💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › marcus-amargi-stephanie-amargi-communalism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 12:25:03. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Communalism Author: Marcus Amargi & Stephanie Amargi Language: en Topics: communalism, Murray Bookchin, social ecology Source: Retrieved on 2020-04-28 from https://www.communalismpamphlet.net
The belief that what currently exists must necessarily exist is the acid
that corrodes all visionary thinking.
Murray Bookchin
Communalism is the all encompassing term given to a comprehensive theory
and practice that seeks to reconstruct society along ecological lines.
It is based in the essential premise that all environmental problems are
rooted in social problems. Along with global climate change, problems
such as widespread pollution, deforestation, and species extinction are
all anthropogenic in their source. Assessing these issues as a whole, we
can see that our society is simplifying the environment on a global
scale. In fact, it is undoing the achievements of evolution by creating
a more simplified, inorganic world.[1]
Communalism holds an objective set of social ethics that reflect the
most developmental trends in evolution, including greater choice,
dynamic stability, and diversity. Supported by these ecological trends,
Communalism provides a foundation to act against injustice, domination,
and hierarchy, which are neither “natural” nor inevitable features of
society.
These ideas also works within a historical framework that recognizes
that society has not always maintained the irrational form that we live
in today. Communalism asserts that an ideal of freedom has expanded
throughout history in opposition to the development of hierarchy and
domination. To build upon these emancipatory efforts, a reconstructive
vision is provided of an ecologically harmonious society that is free
from all forms of hierarchy.
This pamphlet is primarily focused on discussing this reconstructive
vision, as well as exploring practical steps for engaging in an
educational and political process that can bridge where we are today
with the society we hope to achieve. Readers interested in learning more
about Communalism’s philosophical and anthropological underpinnings
should turn to the Resources section.
Communalism holds a set of social ethics that reflect the developmental
trends in evolution. An objective ethics, meaning an ethics rooted
outside the ambiguities of our imagination and perceptible to all, is
important because it provides us with a set of principles from which to
counter injustices and to guide our efforts for a truly free society
void of any form of domination.
To begin, let us first define what is meant by “nature.” Nature is the
history of its own development over millions of years. This cumulative
development incorporates its past and continuously reaches into a
broader, yet unified, diversification of species. Humans, no less than
any other species, are a part of nature. The emergence of humanity
introduced a new realm in to nature, a social nature. This species’
transcendence of instinctual behavior, and its ability for reflective
thought and action was a significant expansion in comparison to the
evolution of mind elsewhere in nature. Along with this freedom comes the
ability to contribute in a beneficial manner toward both non-human and
social nature, or to go against natural processes, as is found within
hierarchical relationships.[2]
Many people believe that hierarchy exists in non-human nature, but this
belief is inaccurate. Hierarchy is an institutionalized system of
command and obedience. An institution is a set of social relationships
that are neither determined by instinct nor idiosyncratic, and which can
be liberating or dehumanizing. They are organized, fairly stable,
alterable, and continuous over generations. Hierarchy was created by
humans and therefore does not exist outside of society. Thus, what we
consider to be a “queen” bee is not a monarch at all, but an animal
acting purely upon biological instinct. What we call “the king of the
jungle,” a lion, is no higher in the ecosystem than the tiny ant that
moves along the ground floor. Humans have projected the concept of
hierarchy onto nature because it is a system that defines and controls
the order of their own relationships.[3]
What is needed is for us to determine a set of social ethics that
reflect what is actually present in non-human nature. Diversity is an
essential value because it creates the environmental context for choice
among organisms. The ability for animals to choose expands as species
become more developed neurologically and physiologically. Likewise,
choice becomes more perceptible as the interactions between different
species in an ecosystem increase in number and complexity. Regardless
how rudimentary the decisions made by an animal are, the capacity for
self-directiveness marks a nascent form of freedom within non-human
nature itself. Together with the evolution of mind and freedom evolves
subjectivity, individuality, creativity, and reason. In addition,
contemporary evolutionary biologists have supported Peter Kropotkin’s
argument that mutualism is as essential, if not greater, a component of
evolution than what is commonly referred to as competition. Thus, what
is gained from this assessment is a view of evolution that is
participatory and cooperative rather than a Victorian era outlook
focused on a competitive “struggle for existence.”[4]
Based on these arguments, an ecological society would be
non-hierarchical, increase diversity, expand the possibilities of
freedom, foster the participation of each individual, and provide the
opportunity for each individual to develop their own subjectivity and
rational capacity. Such a society must provide people with the
technological base to achieve these goals while interacting with
non-human nature in a manner that increases natural complexity.
Additionally, the built environment must be physically organized in such
a way that a harmonious balance with non-human nature is achieved. And
finally, there must be a political system that empowers each person to
participate fully in the activities of social life.[5]
As stated, hierarchy is made up of institutionalized social
relationships. Hierarchical relationships also entail a pyramidal
mentality in which differences are ranked antagonistically. In the
earliest human societies, any biological differences among people, as in
age or gender, were organized such to promote the unity and survival of
the group. Over time, through a slow and unsteady process, human
relations were changed and institutionalized to the harsh forms of
hierarchy that we know of today, such as sexism, racism, homophobia,
ablism, and so on.[6]
Hierarchy first emerged through fairly benign forms of gerontocracy, in
which elders of a community exercised decision making over younger
members. The relationships between men and women were differentiated,
yet complementary, which maintained the harmony of the overall group.
This balance in roles began to shift when the male civic realm expanded
and encroached on women’s domestic sphere, a social context known as
patricentricity. As time passed, men’s standing was enhanced by other
factors such as population increase which led to an expansion of
inter-tribal encounters and the spread of warfare. The ordering of
society into classes followed the formation of kingships and monarchies.
The ideology of racism grew and gained supporters as European people
spread the fictitious belief in biological races and argued that people
have essential characteristics dependent on their racial group. This
belief led to a stratified ordering of white people and people of color,
in which whites are placed superior to non-whites and receive benefits
at their expense.[7]
This brief history provides a context through which we can understand
where we are in contemporary society. The destructive effects of
hierarchy are all too transparent in cases of war, genocide, and
slavery. Yet, hierarchy is so commonplace that it infiltrates our lives
in the subtlest of ways, disrupting our relationships to one another and
to non-human nature. An individual’s experience of hierarchical society
can be shaped by a confluence of oppressions and privileges. To be sure,
certain groups of people exercise a greater deal of privilege than
others. Hierarchy is reinforced by privileged groups of people with the
power to control the life of others.
Further, a hierarchical mentality has influenced the ways that people
think about our environmental problems. The rise of hierarchy and
domination provided a basis for the idea that the environment is
something distinct from the human world and can be dominated by people.
Fueling this idea to dominate nature is a false perception of the
natural world as a static object, something tameable and conquerable by
humans. Many popular ideologies of our time, from liberalism to Marxism,
have argued for the domination of the environment in order to make
freedom real. However, unless we recognize the social origins of
environmental domination, and change these hierarchical and class
structures, we will see the rise of our problems, and the impossibility
of freedom.[8]
It is important to emphasize that hierarchy is antithetical to nature’s
tendency toward mutualism and diversity. Hierarchy has not always
existed, nor did it spring forth abruptly. There were several points
throughout history when societies could have gone in the direction of
cooperation; where people fought and died in trying to make freedom
real. Hierarchy developed unsteadily over the course of thousands of
years and has reached its apogee with the nation-State, modern
capitalism, and large-scale destruction of the environment.
Capitalism is a hierarchical economic system that necessitates
continuous expansion, exploitation, and the concentrated ownership of
wealth. The driving force of capitalism is the competitive market. The
market economy’s essential purpose is to sell commodities for profit.
Profit has to be realized, regardless of the broader effects the
commodity has on the environment or society at large, or the capitalist
will go bankrupt. In order to gain a competitive advantage over other
businesses, the capitalist is compelled to eliminate all social
constraints on the exploitation of labor, and to reinvest a large
portion of accumulated profits into technologies that will increase
productive capacity, thereby lowering the cost of production through its
economy of scale. A slow process of cannibalization occurs in which
businesses must fail thereby causing wealth to be concentrated into the
fewer hands of those who succeed.
From a broader perspective, if the economy as a whole produces more
goods than can be sold in the market, the system enters into a crisis
because profitable outlets cannot be found. In turn investment money
dries up, workers are laid off, and even less money is then spent
purchasing the excess commodities that are available. To alleviate this
problem the State has taken on the role of consumer of last resort,
ensuring the perpetual growth of the economy. Due to the “grow or die”
imperative imposed by the market, economic growth cannot be contained by
moral persuasion, it must continue to expand without any regard for
human needs or environmental impact. Thus, capitalism should be seen for
what it is, a malignant cancer. It will continue to grow until it has so
simplified and disrupted the biosphere such that life itself will not be
possible without complete technocratic control of all natural
processes.[9]
Additionally under capitalism, people get rewarded according to their
profitability, and economic decisions are put into the individual hands
of those who control land, money, machinery, and technical knowledge.
