Agna:

[JBeukema]

Start a thread about libertarian socialism or anarchism... It's indeed the case that every critic of a presently existing dominant order is obliged to present a feasible and reasonable alternative, but this thread cannot become excessively cluttered with various topics. Start a different thread specifically devoted to the political structures of anarchism or libertarianism if you wish to focus on that

So... can you describe your proposed system in detail? The entities that would exist, what powers would be held, how decisions would be made, how armies would be raised, how the machinations of the system as a whole would be operated and funded without compulsory taxation...

(oh, and flowcharts would be good, to make the organizational structure as clear as possible )

 

[Agnapostate]

Here's a brief summary that's been posted elsewhere of full-fledged anarchist communism, though most elements of it are adaptable to any form of libertarian socialism:

Public control without a state would essentially function through a federation of voluntary communes and syndicates that are democratically managed through participatory committees and workers’ councils. This would mean placing emphasis on grassroots neighborhood committees, community assemblies and other direct democratic associations rather than the centralized state.

Instead of a “top-down,” centralized governance system, an anarchist society would function using a “bottom-up,” decentralized governance system.

Neighborhood assemblies would be open to the general public, and these assemblies will be the primary (and final) governors of public policy in their jurisdiction. Public policy would be determined by direct democratic means, and delegates would be assigned to deal with the task of public policy administration. These delegates would be recallable at any time by a direct democratic vote, as opposed to the current dictatorial political system.

Various sections and aspects of the Paris Commune are an illustrative example of this sort of direct democracy in action.

Workers’ councils would be specifically intended to address workers’ needs and concerns, and would determine workplace management and administration through direct democracy, again. Control of the means of production would be granted to both these democratically managed workers’ councils, as well as to the citizens of the locality, if some of the workers are not both. The community assemblies would primarily serve as complementary features of workers’ councils for citizens who do not perform conventional work (such as parents with small children, the elderly, the disabled, the sick, etc.)

If the community’s industrial aspects are properly and efficiently managed through direct democracy, this would result in increased benefits for the workers and surrounding community. The workers themselves would be able to distribute and delegate work tasks and administration evenly among themselves, and thus form a far more efficient workforce, resulting in increased production levels and benefits, as well as decreased work hours and shortages.

Soviets initially functioned this way, until the Bolsheviks began to forcefully collectivize land and resources, and delegated control of the means of production to high-level bureaucrats rather than workers.

Through community and industrial unionism, decisions regarding the means of production and public policy affecting the wider community could be made in an efficient, direct democratic manner.

Communes would function as free, voluntary associations that would not force citizens to work or govern. Participatory committees would be freely joined and democratically managed, as opposed to the current situation, when all are forced to either work or die, because of the system of wage slavery that exists. An ideal commune would grant the minimal means of life even to those who were able but not willing to work. They would not grant them nonessential public services, however, unless they chose to participate in the work and management of the commune. As for those who were unable to work, they would still be granted full public services, as well as be permitted to have some degree of participation through community assemblies.

In the workplace itself, hierarchical authority structures would be dismantled in favor of direct democratic management. Policy creation would be given to the workers’ councils, and specific delegates and workers would be assigned to manage specific policy administrations, as is the case with the community assemblies. No longer would a separation between labor and management exist. The laborers would be the managers. Separate groups of order-givers and order-takers would no longer exist, and positions that solely emphasized management would not exist, as they would be useless and unnecessary. Through these methods, the workplace would not only function more democratically, it would function more efficiently, as workers are more intimately familiar with the conditions of the workplace than distant, unassociated managers are, and would be better qualified and capable to manage it properly.

The neighborhood and community assemblies would be the other segment of participatory committees to manage society as a whole. Towns and cities would essentially be formed from smaller neighborhood assemblies, which in turn would be federated at the regional and national levels in order to provide collective benefits to all involved. (The participatory committees would remain autonomous, of course, and could secede from larger federations if its member saw fit.) The assemblies would primarily address governance at the local level, and would ensure that all community members were provided with sufficient public services such as food, housing, healthcare, transportation, communication, etc. If there were councils or delegates that managed these assemblies, they would not possess an executive or bureaucratic status, and would primarily be intended to address specific facets of policy administration that would be too cumbersome and inefficient for management by the wider assembly.

Assemblies would be summoned on a regular basis, as often as required or necessitated by communal interests and issues, upon the request of the communal council or the consensus of the inhabitants of the local community. Local inhabitants would deliberate and address local issues and problems, and implement direct democratic management techniques in order to address them, possibly appointing additional councils or delegates in order to address them.

Lower levels of assemblies would maintain control over higher levels, thus reversing the unjust infliction of hierarchical, top-down authority structures.

Anarcho-communism fundamentally seeks to abolish and dismantle hierarchical, authoritarian relationships, both in the social and economic realms. Communism would be implemented from the bottom-up, not the top-down. In this manner, it would be based on free association, not on forced collectivization. True and legitimate communism can never be coercive.

 

[Oddball]

More copy-n-paste.

Whoop-de-fuckin'-doo!!

 

[editec]

So I presume, Agna, that an anarchro-commune elected to jettison one or more of its members (for whatever reason) , and it arrived at that consensus to banish by an honest vote that would be okay, right?

You see where I'm headed with this question, right?

 

[Oddball]

The logical contradictions of his copy-n-paste bullshit don't end there.

 

[Agnapostate]

More copy-n-paste.

Whoop-de-fuckin'-doo!!

Everything written there was written by me, you idiot.

Maybe if you didn't keep regurgitating the same talking points and inane platitudes, you wouldn't see me copying and pasting previous comments to such an extent.

So I presume, Agna, that an anarchro-commune elected to jettison one or more of its members (for whatever reason) , and it arrived at that consensus to banish by an honest vote that would be okay, right?

You see where I'm headed with this question, right?

How could there be a "consensus" to banish members? I believe that would constitute a super-majority. But you see, the super-majority controls everything anyway; they just don't know it. Mao was correct about the source of political power, and the super-majority could simply expel who they would or massacre who they would, for that matter.

 

[Oddball]

Yeah...Sure it was.

In any case, your pedantic theories are riddled with so many holes and intellectually dishonest semantics that it's virtually impossible to know where to start.

 

[JBeukema]

the super-majority could simply expel who they would or massacre who they would, for that matter.

and you say the tyranny of the majority is a 'talking point' ....


You just showed why your your system is deemed immoral and undesirable

Hence the representative republic with protections for the individual's life, liberty, and property

If for no iother, your system has been and will always be rejected by thinking people for that reason

 

[Agnapostate]

Yeah...Sure it was.

All right, Dud, you made an assertion, now let's see you back it up. Post the original source of this commentary that you allege I plagiarized this from. Entering any significant portion of it into Google with quotation marks attached should lead you there right away. Let's see it!

and you say the tyranny of the majority is a 'talking point' ....

Actually, I didn't. I regularly acknowledge the existence of the tyranny of the majority in this very representative political system. I merely stated that it would be less prone to occur in anarchist or broadly libertarian society because decentralization and participatory input through direct democracy result in a greater concentration of power at a grassroots level than would otherwise occur.

You just showed why your your system is deemed immoral and undesirable

Hence the representative republic with protections for the individual's life, liberty, and property

If for no iother, your system has been and will always be rejected by thinking people for that reason

The representative republic doesn't protect life, liberty, and property against the power of the super-majority. There's merely an illusory perception of it doing so. Were they not indoctrinated to do otherwise, the sheer numbers of the super-majority would empower them to rise up and treat the super-minority however they would. I'm simply referring to what the power of the super-majority is and always will be in every conceivable political or organizational system in existence, at least while conventional weaponry is what it is.

 

[Oddball]

It doesn't have to have been published for you to have plagiarized it, and we both know that.

In any case, your Utopian bong dream has about zero chance of any success, merely because you conveniently ignore the chaotic nature of human nature.

 

[eots]

[

QUOTE=Dude;1286855]It doesn't have to have been published for you to have plagiarized it, and we both know that

.

no doubt..

 

[JBeukema]

Public control without a state would essentially function through a federation of voluntary communes and syndicates that are democratically managed through participatory committees and workers’ councils.

that is a State- well, actually it's a confederation of independent democratic States. You have not eliminated the State, you've merely changed its form

This would mean placing emphasis on grassroots neighborhood committees, community assemblies and other direct democratic associations rather than the centralized state.

same as in a republic with limited powers held by the central authority and semi-autonomous member states

Instead of a “top-down,” centralized governance system, an anarchist society would function using a “bottom-up,” decentralized governance system.

All change is effectively bottom-up, but only top-down authority (in the matters the centralized authority is granted authority over) maintains order and efficiency on a large scale. That's why the military is top-down

Neighborhood assemblies would be open to the general public, and these assemblies will be the primary (and final) governors of public policy in their jurisdiction. Public policy would be determined by direct democratic means, and delegates would be assigned to deal with the task of public policy administration. These delegates would be recallable at any time by a direct democratic vote, as opposed to the current dictatorial political system.

all you're changing is one thing: no terms and the ability to call emergency elections at any time

Workers’ councils

?

the kind with the hammer? What about the farmers?

would be specifically intended to address workers’ needs and concerns, and would determine workplace management and administration through direct democracy, again.

a union.... but also controlling the State?

Through community and industrial unionism, decisions regarding the means of production and public policy affecting the wider community could be made in an efficient, direct democratic manner.

large-scale direct democracy is mutually exclusive with efficiency- and most people are too stupid to vote on all matters. it is not reasonable to expect all persons to go about their own lives and simultaneity remain up-to-date on world events and all matters that need tending to. That is why the republic allows the People to elect persons to focus on such things. It's an extension of the division of labor. Your sytem cannot work int he 21st century, uless you want to be taken over by the first nation in need of a sucessful war. You are 200 years past your window of opportunity

Communes would function as free, voluntary associations that would not force citizens to work or govern. P

So, when eveeryone decides not to work.. then what? the capitalist market trequires labor to wenjoy wealth- just like the real weorld, where crops must be tended and good manufactured.

articipatory committees would be freely joined and democratically managed, as opposed to the current situation, when all are forced to either work or die, because of the system of wage slavery that exists.

If none labor, all starve. We acknolwdge reality, where you do not

An ideal commune would grant the minimal means of life even to those who were able but not willing to work.

So you punish those who labor by stealing from them what is rightfully theirs by their own labor to reward those who choose to do nothing? And you call capitalism immoral?

No matter how much your next paraphrase claimzx to temper this to make you look less like thieves-you havwe a;ready made the principle clear.

I

Lower levels of assemblies would maintain control over higher levels, thus reversing the unjust infliction of hierarchical, top-down authority structures.

In other words- a powerless confederation like the CSA, the Articles of the Confederacy, or the UN...

 

[JBeukema]

The representative republic doesn't protect life, liberty, and property against the power of the super-majority[/qupte]


yes it does. the majority may not vote to revoke the protected rights of the minority or the individual


. T

here's merely an illusory perception of it doing so. Were they not indoctrinated to do otherwise, the sheer numbers of the super-majority would empower them to rise up and treat the super-minority however they would

Only through the destruction of the State as it was formed- something no system, including yours, is safe against

 

[Oddball]

large-scale direct democracy is mutually exclusive with efficiency- and most people are too stupid to vote on all matters. it is not reasonable to expect all persons to go about their own lives and simultaneity remain up-to-date on world events and all matters that need tending to. That is why the republic allows the People to elect persons to focus on such things. It's an extension of the division of labor. Your sytem cannot work int he 21st century, uless you want to be taken over by the first nation in need of a sucessful war. You are 200 years past your window of opportunity

EXACTLY!!!!

The entire premise is based upon the Orwellian premise that ignorance is somehow wisdom when it's instituted by the biggest mob.

 

[Agnapostate]

It doesn't have to have been published for you to have plagiarized it, and we both know that.

You assert that I plagiarized something; hence, the burden of proof is therefore upon you to demonstrate this. But that's all right, Dud. I figured that you wouldn't be backing up your bullshit claims, so I did the work for you.

"neighborhood and community assemblies would be the other segment of participatory committees" - Google Search

*gasp*

Every single time that text has been posted...it's been posted by me!

In any case, your Utopian bong dream has about zero chance of any success, merely because you conveniently ignore the chaotic nature of human nature.

Actually, Dud, the only utopian dreamer here is you, the proud advocate of laissez-faire capitalism, an economic system that has never enjoyed implementation throughout history, and thus has no application outside of the textbook and the fantasies of the historically ignorant. Conversely...

In Spain, during almost three years, despite a civil war that took a million lives, despite the opposition of the political parties . . . this idea of libertarian communism was put into effect. Very quickly more than 60% of the land was very quickly collectively cultivated by the peasants themselves, without landlords, without bosses, and without instituting capitalist competition to spur production. In almost all the industries, factories, mills, workshops, transportation services, public services, and utilities, the rank and file workers, their revolutionary committees, and their syndicates reorganised and administered production, distribution, and public services without capitalists, high-salaried managers, or the authority of the state.

More than that, it seems that Murray Bookchin was able to predict and rebut precisely the variety of response that you just regurgitated.

In Spain, millions of people took large segments of the economy into their own hands, collectivised them, administered them, even abolished money and lived by communistic principles of work and distribution -- all of this in the midst of a terrible civil war, yet without producing the chaos or even the serious dislocations that were and still are predicted by authoritarian 'radicals.' Indeed, in many collectivised areas, the efficiency with which an enterprise worked by far exceeded that of a comparable one in nationalised or private sectors. This 'green shoot' of revolutionary reality has more meaning for us than the most persuasive theoretical arguments to the contrary. On this score it is not the anarchists who are the 'unrealistic day-dreamers,' but their opponents who have turned their backs to the facts or have shamelessly concealed them.

