Please note: because you're not logged in, you may be viewing older cached versions of pages which are served up to reduce server load.
A Rebuke of Antistatism
Anarchism is fallacious and morally myopic.
Print A Rebuke of Antistatism | |
|
realistcat
Graduate  Usergroup: Members Joined: Aug 19, 2009 Total Topics: 22 Total Posts: 132 |
 #31
Competition inevitably leads to inefficiency. That's because in a market economy firms profit by shifting costs, onto their workers and onto people who are polluted or effected in other ways. Competition leads to duplicative inefficiencies...condiser the gross inefficiency of medical coverage in the USA. Massive duplication by competing insurance advertising budgets, claims bureaucracies, and bureaucracies in hospitals and doctor's offices to deal with it. Also, the bureaucratic hierarchies of competing firms create huge internal inefficiencies. All studies show that greater worker control leads to greater productivity. Control bureaucracies create class antagonisms between workers and bosses, which reduces cooperation and efficiency. The claim that people who disagree with them are "economic illiterates" is a ploy of right-wing economic hacks. |
|
unrealist42
Tenured Poster Usergroup: Members Joined: Jan 06, 2003 Location: City of Dreams Total Topics: 12 Total Posts: 2603 |
#32
Bureaucracy, wherever it forms, promotes inefficiency and waste. While there are certainly efficiencies of scale to be achieved by large entities these gains can, and often are, entirely offset by the inherent inefficiency and waste of hierarchical bureaucratic structure. It is only when hierarchy is flattened that efficiencies can be realized. This is true for any type of organization, social, public, private, business. All that anarchism proposes is a general flattening of the hierarchical structure. |
|
realistcat
Graduate Usergroup: Members Joined: Aug 19, 2009 Total Topics: 22 Total Posts: 132 |
#33
Social anarchism emerged out of the radical working class movement of the late 1800s. It isn't just about "flattening" hierarchies, tho that is part of it. It is also about ending the domination and exploitation of the working class, and ending other forms of oppression, and this means expropriating the capitalists and creating a system of common ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management. The corporation is a central planning hierarchy, analogous to the state. Corporations are in fact quite inefficient. And of course this applies to insurance companies and other corporations. In the case of health insurance, there is basic evidence here. The single payer systems in countries other than the USA are all more efficient than the health care provision system in the USA. Efficiency in this case can be measured by such things as: people not getting coverage or enough coverage...that is an inefficiency of the U.S. system, duplicative insurance company bureaucracies, and proportion of total economy consumed by the health care industry. |
|
unrealist42
Tenured Poster Usergroup: Members Joined: Jan 06, 2003 Location: City of Dreams Total Topics: 12 Total Posts: 2603 |
#34
realistcat wrote: Social anarchism emerged out of the radical working class movement of the late 1800s. It isn't just about "flattening" hierarchies, tho that is part of it. It is also about ending the domination and exploitation of the working class, and ending other forms of oppression, and this means expropriating the capitalists and creating a system of common ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management... How is any of that not just details of the flattening of hierarchies? |
|
Lava Lamp
Initiate Usergroup: Members Joined: Sep 22, 2009 Total Topics: 0 Total Posts: 9 |
#35
Realistcat: I guess my point was that the anarchists faced a highly centralized, disciplined regular army. As we know, Franco was even backed by Nazi Germany. To touch again on the topic of this thread, can anarchist principles really always provide the organizational "infrastructure" needed to fend off every threat, even one of such a magnitude as faced in Spain in the 30s? And won't a situation such as this always present itself just before the "advent" of the egalitarian society? This is why I say the anarchists "deferred" to the Communists. The Communists, despite all their back-and-forth maneuvering as Stalin from one moment to the next hated then loved Hitler (see "Hitler-Stalin Pact"), had a centralized, at least somewhat disciplined organizational principle which allowed them, for a time, to organize a standing army. So the Communists ended up with the only centralized state power--the anarchists were on the outside, with a far-flung, disparate organization at best, poorly equipped to face Franco's steely divisions. I'm not saying the Communists did a good job. They proved to be traitors. But the anarchists--**based on their own principles**--were opposed to the core concepts of power needed to oppose Franco, and couldn't replace the Communists with something genuinely revolutionary. They never took control. Despite their millions. I'm not saying the anarchists would have had an easy time beating Franco if they had adopted centralized military techniques, at least temporarily, in order to do so. Franco was very powerful. He had Nazi Germany's support. But the anarchists might have been able to turn the tide if they had made a ball with their fist. And I'm not saying the Trotskyists had all the answers, either. Everything else you mention--single-payer health-care, Bolshevism's failure due to economic isolation and devastation during Russian Civil War--I agree with. --Lava Lamp Edited by Lava Lamp on Oct 2, 2009 - 3:38 AM. Reason: language, grammar |
|
realistcat
Graduate Usergroup: Members Joined: Aug 19, 2009 Total Topics: 22 Total Posts: 132 |
#36
