ATTN Libertarian Socialists: how would you accumulate wealth without property? [Archive I]

duretti

May 17, 2007, 04:06 PM

An excellent intro to libertarian socialist/anarchist theory can be found here http://www.geocities.com/capitolHill/1931/.

As socialists, libertarian socialists would like to abolish current property relations. In *principle* under libertarian socialism everybody has equal ownership of all the societies wealth. How, in practice this is enacted is through democratic decisions and a system of use rights. Individuals or collectives are granted use rights to things by democratic decision.

These use rights are, I suppose, similar to current property rights - except conditions of use (ie not reintroducing capitalistic social relations) can be decided by democratic decision, and these use rights can be revoked at any time - again by democratic decision. An individuals wealth comprises of the items which he (and if applicable any collective of which he is a part) has use rights to. Exactly how he can accumulate more depends on exactly how it has been (democratically) decided to organise economic relations.

If you mean how will growth and innovation occur under this system, I advise you to investigate the spanish revolution. It does, and very well.

Alethias

May 17, 2007, 04:08 PM

An excellent intro to libertarian socialist/anarchist theory can be found here http://www.geocities.com/capitolHill/1931/.

If you consider this a valuable resource on the topic, please add it to the sticky of academic resources at the top of the page, with a short note explaining it. What I quoted here would be perfect.

*Hint, Hint*

duretti

May 17, 2007, 04:14 PM

Ok, but how do I do the thing so it says the name of the book on the link, instead of the website adress.

Bonniedundee

May 17, 2007, 04:15 PM

Preno

May 17, 2007, 04:16 PM

{URL=http://blah.blah}Anarchist FAQ{/URL}

Replace curly braces with "[", "]". (Also, I think http://www.anarchistfaq.org is a more representative address - and easier to remember - but that's just my preference.)

Fedor Emelianenko

May 17, 2007, 04:19 PM

duretti

May 17, 2007, 04:21 PM

does that mean someone could come into my house without knocking?

Well, if it was just *your* house, then only you would have use rights to it. So no.

Fedor Emelianenko

May 17, 2007, 04:23 PM

Also, about the wealth management through elections. hasn't that traditionally been a fiasco?

Nitrousoxide

May 17, 2007, 04:34 PM

So... If I can get half of the people in the society to work together, we can take all the wealth from the other half by vote and keep it for ourselves?

Sounds like a great system!

duretti

May 17, 2007, 04:51 PM

Also, about the wealth management through elections. hasn't that traditionally been a fiasco?

What exactly do you mean?

So... If I can get half of the people in the society to work together, we can take all the wealth from the other half by vote and keep it for ourselves?

Sounds like a great system!

If you can get anywhere near half the people in *any* society to work together against that society, then you can very easily overthrow it. Whats new? Doing this in practice, however, is extreemely dificult - and in the way and for the reasons you propose virtually impossible. How would you make your followers feel secure that they wouldn't be the ones getting their wealth taken - either initially or at some later stage?

Preno

May 17, 2007, 04:57 PM

So... If I can get half of the people in the society to work together, we can take all the wealth from the other half by vote and keep it for ourselves?

Sounds like a great system!Yes, and if you can get half of the people even in a parliamentary democracy to work together, you can pass laws that allow them to do almost anything they want. So what? The fact that there is no sign of this happening makes it sorta irrelevant.

Nitrousoxide

May 17, 2007, 04:59 PM

Seriously, trying to get a party of sorts together for the purpose of protecting our interests would be the very first thing I would do if such a system were enacted. I'd be terrified that another group of people would start up for the purpose of taking my "right to use stuff" away.

I'd give such a system about a week before either a vote is taken to remove half of the population's right to use stuff or the system breaks down into a bunch of small territories with local warlords.

Preno

May 17, 2007, 05:01 PM

duretti

May 17, 2007, 05:04 PM

I'd give such a system about a week before either a vote is taken to remove half of the population's right to use stuff or the system breaks down into a bunch of small territories with local warlords.

Well, in the real world, where such societies have existed, your fears did not materialise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Territory_%28Ukraine%29

Nitrousoxide

May 17, 2007, 05:05 PM

And why the hell would anyone do anything like that? Would you? I certainly wouldn't. And I dare say I don't know anyone who would "vote to remove half of the population's right to use stuff". If your theory says they would, then your theory ignores some basic facts of human nature.

Of course I would. Like I said, I would be terrified that another group would try the same exact thing. As it stands today, we don't have much to fear in this respect with our private property because people don't think it's either the government's reponsibility to delve out property usage rights.

As soon as that is taken out of the hands of individuals with their right to self-ownership and to own capital, people like me would be terrifed that other people would try to take away what they have.

Nitrousoxide

May 17, 2007, 05:07 PM

Well, in the real world, where such societies have existed, your fears did not materialise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Territory_%28Ukraine%29

Were I in a commune with 100 other people, I would find the 20 strongest people in that group and offer them a share of what the other 79 people have in exchange for their loyality to me.

It's the rational thing to do for self-interested people.

Communes don't work for any extended period of time without a strong central government to keep little mini warlords like me from springing up.

Fedor Emelianenko

May 17, 2007, 05:10 PM

What exactly do you mean?don't things like lobbying corrupt the process?

Preno

May 17, 2007, 05:13 PM

Were I in a commune with 100 other people, I would find the 20 strongest people in that group and offer them a share of what the other 79 people have in exchange for their loyality to me.

It's the rational thing to do for self-interested people.No, it's a rational thing for sociopaths to do. Most people aren't sociopaths.
Of course I would. Like I said, I would be terrified that another group would try the same exact thing. As it stands today, we don't have much to fear in this respect with our private property because people don't think it's either the government's reponsibility to delve out property usage rights.Sorry, but I don't believe that you would "vote to remove half of the population's right to use stuff", and I certainly don't believe that you if you tried would get any significant support. That's just your economic theory speaking instead of you yourself.

I mean, what the hell is stopping you from starting a party with a similar programme right now? Why don't we see "51 vs. 49%" parties like that? :huh:

Fedor Emelianenko

May 17, 2007, 05:14 PM

ya, i'm not sure this is very libertarian

duretti

May 17, 2007, 05:16 PM

Were I in a commune with 100 other people, I would find the 20 strongest people in that group and offer them a share of what the other 79 people have in exchange for their loyality to me.

It's the rational thing to do for self-interested people.

Communes don't work for any extended period of time without a strong central government to keep little mini warlords like me from springing up.

But were such a situation to arrise, the 20 strongest people would almost certainly be anarchists - like these guys:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durruti_Column
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Insurrectionary_Army_of_Ukraine

If you tried to "spring up as a mini warlord", people wouldnt like you, any you would likely be shot as a counterrevolutionary :D . Rational self interested people realise this and don't try - same as now.

duretti

May 17, 2007, 05:17 PM

ya, i'm not sure this is very libertarian

We feel the same way about "libertarian" capitalism.

Fedor Emelianenko

May 17, 2007, 05:18 PM

i thought libertarianism was all about personal freedom. isn't this completely abrogated when we submit to democracies (i.e. the rule of the mob)?

Nitrousoxide

May 17, 2007, 05:22 PM

No, it's a rational thing for sociopaths to do. Most people aren't sociopaths.
Sorry, but I don't believe that you would "vote to remove half of the population's right to use stuff", and I certainly don't believe that you if you tried would get any significant support. That's just your economic theory speaking instead of you yourself.

I mean, what the hell is stopping you from starting a party with a similar programme right now? Why don't we see "51 vs. 49%" parties like that? :huh:

Now now, let's not be throwing around insults. Self-interested people are out there, as much as socialists hate to admit it. And they throw huge wrenches into any idealistic socialist system.

I actually do think that parties which strive to take from the other do exist. Even in the US, we have weaker forms of those parties as they strive to give to their constituents at the expense of those who do not support them. Example: Taxes on rich people to provide for social programs for the poor. Example: Regulation in business to ensure that the rich stay rich be keeping competitors out of the market.

But it isn't as bad because people don't think the government or voting is the only method by which the right to use property should be apportioned. Were that the case, like you suggest, things would be far, far worse than they are now.

duretti

May 17, 2007, 05:30 PM

i thought libertarianism was all about personal freedom. isn't this completely abrogated when we submit to democracies (i.e. the rule of the mob)?

No, democracy and personal freedom have generally gone hand in hand throughout history. The libertarian socialist approach is generally a pragmatic one. What determines how a society runs is power and who has it. If people are given their atomised little domains which they have exclusive power over, we get inequalities of power, and when these become great enough the powerful can take away the personal freedom of the less powerful.

To secure freedom we must have what karl popper called free institutions, which prevent this - this means democracies, collectivism and the rule of the mob.

duretti

May 17, 2007, 05:33 PM

don't things like lobbying corrupt the process?

Sure. Under capitalism where you have special interest groups with huge concentrations of wealth/power. With property abolished, this is not so much a problem.

Fedor Emelianenko

May 17, 2007, 05:34 PM

No, democracy and personal freedom have generally gone hand in hand throughout history. The libertarian socialist approach is generally a pragmatic one. What determines how a society runs is power and who has it. If people are given their atomised little domains which they have exclusive power over, we get inequalities of power, and when these become great enough the powerful can take away the freedom fo the less powerful.will this short circuit the free market? are we talking about wealth redistribution that are subject to political winds?

To secure freedom we must have what karl popper called free institutions, which prevent this - this means democracies and the rule of the mob.does that mean we will still have inalienale rights?

Fedor Emelianenko

May 17, 2007, 05:35 PM

Sure. Under capitalism where you have special interest groups with huge concentrations of wealth/power. With property abolished, this is not so much a problem.true. mega corporations would not exist

duretti

May 17, 2007, 05:41 PM

will this short circuit the free market? are we talking about wealth redistribution that are subject to political winds?

*Socialism* remember. Generally speaking, markets (free or otherwise) are to be abolished - though libertarian socialists do differ on the extent of this. Anarchism is the other half of the radical left, and developed hand in hand with communism. The means of production are expropriated and collectivised etc etc. If you are interested in the details I recommend "The Anarchist Collectives" by Sam Dolgoff - goes into extensive detail about how the economy ran in the spanish revolution.

does that mean we will still have inalienale rights?

