Anarcho-communism?! What, are you crazy?! [Or: Are there advantages to direct democratic methods of organizing?]

Are there advantages to direct democratic methods of organizing?

I think there could be.

I would argue that, in a functional anarcho-communist society, individuals and voluntary associations will not be constituted as organizations that represent a small number of people; rather, they will be culturally constituted as (often loose-fitting) systems of organization with a democratic structure.

Only when that cultural understanding and expectation is strong can such a society truly take shape, and especially last.

If they aim to be taken seriously at all, organizations that operate on an anarcho-communist basis are not and cannot be concerned only with the demands of a small group, but with the entire group of workers or groups of individuals who share their concerns.

Anarchists will not simply argue for the establishment of a group to take control over labor, but they will argue that workers, human beings, collectively should participate in this process, to achieve a balance between collective interests and those of the individual, while refusing to create some ruling class that disproportionately (and otherwise unjustly) benefits from both.

Oddly enough: This would be a situation that, in some ways, would resemble elements we already see in representative government in the Western world. Most governments at least pay lip service to serving the people. However, in a more anarchic organization, any representative would function solely as an instantly recallable delegate, with few (if any) special powers, privileges, or rights not enjoyed by other members of the group. In other words, if it is an anarchic organization, all dictator-like powers would be stripped away, thus avoiding the emergence of any power-mad, bloodthirsty authoritarian leader.

It is not any “boss” that is being served and we’re not organized for the sake of maintaining a hierarchical structure of inflexible, “permanent” authority. Rather, the group exists to serve whatever purpose is deemed necessary and desirable, and if interest in its aims and efforts naturally wanes, then the organization will dissipate as well. (What might be called “voting with one’s feet.”)

This isn’t to say it’s an ideal scenario and that no problems would exist in such a framework. However, it’s also obvious that occasional failure/lack of interest already happens in present-day society. A key difference would be an interest in substantially limiting power and, I would hope, rejecting the idea of imposing individual or cultural superiority through violence.

Of course, it must be said that, regardless of the system employed or stated aims, people can and will take good ideas and make them look like the worst ones ever devised.

Still, even when pressed to conform to the present-day status quo values, and even when I sheepishly acquiesce, my mind (and I suppose my “soul” or my “essence”) always comes back to these basic precepts, and not just out of some quest for ideals and utopia. Nor is it because I zealously and steadfastly cling to some anarchic dogma. No, my reason is far milder: There is simply a strong element of common sense to it.

When push comes to shove, I naturally reject the ways in which abstract entities (governments, corporations, superstitious churches, irrational symbols like flags, etc.) have people inverting reality to render humans and their communities into mere abstractions. It is as if the real becomes fake (or abstract) in order to make the fake appear real; people become ideas, and ideas become the paramount reality no matter how many are sacrificed in the process.

On that note, I would add that any organization with legitimacy and value (however slight) recognizes the need to limit its power. In fact, even most governments (which anarchists obviously criticize) have some system of “checks and balances” which, over time, give them some degree of legitimacy. However, these checks are far from adequate and often enough are whittled away, sometimes to the point where the system barely resembles the values it claims to most cherish (Example: The Constitution-preaching Republican “party of law and order” attempting anti-constitutional coups to install Donald Trump in 2020, with him even declaring that we should “terminate” parts of the U.S. Constitution that prevent him from being “reinstated”).

In that regard, even when more legitimate, non-hierarchical organizations comically fail or have lackluster results, it’s no more a cause of concern than when authorities successfully implement policies that leave huge mounds of corpses and make humanity look like a pox upon itself.

• Anarchism
• authority
• philosophy
• violence