"This is why I say the anarchists "deferred" to the Communists. The Communists, despite all their back-and-forth maneuvering as Stalin from one moment to the next hated then loved Hitler (see "Hitler-Stalin Pact"), had a centralized, at least somewhat disciplined organizational principle which allowed them, for a time, to organize a standing army. So the Communists ended up with the only centralized state power--the anarchists were on the outside, with a far-flung, disparate organization at best, poorly equipped to face Franco's steely divisions. I'm not saying the Communists did a good job. They proved to be traitors. But the anarchists--**based on their own principles**--were opposed to the core concepts of power needed to oppose Franco, and couldn't replace the Communists with something genuinely revolutionary. They never took control. Despite their millions." This is incorrect. It's typical Trotskyist myth-making to say the Spanish anarchists were opposed to "power." As Jose Peirats, official historian of the CNT says, it was clear throughout that period that for the anarcho-syndicalists, "all social power had to be in the hands of the proletarian." The main problem with the militias as they existed prior to rebuilding of a con ventional hierarchical army controlled by the Communists was that it was an uncoordinated assemblage of separate party and union militias. To overcome this problem, the CNT proposed, in Sept 1936, the formation of a unified militia with a unified command. Specifically, they proposed the formation of a single Poeple's Militia. They also proposed that the Republican government be replaced by national and regional Defense Councils that would be elected by, and accountable to, worker congresses at the regional and national level, which would replace the legislatures. These congresses would be made up of delegates elected from assemblies at the base. The national and regional Defense Councils were to be a "proletarian government." Controlled by the mass organizations of the working class, the two big union federations, UGT and CNT. This amounts to a proposal for the working class to seize power. The Defense Councils would have power only over the war effort, police and judicial system. The workers would self-manage all the industries...as they were mostly already doing. The various military units would be controlled by joint committes of delegates elected by the rank and file mililtia members and by the two unions, UGT and CNT. The important thing for the anarcho-syndicalists was that the working class have direct control over the armed forces and police. This would not be a state because it would not be a bureaucratic apparatus separate from control by the working class. So you are wrong in claiming that the anarchists did not propose a structure of power that could effectively direct the war effort against Franco. Their proposal would have been more effective than the Communist plan because the Communists wanted sole power in their hands, and this had a hugely demoralizing effect on the army and the working class. |
|
Lava Lamp
Initiate Usergroup: Members Joined: Sep 22, 2009 Total Topics: 0 Total Posts: 9 |
#37
Realistcat: I've ordered a few books on anarchism from Amazon, including everything they have on the Spanish Civil War. One person tells me that anarchists had a decentralized military technique, another tells me they had a centralized fighting force. What was the undoing of the Spanish anarchists? They certainly were highly motivated and had impressive numbers. If you could change two decisions made by groups or players in the revolutionary camp, what might have made the difference? I think the answer to that question might say a lot about anarchism's viability as a political philosophy. Another possibility is that the situation was hopeless. That's probably saying too much, considering it took three years to put down the rebellion. |
|
realistcat
Graduate Usergroup: Members Joined: Aug 19, 2009 Total Topics: 22 Total Posts: 132 |
#38
Books on the Spanish revolution I recommend: Martha Ackelsberg, Free Women of Spain Ron Fraser, Blood of Spain Abel Paz's biography of Durruti Burnett Bolletin, The Spanish Revolution Gaston Leval, Collectives in the Spanish Revolution Friends of Durruti Group, Towards a Fresh Revolution Jose Peirats, Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution Antony Beevor, The Battle for Spain Juan Garcia Oliver, Wrong Steps The main mistake, in my opinion, was around the campaign for the defense councils. After the Left Socialists (who were dominant in the UGT union federation) rejected the proposal for a National Defense Council (union government) to replace the Republican state, Durruti proposed a strategy of the CNT taking power in the regions where it was the majority...and they did that in Aragon. But where this would have been most important were the highly industrialized coastal regions of Catalonia and Valencia. Anarchist activists in the CNT apparently waffled at that point and decided to join the popular front government rather than pursue Durruti's strategy. That led to the Communists gaining control over the government. I think the CNT should have pursued Durruti's strategy, to force the hand of the Left Socialist leaders of the UGT. |
|
Lava Lamp
Initiate Usergroup: Members Joined: Sep 22, 2009 Total Topics: 0 Total Posts: 9 |
#39
Realistcat: Thanks for the suggestions. I'm very interested in this history. I realize this is a philosophy forum, but this is one area where philosophy and history intersect. I have to save some cash to order the books. Then I have to wait for them to arrive in the mail. Then I have to read them. It might be awhile before I can get back to you with a really good response. Thanks again. I'll start a new thread, something topical to to the philosophy of anarchism. |
Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.