Each actor must do what it takes to keep their sales going or else face
bankruptcy or unemployment. Due to the market imperative to sell, every
aspect of life is eventually assigned a price tag. Not only is this
system undemocratic, it is also trivializing and dehumanizing. Community
relationships are reduced to business relationships, and the whole
orientation of society is thus fixated on competition, egotism, and
conspicuous consumption. Following the Second World War capitalism
facilitated isolated individualism through creating automobile
dependence, the spread of atomized suburban plots, shopping malls, big
box stores, and the mindless entertainment provided by television and
electronic gadgets. Everyday life was made banal providing corporations
with bored people cut off from the nourishment that comes from developed
social bonds. Still further, corporations have subjected us all to the
incessant propaganda of advertising since birth, manipulating us all
into viewing worthless junk, which is designed to break or go obsolete,
as necessary for one’s own self worth.[10]
Capitalism also has a destructive effect on the urban environment.
Before the rise of industrial capitalism, cities consisted of definable,
humanly scaled communities. These definable limits have been erased by
urbanization, creating megacities that devastate the landscape and the
quality of human relationships. The stark realities of sprawl, traffic
congestion, compartmentalization, noise, chemical pollution, and a lack
of public space are all everyday situations that people are needlessly
subjected to. The city itself is controlled and managed like a business
corporation by elected officials, where maximizing taxes and services is
the “bottom line.” People are anonymous in their environments, often
living without a perceivable connection to events outside of their homes
because they do not have direct involvement in them. What information we
do receive through the “news” is propagated by the media to instill a
mindset of fear against one another, to misinform on the problems of
society, and to encourage consumption and sell a packaged way of life.
Severe issues such as drug abuse and alcoholism, violence, mental
illness, low-self esteem, and stress all rise as the megalopolis
continues to expand to the detriment of life.[11]
States have taken various forms over time, all of which cannot be
covered and discussed within this pamphlet. Here, we shall talk about
the nation-State, which emerged out of Western civilization from a long
and complex process. A discussion of this modern State demands a
clarification of its ambiguous relationship with politics. The
conventional use of the word “politics,” which equals corruption in many
peoples’ minds, is actually an inaccurate use of terms. Politics first
originated in ancient Greece, wherein Greek citizens created and
participated in a collective process to decide how to manage their own
communities. What we commonly call politics today should instead be
called Statecraft. Statecraft is the practice of exercising power over
citizens. This power is held by professional politicians and bureaucrats
and is backed by a monopoly of violence through the institutions of the
military, secret service, police, prison industrial complex, and the
like.
The State is an organized system of social coercion based on the belief
that we are all incompetent beings who cannot be allowed to participate
in the decision making of society. Living under this system, people’s
unique and diverse identities are reduced to “taxpayer,” “voter,” and
“constituent.” The citizen is made a passive recipient of services,
rather than an active and knowledgeable participant in the social and
political affairs of life. Decisions made on significant issues such as
education, health care, housing, and more are kept out of our control
and put into the hands of an impersonal web of bureaucrats and
legislators, who are removed from our everyday lives.
Although the system enables people to vote for their representatives, we
don’t have to look far to see that election campaigns are funded by
wealthy elites, that elections only partially or superficially address
important issues, and that politicians consistently abandon campaign
promises. Politicians are professionals whose careers depend on
obtaining power. Regardless of the intentions of the politician, he or
she soon learns that for their career to remain and prosper they must
serve economic interests, rather than the people who they are supposed
to represent.
Representative governments and the bureaucracies that sustain them are
fundamentally opposed to popular democratic power. Whatever power the
State gains is at the expense of popular power, and any power that
people gain is done at the expense of the State. It is thus futile to
turn to the State with major appeals for change, for these appeals would
only be subverted by the State in an attempt to strengthen it’s own
power. To be sure, there are reforms that are necessary and valuable.
But if we only work for the completion of these minor reforms, then the
root causes of social and environmental problems will persist, and
worse, grow and intensify.
No policy is democratically legitimate unless it has been proposed,
discussed, and decided upon by people in a face-to-face assembly.
Representatives cannot handle social decision making better than
“amateurs,” everyday people who reflect a range of perspectives, and
possess detailed knowledge of the experiences of daily life. As long as
we live under the State’s power, we cannot expect to have full control
over our lives, to fulfill all of our needs, and to be free from
oppression altogether.[12]
The concept of freedom did not emerge in history as a fully articulated
and finalized ideal. Instead, freedom developed and expanded over time
by popular grassroots movements and through influential ideas that
sought to counter the experience of domination. Thus, for the history of
freedom to be fully appreciated, one must acknowledge the contributions
that have been made with regard to their social contexts, even while
some of those advances may be grossly lacking from our current
perspective. *
Freedom first appears in recorded history as the term ‘amargi’. Amargi
was the desired state sought after by Sumerian peasants during a peasant
uprising. To them, freedom meant a longing for a return to a utopian
past in the days before communal solidarity was disrupted and oppressed
by the emergence of hierarchy.[13]
As mentioned previously in discussing the State, the Greeks literally
invented politics in an attempt to curb the brutal power of the
aristocracy. Although Greek citizenship was blatantly exclusive from
today’s perspective, the idea was established that people were competent
to administer their lives themselves without the mediation of an
external authority. Greek political life did not merely retain a
localist perspective, but instead expanded outward by forming a union of
cities, or confederation, that lacked an overarching State structure.
Centuries later, Medieval cities, or communes as they were called, were
also free of State control and were often organized as a local democracy
or republic. These communes were joined as a confederation over large
regions of Europe.[14]
After the Medieval period, the revolution in America was founded on
local town meeting democracy and coordinated throughout the colonies by
an elaborate committee system. The town meetings, which began in New
England, spread over the course of the revolution as far south as South
Carolina. These democratic bodies formed what could have been a
decentralized direction for the newly independent colonies.[15]
It was during this time that the Enlightenment had its greatest impact.
Although it was subverted by the crass instrumentalism of capitalism,
its significance as a contribution to freedom should not be overlooked.
With the Enlightenment came a dynamic perspective on reason that focused
on unearthing the potentiality of a being or concept, rather than the
linear logic of deduction. People were believed to be capable of relying
on their rational faculties, as opposed to dependence on faith,
superstition, or obedience. Additionally, there was a belief in popular
governance and the possibility of material well-being for all.[16]
The influence of the Enlightenment reached all the way to the base of
French society at the close of the 18^(th) century. Within only a matter
of four years Paris was transformed from an absolute monarchy to a
direct democracy. This direct democracy consisted of neighborhood
assemblies attended by working class residents, known as the
sans-culottes. The more far-reaching sans-culottes called for all of
France to eliminate the State and organize as a confederation of
communes. This advocacy came literally within moments of realization
before it was subverted by liberal reactionaries.[17]
The French Revolution’s ideals of political equality led to an explosion
of ideas regarding economic equality. Socialism and anarchism both
emerged in the revolution’s aftermath. Anti-authoritarian socialists
sought a materially sufficient world free from the dehumanizing effects
of capitalism. Anarchists stressed the ability of individuals to form
rational and ethical decisions free from State coercion. Utopian
theorists sought a pleasurable society that harmonized an aesthetic
urban area with the natural world. And finally, Internationalists called
for workers throughout the world, regardless of race, ethnicity, or
nationality, to organize together and free themselves from capitalist
domination.[18]
During the 1848 French Revolution the red flag was raised over Paris,
and a social democratic republic was proclaimed. This revolution marked
the first workers insurrection in history. Parisian workers sought an
artisanal form of socialism, and yet, their efforts were thwarted by
liberal reactionaries. A generation later, during the Paris Commune of
1871, State authorities were compelled to flee the city and leave it in
the direct control of its citizens. Despite being short-lived, the Paris
Commune is significant because it too sought to restructure all of
France into a confederation of democratic cities free from State
control.[19]
Before being subverted by Bolshevik control, the Russian Revolution was
marked by a grassroots democratic movement in both the urban and rural
areas of the country. Initially, soviets were democratic neighborhood
bodies, composed of workers and soldiers, which addressed a variety of
civic issues. In the countryside, villages took control of their own
affairs and began re-distributing land according to need. The soviets
and peasant communes were desired by many as the political structure of
Russia. After Lenin came to power, insurrections by both Ukrainian
populists and Kronstadt sailors sought to eliminate Bolshevik control
and re-establish the democratic soviets and village communes.[20]
In many ways, the Spanish Revolution was the most far reaching
revolution in history. At the time, the majority of Spanish industrial
workers were members of the anarchist influenced union, the CNT. The CNT
was syndicalist, meaning it sought democratic worker control of
industry. The revolution itself was initiated in response to an uprising
led by fascist military generals during 1936. In Barcelona, the workers
defeated the military and took control of the city themselves. Workers
throughout the entire city expropriated their workplaces and began to
run and manage them collectively. In the Spanish countryside, peasants
took control of their villages and began organizing their farms to be
worked as democratic collectives. In many villages, money was abolished
altogether and people were provided for according to their needs. Worker
and peasant assemblies were networked by an extensive committee system
which essentially replaced the authority of the State. The Spanish
revolutionaries explicitly sought a morally transformed society in which
all contributed as they could and all were provided for according to
need.[21]
Following World War Two, the power of the State and capitalism expanded
in ways which in turn led to new contributions to freedom. The counter
culture, civil rights, anti-war, feminist, ecology, student, gay, and
neighborhood movements offered a challenge to hierarchical society as
such. The black and women’s liberation movements showed clearly that
people were discriminated against and socially isolated for non-economic
reasons, and that efforts to achieve freedom should not be limited to
political and economic equality, but must go further and eliminate
hierarchy altogether. In recent years the anti-globalization movement
has continued the struggle against centralized power, and the Occupy
movement has sought to address grievances through popular assemblies
organized at the municipal level.[22]
This section largely follows contributions to freedom made in Western
society. Unequivocally, some forms of domination, such as racism and
imperialism, were spread globally by European countries. Without
absolving these realities, it would be one-sided to discredit the
emancipatory ideals that also developed there. As with other societies,
European domination also extended inward against the vast majority of
people who populated Europe. Freedom is an ideal that developed in
dialectical tension with domination itself. Concepts such as socialism,
anarchism, and utopia emerged in Europe as a result of people’s attempts
to counter absolutism and class exploitation. Additionally, non-Western
revolutions were largely limited to being nationalistic due to their
historical need to expel the Western imperialists. In contrast, many of
the Western revolutions had the historical privilege of going beyond
nationalism and promoting universal ideals to the whole world – ideals
such as democracy and socialism.[23]
History has shown that there is ever growing potential in what we can
achieve for our societies. It is important to know how people in the
past have expanded the ideal of freedom in order to see the
possibilities that lie in our present and future. Communalism offers a
concept of freedom that is twofold in nature, involving both a positive
and a negative form. These are freedom from exploitation, and the
freedom to realize one’s own individual potential as a human being.
