Welcome to Gaia! ::

So, I decided to stop being lazy and try to put my thoughts into text. Which, unsurprisingly, I'm rather terrible at. I just sat down for an hour or two and typed a bit on a few subjects, but I got a little farther on one in particular, 'Model for anarcho-communism', which I hope to eventually detail my 'model' for how an anarcho-communist society can work and why it's better than simple anarchism, simple communism, or the other systems. At the moment its not even a draft, really, just a lot of rambling and tossed together thoughts and musings. So I'd appreciate a quick look over it (keep in mind, it's not even a completed draft!) at the substance of it. Not the style. wink

Feel free to tear it apart, it's what it needs. Also, it's 3:32, so I've probably left out more than the simple why of it. So let me know if you think I need more explanation or exploration of certain parts.

P.S., just about every 'must' was italisized for emphasis. Too lazy to do it again. Use your imageenayshuns!

Anyways, here's what I've tossed together so far.

Why anarcho-communism?
Anarchism, as an ideal, is highly misunderstood and often misrepresented by zealots who fail to understand the ideals of anarchism--though the real blame lies mostly from it being an ideal that is impossible to pin down or agree on. For the purposes of this essay, anarchism is a system which aims for a balance of both true freedom and power to the people.

Anarcho-communism, then, seems like a paradox. In the minds of many here in America and around the world, communism is inherently totalitarian and the opposite of freedom. This, however, is not true--though fully explaining and defending why would take an entire new essay. So let me explain in short--communism relies on classlessness and public ownership. More authoritarian versions of communism twist this into state property and a system of one party rule. I won't bother to argue against the more authoritarian communism, but simply provide my own model of a communist society, an anarcho-communist one.

[to be finished]

Essentials of an anarcho-communist society
The basis of a working, free, and fair society must rest on a basic principle: true freedom cannot exist for all, unless the rights of all are respected by all. This principle would be the foundation of an anarcho-communist society, built upon personal freedom as well as mutual cooperation, morality and sustainability.

Let me explain, first, the reasoning behind this. 'Total freedom' for all and anarchy as it is often thought of cannot exist as the basis for a society. For one person to have total freedom, another will have to give up their freedom--and then it becomes like any other sort of society. For freedom to exist at all, those within the society must essentially agree that in return for respect of their rights, they will respect the rights of those around them. These rights being, of course, life and liberty.

Personal freedom refers to actions which affect only oneself or another who has given consent (such as a spouse). These actions cannot, in such a society, be governed. A person must be free to wear what they like, think what they like, cut their hair how they like, and marry who they like (provided there is consent), for a few examples. As these actions do not affect others (without consent), it would be a breach of their freedom and out of society's or another person's bounds to attempt to restrict these freedoms, no matter how much they may not like it. While such a principle might seem to restrict freedom, it protects the very basics of it. How can there be freedom when there can be, as was once put, a 'tyranny of the majority'?

An anarchist society of true freedom cannot, you see, exist, if anyone does anything to another without their consent--which is why this principle is needed in order to preserve even the most basics of freedom, the personal sort.

Life, of course, is the less complicated right, though in itself it is a sort of freedom. Under such a society, it would be a crime against liberty to take or endanger the life of another without their consent. It would, of course, be within your own rights to do so to your own life or to another with their consent.

So you see, the two essential rights of one person end where another's begins. The lack of understanding over these basic rights and this basic principle and how they are necessary for true freedom leads to misunderstanding over how an anarchist or freedom-based society could truly work.

A layout of an anarcho-communist society
There is no basis for such a society. A layout, then, must come from both the imagination and inspiration brought by small scale societies of the past and present. The Celtic tribes, doomed Catalonia, Christiania, and others.

First, let's draw a large-scale 'map', pretending that this society is America and has had time to gradually and willingly change its form into the one we imagine. The structure of this society would be community-based, as opposed to state or federal ruling. Each community would be in charge of essentially fending for itself with alliances drawn out between itself and others. A set of agreements between communities would be required for this to work on the large scale.

Each of the communities must agree to rise up and defend each other in case one community decides to strike out against any other community. Each of the communities must agree to allow free movement and full transparency between each other. They are a nation of communities, not a community of nations. A citizen of one must be recognized as a citizen of all. The communities must agree to help each other in times of need, but it is a responsibility of each community to maintain its roads and sustain itself, both so that others can help it and so that one does not simply feed off the others.

The way of the world, however, is that some must be chosen from each community for diplomatic efforts both domestic and global. These people would travel through the communities and work on diplomacy there, as well as with other nations. Ambassadors, if you will. These people could elect one person to represent the nation, in the sense that the President represents us currently to speak with foreign leaders and work in the UN. These diplomats would also be responsible for keeping track of the activities, needs, population, etc, of each community, as well as relationships between the communities.

