Practical Applications of Society in an Anarcho-Communist Community
Introduction — What is Anarchy? What is Communism/Socialism?
Before I begin on this essay about the development of society in an Anarchist, Communist, and/or Socialist community, I should probably define these words as I use them. The word “anarchy” is from the Greek, prefix an (or a), meaning “not,” “the want of,” “the absence of,” or “the lack of”, plus archos, meaning “a ruler,” “director”, “chief,” “person in charge,” or “authority.” The pure, lingual form of Anarchy or Anarchism is “Anarchos,” or “Anarchia.” However, Anarchism taken in this sense is only one view of the matter of politics. It is not a system, but rather, it is the absence of any authority system. In many Anarchist societies, they have relied on Democracy. When I speak of Democracy, I speak of it in the form which old philosophers and educated individuals have used it: meaning that the people in a society vote for bills before they become laws, often times called “Direct Democracy.” Anarchy and Democracy are two sides of the same coin: Anarchy means no leader, whereas Democracy means the people choose the rules and regulations of society. Of course, I am sure there are instances where there is neither Democracy without Anarchy or vice versa. Our media and United States government has so vulgarized the term Democracy, simply equating it with the idea of “living in liberty” and promoting it every chance they get. The US government is not a Democracy. As long as we have a president and a congress who decide the laws for the people, we are not living in a Democracy — we are living in a Republic, a system where people choose the people who choose the laws, but in issence this is the same as a Dictatorship, as the sole difference is how people are chosen as leaders. To an Anarchist, both the systems of Dictatorship and Republic are evils, as they are productive of depriving people of their right to confront issues. To quote Joseph-Pierre Proudhon on Anarchism…
By the word [anarchy] I wanted to indicate the extreme limit of political progress. Anarchy is… a form of government or constitution in which public and private consciousness, formed through the development of science and law, is alone sufficient to maintain order and guarantee all liberties… The institutions of the police, preventative and repressive methods officialdom, taxation etc., are reduced to a minimum… monarchy and intensive centralization disappear, to be replaced by federal institutions and a pattern of life based upon the commune. [Resource: Selected Writings, by Joseph Pierre Proudhon, page 105.]
In my previous writings, I have given the differences between Communism and Socialism always with this one caution: that in our society today, as far as the political parties and philosophers are concerned, the only difference between Communism and Socialism is that Communism is more extreme. When I wrote my concerns on the matter of Socialism and Communism, I often tried to go to the historical roots of both ideologies: to the works of Marx, Engels, and other thinkers. However, the works of Marx are so expansive beyond just “The Communist Manifesto,” that any person, even those of greatest interest and desire, would be hard-pressed to read all of Marx’s works. So, today, even many of the national Communist parties are unaware of all of the ideas proposed by the great thinker, and I will not deny that even I have neglected some of his more intimidating pieces. To the definitions of our culture, Communism is simply more extreme compared to Socialism, but more extreme to what? The concepts that these systems deal with are the rights of the workers, which often times manifest themselves in minimum working wage, minimum working hours, unions, boycotting, consumer rights, among other things; but, the greatest ideal of both Communism and Socialism, is that the person who works in the factory ought to be the person who owns the factory. This is to say, the individual who produces the goods of society ought to be the one to determine what happens to such goods. As to the greater detail in the difference between Communism and Socialism, I will not further explain, as it would not serve the purpose of this paper. Yet, as far as this essay is concerned, Socialism and Communism will simply mean that the worker is in control of the means of production.
Often in our society, from radical and revolutionary groups, we will hear slogans, such as “freedom for all” — “workers’ rights, refugees’ rights, one battle, one struggle” — “liberate labor” — and the ever-famous, “power to the people.” If one were to read the works of Communist and Anarchist thinkers, they would find a much more revealing description of these slogans. Proudhon, Bakunin, Marx, Engels, Berkman, among others, have gone at length to describe the systems of Anarchism and Communism. Of Anarchism, there has been a great deal said on the will of the people being the governing force of politics and of matters of concern to the people as a whole. Of Communism, there has been a great deal said on the rights of the workers, of the fair share of income, of the economy being ruled by the workers and not by investors or businessmen. Though, in all of my investigation into these matters, I have not discovered many pieces or articles which dealt with the practical applications of society. By this, I mean what would happen in reality once these ideals would be realized. If a group of a revolutionary people were to get together and have their own land to govern themselves, all of them Anarchists and Communists, the question may arrise, “Okay, now what?” The will of the people shall rule them all, but how do they turn that into a realization? The worker will be given a fair pay, and the workers will be given the right to decide what happens with the products — but how does this come to realization? This essay is a method of tackling this question. For a great deal of time, I was wondering what I could expect to see as social developments in an Anarcho-Communist society, and no publication could answer this for me. With this essay, I will try to answer how the ideology of Anarcho-Communism can be realized by a willing people.
Politics — The Governing of Governmentless People
It is not difficult to see the great, incalculable failure of a Republic government. Consider, for example, the last presidential election. George Bush and Al Gore were competing. Both of them have inside connections to the government. Neither of them are much different than each other. The public remained unconvinced that either of them would be capable of making any realistic changes. The election reached a historic low for public interest. With such a low voter turn out, it was quite easy to see that the peoples’ confidence in such a system was destroyed. And, finally, once all the votes had been cast and Al Gore won the popular election, George Bush was decided president — not by the people, but by the armies and navies that have supported every tyrant. To know why a person is an Anarchist is simply to live in the United States, or any country where laws are determined by an unjust, unfair aristocracy. The failure of the Republic, though, is not limited. At the beginning of the American Revolution, it was often hypothesized by philosophers and political writers that representation would bring about fairness, justice, and a more Utopian idea of society. Monarchs were written of as though they were the very servants of iniquity and presidents were described as the just, fair rulers of a free society. From every quill and every mouth came these words, these ideas, that we are free when we choose someone to rule us — but these were no more than lies. There is only one difference between a dictator and a president, and it is not in the amount of people they torture, the amount of homes they burn, the amount of children they deprive of mothers and fathers — both senators and monarchs did this. The primary difference between an elected official and an unelected official is how they are chosen: one comse with the consent of the people while the other simply assumes it. Yet, both dictators and presidents show unprecendented lines of corruption. The system of a Republic is a failure for the same reasons as a Dictatorship: rulers typically deprive their people of their rights as they search for their quest for power and wealth. When I speak of a Republic system, understand that I am speaking of a system where people choose other people to choose laws, not where the people choose the laws. If anyone needs a more sure sign of the failure of a Republic government to fairly represent the people of the nation, consider how Ralph Nader, a presidential candidate, was refused when he wished to entert he public debates, where he was not allowed to speak to the people, where his views were shunned and thrown out of the light in regards to any publicisizing… and yet Nader’s beliefs about government ran contrary to everything every president or senator ever believed, as he was concerned with Workers’ Rights, with the environment, with justice, with eqaulity, but his opinions differed from those of mainstream political groups, and for this he was silenced. Preventivi gratuiti