Thus, to fully realize freedom, an ecological society must be opposed to
all forms of exploitation, whether it be economic, ethnic, sexual, or
any other form. An ecological society should seek to minimize anyone’s
suffering, while enabling everyone to fulfill their creative
potentials.[24]
Overcoming the social and ecological crisis must involve the renewal of
individuality. Contemporary individualism, defined as freedom from
social obligations, is an alienating conception of selfhood that
encourages competition and egotism.[25] By contrast, Communalism
maintains that a well rounded, developed self only results from
empowered participation in one’s communities and through the bonds of
cooperative relationships with the members of those communities. Direct
participation provides a person with insight into and a degree of
control over the social events that he or she is a part of. It also
reveals our mutual dependence on each other and gives fulfillment to our
social need for solidarity. Moreover, participation provides each
individual a public space to share his or her own skills and experiences
with the larger group. A renewed appreciation for diversity would emerge
as societies recognize that acknowledging and celebrating differences
leads to stronger unity.[26] Ultimately, society should uphold a type of
selfhood that is as Murray Bookchin described, “guided by a rational,
humane, and high-minded notion of the social and communal good.”[27]
A society of empowered individuals must also involve the freedom from an
exploitative market, and the freedom to participate in an economy based
on ethics. Communalism maintains that there are no technical impediments
to achieving a “post-scarcity” society. Today, capitalism creates an
artificial scarcity of goods, while the mass media is used to generate
artificial needs in our minds. A post-scarcity society is made possible
by rejecting the notion of limitless needs, and replacing it with a
commitment to enhance the welfare of all individuals and our
environments. Material affluence would be exchanged for a life in which
individual needs are consciously arrived at with the purpose in mind of
enabling our creative and cultural potentialities. Modern technology,
for instance, holds the potential of producing a sufficiency of goods
for all people, while reducing the hardships of human labor. This is not
to suggest an ascetic life of denial. To the contrary, by eliminating
market induced consumerism, advanced technology could be used to provide
the material base for the fulfillment of each individual’s aesthetic,
intellectual, and sensuous desires within an ethical social context.[28]
For a fuller appreciation of social freedom, let us distinguish between
the concepts of justice and freedom. Justice seeks equality by treating
all people as uniform, and rewards them in proportion to their
contribution. Individual people, however, are different for many
reasons, among which include poor health, disability, or age. Justice
inadvertently creates inequality because it fails to compensate for
individual need, rather than contribution. By contrast, freedom should
be based on an ethics of concern for personal difficulties or suffering
and strive to eliminate these hardships. Accordingly, genuine freedom
creates equality through the recognition of and compensation for
inequalities.[29]
Communalism emphasizes the subjective experience of the individual, and
their capacity for reflective action. The commitment to the realization
of the individual’s full potential through an ethics of care and
cooperation provides the basis for the abolition of domination as such.
Our liberation must encompass the remaking of our own psyches such that
a pyramidal ranking of differences is replaced with an ecological
outlook whereby individual differences are encouraged and celebrated as
contributions to the enrichment and beautification of the whole
experience of life.[30]
This social context would yield a society free from oppression. White
supremacism would cease, and people of color and whites would have the
same shared social power. Although ethnic and cultural diversity should
remain, the concept of separate “races” would come to an end.
Traditional gender roles would no longer be the standard for men and
women, and they would be free to choose their behavior and roles
according to their own interests and strengths. People would be
empowered to choose their gender identity and sexual relationships
freely without moral retribution or political interference. Classism and
economic status would no longer be possible when everyone is provided
for according to need. Able-challenged people would also not be
discriminated against, and would be provided for such that they are able
to fulfill their passions to the extent possible. The subjective
experience of children would be valued, and paternalistic domination
would be replaced by parent’s facilitating their development toward
adulthood. And last but not least, the emphasis placed on people’s
subjective experience would result in a culture actively opposed to rape
and physical, psychological, and sexual abuse.
Communalism calls upon people to take control over their lives through
roles of active citizenship. Here, citizenship does not mean writing or
petitioning your legislators. Instead, it is the empowerment of all
people to participate directly in deciding social legislation. Selfhood
and the democratic community mutually reinforce each other through the
development of civic virtues and a commitment to the welfare all people.
Thus, a person should participate in social decision making with
consideration of how a decision would not only affect one’s self, but
how it will affect others as well.[31]
For these reasons, Communalists advocate the creation of directly
democratic legislative assemblies at the neighborhood or town level as
the sole policy making bodies of the land. These assemblies should meet
regularly and follow defined rules of order that give each person the
right to speak while keeping meetings within an acceptable length of
time. In addition, all citizens would be permitted to contribute to the
meeting’s agenda. A person’s own confidence in participation should
follow naturally from the education and experience provided by
participation itself. Furthermore, it should be recognized that it would
be impossible for an entire society to make decisions with unanimous
consent. Some form of majority voting is not only inevitable, but also
desirable. Public dissent with the decisions made by a majority should
be welcomed and encouraged because dissenting opinions serve as the
generative force of fresh ideas. Those who hold positions not supported
by the majority would retain the freedom to persistently advocate their
stance through reasoned discourse. The details and rules of each
assembly should be democratically founded on a carefully constructed set
of bylaws.[32]
Arguing for local direct democracy does not mean that it would be
necessary or required for all citizens to attend assembly meetings. Even
attendance rates are not significant. It can be assumed that during
ordinary times attendance could be quite low. While during more
controversial times it can be expected that people will turn out in much
larger numbers. What is important here is that all people have the
freedom to participate whenever they so choose.[33]
An important point to keep in mind when considering the feasibility of
direct democracy is the separation of policy making from the
administration of those policies. All policies should only be made
directly by the citizens’ assemblies. The administration of these
policies would be handled by delegates who have no policy making power
of their own. Instead, they would be issued mandates which describe the
range of actions and powers granted to the delegates. All delegates
would be subject to immediate recall by the assemblies if they fail to
follow the mandates given to them. Administrative delegates could be
elected or even chosen at random in a conscious effort to prevent the
professionalization or centralization of social administration. This
separation of policy making from its administration is a critical point.
If at any time the delegates chosen to administer the community’s
policies begin to decide social policies for themselves, then power will
have left the hands of the citizens, thus laying the groundwork for a
new State.[34]
To gain a better understanding of assembly policies let us consider two
different examples. For one, a policy can be made that restricts people
from engaging in certain actions. For example, a policy could be
approved that prohibits the logging of trees in certain forested areas.
Alternatively, a policy can be one that enables people to take certain
actions. An example of this could be when an assembly decides to build a
bridge across a waterway. A team of engineers would likely be tasked
with drafting various bridge proposals for the assembly to choose from.