Do we have Inalienable rights now? Could we ever have inalienable rights? What is an inalienable right? By what force are they or could they ever be inalienable?

Fedor Emelianenko

May 17, 2007, 06:19 PM

*Socialism* remember. Generally speaking, markets (free or otherwise) are to be abolished - though libertarian socialists do differ on the extent of this. Anarchism is the other half of the radical left, and developed hand in hand with communism. The means of production are expropriated and collectivised etc etc. If you are interested in the details I recommend "The Anarchist Collectives" by Sam Dolgoff - goes into extensive detail about how the economy ran in the spanish revolution.I guess I was blindsided by the word "libertarian" lol. We're on completely different pages. doesn't collectivism diminishes individual responsibility. and that nationalized farms precipitated the great famine in China during the cultural revolution?
Do we have Inalienable rights now? Could we ever have inalienable rights? What is an inalienable right? By what force are they or could they ever be inalienable?property and life.

Law enforcement could simply be another function of the market. i believe private security outnumbers police by 3 to 1.

duretti

May 17, 2007, 06:34 PM

We're on completely different pages.

Indeed.

doesn't collectivism diminishes individual responsibility.

What do you mean by "individual responsibility"?

and that nationalized farms precipitated the great famine in China during the cultural revolution?

And private land ownership is a primary cause of the continual mass starvation in the third world. Authoritarian socialism as they had in china is no better than capitalism.

snip(rights to) property and life.

Decided on, made inalienable and enforced by who, exactly? You?

Law enforcement could simply be another function of the market. i believe private security outnumbers police by 3 to 1.

Sure, the rich hire thugs to beat the rabble into line. Sounds great.

Whats to stop those who pay the law enforcement from deciding that, actually, they would prefer it if the powerless didn't have rights - and that the "private law enforcement" should actively violate what were previously the "rights" of the powerless? What you are suggesting is feudalism, and its not nice.

Fedor Emelianenko

May 17, 2007, 06:54 PM

What do you mean by "individual responsibility"?there's a pretty good book out there about chinese communism called "wild swans". In it, the author describes how when farms were nationalized farmers ate to their hearts content, and leaned on the fact that some other guy would pick up the slack. there was also the great leap forward, but that's a side issue.
And private land ownership is a primary cause of the continual mass starvation in the third world. Authoritarian socialism as they had in china is no better than capitalism.i need a source on this
Decided on, made inalienable and enforced by who, exactly? You?i think it's a natural law, at least for anyone tied to the land. but if neccessary, we could make it part of the constitution in our new libertarian society.

there's a pretty disturbing video out there where you have a few hundred chinese farmers fighting back against government agents with farming tools against guns, because they are being forced off "government land". it seemed pretty inalienable to them.
Sure, the rich hire thugs to beat the rabble into line. Sounds great.competing security agencies would prevent that.

Whats to stop those who pay the law enforcement from deciding that actually they would prefer it if the powerless didn't have rights - and that the "private law enforcement" should actively violate what were previously the "rights" of the powerless? What you are suggesting is feudalism, and its not nice.you can make more money doing commerce with people vs robbing them.

duretti

May 17, 2007, 07:19 PM

there's a pretty good book out there about chinese communism called "wild swans". In it, the author describes how when farms were nationalized farmers ate to their hearts content, and leaned on the fact that some other guy would pick up the slack. there was also the great leap forward, but that's a side issue.

Ok. I'm not proposing the chinese model. I'm proposing the spanish model, and in the spanish revolution, where farms were colectivised, output generally increased massively. And, IMO, providing that the production of absolute necessities is not *seriously* threatened "individual responsibility" is not such a good thing.

i need a source on this

A source on what exactly? Do you deny that there is massive starvation in the third world? Or that much of the land is privately owned and used to grow cash crops to sell in the west? Were the land under the starving peoples democratic control instead, its blindingly obvious that they would use it to grow food for themselves.

i think it's a natural law

"Natural Law"? How cute. This is a freethought forum, and we like proof for metaphysical claims. Care to provide some?

but if neccessary, we could make it part of the constitution in our new libertarian society.

And who decides what goes into your little constitution and what exactly gives the constitution its force? Is is the people? If so, surely they can undecide whenever they wish, and therefore nothing is inalienable?

there's a pretty disturbing video out there where you have a few hundred chinese farmers fighting back against government agents with farming tools against guns, because they are being forced off "government land". it seemed pretty inalienable to them.

But not to the government troops, I would imagine. Did they get to keep their land? If not, how can you claim that their "right" to it was inalienable?

competing security agencies would prevent that.

Are you for real? How would that work? The most profitabe and so competitive security agencies would be the ones who offered to enslave the poor for the rich - as the rich are the ones who can pay the most so are the ones competitive agencies need to please.

you can make more money doing commerce with people vs robbing them.

Not always. And I think, generally, its the other way round - especially if you enslave them too. We are to be free only when it benefits the powerful? How very libertarian!

Fedor Emelianenko

May 17, 2007, 07:32 PM

Ok. I'm not proposing the chinese model. I'm proposing the spanish model, and in the spanish revolution, where farms were colectivised, output generally increased massively. And, IMO, providing that the production of absolute necessities is not *seriously* threatened "individual responsibility" is not such a good thing.so we're talking about a lack of competition and yet becoming more efficient because of it?

A source on what exactly? Do you deny that there is massive starvation in the third world? Or that much of the land is privately owned and used to grow cash crops to sell in the west? Were the land under the starving peoples democratic control instead, its blindingly obvious that they would use it to grow food for themselves.isn't it actually the case that the government, as superlandlord, has actually appropriated the land from 'private' hands and force people to do their bidding?
"Natural Law"? How cute. This is a freethought forum, and we like proof for metaphysical claims. Care to provide some?:(
And who decides what goes into your little constitution and what gives the constitution its force? Is is the people? If so, surely they can undecide whenever they wish, and therefore nothing is inalienable?it will have to be culturally indoctrinated. Just look at the caste system in India. that's pretty messed up, and yet somehow self-perpetuating. I think freedom and landownership is a much more appealing and powerful idea.
But not to the government troops, I would imagine. Did they get to keep their land? If not, how can you claim that their "right" to it was inalienable?the farmers had a greater will to win, which is why they stood their ground. My point with that though was that the concept of owning land is a birth right, especially to those who work it.
Are you for real? How would that work? The most profitabe and so competitive security agencies would be the ones who offered to enslave the poor for the rich - as the rich are the ones who can pay the most so are the ones competitive agencies need to please.that would require a monopoly type situation, which shouldn't happen in a real free market.
Not always. And I think generally its the other way round - especially if you enslave them too. We are to be free only when it benefits the powerful? How very libertarian!hmm. i agree there might be some kinks to work out.

Fedor Emelianenko

May 17, 2007, 07:34 PM

everyone always seems hung up on the libertarian model of law enforcement. I think the rest can be implemented pretty well though.

Fedor Emelianenko

May 17, 2007, 07:40 PM

Are you for real? How would that work? The most profitabe and so competitive security agencies would be the ones who offered to enslave the poor for the rich - as the rich are the ones who can pay the most so are the ones competitive agencies need to please.i just had a thought. what if the security forces were beholden to the business people, whose main priority is to just protect the property while creating a comfortable environment for their patrons? surely they're not interested in conflict.

duretti

May 17, 2007, 07:55 PM

so we're talking about a lack of competition and yet becoming more efficient because of it?

Yes.

Well, removing competition wasnt the only change, but competition was removed, and the economy became more efficient.

isn't it actually the case that the government, as superlandlord, has actually appropriated the land from 'private' hands and force people to do their bidding?

Not in the majority of cases, no. The land owners are most commonly multinational corporations.

:(

Well, the existence of "Natural Law" is a claim. Care to prove it?

iit will have to be culturally indoctrinated. Just look at the caste system in India. that's pretty messed up, and yet somehow self-perpetuating. I think freedom and landownership is a much more appealing and powerful idea.

Freedom yeah. Private property, not so much. And how, exactly, will you go about doing this "cultural indoctrination"? Doesn't sound very libertarian.

the farmers had a greater will to win, which is why they stood their ground. My point with that though was that the concept of owning land is a birth right, especially to those who work it.

What is a "birth right"? Can you prove that they had one?

ithat would require a monopoly type situation, which shouldn't happen in a real free market.

Why would a monopoly be needed? you could have 1000 different security organisations and it would make no difference.

Scenario:
A group of rich people go to one of the security orgainisations, and offer to pay them hansomely to enslave a bunch of poor people. The poor people cannot pay nearly as much, so have an inferior security organisation which cannot protect them against the better funded one. So they get enslaved. How will competition prevent this?

everyone always seems hung up on the libertarian model of law enforcement. I think the rest can be implemented pretty well though.

But when the law enforcement fails, everything goes to hell and is all for nothing.

duretti

May 17, 2007, 07:59 PM

i just had a thought. what if the security forces were beholden to the business people, whose main priority is to just protect the property while creating a comfortable environment for their patrons? surely they're not interested in conflict.

Of course they are. Ever heard of "class war"? Businesses must compete, and one way of doing so is cutting labour costs. An excellent way to do that would be to have the security forces enslave the poor.

Nitrousoxide

May 17, 2007, 08:10 PM

But were such a situation to arrise, the 20 strongest people would almost certainly be anarchists - like these guys:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durruti_Column
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Insurrectionary_Army_of_Ukraine

If you tried to "spring up as a mini warlord", people wouldnt like you, any you would likely be shot as a counterrevolutionary :D . Rational self interested people realise this and don't try - same as now.

Oh, give people a little taste of power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment) and they'll need more.

People aren't as kind hearted and egalitarian as you seem to think they are. It's amazing what a little bit of authority can do to any normal person.

People will strive for personal power in a utter and complete absence of any higher authority. They will attempt to become top dog. It's in our very nature.

duretti

May 17, 2007, 08:19 PM

Oh, give people a little taste of power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment) and they'll need more.

People aren't as kind hearted and egalitarian as you seem to think they are. It's amazing what a little bit of authority can do to any normal person.

