What would an anarchist revolution and transition to socialism look like? I'm not trying to be sectarian...

I might be misinformed but I was under the impression anarchism fell under the broader category of a socialist society ie one where the community controls the means of production and exchange.

I am using socialist in the marxian not revisionist sense ie as synonymous with communism

I specified that I think anarcho-syndicalism is feasible and I've read Homage to Catalonia. Most anarchists these day seem pretty far from syndicalists.

kinda depends on your definition of socialism. For syndicalists/collectivists the delegation of power to the collective is the whole revolution.

Ancoms want to go straight to communism, so there would be no socialism

I just don't see this as a feasible way to build a movement. Although I respect the spontaneity of anarchism which has triggered most of the recent confrontations with capital.

so this seems like a good thread for my autism.

Rate plz, this is my manifesto but condensed to an autismo-graph

I see I guess I find the ancom version too idealistic and utopian (though obviously most normies would say the same thing about my views.)

Unless you're an M-L there is no distinction between socialism and communism.

I like the idea of using counter economics and black markets to economically secede from the state and capitalism.

You're correct though I like lenins distinction as a non-ML. its nice to not have to say lower and higher phase all them time.

See the thing is the syndicalist version inevitably will include labour vouchers, which doesn't really remove the value form, so you still have this instance of goods being produced for market rather than for use.

and for me labour vouchers are basically just money but call it something else.

This is all kinds of not true. Socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production, according to different theories by central state or council. Communism is the stateless, class society that socialism is supposed to become.

Is this stuff all happening simultaneously or are these different paths.

For example, Salvatore Allendes administration were communists, but they implemented socialism in order to achieve that

It happens roughly in order top to bottom but there will be a lot of overlap

The distinction didn't come about until Lenin described the "lower phase" of communism as socialism.

Isn't the distinction that labour vouchers are personalized so they can only be spent on goods by the person they belong to?

Actually, I think this approach creates spaces for movement building. It is in temporary autonomous zones that people are free to think about anarchism/communism, to speak about it, to write about it, to develop one's faculties free from the constraints of law and capital.

Holla Forums/leftypol itself is arguably a TAZ, and I think it has boosted the leftist/anarchist cause tremendously. Every time we create a place to think freely we have dealt a blow to those who would wish to control us.

You are both correct marxists before lenin used socialism and communism interchangeably. But other groups of anarchists and mutualists call their societies socialist also because the community controls the MOP. I don't even think the term socialist was invented by Marx.

I'd still saying socialism is the mechanism communism is the goal

Thing is though, unless you can precisely quantify the value of the voucher, I.e, account for all energy that went into and how it did, you can never really ascribe real value to it through and abstract medium such as a value token such as a labour voucher. In theory a labour voucher is pegged to labour power but in fact it is always pegged to an idea of labour power rather than actual physical labour power

Also, in saying this, I could see the necessity for labour vouchers perhaps in a transitional stage. I think some level of collectivism is necessary before the jump to communism, as the flo chart points out

Sounds an awful lot like Porky company scrip to me!

That's an interesting perspective and I definitely see the value in autonomous zones and squats which are in a sense outside of capitalism for educating people about an alternative.

Imo though to actually have a society transforming revolution you need to coordinate the masses through some kind of body organized on democratic principles. I'm not a communalist but I think Bookchin's criticisms of Anarchism are pretty accurate.

Overall though I hope anarchists keep doing their thing I think they can be a good compliment to more organized bodies.

Labour vouchers in the marxist sense of the term mean something very different from the proudhonian bullshit you're talking about. If the vouchers are being used for market exchange between producers you're doing it wrong.

Stalinist bullshit (ironically coming from an anarchist).

Lol no, Allende's regime never abolished capitalism (you can't have socialism in one country in any case), it simply nationalised a large chunk of the economy and created a novel way of managing that public industry.

I like your chart comr8. My major criticism would be it would seem to necessitate waiting around until there is substantial tech improvement, you should think of something to do in the mean-time.

There are anarchists who agree with you, platformists.

~ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platformism

Interesting, sort of like democratic centralism except with anarchists. I wish these types had been more prominent during OWS rather then the mere-tier "consensus and horizontal decision making" ones. Have ideas like platformism become more popular in the anarchist community since OWS, I feel like its flaws made socialists increasingly recognize that we need more centralized and disciplined bodies.

I would say that most "intellectual"/academic anarchists are platformists but that many "anarckiddies" are mostly "insurrectionists" although i doubt they're thought too deeply about it, or even know about the distinction.

For myself, I do think it's wise to coordinate efforts, but I don't think the groups have to be as "tightly organized" as platformists believe.