It would be the engineers’ responsibility to explain their various
proposals in clear language for all to understand, but the decision of
which plan to implement would be decided by the assembly.[35]
Doubtless, there will be times when policies are infringed upon. These
encounters should occur at a tremendously lesser rate than in our
current society because today’s policies exist to maintain a
dehumanizing power structure and stark inequalities in wealth.
Nonetheless, when it is suspected that a policy has been broken, the
inquiry should be pursued by a popular jury of people known to the
suspect. In the times that it is decided that a person is a physical
danger to their community, then that person should be restrained at a
comfortable, life-enhancing therapeutic center that provides counseling,
care, and productive activities. There should be no prisons or jails at
all. The focus of this restraint should be the healthy reintegration of
the individual back into society.
Another important component of direct democracy is that it doesn’t
preclude governance over larger areas of society. In fact, this system
can be expanded to regional levels, even globally, without any need for
a centralized State. To do this, cities and towns would form an
administrative body of mandated delegates in much the same way that
administration is handled at the local level. This form of
inter-municipal cooperation is called a confederation. Confederation
policies would still be made directly by the citizenry, only now through
referenda. The results of a referendum would be decided in favor of the
majority of the total votes cast. Each city would be bound to follow the
decisions of the citizens as a whole, thus giving citizens regional
power to prevent a municipality from causing environmental damage or
human rights abuses. Through a confederation, all citizens are given
collective power to administer society without creating an intermediate
institution with power over them.[36]
The resolving of conflicts between municipalities should focus on
non-violent tactics. When needed, facilitation or arbitration should be
provided from outside the areas that are in conflict. These conflicts
would hopefully be rare given the abolition of power and wealth
inequalities throughout society. If a situation arises that a
municipality needs to defend itself physically, this defense should be
organized around democratic militias controlled by the popular
assemblies, as opposed to a hierarchical, professional army.
Although technology has been used to exploit and simplify the planet on
a frightening scale, it is not technology itself that is at fault here.
Rather, it is the fact that technologies are designed and employed
within the context of a hierarchical and rapacious society. In an
ecological society, technology could be oriented to play a liberatory
role for humans that also enhances the integrity and biodiversity of
non-human nature. From this orientation, technology would be used for
the purpose of eliminating toil and drudgery, and labor-saving
techniques would be applied so as to minimize the amount of necessary
work for everyone.[37]
Although automation will receive a great deal of focus, it must be
stressed that we are not advocating a completely automated, roboticized
environment where people are not involved in production. What is
important is that these technologies can be decentralized and placed
under the direct control of a community. The fact that robotics and
automation can be used to provide for everyone’s needs gives people the
choice of what extent to utilize such techniques. An ecological society
would free people’s time for the purpose of character formation through
civic involvement, and for applying one’s efforts towards the artistic
and vocational activities of their own choosing. In fact, work itself
would become a playful activity enabling each individual to realize
their own creative potential at a leisurely pace of their own choosing.
People would be endowed with the opportunity to find an intricate
balance between mental and physical labor, indoor and outdoor work,
working communally and alone, between crafts and agriculture, and
between the city and the countryside. To explore these possibilities
further, here are brief explanations of the technological possibilities
regarding the areas of manufacturing, mining, agriculture, and
energy.[38]
Due to the development of 3D computer design and computer-controlled
machines, virtually every area of manufacturing can be fully automated
and scaled for local production. All of the individual processes of
metal working and woodworking, including precision cutting, shaping, and
joining can be handled by a relatively small set of machines and housed
in a local neighborhood facility. Automated processes can also be
implemented for the local fabrication of any shape of glass, plastics,
or clothing that can be designed by anyone. Along with this capability,
practically any finished product can be assembled automatically based on
an item’s assembly instruction computer file. For instance, any person
in the world could download the design and assembly files for a baby
stroller. All of the parts – possibly a combination of metal, plastic,
wood, and fabric – would be manufactured directly and then fully
assembled, all without requiring human labor.[39]
Documentation for productive machinery should be made freely available
via the Internet, enabling the rapid transfer of technical and
mechanical knowledge throughout the world. Documentation could include a
materials list, computer design files, instructional videos, and
collaboration software such as a revision system, a discussion forum,
and a wiki. Additionally, assistance through video conferencing could be
provided for the purpose of making it easier to answer questions and
demonstrate techniques.
The maintenance of industrial infrastructure could be automated as well.
Machine parts, fluids, and performance rates can be monitored using
sensors that provide data to a computer control system. To the extent
necessary, a machine could be disassembled robotically, and each part
could be run through a series of diagnostic tests. When machine
diagnostics determine fault, a replacement part could be manufactured
and installed on the fly without the need for human involvement.
Despite the use of computer-controlled machinery toward liberatory ends,
the elimination of new metal production should be considered a real
possibility. Vast amounts of metals are thrown into landfills every
year. According to one report, the director of energy at a major
aluminum corporation has estimated that there is more aluminum in
landfills then can be produced by mining ores. He goes further to
suggest that this may be true for copper and gold as well.[40] In
addition, an ecological society would necessarily consist of a
thoroughly remade built environment, one in which urban gigantism and
the reign of the private automobile is brought to an end. In a built
environment reconstructed according to ecological precepts, along with
an economy oriented toward production for life rather than profit, we
could very well find ourselves amidst an abundance of metals, and with
no or a greatly attenuated need for new metal production.
Nevertheless, if some degree of new metal extraction is needed, it can
be done in a non-destructive manner while alleviating toil. As of 2010,
an iron ore has been in operation that is fully automated from the mine
to port. The whole operation is remotely administered by computer
operators.[41] This approach to automation can be coupled with a
biological method of metal extraction. This process, called biomining,
employs microorganisms to leach the metals out of the ore. The
development of biomining techniques is important because it uses only a
small amount of energy, requires little infrastructure to set up, works
with low as well as high grade ores, and has minimum labor requirements.
Still more, it brings nature into an otherwise inorganic process, and
thus assists in further clarifying the necessity for a cooperative
relationship with the natural world.[42]
The production of aluminum impacts the environment negatively in many
ways. The standard process creates a array of toxic byproducts while
consuming extremely large amounts of electricity. If production of
aluminum is to continue, then an alternative method must be established.
Recent studies have concluded that aluminum can be biomined, and thus
drastically reducing energy consumption and CO2 emissions while also
eliminating other undesirable byproducts.[43] The fact that low grade
ores can be processed through biomining opens the door for producing
aluminum directly from clay, which is aluminum silicate. Through this
approach, aluminum production could be radically decentralized such that
people throughout the world could manufacture their own aluminum using a
local and abundant resource.[44]
Advanced technology can be applied to agriculture in an organic manner
that enhances the surrounding biodiversity as well as the pleasures of
farming. A typical example of beneficial farm machinery is that of the
tractor. Through the use of a wide variety of attachments, a tractor is
used for lifting and transporting heavy objects, digging, tilling,
mowing, seeding, auger drilling, and mixing compost along with many
other useful tasks. By the same token, robotic and automated farm
equipment can be utilized by small-scale farms that grow nutritious,
delicious food, while also improving the soil.
By coupling agricultural automation with the principles of permaculture
and an advanced software system, farms can be created that are free from
toil, composed of complex polycultures, and are as much aesthetic
playgrounds as they are sites of food production. Permaculture is an
information intensive form of ecological agriculture that seeks to
enhance biodiversity by carefully designing its components such that
each farm element serves multiple functions and is placed in a location
that is mutually beneficial to other nearby elements. Additionally, it
aims to enhance soil by facilitating natural plant succession. An
example of permaculture design is the “three sisters” companion planting
technique where beans, corn, and squash are grown close together. Corn
provides a structure for the bean vines to grow upon, the beans fix
nitrogen into the soil, and the squash provides a ground cover so as to
retain moisture and prevent weeds from growing. Permaculture sites are
designed to utilize plants that attract beneficial insects and birds
that serve as a method of biological pest control. And finally, a strong
emphasis is placed on growing perennials and the replacement of tilling
with mulching so as to minimize human labor and soil disturbance.[45]
Computer-aided permaculture (CAP) software can assist in developing
ecological farm plans that model land-use zoning, intensive
polycultures, and production estimates while acting as a guide for
coordinating the full use of local materials to avoid waste. Farmers,
either families or collectives, would need to provide the software with
the necessary information in order for the model to be generated. This
information could account for climate, typography, and local hydrology
among others. The software would access a publicly modified database
that stores information on plant communities (companions), their
appropriate spacing, germination and harvest dates, water and sun
requirements, and many other attributes. Through this information, the
CAP software would generate a model detailing the array of plants to be
grown, their best locations according to soil, sun, and drainage, the
expected volume of food, medicinals, and animal products as well as how
much of what plants can be turned into biofuel, bioplastics, or mulch.
