CDZ "Another World is Possible"

TGN

Pacifist Egalitarian
Apr 11, 2014
54
6
21
Great to see this succinct article about the Spanish Revolution of 1936 (which seems to be a little covered subject) in the current issue of AdBusters:

https://www.adbusters.org/magazine/1...-possible.html

Funny you never see or hear about this sort of thing on the History Channel. Why's that? Anyway, here's the whole text:

"The Spanish Civil War that occurred between 1936-1939 is always remembered as the fight between the Republicans and Franco’s nationalist semi-fascist forces. However, the war was marked by another, extraordinary event; in 1936, the year of the outbreak of the civil war, the world witnessed the first glimpses of an anarchist revolution. Sam Dolgoff, an American anarcho-syndicalist, stated that the Spanish Revolution “came closer to realizing the ideal of the free stateless society on a vast scale than any other revolution in history.”

The revolution was led by the CNT (Confederación Nacional del Trabajo), a confederation of anarchist and anarcho-syndicalist trade unions. A significant part of Spain’s economy was collectivized and put under direct worker’s control. In Catalonia, workers controlled more than 75% of the economy. We should not imagine Soviet-style forced collectivization, but, as Sam Dogloff said, “a genuine grass roots functional libertarian democracy, where each individual participated directly in the revolutionary reorganization of social life”. George Orwell, who has served as a combatant for the CNT, was able to document the revolution as a first-hand observer. Two short passages from his Homage to Catalonia, published in 1938, illustrate superbly the spirit of the revolution: “[T]here was a belief in the revolution and the future, a feeling of having suddenly emerged into an era of equality and freedom. Human beings were trying to behave as human beings and not as cogs in the capitalist machine,” and “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.”

Unfortunately, the Spanish anarchist utopia did not last long. The anarchists were crushed by a temporary alliance between all other political parties (including the Communists and the Socialists) and the brief—but real—experience of an anarchist society faded away.

However, an important lesson can be drawn from the anarchist utopia of 1936: another world is possible (which is also the slogan of the World Social Forum). Before discussing anarchism’s possible role in the resistance to the capitalist world order, let’s shortly retrace last century’s main stages of the capitalist system’s consolidation: elites have won the long-lasting struggle against the working class; this was achieved firstly by granting workers some benefits after World War II, notably through the implementation of welfare systems in the West, then by fragmenting them with the increase in specialization of labor and the growth of the service industry during the post-Fordist period and finally by assessing the knockout blow through neoliberal policies, which erased hard-fought social and economic rights, diminished trade unions’ bargaining power and weakened their influence.

The libertarian revolutions of 1968 have also ended up in disappointment. Hopes brought by the “New Left” political movement that emerged from the demands of students, activists and workers, came to a close when economic powers and politics colluded in the 80s, removing the last glimmers of hope that change could happen from within the current political system. The 1980s also marked the beginning of the neoliberal era (deregulation of the financial system, erosion of welfare states, privatization programs, financial crises, cuts to public spending).

Finally, the fall of the Berlin Wall represented the end of the last bastion of ideological resistance against capitalism: communism. Fukuyama’s The End of History and the Last Man main thesis was emblematic in the representation of the world we faced and still face today: the triumph of liberal democracy and capitalism marked the end point of mankind’s ideological and political evolution.

We live in a historically specific cultural paradigm, shaped during the course of the last century through mass media, popular culture and advertising, which converged together and formed our consumer culture and in an economic and political system structured to serve the interests of a small elite. In this scenario, anarchist thought has a dual function of resistance: as a challenge to the neoliberal ideology, and as a possible concrete utopia that can guide us in the construction of a valid alternative social order.

The most accessible ground for us, “the 99%,” through which a radical change can be achieved, is that of ideas. No economic or political revolution can bring genuine change without, stated Serge Latouche, an advocator of the degrowth movement, “the decolonization of our minds” from the ideological framework we find ourselves in. Anarchism challenges the ideas, the dehistoricized and naturalized assumptions, and the taken-for-granted norms of today’s society. In an anarchist society, solidarity would replace individualism; mutual aid would prevail on competition; altruism on egoism; spirituality on materialism; the local on the global. Changing the current global framework of rules first necessitates an individual ideological liberation that can only come through self-awareness. To free our body we must first free our mind."


