Ars Regendi Simulation Forum

Full Version: History of Anarchism
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.


Well, we talked about Bolshevikism in Commissar's excellent thread, we've talked about the Austrian school numerous times, so now, lets talk about Anarchism! I'll leave starting the conversation to someone else, time constraints at the moment, but do please follow up. Hope this works out.Smile
I dont have much time either.

This is probably the earliest rundown of anarchist theory:

Due to anarchisms focus on merely creating the conditions for the unleashing of the creative powers inherent in the working class, supressed under capitalism, its real history lies in practice, not theory. For the same reasons, theory was markedly different at different times. The specific programme of 19th century anarchism was primarily worked out with Russia in mind. It didnt come to fruition because the anarchists were defeated in the second russian civil war (1920-22). The anarchist movement never really recovered from this.

The key examples of anarchism in practice were south Ukraine during the russian revolution and Catalonia during the spanish civil war. In their own words, Ukraine:


I cant praise A-FAQ highly enough. Both highly accessable and informative, covers all the important issues involved in most discussions of anarchism.
I tried my best to read all of the articles, Bakhto. They are very interesting and I will read them more carefully later on. I liked the Catalunya experiment.

Vladimir Lenin was just a sociopathic strategist for revolution. Lenin's conversations with Makhno demonstrate his careless regard for the peasants. The Socialist Revolutionary party was popularly elected and had support of the peasants. Later, Lenin would amend the constitution to give workers weighted votes against the peasants.

About aspects of the economy in Spain:

"The major defect of most small manufacturing shops is fragmentation and lack of technical/commercial preparation. This prevents their modernisation and consolidation into better and more efficient units of production, with better facilities and co-ordination. . . . For us, socialisation must correct these deficiencies and systems of organisation in every industry. . . . To socialise an industry, we must consolidate the different units of each branch of industry in accordance with a general and organic plan which will avoid competition and other difficulties impeding the good and efficient organisation of production and distribution. . ." [cited by Souchy, The Anarchist Collectives, p. 83]

This is a good idea, but capitalists do this too. They set map related industries after making connections with other businesses. I think this idea also leads back to guilds, with the addition of workers voting power in the production planning.

Jose Peirats describes collectivisation among the peasantry as follows:
"The expropriated lands were turned over to the peasant syndicates, and it was these syndicates that organised the first collectives. Generally the holdings of small property owners were respected, always on the condition that only they or their families would work the land, without employing wage labour. In areas like Catalonia, where the tradition of petty peasant ownership prevailed, the land holdings were scattered. There were no great estates. Many of these peasants, together with the C.N.T., organised collectives, pooling their land, animals, tools, chickens, grain, fertiliser, and even their harvested crops.

This is very similar to what Petr Stolypin did. Stalin also, except he used more technology.

These federations had many tasks. They ensured the distribution of surplus produce to the front line and to the cities, cutting out middlemen and ensuring the end of exploitation. They also arranged for exchanges between collectives to take place. In addition, the federations allowed the individual collectives to pool resources together in order to improve the infrastructure of the area (building roads, canals, hospitals and so on) and invest in means of production which no one collective could afford.

Stalin's collectivization program was used for this intention too. Russia was trying to industrialize but needed to concetrate agricultural value to trade for very expensive high-tech for steel, electric plants and cement plants. A market approach to Russia's economy would not work since Russia is such a vast country without good transportation. So, that's the rationale for heavy bureacracy and forced collectivism.
Problem during Stalin's rule occured when the expanding bureaucracy, which was required for oversight, began to rival the old Bolsheviks in the Cheka. Also, Lenin had divided the peasants to win more power during the coup, so some peasants were still loyal to the old Bolsheviks. Then chaos ensues over distribution and the share of agriculture profit. The Cheka was awful and Stalin was never elected by the people.

I've often told people about having a workplace organization without leaders, but I get all kinds of apalling reactions. They'll say,"How can you run a business without a leader? You can't." So I have to make a make a clear distinction between organizational structure and distribution of profits. I am against leisure class profits of managers who get more money than the actual skilled technician. That's why Catalunya demonstrates better production. There isn't a division of tasks within the organization, in which, 1 group of people are simply dedicated to gathering information, such as, accounting or secretary. Each skilled worker can do it on their own.


I the very concept of the leader, this perfect or near perfect human being that's supposed to lead us into some sort of golden age or what have you, is one of the greatest obstacles to human progress. It holds up the lying part of individualism, i.e. "rugged" individualism, and patriachial originating stereotypes of women, children, and various other oppressed groups in society.

The way forward is to realize that we all form EQUAL parts of a group, not lower parts, but not as seperate entities really either.


Killer300 Wrote:
The way forward is to realize that we all form EQUAL parts of a group, not lower parts, but not as seperate entities really either.

Ah-ah... Here, this is the problem with Anarchism; whatever branch of it is. Individualism can not, and will not, be eliminated for as long as the human race exists, as sad (or may not?) as that may seem.


DRLHyper Wrote:
Individualism can not, and will not, be eliminated for as long as the human race exists, as sad (or may not?) as that may seem.

Khmer Rouge eliminated it just fine. Don't get sad, get mad.

In a metal shop that produces metal tools, there may be 20 employees.

There may be 18 metalworkers, 1 manager and 1 phone receptionist. This is a division of duty within a workplace that is not necessary.

18 metalworkers do the hammering, welding, drilling, filing, sweeping, cutting, and molding. They are providing tough labor and have the technical knowledge to produce.

The manager and the receptionist do not do that. These are leisure type jobs that involve organizing information. They don't produce any goods to trade. You could probably save $75,000 annual salary costs by eliminating their positions. Then give each of the 18 metalworkers a cellphone and organizer to share the responsibility of organizing information. Whatever money is left can go to the 18 worker salaries or investment.

That's what I mean.

We aren't going to make equal pay. We are still going to reward the most knowledgable and productive worker.


Mahkno was able to use libertarian ideology because he was on the losing side.
Centralized production would have been useless, he would have been deserted.


We are all individuals, that isn't the part that causes issues. If that were so, Max Stirner's ideals would've ruled, and right now formal society would've been long gone. Rather, we must reconcile the individualist parts of ourselves with the fact that humans are also a group oriented species. Leaders are a sign of failure with that, hence why collectivist ideals like Stalinism and Fascism become individualist through their leader figure.


The idea of Stalin as anything more then an enabler ignores the fact that any one of the people near him could have killed him, and in fact had opportunities to usurp him that they turned down.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Reference URL's