People will strive for personal power in a utter and complete absence of any higher authority. They will attempt to become top dog. It's in our very nature.

Of course.

Which is why concentrations of power must be fought and eliminated, and power diffused amongst the population as much as possible. I don't think people are kind hearted and eglatarian - if they were, heirachial society would be fine. It is precisely *because* people are naturally power hungry that I am an anarchist.

People strive for power regardless of whether there is a "higher authority" or not. And those who tend to strive the most for said power are your "higher authorities".

In liberal democracy we have found certain mechanisms to prevent those who seek power from getting too far. Anarchism is the massive extention of these.

Nitrousoxide

May 17, 2007, 08:27 PM

Of course.

Which is why concentrations of power must be fought and eliminated, power diffused amongst the population as much as possible. I don't think people are kind hearted and eglatarian - if they were heirachial society would be fine. It is precisely *because* people are naturally power hungry that I am an anarchist.

People strive for power regardless of whether there is a "higher authority" or not. And those who tend to strive the most for said power are your "higher authorities".

In liberal democracy we have found certain mechanisms to prevent those who seek power from getting too far. Anarchism is the massive extention of these.

No, no, no. All Anarchism does is eliminate the existing structure which supports our decent authority figures. What takes it's place then? Your system where everyone is equal and no one has power? Pah! To remain in such a system is to deny human nature. The system is inherently unsustainable because it denies us the ability to express such a basic human feature.

It would ultimately be about as successful as a system which denies us the ability to have sex or play. Your system won't stop people from taking charge again. It must, because of human nature, ultimately fail.

Any system which denies it's participants the ability to express basic human desires is doomed to fail. The PROPER way to go about building a system is to note these human features and include in the system a means of expressing it. We have that in our systems. There are ways beneficial to society by which people can express their desire for control over others. To deny this though is make a system which is made not for humans, but for some idealized man, which does not exist.

There is nothing wrong with having some control or power over other people. This is where anarchists make yet another mistake. Not only do they create a system with no outlet for basic human needs, they have a mistaken notion of what it wrong and right about the world.

duretti

May 17, 2007, 08:40 PM

You completely misunderstand anarchism. It is *not* the complete absence of authority. It is a system where power is wielded by the masses through direct democracy, and the culturally embedded aim of the system is to *minimise* the excercise of authority.

Look up the Durutti Column or Makhno's insurectionary army of ukraine (I linked both). They were *armies* which slaughtered their enemies to defend their anarchist societies.

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

May 17, 2007, 08:47 PM

I am a libertarian socialist in theory but a democratic socialist in practice, so do I get to respond?

Nitrousoxide

May 17, 2007, 08:59 PM

It's not merely enough that man should have the ability to do things. He needs to dominate. It is written into our very genes that we try to dominate the tribe or group. Anarchism denies this. Man is not permitted to dominate others in any way, shape, or form. Why is that they try and do this? It is because of a mistaken belief that having power over others is somehow inherently wrong. It is not. There may be certain expressions of power over others which are wrong, but there is not a problem to the extent which the anarchists see.

I ask you then, what degrees of power over others are wrong. Why is it that your democratic notion which permits some power over others is better than an autocratic system, or a plutocratic system? Why is it a 50% majority rather than a 2/3 majority? Why not unanimity?

Anarchists are not only guilty of denying us the means of expressing our need to dominate. They are also guilty of making special exceptions for similar cases. Power over others is bad, except when it is done by the majority? It’s a ridiculous claim.

Fedor Emelianenko

May 17, 2007, 09:00 PM

libertarianism isn't about zero government, but rather freemarket government, where you can pick the one you like most.

for example, upon entering a 7-11 they mandate that you have a shirt and shoes if you want service. this is a form of "government".

If on the otherhand you find that too authoritarian, you could not patronize a 7-11 but instead go to a place where they let you walk in naked.

it's about CHOICE. And since people are generally interested in making money, the various "governments" would only try to make things easier for you, while balancing against things like safety/discomfort of other patrons.

duretti

May 17, 2007, 09:18 PM

I'd like you to state clearly, the exact mechanism by which you think "mans desire to dominate others" will undermine an anarchist society. You see, in any society, there are those who dont get to dominate - usually because they are the ones being dominated. But that doesn't make society collapse - because they don't have the power to do anything about it. Same goes for wannabe warlords in an anarchist society.

And I'm sure there would be plenty of outlets for peoples dominating *instincts* - you can play S&M or whatever to your hearts content - just so long as your submissives agree.

I can't speak for all anarchists, but I think its a fair bet that most of us are moral subjectivists - so no, we don't nescissarily think that authority (or anything else) is intrisnically wrong.

Our objections are practical. The more power people have, the more they can use it to get more power - and to take away others power over themselves. And only by having a power over themselves can someone ensure a decent life. Which is why we want power diffused. How power is to be excercised is a tactical consideration, based on the aim of minimising authority - not one based on a set of moral rules. Sometimes 2/3 majority or uninamity may be more appropriate.

coloradoatheist

May 17, 2007, 09:19 PM

Well I myself favour mutualism, which is free market but I know alot about other forms of libertarianism and libertarian socialism.

Basically they would simply put aside some of the past labour(which is what capital is.) and invest this later, rather simple.

Of course, like a free market or any other libertarian system there would be less accumulation than in this statist system, but that wouldn't matter, because first you'd have far more liberty and secondly more local and decentralised technology can make up most gaps.

Can I ask you how we accumulate wealth in this system that regularly violates legitimate property rights and always has?

You mean the 70% of people that are working toward owing their own home or the people who have stashed away enough money in their 401K's to retire and lot of people retiring before the govt steps in?

Duretti, the spanish revolution and the Ukraine lasted a whopping 2 and 3 years and the spanish revolution was mired in a civil war. Somalia is a good example of anarchy with warlords having control.

Mike

duretti

May 17, 2007, 09:29 PM

Duretti, the spanish revolution and the Ukraine lasted a whopping 2 and 3 years and the spanish revolution was mired in a civil war. Somalia is a good example of anarchy with warlords having control.

Mike

The fact that the spanish/ukrainian revolutions were crushed by external force does not invalidate the ideas which underpinned them. Both were mired in civil war, but that makes the sucesses briefly achieved more, not less, indicative that the ideas are sound. They still prove all the points I bring them up to prove. Anarchism has revisionist as well as revolutionary forms - see, for example, Noam Chomsky.

As warlords have control, somalia is clearly not anarchy.

coloradoatheist

May 17, 2007, 09:33 PM

The fact that the spanish/ukrainian revolutions were crushed by external force does not invalidate the ideas which underpinned them. Both were mired in civil war, but that makes the sucesses briefly achieved more, not less, indicative that the ideas are sound. They still prove all the points I bring them up to prove. Anarchism has revisionist as well as revolutionary forms - see, for example, Noam Chomsky.

As warlords have control, somalia is clearly not anarchy.

Somalia is the example of what happens with anarchy. No stabalizing force turns intochaos and people will gravitate toward a stabilizing force which is what a warlord does. The anarchy in Spain lasted that long just because they were in a civil war.

Mike

duretti

May 17, 2007, 09:39 PM

Somalia is the example of what happens with anarchy. No stabalizing force turns intochaos and people will gravitate toward a stabilizing force which is what a warlord does. The anarchy in Spain lasted that long just because they were in a civil war.

Mike

No, the anarchy in spain lasted that long because there was a massive anarchist movement which fought the fascists heroically, and built an anarchist society behind the lines. The civil war was hugely detrimental to the anarchist movement, forcing them to compromise with the liberals and communists, and eventually defeating them. Francos coup triggered the anarchist revolution - but beyond this, I challenge you to demonstrate how the war aided the cause of the anarchists.

There is no or negligable anarchist movement in somalia, and the conditions there were not the result of an anarchist movement. To claim that somalia represents anarchism is horrendous slander. Anarchism, as anarchists define it is not simply the absense of "government" - you understand this right?

coloradoatheist

May 17, 2007, 09:47 PM

duretti

May 17, 2007, 09:53 PM

Because of the war, they could stand behindan united purpose to fight off the spanish govt, if they had won the war it would have insued into chaos and not lasted unless once person stepped up and became the govt just like Stalin or Mao did.

Or unless the CNT and the federation of collectives that the anarchists set up formed the governing body? As would likely have occured.

Somalia wasn't lead by people who wanted no state, there was just a system of no state.

But anarchism isn't just no state.

Loren Pechtel

May 18, 2007, 12:16 AM

Libertarian socialist = oxymoron.

A libertarian was small government. A socialist wants big government.

Bonniedundee

May 18, 2007, 12:49 AM

ya, i'm not sure this is very libertarianThe word libertarian was created as a synonym for anarchism, if libertarian socialism/anarchism is not libertarian in your mind then you have got libertarianism wrong not anarchism/libertarian socialism.

Bonniedundee

May 18, 2007, 12:51 AM

Libertarian socialist = oxymoron.

A libertarian was small government. A socialist wants big government.Well firstly you are a massive statist yourself and no libertarian of any description so what would you know? You actually argue it is better for the state to help corporations for "progress" rather than have free markets.

Secondly libertarian socialism or anarchism was the original meaning of the word when it was invented in the 1840s and still is in the world outside the US.
If you think it is an oxymoron then you don't understand the word libertarian.

Bonniedundee

May 18, 2007, 12:59 AM

Really there is little difference between real libertarianism or decentralism whether "left" or "right", "capitalist" or "socialist" in a state less society it would all be very similar.

If you are real libertarian, and by that I don't mean a moderate american style one who simply wants a strict constitutional gov't but an actual one, even a traditionally "right" or "capitalist" one, you should be able to see that lbiertarian socialism is far closer to your philosophy than most others, certainly all outside radical decentralism and anarchism.

This is one of the great problems with radical decentralism and libertarianism, that people are unwilling to look past such trivial differences and band together, instead you've got your social anarchist demonising the ancaps and vice versa and all that crap.

thefugitivesaint

May 18, 2007, 01:44 AM

I have no desire to derail this thread but i have to interject with some skepticism.

Nitrousoxide:
It's not merely enough that man should have the ability to do things. He needs to dominate. It is written into our very genes that we try to dominate the tribe or group.

