Anarcho-communism

[obviousman]

Am I the only one who feels like the theory of anarcho-communism is awesome. It's application though is never been successful. I've always wondered why not. The biggest thing I could come up with is that it puts to much trust in the fact that humans would work for the good of others. I would love to hear everyone's opinion on the political theory. And why it doesn't work when applied. Or maybe if someone has another type of government they like feel free to post it.

 

[Bry]

Eric and I have been working up to a discussion of this sort on the Socialism vs. Capitalism thread in USA CHAT. Eric posted the original in a different thread, and I have made several commentaries in other threads, and the thought was that I would eventually get around to it again, and we could consolidate the discussion in a separate thread. Feel free to jump in over there.

To comment briefly on anarcho-communism, i don't believe it has been tried on any large scale, though it has been tried with success on a small scale. Even on a small scale, though, it was short lived, owing to the violent reaction it usually generates from both liberal economics (ie the "right") and pure communists. Some people fault Anarchy's core belief that humans are inherently good to excuse themselves from trying such an advanced form of society. For obvious reasons, it would be difficult to implement on a large scale, given the current state of society, and I tend to think if a transformation were to take place, it would have to begin as a small community and spread outword, reforming gradually the dominant ideologies. A revolution would be the only alternative, and for my .02$ I don't much like violent revolution, nevermind the problem presented by the simple math. I live in Spain, and Spain has a very long and respected history of Anarchy activism. As an anarcho-communist, I find that the main practical value of the perspective is to provide an outstanding critical stand-point: if you accept that it is possible, a powerful critique of the current dominant systems is revealed. There's a book out by Todd May called The Political Philosophy of Poststructuralist Anarchism which blends Anarchy with poststructuralist theory, especially Michel Foucault. I haven't read the book, but it was recently recommended to me by my old philosophy instructor, but I am quite familiar with both the history of Anarchism and Post-Structuralism, and it's easy to imagine how the two would blend.

 

[eric]

Hmm, I am going to have to give this some hard thought and a little research. What does come to mind though is human greed. I just think that any system based on trust in the individual human without personal gain is doomed to fail. I'll be honest I really do not know much about anarcho-communism so I would not be in any position at this time to pass judgement.

 

[obviousman]

I wonder though if a government assisted for awhile maintaining a communist-like nation and teaching the people to live for the good of others if it could work. People would have to develop a love for it and respect for it too work. I don't know though it seems like the government would have to be really tough at first. Because obviously some people would oppose it and that would impede the success of it. I don't know though I doubt we will ever see it in our lifetime.

 

[eric]

I think you are right about not seeing it in our lifetime.

 

[Bry]

Apart from the general question of whether humans are inherently "good" or "evil", a fundamentally wrong headed dichotomy from the beginning and one of the differences between my own analysis and that of traditional anarchy, there is the idea that the concept of "property" itself is detrimental to society. This idea is probably more easy for you to address, eric, as it flies more directly in the face of the precepts native to Capitalism. Land reform would be a necessary start for any attempt to realize an anarchist society, but control of the land would be in the hands of the people, and decisions about use would be determined democratically. One of the main characteristics of a hypothetical Anarchical society is an inversion of the current political system: participation in local decision making would be emminently more important than any federal organization. If anything, this would entail a much higher rate of public participation in decisions which affect the community, and so presumes a high level of education within the community, as well as a generalized valuing of contribution to the good of the community, rather than self-interest.

 

[eric]

Yes I agree, and herein is where I believe the problem would lie. As sad as it might sound, I honestly can not think of many people I know, who put the good of the community before their own self-interests. It is entirely possible that we have been conditioned by our current system to think this way, or the other possibility is that it is just a deep rooted need for self-gratification/survival.

 

[Aquarian]

for a communistic system of any sort to work, it would have to be peopled entirely by individuals dedicated to the premise. volunteer only. Under that circumstance I think it could work quite well.

 

[Bry]

Yeah, that's what I had in mind when I said "it would have to begin as a small community and spread outword, reforming gradually the dominant ideologies." The original community would have to be completely vonunteer and dedicated to the experiment, but with time, this would be self-propogating: children born into the value of the system of the community wouldn't be seen as volunteers, as they would have been socialized into the society from birth.

Nice quote from Einstein. He was an anarchist at heart.