With the modeled plan in hand, the farmers can go through a democratic
process on modifying and settling on an acceptable plan. The finalized
plan would later be modified, year after year, according to
circumstances and participant choice. Furthermore, these plans could be
linked up with surrounding farms in the region in order to harmonize
their efforts so as to realize a regional form of agriculture that is
both decentralized and ecological.
The complexities of intensive companion planting at the scale of a farm,
as opposed to a backyard garden, lends itself to the assistance of
small, autonomous field robots. Field robots could carry out many useful
tasks like transplanting, weeding, spreading mulch, and harvesting.
Automated monitoring systems could be put in place that control a drip
irrigation system or the release of organic fertilizers. Even a robotic
system could be implemented for corralling chickens or ducks into a
specified area to eat insects. Automated greenhouses could also be used
for starting seeds and tending to seedlings. Separately, automated
greenhouses could implement an advanced aquaponics system that yields
high volumes of fish, vegetables, and biofuel. These technologies,
together with automated forms of more conventional farm machinery, could
provide an abundance of food with a minimal of necessary labor while at
the same time improving the soil and increasing local biodiversity.[46]
The energy for an ecological society must not rely on fossil fuels, but
should instead consist of a variety of renewable sources that are
produced locally. Methods for producing renewable energy include not
only the familiar solar panels, wind mills, and biofuels, but also
concentrated solar energy systems, hydrogen fuel cells, and pyrolysis.
Taken together, these techniques can supply a local community with all
of their fuel and electrical needs.[47]
For example, pyrolysis is a process that converts biomass into varying
amounts of charcoal, syngas, and bio-oil. Syngas can be converted
directly to electricity using a highly efficient hydrogen fuel cell
which produces very low emissions. The carbon dioxide that is given off
in the process are those that were originally sequestered by the biomass
used in the pyrolysis process, making the whole production cycle carbon
neutral.
Given the ecological benefits it provides, the charcoal made during
pyrolysis is commonly referred to as biochar. When biochar is added to
soil it enhances nutrient retention and thereby increases soil
fertility. Due to biochar being highly resistant to decomposition, all
of the carbon contained within the biochar is effectively kept out of
the atmosphere for thousands of years. Because the biomass that is
turned into biochar consumes atmospheric CO2 during its growth, this
method of energy production is part of a carbon negative process that
yields a beneficial soil additive to boot. Thus, biochar has great
potential to reduce the high levels of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere.[48]
There are more economic areas that are not covered here in this pamphlet
which a liberatory approach to technology could be applied. What the
above analysis shows is that the necessary technologies and ecological
energy sources essential for establishing a decentralized, ecological
society exists now and is within our grasp.
An ecological economy should be placed under the direct control of the
citizenry, just like with social policies. In effect, the means of
economic production – land and equipment – would be placed under the
domain of the assembly, and regional economic integration would be
achieved through the confederation. The range of economic decisions
addressed by assemblies would include, among others, how much of various
goods should be produced for the year, and which technologies are deemed
acceptable for use. The specifics of how goods are produced and how
services are rendered should be decided upon and administered by the
people who spend their time working at or maintaining a workplace, such
as a farm, workshop, or a hospital. The assemblies decide what needs to
be done, and the workplaces decide how it gets done.[49]
An ethical economy would be one that is cooperatively planned rather
than having goods allocated within a competitive market. Democratic
economic planning can be greatly assisted by an advanced software
system. Every item that is manufactured – not including unique hand
crafted items – could be included in the system. This entry would
include documentation that details the item’s material requirements and
build instructions. In addition, it would include an assessment of how
many embodied labor hours are involved in its production, the current
capacity for producing it locally at a desired quantity, its energy
requirements, and qualitative assessments such as the social and
ecological impact of its manufacture. During annual economic planning
meetings people would propose and decide what items are needed by the
municipality as a collective unit, such as a public building. In
addition, individuals or households would need to submit their
anticipated consumption plan for the year. Initially this would be done
from scratch, but afterwards can be modified year after year. This plan
would quantify categories of items needed – such as how many pairs of
shoes or how many pounds of fruit – not the specifics of the items
themselves. The software would aggregate everyone’s information in order
to assess what can be produced locally, what goods need to come from
elsewhere in the confederation, how much labor will be needed, and to
compile reports itemizing qualitative, user-submitted notes. In an
economy that produces for need rather than profit and in a society
oriented toward creativity and cooperation rather than consumerism, it
is likely that total consumption requests will fall below productive
capacity. Nonetheless, if requests are found to be excessive then
overages would be highlighted, and people could be asked to modify their
plans accordingly. This process would be done iteratively until a
workable collective plan is voted for.[50]
The computer modeled economic plan should be capable of estimating how
much labor in each productive area is needed. Those who are capable of
working would be expected to assist in achieving the goals of the
democratic assemblies. People should be allowed to volunteer their time
toward the needed task of their choice. Volunteering time to fulfill
needed work tasks should occur naturally because those who will do the
work will have participated (or at least had the freedom to do so) in
their assembly’s decision making. Still further, they will be part of a
cooperative community whose members they know on a face to face basis.
Situations where a sufficient number of volunteers do not come forth
could be handled in a non-coercive manner. Initially, the assembly could
reassess whether the goal is still desired in light of how the situation
develops. If the assembly concludes affirmatively, then people could
simply be asked again to step up and help out. If this approach fails
then the endeavor could be made more enticing by planning an
accompanying feast or celebration. Otherwise the plan would ultimately
be canceled until sufficient support is available.
Although the liberatory use of technology enables the radical
decentralization of manufacturing, municipalities will always remain
interdependent with other municipalities for different goods – both raw
materials and various agricultural or manufactured items. These
communities need not engage in a bourgeois concept of monetary trade.
Instead, a community that receives needed items, items which would be
produced with a minimum of physical labor, could express their gratitude
and achieve reciprocity by responding with hand crafted gifts or by
sending an occasional delegation to perform music or to provide a feast.
In keeping with the Communalist concept of social freedom, the
distribution of goods in an ecological society should be made not
according to one’s productive contribution, but according to their
needs. Within the capacity of the local assembly or confederation, each
person’s material requests should be fulfilled according to their own
determination of needs. Hoarding and conspicuous consumption would cease
to exist, because anyone could have the same goods as anyone else. More
significantly, people would be free from the psychological manipulation
of advertisers and would live immersed in a culture oriented toward
communal cooperation, solidarity, and creative expression. Each person
would be the embodiment of a rounded, developed self – in control of his
or her own life, knowledgeable of the technologies that provide for his
or her needs, acutely aware of the importance of biodiversity, and a
known member of a caring community. Because this economy would be
controlled democratically, based on a voluntary labor system, and would
provide for people according to need it should be considered deeply
ethical.[51]
Realizing the potential of a non-hierarchical society organized around a
directly democratic, confederal politics, an ethical economy, and the
use of liberatory technology, enables the radical transformation of the
built environment along ecological lines. This transformation should
necessarily bring the dimensions of the built environment down to a
scale that is fully comprehensible and accessible to individual people.
It is at this scale that people can come to know one another on a face
to face basis as members of a community. It is also at this scale that
natural balance can be achieved without overwhelming the local base of
resources. It follows then that our sprawling urban and suburban
conglomerations should be dismantled, and that people would relocate in
a more evenly distributed manner. The same machines that are today being
used to enlarge the sea of urban concrete can instead be used to tear it
up, dismantle the massive commercial buildings, and salvage large
quantities of useful materials.[52]
The actual size limits of future cities would be left up to the popular
assemblies themselves. It is beneficial, however, to speculate on such
matters in order to grasp the possibilities that are at hand. The
population limit of 30,000 that Ebenezer Howard placed on his Garden
City concept seems like an appropriate upper limit.[53] Anything beyond
this limit would likely take a toll on local resources while becoming
incomprehensible as a totality to each individual resident. While a city
of this size would still prevent all of the citizens from knowing each
other on a personal level, the city would be divided into numerous
neighborhoods that would approximate the communal inclusiveness of a
small town. These neighborhoods should themselves be no larger than
1,000 inhabitants with each containing their own democratic
assembly.[54] Neighborhood assemblies would join together to form a
municipal confederation that governs the city as a whole. To avoid
conglomeration, cities of this size should be spread out across the
land. Each of these cities could mark the centerpiece of a decentralized
municipal arrangement known as a township. In a township a relatively
large city is surrounded by a number of smaller cities, towns, and
villages all of which is enclosed by agricultural and forest land. This
arrangement allows for a harmonious balance to be struck between town
and country.[55] The municipalities within a township would themselves
form a township confederation, while all of the townships of a region
could join together to form a regional confederation.
