LWDT VI: Kropotkin's Bread Dead Redemption.

[West Leas Oros 2]

For once we are in agreement. I call it, Federal Socialism.

But what about my idea of Confederated Anarchism, wherein the communities voluntarily band together to form a larger unit of Anarchism for their mutual protection and aid but are otherwise free to do as they wish? ;~;

I'm a peoples, and I wills myself my own leaderships! How does a states run by biker gangs sounds?

Too late, I'm already breaking the state >:3

That sounds like a state to me. Anarchy and confederation sound very incompatible, but maybe not. My idea was a socialist society that functions as a federal democratic republic. Workers form cooperatives/unions/etc. and such things could continue up to a higher level. Imagine the Means of Production run by a republic of workers, with representatives and all. No longer are businesses controlled by those who’s only merit is “owning the property” but rather by elected officials, elected by the workers.

[Torrocca]

But what about my idea of Confederated Anarchism, wherein the communities voluntarily band together to form a larger unit of Anarchism for their mutual protection and aid but are otherwise free to do as they wish? ;~;



Too late, I'm already breaking the state >:3

That sounds like a state to me. Anarchy and confederation sound very incompatible, but maybe not. My idea was a socialist society that functions as a federal democratic republic. Workers form cooperatives/unions/etc. and such things could continue up to a higher level. Imagine the Means of Production run by a republic of workers, with representatives and all. No longer are businesses controlled by those who’s only merit is “owning the property” but rather by elected officials, elected by the workers.

It doesn't have to be incompatible whatsoever. Even just two Anarchist communities coming together to work for their mutual benefit would technically be a sort of confederation (or a league, if you want something even less statelike), albeit very short-term most likely. The same principle applies to more than two communities coming together to do the same, essentially. It doesn't necessitate the creation of a state for something like that to occur.

[The South Falls]

For once we are in agreement. I call it, Federal Socialism.

But what about my idea of Confederated Anarchism, wherein the communities voluntarily band together to form a larger unit of Anarchism for their mutual protection and aid but are otherwise free to do as they wish? ;~;

I'm a peoples, and I wills myself my own leaderships! How does a states run by biker gangs sounds?

Too late, I'm already breaking the state >:3

That sounds like the early beginnings of a state, and against anarchism.

[Torrocca]

But what about my idea of Confederated Anarchism, wherein the communities voluntarily band together to form a larger unit of Anarchism for their mutual protection and aid but are otherwise free to do as they wish? ;~;



Too late, I'm already breaking the state >:3

That sounds like the early beginnings of a state, and against anarchism.

B-But organizing and working together doesn't necessitate the creation of a state!~ ;~;

[The South Falls]

That sounds like a state to me. Anarchy and confederation sound very incompatible, but maybe not. My idea was a socialist society that functions as a federal democratic republic. Workers form cooperatives/unions/etc. and such things could continue up to a higher level. Imagine the Means of Production run by a republic of workers, with representatives and all. No longer are businesses controlled by those who’s only merit is “owning the property” but rather by elected officials, elected by the workers.

It doesn't have to be incompatible whatsoever. Even just two Anarchist communities coming together to work for their mutual benefit would technically be a sort of confederation (or a league, if you want something even less statelike), albeit very short-term most likely. The same principle applies to more than two communities coming together to do the same, essentially. It doesn't necessitate the creation of a state for something like that to occur.

Someone would try to become the leader of such a society. I feel like this would only really work in a primitive society.

[Torrocca]

It doesn't have to be incompatible whatsoever. Even just two Anarchist communities coming together to work for their mutual benefit would technically be a sort of confederation (or a league, if you want something even less statelike), albeit very short-term most likely. The same principle applies to more than two communities coming together to do the same, essentially. It doesn't necessitate the creation of a state for something like that to occur.

Someone would try to become the leader of such a society. I feel like this would only really work in a primitive society.

Just so you know, leadership also doesn't imply the creation of a state or the creation of a hierarchy (a vertical one, that is).

[The South Falls]

That sounds like the early beginnings of a state, and against anarchism.

