💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › wayne-price-what-is-anarchist-communism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 14:51:04. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: What is Anarchist Communism? Author: Wayne Price Date: 2008 Language: en Topics: anarcho-communist, introductory Source: Retrieved on May 7th, 2009 from http://www.anarkismo.net/article/6960][www.anarkismo.net]] and [[http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=7171 Notes: Written for www.Anarkismo.net
There was a vision, called “communism,” which was held by Kropotkin and
other anarchist-communists in the 19^(th) and early 20^(th) century.
Marx and Engels shared essentially the same goal. In the stateless,
classless, society of communism, the means of production would be held
in common (by the community), work would be carried out due to social
motives rather than for wages, and consumer goods would be available to
all according to their needs.
But during the Cold War, “communism” came to mean something entirely
different. Great nations were ruled by self-named Communist Parties.
Their economies were managed by totalitarian states, their powerless
workers produced commodities sold on the internal and international
market, and they worked for wages (that is, they sold their labor power
as commodities to their bosses).
In that era, “Communists” were mostly people who supported those types
of state-capitalist tyrannies. They included pro-Moscow Communist
Parties, Maoists, other Stalinists, and most Trotskyists. They called
themselves “Communists,” and so did most of their opponents. On the
other hand, “anti-Communists” were not simply those who opposed such
regimes but those who supported Western imperialism — a group ranging
from liberals to deranged fascists. At the same time, the pro-Moscow
types denounced libertarian socialists as “anti-Communist” as well as
“anti-Soviet.” Some people took to calling themselves
“anti-anti-Communists,” as a way of saying that they did not endorse the
Communists but were against the McCarthyite witchhunt.
Now we are in a new period. The Soviet Union has collapsed, with its
ruling Communist Party. True, such states still exist, with
modifications, in China, Cuba, and elsewhere. Unfortunately, they
inspire many people. But overall, the number and weight of Communist
Parties have diminished.. In contrast, there has been an upswing in the
number of people who identify with anarchism, with its mainstream in the
anarchist-communist tradition. Other people remain impressed by Marx,
but look to libertarian and humanistic interpretations of his work. How
then shall we use the term “communism” today? Is its meaning the same as
in earlier periods? I will review the history of the term and of its
meanings.
While calling themselves “socialists,” the founders of the anarchist
movement, Proudhon and Bakunin, denounced “communism.” A typical
statement by Proudhon is that communism is a “dictatorial,
authoritarian, doctrinaire system [which] starts from the axiom that the
individual is subordinate...to the collectivity; the citizen belongs to
the State ...” (quoted in Buber, 1958; pp. 30–31). Bakunin wrote, “I
detest communism because it is the negation of liberty....I am not a
communist because communism... necessarily ends with the concentration
of property in the hands of the state” (quoted in Leier, 2006; p. 191).
Proudhon called himself a “mutualist;” Bakunin, a “collectivist.”
If we think of a monastery, or of an army (where the soldiers are all
given their food, clothing, and shelter), it is easy to see how
“communism” (of a sort) can be imagined as inconsistent with democracy,
freedom, and equality. In his early writings, Marx denounced the program
of “crude communism” in which “the community is only a community of work
and of equality of wages paid out by...the community as universal
capitalist” (Marx, 1961; pp. 125–126). However, Marx and Engels did call
themselves communists, a term they preferred to the vaguer “socialist,”
although they used this also. (They especially disliked the term “social
democratic,” used by the German Marxists.)
Marx’s concept of communism is most clearly explained in his “Critique
of the Gotha Program.” Communism would be “the cooperative society based
on common ownership of the means of production...” (Marx, 1974; p. 345).
In “the first phase of communist society,” (p. 347) there will remain
scarcity and the need for labor. “We are dealing here with a communist
society...as it emerges from capitalist society...still stamped with the
birthmarks of the old society...” (p. 346). In this lower phase of
communism, Marx speculated, individuals would get certificates stating
how much labor they had contributed (minus an amount taken for the
common fund). Using their certificates, they can take means of
consumption which used up the same amount of labor; this is not money
because it cannot be accumulated. However, it is still a system of
bourgeois rights and equality, in which equal units of labor are
exchanged. Given that people have unequal abilities and unequal needs,
this equality still results in a certain degree of inequality.
Marx trumpeted, “In a more advanced stage of communist society, when the
enslaving subjugation of individuals to the division of labor, and
thereby the antithesis between intellectual and physical labor, have
disappeared; when labor is no longer just a means of keeping alive but
has itself become a vital need; when the all-around development of
individuals has also increased their productive powers and all the
springs of cooperative wealth flow more abundantly — only then can
society wholly cross the narrow horizon of bourgeois right and inscribe
on its banner: From each according to his abilities, to each according
to his needs!” (p. 347)
(For reasons known only to himself, Lenin re-labeled Marx’s “first phase
of communist society” as socialism, and the “more advanced stage of
communist society” as communism. Most of the left has followed this
confusing usage.)
