What might an ‘anarchist utopia’ look like?

As I discuss anarchism here, I am not merely trying to set forth my own views on everything, but attempting to present aspects of what an anarchist utopia would really look like, at its best, most ideal condition. I will then go on to suggest, as I have before, that plenty of anarchist ideas are applicable (to varying degrees) in decidedly non-anarchist societies and social environments.

Now, as I have said before, I don’t even bother calling myself an “anarchist,” because I believe society is pretty far removed from anarchism, and that we are basically “locked into the system” for the time being. I also don’t bother saying “I would abolish prisons,” or some such things because, frankly, I am not a dictator, so such immense, bold proclamations aren’t really for me to make (plus, I think every society will have police powers, so the main question is what form they will take).

Still, I’ll discuss more on a utopian society. First, though, I must deal with a few pesky little issues, such as the ideological foundation on which such a society must be built (at least if it wishes to last).

Since, under the anarchic lens, the individual is seen as the measure of all things (rather than abstract entities like gods or laws), an anarchist society would have to have some mechanism by which each individual’s autonomy is respected. One might propose a type of formal document here, but a Constitution does not create either obligations or rights unless people respect it anyway. Maybe that does not inherently mean it’s not worth doing, but a formal agreement is not truly some inherent guarantee of anything.

Just as we have seen with governments, a guarantee of rights (or what have you) guarantees very little. Also, something like a contract, in and of itself, does not truly equal agreement or consent, as those can be broken, and people’s attitudes change; what they agreed to at one point may have changed, due to circumstances, and sometimes one simply cannot continue in their agreement, for whatever reason. Also, let’s face it: Contracts are often even intended to play dirty little tricks on people and are therefore notorious already, even without my critiquing them here.

So really, what matters most is that the culture of agreement, fairness, and respect for individual autonomy is already largely in place. That is, this is more of a cultural matter than it is a contractual one.

If an individual feels they are not sufficiently free to do whatever they want, within reason, and what they want is non-violent, then it would become necessary to build institutions that protect the individual’s rights.

This means that both the institutions of society and their interactions with the natural environment would need to be based on the principle of reciprocity of relationships that is inherent in our natural social life.

For example, the relationship between an individual and a child, parent, friend, or another adult would be based on the principle of reciprocal and mutual aid, with a recognition that society’s only as strong as its “weakest link.”

A society based on this form of reciprocity would likely create three primary forms of economic exchange: public (non-privately-owned) markets based on voluntary exchange, goods and services as freely exchanged gifts and favors (a gift economy rather than legally imposed “debts”), and free contracts related to constructing and maintaining public goods (with the contracts clarifying the purpose of the arrangement, tasks at hand, etc., rather than emphasizing legal threats intended to protect a capitalist class). In an anarcho-communist approach, money would not apply.

Notice how this would all infuriate capitalists, who would instantly dismiss it as some pipe dream.

Why is that?

Anarchism might be described variously as fearsome, powerful, healthy, and just as infuriating as every other political philosophy.

Though often hated and feared, anarchism is a diverse philosophy that has significant influence in many countries, philosophically and tactically.

To varying degrees, anarchism has influenced modern social and political movements and ideologies (again, philosophically and tactically).

Its influence includes both radical political groups and, to a lesser extent, even democratic political parties (and no, that does not necessarily mean the Democratic Party of the United States, but political parties in a democracy which sporadically borrow, intentionally or otherwise, some anarchist ideas from time to time).

Freedom and whatnot

A free society under utopian anarchism is one where complete control over the means of production is divided between workers, “consumers,” and the communities impacted by the material products of labor. As hierarchy has been rendered null and void in this utopian setting, there is no attempt to discriminate between a majority and a minority of societal owners. Here, “ownership” is communalism, which also would supplant “State ownership.” Everyone owns the means of production and public goods.

The arrangement is not subjected to any legal restrictions, and “equal protection of the laws” is rendered unnecessary, as the society overall offers equal protection. Equality already sort of is “the law of the land.” There could still be leaders, but they would only play a loose representative function, be instantly recallable, and have no special powers, privileges, and rights in an organization defined by opposition to dictatorial will.

On that note, if there are any strong disagreements that cause rifts in a given industrial organization or enterprise, people may always vote with their feet, and “splinter” off to do things their own way. However, because reasoned negotiation is sort of inherent to this sort of organization, one would expect compromises to be the norm, rather than hostile, warring camps (though, admittedly, that would still seem possible).

Another reason these organizations could work: Anarchism defines freedom in its broadest sense as a form of social existence and not merely a physical activity or the possession of a certain amount or type of property. That is its philosophical underpinning, and it’s not necessarily as “extreme” as some might have it. In fact, as suggested already, some of these themes already have a place in present-day society.

Anarchism has pre-modern origins, but modern anarchism has some similarities with the European enlightenment, which has been described as having its own legacy of freedom. Similarly, there is no doubt some crossover between anarchist precepts and certain ideas of the modernist movement (whose slogan was “Make it New,” which, in itself, sounds like an anti-traditionalist philosophy highly compatible with anarchism).

Because it rejects hierarchy and class oppression, anarcho-syndicalism could broaden its appeal today, should unions read up on its history and methods and decide to act in a similar manner. Time will tell.