Real Human Freedom Not Fake Human Rights

Message from the Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Front

South Africa is said to have one of the most progressive constitutions in the world. It enshrines the rights of every person, of every background, from workers and immigrants to women and homosexuals. As such you would think that, especially for people from oppressed groups, South Africa would be a safe haven.



But if you look a bit closer you will surely see that, despite all the rights we hold on paper, people living in South Africa are far from guaranteed a safe and enjoyable existence. Our so-called human rights, as enshrined by the constitution and gloated over by politicians, are violated on a daily basis.



Workers have the right to strike, but only if they first warn their bosses of their intentions and after they have exhausted all other avenues for addressing their concerns. Workers who decide to strike without first giving their boss a chance to hire scab labour, and even when they do - as we have recently witnessed with the excessive use of force by the SAPS on striking Samwu workers in the Nelson Mandela Bay Metropole (137 of whom were arrested and held over night after being shot at without warning) - are likely to be arrested, fired or violently attacked.



Workers do not have the right to decide what they produce and how they distribute it, and in what quantities, because everything that a worker produces belongs to his or her boss - the owners of the factories and machines, those to whom the workers sell their labour for a wage in order to survive. In the constitution workers do not have the right to take over the factories and occupy the land, in order to produce the goods they need to survive, because that would be violating another sacred right, the property rights of the bosses and land-owners.



Under capitalism, the economic system of the world, people are allowed by law to own, buy and sell private property. Those who can afford to buy property, be it a piece of farm land or a factory and its machines, very often use this property to enrich themselves from the labour of those who have no property, and thus have no choice but to work for a wage under the direction of those who have property. In this way the group of people who own private property - and it is a relatively small group - exploit the labour of those who do not own private property - a much larger group.

They get rich through the labour of the poor, simply for having already been rich enough to buy property in the first place; and their right to exploit the workers and poor is protected by the same constitution which protects the rights of the workers not be be exploited! Ironic, isn't it?

Similarly, the equal rights of women with men are written into the constitution and upheld by law, but, as recent events - such as that at Noord street - have once again shown, so too are these rights violated on a daily basis. Women in South Africa are not treated as the equals of men, they are harassed, abused, raped and degraded by virtue of the fact that they were born women. It matters very little to a woman who is beaten by her husband, or raped by a taxi driver, whether or not this is allowed under the constitution. What she cares about is not being raped, not being beaten. This is a security that cannot be guaranteed to her under the present capitalist system, because the same system that defends the rights of the bosses to exploit the workers, also relies on the patriarchal oppression of women by men, in order to keep the poor and working class divided from itself, thus unable to find the strength to challenge the system which protects the rights of the propertied classes at the expense of the workers, poor and oppressed minorities.



We anarchist communists believe that constitutional human rights mean next to nothing as long as we are living in a world which thrives on the violent exploitation of the masses by a ruling minority, a system in which the majority of the population - the workers and poor - are divided from each other by means of sexism, racism, nationalism and religion. We believe that, as long as we live under the threat of starvation and imprisonment, oppression and exploitation, our human rights will never be safe. It is impossible for the workers and poor, for women and oppressed minorities to live in dignity under capitalism. As long as there is a price on our labour, as long as we are under threat of attack because of our identifies, and as long as we live under threat of unemployment, hunger and disease, our rights to live with dignity and free from violence will never be realised.



Under such circumstances, in which we find ourselves today - as many of us did under Apartheid - the only way to live with dignity is to take up the fight against the system of capitalism, the system which defends the profits and property of the rich and powerful at the expense of the human rights of the exploited and oppressed. The only way to live with dignity is for us to live and struggle for a new system; a new world in which we are no longer divided, where there is no private property, and where we are all workers and in which we all have control over what we produce and how it is distributed, according to the principle "from each according to ability, to each according to need". A world in which, because we are all workers, and we all work for the benefit of our fellow human beings, we treat each other with the respect that each one of us deserves.



Capitalism cannot guarantee human rights for all, only real human freedom can guarantee and protect our rights, rights which are safeguarded by our belonging to an international community of free workers, not by writing them onto paper. If we had real freedom, there would be no need for the phony rights of the bourgeois constitutions of South Africa and other so-called democracies.



We are supposed to have the freedom of choice, but the only choice we have under capitalism is either to be exploited and oppressed, or to organise and resist. Anarchist communists have chosen to organise and resist, to fight for a better future, and in so doing to live and die with dignity. Join us.

-Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Front

Who Rules America

A substantial number of Americans, some two-thirds, view the government as being "run by a few big interests looking out for themselves." The results of the University of Michigan's poll raises an important question, one which cannot be easily dismissed by pundits who try to cast an illusion of American democracy; a nation ruled "by the people for the people". Just who rules America? In his class relations study, Michael Zweig found that the majority of Americans are in the working class. So It should come as no surprise that 60% of Americans feel alienated from economic and political decision making when, as Zweig estimates, it makes up 60 percent of the U.S. workforce.

Modern capitalistic society is characterized by three main classes: an elite and small capitalistic class who own and manage large income-producing properties; i.e., corporations, banks, real estate and agri-businesses, a large working class who do not have their own means of earning a livelihood and must sell their labor power to earn an income, and a middle class of professionals, entrepreneurs, and managers that reside between the two. So just who rules America? Who are the "big interests looking out for themselves? They are as G. William Domhoff states are "the owners and managers of large income-producing properties; i.e., corporations, banks, and agri-businesses, along with the the managers and experts they hire".

The Social Upper Class
Michael Useem in The Inner Circle states, "The upper class consists of the social network of established wealthy families whose status is preeminent , whose culture and identity are distinct, and whose membership is closed to nearly all but those of proper descent". Generally speaking, wealth can be defined as the ownership of marketable assets such as stocks, bonds, and real estate. Income is the amount of wages, dividends and interest paid out to an individual yearly. The people commanding the greatest wealth and highest income are part of the upper class. The .5 to 1 percent of the population that makes up the upper class is also the .5 to 1 percent who owned 39.7 percent of the financial wealth in 2001.

	Financial Wealth
	Top 1 percent	Next 19 percent	Bottom 80 percent
1983	42.9%	48.4%	8.7%
1989	46.9%	46.5%	6.6%
1992	45.6%	46.7%	7.7%
1995	47.2%	45.9%	7.0%
1998	47.3%	43.6%	9.1%
2001	39.7%	51.5%	8.8%

The upper class has it's own exclusive social institutions which include private schools, summer resorts and retreats, and social clubs and gatherings. Large and well known Ivy League schools such as Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia and Standford are heavily populated and favored by the upper class in receiving distinctive education. As a result, social clubs also play a unique role in differentiating members of the upper class from other members of society. Membership into these clubs can range from a few to tens of thousands of dollars, as well as being subject to a rigorous screening process. The Links in New York, Pacific Union in San Francisco, Chicago Club in Chicago and the infamous Bohemian Club in San Francisco are a few social clubs with a high concentration of members from the corporate community. The 25 largest industrials have one or more directors as members in one or more of these clubs. Highlighting how the upper class is closely interwined with the corporate community.

The Corporate Community
The nationwide upper class is not only a social class but a economic class deeply rooted in the corporate community. G. William Domhoff states, "Several studies show that those 15-20% of corporate directors who sit on two or more boards, who are called the "inner circle" of the corporate directorate, unite 80-90% of the largest corporations in the United States into a well-connected "corporate community". Chase Manhattan Bank has 45 such connections to other corporations and financial institutions, Wells Fargo Bank has 41 and General Motors 33.

Exxon, the world's largest oil company, contains a large concentration of "interlocking directors". For example, according to Endgame, James R Houghton is not only on the board on Exxon, but is also Chairman and CEO of Corning Inc, on the boards of MetLife, Inc, Corning Museum of Glass, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Pierpont Morgan Library, Harvard Corporation, member of Business Council and Council on Foreign Relations.

This highlights the fact that despite competition among the corporate community, there exists cohesion due to their opposition to the liberal labor coalition, anti-corporation and anti-globalization activists, leftists and environmentalists, which derives from their common goals and values and pursuit of profit.

The Policy Formation Network
The corporate community and upper class are supplemented by a wide range of nonprofit organizations such as think tanks, foundations, and policy discussion forums, which itself forms a policy formation network. These institutions play a critical role in creating debates over public policy and in shaping public opinion. The corporate community and upper class have the ability to dominate these organizations due to the fact they were founded by members of the upper class and are funded by large corporations. The Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation are the most highly influential of foundations. Brookings Institute, The American Enterprise, Business Council, Business Roundtable and the Urban Institute are a few of the more important think tanks and policy groups. In fact, the Business Roundtable was highly influential on the corporate community victory of NAFTA. Policy discussion groups bring together directors, managers, government officials and other wealthy or influential people to discuss local and international issues, as well as political, social and economic issues. These groups frame the debate and set the terms for new economic, foreign and other policies.

So Who Rules America?
Despite competition among the corporate community and threats of hostile takeovers, there exists a cohesion rooted in a strong class consciousness which derives from profit motives and capitalist class interests. "Through open and direct involvement in policy planning, through participation in political campaigns and elections, and through appointments to key decision-making positions in government" the upper class are able to rule America and influence decisions affecting the bottom 80% of the population. This power stems from their great concentration of wealth which is derived from ownership and control of large income proudcing corporations. As Domhoff states allowing corporate leaders to "invest money where and when they choose; expand, close, or move their factories and offices at a moment's notice; and hire, promote, and fire employees as they see fit. These powers give them a direct influence over the great majority of Americans, who are dependent upon wages and salaries for their incomes. They also give the corporate rich indirect influence over elected and appointed officials, for the growth and stability of a city, state, or the country as a whole can be jeopardized by a lack of business confidence in government."


Suggested Reading:
Who Rules America by G. William Domhoff
The Inner Circle: Large Corporations and the Rise of Political Activity in the U.S. and U.K. by Michael Useem
The Founding Fortunes: An Anatomy of the Super-Rich Families in America. by Michael Allen
Top Down Policymaking by Thomas Rye
The Power Elite. C Wright Mills
Democracy for the Few Michael Parenti

-blackstone

Anarcho-Syndicalist Strategy for Africa: Mining Industry Council

South Africa
South Africa is particularly rich in mineral resources and is one of the leading raw material exporters in the world. Rightly so, South Africa can produce all the minerals necessary for her economic independence. Gold, diamonds, platinum, chromium, manganese, uranium, ire ore and coal make up 60 % of it's main exports. The country is also number one globally in exporting platinum, chromium, vandium and manganese. Africa is also the world's largest gold producer. It has enormous gold ore reserves representing 40% of global reserves.

However, 95% of South Africa's gold mines are underground operations. Declining grades of the mines and the increased depth of mining and a shift in the gold price, costs for these operations had begun to rise and as a result production has been steadily falling. The gold mining industry is the largest sector of mining industry. It constitutes around 60% of South Africa's mining labor for.

As of 2007, the South African mining industry employs 493,000 workers


In 2005 the total gold production was 294,671 kg
the total iron ore production was 39.5 Mt
the total chromium production was 7.59 Mt
the total manganese production was 4.61 Mt
the total platinum production was 302, 000 kg
the total coal production was 245 Mt
the total diamond production was 15.8 million karats

Working conditions
Mine workers are under-paid and over-worked. Declining grades of mines and increased depth of mining as lead to an increase in workplace injuries and deaths. Issues of mine safety received increased scrutiny during 2007, in large part due to multiple worker deaths. During 2006, 199 workers were killed during workplace accidents, and 191 have been killed during 2007. Around 200 workers die yearly in South African mines. One incident on October 4 2007 resulted in 3,200 workers being trapped for several hours.

Class
Ultimately, class, racism and capitalism are at the root of most of the problems in South Africa. Capitalism is a society that is divided by class and is dominated by the corporate community and upper class. The working class thus consists of all the people in society who do not own property and therefore have to sell their labor power - the ability to do work- to a boss in order to earn a living.

The interests of the working class are fundamentally opposed to the ruling elite - the corporate community and upper class. The companies must seek ways to make profits, even at the detriment of their employees, the very people who are responsible for creating their wealth.

Disregard for safety precautions aids capital by continually accumulating profit, yet it hurts the working class, specifically miners, who suffer fatal injuries in high numbers. Cuts in wages and refusal to accommodate union demands for wage increases, further harms the working class by lowering their standard of living at the expense of increased revenue for mining companies.

The working class therefore has a direct interest in improving all aspects of the mining industry, whereas capital does not. The solutions lie within the working class since it's success is in its best interest.

Is There an Alternative?
Anarchist-Syndicalist and libertarian communist theory holds that the best people to run an industry are the workers and users of that service. Worker safety is held hostage to profitability and bureaucracy. Rather than private ownership and a monopolization of decision making roles by owners and managers, public ownership of the means of production through a decentralized system of federated workers and neighborhood councils would prove far superior. These councils would act as channels to allow participants to exercise direct democracy and gives ordinary citizens the ability to control their own lives.

Strategy to Get Us There
There are many different tactics that can be utilized to the bring increasing power into the hands of South African miners. Fighting for an increase in wages, shorter working hours and improved working conditions ensure a more efficient and happier workforce, while at the same time, increasing class consciousness and working class militancy. Miners must self-organize to demand these rights and be prepared to take direct action to hit the corporations where it hurts the most, their bank accounts.

Direct actions such as mass rallies and protests with the support of the community and strikes would be ways to achieving these ends. The key is strengthening rank and file organizations of miners and creating mass organizations in neighboring communities that will struggle alongside these worker controlled groups. This is as anarcho-syndicalist theorist Rudolph Rocker notes, as creating "not only the ideas, but also the facts of the future itself"; that these self-managed organizations embody the structure of a future society.

Sala kahle(Stay well in isiZulu)
-blackstone

The State vs Black America

What is the State?

The state refers to the legislature -parliamentary control- an the familiar state organs - the courts, the army, police, and the wide of administrative services. Also included in the state is public education, policy-making organizations and such state organs that control the economy, such as the national banks. According to Karl Marx, it is the"centralized State power, with its ubiquitous organs of standing army, police, bureaucracy, clergy, and judicature...[and]parliamentary control.. the national power of capital over labor, a public forced organized for social enslavement". Peter Kropotkin claims, "The State..includes the existence of a power situated above society, but also of a territorial concentration as well as the concentration in the hands of a few of many functions in the life of societies..A whole mechanism of legislation and of policing has to be developed in order to subject some classes to the domination of others". The power vested in it, places the state above and alienated from society, serving the interests of the upper class. It is a structured hierarchy objectively at the service of the top layer of the bourgeoisie or upper class.

The state therefore serves two purposes. One as it's role as an coercive and repressive institution. Which, the police and military being the forefront of those operations. The other role is the organizing of bourgeois democracy: through the combination of certain institutions, laws and policies.

As a capitalist state, the state functions to repress worker's power and pursue interests of the upper class and maintain social harmony. As a racist state, the state functions to repress black power, black organization and movements which can cause social upheaval to the detriment of the power elite, which is for the most part white male. The state of black america, therefore ironically, is due to 400 year old battle...The State vs Black America.

Legislature, Judiciary and the Prison Industrial Complex
Blacks represent 13 percent of the population, but comprised 35 percent of drug arrests, 55 percent of drug convictions, 74 percent of drug prisoners and 50 percent of those waiting on death row. Prosecutors sought the death penalty 70 percent of the time when an African American killed a White person, but only 19 percent of the time when it was reversed. Another telling statistic is the fact that blacks constitute 13 percent of the population, but were 67 percent of the juveniles in adult courts and 77 percent of the juveniles in adult prisons. In the Jena 6 case, Mychal Bell was originally charged with attempted murder, which was later brought down to aggravated second degree battery, with the "dangerous weapon" used in the attack was argued to be his shoes. After legal maneuvering, rallies, appeals to have him free on bail, Bell was subsequently sent back to juvenile detention for "violating his probation".

Under the infamous Rockefeller Drug Laws it was a 5-year minimum sentence for possessing 500g of powdered cocaine, while the amount of crack needed for a five year sentence is only five grams, a 100:1 ratio. Being that crack cocaine was a cheaper drug to produce and buy, it was popular in the urban ghetto. Which in turn caused Blacks to represent 84 percent of crack cocaine convictions, causing further harm towards the state of Black America.


The Police and Military
The fact that Blacks comprised 17 percent of drivers on the state of Maryland highway, but 70 percent of drivers stopped by police is a powerful example of racial profiling and repressive tactics utilized by the Police on Black America, and Black males in particular. Police brutality, is a term used to describe the excessive use of physical force, assault, verbal attacks, and threats by police officers and other law enforcement officers, and is a term well understood in Black America. There exist numerous documented cases of the police's function as a coercive and repressive institution through the usage of police brutality.

On Halloween (2007) Rayshawn Moreno and other teens on hit an unmarked police car with an egg. The Officer grabbed Rashaywn Moreno into the cop car, where he was taken to a secluded, remote area, stripped of his clothes, beaten by the officers and left for dead. While, Sean Bell died in a hail of 50 bullets fired by undercover police officers after hitting an unmarked police car. Likewise, Amadou Diallo, died from the 19 of 41 bullets fired at him because cops mistook his wallet for a gun. In March 1991, Rodney King was brutalized by 3 cops as 23 other officers wached as he was beaten with batons and shocked with stun guns.

Police brutality, in some cases, especially in regards to the urban riots of the 60's, have had to rely on the coercive and repressive functions of the military to quell social upheaval. For example, a patrolmans' attack on Marquetet Frye in Los Angeles led to the Watts Riots. The conflict resulted not only in 34 deaths and $40 million in damage, but also the National Guard being called to control the riots.


Conclusion

This was just a brief example of how a few apparatuses of the state are used in a coercive and repressive way against Black America. It highlighted, legislation specifically targeting black men in the urban ghetto, in the form of Rockefeller Drug Laws. Which resulted in a explosion of inmate population and added to the disproportionate number of African Americans incarcerated. It showed many cases of recent police brutality and harassment centered in the Black Community, which has a psychological effect on it's residents. It also, showed how when the police cannot contain urban unrest, the military(our troops?) are ready to contain the rebellions.

There are many other state organs, such as policy forming organizations, that play a role in the repression of rights of Black America and it's continual exploitation. More also can be said of public education and it's role of perpetuating the cycle of violence in poverty in the black community. For example, 40 percent of African American males are illiterate and research indicates that illiteracy is the biggest predictor of crime, 90 percent of African-American male inmates are illiterate.

All in all, the evidence makes a compelling case that the state is not only against workers, but disproportionately against blacks more so than whites. Thereby, drastically affecting the state of black america in the realms of politics, social, and economics.

Anarcho-Syndicalist Strategy For Africa: Health Councils

Senegal

Senegal is a country located in western Africa. It's population numbers over 11 million, with 70% living in rural areas. Approximately 54% of all Senegalese households live below the poverty line. Thus, similar to most Sub-Saharan countries in Africa, Senegal suffers from numerous health problems typically associated with severe poverty.

Poverty, and various health problems, follow the same geographical distribution and reach high points in rural areas. This is due to the fact that the poorest live in the poorest sanitary conditions. Only 48% of Senegal have access to improved sanitation conditions. In Kolda, the poorest area, only 27% has access to piped water and 7% to toilets.

The Under Five Mortality Rate is 139 per 1000 live births in the year 2000 and estimates of maternal mortality rates(MMR) have are estimated to be around 690. The correlation between poverty and health can also be seen in accordance to Infant, Under Five and maternal mortality rates. From statistical samples, it is clearly evident that these rates increase in the poorest areas as well.

Malaria is Senegal's most serious concern and is the leading cause of death for children under five years old. The Global Fund reports that a total of 800,000 people have been diagnosed with malaria as of July 2003, meaning that approximately 8.9 percent of Senegal’s total population is infected with malaria (Global Fund 2004). According to the United States Pharmacopeia, the problem impinges on every region of the country and is exacerbated by the free flow of poor quality antimalarial drugs and increasing parasite resistance to traditional first-line drug treatment.

Tuberculosis is another concern of Senegal. Close to 9000 cases were reported in 2000 and 5832 were considered contagious. According to the UNAIDS 2002 update Senegal had an HIV/AIDS prevalence of 1.43 percent, with an estimated 27,000 adults and children living with HIV/AIDS at the end of 2001, 24,000 being adults (aged between 15-49) (UNAIDS Country Profile 2004).

These startling figures are due to many medical and social failings, including, but not limited to, inadequate nutrition and healthcare, poor access to improved water supply and sanitation and of course, poverty. Only 40 percent of the population of Senegal has access to health services. However, healthcare personnel are concentrated in the two largest cities of Senegal, Dakar and Thiès, leaving the majority of the rural population poorly or uncovered. Not only that, but Senegal suffers from "Brain Drain", an epidemic where skilled and qualified people(including doctors, nurses, dentists) leave Senegal in search of a more stable life in France or another Western country.

Is There No Alternative?
A revolution in which society is reorganized where the people are in control must remedy this situation. It can do so by providing an alternative economy. One where there is equal distribution of health services and resources being made to the whole population of Senegal. It will also provide a stable society to prevent "Brain Drain", as well as increasing and perfecting medical services to provide the best possible service to the population. This equitable allocation alone can cut cases of malaria and tuberculosis, as well as the infant, under five and maternal mortality rates.

Diego Abad de Santillan, in his work After the Revolution, notes, "There will be no private doctors, since the entire profession will be at the service of all. They will be incorporated, however, along with dentists, pharmacists, etc., in respective Councils and form similar organizations as in other branches. The Council of Sanitation will create schools and research institutions, and will also take care of public health in the cities and in the country." What specific role or function, a "Council of Sanitation" is to play, is to be determined in the future by the Senegalese. Yet, from this passage we can gather that an anarcho-syndicalist strategy upholds the anarchistic values of self-management and anti-authoritarianism. An alternative economy will need to incorporate these and other anarchistic values into new institutions to provide equitable circumstances and services to the Senegalese.


An anarcho-syndicalist strategy holds that self-managed workers organizations and mass organizations will form the basis of a self-managed society. These new values and institutions, which vary greatly from the ones of capitalism, allowing for advances to be made and services to be exchanged not for profit, but for the benefit of all Senegalese. Thereby reducing hunger, poverty, child mortality and achieving universal primary education, improved access to water, sanitation, and healthcare services.

Ba suba ak jam(Goodbye in Wolof)

Centrally Planned vs Participatory Planned Economies

Participatory planning allows participants to exercise direct democracy and allows ordinary citizens to control their own lives. Citizens of a post-revolutionary society will be organized into federations of workers and consumer councils. Workers in worker councils need to articulate proposals on what and how much they want to produce, as well as the resources needed for production. Consumers, on the other hand, will need to express through proposals what and how much they intend to consume. Both production and consumption proposals will be sent to the facilitation board where through a system of proposals, amendments, and rejections, a social plan articulated to cover the entire economy is hashed out.

Let's be like Frank Lucas in American Gangster and cut out all the middle men.

The institutions of a participatory economy embody the values of efficiency and effectiveness that we seek. The institutions of a centrally planned economy however, no matter how valiant our efforts, no matter how beautiful are rhetoric, negate and hamper the realization of these values to take form.

Let's take a look at how central planning can be inefficient and ineffective. All which can be viewed in the history of China and Russia's usage of it.

But, first we must realize that a nation's(or regions') economy is an integrated affair. Therefore, any decisions about production in one industry will have ripple effects elsewhere. This is due to the simple fact that the output of one industry can serve as an input towards another , and thereby makes one industry dependent on another. This integration of industries can be represented through the usage of an input-output matrix.

Input Output Table

Industry	Metal	Coal
Metal	0	.4 tons
Coal	2 tons	0

Suppose through a democratic and participatory process of proposals, requests, rejections, and amendments, a social plan articulated to cover the entire economy is hashed out. One in which it articulates the need for the Coal industry to produce a net output of 200,000 tons of coal and the Metal industry to produce a net output of 50,000 tons. Suppose, coal is required to produce metal and some amount of metal in the form of tools is required to produce coal. To produce 50,000 tons of Metal requires 2(50,000)=100,000 tons of coal. Likewise the production of 200,000 tons of coal requires (0.4)(200,000)=80,000 tons of metal.

Your factory makes cars. There is a demand nationally for the cars you produce. This is known due to the fact of people putting in requests for cars through participatory consumption planning. Yet, we know that the requests and the production of cars has ripple effects. There is a finite amount of resources available to us to produce cars, as well as other products that rely on the same resources. However many cars we make, we can't use the steel and other material for other products. This also extends to human resources as well. The people assembling the cars won't be available to do other work.


There's a finite amount of resources, that goes for labor, time, natural resources, etc. What we had in Russia and China was resources being over committed. Central planners were committing more resources than were available, so there were persistent shortages. And these shortages weren't prone to one industry, but because an economy is integrated it affected other production units.

But that can be avoided with participatory planning and the elimination of the roles of central planners. People express their priorities through the usage of workers and consumer councils, and federations of these. This prevents overproduction and potentially useful products being wasted. Participatory planning is the more efficient in gauging the priorities and needs of the people, than central planning could.

Moreover, the government(centrally planned) established fixed prices for all inputs and outputs based on the role of the product in the plan and on other noneconomic criteria. The prices did not reflect the supply and demand or relative scarcity of the product. Shortages occurred and prices were established too low which resulted in allocation inefficiency and ineffectiveness. So, what we had was some outputs being cheaper than the inputs used to produce it! For example, bread was cheaper than the wheat needed for its production!

Yet, that can be avoided with participatory planning and the elimination of the roles of central planners. People express their priorities through the usage of workers and consumer councils, and federations of these. This prevents inefficient allocation and goods being over or undervalued which can cause scarcity or overproduction. Participatory planning is the more efficient in gauging the priorities and needs of the people, than central planning could.

In central planned economies, managers were rewarded for meeting assigned goals. Can you see the problem here? In Russia and China, managers manipulated and lied about reaching production goals in order not to be reprimanded and to live the good petite-bourgeois lifestyle. But, remember, economies are integrated. Looking at the input output table i have above, if managers in the coal industry are lying about reaching their output goals or manipulating data, this effects the steel industry, who uses that input to produce steel. This decreases the steel intended target, which affects bike makers, car makers and all other industries that use steel as an input.

Not very efficient or effective, huh?

But that can be avoided with participatory planning and the elimination of the roles of central planners. People express their priorities through the usage of workers and consumer councils, and federations of these. Worker's self-manage these work units, information is democratized the decision making process is democratized with each actor influencing decisions in proportion in which they are affected by them.This prevents inefficient allocation and goods being over or undervalued which can cause scarcity or overproduction by managers manipulating data. It would be more beneficial to the workers of the work unit and society as a whole to report accurate data. Again, participatory planning is the more efficient in gauging the priorities and needs of the people, than central planning ever could.

Cheers
blackstone

Book Review: “The Abolition of the State”

(Wayne Price, Author House, 2007)

The regular contributor of Anarkismo.net, Wayne Price, comes back with a book that details the anarchist-communist criticism of the State both from a theoretical as well as historical point of view. Because of the magnitude of such a task, it is impossible for such a book to examine in length the various aspects of this. But the book is full of ideas and notions that can be developed further. The whole of the book is free of heavy academic jargon, quite easy reading and thought provoking.

The biggest merit of the book is to put forward the anarchist case against the State in a very commonsensical fashion, free of any deliberately hard to follow rhetoric. Anarchism is desirable and easy enough to grasp, and when properly explained –as this book does- it is hard for anyone not to share the basic anarchist outlook of a cooperative and truly democratic society.

Although a number of leftists and anarchist, including the famous Platform of the Dielo Trouda group, to which the author subscribes, reject the very concept of “democracy” for considering it too intertwined with capitalism, this, as proved in the book, is really a discussion of form but not of content. What really matter are the core ideas more than the words employed. Wayne uses the term democracy in its original and literal sense and not in the distorted and opportunistic way in which western politicians tend to manipulate it. In capitalism, as proved by the experience of Chile, Bolivia, Argentina, Spain, Greece, etc., “democracy” (limited, bourgeois, invigilated) and dictatorship are nothing but two facades of capitalist rule which often go hand in hand. This fact only demonstrates how quick the capitalist clique is willing to abandon its “lofty” democratic principles when they see their economic privilege challenged.

Anarchism, as Wayne says, is nothing but democracy without the State, a genuine form of democracy, since capitalist democracy is nothing but the illusion of majority rule while actual power is held by a tiny minority of rich men who control the economy, the bureaucracy and the military, thus controlling the lives of the powerless millions. On the contrary, anarchism is an organic form of democracy, emanating from below, from each and all of those who are part of a society which is built by everyone. For this democratic society to exist, not only the State, but also the unequal distribution of wealth and the reign of private property need to be challenged.

But anarchism, as emphasised by the author from the very beginning, is not merely an economic and political programme, but it also challenges the network of daily oppressions we experience at all levels of our lives. It therefore advances a new ethic that sticks strongly together its political and economic alternative with a new way of relating between diverse equals.

The main case of the book is that ordinary people, on a number of revolutionary situations throughout history (of which Wayne goes to review only the Spanish and Russian revolutions, as well as the Paris Commune, although he mentions many others, from Chile to Germany), have, again and again, replaced State for other forms of direct democracy to run their own affairs. So therefore, the whole argument of “how would society be without the State” is answered just by a simple exercise: look at the history of working class revolutions and many answers will be provided there. Of course historical experiences cannot be replicated; still, they provide insights in the future possibilities and more importantly, they prove the anarchist case for a Stateless society as viable and desirable.

Wayne does not pretend for a second that anarchism has all of the solutions to magically create a new society, but has a number of powerful criticisms, outlooks and proposals. This is why he resorts to dialogue with other political currents in the social movement: mainly Marxists, but also radical liberals, as well as market socialists. He proves in various cases the existence of common perspectives in many of these political currents and the existence of a libertarian and an authoritarian trend in every single one among them. Anarchists, therefore, do not come from the moon: it is only the articulate and coherent political elaboration of tendencies to be found widespread among the working class and ordinary people. Because of this, revolution after revolution, we see the same elements emerging in proposals for social construction: the egalitarian character common to all of the communist tendencies and an emphasis on direct democracy that has developed better in anarchism than in any other current.

I’m particularly fond of Wayne’s approach in engaging in respectful dialogue with other currents of the left. This, because for most of the left, the main, long-term goals are the same; the problem, as Wayne poses it, is the transition period. Most Marxist currents have argued that during the transition period, in a transitory fashion, the State would remain necessary: some form of State would be required mainly for the necessary coercion against the class enemies. Therefore, there’s an emphasis in centralisation in the revolutionary endeavours to build a new society, drive which has turned good intentions into nightmarish totalitarianisms. Though we can sit back and say the road to hell is full of good intentions, we ought to acknowledge the need of engaging in that dialogue –because different to a Hitler who knew what he was doing (and who talked the language of authority and supremacy), the development of socialist totalitarianism was an ugly result, unavoidable because of the tactics employed, of a programme which genuinely tried to change society for the better. Then bureaucratism and the development of the totalitarian State ended up burying any good intentions left –often, burying with them those very revolutionaries which helped build the new regime.

While acknowledging that some of those tasks currently undertaken by the State will be necessary in a post-revolutionary society –even coercion-, Wayne convincingly argues that democratic, grassroots organisations can carry them perfectly, without the burden of a bureaucracy, of an elite placed above the rest of society making politics instead of the people –and without the risk of restoration of a new class society inherent to any State. Of course this type of grassroots political organisms will vary greatly from place to place, according to the needs of particular peoples, or their history and traditions. It is certainly impossible and not desirable to come up with a mould to apply everywhere at any time. It would not be libertarian to proceed in such a way either. It is the popular genius which has proven wise enough to come up with the best solutions for specific contexts in history and we know that this same genius will be always looking for its way forward in history through its own experience. Because of this, Wayne thinks it is much better to talk of an “experimental” rather than a “transitional society”. The sole guideline we need, as Wayne brilliantly sums it up avoiding any false dichotomy, is that there is as little centralisation and hierarchy as possible, and as much decentralisation, autonomy and grassroots decision making as possible. And here lies another merit of his work: he refuses to see federalism as an absolute opposite to centralism. Federalism, at least in the anarchist sense of the word, means nothing but the right balance between the minimum reasonable and necessary level of centralisation and the maximum viable level of autonomy.

This respectful dialogue with other political currents is much required, not only to build “bridges” with those sections of the people who hold ideas different to us –although their intentions may be equivalent- but also to reach a proper understanding of why revolutionary experiences have failed and often have gone internally rotten by authoritarianism. A political understanding of, for instance, the Russian failure needs to acknowledge the problem of means and ends, instead of the moralistic muddle-headed platitudes of goodies and baddies which, unfortunately, plague anarchist literature. This means also to start getting rid of ill-definitions which add up nothing to our understanding of reality, but actually obscure it. Terms like “red fascist”, to refer Leninism, only clarify that those who use it whether don’t know anything about fascism or they don’t properly understand Leninism. Interestingly, Wayne analyses the failure to stop the rise of Nazism in the ‘30s Germany and deals with the ill-definitions of the German Communist Party, borrowed from the maniac sectarianism of Third Period international Communism. They labelled basically anyone out of its ranks as a fascist: thus, the social-democrats being social-fascists and anarchists being anarcho-fascists, they were unable to tell the real danger of fascism coming. This sectarianism did actually open the doors for fascism to get in without many problems. It is not too difficult to draw parallels between the sectarianism of Stalinism with the sectarianism often prevalent amongst some anarchists. The elitist attitude is the same and so is generally speaking the frame of mind of both extremes.

Another important aspect of Wayne’s work is to challenge the belief, still prevalent among the old-fashioned left, that centralisation in the economic arena is more efficient or even as necessary as usually assumed. Therefore, anarchist federalism is dismissed as unsound to deal with the complexities of modern production and life. The actual evidence, though, contradicts this simplistic view: recent economic transformations show that actually capitalism in its drive to increase productivity has moved from centralism to increased levels of decentralisation. Most modern and post-Fayol theoreticians of management, stress the need to tear down strict hierarchies in the workplace, rotate workers in chain production, get rid of unnecessary repetition and routine, introduce limited levels of participation of workers in some decision-making and planning, what they even disguise in theory as forms of “self-management”, etc. with an overall view at de-centralisation. I’m referring to authors such as Tom Peters (“Liberation Management”)[1]. This, they have proved, leads to an increase productivity and motivation of the workforce.

This tendency, however, pose its own problems for workers as a class: often, these privileges are reserved to the most specialised and well-off segments of the working force (such as professionals, technicians or specialists with a high degree of training) and, generally speaking, the main idea of this is to make workers accomplices of their own exploitation. In as much as property is not touched and the upper hand remains in the hands of the bourgeois few, the bosses can allow no problem some levels of “democracy” inside of the workplace.

Also, we have to bear in mind that decentralisation and outsourcing, are all terms frequently used by the capitalist class, sometimes aiming at dismantling the mammoth State corporations and facilitating capitalist intervention; other times (as in Chile after the Piñera labour laws of 1980) to make it easier to divide workers and weakening their unions. What I want to stress, is that decentralisation per se is not inherently revolutionary. It can be used by the capitalist class to the achievement of its own purposes as long as property is untouched. While Wayne spends a significant amount of effort demonstrating how centralism has been used by capitalism for financial and political purposes, he fails to spend a similar amount of time proving the same case about decentralisation. It is relevant to insist on this point, particularly in the IT era where we are standing when centralisation has been made, in just a decade, altogether redundant.

Whatever the case, the development of modern capitalism demonstrates that even some limited amounts of self-management and human resource management techniques aimed at motivating workers, prove the case of anarchists: workers control is not only best for workers, but also for productivity. This was already proved in revolutionary terms by the Barcelona commune during the Spanish Revolution of 1936. Over half a century later, it wouldn’t be such an exaggeration to say that it is the very capitalist system, through the IT and management developments of the last decade, which has done more for the advancement of the communist cause than all of the left together. However, we know that none of these transformations, while developing and expanding the “objective” conditions for an emancipated society, will lead mechanically to a new society. In fact, they are only serving to increase levels of alienation of the working class and increase the gap between the classes by maximizing profits in a way never seen before in history. Without a conscious organised anarchist and revolutionary political force, we can wait forever more. And this force has to challenge the sources of power of the bourgeoisie –this is what Wayne refers as “taking power”, a term that may be problematic to some anarchists but which any honest reader will not fail to understand in context as free of any authoritarian connotation.

Only challenging those sources of power –what can only be done through revolutionary means as proven by experience- can we aim at building a truly democratic and humane society. Because, we can’t forget that capitalism not only is undemocratic and alienating, but also is a system plagued of atrocities. Although we often insist on the abominations of both Nazism and Stalinism, it is not too often that we focus on the evils of Capitalism. And I’m not even thinking on the evils of colonialism, closely linked to the development of the capitalist system. We actually could go on forever on the atrocities practised by the Belgian in Congo, by the French in Algeria, or the famines caused by the British authorities in India. I won’t even focus on the murderous slaughters caused by imperialist aggression in the XXth Century. We could talk forever on the US invasions of the Philippines, their atrocities in Central America, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Vietnam or the carnival of mayhem taking place currently in Iraq. We could talk forever of the English in Kenya or Dresden.

But I won’t refer to any of this. I am just thinking on the silent massacre of 25,000 people a day out of starvation, not to talk of those who die for lack of safe access to water and preventable diseases -all this in a world of abundance. This figure alone should be enough condemnation of the capitalist regime –if we lived in a sane society. This is not just an “unwanted” result of otherwise good politics that over time can be ameliorated. This is the direct and well known result of the application of deliberate economic policies and structural adjustment programmes designed in the capitalist centres of the world, unconcerned of the tragedies that they unfold, and reinforced by a myriad on international financial institutions. Even the UN report on Human Development (2006) states that “Like hunger, deprivation in access to water is a silent crisis experienced by the poor and tolerated by those with the resources, the technology and the political power to end it”[2]. We have to state clearly that this crisis is not only “tolerated” by those with the wealth and power: it is they who have actually created it. It is the direct result of capitalism at a global scale. And these nasty “side-effects” of capitalism have not been ameliorated with time –they’re getting worse and worse each passing day. Added to the ecological crisis, caused also by the senseless waste of capitalist society, it is capitalism the main responsible of periodical famines in many parts of the Third World. So much has been written about the “black book” of communism or fascism, but capitalism has as many skeletons in its closet and its black book is jet black as anything.

As Wayne correctly states, the State, even the most democratic of them is not properly democratic. But not only is it undemocratic. It is murderous too. For those reasons it should be abolished. All of the conditions are there for us to start with this task. And Wayne’s book is definitely a contribution to explore the possibilities of a genuinely free society.

José Antonio Gutiérrez Danton
November 4th, 2007


http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=6798

Why Revolutionaries Cling To DM Like Grim Death

by Rosa Lichtenstein

No matter how deep, long-term or devastating the refutations history delivers, and despite the cogent arguments ranged against it in my Essays, the DM-faithful remain hopelessly mesmerised by their 'theory'.

Why is this? And why have revolutionaries of the stature of Engels, Lenin and Trotsky sold their radical souls to this conservative thought-form? [Marx was an exception; on this, see here and here.]

The historical origin of the philosophical system underlying DM is not in any doubt (a summary can be found here), and neither are the class origins of DM-classicists (like Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin and Trotsky). In that case, dialectics itself has impressive alien-class credentials.

It is important to note, however, that it is not being alleged here that the above comrades imported these alien ideas knowingly or duplicitously; it is being asserted that they did this honestly but unwittingly.

Honestly, because they genuinely thought that the movement needed a Philosophy; unwittingly, because the only theories on offer in their day were those that had already been compromised by ruling-class concepts and forms-of-thought (which these comrades failed to appreciate). [More on that below.]

This does not of course mean that only workers can be good socialists, but it does mean that we should be alert to the class-compromised origin of the ideas that DM-classicists brought with them into our movement -- before the working class could provide them with an effective materialist counter-weight.

Today, a hundred or more years later, there is no longer any excuse for continuing to import these ideas, since that counter-weight now exists.

However, this does help explain a rather curious anomaly: as the working-class daily grows bigger, the influence that Dialectical Marxism has on it dwindles ever faster.

Parallel to this, but not unrelated to it, our movement continues to splinter, and thus has decreasing influence on the class struggle. Moreover, the fact that workers ignore our movement en masse means that their counter-weight has no influence where it counts: on our ideas.

So Marxist Idealism lives on, as its theorists think of new ways to make such awkward facts disappear.

The lack of active socialist workers means that the unifying force of the class struggle by-passes the revolutionary movement, which, because it is dominated by petty-bourgeois individuals, does little other than fragment (for well-known social-psychological reasons; on this, see here).

Hence, the same social forces that compel workers to unite, drive professional revolutionaries in the opposite direction, and toward fragmentation.

A rather ironic 'dialectical' inversion in itself!

But, are these accusations enough to condemn DM? Clearly, not on their own.

DM is demonstrably flawed from end to end (as my Essays show); that fact alone is enough to condemn it. But, the dubious class-origin of both "materialist dialectics" and its originators explains why this theory has had such a deleterious effect on militant minds, rendering our movement all but impotent. It also helps account for the disastrous effect it has had on post 1920s Marxism.

But why do hard-headed revolutionaries cling to this lamentable theory like drunks do to lamp posts?

Marxists are aware that in defeat the tendency (even among revolutionaries) is to turn to mysticism both as a means of explanation and as a source of consolation. This was indeed one of the main reasons why Lenin wrote Materialism and Empirio-Criticism.

Alas, Marxism has faced little other than defeat and set-back for most of its history.

However, the theory that played an important subjective role in engineering this catastrophic state of affairs also enables its adherents to ignore it.

This it does in at least two ways:

1) The NON[Negation of the Negation] informs believers that any and all retreats are only temporary; the onward march of Marxism is assured by the underlying logic of history. [We saw this surface in Excuse Four, above.]

2) DM-epistemology teaches that appearances contradict underlying "essences" -- i.e., how things appear to be is the opposite of the way they really are. This being so, what might seem to be (i.e., to the dialectically untrained eye) a series of defeats, is really part of the long-term success of Marxism --, or, perhaps, part of a run of successes about to begin, any day soon...

Hence, the theory that has helped engineer these set-backs also says that they have not really taken place, that they are other than they seem, or that they do not matter.

Anyone who doubts this should try telling any randomly-selected, dialectically-distracted comrade that Marxism is highly unsuccessful. Unless you are extraordinarily unlucky, you can expect to be subjected to some ludicrously tortured logic that will attempt to prove otherwise.

The latter will include a convoluted explanation as to why, when 99% of the working class ignores Marxism --, and has done so for many generations --, and all four Internationals have gone down the pan, and the vast majority of the former 'socialist' states have gone into reverse, and Marxist parties (especially the Trotskyist variety) everywhere are a by-word for splits and divisions (indeed they are a standing joke in this regard),2 and even though practically every communist party on the planet has embraced open reformism, meaning that we are now further away from establishing a Workers' State than the Bolsheviks were in 1921 --, that none of this matters, or has actually happened, or is really now happening, or is any part of the particular 'tradition' to which this sad soul belongs.

You see, the other "sects" are to blame; it's a failure of revolutionary "leadership" -- their failure, you understand, not ours.

Alternatively, the "objective circumstances" ploy will be dusted-off, and given another spin around the dialectical exercise yard.

Nevertheless, you will probably then be informed of the good news that the latest stunt, conference, intervention, split, or expulsion that the 'party' (to which this sad dreamer belongs) has just pulled off (or is about to stage) heralds the long-awaited turning-point for the international proletariat.2a

Without a hint of irony -- still less of embarrassment --, this comrade will pronounce such verities on behalf of at most 0.00001% of the working class (this being the entire membership of his or her tiny grouplet (formed largely of non-workers)), some of whom, anyway, are about to be expelled from this 'Worker's Party' --, probably for failing to 'understand' "materialist dialectics"!

And, as sure as eggs are not dialectical eggs, this comrade will fail to see the connection between such facts and such failures --, and give you a hard time for even thinking to question the sacred gospel.

Or, if you belong to another "sect", you can expect to be called a "bourgeois stooge", or worse.

Those familiar with Marxist/revolutionary papers will already know of their unsinkable optimism -- how almost all claim to be the only one that is "leading the class", and how Capitalism is once again entering its "final crisis" (it apparently having more lives than a lorry load of cats).

But, all that this will confirm is how unreasonable dialecticians can be, and how they are prepared to bend every rule in order to protect the semi-divine dialectic.

So, Dialectical Marxists cling to this 'theory' because without it their entire world-view would fall apart, and their sole source of consolation would disappear. In short, they are super-glued (crazy-glued) to dialectics for the same reason that religious folk cling on to their faith. [More on this here.]

That, of course, explains the mind-numbing, mantra-like repetitiveness of DM, the pathological fear of the "R" word ("Revisionism" -- which attitude conveniently forgets that no science is beyond revision), the sacred books, the appeal to 'orthodoxy', the heroic pictures of the dialectical saints carried on parades (Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Che, Kim Jong-il, etc., etc.), and the inexplicable adherence to the Stone Age Logic found in a thinly-disguised work of mystical theology that celebrates the goings-on of an invisible 'Being' (i.e., Hegel's 'Logic').

If this wasn't quite so serious, you'd laugh.


For more about Dialectics and why this theory should be dumped, visit Rosa Lichtenstein @nti-Dialectics for Absolute Beginners.

Putting Reparations on the Socialist Agenda

According to the International Monetary Fund(IMF), in 2006 the United States of America had a GDP of more than $13 trillion and thus ranking it as the largest national GDP in the world. GDP, or gross domestic product, is the value of all final goods and services from a nation in a given time period. Yet, this wealth is becoming gradually concentrated as yearly statistics show. According to State of Working America, in 2004, 12.7% of the population, 37 million persons, were considered poor. Not only is wealth in America unequally distributed, but poverty is as well also, with 30 percent of Blacks being poor, 20 percent of all Hispanics, but only 9 percent of Whites. How did America generate and continue to generate this vast amount of wealth and is there a connection between that process and it's disproportionate allocation?

Slavery and Primitive Accumulation of Capital

Primitive, or "original accumulation", refers to the initial process that led to a 'critical mass' of accumulation that enabled capital to be set in motion. It's a concept developed by Karl Marx to explain how the capitalist mode of production came into fruition. Marx says we must envision an accumulation of capital that was not a consequence of capitalist production but was the starting point of capitalist production. He called this "primitive accumulation of capital".

So what is this primitive or original/previous accumulation of capital? According to Marx it was the,

discovery of gold and silver in America, the extirpation, enslavement and entombment in mines of the indigenous population of that continent, the beginnings of the conquest and plunder of India, and the conversion of Africa into a preserve for the commercial hunting of blackskins, are all things which characterize the dawn of the era of capitalist production. These idyllic proceedings are the chief moments of primitive accumulation. [Marx 1977, p. 915]

Capitalist development was due to the brutal exploitation of Blacks and indigenous people as consumers and workers. African slaves were forced to perform free labor for almost 250 years. Karl Marx notes,

Direct slavery is just as much the pivot of bourgeois industry as machinery, credits, etc. Without slavery you have no cotton; without cotton you have no modern industry. It is slavery that has given the colonies their value; it is the colonies that have created world trade, and it is world trade that is the pre-condition of large-scale industry.
-The Poverty of Philosophy: A Reply to M. Proudhon’s Philosophy of Poverty, New York, International Publishers, n.d., pages 94-5.

This constant expropriation of surplus value, at a high rate of exploitation, was the driving force behind capitalist development, as well as the underdevelopment of Africa, Asia and Latin America. Where did the reproduction and growth needed for capital investment come from after the abolishment of slavery?

Abolition and Permanent Accumulation of Capital

After the abolishment of the slavery mode of production in the South, the United states still continued to generate wealth. Rosa Luxemburg proposes that the cause of this continual generation of wealth is due to what is called, permanent accumulation of capital. The difference between Marx and Luxemburg is that, for Marx, primitive accumulation is the starting point for capitalism proper, whereas for Luxemburg it is an ongoing process. Even after Black Americans were "freed", they still were subject to economic exploitation and political disenfranchisement. This was accomplished by the racist/capitalist state through, but not limited to, Black Codes, convict lease, peonage, Jim Crow laws as well as institutional racism. The rate of exploitation was higher for black workers than white workers, allowing capitalists to accrue higher profits from black workers than their white counter-parts. This discrepancy still occurs today, according to State of Workign America, "For every dollar of whites’ income, minorities receive only 56 cents. For every dollar of networth that whites control, minorities control only 27 cents."

A Call for Reparations

The National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America(NCOBRA) views reparations as a "process of repairing, healing and restoring a people injured because of their group identity and in violation of their fundamental human rights by governments or corporations. Those groups that have been injured have the right to obtain from the government or corporation responsible for the injuries that which they need to repair and heal themselves. In addition to being a demand for justice, it is a principle of international human rights law. As a remedy, it is similar to the remedy for damages in domestic law that holds a person responsible for injuries suffered by another when the infliction of the injury violates domestic law". Economist Larry Neal, estimates that unpaid net wages to blacks before emancipation amount to $1.4 trillion today. While, University of California at Berkeley calculated the gains of whites from labor market discrimination from 1929 to 1969 to total $1.6 trillion. In total, there are estimates that blacks are owed up to 10 trillion by the US government. Yet, through all of NCOBRA's legal routes and tribunals , blacks have yet to receive any compensation. Nor, is it for certain that the government ever will.

Revolution is the Solution

There is a direct correlation between the development of capitalism and the underdevelopment of Black America. The exploitation of blacks if the motor for the United States rapid accumulation of capital. The high rate of exploitation, combined with the expropriation of surplus value from black labor is not only the cause of America's vast amount of wealth, but also the reason why that wealth is disproportionately allocated. Therefore, it is in the best interest of the capitalist class to continue to accumulate profit through division of labor according to race. The legal route for reparations and the development of Black America is a dead end. The only solution is a socialist revolution.

In that sense, reparations for Africans and indigenous people must be included on the socialist agenda. The only way compensation and development will be achieved is through the destruction of the vary economic system and state apparatus that is the cause of the underdevelopment of Black America. One of the first tasks of a socialist society would not only to meet the basic needs of the people, but to develop historically oppressed communities. The socialist society will give preference to developing these areas not to recreate inequality, but to raise the standards of life for everyone in society. This task cannot be completed in a capitalist society, but only a post-revolutionary socialist one.

Cheers.

"Four hundred years the white man has had his foot-long knife in the black man's back - and now the white man starts to wiggle the knife out, maybe six inches! The black man's supposed to be grateful? Why, if the white man jerked the knife out, it's still going to leave a scar!"
-Malcolm X

Meeting the Demands of the People

In the late 1960s a group of black militants burst onto the scene to capture the hearts and minds of inner city youth with fiery rhetoric and words as slick as their black leather jackets. Through armed police brutality patrols and calls for "power to the people", the Black Panther Party embodied the radicalization of the Black Struggle and inspired a generation of young people to become politically active. The Party however, was not just a Self-Defense organization. Early on, founders Huey Newton and Bobby Seale, articulated their immediate demands and political positions into a ten point program. In the autobiography of Bobby Seale, Seize the Time, explains the importance of the ten point program.


Huey said, "We need a program. We have to have a program for the people. A program that relates to the people. A program that the people can understand. A program that the people can read and see, and which expresses their desires and needs at the same time. It's got to relate to the philosophical meaning of where in the world we are going, but the philosophical meaning will also have to relate to something specific."

Point 10 on the Panther's ten point program proclaimed, "We want land, bread, housing, education, clothing, justice and peace." However, as Marxists, the Panthers recognized that their interests conflicted with the interests of the bourgeoisie. Newton states, "The Black Panther Party is a revolutionary Nationalist group and we see a major contradiction between capitalism and our interests". So, just how would these demands be met? Newton goes on by saying, "We realize this country became very rich upon slavery and that capitalism is slavery in the extreme. We have two evils to fight, capitalism and racism.We must destroy racism and capitalism." Their interests therefore, could only be realized through the destruction of capitalism through a socialist revolution.

Participatory Planning

In a post-revolutionary society the means of production are owned by everyone in equal share and not by one particular production group. The bourgeoisie and petite bourgeoisie will no longer have a monopoly on the decision making process. Each actor in society would influence decisions in proportion in which they are affected by them. Society will thus be participatory and egalitarian.

Participatory planning allows participants to exercise direct democracy and allows ordinary citizens to control their own lives. Citizens of a post-revolutionary society will be organized into federations of workers and consumer councils. Workers in worker councils need to articulate proposals on what and how much they want to produce, as well as the resources needed for production. Consumers, on the other hand, will need to express through proposals what and how much they intend to consume. Both production and consumption proposals will be sent to the facilitation board where through a system of proposals, amendments, and rejections, a social plan articulated to cover the entire economy is hashed out.

Personal Consumption Proposals

How can demands for "land, bread, housing, education, clothing,justice and peace" be achieved in a socialist society? The answer to this question lies in participatory planning.

For example, Omar, an African-American living with his girlfriend in a co-housing community in Detroit, Michigan, is working on his personal consumption proposal. His neighborhood already negotiated it's collective proposals, which have consequently, been summed up with county, state, regional and national collective consumption proposals.

Omar, like most able bodied individuals, works at a roughly average job complex and requests a roughly average consumption bundle. He knows that everyone has a finite share of the total social product. So all citizens can request things up to the limit of their budget allocated to them. Logging on to his computer, he begins to draft a consumption proposal based on combinations of different goods he desires and their indicative prices.

Omar is unfortunately a very picky eater, so his choice of foods are very limited. He bases his food consumption proposal on his old grocery store lists in pre-revolutionary and capitalist days. His computer program manipulates the input to articulate it for the whole year. Of course, he may change his mind, so fortunately for him, the iteration processes of participatory economics introduces "slack" in the social plan to allow for spontaneous "purchases". Omar is really a simple man and doesn't need a roomful of clothes, so he is modest when it comes to his clothing requests. A dozen or so new shirts and pants, a trench coat, boots for the winter, more socks( they continue to disappear in drying machine post-revolution too!), and other items will do him fine.

Even though, Omar enjoys living in the co-housing community, he and is girlfriend decided they wanted a bit more privacy and want to relocate into a household in Kalamazoo, Michigan. The Housing Facilitation Board is a group of workers that assists people wishing to change their residence. Likewise, the Employment Facilitation Board is a group of workers whom assists people who wish to change their workplace. These two boards help Omar and his girlfriend relocate to an available household in Kalamazoo, as well, as get him quickly situated in a new workplace.

One of the other main reasons, why Omar wanted to move to Kalamazoo, was because it houses a brand new college specifically centered on African And African American Studies. Before the revolution, such places didn't exist and it was senseless to major in African studies at a college because that degree was useless on the job market . Now, part of his job complex is teaching Egyptian History in a local community Center, as well as smelter in a local steel plant.

In capitalism, Omar was subject to police brutality and racial profiling. Being born in a poor neighborhood in Detroit, he had little chance to pursue higher education or escape the vicious circle of poverty. His mother lived off of paycheck to paycheck and some nights all he had to eat was his hatred for being born black and poor.

However, after the socialist revolution, Omar has more opportunities and more freedoms than ever before. All basic necessities such as food, shelter, clothing, medical care, etc are easily met now. There is no more police brutality, black on black crime has gone down from the Crips and Gangster Disciples having been disbanded, he has enrolled in college which is provided free to all citizens and he goes to bed each night with his hunger satisfied.

In conclusion, post-revolutionary society will be participatory and egalitarian. The social plan for society will be reached upon by a series of proposals from workers' and consumers' (neighborhood) councils and meetings of regional delegates. This makes sure that every citizen's demand for "land, bread, housing, education, clothing,justice and peace" is met and that the Panther legacy continues to live on.


Cheers
-blackstone

New Housing in a Post-Revolutionary Society

In this blog post, I want to discuss a possible solution on how a community can request new housing for it's citizens. This discussion include ideas of private property, socialized means of production and participatory planning. In a post-revolutionary society the means of production are owned by everyone and not by one particular production group. Therefore, each actor should influence decisions in proportion in which they are affected by them.

QUOTE (spartan @ October 02, 2007 06:42 pm)

blackstone: QUOTE I don't see a 50-50 split happening in your situation. The factory can either have the abundance to supply the wood to the commune or not. (And who are willing to give some of there Yes but what if C2 does not want to supply C1 with wood which is needed by C2? A solution to this problem could be for C1 to look elsewhere to another commune for wood away) but what if the next nearest commune is too far away too suit C1's demand for the wood?This could create a supply problem! Especially if C1 needs the wood desperately and gets impatient for the wood.This could lead to C1 getting violent!

Well, in that case the wood factory of commune 2(from here on out referred to as Che Commune) has a workers council which is part of a larger federation of wood factory workers' council, which could be regional, national or international. If someone can supply it, it wouldn't take long for the commune to receive it.

Again, i think we have to think about rules of order.

In an post-revolutionary society there will be stages of planning before voting takes place.

If your part of a group, do you vote you all go to Egypt without first checking the traveling expenses and seeing whether it's in your budget?

Wouldn't be too clever. And you'll be in for a surprise..


Say the Eastside neighborhood council makes part of Che Commune, a commune which is made up of various neighborhood councils and workers councils. The neighborhood council received requests to build more houses and raised the issue in the next commune meeting and submitted the idea of new housing as a collective consumption project. The commune then submits this proposal to a facilitation board which calculates how much wood and other supplies would be needed for the project.


Workers also make proposals for what they intend to produce and the inputs needed for production. These production proposals would have also been sent to the facilation board where through a system of proposals, amendments, and rejections, a social plan articulated to cover the entire economy is hashed out.

The worker organizations that would do the work of construction and provide the materials, including the wood workers organization that provides the lumber, etc. would need to also indicate what they require in order to meet these requests. The facilitation board will relay this new information to Che commune and the Eastside neighborhood council. Where if needed they can make the proper "adjustments" to their proposals. The households of Eastside commune given back 4 different revised proposals which they rank in order of preference. After each round, a proposal is dropped until the neighborhood has settled on it's collective consumption proposal(which includes new housing requests).

This is all part of the process of negotiating of a plan on how scarce resources will be allocated. Che commune, ore more precisely, the Eastside neighborhood council can either re-adjust their collective consumption plans or put the project on hold. If through this process of adjustments, they can reach an "agreement", the community votes to settle the collective consumption proposals in order to begin prouduction on the new houses.

As always emphasized, this is just one particular way to pursue a collective consumption decision making process.

Cheers

Train Services in a Decentralised Economy

I'd like to discuss a bit on how train services would work in a socialist society with a decentralized and participatory economics and social planning. I hope to show just how it is possible to generate train schedules and other functions without central planning or a central authority. It begins with a question made by a advocate of central planning..

If you don't believe in a centally planned economy, how would train timetables be drawn up? I mean, you can't have decentralised train services can you? Someone has to have the authority to plan the way that a nation's train service operates.

I think you have a misconception of what it means to be decentralized and the absence of authority.

Here's what Bakunin had to say,

Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or engineer.

I bow before the authority of special men because it is imposed upon me by my own reason. I am conscio