Anarchist Black Cat

This topic is supposed to continue the discussion from the L&S "what about OUR bailout?" thread -- viewtopic.php?f=36&t=1923

FWs have put forward nationalisation as a solution to the current economic crisis. So, of course, have sections of the bourgeoisie and particularly the managerial class. I have to basically agree with what Joseph K was saying:





In my opinion the bourgeois oldguard stands for private capital, but considerable sections of the bourgeoisie and definitely the managerial class stand for nationalization. In these times, when nationalization is REALISTICALLY on the table as an option, we should be saying "Neither Private nor State Capitalism" and "You Cannot Reform Capitalism." Not nationalization, not privatization -- workers control. As the IWW One Big Union pamphlet says, we have three choices for who controls -- Capitalists, Politicians or Workers. The revolutionary libertarian socialist movement must stand for workers control, not nationalization. Nationalization has been called the "socialism of the rich" and more than that it represents the class interests of the managerial class.

The most revolutionary members of the workers' movement have always understood that nationalization is not the answer to the crisis of capital. In the 1984/5 miner's strike ---



Ed. Huy Beynon (1985) Digging Deeper: Issues in the Miners Strike, Verso.

Or as Vernon Richards bluntly put it:



Vernon Richards (1978) The Impossibilities of Social Democracy, Freedom Press.

Remember, we are fighting not just the capitalist class but also the managerial class who opportunistically wait on the wings prepared to take over society should their hour come. An analysis of the managerial class is in my opinion the best thing to have come out of "Parecon." They aim to take control of the economy through the state.

Like Joseph K. said, now is a time to point out that neither private nor state capitalism is the way forward -- both have been tried, both are bankrupt (literally).

At a time when people are ready to listen to ideas like workers control of industry and an end to the finance sector, arguing for nationalization and state-intervention (paid for by us) is missing a radical chance. It's time we built up our own institutions of self-help, not waited around on our arses hoping the state will bail us out. That's what anarchism is all about. Yeah fight cuts, of course, but let's start building our own counter-power.

So without rhetoric or bombast please tell me what strategies you are using to 'build our counter-power' and I'd be happy to debate real strategy. Sterile arguments based on attributing positions to your opponents is a classic way of willy-waving at opponents, so I'd rather not let things devolve into that kind of tone of discussion to be honest.

I think it would be constructive if you were to outline what you have been doing to respond to the crisis, or what your organisation has been doing. I think that's the most accountable way of discussing things. We can then facilitate a sensible tactical and strategic discussion about what works and what does not work, and how other comrades are theorising the situation.

can i echo dundee in a bit of a politer tone?

Basically, nobody is suggesting like the Fabians did that nationalisation of industries is an end in itself, or that it is the same things as workers control.

But once we've got over that, can we just discuss nationalisation on its own merits?

I mean pointing out that voting once every four years is not democracy, is not the same thing as explaining how we'll get *to* democracy. Its just stating fact.

BTW Freedom were handing out that vernon richards book for free in the recent revamp, i hope you didn't pay for it!

PPS - what's 'Keep Our NHS Public' if not a campaign for [defending] nationalisation on the realisation that a fractured and multi-layered private health service would reduce workers' power? Defend Council Housing is another good example. Freeman, i think there are degrees to which the call fo nationalisation is appropriate - but you are aware the IWW is a signatory of Keep Our NHS Public? The AF also supported 'defend the NHS' as concept (though not a KONHSP signatory).

The premise of the question is wrong, at least in relation to an anarchist position. It's an OK premise for debating social democrats but you'd need to find a social democratic run board for that. From an anarchist point of view is it's almost never a question of 'Nationalization or worker control' with the implication that at some moment in time a choice can be made between these two. Its a bit like asking 'wage increase or workers control'.

It's been argued out before but basically outside of one or two sectors capitalism cannot allow 'workers control'. Workers control as we understand it is a revolutionary demand, the only exception being economic collapses when loss making industries that have been abandoned may be taken over (eg Argentina 2001) and for some social services (eg creches in Quebec). You try 'workers control' on a North Sea oilfield and the Navy will put an end to it real quick.

Nationalisation as used by anarchists isn't meant to imply some sort of transformation (as its use by social democrats and the use you appear to want to argue against). Rather its a way of conducting a struggle for reforms which would range from health and safety to seizing profits for healthcare or eduction rather than shareholders. There is nothing revolutionary about nationalization so while capitalism may not like it (except as a bail out) it often tolerates it.

See, if anything, I'd have thought that the "nationalisation" of the banks (which is really more of a socialisation of their losses) shows that nationalisation does not, in and of itself, lead to greater working class power.

I also don't really see how using (say) the profits derived from natural resources to fund working class demands would prevent capital and the state from recouping their losses by attacking a weaker section of the working class. If they do it when we force them to provide higher wages or better healthcare, why wouldn't they do it if we were to force them to nationalise an oil field?

Which is exactly what can be said of any reform. Its why I don't see a point in trying to turn this about a debate into what demand is more revolutionary. What is important in this context is not what is won but rather how it is won. A minimum wage might be won by electing a better politican or by mass struggle. My interest is not in the debate as to whether or not a minimum wage should be demanded but in the debate about how it should be fought for.




Again the equivalent can be said of any fight for a reform. And its often in part true (although seldom completely). This once more is why the method of struggle is more important than what the reform is as a method based on mass struggle rather than the good politician will make it harder to isolate another sector.



Yes indeed in all three cases they might.