In one form or another you have repeated this assertion as a self-evident fact. It is not. There is no consensus on what "human nature" is. Our selfish impulses are no greater then our social needs. Culture is the field where our innate traits are developed and certain cultures emphasize certain traits over others given its worldview. Our Paleolithic ancestors, given existing evidence, held a worldview quite different then we do today. The way of life for those hunter-gatherer people was radically altered in the Neolithic given the rise of agriculture, sedentary living and the domestication of animals. The environment of our species changed as we changed as a species. Much of the behavior of "civilization" is normalized pathology. Comparisons to primates and other social species demonstrate that the loss of habitat and the increase of population densities have increasingly severe affects on the behavior of those species. What we observe in contemporary culture as "natural" expressions of our evolutionary heritage may be relatively new. The science of human behavior is far from complete and statements bordering on some kind of "genetic" absolutism are unwarrented.

This is a very incomplete objection and does not provide an adequate account of why i raise it, BTW. If you want to discuss this topic at length, i would be more then happy to oblige you.
-theSaint

toth8

May 18, 2007, 03:14 AM

will this short circuit the free market? are we talking about wealth redistribution that are subject to political winds?

does that mean we will still have inalienale rights?

Wise up; inalienable rights don't exist. :grin:

Preno

May 18, 2007, 06:10 AM

Now now, let's not be throwing around insults. Self-interested people are out there, as much as socialists hate to admit it. And they throw huge wrenches into any idealistic socialist system.What insults? Anyway, being self-interested and being sociopathic is something quite different. Only sociopaths might "vote to remove half of the population's right to use stuff", I'm afraid. Normal people care a bit about other people. You seem to have this bizarre and incorrect dichotomy of 'complete altruists' vs. 'sociopaths'.
I actually do think that parties which strive to take from the other do exist. Even in the US, we have weaker forms of those parties as they strive to give to their constituents at the expense of those who do not support them. Example: Taxes on rich people to provide for social programs for the poor. Example: Regulation in business to ensure that the rich stay rich be keeping competitors out of the market.Yes, but that again is something quite different from "voting to remove half of the population's right to use stuff".
But it isn't as bad because people don't think the government or voting is the only method by which the right to use property should be apportioned. Were that the case, like you suggest, things would be far, far worse than they are now.I don't think anyone's suggesting that. There are bound to be rules (democratically decided on) to the usage of objects.

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

May 18, 2007, 06:14 AM

Libertarian socialist = oxymoron.

A libertarian was small government. A socialist wants big government.
How does an anarcho-syndicalist want big government?

duretti

May 18, 2007, 08:05 AM

Really there is little difference between real libertarianism or decentralism whether "left" or "right", "capitalist" or "socialist" in a state less society it would all be very similar.

...

This is one of the great problems with radical decentralism and libertarianism, that people are unwilling to look past such trivial differences and band together, instead you've got your social anarchist demonising the ancaps and vice versa and all that crap.

Similar in theory, completely irreconcilable in practice. Of course, unnecessary sectarianism must be avoided at all costs. I am very interested to hear how you think such a banding together could work.

From our perspective, theory and tactics are inseperable. The tactics which have worked have always been a movement built as "a society as we would like it in the shell of the old", as part of the labour movement, its main focus opposition to capitalism. Other than playing into the hands of commie propaganda against us and preventing potentially much more productive alliances with state socialists, how do you see an alliance with a fringe group of radical capitalists helping us to do this.

Left and Right Libertarianism are built on completely different conceptions of how society works, and how to go about changing it.

John the Baathist

May 18, 2007, 10:55 AM

No, the anarchy in spain lasted that long because there was a massive anarchist movement which fought the fascists heroically, and built an anarchist society behind the lines. The civil war was hugely detrimental to the anarchist movement, forcing them to compromise with the liberals and communists, and eventually defeating them. Francos coup triggered the anarchist revolution - but beyond this, I challenge you to demonstrate how the war aided the cause of the anarchists.

As you may have noticed the Spanish Civil War started with Franco's military coup against the democratically elected Republican Government, which was composed of a fairly broad spectrum of political views. The anarchist revolution was only a minor part of the Spanish Civil War.

The war aided the cause of the anarchists, because they received much needed weapons and supplies from the Soviets.
Not to mention the support from the International Brigades, or were they anarchists as well?

The support of collectivization in certain portions of Spain during the Civil War had more to do with a broader support of socialism and progressive reforms than any supposed validity of a particular brand of anarchist theory.

Simply put, the Republican side gathered a broader support from the Spanish population than the anarchists on their own ever could.
The anarchists rode the coattails of a broader political movement.

Or unless the CNT and the federation of collectives that the anarchists set up formed the governing body? As would likely have occurred.

Seeing in retrospect how these anarchists were so easily betrayed and defeated because of those foul Liberal and Bolsheviks traitors, how would that have been likely?

Of course, unnecessary sectarianism must be avoided at all costs.

Of course... But one would not wish to compromise with liberals and communists or those horrendous state socialists.

This is the main problem in radical left wing politics.
They're all so zealously convinced of their own particular brand of ideology that any mention of co-operation and democracy is little more than lip service.

John the Baathist

May 18, 2007, 12:27 PM

Since I was bored I decided to raise some more objections to your posts. :)

And who decides what goes into your little constitution and what exactly gives the constitution its force? Is it the people? If so, surely they can undecide whenever they wish, and therefore nothing is inalienable?

In liberal democracy we have found certain mechanisms to prevent those who seek power from getting too far. Anarchism is the massive extention of these.

Anarchism removes any checks and balances a constitutional democracy has and replaces it with mob rule.
You yourself show a disdain for constitutions and inalienable rights and prefer mob rule which you confuse with direct democracy.

You cite Mahkno as an example, unfortunately he is a highly controversial figure but a perfectly good example of mob rule.

The Makhno anarchists, Kronstadt and the position of the Russian peasants in post-revolutionary Russia

Of all the peasant movements which sought to play the middle-ground, the most famous was that led by Makhno in the Ukraine from 1918 to 1921. This military force was a typical peasant army, unchanged from the old Medieval-era structure – possessing both the strengths and weaknesses of that form. Makhno’s militia began as a guerrilla force formed when Germany occupied the Ukraine in 1918. These guerrillas excelled in their own sphere of action, but couldn’t stand firm against an extended clash with a regular army. While these guerrillas operated in their home areas, they could expect help from locals. But, when fighting away from their home villages, they lived by banditry and as a result lost support from most people.

Makhno led a peasant movement, and so never had a strong base of support in any of the cities. Most of the workers who lived in areas of the Ukraine under Makhno’s control sided either with the Bolsheviks or the Mensheviks. The following examples illustrate the attitude that Makhno had towards the working class. When railway and telegraph workers from the Ekaterinoslav-Sinelnikovo line were still suffering after a long period of starvation under Denikin’s occupation, they asked Makhno to pay them for their work. He responded with, “We are not like the Bolsheviks to feed you, we don’t need the railways; if you need money, take the bread from those who need your railways and telegraphs.” In a separate incident, he told the workers of Briansk, “Because the workers do not want to support Makhno’s movement and demand pay for the repairs of the armoured car, I will take this armoured car for free and pay nothing.” (1) Jakovlev J. Machnovshina I Anarchizm

With clashes between peasants and landlords on the one hand, and clashes between peasants and workers on the other, Makhno was pressed to institute policies that were far from “libertarian”. The real conditions of life for the peasants of the Ukraine from 1919-1921 were cruel and repressive. The cities in Makhno’s territories were not ruled by Soviets. Instead, they were ruled by mayors drawn from Makhno’s military forces. Makhno’s movement was severely centralized, with the leadership in the RevCom deciding everything. Makhno even established a police-security organization (!) led by Leo Zadov (Zinkovsky), a former worker-anarchist who was to become notorious for his brutality. Incidentally, in the early 1920s Zadov returned to the USSR – to join the GPU! He was rewarded for his services with his own execution in 1937. In the Ukraine, we see clearly that the anarchists were committing the same crimes that they accused the Bolsheviks of.

In order to acquire supplies and equipment, Makhno would sometimes ally himself with the Red Army. However, he always refused to accept the Red Army’s discipline and order. In order to get food, Makhno’s forces robbed not only villages under their control but also Red Army convoys. This caused many conflicts. Finally, in 1921, actions like these played a part in the decisive split between Makhno and the Soviet State. It was at this time that Makhno and his anarchist advisors lost support from the peasants as a result of the New Economic Policy of the Bolsheviks, which replaced prodrazverstka with a bread tax. After a short period of battles, Makhno’s militia was crushed. Nestor Makhno himself escaped to Romania, while the majority of his fighters capitulated and received an amnesty.

Although the source is some kind of Trotskyist, most historical accounts reflect poorly on Nestor Mahkno.
Only the anarchists seem to look favorably upon him and that wasn't even the case during his own lifetime but is a fairly recent development.

Anarchism has revisionist as well as revolutionary forms - see, for example, Noam Chomsky.

So after we denounce the revisionist Chomsky, then what?
Shall we put him against the wall for his reactionary writings?

I seriously recommend putting away the absolutist world view.

duretti

May 18, 2007, 01:30 PM

The war aided the cause of the anarchists, because they received much needed weapons and supplies from the Soviets. Not to mention the support from the International Brigades, or were they anarchists as well?

Without the war, and an Francos legions to contend with, why would the anarchists have needed any of this? The soviets deliberately kept weapons from the anarchists (and left wing communists), using their supply of weapons to undermine the revolution.

The support of collectivization in certain portions of Spain during the Civil War had more to do with a broader support of socialism and progressive reforms than any supposed validity of a particular brand of anarchist theory.

"In certain portions"? Probably. In the overwhelming majority of cases? Absolutely not.

Simply put, the Republican side gathered a broader support from the Spanish population than the anarchists on their own ever could.

Sure. But much of the republican side was actively trying to destroy the revolution.

Seeing in retrospect how these anarchists were so easily betrayed and defeated because of those foul Liberal and Bolsheviks traitors, how would that have been likely?