So I probably am an insurrectionist anarchist, but not the black-block "lets fuck shit up!" type. I'm willing to coordinate with any comrade, but I'm not willing to be a cog in a machine, even if its a machine that is supposedly promoting anarchism.

shit/10

I was simply dividing the chart roughly into the economic revolution and the cultural revolution. We capture peoples minds by presenting an alternative, we capture people hearts by effectively propagandising this alternative.

My views on labour vouchers can be found above ^^^^^ I even suggested they could be used as part of the phasing out process. I actually have a 20 page written manifesto to go along with this, this is the watered down version

You can still supercede the state and provide goods free of charge without full automation, I mean the mean time is abolishing money and labour as a gradual process

1) A labour voucher will always be an abstract token for labour, until you can quantify exactly the constituents that went into the labour. It will never truly represent labour.

2) Tell me exactly how this is Stalinist?

3) > Allende's regime never abolished capitalism

Which is why it was socialism and not communism like I was saying…?

Silly distinction. Once the cultural revolution happens, the rest will follow.

/marx/ must be back up.

In my opinion it is Marxists who are idealistic. It's idealistic to think you can create a centralized socialist state that everyone is dependent on and then that it would miraculously "wither away" once people are liberated from wage-slavery.

The reality is that wage-slaves are transformed into state-slaves, and they stay that way because people with high standing in the party/state do not want to give up their slaves.

...

I was making a joke fam, I too am an anarchist.

Keep up the good fight, comrade!

You don't understand what the Marxist definition of a state is. Your little horizontally structured commune will still be a state as long as the working class need to suppress bourgeois interests. So unless you've figured out a way to magically eliminate all class antagonism in a single moment you'll be utilizing a state apparatus.

You Marxists are way too caught up on this notion of class antagonism. Classes go away if there is no private property. People aren't as invested in their class identity as you think.

"Bourgeois interests" are the same as everyone's interests, to live a comfortable, satisfying life. Right now the upper classes believe that the only way to accomplish this is by taking the surplus value of the working class. But once they saw that they could actually live a life that they would PREFER in a horizontal commune, a life where we all are allowed to to cooperate together to build a society of love and learning, they would quickly give ambitions to leverage capital.

Its a pincer attack. We attack the economy and the public opinion at the same time

...

This is extremely naive. Look at the cuban ex-pats in miami, many of them weren't even alive during the revolution and they are still extremely salty about what happened and reactionary as fuck.

In all seriousness is this b8? I hope the anarchists in this thread don't all think in this way or anarchism will never accomplish anything.

Man it could be wayyyy cooler than a drum circle. A commune done right would blow whatever silly little lives bougies are living out of the water.

Yeah, well Castro's Cuba isn't exactly what I'd call anarcho-communist. They should be bitter. That is NOT how to have to a revolution. We should NOT be violently seizing land and kicking people out. That is a recipe for creating a long, drawn out, bloody war that results in a military dictatorship, like we saw in Russia/USSR.

ANARCHO-LIBERALISM INTENSIFIES

You don't need to find some sort of perfect number with labor vouchers. It should be work hours times a multiplier for high productivity times a multiplier for societal importance. Neither of the multipliers need be some sort of perfect number, they only need to be relative. Someone with high productivity needs to have a multiplier just high enough to incentivize hard work and someone with a societaly important job needs to have a multiplier just high enough where people will have an incentive to pick that profession over others. Things are priced based on labor hours with the socially necessary stuff such as basic food, clothing, shelter, education, and healthcare being free. In this system people who work harder, as measured by output relative to the average, and people who have more important jobs, as determined by a community set multiplier, will be able to have more stuff without having to worry about any real class distinctions.

Literally what? I can understand if you said "that's not how to have reformism" but seizing private property and 'removing' (by killing, imprisonment or deportation) the private property owners is pretty much what is expected to happen in a Socialist revolution.

You talk about your revolution, well, that's fine
But what are you going to be doing come the time?
Are you going to be the big man with the tommy-gun?
Will you talk of freedom when the blood begins to run?
Well, freedom has no value if violence is the price
Don't want your revolution, I want anarchy and peace

You talk of overthrowing power with violence as your tool
You speak of liberation and when the people rule
Well ain't it people rule right now, what difference would there be?
Just another set of bigots with their rifle-sights on me

But what about those people who don't want your new restrictions?
Those that disagree with you and have their own convictions?
You say they've got it wrong because they don't agree with you
So when the revolution comes you'll have to run them through
You say that revolution will bring freedom for us all
Well freedom just ain't freedom when your back's against the wall

You talk of overthrowing power with violence as your tool
You speak of liberation and when the people rule
Well ain't it people rule right now, what difference would there be?
Just another set of bigots with their rifle-sights on me