Despite his rejection of the term communism, Bakunin also advocated a
two-phase development of the post-revolution economy, according to his
close friend James Guillame. Guillame wrote an essay in 1874,
summarizing Bakunin’s views. “We should...be guided by the principle,
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. When,
thanks to the progress of scientific industry and agriculture,
production comes to outstrip consumption, and this will be attained some
years after the Revolution, it will no longer be necessary to stingily
dole out each worker’s share of goods. Everyone will draw what he needs
from the abundant social reserve of commodities....In the meantime, each
community will decide for itself during the transition period the method
they deem best for the distribution of the products of associated
labor.” (in Bakunin, 1980; p. 361–362) He mentions various alternate
systems of remuneration for the transitional period; “...systems will be
experimented with to see how they work out” (p. 361).
Today’s proposals for Parecon (“participatory economics”), in which
workers are rewarded for the intensity and duration of their labor in a
cooperative economy, would fit into Bakunin’s or Marx’s concept of a
transitory, beginning, phase, of a free society. But unlike the
Pareconists, Marx and Bakunin recognized that this was still limited.
For both Marx and Bakunin, then, full communism requires a very high
level of productivity and potential prosperity, a post-scarcity economy,
when there is plenty of leisure time for people to participate in
decision-making, at work and in the community, ending the distinction
between order-givers and order-takers. However, neither Marx nor Bakunin
described a social mechanism for moving from one phase to the other.
Kropotkin rejected the two-phase approach of the Marxists and the
anarchist-collectivists. Instead he proposed that a revolutionary
society should “transform itself immediately into a communist society,”
(1975; p. 98), that is, should go immediately into what Marx had
regarded as the “more advanced,” completed, phase of communism.
Kropotkin and those who agreed with him called themselves
“anarchist-communists” (or “communist anarchists”), although they
continued to regard themselves as a part of the broader socialist
movement.
It was not possible, Kropotkin argued, to organize an economy partially
on capitalist principles and partly on communist principles. To award
producers differentially by how much training they have had, or even by
how hard they work, would recreate class divisions and the need for a
state to oversee everything. Nor is it really possible to decide how
much individuals have contributed to a complex, cooperative, system of
production, in order to reward them according to their labor.
Instead, Kropotkin proposed that a large city, during a revolution,
“could organize itself on the lines of free communism; the city
guaranteeing to every inhabitant dwelling, food, and clothing...in
exchange for...five hour’s work; and...all those things which would be
considered as luxuries might be obtained by everyone if he joins for the
other half of the day all sorts of free associations....” (p.p. 118–119)
This would require the integration of agricultural with industrial work,
and physical with mental labor. There remained an element of coercion in
Kropotkin’s proposal. Presumably able-bodied adults who would not
contribute five hours of work would not get the “guaranteed” minimum.
Anarchist-communism came to predominate among anarchists, so that it
became rare to find an anarchist (except for the individualist
anarchists) who did not accept communism, whatever other disagreements
they may have had among themselves. Meanwhile the Marxists had long been
calling themselves social-democrats. When World War I broke out, the
main social democratic parties endorsed their capitalists’ war. Lenin
called on the revolutionary wing of international social democracy to
split from the traitors to socialism. As part of this, he advocated that
his Bolshevik Party and similar parties call themselves Communist
Parties, going back to Marx. Some of his followers complained that this
would confuse the workers, making the Bolsheviks sound like the
anarchist-communists. Lenin declared that it was more important to not
be confused with the reformist social democrats. Lenin got his way (as
he usually did in his party). The term “communist” had been taken back
by the Marxists. With the example of the Russian revolution, most
revolutionary-minded people turned to the Leninists; the anarchists
became increasingly marginalized. The term “communist” became mostly the
label for Leninists.
We have the industrial potential for full communism, but there remain
difficulties such as the need to reorganize technology and to
appropriately industrialize the “Third World.” This raises the need for
some sort of phasing-in of communism.
In the century since Kropotkin and Marx wrote about communism, there has
been an enormous increase in productivity. For millennia, 95 to 98 % of
humanity had to be involved in producing food. Today the ratios are
reversed; in the United States, only 2 or 3 % work in agriculture.
Similarly, with automated factories, it has been argued, we could
produce enough for a comfortable life for everyone. More people would
volunteer for work than there would be necessary jobs. An industrialized
and cooperative, democratically-planned, economy could provide plenty of
leisure for everyone. This is essential for any society based on
democracy-from-the-bottom-up. In all previous revolutions, once the
upheavals were over, the masses went back to their daily grind while
only a few had the time available to actually run things. With leisure
for all, then all would be free to self-manage their communes,
worksites, and society as a whole.
In short, there exists all the technological preconditions for full,
libertarian, communism, what Marx called the “higher phase of
communism.” Therefore, some have argued that it is possible to go
immediately to full communism, once the social and political conditions
were met. However, I do not think that this is true.
For one thing, the productive technology which we have is a technology
created by capitalism for capitalism. It is “productive” only in terms
of achieving capitalist goals, that is, of accumulating capital. In
other terms, it is enormously wasteful and destructive, polluting the
environment, wiping out natural species, using up nonrenewable
resources, stockpiling nuclear bombs, and causing global warming. In
human terms, it was consciously developed to hold down the workers, to
keep us from thinking, and to maintain social hierarchies. After a
revolution, the workers would begin to totally overhaul industrial
technology, to make it ecologically sustainable and to do away with the
split between order-givers and order-takers. We would create a new
technology which is “productive” in encouraging human creativity and
ecological harmony.
Also, while North America, western Europe, Japan, and a few other
places, have much modern technology, this is not true of most of the
world. The so-called Third World is underindustrialized or unevenly
industrialized right now. These impoverished and exploited countries do
not have the wealth or industry necessary to go even to the lower phase
of communism (called by Lenin the phase of socialism), let alone achieve
full communism. The workers and peasants are able to take power in their
countries, establishing a system of workers’ councils and popular
assemblies. However, to solidify their path to communism they would have
to spark revolutions in the industrialized, imperialist, nations, in
order to get aid.
I disagree with some council communists and other Marxists who claim
that the oppressed nations can only make bourgeois revolutions; on the
contrary, the workers and peasants of these nations can overthrow the
national bourgeoisie and then spread the revolution to the
industrialized countries, which will help them in developing toward
communism. This view is opposed to Stalin’s concept of Building
Socialism in One Country. A great deal of help from the industrialized
parts of the planet will be needed to develop Africa, Asia, and Latin
America, in a humane, democratic, and ecologically balanced fashion.
Therefore to say that there exists all the technological preconditions
for full communism is certainly true, but true only in potential.
Humanity has the technical knowledge and skills necessary to create a
world of plenty for all, with leisure for all, in balance with the
natural world, but it will require much work to create this world after
a revolution.
It is for such reasons that libertarian communists have often presented
the change to a fully communist society as taking place over time, being
phased-in after the revolution. Marx proposed a higher and lower phase
of communism. Bakunin implied the same. Even Kropotkin (as Anarcho has
pointed out in last month’s discussion) suggested a sort of phasing-in
of full communism. Immediately after a revolution, Kropotkin indicated,
able-bodied adult working people would be required to work a half day (5
hours) in order to get a decent amount of food, clothing, and shelter.
Most goods would still be scarce so they would have to be rationed by
the community. Over time, as productivity improved, the economy would
develop into full communism. Most goods would be plentiful and people
could freely take them off the shelves of community warehouses. Work
would be done out of social conscience and a desire to keep active. But
this would not be immediately possible.
There is another factor. A revolution is likely to be carried out by a
united front of anti-capitalist political groupings. For example, North
America or Europe is so large and complex that no one revolutionary
organization will have all the best ideas and all the best militants.
They will have to work together. But some will be anarchist-communists
while others will not. Leaving aside out-and-out authoritarian statists,
we are likely to be in coalition with pareconists, noncommunist
anarchists, revolutionary-democratic socialists, various types of
Greens, and so on. We cannot force all these people to live under
anarchist-communism. Compulsory libertarian communism is a contradiction
in terms! The majority of one region may decide to live under anarchist
communism, but a neighboring region may decide for parecon
(“participatory economics”). So long as workers are not exploited, the
anarchist-communists will not start a civil war inside the revolution.
In an experimental way, different approaches may be tried out in
different regions and we will learn from each other.
Malatesta wrote (1984), “Imposed communism would be the most detestable
tyranny that the human mind could conceive. And free and voluntary
communism is ironical if one has not the right and the possibility to
live in a different regime, collectivist, mutualist, individualist — as
one wishes, always on condition that there is no oppression or
exploitation of others” (p. 103). He expected some sort of
anarchist-communism to win out eventually, but felt that this might take
considerable time to achieve everywhere.