It was only possible for the Bolsheviks and Liberals to undermine the revolution because of the war - by playing to security fears and selectively supplying weapons.

Of course... But one would not wish to compromise with liberals and communists or those horrendous state socialists.

No, not when they are *actively trying to destroy the revolution* - as they were in spain. You don't generally compromise with those who want to destroy your society.

Anarchism removes any checks and balances a constitutional democracy has and replaces it with mob rule.

What exactly do you mean by "mob rule"? Anarchism replaces it with direct democracy, and removes the concentrations of wealth and power which so skew constitutional democracy.

You yourself show a disdain for constitutions and inalienable rights

Damn straight.

- - - - -

What you have quoted on Makhno is, as you admit trotskyist. Its about as reliable as quoting a nazi to denounce the french resistance. History is largely written by the victors (in this case the bolsheviks), of course they will reflect poorly on their enemies.

How have I "denounced" chomsky? I think he is great. I cite him precisely to prove that anarchists are not nescissarily revolutionary impossiblists. Whether revolution or revisionism is more appropriate depends on the circumstances.

John the Baathist

May 18, 2007, 05:12 PM

Without the war, and an Francos legions to contend with, why would the anarchists have needed any of this? The soviets deliberately kept weapons from the anarchists (and left wing communists), using their supply of weapons to undermine the revolution.

What if the sky would have been purple?
Most of this comes across as wishful thinking.

The civil war was a logical consequence of social tensions in Republican Spain, there is no possibility of taking the war out of the equation.
You can't simply think away any of the factions from the equation, the fascists and communist and what not, where there to deal with.

If you add up all the different factions compromising Spain during the Civil War; ranging from the monarchist to the communists, the anarchists were no more than a small minority. Why would the anarchists have needed to ally themselves with the Republican side otherwise?

It would have been impossible for them to achieve any sort of transition to stateless communism / anarchism, there simply was not enough popular support for them alone. There wasn't even enough popular support for the more moderate reforms advocated by the broader Republican government which was to eventually lead to the Spanish Civil War.

But much of the republican side was actively trying to destroy the revolution.

The Republicans were trying to hold a country together and prevent it from sliding into complete destruction.
The anarchists burning churches and murdering the clergy and all didn't help much in keeping the country together.

What exactly do you mean by "mob rule"? Anarchism replaces it with direct democracy, and removes the concentrations of wealth and power which so skew constitutional democracy.

Mob rule is when the rights of minorities aren't protected from the rule of a majority. The rejection of constitutional and inalienable rights remove any protective checks and balances in government and instead enhance an overall lawlessness and enforce the idea of might makes right.

Let me put it this way, how would you deal with your political adversaries after the revolution?
Do they get to partake in your direct democracy as well?

Anarchism has revisionist as well as revolutionary forms - see, for example, Noam Chomsky.

How have I "denounced" chomsky? I think he is great. I cite him precisely to prove that anarchists are not nescissarily revolutionary impossiblists. Whether revolution or revisionism is more appropriate depends on the circumstances.

This has be the first times I have seen the term "revisionism" used in a positive way. The labeling of someone as revisionist is almost always used negatively as a denouncement for failing to adhere to orthodox doctrine, therefor I misread your meaning of Chomsky as a revisionist great guy. Perhaps you meant reformism, otherwise it's a strange use of the term.

I don't care much about Mahkno, one way or the other. But I think you'll be hard pressed to find any sources claiming him to be Robin Hood incarnate from any other sources than anarchist ones.

Bonniedundee

May 18, 2007, 07:13 PM

Similar in theory, completely irreconcilable in practice. Not really they even closer in practice. Any ancap society built on legitimate lockean property rights, which adequetely deals with past statist tainting of legitimate rights, will create a society that is distributionist at worst.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism

With many small capitalist entreprises, co-ops and the self-employed, with only a small wealth disparity between rich and poor in a very decentralsied and local economy.
It is not the market that creates large wealth disparities, monopolies, centralisation and even large industry of any stripe, it is the state.

Of course, unnecessary sectarianism must be avoided at all costs. I am very interested to hear how you think such a banding together could work.Easy each local community chooses the property rights system used in its vicinity, as long as that system is conducive to self-ownership and natural rights.
This includes lockean(ancap.), georgist, mutualist, syndaclist, communist etc etc.
And they also decide what they want to do with todays completely state tainted property.

From our perspective, theory and tactics are inseperable. The tactics which have worked have always been a movement built as "a society as we would like it in the shell of the old", as part of the labour movement, its main focus opposition to capitalism. Other than playing into the hands of commie propaganda against us and preventing potentially much more productive alliances with state socialists, how do you see an alliance with a fringe group of radical capitalists helping us to do this.
Capitalism to these people means free exchange, that is all. The actual existing economy that we call capitalism and which is completely full of state coercion is not what they mean by capitalism.
They have different tactics, that is for sure, but so do many groups of anarchists, I'm a mutualist and we are not really the old class struggle anarchists, I think that era is over, in the west there are few workers fired up for socialism let alone anarchism.
We need a different approach anyway.

Left and Right Libertarianism are built on completely different conceptions of how society works, and how to go about changing it.Well when the strawmen are removed their are of coruse still differencess, but not too many and synsthesis can certainly be sort, as it can between social anarchism and many other kinds of anarchism(like mutualism, geoanarchism etc.) and radical decentralism(the school of living etc etc.)

I'm of course talking about real libertarians among the right, the kind that want radical decentralism, not just some of the American kind who want a strict constitutional gov't.

John the Baathist

May 19, 2007, 05:56 AM

From our perspective, theory and tactics are inseperable. The tactics which have worked have always been a movement built as "a society as we would like it in the shell of the old", as part of the labour movement, its main focus opposition to capitalism. Other than playing into the hands of commie propaganda against us and preventing potentially much more productive alliances with state socialists, how do you see an alliance with a fringe group of radical capitalists helping us to do this.

They have different tactics, that is for sure, but so do many groups of anarchists, I'm a mutualist and we are not really the old class struggle anarchists, I think that era is over, in the west there are few workers fired up for socialism let alone anarchism.
We need a different approach anyway.

Ancaps and mutualists have clearly opposing views in regard to collectivist and communist anarchists.
For example; the preservation of private ownership as advocated by mutualists is rejected entirely by the collectivists.

Although there are some converging theoretical similarities, in reality they can drink each other's blood.
Besides ancaps are an even smaller minority in the anarchist movement than the entire anarchist movement in general is a minute minority...

Maybe you guys could hook up with the Luddites as well.
If not, welcome to the 21st century and enjoy your stay! :wave:

duretti

May 21, 2007, 10:28 AM

What if the sky would have been purple?
Most of this comes across as wishful thinking.

Hold on. You tell me that the anarchists only achieved what they did because of the war. I rebutt and explain that without the war the anarchists would have done much better. You then accuse me of wishful thinking? Its your hypothetical scenario.

It would have been impossible for them to achieve any sort of transition to stateless communism / anarchism, there simply was not enough popular support for them alone. There wasn't even enough popular support for the more moderate reforms advocated by the broader Republican government which was to eventually lead to the Spanish Civil War.

There was more than enough popular support for the Republican goivernment. Francos takeover was a *military coup* - not a popular insurection. The anarchists may not have had enough support in all of spain, but they certainly did in catalonia and much of aragon. With a hypothetical quick republican victory, there would likely have been a secession.

The Republicans were trying to hold a country together and prevent it from sliding into complete destruction.
The anarchists burning churches and murdering the clergy and all didn't help much in keeping the country together.

I want hard evidence that clergy were murdered by anarchist forces. You sir are regurgitating fascist propaganda. There were murders of clergy by civilian mobs, but nothing like on the scale they were reported. Why should the people have "kept the country together" - that was the fascists mission.

As an inferiorly armed military force, you do not fight fascism symetrically. You play to your strengths - which in the case of the spanish civil war was popular support - by doing as much as you can to show the people the better world you are offering them. You smash the rotten old order which fascism defends wherever you find it, and you supress organs of fascist propaganda.

Mob rule is when the rights of minorities aren't protected from the rule of a majority. The rejection of constitutional and inalienable rights remove any protective checks and balances in government and instead enhance an overall lawlessness and enforce the idea of might makes right.

There is no such thing as right, John, but, as they say, might *does* make. Constitutional checks and balances merely obscure this fact from the people, and have no real force. They decieve and disempower the people, further stratifying power, and only work when might is behind them anyway.

People must see the world as it is, and that power belongs to them, not scraps of paper, politicians or 'morals'. Minorities should be protected by the development of a tolerant culture, and the removal of concentrations of power from other minorities - this being the only way which has ever worked anyway.

Let me put it this way, how would you deal with your political adversaries after the revolution?
Do they get to partake in your direct democracy as well?

Yes, or else we live in separate places. Without popular support a society organised on anarchist principles cannot work. We will of course do our best to persuade them.

This has be the first times I have seen the term "revisionism" used in a positive way. The labeling of someone as revisionist is almost always used negatively as a denouncement for failing to adhere to orthodox doctrine, therefor I misread your meaning of Chomsky as a revisionist great guy. Perhaps you meant reformism, otherwise it's a strange use of the term.

Revisionism and reformism are synoymous. Just because lenninists use it as a curse word doesn't stop it having a meaning which I think is a positive thing in certain situations.

I don't care much about Mahkno, one way or the other. But I think you'll be hard pressed to find any sources claiming him to be Robin Hood incarnate from any other sources than anarchist ones.

Well, if you researched the ukrainian revolution and found out that anarchism works brilliantly, you'd probably become an anarchist :D. Also, pretty much every non-anarchist source on Makhno is regurgitating the bolsheviks. History is written by the victors.

duretti

May 21, 2007, 10:33 AM

Ok Euro, in a hypothetical future revolutionary situation, where ancaps have significant power, we will implement your proposal. I meant what good would an alliance be now and how would it work?

Whilst people don't call class war as such, there is still opposition to capitalism. We find stronger allies in the "anti-globalisation" movement than in the ancaps methinks. In much of the third world, syndicalism remains a viable strategy.