Will you indoctrinate the masses to serve your new regime?
And simply do away with those whose views are too extreme?
Transportation details could be left to British rail
Where Zyklon B succeeded, North Sea Gas will fail
It's just the same old story of man destroying man
We've got to look for other answers to the problems of this land

You talk of overthrowing power with violence as your tool
You speak of liberation and when the people rule
Well ain't it people rule right now, what difference would there be?
Just another set of bigots with their rifle-sights on me

Vive la revolution, people of the world unite
Stand up men of courage, it's your job to fight

It all seems very easy, this revolution game
But when you start to really play things won't be quite the same
Your intellectual theories on how it's going to be
Don't seem to take into account the true reality
Cos the truth of what you're saying, as you sit there sipping beer
Is pain and death and suffering, but of course you wouldn't care

You're far too much of a man for that, if Mao did it so can you
What's the freedom of us all against the suffering of the few?
That's the kind of self-deception that killed ten million jews
Just the same false logic that all power-mongers use
So don't think you can fool me with your political tricks
Political right, political left, you can keep your politics
Government is government and all government is force
Left or right, right or left, it takes the same old course
Oppression and restriction, regulation, rule and law
The seizure of that power is all your revolution's for
You romanticise your heroes, quote from Marx and Mao
Well their ideas of freedom are just oppression now

Nothing changed for all the death, that their ideas created
It's just the same fascistic games, but the rules aren't clearly stated
Nothing's really different cos all government's the same
They can call it freedom, but slavery is the game

Nothing changed for all the death, that their ideas created
It's just the same fascistic games, but the rules aren't clearly stated
Nothing's really different cos all government's the same
They can call it freedom, but slavery is the game
There's nothing that you offer but a dream of last years hero
The truth of revolution, brother………………. is year zero.

Nah bruh. That's 20th century brainlet thinking. What we need is to invite the rich to a good ol' bonfire down in the dunes, break out the smores, and just hash this whole thing out.

...

Something usually ineffective, especially when the people you are revolting against is distributed and large-scale, as the bourgeoisie are. Non-violent revolutions work against specific targets rather than a whole class of property owners.

Maybe break out the pot and 'shrooms too!

Did it not work in India? Against British property owners?

...

There were massive, violent protests and militant action going on alongside Gandhi's demonstrations. Maybe you should actually read about it.

I agree the Cuban revolution was far from perfect, but the ex-pats are not upset because Cuba is now a dictatorship, it already was one before, they are upset because their property was seized and they lost their class muh privileges.

Also this is a central point of any revolution. How do you end private property and capitalism without seizing property. If your plan to end capitalist property relations is to convince the ruling class to do it voluntarily by showing them your your organic farm or whatever you are life-stylist hippie not a leftist.

Most anarchists would agree violence is necessary to end capitalism. You seem very confused I'd start by reading the wikipedia page on the most successful Anarchist experiment, revolutionary catalonia. hint: it involved violence and seizing property

...

Sure, but anarcho-pacifism is a thing, and I am one.

Workers have all the leverage. The plan is to go on strike and go to pre-established farming communes where they can survive indefinitely while the property owners are deprived of their slaves.

Please, comrade. We have a disagreement on strategy, but not on principle.

Largely not. The British eventually gave up; there's no reason to think that the global bourgeoisie will do the same.

They'll give up when they realize they would live more meaningful, satisfying lives in an egalitarian society.

I recommend you read this article about the end of British rule in India. Pretty much all examples of non-violent revolution involve the ruling clique making a deal with the pacifist faction because it's that or continue having to fight the radicals.
kurukshetra1.wordpress.com/2014/08/21/quit-india-1942-the-violent-end-of-british-rule-in-india/

Also watch this video.
youtube.com/watch?v=ixKc68-X-Xs

But what multiplyer and why?

Keep dreaming kiddo.

how do you quantify the multiplayer, how do you make the abstract real?

People DO have epiphanies and people DO radically change their lives when they become aware of new options.

Individuals do, but expecting a whole class or even a significant number of them to have this magic epiphany is beyond delusional.

Meme magick doe!

If this is true then how will the proletariat ever achieve class consciousness? Isn't Communism a doomed project, then? Why even bother?

Class consciousness is achievable by the proletariat because it is in their material interest, pretty shit argument tbh.

But don't you see that it's in the material interest of the bourgeoisie as well? As Louis CK said, "everything's amazing but no one is happy?"

There is profound dissatisfaction among the bourgeoisie. But, indeed, we need not rely on them having "magical epiphanies" for when the proletariat goes on a general strike and moves to farming communes to live indefinitely while the Capitalist economy collapses, they will be forced to cooperate with us or else starve.