand it in a concrete way that refers to the ability to improve our lot in the here and now.

Advocating reforms isn't what makes you a reformist, Mike, and you know it. This sounds like name-calling more than serious criticism. Engaging in the real, dirty work of changing things will invariably bring one into the muck of really existing conditions and institutions. Purist anarchists can't stand getting involved with this stuff, instead choosing to stay cloistered inside with their books...choosing to remain in insignificant, masterbatory ideologically pure propaganda groups rather than to get involved with real politics on the streets and in the workplace. The fact that WSM doesn't want to become (remain?) a circle jerk seems to anger some folks to no end.

How do you achieve this? Everyone in the world shares the same view about how access to productive property should be mediated, how goods should be distributed and how further productive forces are to be developed?

How does this even work when (if) it does come about? A massive, totally unified and global federation of federations with dozens of levels of nested delegate structures that everyone just goes along with because communism is nifty?

On what time-frame? What happens in the centuries before this vision can be realized (if, indeed, it is even possible...much less comprehensible)?

The oft-repeated idea that communism can simply abolish the conception of ownership is a disaster waiting to happen (at least it would be if people espousing this view weren't completely ineffectual and marginalized). The people that make the decisions about how the productive process is directed and what happens with the resulting product effectively own the property. I don't care if you recoil at calling it ownership but you have to deal with the reality that we are talking about a system of joint worker-community ownership of property and we have to seriously deal with the question of how this can be organized in real situations.

This is exactly why I constantly stick my neck out by promoting systems like market socialism and mutualism--I'd rather fight for something that, for all its flaws, I know would work reasonably well rather than something rooted in ideals that may prove to be completely unrealizable and hence disasterous in their implimentation!

On the contrary, pretty much anything you do is obstructed by a suit signing papers. Bureaucracy = Passivity.

The fantasy is that the bureaucracy (no doubt including the "bosses", whoever they are) has either the authority or capacity to make such agreements worth more than the paper they’re written on.

What change? Nationalisation isn’t even a reform, unless by that one means a reactionary “reform”.