Every few months or so, these diplomats would meet openly and in a series of communities, while those in the communities are free to watch and see the records, and ensure that everything is working slowly. Assuming that there would still be television or internet or some means of news and communication, this job would be made easier and could be watched around the nation. These 'diplomats' would form a sort of weak, loose Congress: they would hold a small amount of authority as they are trusted members of each community. If needed, they would be able to be called upon to negotiate, mediate, represent their communities, etc. However, whenever possible direct meetings between members of the communities should be used--though a mediator would be helpful.

Within the communities, consensus is key. Whenever possible--which in a communist society should be always--all must be able to take a break and gather to decide what needs to be decided, right then and there. No smoke and mirrors of ballots or electronic systems. In this way, individual communities can decide how to best organize themselves, what they require and how to make it, etc. More detail will be given on this smaller level, later.

For larger communities such as sprawling cities, it's more difficult to remain anarchist and communist; it is harder to work with to respect a stranger than a lifelong neighbor. The entire city cannot take a break from work and sit down to debate! A division of a city into smaller, co-dependant and self-governing communities may solve this problem, however.

How would materials be produced and communities be self-sufficient? Each community, even the cities, must be able to grow its own food and keep itself alive, save for disasters and other unnatural events. This cannot be stressed enough. Trade cannot be the livelihood of a community.

Bartering between communities, however, may work--but not within communities. The cities would be able to work factories and produce materials such as fabric, for example. The fabric produced from these factories can go straight to either tailors or the people who need them, whichever is more efficient, and clothing can be made individually to be longer lasting and more personal. The community may decide, however, that they will make surplus fabric and trade their surplus with a nearby, smaller community, which can supply them with pottery. Or they may set up a system where anyone can come into the factory, work, take what is produced with them, and leave--whether to their own community or to another. The key is in the ability to form a system which works for them best, but to keep trade--if you would even call it that--away from essential goods. When one community relies on another, especially to survive, there is an imbalance of power.

And, of course, as the anarchists say: everyone does the dishes. Basic chores within communities are necessary. It allows for a stronger sense of equality when the doctor is alongside the farmer washing the dishes, and also allows for a productive 'punishment' issued by a community consensus.

Work, culture, etc.
Let's quickly address a common issue of communist and capitalist societies. In a capitalist society, it is falsely believed that certain jobs and people are more valuable to society than the common farmer. This is simply not true. In this anarcho-communist society, firstly, anyone who can do a job is free to. Secondly, it is important for it to be recognized on a deep, cultural level, that all parts and jobs and work is equally vital to the survival of society as a whole. While the doctor may nourish your health, the farmer nourishes your belly, the artist your heart, and the teacher your mind. Society cannot survive without many of these jobs. Excluding of course the superfluous 'jobs' of modern capitalism--the stockbroker, the CEO, the salesman, etc.

For a society to survive, it must have farmers. It must have doctors. It must have teachers. It must have artists. The idea of the artist as a vital piece of society often brings confusion, yet it's obvious that without creativity and entertainment in a society, culture and happiness would quickly shrivel up.

No one can force you to work--but if you want to survive, you'll need to whether or not you're forced to. If someone within a community refuses to or subverts their work, they forfeit the benefits and hard work of those around them and are free to be lazy outside the community. They will quickly find, however, that working with the community is far easier.

Freedom of speech, thought, and expression is vital for this to happen--in many "communist" societies, everything is propaganda, and this subverts artistic integrity and the very idea of creativity. A nation that cannot express itself and is unable to complain about life will grow unhappy and rebellious--free creativity highlights both problems and triumphs, and it's important to nurture it for a healthy society.

An entirely new, let's say un-American, culture would need to be created. One which values sharing, morality/honesty, hard work, life, and freedom above all else. Individualism must be virtually abolished--there is and has never been any such thing as independent. Even someone living alone and in the wilderness is not independent, they rely on the animals and the plants and the earth and everything else that nourishes and protects them. Each and every organism, including each and every human, and every community, and every nation, and so on and so on, is forever tangled in the webs of others. This is, in fact, where the basic principle of anarcho-communism arises. We simply cannot help that we're linked to each other: our arms are linked so tightly that if one pulls his arm to scratch his nose, another's arm moves. A recognition of this must exist in an anarcho-communist culture, as well as a healthy respect from an early age for the rights of others. In order to survive in this society, children at an early age would learn that they must respect consent. The cliché, almost humorous 20th century image of the children circling the globe, hands clasped, comes to mind--but that is exactly what it is.

Scientific achievements are vital to move forward and survive. To the modern American, it is unthinkable that anyone would bother to work hard to create some bit of technology or push forward the boundaries of science without a monstrous salary. It's important to remember, however, the achievements 'free and open source' has brought within the internet. The internet has shown us that given the ability, many freely choose to create and achieve these things for free.

Freedom doesn't exist, under any government or ruling system. Humans have no free will. We are at the beckoning of history's will, and only when history ends will we be truly "free"

but good essay, all you need to do is revise the draft and give it some structure and it will be good.

Completed:

http://knol.google.com/k/yvette-lessard/a-model-for-an-anarcho-communist-society/1ycnxlw6aeny7/20#

lolwut