Orwell had quite a bit more to say about this topic in his memoir Homage to Catalonia as well as a few comments in his Collected Essays.

Purportedly a similar form of egalitarian self-organizing (called Democratic Confederalism) is going on today, and has been going on in Rojava:

Democratic Autonomy in Rojava New Compass

" Meanwhile new paradigms emerged from the Kurdish freedom movement and especially from Öcalan, inspired by the work of the libertarian theorist Murray Bookchin, whose model of democratic confederalism and democratic autonomy became a touchstone for the reorientation. Öcalan developed a critique of the history of actually existing socialist states and of national liberation movements, including the PKK itself. As an alternative to conceptions of revolution that strive for an armed uprising and seizure of power, he outlined a plan for a “democratic, ecological, gender-liberated society.” He introduced the concept of an “ethical and political society” that would be self-managed and would situate itself outside the lifeless, homogenous consumer society of capitalism."
 
There is a term in use today that labels this idea, but the term is a rewording of older versions of words that are intended to covey the same, or competitively similar meaning.

New term: Open Source

Older terms:
Free Markets
Voluntary Associations
Individualist Anarchism (See Equitable Commerce by Josiah Warren and The Science of Society by Stephen Pearl Andrews)
Liberty
Freedom
Federation (for mutual defense)

Open Source (Free Markets) work to inspired higher quality life at lower costs over time, in all human endeavors not limited to art, science, government (defensive), finance, economic production, education, medical care, transportation, communication, religious spiritualism, and preservation of the species beyond the life span of one planet.
 
"How does ecology/conservation fit into this scenario? "

When those who cause damage are those same individuals held accountable for said damage the incentive to perpetrate damage is removed and in place of said incentive to cause damage is the incentive to avoid causing damage since crime no longer pays so well.

Is that a competitive answer to your question, or did you have something else in mind?
 
"How does ecology/conservation fit into this scenario? "

When those who cause damage are those same individuals held accountable for said damage the incentive to perpetrate damage is removed and in place of said incentive to cause damage is the incentive to avoid causing damage since crime no longer pays so well.

Is that a competitive answer to your question, or did you have something else in mind?

Who is going to hold them accountable?
 
Every attempt at building utopias has failed. Badly. Reason things are the way they are is simple enough, it works this way and no other. Why all cities and countries are basicly the same. Names of the systems are often different, but at their cores they're identical.

Capitalist works. Sucks but nothing else does.
 
"Who is going to hold them accountable?"

Individual people, all having names, all sharing the same idea, and their collective power of defense is greater than the offenders individual (or collective) power. The idea was called federation at one point in time. The label was also called due process at one point, at another point the label was liberty. The actual competitive method by which offenders are held accountable can be called whatever label is agreed upon by those who constitute said effective defense against offenders.
 
"Every attempt at building utopias has failed."

That is a Man of Straw "argument," and it works simply. The individual, or any number of individuals sharing the same Man of Straw idea, create a very weak opponent that they alone create so as to then create an easy to win argument of their own construction.

The facts demonstrated as facts by such people as the Swiss, for only one example, who federate for their mutual defense, preserve their so called "utopia" through 2 (and perhaps 3) World Wars.

Many examples prove that so called "utopias" can work for mutual defense perpetually; such as The Icelandic Commonwealth.

An American example was offered by Josiah Warren in his demonstration of Equitable Commerce, and that so called "utopia" still exists in various forms today.

So much for the Man of Straw created in this case.

"Reason things are the way they are is simple enough, it works this way and no other."

Perhaps that constitutes an apology for the age old criminal process that is so often covered up by the color of law. The age old criminal process is often called many names and here are a few:

Majority Rule
Might makes right
Diving Right of Kings
Capitalism (false)
Socialism (false)
Fascism (false versions of both socialism and capitalism combined)
Communism (two versions: one is voluntary: "hippie." and the other is involuntary: Bolshevism)
Democracy (two versions: one is a version of Majority Rule, the other is voluntary as in democracy exemplified in Ancient Greece)

Those criminal methods listed by those names above are opposed by those individuals who share a persistent drive to oppose those individuals sharing those criminal processes by those names, or any other past or present name, or any new future name invented by criminals for criminal purposes.

