To plan, or not to plan ?

Those who are generally known not to like planning, law and order, are the anarchists. Yet what did they learn according to their own publications, in Spain, quote:

---->> continued ...

(...) Underpinning the NCDC's resolution of October 1934 was a determination to beef up the defense committees, overcoming their deficiencies, correcting mistakes, and above all, using the state's crackdown as a spur to carry on the struggle. The old tactics were dumped in favor of serious systematic revolutionary preparedness:

In the absence of preparation, there is no revolution -- and the more intense and shrewder the preparations, the more the revolution will prosper when the day comes. We must end the weakness for improvization and hot-headed schemes as the only solutions in difficult times. That mistake, of trusting to the creative instincts of the masses, has cost us very dearly. One cannot just conjure up, as if through spontaneous generation, the necessary means to fight a war against a state that boasts experience, vast resources, and superior offensive and defensive capabilities.
(...)


From: Ready for Revolution, quoting the NCDC, page 15-16.

(Note: The apparently added square bracket [notes] "[feasible] solutions" and "resources [in terms of armaments]" are omitted from the quotation below, because it seems to reduce the power of what is being said. Emphasis "In the ... day comes." added. )

From the glossery at page 2: "NCDC - National committee of Defense Committees". Title: READY FOR REVOLUTION ~ THE CNT DEFENSE COMMITTEES IN BARCELONA 1933-38, by: Agustin Guillamon, translated: Paul Sharkey Publisher AK Press (2014). Just about as radical anarchist a publishing house as one can find, with the anarchist flag as the logo ?

Their collegues and competitors, the communists, discovered the same - likewise for them it was too late. A different time (1918), a different Country (Germany), and a different political ideology (Communism), but the same conclusion. Quote from The Western Soviets [emphasis at the end is added]:

(...) After years of hesitation, the Spartakist leaders decided to go beyond the limits of a primarily propaganda group operating within social democracy and form an independent organization of revolutionaries - the German Communist Party (KPD). Rote Fahne explained the importance of this event:

The revolutionary vanguard of the German proletariat has decided to form an independent revolutiuonary political party . . . It is the natural product of the development of the revolution, and with its foundations the second phase of the revolution begins . . . The illusions of 9 November are dashed . . . Now the contradictions have been clarified, the struggle sharpened and the maturity and self-determination of the revolution prepared . . . In place of the spontaneous we must set the systematic
(...)


From: THE WESTERN SOVIETS by Donny Gluckstein, page 146-147, Bookmarks Publishing Co-operative. From the information page, quote: "Bookmarks is linked to the Socialist Worker Party, one of a group of socialist organizations linked internationally.

Germany, 1918, Communist/Socialist: can it get any redder then that ? Recall that Marx was a German.

That a Revolution has to be carefully planned like nothing else, because it is more complex then anything else, should be obvious. But where is this Revolutionary planning now ? Where is it the most shrewd, not taking any chances with internal corruption, violence, or underestimating the power of peaceful activities such as organizing and simply arguing for what is reasonable, where is the systematic placed instead of the spontaneous ? You are looking at it now.

While the famous proponent of Capitalism may be Adam Smidth (who certainly made some good points), and the famous proponent of Communism was Karl Marx (who likewise did), their main works (The Wealth of Nations and Das Kapital, respectively) do not contain extensive planning or detailed ideological development of what should replace the system or how to go about doing that. Did Smidth win, because even the sketchy outline he wrote about a new society (to replace the Feudal system?) was more then Marx had said when he merely criticized the Capitalist order without planning for a replacement or improvement, or even barely hint at what should be done ?

Perhaps an interesting thought might be that the system presented here (D.A.V.I.D.) is more extensive and more integrated within itself, then is Capitalism. This D.A.V.I.D. system is ideologically more worked out than purely hypothetical Capitalism, and also than practically existing Capitalism. Practically existing capitalism is on its core issues (where it would differ from this D.A.V.I.D. model) a simplistic model. Naturally there are masses of laws about endless topics, but that is not at odds with this here presented model ~ on the contrary. Capitalism is also getting more simplistic sometimes by way of deregulation, as is happening at the time of this writing.

Will through the rigor of time, the hardest ideological substance be the last one to remain ? In a tumbler full of large rocks, the one diamond may at first be difficult to find. After enough tumbling around, all the other rocks could turn to dust and blow away on the wind. Only the diamond would possibly remain. One could then ask the reasonable question: is this model hard, or is it a mishmash of various inputs that are held together by the mere taste of the author, such as is the case in the capitalist-welfare State (a loose combination of capitalist and social-activist measures) ? Fact of the matter is that this system here all flows from a single ideological point, to wit: power distribution to all. The whole model is strongly integrated with itself. It does not need capitalism, it does not need anarchy, and it does not need socialism or communism. It has already what is good about them, without drawing on them. Knowing this system currently like no other, I can honestly say that it is tough as rocks, and (to my knowledge) the strongest and probably most durable ideological system known in the western world, worked out in an amount of detail that previous revolutions probably have not even managed to do a tenth of the amount of preparations, including the revolution of the current model (Capitalism) against the preceding one (Feudalism).

What will such self boasting and repulsive arrogance bring us ? By having good confidence in the system, it protects us from acting rashly, as we would put our confidence in time and experience to show the ultimate truth. We do not have to convince anyone necessarily, we only have to try to live it for ourselves. If it works and it is better, it will work and it will spread. If not, it will end on the compost heap of history, where in that case it will belong.