Do you have a single original thought in that head of yours? Does the fact that words written more than thirty years ago precisely describe the ill-conceived nature of your reaction not perturb you at all? Does the fact that you, as with so many other people, simply repeat the tiresome and oft-rebutted talking point that any kind of socialism necessitates a "communal" interest rather than a self-interest not make you ponder this? And does the fact that the only thing you can grasp is "authoritarian central planning" despite the fact that no reference to it was made not do anything for you?

 

[Oddball]

If your examples were so great, why aren't they still in existence and operation today??

Lemmie guess...It was a capitalist conspiracy.

BTW...I'm the first to admit perfection and Utopia aren't options, while you go around excessively bloviating about how they are....If only the right bunch of authoritarian thugs were in charge of it.

 

[Agnapostate]

The entire premise is based upon the Orwellian premise that ignorance is somehow wisdom when it's instituted by the biggest mob.

Fan of Orwell, eh? Let's see what he had to say about the aforementioned Spanish anarchist collectives. Quoting from his Homage to Catalonia now...

I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their opposites. Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life--snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.--had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master...The Anarchists were still in virtual control of Catalonia and the revolution was still in full swing. To anyone who had been there since the beginning it probably seemed even in December or January that the revolutionary period was ending; but when one came straight from England the aspect of Barcelona was something startling and overwhelming. It was the first time that I had ever been in a town where the working class was in the saddle. Practically every building of any size had been seized by the workers and was draped with red flags and with the red and black flag of the Anarchists; every wall was scrawled with the hammer and sickle and with the initials of the revolutionary parties; almost every church had been gutted and its images burnt. Churches here and there were being systematically demolished by gangs of workmen. Every shop and cafe had an inscription saying that it had been collectivized; even the bootblacks had been collectivized and their boxes painted red and black. Waiters and shop-walkers looked you in the face and treated you as an equal. Servile and even ceremonial forms of speech had temporarily disappeared. Nobody said 'Senor' or 'Don' or even 'Ústed'; everyone called everyone else 'Comrade' or 'Thou', and said 'Salud!' instead of 'Buenos días'. Tipping had been forbidden by law since the time of Primo de Rivera; almost my first experience was receiving a lecture from a hotel manager for trying to tip a lift-boy. There were no private motor-cars, they had all been commandeered, and the trams and taxis and much of the other transport were painted red and black. The revolutionary posters were everywhere, flaming from the walls in clean reds and blues that made the few remaining advertisements look like daubs of mud. Down the Ramblas, the wide central artery of the town where crowds of people streamed constantly to and fro, the loud-speakers were bellowing revolutionary songs all day and far into the night. And it was the aspect of the crowds that was the queerest thing of all. In outward appearance it was a town in which the wealthy classes had practically ceased to exist. Except for a small number of women and foreigners there were no 'well-dressed' people at all. Practically everyone wore rough working-class clothes, or blue overalls or some variant of militia uniform. All this was queer and moving. There was much in this that I did not understand, in some ways I did not even like it, but I recognized it immediately as a state of affairs worth fighting for.

Well now...doesn't exactly seem disapproving to me, does it?

 

[JBeukema]

If your examples were so great, why aren't they still in existence and operation today??

Lemmie guess...It was a capitalist conspiracy.

I thought it was the juice?

 

[Oddball]

Fan of Orwell, eh? Let's see what he had to say about the aforementioned Spanish anarchist collectives. Quoting from his Homage to Catalonia now...

I'm a fan of Orwell's observations on how semantics are fudged by collectivist authoritarian punks like you, in order to con people into immolating themselves into mere chattel of the state.

Chomsky has made many of the same observations...That doesn't automatically mean that I buy into his glaringly contradictory political views.

 

[Agnapostate]

If your examples were so great, why aren't they still in existence and operation today??

Lemmie guess...It was a capitalist conspiracy.

Partially. Violent destruction by European-style fascists, Western-style republican capitalists, and Eastern-style Leninists and Stalinists. Prior to the military defeat of the Republican side during the Spanish Civil War (with whom the anarchists were of course allied), there was sabotage of the social revolution that occurred, partially motivated by the fact that some elements thought it detrimental to the war effort. As put by author Lorenzo, for instance:

The government and the parties began their great offensive against the CNT. With patience they reconstituted the State, reorganized the regular police, and equipped an army of the classical type. At the same time, they gave no financial aid to the industrial and agricultural collectives, leaving them to wither away for lack of capital...They tried to return the goods and land to their former owners, to sabotage by all means the transformation of the economy. At the same time, they systematically refused to arm the CNT columns, while by intensive propaganda they turned public opinion against "the irresponsible, uncontrollable groups of the CNT-FAI."

If you're not familiar with the historical record, I'd advise you to not make ill-conceived comments.