"Why all cities and countries are basicly the same."

That may be a simple wording that intends to describe a fabricated belief system whereby the believer actually believes in the existence of a corporate being; whereby this legal fiction (corporate being) has a will, and is therefore willful, and is therefore responsible, and is therefore accountable as an individual living being.

Legal fictions are subsets of the Man of Straw tactic used so often by people seeking to accomplish specific goals.

"Names of the systems are often different, but at their cores they're identical."

Criminal systems are identical because criminals employ deception, threat of violence, and aggressive violence as their identical means to achieve their identical ends. Criminal systems can be called criminal systems or criminals systems can be called fried chicken; by any other name other than criminal systems they are all identical because they are all involuntary from the victims point of view.

Opposition to criminal systems are also identical in the absolute necessity of holding the individual criminals accountable for the individual crimes perpetrated by the individual criminals upon the individual victims in individual times and individual places.

"Capitalist works."

The pricing system of pricing a service or good at "that which the market will bear" or at the value based upon scarcity, or at the value based upon demand, works for those who price according to capitalism: so called.

"Sucks but nothing else does."

Pricing according to Capitalism may "suck" for someone, but if the market in which the pricing is priced according to Capitalist Ideals is truly accountable as a free market (free from involuntary criminal "price fixing"), then why would any individual choose to "suck" in that way when any individual can easily shop for a higher quality and lower cost competitor, and if there is none, then said individual who claims that capitalism "sucks" can choose to fill that demand themselves so as to reduce the "sucking"?
 
Last edited:
Maybe if you post in Russian your pseudo-intellectual pretensions would not be so obvious.
 
"However, an important lesson can be drawn from the anarchist utopia of 1936: another world is possible (which is also the slogan of the World Social Forum)."

If the idea is to discuss the topic then it might be a good idea to understand the difference between so called Communism (trade marked, incorporated as a Limited Liability Corporation) and so called socialism when socialism is said to be a collective goal shared by people whose idea is to reach for higher quality and lower cost life, which is said to be "utopia" in a derogatory sense.

A quick look into the Communist Manifesto (trade marked) can offer insight into precise information concerning the demonstrable differences between so called Communism (tm) and socialism (collecting individual power of will into a shared, voluntary, agreement that is more than the sum of the individual parts) as those two shared ideas - communism and socialism - began in time and place.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf

"Yet, when it was written, we could not have called it a socialist manifesto. By Socialists, in 1847,
were understood, on the one hand the adherents of the various Utopian systems: Owenites in
England, Fourierists in France, both of them already reduced to the position of mere sects, and
gradually dying out; on the other hand, the most multifarious social quacks who, by all manner of
tinkering, professed to redress, without any danger to capital and profit, all sorts of social
grievances, in both cases men outside the working-class movement, and looking rather to the
“educated” classes for support. Whatever portion of the working class had become convinced of
the insufficiency of mere political revolutions, and had proclaimed the necessity of total social
change, called itself Communist. It was a crude, rough-hewn, purely instinctive sort of
communism; still, it touched the cardinal point and was powerful enough amongst the working
class to produce the Utopian communism of Cabet in France, and of Weitling in Germany. Thus,
in 1847, socialism was a middle-class movement, communism a working-class movement.
Socialism was, on the Continent at least, “respectable”; communism was the very opposite. And
as our notion, from the very beginning, was that “the emancipation of the workers must be the act
of the working class itself,” there could be no doubt as to which of the two names we must take.
Moreover, we have, ever since, been far from repudiating it."

The text above is taken out of a translated pdf copy of the so called Communist Manifesto (tm) and from that information is found the beginnings of what is now claimed to be Individualist Anarchism.

Not only are the criminal Communists (tm) refuting any association with so called socialism, they are by their own confessions "repudiating" (opposing) so called socialism.

Back to the original Topic Text:

"...an American anarcho-syndicalist, stated that the Spanish Revolution “came closer to realizing the ideal of the free stateless society on a vast scale than any other revolution in history.”

Knowing Communism (tm) as a trade marked, limited liability, corporate legal fiction, and knowing that Communism (tm) is NOT socialism as socialism was first introduced into the ideas of people by that unique label: socialism, and then introducing another label into the competition for ideas now known as Anarchism, offers some idea for finding comparative information on these 3 competitive ideas.

1. Communism can be measured by the body count of innocent people murdered during the reign of the Bolsheviks who exemplified this type of legal fiction. The count is roughly 20 million people murdered for the fun and profit of a few.

2. Socialism cannot be measured because the idea has splintered from the original idea into carbon copies of the so called Communism (tm) idea; thereby confusing the idea as if the idea were two ideas at once, and one idea is in direct opposition to the other idea.

3. Anarchism was summed up by three of the first Americans whose work in their lives intended by their individual power of will to promote this idea in an original form BEFORE the word anarchism was used to label this idea.

Josiah Warren summed up the idea in Equitable Commerce with one sentence:

"Responsibility must be Individual, or there is no responsibility at all."

Stephen Pearl Andrews offers a more elaborate explanation in The Science of Society:

ANARCHISM.net The Science of Society by Stephen Pearl Andrews

"What, then, if this be so, is this common element? In what great feature are Protestantism, Democracy, and Socialism identical? I will answer this interrogatory first, and demonstrate the answer afterward. Protestantism, Democracy, and Socialism are identical in the assertion of the Supremacy of the Individual,--a dogma essentially contumacious, revolutionary, and antagonistic to the basic principles of all the older institutions of society, which make the Individual subordinate and subject to the Church, to the State, and to Society respectively. Not only is this supremacy or SOVEREIGNTY OF THE INDIVIDUAL, a common element of all three of these great modern movements, but I will make the still more sweeping assertion that it is substantially the whole of those movements. It is not merely a feature, as I have just denominated it, but the living soul itself, the vital energy, the integral essence or being of them all."

Benjamin Tucker zeros in on the accurate accounting problem concerning the so called battle between capital and labor.

Benjamin Tucker - State Socialism and Anarchism

"First in the importance of its evil influence they considered the money monopoly, which consists of the privilege given by the government to certain individuals, or to individuals holding certain kinds of property, of issuing the circulating medium, a privilege which is now enforced in this country by a national tax of ten per cent., upon all other persons who attempt to furnish a circulating medium, and by State laws making it a criminal offense to issue notes as currency. It is claimed that the holders of this privilege control the rate of interest, the rate of rent of houses and buildings, and the prices of goods, – the first directly, and the second and third indirectly. For, say Proudhon and Warren, if the business of banking were made free to all, more and more persons would enter into it until the competition should become sharp enough to reduce the price of lending money to the labor cost, which statistics show to be less than three-fourths of once per cent. In that case the thousands of people who are now deterred from going into business by the ruinously high rates which they must pay for capital with which to start and carry on business will find their difficulties removed. If they have property which they do not desire to convert into money by sale, a bank will take it as collateral for a loan of a certain proportion of its market value at less than one per cent. discount. If they have no property, but are industrious, honest, and capable, they will generally be able to get their individual notes endorsed by a sufficient number of known and solvent parties; and on such business paper they will be able to get a loan at a bank on similarly favorable terms. Thus interest will fall at a blow. The banks will really not be lending capital at all, but will be doing business on the capital of their customers, the business consisting in an exchange of the known and widely available credits of the banks for the unknown and unavailable, but equality good, credits of the customers and a charge therefor of less than one per cent., not as interest for the use of capital, but as pay for the labor of running the banks. This facility of acquiring capital will give an unheard of impetus to business, and consequently create an unprecedented demand for labor, – a demand which will always be in excess of the supply, directly to the contrary of the present condition of the labor market. Then will be seen an exemplification of the words of Richard Cobden that, when two laborers are after one employer, wages fall, but when two employers are after one laborer, wages rise. Labor will then be in a position to dictate its wages, and will thus secure its natural wage, its entire product. Thus the same blow that strikes interest down will send wages up. But this is not all. Down will go profits also. For merchants, instead of buying at high prices on credit, will borrow money of the banks at less than one per cent., buy at low prices for cash, and correspondingly reduce the prices of their goods to their customers. And with the rest will go house-rent. For no one who can borrow capital at one per cent. with which to build a house of his own will consent to pay rent to a landlord at a higher rate than that. Such is the vast claim made by Proudhon and Warren as to the results of the simple abolition of the money monopoly."