John the Baathist

May 21, 2007, 05:01 PM

Hold on. You tell me that the anarchists only achieved what they did because of the war. I rebutt and explain that without the war the anarchists would have done much better. You then accuse me of wishful thinking? Its your hypothetical scenario.

Do you realize what hypothetical means?

A hypothetical scenario would be something like this;
Without a war which was caused due to opposition to radical social reforms, these same radical social reforms would have realized a workers paradise.

I think you'll find it to be your hypothetical scenario.

My claim is that the anarchists benefited from the war because they were supplied with Soviet arms, Republican funds, Socialist allies and gathered more widespread support from the Spanish population since they were now part of a broader coalition.

There was more than enough popular support for the Republican goivernment. Francos takeover was a *military coup* - not a popular insurection. The anarchists may not have had enough support in all of spain, but they certainly did in catalonia and much of aragon. With a hypothetical quick republican victory, there would likely have been a secession.

Like you said Catalonia and much of Aragon are hardly the whole of Spain, so there goes your claim for widespread anarchist support.

A quick Republican victory and a subsequent secession of these areas are both purely hypothetical.

Besides I never claimed Franco's takeover was a popular insurrection, read my previous post when I said:

As you may have noticed the Spanish Civil War started with Franco's military coup against the democratically elected Republican Government...

That many parts of Spain sided with Franco when the Civil War began indicates that there was enough support for Franco in roughly half of Spain.
Their support for Franco came because of dissatisfaction with the Republican government and fear of possible radical social reforms.

I want hard evidence that clergy were murdered by anarchist forces. You sir are regurgitating fascist propaganda. There were murders of clergy by civilian mobs, but nothing like on the scale they were reported.

And these civilian mobs were all devout Catholics perhaps?
If not then I'll have to go with general historic consensus;

13 bishops, 4184 diocesan priests, 2365 male religious among them 114 Jesuits and 283 nuns were murdered.

Antony James Beevor is a British historian, educated at Winchester College and Sandhurst.
He studied under the famous historian of World War II, John Keegan.

Why should the people have "kept the country together" - that was the fascists mission.

You will find that most normal people sincerely dislike living in a country torn apart by civil war and running the risk of them and their loved ones getting killed.

As an inferiorly armed military force, you do not fight fascism symetrically. You play to your strengths - which in the case of the spanish civil war was popular support - by doing as much as you can to show the people the better world you are offering them.

I'm sure popular support is an effective weapon against bullets and bombs.
It even won the anarchists the Spanish Civil War, oh wait that's right it didn't.

You smash the rotten old order which fascism defends wherever you find it, and you supress organs of fascist propaganda.

I'm not quite sure where my organ for fascist propaganda is located on my body.
But I'll ask my doctor to check it out before you might do me bodily harm by suppressing it.

There is no such thing as right, John, but, as they say, might *does* make. Constitutional checks and balances merely obscure this fact from the people, and have no real force. They decieve and disempower the people, further stratifying power, and only work when might is behind them anyway.

People must see the world as it is, and that power belongs to them, not scraps of paper, politicians or 'morals'. Minorities should be protected by the development of a tolerant culture, and the removal of concentrations of power from other minorities - this being the only way which has ever worked anyway.

This oppressed prole likes his constitutional rights, freedom of speech and right to vote.
I also appreciate the peace and stability these pieces of paper bring in my country.

Strangely enough it seems there is a majority which thinks the same way.
Now how democratic is that?

Yes, or else we live in separate places. Without popular support a society organised on anarchist principles cannot work. We will of course do our best to persuade them.

Segregation seems like a great basis for a society. :rolleyes:
However it does me well to know that when people in general get tired of every-one in the commune using their toothbrush they can simply choose to abolish the entire system.

Revisionism and reformism are synoymous.

No, they're not synonymous words at all.

Reformism is the belief that gradual changes in a society can ultimately change its fundamental structures.

While revisionism means the critical reexamination of things previously held to be facts. In the Marxist use of the word it would refer to a revision of fundamental Marxist premises. The term is most often used by those Marxists who believe that such revisions are unwarranted and represent a "watering down" or abandonment of Marxism.

Well, if you researched the ukrainian revolution and found out that anarchism works brilliantly, you'd probably become an anarchist

Maybe I'll even stop regurgitating fascist propaganda! :)
Or maybe I already did and find a peasant army on horseback running around, pillaging and murdering the other peasants not that impressive.

Preno

May 21, 2007, 05:33 PM

Autonemesis

May 21, 2007, 05:35 PM

does that mean someone could come into my house without knocking?

You mean the police? Yes, if it is warranted. Property requires enforcement, which sometimes necessarily entails coming into your house without knocking.

Bonniedundee

May 21, 2007, 08:23 PM

Ok Euro, in a hypothetical future revolutionary situation, where ancaps have significant power, we will implement your proposal. I meant what good would an alliance be now and how would it work?You'd just let the local community or common law choose the system of property used in the area, as long as that system was conducive with self-ownership. And I believe equally valid cases can be made this way for communist, syndaclist, mutualist, geoist and lockean rights.

Whilst people don't call class war as such, there is still opposition to capitalism. We find stronger allies in the "anti-globalisation" movement than in the ancaps methinks. In much of the third world, syndicalism remains a viable strategy.We'd find string allies in each, to ancaps capitalism just means voluntary action based legitimate property rights conducive to self-ownership, all anarchists can fit this description.
They don't mean what we mean, which is the actual semi-state, semi-market economy we live in.

Murray Rothbard for instance suggests that all publically listed companies are outgrowths of the state and therefore as the state cannot own property there property like the state's is unowned and can be homesteaded like lockeans belief any unowned land can be.

Ancaps also have some great arguments against those who suggest we need the state for defence or order, this is where social anarchists are a little weak and ancaps really destory crap like public goods theory.

Bonniedundee

May 21, 2007, 08:25 PM

Ancaps and mutualists have clearly opposing views in regard to collectivist and communist anarchists.
For example; the preservation of private ownership as advocated by mutualists is rejected entirely by the collectivists.Particularly with mtualists and social anarchists there is little difference, in fact the proeprty ideas used by syndaclists seem to be just a hybrid of communist rights and mutualist occupancy and use rights.
And in reality even the ancaps will create a very socialist society with perhaps a few small capitalist entreprises.

duretti

May 22, 2007, 03:18 PM

My claim is that the anarchists benefited from the war because they were supplied with Soviet arms, Republican funds, Socialist allies and gathered more widespread support from the Spanish population since they were now part of a broader coalition.

My response is that the anarchists only needed any of these things because of the war - so claming that the war helped them because it got them these things (and they were generally denied soviet arms and government funds) is rather silly.

How is one to argue against a claim that the anarchists only achieved what they did beacuse of the war? By suggesting what would have happened without the war. This is the reason - to prove a specific point - not as idealistic dreaming.

Like you said Catalonia and much of Aragon are hardly the whole of Spain, so there goes your claim for widespread anarchist support.

There was widespread anarchist support *in these areas*. Enough for a society run on anarchist principles *in these areas*.

That many parts of Spain sided with Franco when the Civil War began indicates that there was enough support for Franco in roughly half of Spain.
Their support for Franco came because of dissatisfaction with the Republican government and fear of possible radical social reforms.

Sure, half of spain just "sided" with franco. Like france and poland just "sided" with hitler? Please.

And these civilian mobs were all devout Catholics perhaps?
If not then I'll have to go with general historic consensus

Right. Guilty as charged. No evidence required.

I second prenos requests.

You will find that most normal people sincerely dislike living in a country torn apart by civil war and running the risk of them and their loved ones getting killed.

Keeping the country together /= stopping the civil war. In fact I think you'll find that "keeping the country together" is what almost everyone who killed civilians was trying to do.

I'm sure popular support is an effective weapon against bullets and bombs.
It even won the anarchists the Spanish Civil War, oh wait that's right it didn't.

Are you seriously arguing that popular support does not benefit you in a war? Popular support means more recruits, higher morale for your forces, lower morale for enemy forces, better war effort as well as sabotage and a base for guerilla opperations behind enemy lines. MAny revolutions have been won against a superior military because of popular support.

The spanish anarchists may have lost, but they would likely have done so quicker if they had less popular support or had not supressed the catholic church.

This oppressed prole likes his constitutional rights, freedom of speech and right to vote.
I also appreciate the peace and stability these pieces of paper bring in my country.

Consititutional rights don't exist and bring a country nothing. Consider 1920s america - constitutional free speech, but thousands of people deported for using it. Take for example emma goldman - deported on the charge of "advocating birth control".

What did constitutional free speech do? It tricked people into thinking that they had freedoms which they did not - hampering their attempts to achieve said freedoms in reality. Where constitutional "rights" are respected it is because the population uses its power to defend the freedoms they allegedly represent. Codifying such freedoms into mystical scraps of paper only prevents the population from doing this and endangers the freedoms in question.

Or maybe I already did and find a peasant army on horseback running around, pillaging and murdering the other peasants not that impressive.

You got a source, other than those of the ideology which fought against Makhno?

untermensche

May 22, 2007, 03:36 PM

The Anarchist is able to make distinctions between personal property and property which is the necessary means of a society. Personal property is owned by individuals. Property which serves society is owned by those that labor in it. And resources necessary for a society are owned by all equally to serve all equally.

It is an absurd notion to want to abolish personal property.

What is abolished is the open ability to profit from another person's labor.

Differences in personal property are limited when you cannot appropriate the fruits of other people's labor for yourself.

duretti

May 22, 2007, 03:38 PM

You'd just let the local community or common law choose the system of property used in the area, as long as that system was conducive with self-ownership. And I believe equally valid cases can be made this way for communist, syndaclist, mutualist, geoist and lockean rights.

No, no, no. How does this help us now, in current struggles? Not "what would we do as allies in a hypothetical future revolutionary situation?"

We don't want property 'rights' of any form. We want a populace which understands their conditions. We want to continually eliminate mechanisms of domination, which include all moralistic myths. 'Rights' are anthema to us in the same way that religion is.

