Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

0

gooey wrote

  1. It was a battle okay, like any other battle. But look at what the workers did in that zone, one of the first places to separate church and state, pension system, debt forgiveness, labor rights, etc..

  2. Do not confuse the Saint Petersburg Soviet of Workers' Delegates with the later Petrograd Soviet. The former was a genuine worker controlled union, the latter is a centrally planned Trotskyist government.

  3. The Makhno rebels have collectivized the farms, that zone was heavily agrarian so it had less of an industrial working class. It was agrarian communism. But the militia cam from the peasants as well.

  4. Nonsense. The region was controlled predominantly by the CNT-FAI coalition, the state had no authority there whatsoever, were labor unions organized from below, not by a centralized bureaucracy. Direct workplace democracy in every work establishment with elected secretary from every workplace who would join the regional union council. The representatives could be called back at any time, they were not politicians, they were from the workers too. The militia was voluntary, they were armed workers.

2

alesto wrote

1 - It lasted 10 days, what kind of an accomplishment is that?

2 - "They called it something different". Yeah we got it.

3 - "They called it something different". Right.

4 - You're still wrong. Production in Catalonia was being centrally planned by worker council's because when they first took over they basically just stood around trying to figure out how the fuck voting actually produces anything. Not only did central council's plan production but they shut down factories because coordination was too difficult with such diverse production.

0

gooey wrote

I am going to address the Catalonia claims because that is what I have researched the most.

Production in Catalonia was being centrally planned by worker council's

How the hell was it centrally planned, tell me? What do you mean by central planning?

Every single shop,factory, was literally run by the workers. They have met every day, discussed how to produce things and worked. They elected 1 or more secretary who would be their delegate that would represent them in their dealings with other groups. The secretary can be called back, it was not an authority.

It was literally a network of worker run establishments.

And yes there was a regional council, but to call that a State, is fucking silly. The council was made up of those secretaries elected by the workplaces, and they elected a comitte to run things. You can see here how the CNT is organized to this day (with a few changes since then):

The regional council simply existed to coordinate larger scale industrial or military operations.

The military didn't have a hierarchy, all soldiers were equal and from the workers and farmers, and groups of 10 elected a leader to coordinate with other groups, so whatever hierarchy they had was symbolical.

It was true direct democracy, where every worker had their voice heard. All complaints were submitted to the regional councils and were discussed in meetings.

2

alesto wrote

Every single shop,factory, was literally run by the workers.

Wrong. They had to form central councils because they couldn't produce anything without them. You can fantasize about them being "democratically run" but they were still centrally managed.

0

gooey wrote

Depends on the size of the workplace. Sure there were factories there with 2000 workers, yes they may have elected managers to coordinate things. But elected managers are not the same as central planning, because the workers have ultimately decided the course of action in meetings.

You are confusing organization with domination.

And small shops were totally anarchistic. Barber shops with 10-15 people, run autonomously without leaders, they just discussed things and did it just like that.

There are many coops right now from book stores to coffee shops that are still running in this form today, with total workplace anarchy, however they have to participate in the market so at best they are mutualists: