longer_comments truncated at 1800 characters.

It is not true that the overwhelming majority of all anarchists are infected with the "Scarlet O'Hara syndrome." Anarchists have written many books over the past 150 years describing how an anarchist society could look like. "Conquest of Bread" by Peter Kropotkin is one of my favorites. For a description of what an anarchist society would look like I refer Ben to Section I of "an anarchist FAQ" at http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secIcon.html If you were to ask your questions about what an anarchist society would look like on the anarchist message boards at http://flag.blackened.net the "Scarlet O'Hara Syndrome" would not be the overwhelming response.

With regard to the economy, each workplace is run by it's own worker assembly which meets regularly and makes all major decisions about the workplace. Everyone has an equal say in those decisions, which are made using either consensus or direct democracy (or some mixture of the two). Assemblies divvy up the tasks and plan what they are going to do. Historically they have also elected a factory committee that takes care of administration and coordination. The factory committees simply implement policy decided by the assembly where decision-making power stayed.

Coordination of the economy can be done through a system of horizontal networks or worker councils. The tradition way of doing this is for each assembly to assign a contact person(s) (sometimes called a spoke or delegate) to meet with other contact people from other assemblies which they want to coordinate things with. Position of contact person should rotate frequently. Each contact person is mandated, meaning that they are instructed by the assembly that they come from on how to deal with any issue. The contact people would be given binding instruc
--[truncation was here]--
tions, committing them to a framework of policies, developed by their assembly, within which they would have to act. If at any time they violate their mandate their assembly would instantly recall them and their decisions revoked. This differs from representative institutions in that decision making power stays in the assemblies whereas representatives can make whatever decisions they want and have authority over others. Contact people simply convey and implement the positions of their assemblies; they do not have any authority or special privileges. Meetings of contact people are sometimes called workers councils. Councils are organized from the bottom up, with control staying in the assemblies. They are not hierarchical organizations but simply coordinate the activities of the assemblies without authority. Instead of hierarchy there are decentralized confederations and networks. Decision-making power stays with the assemblies upon which the councils are based - the assemblies would be the core of any organization. This can be done on whatever levels are needed - regional, industry-based, etc. This forms a self-organizing economy based on decentralized planning. The spokescouncils used by many in the "anti-globalization" movement are an example of one way this can be done.

The information revolution greatly aids network forms of organizing such as this by making it easier for different parts of the network to communicate with each other and share information. Activists are already using this, sometimes unknowingly, against the dominant hierarchical and market institutions. It was the use of networks and netwar that made Seattle such a success, IMO. As one RAND publication put it "The information revolution is leading to the rise of network forms of organization in which small, previously isolated groups can communicate, link up, and conduct coordinated joint actions as never before. This in turn is leading to a new mode of conflict--"netwar"--in which the protagonists depend on using network forms of organization, doctrine, strategy, and technology. Many actors across the spectrum of conflict--from terrorists, guerrillas, and criminals who pose security threats, to social activists who may not--are developing netwar designs and capabilities." http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR994/ This network form of organization can be used not only to attack capitalism & the state but also to run society after they have been overthrown.

Ben's "first law" conflicts with his claim that "it will likely take at least half a century or more (starting from the time that bourgeois rule is broken) before humanity learns how to" run a classless society. If a good vision for how a classless society would be run has already been developed, and most people understand and believe in it, then we have already learned how a classless society would be run. All that is necessary is to implement it, which shouldn't take more then a few years. If the proletariat can take state power overnight why can it not take over the economy in six months? Why should the political sphere be different from the economic? There are no examples of the proletariat running a state (even for just six months) but there are examples of the proletariat running the economy.

Ben asks "disagreements will exist not simply between individuals but also on a larger scale: between larger units (ie: co-ops, communes and collectives, etc). How will these disputes be resolved"

There are a number of ways disputes between collectives can be resolved. If it is feasible the members of the different collectives can simply hold a joint assembly where they can discuss and debate whatever issue is to be decided. The use of modern communications technology makes this even easier. They can come to a decision using either consensus or direct democracy or a mix of the two. They get together and vote on it. They can have a referendum. This can also be done though the use of contact people as outlined above. Another option is for the two groups to agree on a neutral arbitrator (which could be an individual or a group) to hear both sides and come to a solution. "The people" may not always know the best thing to do but they're more likely to come to decisions that benefit most people than having some elite vanguard of professional revolutionaries boss everyone around.

Ben asks, "How will the working class minimize disruptions and keep supply chains running?"

The working class will directly take over the means of production and place them under worker self-management using the system of worker assemblies and factory committees described early. At first the pre-existing supply chains would probably be maintained. They will, however, be placed under worker's control. The more rapidly this is done the less disruptions there will be. Once worker self-management has been established the supply chains will be reorganized so as to be more beneficial to the population as a whole and to be more efficient. This would involve ending the use of the market and instead using networks, as described above, to coordinate production.

Ben correctly notes that the factory committees in the Russian Revolution, with a few exceptions, largely maintained the pre-existing supply lines - they produced the same things for the same customers, etc. At first it is likely that the takeover of industry by the workers would do exactly that. Once they have taken over their own workplaces and restarted production, however, I believe they should take this a step further, federating together and then reorganizing production & supply chains. They should form networks to coordinate their activities through spokescouncils or some other kind of non-hierarchical coordination. The factory committees in the Russian Revolution did not do this. Instead the Bolsheviks subordinated them to a centralized state planning council and later abolished them.

The Spanish Revolution provides a better example of self-management and coordination between different self-managed collectives. Ben refers to an article by Joseph Green that is replete with distortions, half-truths, and misrepresentation of the views of the Spanish anarchists. I'll focus just on the distortions concerning the coordination of the collectives since that is what Ben refers to here (if I have time I may address Green's other half-truths later). It is true that _initially_ market relations continued to exist in Revolutionary Spain. Self-managed collectives sold most of their products on the market, at first. This was a system of mutualism, not capitalism, because wage-labor was abolished even though market relations continued to exist. It is also true that there were inequalities between collectives during this initial period, though this was much less inequality than exists in any capitalist society (state-capitalist or otherwise). This was due to both pre-existing inequalities in the workplaces that were expropriated (some workplaces were wealthier than others) and, I would argue, the tendency of markets, even non-capitalist markets, to generate inequalities.

What Joseph does not mention is that this was only true in the initial period; there were several forms of coordination between collectives established in the months following expropriation. This started on a local basis and later built on a larger basis. Immediately after the civil war started forms of loose coordination appeared to fight the war. Many collectives converted their workplaces to war production and others sent either money or useful materials (such as food) to both the militias fighting the war and the collectives on war production. Supply committees were set up. In some cases there were joint assemblies with the workers of multiple workplaces. Often industries were reorganized so as to be more efficient, shutting down inefficient plants and using more efficient ones more fully. Later greater coordination was established between collectives using systems similar to the spokescouncil system outlined above, although the specifics varied and different forms were used by different collectives. Regional federations were formed such the Levant Federation of Collectives formed just a few weeks after the revolution began and in June 1937 a Plenum of peasant collectives was held. Equalization funds were established to reduce the inequality between collectives and sometimes there were direct transfers of resources between collectives. There were even instances of large groups of people moving from one collective to another in order to help out the poorer collectives. All of this was organized from the bottom up, with decision-making power in the hands of the assemblies.

Market relations during the revolution didn't reemerge because of the nature of the collectives. They survived the initial expropriation and then spent a year declining. Marxists launched an offensive against the collectives in mid-1937 in order to implement state-capitalism, after which market relations did begin to reemerge. Despite the incomplete nature of the Spanish revolution it is still vastly superior to state-capitalism and provides an example proving that anarcho-collectivism can work. Even during the initial period of mutualism the collectives were economically productive as many eyewitness accounts attest. Many first-hand observers who were hostile towards anarchism, such as Borkenau, admitted this.

We build the shell of the new world within the shell of the old. Prior to and during the revolution the proletariat organizes against capitalism and the state on the same principles the future society should be organized around. The means one uses determines the ends you get. If you attempt to change society through using a vanguard party to seize state power you will probably end up with a one-party state. If you attempt to change society using confederations of general assemblies you will probably end up with a society based on networks of popular assemblies. The proletariat self-organizes on a non-hierarchical basis against capitalism and those same non-hierarchical organizations take over once the revolution has destroyed capitalism and the state. This is not an evolutionary approach; these organizations should fight against the capitalists and wage revolution. The initial framework of anarchy is created under capitalism & statism and as a result of the struggle against them. These organizations often arise spontaneously as a natural outcome of the class struggle. In Argentina popular assemblies, and networks between them, have appeared spontaneously. The struggle against hierarchy is the school of anarchy. The same process of using non-hierarchical organizations to wage class war brings about a new consciousness as workers become used to organizing in such a way. By the time the revolution is completed most workers will already have experience organizing and coordinating their actions on a large scale without hierarchy.

Ben asks "in your economy-without-a-state: • (a) do you plan to use money to regulate relations between the different economic enterprises, co-ops and so forth? • (b) Or do you plan to use some kind of trade or barter system? • (c) Or some kind of labor hour certificate? • (d) Or will you make use of some other kind of exchange-based system? • (e) Or do have in mind some kind of central planning system that will not make use of state authority? • (f) Or are you thinking of a "gift economy" (ie: as I assert is the inevitable destination of human economies). • (g) Or are these questions something that you prefer, like the famous Scarlet O'Hara, not to think about today?"

I would prefer libertarian communism - which is more or less what you call a gift economy. Immediately after the means of production has been abolished it is likely that money or something similar to money (trade, barter, labor certificates, etc.) would be used but I'd like to see that abolished as rapidly as possible. I see no reason why this cannot be done at most in a matter of years, not decades. If a lengthy transition period were needed I see know reason why it cannot be some non-communist form of anarchism such as mutualism or collectivism. Despite what Ben claims it is entirely possible to have money without a state or central bank. Money predates central banks by many centuries. Initially whatever money existed prior to the revolution (dollars, Euros, etc.) can be used. Collectives could switch to "labor certificates" or some kind of barter system instead if they found it effective. I see no reason why the use of "labor certificates" would automatically result in a lower productivity of labor. Those few collectives during the Spanish revolution that used similar systems did not result in lower productivity of labor. In addition productivity of labor does not have to be higher then under the present system for life to be better for the average worker. Given the elimination of the immense inequalities that exist under capitalism there could be a considerable reduction in the total wealth produced and the average worker (thanks to the greater equality) would still be better off. The Spanish Revolution proves that a self-organizing economy that uses money is quite possible and is much better for most workers than capitalism of any time. A half-century long transition period in state-capitalism is unnecessary.

Ben asks "can you explain how you believe the working class will be able to restrict the ability of the bourgeoisie (or former bourgeoisie, or aspiring future bourgeoisie) to use their economic power to saturate the mass media with their garbage?"

All of the means of production, including media corporations, will be expropriated. They will no longer be able to use their property to magnify their voices and drown out other voices because they won't have any property. Their voice will not be any louder than anyone else's.