Whilst ancap may not have the many harmful statist interventions which exist in current capitalism, it is still absolutely capilatism in the sense that we find hateful. Human relations are organised in such a way that allows for the accumulation of concentrations of wealth/power. Those who control these will not want to see their growth curtailed - so they will use their power to slowly adapt the system back to old-style capitalism. 'Legitimate rights' don't exist and can't prevent this. The only thing which can is organised opposition to concentrated power - and ancap and its 'rights' massively hamper this.

Rothbard and co may demonstrate accurately that much state intervention is harmful, but that doesn't stop the genuine free market from being the foul beast that it is.

crap like public goods theory.

Excuse me?

John the Baathist

May 22, 2007, 03:51 PM

What do you mean by "the anarchists" here? The CNT? The FAI? The anarchist collectives?

I'm generally lumping anarchists together as a group since it wasn't specified which we were talking about.

What supplies did the CNT, FAI or the anarchist collectives get from Republican funds?

I don't think it would be realistic to expect that a trade union would be directly funded by the government for the war effort. But since the anarchists as a broad group were part of the war effort headed by the Republican government they received funds in the same manner as both the Stalinists and Trotskyists received funds and supplies.

At the beginning of the war, the CNT had power over the gold reserve, which they (unfortunately) didn't use, thus in effect allowing themselves to be later blackmailed by the Republic and by the Soviet Union.

The gold in the reserve wasn't theirs, so it wasn't theirs to use.
But I'm on an opposite end here since I view the so-called blackmailing and withholding of arms as an effort of damage control by the Republican government.

And they were not particularly well supplied by Soviet arms or Republican arms - both of those parties considered them too dangerous to arm.

I agree they where not comparatively the best supplied and that both supplies and arms were witheld to a certain degree because of this perceived threat.
But considering neither the Soviets nor the Republicans were forced to provide them with anything the fact still remains telling that they did indeed receive both supplies and arms.

The war was precisely the reason why anarchists chose to wait with the revolution and unite with Republicans/Soviets/Basque nationalists. After July 36, it was the anarchists who had the upper hand in Catalonia, and they began to make compromises (which eventually got out of their hand and resulted in Negrin's government) precisely because of the war. (Of course, if you said that the anarchists benefited from the coup attempt, then I would agree - but that's quite a different claim. The process of civil war itself brought no advantage to the anarchists whatsoever).

I don't understand how you see the military coup, the civil war and a potential revolution as separate events.
If it had not been Franco who tried to put an end to the possible threat of a social revolution which resulted in a civil war, it would have been someone else.

To me one is the result of the other.
Revolution inevitably leads to either civil war or war in general.

As for the violence against members of the clergy, this was in direct contradiction to the unequivocal position of CNT-FAI, which was to strictly punish anyone involved in such excesses. So, pray tell, in what sense do you blame those deaths on the Spanish anarchists, as opposed to any other segment of the Spanish society and what evidence do you have, bearing in mind the strict policy of the CNT-FAI when dealing with these kinds of violence?

Good question, my view on this is probably less absolute than I have let on.

In terms of ideological theory I would consider anarchists as the closest connected to these kind of acts, things like propaganda of the deed and use of expressively anti religious rhetoric come to mind. And considering that the anarchist movement isn't some kind of monolithic entity, as well as the situation of chaos and abandonment of morals a war implies, it is not at all improbable that they would commit these acts.

More probable in my mind than that these acts would be committed by Republicans or the moderate socialists. If you would suggest these acts could have been committed by either Stalinists or Trots as well, I couldn't complete object due to lack of decisive evidence but would still think the anarchists to be more likely to commit these types of acts.

---

I don't have a lot of time to spend on posting or to check up on threads during the week days because of work , but I will do my best to respond in detail.

duretti

May 22, 2007, 04:01 PM

If you would suggest these acts could have been committed by either Stalinists or Trots as well, I couldn't complete object due to lack of decisive evidence

How about these acts being commited by the a-political who just wanted revenge on the church? Seeing as all major anarchist organisations denounced the acts, attributing said acts to anarchists seems far fetched and smacks of prejudice.

Preno

May 22, 2007, 04:43 PM

I'm generally lumping anarchists together as a group since it wasn't specified which we were talking about.But 'anarchists as a group' could not have received anything from the Republic's funds. So in order for "the anarchists were supplied with Republican funds" to be a meaningful assertion, you need to specify what organization are you talking about? Again, was the CNT or the collectives (industrial and agrarian) supplied with these funds?
I don't think it would be realistic to expect that a trade union would be directly funded by the government for the war effort. But since the anarchists as a broad group were part of the war effort headed by the Republican government they received funds in the same manner as both the Stalinists and Trotskyists received funds and supplies.Same question as above.
The gold in the reserve wasn't theirs, so it wasn't theirs to use.
But I'm on an opposite end here since I view the so-called blackmailing and withholding of arms as an effort of damage control by the Republican government.An effort of damage control? Please elaborate.

(Of course that in a sense, it was an effort of "damage control". It was an effort to make any resistance to the government impossible. But other than that, I don't see any element of "damage control" in it.)
But considering neither the Soviets nor the Republicans were forced to provide them with anything the fact still remains telling that they did indeed receive both supplies and arms.Yes, the anarchists militias received (and, at the crucial moment of the coup, have taken) arms. Given their role in fighting the Nationalists, I don't see in what respect is this telling of anything.
I don't understand how you see the military coup, the civil war and a potential revolution as separate events.
If it had not been Franco who tried to put an end to the possible threat of a social revolution which resulted in a civil war, it would have been someone else.I don't separate the two, but still saying that the anarchists benefited from the war seems to carry different implications than saying that they benefited from the insurrection itself. The latter implies that it was an impulse that propelled them to take power, which is true, the former implies that they benefited from the fighting and from the fact that a society/economy in a state of war reacts differently, which I don't think is true.
Good question, my view on this is probably less absolute than I have let on.

In terms of ideological theory I would consider anarchists as the closest connected to these kind of acts, things like propaganda of the deed and use of expressively anti religious rhetoric come to mind. And considering that the anarchist movement isn't some kind of monolithic entity, as well as the situation of chaos and abandonment of morals a war implies, it is not at all improbable that they would commit these acts.

More probable in my mind than that these acts would be committed by Republicans or the moderate socialists. If you would suggest these acts could have been committed by either Stalinists or Trots as well, I couldn't complete object due to lack of decisive evidence but would still think the anarchists to be more likely to commit these types of acts.Well, no, it's certainly not improbable that some of the people that participated in such actions were anarchists. But that's something slightly different than saying "anarchists participated in such actions" (just like "Black people steal" is very different in meaning from "Some Black people have participated in theft"). The latter means that either some anarchist organization expressed sympathy with or support for such actions - which they didn't, quite the opposite - or that the majority or a significant minority of them participated in such actions, which I don't see any reason to believe.

If by anarchists you mean the politically conscious individuals (that were members of FAI, FJL, Mujeres Libres etc.), then I have to say that what I've read indicates that these kinds of people overwhelmingly tended to condemn such acts. And the anarchists weren't by far the only groups with a strongly anti-clerical element. Really, I think these kinds of actions have been perpetrated largely by two groups of people, opportunists (who sought to enrich themselves) and angry people seeking revenge of some kind. Neither of which is a political group of any kind.

As for "propaganda of the deed", that had mostly been passé since the beginning of the century. I'm not aware of any influence that propaganda of the deed has had on the Spanish anarchist movement in the 30s. (If you have a source demonstrating otherwise, go ahead, of course.)

Bonniedundee

May 22, 2007, 10:25 PM

We don't want property 'rights' of any form. We want a populace which understands their conditions. We want to continually eliminate mechanisms of domination, which include all moralistic myths. 'Rights' are anthema to us in the same way that religion is.Natural law has been part of anarchism since Godwin.

Whilst ancap may not have the many harmful statist interventions which exist in current capitalism, it is still absolutely capilatism in the sense that we find hateful. Human relations are organised in such a way that allows for the accumulation of concentrations of wealth/power.Not really, large accumulations of capital take the state. If land and credit are cheap how the hell can large accumulations of capital take place?

Those who control these will not want to see their growth curtailed - so they will use their power to slowly adapt the system back to old-style capitalism.
They will not control this, there would be little wealth disparity.
'Legitimate rights' don't exist and can't prevent this. The only thing which can is organised opposition to concentrated power - and ancap and its 'rights' massively hamper this.
You simply do not understand markets, property or the history of capitalism.

It took massive amounts of intervention to create capitalism and takes even more to maintain it.

Rothbard and co may demonstrate accurately that much state intervention is harmful, but that doesn't stop the genuine free market from being the foul beast that it is.How do you know it is? Can you show me a free market in history, I can see very little.

Can you show me the theory you use to show that a free market can create large accumulations of capital in a legitimate lockean enviroment, devoid of any past state intervention, I'd like to see this.

A free market just means voluntary action

Excuse me?
Well we more traditional anarchists(I'm a mutualist.) are weak in this area, we just make vague claims that without the state crime with drop and that we'd deal with criminals by excluding them etc, the ancaps can really explode public goods theory and the idea the state is needed for security.

duretti

May 23, 2007, 08:33 AM

Natural law has been part of anarchism since Godwin.

Utter rubish. Assuredly, some (almost exclusively ivory tower academics), who have called themselves anarchists, have believed in natural law since Godwin. This does not mean that natural law is a part of anarchism. Only a tiny minority of self identifying anarchists accept 'natural law'. Show me any major anarchist organisation which has advocated "natural law". IMO its an absolute joke of a concept.

I am very curious as to why you accept it.

A free market just means voluntary action

No. A free market means voluntary exchance of property rights. Property rights must be abolished.

I understand that the state was/is instrumental in the creation and maintainance of capitalism. This doesn't automatically mean that without this intervention everything would be ok though. It cuts both ways, the state maintains capitalism, but capitalism also maintains the state. They are inseperable, and one, if left intact, will slowly recreate the other.

The cruicial difference, I suppose, is your acceptance of 'natural law'. I don't see a 'legitimate lockean environment' as sustainable. People will not IMO abide by your 'rights', and whilst a 'legitimate locken environemnt' may prevent a reversion to old-stlye capitalism, nothing will ensure a 'legitimate lockean environment'. Best not risk it.

