Then there is no SOCIALISM... as there can BE NO SOCIALISM ABSENT CENTRALIZED GOVERNMENT. You're describing the mythical absurdity of Anarchy; it's pure unadulterated idiocy... it claims to have no government, but the instant we begin the discussion and the simple concept of civil order is breeched, the theory of a government-less culture flies out the window, as the community organizes to defend itself from those who feel they're entitled to forcefully separate the community from that which they've produced absent due compensation...
That is absolutely, egregiously false. You have a similarly inaccurate misunderstanding of anarchism. Anarchism is not based on a lack of organization as you apparently believe. On the contrary, anarchism is based on a highly organized society, merely one that is organized through non-hierarchical means.
As I have said elsewhere, anarchism focuses on the abolition of the state and capitalism, and its replacement with federations of decentralized, non-hierarchical collectives that practiced some form of socialism.
Hence, public control without a state would essentially function through a federation of voluntary communes and syndicates that are democratically managed through participatory committees and workersÂ’ 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, though the Paris Commune was not strictly anarchist or libertarian socialist.
WorkersÂ’ councils would be specifically intended to address workersÂ’ 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 workersÂ’ 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 workersÂ’ councils for citizens who do not perform conventional work (such as parents with small children, the elderly, the disabled, the sick, etc.)
If the communityÂ’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 workersÂ’ 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.
Hence, anarchism is not synonymous with "chaos" or "disorder" as you inaccurately believe, and examples of non-hierarchical societies and organizations have existed in the past, though you have blatantly ignored their existence.
Hey Skippy, we've all read Hemmingway and sure.. the bell tolls for thee. But the Spanish Revolution did NOT produce a capital-free Anarchist culture... it did not produce a governmentless society where 'the people' controlled the means of production...
That falsehood reveals your blatant ignorance of historical fact.
Merely consider the words of the anti-authoritarian and anti-totalitarian author George Orwell, who wrote novels characterizing the brutality of authoritarian socialism. (i.e. state capitalism).
In his
Homage to Catalonia, he acknowledged the existence of a society characterized by free, libertarian socialism, which he as a libertarian socialist and anarchist sympathizer recognized the progressive value of.
George Orwell said:
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."This was in late December 1936, less than seven months ago as I write, and yet it is a period that has already receded into enormous distance. Later events have obliterated it much more completely than they have obliterated 1935, or 1905, for that matter. I had come to Spain with some notion of writing newspaper articles, but I had joined the militia almost immediately, because at that time and in that atmosphere it seemed the only conceivable thing to do. 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 dÃas'. 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.
I would advise you to familiarize yourself with reality before spewing nonsense.
The simple fact is, that such is a human impossibility... and it is such because of the nature of humanity; a nature which religion is designed to channel and religion is that which, you, the radical left REJECTS... thus you promote and encourage the very nature which makes your professed dreams impossible and you reject that which stands as the ONLY potential path to that which you profess. Which is the basis for my constantly heralded position that you people lack the means to reason; thus should NEVER be given ANY say, in any form. regarding cultural thresholds.
Your blathering about human nature is sheer nonsense, as you know nothing of human nature. You are blatantly unfamiliar with human nature. You also know nothing of the expansiveness of religion, and the manner in which Christian libertarian socialists like Leo Tolstoy, Ivan Illich, Adin Ballou, Léonce Crenier, and Dorothy Day, exemplified true Christian values so much more than grotesque clowns like Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, and Pat Robertson do.
Acts 2:42-45 said:
And they continued steadfastly in the apostlesÂ’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers. Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need.
Have you heard the good Dr. Dobson advocate
that recently?
You are similarly incorrect in implying that all forms of socialism are contrary to human nature. You obviously possess possess the inaccurate belief that socialism is based on some sense of altruism or charity, while maintaining that capitalism is more "natural" because it relies on economic self-interest. You likely also regard competition as the chief manifestation of "human nature." This belief ignores the ways in which cooperation, rather than competition, can serve in the self-interest of beings involved.
Consider the Prisoner's Dilemma. Suppose, for instance, that you had been falsely accused of a crime, along with another person. You are told that if you simply confess that the other person committed the crime, you will be released and he will be sentenced to thirty years in prison. However, he has been offered the exact same deal against you, and if you both accuse the other, you will both be spending fifteen years in prison. If neither one of you accuses the other, there will be no case against either one of you, and you will only be detained for a few months, and then released. This is an illustrative case regarding the merits of cooperation as opposed to competition.
The anarcho-communist Peter Kropotkin wrote a book entitled
Mutual Aid regarding the nature of cooperation rather than competition in natural circumstances, based on his observations during his time in Siberia.
The full text is available
here.
The validity of Kropotkin's work on this topic was affirmed by no less an authority than the evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould.
Stephen Jay Gould said:
The central logic of KropotkinÂ’s argument is simple, straightforward, and largely cogent...I would hold that KropotkinÂ’s basic argument is correct.
Stephen Jay Gould. Kropotkin Was No Crackpot, 1997 (Note: Kropotkin was not a Marxist himself; neither am I.)
Yes they did, they wouldn't work unless they got more money and there was nothing the company could do because their right to have such control is protected.
Any "failures" of capitalism are not to blame for their failure. The "successes" of capitalism are to blame because they were horrible business models with too much control given to idiots. And naturally, other - better companies rose up.
There were no "controls" given to idiots, and as autogestion was not implemented in the companies that you speak of, their failure cannot be regarded as a failure of autogestion. Conversely, autogestion
was implemented in the 200 worker managed workplaces in Argentina, which involve more than 15,000 workers. Yet, you have blatantly ignored these examples and continue to do so.