Well, yes, that's kind of my point. For example, it would make sense for American workers to demand proper healthcare provision from the state, but tacking on a demand for nationalisation of industry to pay for this would merely create a lot of extra work and fail to address the problem of capital and the state trying to recoup their losses. Fundamentally, it's demands for the nationalisation of major industries, whether as an end in itself or a means of funding working class demands, that I'm arguing against here, not the idea of demanding "reforms" per se.


It's true up to a point that the forms that struggle takes are important, it doesn't follow from this that you can completely neglect the content of your demands. I mean presumably, you wouldn't have argued that anarchists should support the Ulster workers' council strike, had you been around at the time.

Comrades here are getting all maximum demands. It's all a bit 'transitional demands' sounding. The truth is that we must live in the real world too if we want to win in the long term. Minimum and maximum programme, leading into each other as a dialectical advance of class power. That's the jazz.

Andrew summed it up well.

DU, this isn't about reform versus revolution, it's a practical discussion about what demands are achievable and what their material implications would be. I really wish platformists would stop trying to claim a monopoly on "the real world", it's actually quite rude and it does nothing to advance reasoned debate around tactics.

It's the mirror to others trying to claim on monopoly on 'anarchism', 'communism' and other such terms. And actually I do find your arguments to be ones that would not get an echo in the 'real' world. They do seem to be based around limiting yourself to pure abstractions and not even realising that workers will actually want to know where the money is coming from. I've just spent lunch with a bunch of fellow (public sector) workers talking about the crash here and who is going to pay for it. The papers here are full of plans for a 10% cut in public sector wages, if those workers are going to mobilise to defend more than their own interests (and even that is not straightforward) then the 'tax the rich' / 'nationalise the gas' etc argument is pretty important.

i just spotted this thread. AndrewF, you seem not to have read or understood my cental point made repeatedly on the other thread: our concern is that capital pays for our demands, as long as capital pays, we shouldn't care how. If working class demands are paid for by attacking other workers, then capital isn't paying, so we should care. I set this out at greater length on the other thread in response to your post.


an argument showing capital could pay for something is not the same as building a campaign around a demand that they do in that particular way. thus while i might point out my employer is making healthy profits when we're demanding wage rises, i'm not going to rally my co-workers to demand he runs a profitable business, and then tack on a wage demand afterwards.

i hardly think defining anarchist-communism as an opposition to state-capitalism is akin to claiming a monopoly on reality.


right, so you're arguing the important thing is mass militant working class struggle. i've been arguing this at length, i'm glad you agree.

the logical consequence of this is that if the actual demand is unimportant in relation to the strength of the class, why demand abstract things like how capital pays (nationalisation/tax policy) rather than the concrete, material things we want it to pay for (better wages/healthcare provision etc)? Why can't a mass working class struggle be built around concrete demands?

Why would movements demanding better wages or better healthcare be "pure abstractions" that "would not get an echo in the 'real' world"?

I'm not sure anyone is arguing against concrete demands, I'm certainly not. And I hate to tell you this but it may be that I have both read and understood you argument but am simply unconvinced by it. In which case repetition probably won't help very much.

I've explained a few times now why I think we cannot ignore the who pays question (I guess repetition doesn't work so well for me either). But I'll do it once more

1. Unless the movement is also built around a positive slogan of where the money comes from then the cuts will simply trickle down to whatever sections of the working class are least able to fight back.
2. In organising people this is a question that you will be asked, repeatedly. The government strategy here is to try and divide those they are targetting into those who can afford to pay (public sector workers) and the deserving poor. There is a widespread (and correct) understanding that the money has to be found somewhere. So in order for the class to NOT be fractured as the government intends (private sector workers V public sector workers) we do need to say where else that money can be found. In the Irish context I've given the two obvious sources. (I'm a bit puzzled by the attempt to apply the gas one to the US by those who want to argue against it, that's very straw manish. The obvious second argument in the US is the war).
3. The most vocal and successful movements to date have been the cross class student and pensioners ones. Unless the 'who pays' issue is dealt with their victories could actually be defeats for the working class. Students protecting free education at the expense of workers in the places they study would not be a victory.



BTW in this context we are not even talking of 'better', this is not an offensive battle unfortuantely.

why would such a slogan have to be any more than 'not from workers', maybe pointing out a list of possible ways as an aside to counter pleas of poverty... dropping less bombs on the middle-east, nationalisation/taxation of immovable natural resources, corporate/high income tax etc. if our ends are certain concrete, material demands, why build a movement around capital's means?


i've never argued against pointing out capital has plenty of resources in order to rubbish pleas of poverty. in my very first post on the other thread i wrote: "i think a more consistent line would be pointing out how our needs are always 'unnaffordable' while the needs of capital are always met whatever the cost (mostly to us, of course)." Pointing out capital could pay is not the same as building a campaign around how it goes about it.

Of course, if capital genuinely couldn't afford to pay for our demands, due to either much heightened class struggle or chronic economic crisis, libertarian communists shouldn't drop the demands, but point out that the needs of the economy and the needs of workers/humanity are incompatible; ultimately our demands will break the economy, and neccessitate a communisation of production towards meeting human needs. To be absolutely clear and avoid charges of revolutionary impossibilism, i'm not saying this is anywhere near the situation today, and i'm emphatically not saying we should only make impossible demands.


which is precisely why libertarian communist intervention in cross-class struggles should be the consistent attempt to make communist ideas the leading ones, in accordance with what i've said above: a movement for concrete demands of capital, pointing out capital isn't exactly skint, and in the future situation that it is (probably as the result of successful class struggles) pointing out that our needs and the needs of capital are incompatible.

it has been suggested by one of the authors of the call-out on the other thread that this discussion happens there. this was also what i was trying to do, so since there's a fair amount of discussion on it there already i suggest this is a good idea, keeping this thread for the more general discussion of nationalisation.