B-But organizing and working together doesn't necessitate the creation of a state!~ ;~;

In the modern society the state is many people, paying taxes to benefit everyone. With someone to run all of that, torro-kun. That's a state.

[Torrocca]

B-But organizing and working together doesn't necessitate the creation of a state!~ ;~;

In the modern society the state is many people, paying taxes to benefit everyone. With someone to run all of that, torro-kun. That's a state.

Y-Yeah but a confederation of Anarchist communes still doesn't mean a state's being created, since that'd all be voluntary association, cooperation, and organization between the confederating communities ;~;

[The South Falls]

Someone would try to become the leader of such a society. I feel like this would only really work in a primitive society.

Just so you know, leadership also doesn't imply the creation of a state or the creation of a hierarchy (a vertical one, that is).

But once you have a leader, you have a hierarchy. The leader leads, and is above by necessity.

[Torrocca]

Just so you know, leadership also doesn't imply the creation of a state or the creation of a hierarchy (a vertical one, that is).

But once you have a leader, you have a hierarchy. The leader leads, and is above by necessity.

Not necessarily! A leader can be a part of a horizontal hierarchy, wherein they act similarly to a leader of a vertical one (minus actually bossing people around; everything has to be voluntary, of course), but otherwise they're literally no different from anyone around them.

[The South Falls]

In the modern society the state is many people, paying taxes to benefit everyone. With someone to run all of that, torro-kun. That's a state.

Y-Yeah but a confederation of Anarchist communes still doesn't mean a state's being created, since that'd all be voluntary association, cooperation, and organization between the confederating communities ;~;

W-well there would have to be someone to lead, because all of these societies have a leader. Society needs a leader, anar-kun!

[Torrocca]

Y-Yeah but a confederation of Anarchist communes still doesn't mean a state's being created, since that'd all be voluntary association, cooperation, and organization between the confederating communities ;~;

W-well there would have to be someone to lead, because all of these societies have a leader. Society needs a leader, anar-kun!

Maybe, but leadership doesn't imply vertical hierarchies and confederation doesn't imply statism all the same :3

[The South Falls]

But once you have a leader, you have a hierarchy. The leader leads, and is above by necessity.

Not necessarily! A leader can be a part of a horizontal hierarchy, wherein they act similarly to a leader of a vertical one (minus actually bossing people around; everything has to be voluntary, of course), but otherwise they're literally no different from anyone around them.

A leader who only leads in the sense that people can choose to follow what this leader says is not a leader. This is why laws exist.

[Jolthig]

Even then, they're divided. A great example is the last US election where the working were divided between Sanders, Clinton, and Trump.

Indeed, many working class buy into the lie that foreign workers are the enemy who steals their jobs instead of being in the same boat as them.

Yep.

Besides the point, it's the working class's fault that they don't wanna work in the fields that foreign workers do. No foreign worker is stealing any job. Rather, we simply have foreign workers fill our voids. It's depressing and disgraceful that society doesn't think critically of itself.

[The South Falls]

W-well there would have to be someone to lead, because all of these societies have a leader. Society needs a leader, anar-kun!

Maybe, but leadership doesn't imply vertical hierarchies and confederation doesn't imply statism all the same :3

In small cases, that are generally not possible in modern times. :3

[Jolthig]

Out of the picture? That's a bit of a fallacy in your argument.

If they're somehow out of the picture, and then this gives the workers the ability to launch a revolt, wouldn't that kill the point of a revolution or perhaps I misunderstood?

I think you're misunderstanding. Getting them, and subsequently Capitalism as well out of the picture through revolution, would mend the divisions among the working class of society that they cause.

Then create a worker controlled state. Separate capitalism and the state.

Only if it's Libertarian (not """Libertarian""" as in right-Libertarianism) in nature and truly worker-owned.