All citizens would be able to actively participate in neighborhood,
municipal, township, and regional planning through the shared use of a
GIS based city planning software system that incorporates 3D
architectural and engineering modeling.[56] Citizens could propose and
debate various plans for distributing productive facilities throughout
the township or regional confederation, for solving transportation
logistics, and for the aesthetic landscape of the built environment
itself. Again, although these are decisions to be left for future
assemblies, it is helpful to assess the principles that an ecological
form of city planning should incorporate. For instance, in order to
approximate the human scale, even the largest cities should be designed
to allow people to easily access the countryside by bicycling or
walking. The countryside itself could be merged seamlessly into the city
by incorporating a web of interlocking fingers of farmland that reach
all the way to the city’s center. City neighborhoods should be easily
identified from one another and have distinct boundaries that
acknowledge their limits. Neighborhood boundaries give form to the city
while providing each neighborhood with its own distinct character.
Towns, villages, and cities should arrange their centers of public
activity into a relatively small number of key spots so as to create
vital gathering areas that facilitate social interactions. These
activity centers could be home to various mixtures of workshops,
recreational and sporting grounds, kitchen and dining halls, and public
buildings. The area should be a magnet for creativity where art, music,
and theater become an abiding part of public life. All public spaces
should be built in a manner that is welcoming to people of all ages
while also placing emphasis on being inclusive to people of all
identities. Additionally, public spaces should be landscaped to provide
both aesthetic beauty and food to enjoy throughout the seasons.
Arrangements could be made that enable domesticated animals to have a
continual presence, and residents should have easy access to bodies of
water and forested areas. A mixture of household arrangements could be
provided that accommodate couples, extended families, collectives, or
those who wish to live alone.[57] A variety of transportation outlets
could be implemented within a municipality such as a public streetcar
system, electric assisted bicycles, light electric vehicles of various
sorts, and a shared supply of trucks for heavy loads. Great emphasis
should be placed on minimizing traffic congestion as much as possible.
This minimization should not be too difficult to achieve if
municipalities are well designed and limited in size. Agricultural areas
could be equipped with trucks as needed, and they could be connected to
a rail line for shipping and receiving goods. Finally, township
municipalities and regional areas could be linked together by an energy
efficient monorail system that could operate without a driver if
desired.
The move from our current society to the free society detailed above
must necessarily involve convincing a majority of the population to
support these ideals. To do this, we must build a movement that is
organized around the reconstructive vision that has been put forth. The
specifics of the developments of the movement will no doubt be
determined by the people involved and in light of the circumstances they
face. Nonetheless, it is valuable to outline a program of action in
order to provide an overall vision of how the existing system can be
overcome. This program is proposed with the hope to catalyze people to
act around the values of social freedom. In addition, this platform is
to provide people with an initial basis of ideas from which they can
develop their own ideas and creative approaches. While ideals – such as
full opposition to hierarchy – will be asserted as necessary, the
program detailed below is not intended to be a rigid approach to social
change. Instead, it is a speculative exercise in exploring how the
remaking of society might be achieved.
This movement should seek to address all of the particular issues of
oppression that people face. Yet, these issues should not be addressed
in isolation from one another. It is important to be aware of the
intersectionality of oppressions and privileges. This awareness provides
acute knowledge of the complexity of people’s varied experiences, the
myriad of oppressions that need to be overcome, and the privileges that
should be leveraged against privilege itself. To fully address the
realities that we face, one must integrate single-issue work into a
broader campaign that treats all of the issues at hand. Thus, we must
seek a unified movement that addresses a diversity of issues and acts in
the general interest of all of humanity. This movement should strive to
be as diverse as possible with regard to social and economic status so
as to represent a wide spectrum of experiences and perspectives.[58]
An initial approach to promoting Communalist ideas is to distribute a
leaflet or pamphlet with the intent to explain these ideas as clearly as
possible. As supporters are found, it would be wise to form small study
groups to explore these ideas together in more detail. As the group
begins to gain confidence in their ability to articulate themselves,
public promotion of Communalism could be expanded into a regularly
occurring newsletter that seeks to promote solutions to local issues
from a Communalist perspective, while tying them to the long term vision
of an ecological society. As with leafleting, distributing a newsletter
puts fellow Communalists in the position of having to address questions
and concerns, and makes for a reciprocal educational exercise for both
the Communalist and the conversation partner. Another way of educating
people is by holding a lecture series or by giving talks to groups
focused on social justice issues. Still another important approach is to
run for local office based on a platform that makes clear the group’s
unwavering intent to change the structure of municipal government into
that of a direct democracy. As an exercise in popular education, a
Communalist campaign should be run on a face to face basis. It is
important to stress that electoral attempts should never be engaged for
the purpose of easily gaining a large following. Losing by a large
margin is desirable if people are not yet educated on the ideas being
promoted. If a Communalist campaign ever surrenders its far reaching
goals to gain this large following, it will inevitably become
ineffective, demoralized, and corrupted. Just as well, in order to
remain true to its anti-Statist vision, campaigns for offices beyond the
municipality should be wholly avoided. It is desired that educated
individuals, not a mass of propagandized voters, comes to accept and
join the nascent movement.[59]
As support begins to grow, focus could be turned toward the
neighborhoods where the support is coming from. This focus could be done
initially by starting a neighborhood community technology project.
Community technology projects are similar to community gardens in that
they bring people together in a cooperative effort.[60] These projects
could demonstrate the liberatory possibilities of technology using
relatively low cost and technically accessible examples. Some open
sourced projects to start with could include building a a RepRap (3D
printer), a Shapeoko (computer controlled mill), a Lasersaur (computer
controlled laser cutter), or a Liberator (compressed earth block
press).[61] These provide excellent examples in showing people that
decentralized manufacturing is an immediate possibility. There are many
other open source hardware projects on the Internet that could be of
great benefit. Concurrently, a permaculture demonstration site could be
established to teach key concepts such as companion planting and
holistic site design.
Simultaneous with the community technology project, a neighborhood
assessment could be done to gain knowledge of both the problems and the
possibilities that confront the neighborhood. An important first task is
to learn the social composition of the neighborhood. This task could
involve learning which homes are owner-occupied and rentals, who the
long-term residents are, who people turn to as leaders, the level of
unemployment, and so on. From these residents seek to learn the
neighborhood’s history and past political battles. Another task could be
to engage in a door to door survey in order to determine what resources
are available within the neighborhood. Learn what issues are important
to people, what skills they have, what their hobbies are, and what tools
or facilities they have that may be useful at some point. Also, learn
who owns the empty buildings and neighborhood lots with the intent of
finding an opportunity to put them to communal use. At the same time,
residents could be given literature explaining the group’s intent to
empower people directly so that they are no longer controlled by
centralized sources of power. Another great exercise could be to assess
what the neighborhood’s potential is for food and energy production, as
well as its potential capacity for manufacturing its own goods.[62] To
the extent possible, the whole neighborhood assessment process should be
documented and made freely available on the Internet for others to
replicate and build upon these efforts. With this wealth of information
in hand, Communalists could work with concerned residents to develop a
minimum program. A minimum program is a set of demands focused on
addressing immediate issues. In order to avoid becoming reformist, it
should be shown how the minimum program ties into the long term vision,
or maximum program, of the Communalist project.[63]
Following these initial efforts, some residents of the neighborhood will
become generally familiar with Communalist ideas, and will be enticed by
its call for people to directly govern their own lives. When this level
of consciousness is reached, Communalists should begin calling on
neighborhood residents to attend assembly meetings as an act of
self-empowerment. An important point to note is that these meetings
should be open to the people who actually live in the neighborhood, not
the landlords or business owners who profitize off the area and live
outside of it. Rather than an occasional gathering used to defend
themselves against the undesirable plans coming out of city hall, these
popular assemblies should occur according to a regular schedule with
impromptu meetings called as needed. Regardless of how nascent their
actual power to substantially effect their situation, by participating
in an on-going series of assembly meetings the people of the
neighborhood will have taken an immensely important step forward in
overcoming the oppressive institutions that control them – they will
begin to govern themselves. Although at this point these assemblies will
not have real legal power, they can nonetheless act as a moral force in
the community, and can pressure the city government to address their
minimum demands. Because the neighborhood will have begun to govern
itself to some extent, the assembly will in effect be a source of power,
a dual power, alongside that of the city government. When the popular
assembly comes into existence, Communalists should focus their efforts
on educating the assembly participants on the assembly’s importance as a
dual power structure. This effort would help citizens see themselves as
an active part of a process that can lead to the ideal of social
freedom. Any power that the popular assembly is able to exercise for
themselves will necessarily come at the expense of the city government.
This development should not be isolated to a single neighborhood, but
instead should encompass numerous neighborhoods throughout a nation, and
even internationally, so that they collectively act as a dual power
structure to the State itself.[64]
While the popular assembly is still new and its power small, it can
begin to take measures to address some of the issues that the people
face. In addition to applying pressure to the city government, various
community projects can be initiated to begin building a cooperative
culture while attempting to overcome the anonymous, alienating, and
fragmentary way of life furnished by urban gigantism and the
commodification of life. Examples of such projects include creating a
child-care collective, a free school, or even a method of adjudicating
disputes that avoid involving the police. Additionally, a community
kitchen and dining hall could be established in order to free
individuals and families from the labors of nightly meal preparation and
from the unhealthy options provided by fast food culture. Here, people
would come together to converse freely with a variety of neighbors in a
social setting wholly different than the isolated tables positioned
throughout a restaurant.[65] These quality of life improvements will
induce developers to turn a speculative eye on the neighborhood. It is
important to preemptively defend against gentrification before it is too
late. Tools for this fight include creating a tenants union, influencing
the local zoning board, and establishing community land trusts to take
properties off the real-estate market.[66]
It would be wise for the popular assembly to be very deliberate in how
it acquires funding for its community technology and social projects. If
funding comes from a source that is not aligned with the movement’s long
term goals then that source will use its power as a funder to co-opt the
movement toward its own reformist agenda. An alternative means of
acquiring funding can be realized by demanding that popular assemblies
be given direct control over deciding how municipal taxes are spent.
This form of municipal funding falls under the name of “participatory
budgeting.” While participatory budgeting has been implemented in
various reformists ways, gaining directly democratic control over
municipal taxes for the purpose of funding popular assemblies as a dual
power would mark an important step in expanding the political and
economic power of those assemblies.[67]
Popular assemblies could use the funds acquired through participatory
budgeting to establish neighborhood owned microfactories that are
administered by workers hired from within their respective neighborhoods
and paid a living wage. Microfactories are small factories that are
capable of producing a variety of goods by employing, to the extent
possible, small-scale automated machinery and digital manufacturing
techniques. Microfactories would enable neighborhoods to establish a
degree of economic self-reliance. Popular assemblies should cooperate
with other assemblies in their city and region in order to decide which
type of goods each microfactory should focus on, so as make best use of
their economic power without unnecessarily duplicating their efforts.
Residents should be encouraged to buy neighborhood manufactured goods
rather than from corporate retail outlets. If successful, microfactories
would be a secondary source of revenue for the popular assembly, further
strengthening their economic power.[68]
It is doubtful that any city government would grant neighborhood
assemblies any degree of control over municipal budgets that could be
used at the expense of the existing power structure. In order to realize
these goals, popular assemblies must gain political power within the
city government. Neighborhood assemblies should run candidates for local
office on a Communalist platform that connects the neighborhoods’
minimum program with the maximum program of an ecological society. As
with the educational campaigns already mentioned, these campaigns should
only seek to gain the backing of those who support the long term vision
of fully transforming the institutions of our society. Otherwise the
whole movement will become reformist, and defeat its own potential as a
revolutionary force. Candidates should be considered spokespeople for
the assemblies themselves, and remain fully accountable to the
assemblies. Once elected, it will be their responsibility to do
everything in their power to assist in strengthening the power of the
popular assemblies. Participatory budgeting should be implemented to the
furthest extent possible, highly progressive taxes should be put in
place, any regulations or red tape that interferes with the popular
assemblies’ goals should be removed, regulations for corporations should
be increased, and control of city property within the neighborhoods
should be transferred to the assemblies themselves.[69]
The newly empowered popular assemblies should then be capable of
realizing many of their minimum demands. This scenario would greatly
expand the Communalist movement’s role as a dual power alongside that of
the existing State apparatus. This situation necessarily creates a
tension with the State that cannot last due to the fact that the
strength of the assemblies’ movement is realized at the expense of the
State’s ability to control them. This tension should not only be
welcomed, but cultivated. The assemblies should make every attempt to
expand their power or else the State will succeed in usurping them. To
make this attempt, assemblies should work to achieve their maximum
demands by entering into a phase of action meant to serve as a
transition from our existing hierarchical society to that of a fully
emancipated, ecological society. One of the most important steps to take
is for city charters to be changed for the purpose of giving popular
assemblies the power to decide municipal policy for themselves without
the need for consent of the city council or any other representative
authority. This power could then be expanded further by expropriating
corporate assets and placing them under the control of the city’s
neighborhood assemblies’ confederation. Patents and copyrights
pertaining to those assets should be eliminated, and all knowledge
should be made freely available over the Internet so that people
throughout the world can contribute to ushering in a new
eco-technological revolution with liberatory potentials that reach far
beyond those that exist today. As well, banks should be expropriated and
all debts relieved in full. Empty buildings and the property of
landlords should be confiscated so that housing can be provided for all,
and to eliminate the wasteful and exploitative burden of rent.[70]
By implementing the provocative actions of the transitional program,
society will have entered into a revolutionary situation. It should be
noted that the power elite will not accept this development passively,
and at some point will go on the violent offensive. Hopefully by that
point large numbers of men and women will defect from the military and
join the cause of social freedom. Nonetheless, for the Communalist
movement to survive and for the State and capitalist system to be
defeated, the State must be divested of its monopoly of violence. This
action requires the creation of a network of defensive civic militias
that remain under the full control of the popular assemblies.[71]
To complete the revolution, the money system must be abolished, and the
workings of the new directly democratic society should be clearly
defined by writing bylaws at the assembly and various confederal levels.
With these structures in place all of the efforts needed to achieve
urban decentralization and the liberatory use of technology can be
coordinated between the numerous assemblies through their confederal
delegates.
It is intended that the revolutionary strategy presented here avoids the
pitfalls of pragmatism with its willingness to compromise any ideal in
exchange for minor reforms, and of purism with its inability to engage
the present situation in a manner that is capable of addressing pressing
issues. The Communalist alternative seeks a harmonization of means and
ends by developing a minimum program that is linked to an emancipatory
vision via a transitional program. Communalism aims to reach people
under their current circumstances, to touch them with the realization of
what could be, to bring to their consciousness the desire for a
completely transformed society, and to empower them to act in
cooperation with those living around them. We are all trapped into
participating with the current system in one way or another. But we can
refuse to give to it our loyalty. With the potentialities of an
ecological society in mind, we can keep in the forefront of our
consciousness how irrational and dehumanizing bourgeois society is.
If you are trapped behind a desk at an office or school, unemployed,
working at a meaningless job, stressed or in debt, alone or depressed,
sickened by the destruction of the environment, disgusted by the
commercialization of life, outraged by injustice, have loved ones locked
in a prison, or angered by police violence, government surveillance, and
the militarization of society, then you are urged to turn toward the
liberatory alternatives in Communalism. A different kind of society is
truly possible for us to achieve together. Let us begin to take the
steps necessary for collectively freeing ourselves from the irrational
system that enslaves us.
---
Due to being a comprehensive ideology, aspects of Communalism are
studied under specific terms which relate to the ideas being covered.
The socio-historical analysis of the development of hierarchy and
freedom is discussed under the name of social ecology. The ethics and
philosophy of Communalism is titled dialectical naturalism. Finally, the
political approach of Communalism is often referred to as libertarian
municipalism. Additionally, the term Communalism itself was adopted
rather late in the development of these ideas. Previously, this
collection of ideas was rooted under the ideology of anarchism. Some
people who identify with these ideas may still consider themselves
social anarchist rather than Communalist. Nonetheless, for the sake of
presentational simplicity and ideological clarity we have chosen to use
the term Communalism here in this text.
/
/
/
/
We have decided to make this work open source so that it may grow and
change according to the creativity and dedication of other energetic
writers.
Thank you
[1] The ideas discussed herein are based, by and large, on the work of
Murray Bookchin. For an introductory text on Communalism see:
🖹 Bookchin, Murray, Social Ecology and Communalism (Oakland, CA and
Edinburgh: AK Press, 2007)
[2] 🖹 Bookchin, Murray, Remaking Society (Boston: South End Press, 1990)
– p.24–39
🖹 Heller, Chaia, The Ecology of Everyday Life (Montreal, New York, and
London: Black Rose Books, 1999) – p.124–140
[3] 🖹 Bookchin, Murray, The Ecology of Freedom. 3^(rd) ed. (Oakland, CA
and Edinburgh: AK Press, 2005) – p.80–108
[4] 🖹 The Ecology of Freedom – p.459.
Here Bookchin quotes William Trager from his work Symbiosis (New York:
Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1970), p.vii
🖹 Kropotkin, Peter, Mutual Aid. 3^(rd) ed. (London: Freedom Press, 1987)
See here for more recent media on this subject.
