Many states have existed in anarchism already, some to varying degrees, but in recent history a big example has been Somalia. I won't say it worked out perfectly, but something happened.. and no, it wasn't quite anarcho-communism as far as I know.
Other than that there are past and present instances of tribal societies. They live in relative anarchism (they have no laws as such, but they may have 'codes'), but I wouldn't say it's anarcho-communism; their organization would barely even count as city-states...
The big questions for anarcho-communism in today's society seem to be, a) is it possible, and b) how is it possible.
I'm pretty confident that it's possible, and I'm pretty sure it's the modus operandi for many other cultures in the Universe.
As for whether it's possible, you know, I'll give you the usual — with an open mind 'anything' is possible.. it's pretty true, it's just that the trick-and-a-half is how to reclaim that open mind..
And yes, obviously, in order to have anarcho-communism some country currently having a normal (read: law- or enforcement-based) government would have to shatter.
As for possibilities, don't just play the game of finding the least-likely-possibility-to-fail and then trying to find out how it would.. it's not Murphy's law unless you expect it, and there's probably a zillion possibilities..
Three questions I will try to explore here are, a) what are at least the parametrics of these possibilities, b) how can they come into organization when everybody must, more-or-less, agree - not only on the fact of the organization, but the type of it and who's in charge, etc., and c) how it is that it's even possible to have a functioning, systematic government or whatever you wanna call it that's not based in enforcement.
a) First, we need scales of control. Control is just a word I'm using here. There is no enforcement, and that means not only on the populace in general but on 'government' officials. Though I use the word government, it is not intended to mislead to the idea that the system needs to, or even could, bear much resemblance to what we already have. It's just an easy word to choose for the organized body of decision-makers and effectors.
I *reckon* that we need scales of control, but who knows what the network would be. I'm basing it loosely off control structures here on Earth, which are often directly hierarchical. If there are rungs, scales, echelons, etc. of control, one question would be how many; however, there are at least two other dimensions to that.
One dimension would be the variegation in scales across land.. how do the hierarchies of various lands, mainly neighboring lands, ones in trade, and ones with frequent commute, interact and influence each other? The other question concerns confluent "houses" or other-termed systems within the same control-structure; for example, what we have in America with the House, Senate and the presidency.
Now on to the second question..
One way we could approach the "problem" is to start a non-profit website that integrates and gives varying weight to people's opinions and arguments, until it's decided a) what the majority wants, and (b) who should be in control in which positions.
(b) obviously links up to a) here; decided on peope's opinions for a funtional, coordinated whole is tantamount to, or subsumes, the considerations about which or what kind of system 'should' be in place. I typoed 'pace' there, which probably means we're not ready for it, and in the meantime we should be considering a One World Government — a goood source of mine — my best source tells me that this is the best system for human beings *at this* juncture in time.
One other thing I wanted to mention is that, half-way through actualizing it, we could be interrupted due to no more eletrical power/support for the internet -- and that's if the repubs don't set us up for another counter-culture cut-out program.
Another thing I wanted to mention is that this system can never be created by and/or controlled by the government, or any government for that matter, without compromises that would make it a mere shadow of what I'm suggesting; because what I'm suggesting implies a government in ruins.
Anyway, globalism-being-a-better-solution notwithstanding (that's weird, my mouse pointer got moved to 'without compromises' just then), the system-in-creation probably should be a lot of fun, or at least a little so that we're not borrowing time to force ourselves into choosing and explaining. If I got an offer to be a US senator, I'd probably reject it; it's too cerebral.
Outside of the internet working, it could be accomplished in town meetings and meetings between town leaders or spokes(wo)men. By the way, at this stage, for whoever's serious, I don't think the notion of "personal property" applies anymore, aside of the "honor system."
Another theory is, of course, a tyrannical dictator skating on ice, while an/other faction/s work/s on organizing a more peaceful 'government'/ non-forecfully cooperative system, and not doing it too loudly until it works.
But to directly answer (b)'s question, I'm not entirely sure, one reason being that it depends on what system you make up. I can say this, though: it might be good to keep your aggression in check for a while, because everybody's going to disagree with everybody else to some degree, and just building a fire of emotions and crossed intentions probaby doesn't help.
Otherwise.. the organization plan has to be come up with by someone intelligent *and* aware, and then, somehow (like via that website idea I mentioned earlier) enough peope have to agree, or partically agree with systematic reconciliation, or vote, or distribute voting-points among candidate patterns, etc. etc.
Not much info there, I guess,but I did outline the variables involved in (a)'s description. I'd *probably*, most of the time, hope that that intelligent wo/man has studied enough history to get a view of What We Do Wrong, why, and what consequences there are.
As to question (c), law enforcement is obviosly a "different" paradigm, and part of seeing things with *some amount of* objetivity is probably gaining the insight or compassion to see how bad jail is, to say nothing of execution.
This at least takes you, hopefully, to the viewpoint that jail is just wrong.. and obviously, not given jail, there are few other modes of law enforcement, at least among those that are even almost as harmless as jail.
Now that *maybe* we agree on law enforcement being a "different" paradigm, you and (perhaps other?) anthropologists, benefactors and humanitarians can figure out what kind of system will work without enforcement.
I wouldn't exactly say "communist propaganda" (and anarcho-communism obviously isn't like communism which is rule-based), but it is true that our minds are affected by media, even to the degree of being unintentional sometimes.
So I would, personally, draw the line at least at *deliberately* using subconscious manipulation, including lying (about fact *or* opinion), but maaayybe having some media that shows examples of anarcho-communism (perhaps in science fiction), some other system (drastically different, maybe or maybe not having law enforcement), or just philosophizes like Charlie Rose has done. It's basically the task of opening minds to new possibility, and remaining within remote (or near) practicality.
The Smurfs? They got criticized for being "communist," even though they had no rules to speak of; people just saw 'freedom,' 'cooperation,' and 'an elderly leader' and assumed it all represents a 'bad word.' Anyway, I'm not *entirey* sure how I feel about The Smurfs, but I certainy watched it a lot as a kid and had no problems with it.
Anyway, a children's cartoon may not be the *best* source of philosophy or history on anarcho-communism; it's just an example I wanted to bring up, at the moment, for whatever reasons.
Obviously if we want this system there would be no more wage-slavery as we know it..but the general populace would need to be kept happy somehow.. and no, not through drugs, propaganda, etc. Life should be truly satisfying (one key is 'communication'), and there should be a system by which the non-working class can eat, sleep, etc.
The non-working class could be a large proportion of the people, but only because we would now be making only products that serve a useful/aesthetic purpose, are efficient, and last longer..if we make products at all, that is.
Some *smart people* say that our first big mistake, as humanity, was to create agriculture. Perhaps it might work to allow everyone a plot of land (perhaps by decree, but still not even by enforcement) with which to build whatever structure they want to reside in and to grow food in, say, a 20x20 yard.
Or, perhaps we can skip fixing that mistake and also the mistake of language-as-we-now-practice-it.. for the same reasons that some roads say, "no exit."
BTW, just because I reminded myself by typoing "anarcho-capitalism" once, the stuff doesn't exist; i.e., it just won't, in this world.. and that's not a dare; it's a threat: learn to tell the difference very quickly if you're an extremist, please.
No comments:
Post a Comment