That may be so but getting them out of the way will be nearly impossible by itself until the people wake up. Even then, we got people that ascribe to various ideologies. Some of them are aware of the problems in the government, but they take extreme measures

[Torrocca]

Not necessarily! A leader can be a part of a horizontal hierarchy, wherein they act similarly to a leader of a vertical one (minus actually bossing people around; everything has to be voluntary, of course), but otherwise they're literally no different from anyone around them.

A leader who only leads in the sense that people can choose to follow what this leader says is not a leader. This is why laws exist.

... No, that's still a leader. They just lead on the understanding that things are done on the idea of voluntary association rather than an authoritarian dynamic of "bosses around" and "bossed around".

[Torrocca]

Maybe, but leadership doesn't imply vertical hierarchies and confederation doesn't imply statism all the same :3

In small cases, that are generally not possible in modern times. :3

If it could happen in the days before the internet and space travel, it can happen today. >:3

I think you're misunderstanding. Getting them, and subsequently Capitalism as well out of the picture through revolution, would mend the divisions among the working class of society that they cause.



Only if it's Libertarian (not """Libertarian""" as in right-Libertarianism) in nature and truly worker-owned.

That may be so but getting them out of the way will be nearly impossible by itself until the people wake up. Even then, we got people that ascribe to various ideologies. Some of them are aware of the problems in the government, but they take extreme measures

That's all a fair point, but getting the people motivated to be free, plus actually having that sort of system would likely end up seeing a disappearance of the more hideous ideologies of the world (at least in that sort of society).

[Jolthig]

In small cases, that are generally not possible in modern times. :3

If it could happen in the days before the internet and space travel, it can happen today. >:3

That may be so but getting them out of the way will be nearly impossible by itself until the people wake up. Even then, we got people that ascribe to various ideologies. Some of them are aware of the problems in the government, but they take extreme measures

That's all a fair point, but getting the people motivated to be free, plus actually having that sort of system would likely end up seeing a disappearance of the more hideous ideologies of the world (at least in that sort of society).

Correct, but the question comes into mind: How will setting up and running an Anarchist society work in a society that is normally capitalist?

[Torrocca]

If it could happen in the days before the internet and space travel, it can happen today. >:3



That's all a fair point, but getting the people motivated to be free, plus actually having that sort of system would likely end up seeing a disappearance of the more hideous ideologies of the world (at least in that sort of society).

Correct, but the question comes into mind: How will setting up and running an Anarchist society work in a society that is normally capitalist?

Well, first and foremost, it'd require the working class to have a massive amount of class consciousness as well as a general understanding that a socioeconomic revolution needs to happen if they're gonna be free. That's literally the hardest step after winning the revolution itself.

[The South Falls]

A leader who only leads in the sense that people can choose to follow what this leader says is not a leader. This is why laws exist.

... No, that's still a leader. They just lead on the understanding that things are done on the idea of voluntary association rather than an authoritarian dynamic of "bosses around" and "bossed around".

If you were a cocaine lord, and in my commune, which you lived in, I banned the production, sale and distribution of cocaine voluntarily, I'd doubt you'd put it all away because of voluntary association.

In small cases, that are generally not possible in modern times. :3

If it could happen in the days before the internet and space travel, it can happen today. >:3

That may be so but getting them out of the way will be nearly impossible by itself until the people wake up. Even then, we got people that ascribe to various ideologies. Some of them are aware of the problems in the government, but they take extreme measures

That's all a fair point, but getting the people motivated to be free, plus actually having that sort of system would likely end up seeing a disappearance of the more hideous ideologies of the world (at least in that sort of society).

I can't really die of disease as an infant now.

[Jolthig]

Correct, but the question comes into mind: How will setting up and running an Anarchist society work in a society that is normally capitalist?

Well, first and foremost, it'd require the working class to have a massive amount of class consciousness as well as a general understanding that a socioeconomic revolution needs to happen if they're gonna be free. That's literally the hardest step after winning the revolution itself.

How will you educate the society?

Perhaps through social democracy (as defined by Eduard Bernstein)? Reformist Marxism?