Free markets (anarchism according to one definition of anarchism) inspire competition to supply whatever is demanded by anyone, and the collective power of will of all individual choices seeking higher quality and lower cost FORCES suppliers to supply higher quality and lower cost.

What is the highest quality and lowest cost supplier offering accurate accounting so as then to facilitate an effective defense of innocent victims from guilty criminals?

Individual people (adding all of them up into one sum total of individual people = collective sum total of individuals) seeking higher quality and lower cost life (utopia) are prevented from reaching for that goal, thereby prevented from moving closer toward that goal, by criminals whose competitive idea is to take higher quality and lower cost life from those who produce higher quality and lower cost life (utopia) as criminals effectively kill the "goose that lays the golden eggs." So...if there is no way to defend against criminals, not a higher, not a lower quality way to defend against criminals, not a higher, not a lower cost way to defend against criminals, then instead of "utopia" as the goal reached for, the opposite goal is found, whereby rat eats rat until the ship is sunk by the rats, and each rat is consuming each other rat for the steadily dwindling supply of anything of any value as innocent people are forced into rat like existence by said criminals, and the opposite of "utopia" is lower, and lower, and lower quality of life, as the cost of life increases to higher, and higher, and higher "standard costs" of criminal versions of "utopia."

In order to reach for and get higher standards of living at lower costs of living the obstacles known as criminals must be accounted for and avoided in time and place.
 
Last edited:
Every attempt at building utopias has failed. Badly. Reason things are the way they are is simple enough, it works this way and no other. Why all cities and countries are basicly the same. Names of the systems are often different, but at their cores they're identical.

Capitalist works. Sucks but nothing else does.
Then what about the regions in Rojava (democratic confederalism) or Chiapas (zapatismo) which were organized as an alternative to neoliberalism and are still going on today?
 
A Utopian society requires perfect people. When people become perfect we won't need a society.
 
Those who must censor any information that uncovers the accurate accounts of precisely what evil is done by the false authorities are those who invent labels such as "Utopian Society" and "Conspiracy Theorist."

Anyone daring to question the absolute authority of the criminals who take over governments are targeted for censorship with these types of false advertisement campaigns whereby these labels are used to deceive people.

The term "Utopian Societies" was used by those who financed the criminal Communists such as Marx and Lenin, as those criminals began to take over the people in Russia. At that time there were people who questioned the absolute authority of said criminals, with examples offered by people following the advice of Robert Owen, and Charles Fourier, as those people set out to live and let live, separate, and discover, and make good, independence from the criminals who take over and maintain criminal governments.

Of course the so called Communists thereby have a need for the false term "Utopian Societies" in a context of negativity, discredit, and falsification.

The discredit is aimed at anyone who dares to question the false authorities, whereby the false authorities dictate what everyone must do, without question, and failure to obey results in severe punishment.

People faced with such gloomy realities of a future in Hell on Earth are bound to see any competitive alternative as a relative form of utopia on earth.

A. Absolute dictatorship, blind obedience to criminal orders: robbery, assault, rape, torture, murder, and mass murder "legalized" by those dictating absolute authority.

B. Competitive alternatives that are comparatively higher in the quality of life, and comparatively lower in the cost of life, and a path (free markets in liberty) that works in the direction of improvement.

So people on side A call people on side B "Utopian Societies" for obvious reasons.
 
"How does ecology/conservation fit into this scenario? "

When those who cause damage are those same individuals held accountable for said damage the incentive to perpetrate damage is removed and in place of said incentive to cause damage is the incentive to avoid causing damage since crime no longer pays so well.

Is that a competitive answer to your question, or did you have something else in mind?

Who is going to hold them accountable?
You are.
 

Forum List

Back
Top