With modern technology, anarchist-communism is a practical goal, whether
or not we have to pass through various stages or compromises. However,
this does not answer the question: Should we call ourselves communists?
We are, after all, opponents of every (big-c) Communist state that
exists or has existed, and of every Communist Party. Yet we cannot call
ourselves anti-communists, since this usually means endorsement of
Western imperialism, its (at most) limited democracy, and its rule by a
minority class. We are opposed to this class’ rule, far more fiercely
than have been the Communist Parties. But we endorse the goals of
Kropotkin and Karl Marx, of a classless, stateless, society organized by
the principle, “From each according to their abilities, to each
according to their needs.” In this sense, we are truly authentic
communists.
The mainstream of historical anarchism has been anarchist- communism. We
can, and, I think, should, identify with the communist tradition in
anarchism, which goes from Bakunin (as a goal) to Kropotkin (as a label)
to Malatesta, Goldman, and almost all anarchists of their time. There
have been factional conflicts between those anarchists who called
themselves anarchist-communists and those who called themselves
anarchist-syndicalists, but they did not have differences of principle.
The anarchist-communists were afraid that the anarchist-syndicalists
would dissolve themselves into the union movement (“syndicalism”); the
anarchist-syndicalists were afraid that the communists would downplay
the central power and importance of the organized workers. However, the
anarchist-communists mostly agreed on the need for working class
self-organization, particularly on the need for unions, while the
anarchist-syndicalists shared the libertarian communist goal.
Our modern agreement with the historical goal of working class
anarchist-communism should certainly be stated in our documents and
programs. But should it be more prominently stated, in our leaflets and
in the names of our organizations?
My answer is: It depends. In some countries, communism has a positive
connotation among most militant workers. This is mainly due to the
historical self-sacrifice and struggle of the rank-and-file of the
Communist Parties, whatever their weaknesses. Apparently this is the
case, for example, in South Africa, where our co-thinkers formed the
Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Front.
But in other countries, communism has a very negative connotation. This
is not just due to negative bourgeois propaganda, but also to 75 years
of its identification with the totalitarian reality of the Soviet
UnionWha. This regime called itself Communist, as did its puppets and
imitators in Eastern Europe, China, etc. In other countries, the
Communists were well known for their slavish adoration of the USSR, for
their heavy-handed domination of their followers, and for their
reformism. With such reasons, I think, the Anarchist Communist
Federation of the UK changed its name to the Anarchist Federation. The
Irish Workers Solidarity Movement obviously does not include Communist
in its name. Leaving Communist out of our name does not necessarily mean
abandoning the communist tradition.
I think the United States falls into the second category. Putting
Communist in our name just creates unnecessary barriers between
ourselves and most U.S. workers. It makes it more difficult to
distinguish ourselves from statist tendencies which also call themselves
Communist. So I recommend against it, especially if we ever form a North
American-wide federation.
“Social anarchism” is commonly used among anarchists to distinguish
ourselves from individualists and “libertarian” supporters of
capitalism. I prefer the term “socialist-anarchist.” Malatesta agreed,
“We...have always called ourselves socialist-anarchists” (p. 143).
Socialist is a vaguer term than communist. To some it indicates
reformism , due to its being used widely by the social democrats
(“democratic socialists”) as well as by the Communists. But at least it
does not imply totalitarian mass murder, which is the real problem. The
Trotskyists called themselves “revolutionary socialists” to distinguish
themselves from the Stalinists, and non-Trotskyists have also used the
revolutionary socialist label. For generations, “libertarian socialist”
has also been used to mean anarchist.
My preference for “socialist-anarchist” and “libertarian socialist” over
“anarchist-communist” is my personal opinion, which may be a minority
view among U.S. anarchist-communists. In any case, it is not a matter of
principle. It is not the label but the content which matters most.
Bakunin, Michael (1980). Bakunin on anarchism. (Sam Dolgoff, ed.).
Montreal: Black Rose Books.
Buber, Martin (1958). Paths in utopia. Boston: Beacon Hill/Macmillan
Kropotkin, Peter (1975). The essential Kropotkin. (E. Capouya & K.
Tomkins, eds.). NY: Liveright.
Leier, Mark (2006). Bakunin; A biography. NY: Thomas Dunne Books/St.
Martin’s Press.
Malatesta, Errico (1984). Errico Malatesta; His life and ideas (Vernon
Richards, ed.). London: Freedom Press.
Marx, Karl (1961). Economic and philosophical manuscripts. In Eric
Fromm, Marx’s concept of man. NY: Frederick Ungar.
Marx, Karl (1974). The First International and after; Political
writings, vol. III. (David Fernbach, ed.). NY: Vintage Books/Random
House.