[United Muscovite Nations]

Many socialists, in their disowning of the legacy of Stalin and the Soviet Union, have gone as far as to say that the Soviet Union operated under a form of state capitalism, rather than a form of socialism. The main argument is that the USSR was merely a welfare state in which the state was the capitalist, as opposed to the more measured criticism of Leon Trotsky's term "degenerated workers' state", meaning that it was a form of socialism in which class distinctions remained, or Stalin's defense of his work, which maintained that the Soviet Union was in the lower stage of communism. But how accurate is this? In my opinion, it rests on a few fundamental questions:
1) Was there private private property in the Soviet Union?
2) Did the Soviet economy possess the characteristics of a capitalist economy?
3) Did the nomenklatura (bureaucratic class) operate as a capitalistic class?

The first question is the most obvious, any knowledge of the Soviet economy can tell us that there was no private property. All enterprises were directed by the government in a central plan in which all production was decided at the output, by a committee of economists and approved by the Supreme Soviet and central committee. This, alone, however, does not answer the question of whether the Soviet economy was capitalistic. The second question is more complicated, and it comes with a mixed bag. In some ways, the Soviet economy did have some characteristics of a capitalist economy, as commodity production and labor theory of value remained in place; however, in other ways, capitalist characteristics had been done away with, there was no profit motive in the state enterprises, for example, there was also relatively little surplus production for the purpose of selling, as everything was made with the intention of being a necessity. The third, and, in my opinion most important question, is the question of whether the nomenklatura operated as a capitalistic class. For that, we have to look at Soviet economic figures. If they function as a capitalist class, they must use the state enterprises to generate large profits and accumulate wealth in such a way. The highest paid officials were the Minister of Defense and the heads of the branches of the Soviet Armed forces who, in 1989, made a monthly salary of 2000 Soviet rubles, or $3300 (circa 1989), for a yearly salary of $39,600 (adjusted for inflation, $82,067). This was followed by the General-Secretary at 1500 rubles per month ($29,700 [1989] / $57,405 [current prices] yearly) and the other members of the Politburo at 1200 rubles per month ($23,760 / $49,240 yearly). Lesser officials earned 625 rubles per month ($12,375 / $25,646). These are very small sums compared to big businessmen and politicians in the United States, but how does it compare to the average Soviet citizen at the time? The average wage in 1986 was 195.6 rubles per month, which is roughly equal to $258 dollars in 1986 values, or $593 in today's values. This adds up to an average yearly salary of $7118 in today's values. This means that, while Soviet officials did make considerably more than the average Soviet worker, the distribution of private wealth was far more equal than it was in the United States, either then, or now. These wages all sound shockingly low to us today, but it is important to remember that the soviet Union had a far lower cost of living (rent being about $10 per month for a single apartment, with free healthcare), so it's not as low as it seems.

So, what does the LWDT say, was the Soviet Union state capitalist, or was it a form of socialism? In my opinion, it was a form of socialism that had some characteristics of capitalism, but cannot itself be considered a capitalist system due to the mechanisms at work.

[Torrocca]

... No, that's still a leader. They just lead on the understanding that things are done on the idea of voluntary association rather than an authoritarian dynamic of "bosses around" and "bossed around".

If you were a cocaine lord, and in my commune, which you lived in, I banned the production, sale and distribution of cocaine voluntarily, I'd doubt you'd put it all away because of voluntary association.

You'd have to form a committee and commit to the system of direct participatory democracy, even as a leader :^)

And, since the whole idea of voluntary association is, well, voluntary association, I can leave the community if I take offense to the decision the community comes to! Or just stop, in respect to what other people have to say.

If it could happen in the days before the internet and space travel, it can happen today. >:3



That's all a fair point, but getting the people motivated to be free, plus actually having that sort of system would likely end up seeing a disappearance of the more hideous ideologies of the world (at least in that sort of society).

I can't really die of disease as an infant now.

Yeah, which means there's even more time to work toward making a better system free of the chains of oppression <3

[Hammer Britannia]

Love this new thread. Too decentralized though. >:3

The militias will keep your silly little statism away!~~

Tell that to CuNT FAIl