 

[dijetlo]

>>As sad as it might sound, I honestly can not think of many people I know, who put the good of the community before their own self-interests.<<
You're are exactly right, Eric. Self interest is the driving force behind our economy, our polotics and all our technological advancements. Other societies are less "me" centered and more "us" centered though, so it might be unfair to say just because an american can't think of one it's a rare trait within humanity in general.
>>as they would have been socialized into the society from birth.<<
Excellent point Bry (I hope you don't mind me pirating it to advance my argument ) . How much of our desire for excess is learned and how much is hard wired?
The Incas had an interesting system. Each incan had to pay a labor tax, (days in labor to the empire) but they did not think of it as a tax to the emporer (the Paca Inca) but as a tax to the incan people.
One remote village was required to maintain several rope bridges along an incan road as their labor tax. In the late 70s', anthropologists found this village, still maintaining the rope bridges over roads that had fallen into disuse. The villagers percieved the work as a duty, a contribution towards the overall good of their people and as such had never discontinued thier efforts even after the collapse of the Incas (the end of the labor tax).
I would consider that a succesful socialization. (So perhaps it can be done). You do remember what happened to the Incas when they ran afoul of a couple hundred "me" oriented spaniards, so maybe this example is not as encouraging as I'd originaly hoped.

 

[obviousman]

Do you think that this form of government would have to be implemented by government or the people? Meaning would a tough government have to gain total power and slowly relenquish it to the people? Or would it have to happen from a bloody revolt that in the end the only people alive believe in this doctrine and accept it, therefore, working to the betterment of the society?

 

[Bry]

Not to be too obvious, objiousman, but some of these questions have been addressed: the problem of inacting an anarcho-communist system is a difficult one, and I don't like the idea of a "bloody revolution, and it's not very likely anyway, because a revolution would require a critical mass of believers. Something like that could happen in Bolivia, for example, where 80% of the population are living below the poverty line, but in the US it would be impossible. What it would probably require is a localized groundswell: some small town agreed to make all lands public, and to manage those lands democratically, or a group raises a significant amount of money to buy a significant amount of land for public administration. From there, the movement would have to go winning the hearts and minds (and raising more funds to expand their territory, liberating the lands from private ownership...) and gradually expand outward. It's a bit farfetched in any case, but that is most likely what it would look like. In the mean time, it is enough that we talk and convince people that a different world is possible. Build the grass roots.

 

[obviousman]

I doubt you could convince corporate America that maybe it would be better to work for the good of society instead of the good of your portfolio. But if we didn't have corporate America I think a lot of the problems with our democratic republic would be solved(not all but some, maybe even most).

 

[5stringJeff]

There is a reason the Communism has never worked correctly, and never will:

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

[obviousman]

Well the theory with communism is the reason you need government is that people are greedy. Government in communism acts as a referee between society and individualism. The theory is that if everyone worked for the good of society we wouldn't need government.

 

[Bry]

And the idea of anarchy is that the power be as diffused as possible.

 

[obviousman]

Well anarchy and communism both rely on good natured people. Human nature is too try to take as much as possible. Which is why our government is as corrupt as it is. I don't think you'll ever be able to solve that problem. How do you keep people from caring about power more then humanity?

 

[Bry]

Human nature is too try to take as much as possible.

Of course, if you start with that assumption, than anarchy is a no go. We've been over this. My assumption is that greed is to a significant degree socialized, and that in an anarchical society, there would be social pressure against such behavior. Which is another reason why I maintained that any experiment would have to start small and be composed only of people who are already dedicated to the idea.

I'm not convinced that it is workable in the present. As I said, the main practical value of an anarcho-prespective is its critical vantage point.

 

[obviousman]

I totally agree with you. I have maintained that anarcho-communism is a great theory just not practical. I just thought of enterntaining theories of how to implement it. I think our republic of democracy is by far the most practical.

 

[bboy2379]

i'd like to start this reply out by saying that any form of government with the word "communism" in it will never ever ever ever work. communism requires a trait that we as humans do not have or will ever attain. that is PERFECTION. No human being on earth is capable of this. Some of the replies here say -well i think its greed or i think its selfishness or whatever-its EVERYTHING evil you can imagine thus its imperfection. If we as humans are imperfect that means that LEADERS are also imperfect. You cannot implement a form of government that requires total equality, fairness, and whatever other b.s. that communism promotes when we ourselves (leaders included) aren't capable of doing those things on our own. I strongly believe that the United States is the most prosperous, free, powerful, giving country that ever existed simply because it was built on our failures as human beings. The forefathers recongnized this...therefore the constitution is about LIMITED government. Checks and Balances. WHATS THE PROBLEM? If you live in the U.S. and complain about it you seriously need a head check.