[5] 🖹 Bookchin, Murray, The Philosophy of Social Ecology (Montreal and
New York: Black Rose Books, 1990) – p.106–131
[6] 🖹 The Ecology of Freedom – p.80–129
🖹 Remaking Society – p.30–53
[7] 🖹 The Ecology of Freedom – p.130–214
🖹 Remaking Society – p.54–94
[8] 🖹 Remaking Society – p.44–46, 154
[9] 🖹 Dowd, Doug, The Twisted Dream. 2^(nd) ed. (Cambridge, MA: Winthrop
Publishers, Inc, 1977)
[10] 🖹 The Ecology of Freedom – p.209–212
[11] 🖹 Bookchin, Murray, The Rise of Urbanization and the Decline of
Citizenship (San Francisco: Sierra Book Club, 1987) – p.1–14
Later republished with the following different titles:
🖹 Urbanization without Cities (1992)
🖹 From Urbanization to Cities (1996)
[12] 🖹 Biehl, Janet, The Politics of Social Ecology (Montreal: Black
Rose Books, 1998) – p.1–10, 88
For a history of the modern nation-State see:
🖹 The Rise of Urbanization and the Decline of Citizenship
[13] 🖹 The Ecology of Freedom – p.244–245
🖹 Remaking Society – p.102–103
[14] 🖹 The Rise of Urbanization and the Decline of Citizenship
[15] 🖹 Bookchin, Murray, The Third Revolution. Vol. 1 (London and
Washington: Cassell, 1996) – p.143–246
[16] 🖹 Remaking Society – p.165–167
[17] 🖹 The Third Revolution. Vol. 1 – p.247–369
[18] 🖹 Cole, G.D.H. A History of Socialist Thought: The Forerunners,
1789 – 1850. Vol. 1 (London: MacMillan & Co LTD, 1953)
🖹 Bookchin, Murray, The Third Revolution. Vol. 2 (London and Washington:
Cassell, 1998) – p.2–28
[19] 🖹 The Third Revolution. Vol. 2 – p.192–251
[20] 🖹 Bookchin, Murray, The Third Revolution. Vol. 3 (London and New
York: Continuum, 2004)
[21] 🖹 Bookchin, Murray, The Third Revolution. Vol. 4 (London and New
York: Continuum, 2005) – p.95–260
[22] 🖹 Remaking Society – p.152–58
🖹 Bookchin, Murray, Toward an Ecological Society (Montreal: Black Rose
Books, 1980) – p.11–31 Bookchin, Murray,
🖹 Post-Scarcity Anarchism (Palo Alto, CA: Ramparts Press, 1971) –
p.31–54
[23] 🖹 The Third Revolution. Vol. 1 – p.16–19
[24] 🖹 The Ecology of Freedom – p.218–219, 351–352
[25] 🖹 Toward an Ecological Society – p.147, 253
🖹 The Ecology of Freedom – p.418, 433
[26] 🖹 Toward an Ecological Society – p.47, 187
🖹 The Ecology of Freedom – p.168, 413
🖹 The Politics of Social Ecology – p.83–86
[27] 🖹 Remaking Society – p.120
[28] 🖹 Post-Scarcity Anarchism – p.10–11, 134–136
🖹 Toward an Ecological Society – p.25, 36–37
🖹 The Ecology of Freedom – p.136–140
[29] 🖹 Toward an Ecological Society – p.64–65
🖹 The Ecology of Freedom – p.73–75
🖹 Remaking Society – p.96–100
[30] 🖹 Post-Scarcity Anarchism – p.82
🖹 Toward an Ecological Society – p.60
🖹 The Ecology of Freedom – p.397–401
[31] 🖹 Toward an Ecological Society – p.47, 238, 253–254 The Politics of
Social Ecology – p.86–88
[32] 🖹 The Politics of Social Ecology – p.56–59, 131
[33] 🖹 The Ecology of Freedom – p.435
🖹 The Politics of Social Ecology – p.157–158
[34] 🖹 The Rise of Urbanization and the Decline of Citizenship –
p.246–247
[35] 🖹 The Politics of Social Ecology – p.105–107
[36] 🖹 Bookchin, Murray — “The Meaning of Confederalism”
🖹 The Politics of Social Ecology – p.95–109
[37] For an excellent discussion on the role of technology, see:
🖹 The Ecology of Freedom – p.302–355
[38] 🖹 Remaking Society – p.196
🖹 The Ecology of Freedom – p.427–30
🖹 Post-Scarcity Anarchism – see ‘Toward a Liberatory Technology’
p.83–139
[39] Examples of this technology include
🖹 robotic arms handling dies for forging
🖹 robotic arc welding
🖹 computer controlled lathe
🖹 robotic woodworking shop
🖹 automated portable sawmill
🖹 automated glass blowing machine
🖹 computer controlled loom
🖹 robotic programming software
🖹 robotic programming software (2)
🖹 robotic arms used for engine assembly
🖹 automated warehouse
[40] 🖹
[41] 🖹
🖹
[42] 🖹
http://opensourceecology.org/w/images/4/43/Biomining_-Carmen_Tailings-Com.pdf
🖹
🖹
[43] 🖹
[44] 🖹
[45] 🖹 Mollison, Bill, Introduction to Permaculture. 2^(nd) ed.
(Tyalgum, NSW, Australia: Tagari Publications, 1994)
🖹 Hememway, Toby, Gaia’s Garden (White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green
Publishing, 2000)
[46] Examples of this technology include
🖹 small agricultural field robots
🖹 small agricultural field robots (2)
/
🖹 robotic arm used for harvesting strawberries
🖹 automated transplanter automated greenhouse transplanter
🖹 robot that climbs tree to harvest coconuts
🖹 automated chicken coop
🖹 driverless farm tractor
🖹 robotic weeding
🖹 automated milking operation
🖹 An aquaponics system has been created that grows 1 million pounds of
food per year on a mere 3 acres
[47] Examples of this technology include
🖹 concentrated solar photovoltaics
🖹 night time storage of solar energy
🖹 pyrolysis
🖹 large wind turbine data sheet
🖹 Bloom hydrogen fuel cell data sheet
🖹 presentation on Bloom fuel cell
[48] 🖹 biochar information
🖹 pyrolysis processor
[49] Bookchin referred to this economy as a ‘moral economy’. We,
however, think it would more appropriately referred to as an ‘ethical
economy’ given the distinctions that Bookchin himself made between
ethics and morality. For Bookchin, morality is standards not based on
rational analysis by a community. In contrast, ethics involves rational
inquiry and debate over the matters of right and wrong.
🖹 The Ecology of Freedom – p.72–73
🖹 Bookchin, Murray, The Modern Crisis (Philadelphia: New Society
Publishers 1986) – see ‘Market Economy or Moral Economy?’ p.77–98
🖹 The Politics of Social Ecology – p.111–120
[50] These ideas are borrowed in part from Michael Albert and Robin
Hahnel who developed a proposed system of democratic economic planning
that they call ‘participatory economics.’
🖹 Albert, Michael, Parecon: Life After Capitalism (London and New York:
Verson 2003) – p.118–147
[51] 🖹 Remaking Society – p.96–100
[52] 🖹 Toward an Ecological Society – p.186–188
[53] 🖹 Howard, Ebenezer, Garden Cities of To-Morrow (Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press 1965) – p.54
[54] This figure comes from Christopher Alexander who asserted that
population sizes larger than 1500 would prevent people from effectively
governing themselves. He further stated that 500 inhabitants would be
the ideal size.
🖹 Alexander, Christopher, A Pattern Language (New York: Oxford
University Press) – p.4, 81
[55] For a historical overview of the New England township model see:
🖹 Mumford, Lewis, The City in History (New York: Harcourt, Brace &
World, Inc, 1961) – p.332
[56] For a current example of city planning software see CityEngine
🖹
🖹
[57] 🖹 These ideas are drawn largely from A Pattern Language
[58] 🖹 Remaking Society – p.165–174
[59] 🖹 The Politics of Social Ecology – p.53–62, 121–130
[60] For an interesting overview of a community technology project in
Washington D.C. during the 1970s see:
🖹 Hess, Karl, Community Technology (New York: Harper & Row Publishers,
1979)
[61] 🖹 RepRap (3D printer)
🖹 Shapeoko (computer controlled mill)
/
🖹 Lasersaur (computer controlled laser cutter)
🖹 Liberator (compressed earth block press)
🖹 Also see the Global Village Construction Set
[62] 🖹 Morris, David and Hess, Karl, Neighborhood Power (Boston: Beacon
Press, 1975) – p.16–45
[63] The Politics of Social Ecology – p.73–75
[64] 🖹 The Politics of Social Ecology – p.81
For the historical legacy and contemporary potential of this approach,
see:
🖹 The Rise of Urbanization and the Decline of Citizenship
[65] 🖹 Neighborhood Power – p.34–37, 46
🖹 The Politics of Social Ecology – p.55
[66] 🖹 Neighborhood Power – p.83–96
🖹 Chodorkoff, Dan, “Occupy Your Neighborhood”
[67] 🖹 Legard, Sveinung, “Democratizing the Municipality,The Promise of
Participatory Budgeting”
socialecologylondon.wordpress.com
[68] 🖹 For similar concept, see the RepLab proposed by OpenSourceEcology
[69] 🖹 The Politics of Social Ecology – p.63–72
[70] 🖹 The Politics of Social Ecology – p.121–130
[71] 🖹 The Politics of Social Ecology – p.167–168