We have never seen ancap in action, you are right. Both of us can only guess at wehat it would be like. I, however, do not believe that leaving some of the current mechanisms of capitalist domination intact is a good idea.

Well we more traditional anarchists(I'm a mutualist.) are weak in this area, we just make vague claims that without the state crime with drop and that we'd deal with criminals by excluding them etc, the ancaps can really explode public goods theory and the idea the state is needed for security.

No they can't. They can try and fail miserably. And how are we weak in this area? Crime would drop massively as material incentives to crime, and victiml;ess crime would pretty much disapear. Our organisations would tackle remaining crime in a similar (but more humane) way to the state.

John the Baathist

May 23, 2007, 03:44 PM

Sure, half of spain just "sided" with franco. Like france and poland just "sided" with hitler? Please.

The comparison between Franco and Hitler is complete nonsense.
Firstly because France and Poland were invaded by a foreign military power, instead of being a military coup in a country torn by civil strife on the brink of civil war.

Secondly because elections held in Spain in 1933 resulted in a center-right majority, in 1936, the left-wing Popular Front won the general election but only by a narrow margin.
So based on election results, saying that the kind of Spain Franco represented could count on the support of roughly half of the population of Spain is very reasonable.

Also, however much I dislike Franco, he isn't the fascist some try to make him out. Franco was much more a pragmatic conservative than he was an fascist ideologue and it was because of this, that he had appeal to right-wing factions ranging from the fascist falange to the catholics, monarchists and conservatives.

That Franco was more of a pragmatic conservative and not an ideological fascist, also accounts for the fact that even after consolidating power, Franco maintained a policy of neutrality, even though he did assist both Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy on a small scale.

Are you seriously arguing that popular support does not benefit you in a war? Popular support means more recruits, higher morale for your forces, lower morale for enemy forces, better war effort as well as sabotage and a base for guerilla opperations behind enemy lines. MAny revolutions have been won against a superior military because of popular support.

No, it's just not the decisive element you make it out to be.
There are many wars throughout history where a party came out as a victor and was succesful in subduing and keeping the population under control without popular support.

Consititutional rights don't exist and bring a country nothing. Consider 1920s america - constitutional free speech, but thousands of people deported for using it. Take for example emma goldman - deported on the charge of "advocating birth control".

Of course laws and constitutions only have value when they are enacted fairly.
What is needed is to ensure that laws are enforced and people are given the rights they are entitled to.

Therefore in Western democracies, constitutions also specify how the rights of it's citizenry are guaranteed as well as having the means to protect individual rights contained in them.

What did constitutional free speech do? It tricked people into thinking that they had freedoms which they did not - hampering their attempts to achieve said freedoms in reality. Where constitutional "rights" are respected it is because the population uses its power to defend the freedoms they allegedly represent. Codifying such freedoms into mystical scraps of paper only prevents the population from doing this and endangers the freedoms in question.

What's mystical about a constitution?

A constitution is a system, mostly codified as a written document which establishes the rules and principles that govern a society.
If it does anything, it clarifies to people which rights and freedom they have and how they are guaranteed.

The presence of entrenchment is a good thing since it prevents the constitution from sudden modification because it needs to go through a procedure of constitutional amendment first, which requires more than the approval of the national legislature, it requires wider and public acceptance.

I can understand that you oppose this, since it prohibits from changing the law and the rights people have on a whim or even deciding to throw away the constitution completely.

got a source, other than those of the ideology which fought against Makhno?

Your question already implies that if I cite anything which does not come from the camp favorable to you, that you'll write it of as enemy propaganda.

You also know that Mahkno is not that a significant historical character to be written about by many authors, most people have never even heard about him.
So what material there is written about him, can be put into either the camp of reds, whites or anarchist.

The opposing view I offered was to show that his reputation does not go undisputed.
I even said it was from a Trotskyist so there's no dishonest use of sources.

You can choose to completely believe the anarchist propaganda to be correct, I find it more reasonable to say that the truth lies somewhere in between both.
Besides this, you have not provided any reason for me to doubt that Mahkno would not engage in such activities against people he considered his ideological enemies.

John the Baathist

May 23, 2007, 04:06 PM

But 'anarchists as a group' could not have received anything from the Republic's funds. So in order for "the anarchists were supplied with Republican funds" to be a meaningful assertion, you need to specify what organization are you talking about? Again, was the CNT or the collectives (industrial and agrarian) supplied with these funds?

Both the collectives and the CNT were not directly related with the Republic's war effort and were initiatives from the anarchists themselves.

Therefore there would have been no reason for them to be paid by the government. However I wasn't implying there was the exchange of huge amounts of money, but that supplies and arms were purchased from government funds and soldiers from garrisons and areas under anarchist control were paid by the Spanish Republic's army.

It's only a slight material benefit which I agree is relatively minor.
Other things I mentioned, like the support of the International Brigades and having allies to fight a common enemy with, I would consider to be a much larger benefit.

But let me ask this;
Why would the the anarchists side with the Republican government, if there were no advantages at all, but instead only disadvantages in it for them?

An effort of damage control? Please elaborate.

(Of course that in a sense, it was an effort of "damage control". It was an effort to make any resistance to the government impossible. But other than that, I don't see any element of "damage control" in it.)

The intentions of the anarchists and their proposed radical social reforms antagonized and divided the people of Spain.
While the Republic's aim would be to re-unite Spain under it's legally chosen government, any actions that would strengthen the divide is counterproductive and damages the Republic.

Therefore the government needed to try and limit potentially harmful actions by groups that would hurt the Republic's goal of re-unification.
This also includes the Stalinists and Trotskyists since they also had ulterior motives behind their support of the Spanish Republic.

I don't separate the two, but still saying that the anarchists benefited from the war seems to carry different implications than saying that they benefited from the insurrection itself. The latter implies that it was an impulse that propelled them to take power, which is true, the former implies that they benefited from the fighting and from the fact that a society/economy in a state of war reacts differently, which I don't think is true.

If the anarchists, without Franco's coup and a divided Spanish Republic, had tried to realize their radical social reforms they would have had, not just those who in reality sided with Franco to contend with but would also have had to contend with the Republican government and its supporters.

Simply speaking the odds would be stacked against them even greater.
This along with the secondary benefits of being part of a broad alliance, seem like a benefit for the anarchists in a society in a state of war.
To me, the way events actually happened seems like the best and most realistic possible scenario for the anarchists.

Well, no, it's certainly not improbable that some of the people that participated in such actions were anarchists . . . And the anarchists weren't by far the only groups with a strongly anti-clerical element. Really, I think these kinds of actions have been perpetrated largely by two groups of people, opportunists (who sought to enrich themselves) and angry people seeking revenge of some kind. Neither of which is a political group of any kind.

I agree to an extent, but it was by large an offhand remark to underline that the aims of the Republic's government and the anarchists were at opposite ends.
And to stress that these kind of actions were counter-productive for the Republic's government.

Don't read more than that into it, if knew it would be interpreted as a far reaching blanket statement then I would have phrased it more precisely and less antagonistic.

Since individual anarchists were of course not the only possible people who could engage in such activities.
Both left and right-wing militias of all kinds engaged in dubious practices, nor would every anarchist by default act in a certain way.

As for "propaganda of the deed", that had mostly been passé since the beginning of the century. I'm not aware of any influence that propaganda of the deed has had on the Spanish anarchist movement in the 30s. (If you have a source demonstrating otherwise, go ahead, of course.)

I wasn't aware it had gone out of style, since I have heard the term thrown around quite frequently by some people who present themselves as both anarchist and supporters of the Spanish Revolution.

I can always try to see whether they can tell me more about it. But perhaps you can tell me as well, why the concept would not have had any influence?

Preno

May 23, 2007, 04:46 PM

Both the collectives and the CNT were not directly related with the Republic's war effort and were initiatives from the anarchists themselves.Right.
Therefore there would have been no reason for them to be paid by the government. However I wasn't implying there was the exchange of huge amounts of money, but that supplies and arms were purchased from government funds and soldiers from garrisons and areas under anarchist control were paid by the Spanish Republic's army.

It's only a slight material benefit which I agree is relatively minor.
Other things I mentioned, like the support of the International Brigades and having allies to fight a common enemy with, I would consider to be a much larger benefit.

But let me ask this;
Why would the the anarchists side with the Republican government, if there were no advantages at all, but instead only disadvantages in it for them?Good question, but I'm afraid I can't answer it very well. This is generally accepted as a huge dilemma for the anarchists, and anyone saying that the decision to deprioritize revolution was clearly wrong or clearly right is being too sure of himself (not saying that you are).

The simplest reason was that they believed that the current priority were the Nationalists, and that by joining forces with the Popular Front and postponing more radical demands til after the war, they were doing what was in best interests of the Spanish people. If it was simply about them wanting power, surely they could have got rid of all "reformists" and push forward with a more revolutionary programme - they were in a very strong position right after the coup, and the Generalitat was well aware of that. But it wasn't, and they didn't.
The intentions of the anarchists and their proposed radical social reforms antagonized and divided the people of Spain.
While the Republic's aim would be to re-unite Spain under it's legally chosen government, any actions that would strengthen the divide is counterproductive and damages the Republic.But the government sabotaged even actions that were beneficial to the Republic and supported by the people. They tried, in the end successfully, to squelch the collectives, which did have a large popular support. Their reluctance to supply arms to their allies led to several defeats and significantly contributed to (I dare not say "caused", but even that might be possible) the fall of the Aragon front.
Therefore the government needed to try and limit potentially harmful actions by groups that would hurt the Republic's goal of re-unification.
This also includes the Stalinists and Trotskyists since they also had ulterior motives behind their support of the Spanish Republic.Well, the government ended up being controlled by Stalinists, so this statement is valid for the period until May 37 at best.
If the anarchists, without Franco's coup and a divided Spanish Republic, had tried to realize their radical social reforms they would have had, not just those who in reality sided with Franco to contend with but would also have had to contend with the Republican government and its supporters.

Simply speaking the odds would be stacked against them even greater.
This along with the secondary benefits of being part of a broad alliance, seem like a benefit for the anarchists in a society in a state of war.
To me, the way events actually happened seems like the best and most realistic possible scenario for the anarchists.I suppose you