On Anarcho-Syndicalism

While Anarchism is widely thought to be a means of achieving a communist society as an alternative to Marxist methods, this is not always nor inherently true. The idea that it can be however certainly is.

Anarchism may also be the ends in of itself. It may also facilitate a capitalist economy (e.g Anarcho-Capitalism), as well as non-communist forms of socialism such as collectivism and syndicalism.

What is Anarcho-Syndicalism though? What makes it any different than other strains of anarchism and socialism? The way I see it, is that it allows for the simultaneous facilitation of both socialist, AND capitalist economic systems in a very interesting way.

An Anarcho-Syndicalist commune is a directly democratic faction with public ownership of the means of production, which generally requires a two thirds consensus for all decision making.

It’s almost as if you were to take a workers union, and a corporation; derive the middle point therefrom, and implement it as an autonomous and collectivized community.

Right about now your probably thinking “Well this sounds very socialist yes, but how would this facilitate capitalism, where’s the economic competition involved here?” Well within the syndicate, none.

The economic competition would result from the competition with other syndicates and or co existing forms of society. Different groups of people would want different rules and would have to split up into different syndicates. The examples are endless.

One might want only the production of necessary goods like food, shelter, clothing, and medicine to be publicly owned with luxury production being privately owned, some might want it all to be owned by the group.. SPLIT!

One might want too allow certain types of drug use, one might not… SPLIT!

One might want religious principals, the other might be inherently atheistic… SPLIT!

One might want principals from X religion, one might want principals from Y religion, some might want religious freedom as long as you have a religion or believe in god, some might want complete autonomy of belief… DOUBLE SPLIT!

I could go on all day, but the idea is that economic competition would likely occur between these different split syndicates, as they would be specializing differently, likely resulting in the production of different types of food, clothing, luxury goods, technologies etc, giving plenty of incentive for inter syndicate trade relations and therefore economic competition.

This would like wise give everyone the ability to choose a community that fits with the way that they wanna live, so long as that way is viable enough to sustain a thriving syndicate. It also preserves the rights of popular sovereignty by requiring the two thirds rule to pass legislature, as well as allowing for the reorganization and correction from the bottom upward if the leadership becomes corrupt and or begins to conflict with the interests of the participants/workers.

 

 

 

Advertisements

On Socialism and Proxy Societies.

In a dog-eat dog world, where does one find peace?

 In Utopia? That’s a funny ass joke.

Socialism has never worked right? Cry the yuppies; who are already lined up to give me a hundred reasons why socialism only works on paper. Most of which are likely derived from a conservative twitter page.

What is socialism?

Socialism however contrary to popular belief, is a broad umbrella term rather than a concrete system. Many commonly conflate socialism with it’s ideological offshoots such as , Collectivism, Communism, Mutualism as well as various forms of anarchist, socialist, and communist ideology.

It’s true that all of the above have their roots in socialism, along with many other strains of ideology. The key concept common among all forms of socialism is the social/communal ownership of the means of production.

This means that instead of controlling private corporations controlling production and manufacturing, it would be controlled socially or communally.

Alternative control systems for means of production

1. by the state (communism, fascism),

2.by the workers (anarchism, Anarcho-communism ),

3.by voluntary associations (collectivism, Mutualism, Anarcho-syndicalism)

Socialist revolution?

I am not advocating for a full fledged revolutionary uprooting of capitalism, but in the same breath I think it would be quite far from the worst thing to happen to our species.

While of course, the young revolutionary forces revived time and time again by the Fiery works of Marx and Proudhon always make for a great story; usually leave a positive mark on society (provided they didn’t attempt any violent revolutionary tactics) and have a lot to offer in terms of education on a surprisingly wide variety of fronts.

I don’t  by any means believe a large scale socialist revolution is either sufficient or necessary for our salvation. But do believe a lot of our problems could be fixed by the adoption of various elements of socialism into our society.

I don’t see a violent revolution on the horizon, what I do see however is a revolution of knowledge and ideas. A revolution of economic systems and Socio-political policy. A revolution in technology and science. A socio-techonomic war of words and numbers if you will.

Why keep capitalism?

Some people are always going to prefer the competition; and we should not be fast to stop them for the fruits of their battle are rapid and significant advancements in technology, research and policy.

Why does capitalism needs proxies?

As for the ones whom wouldn’t benefit from nor wish to participate in an economic and social system based on constant competition with their peers. I do believe some sort of alternative remedy is in need, and indeed it already exists to a certain extent.

Examples would be advent the productive commune or collective. This would allow liberation from the clutches of capitalist realism without actually having to subversively change anything.

A society within a society?

This is possible because a group of people living communally could focus on some sort of export in order to pay taxes and maintain their property, without requiring any internal economic competition.

Earlier I noted there are many forms of socialist ideology, and each of those containing many different sub forms, and methods of implementation.

Regardless of exactly what system is used in this context I believe they can all be described with the branch terms: proxy society and micro society.

Due to functioning as mini societies within a society, some may rather function similar to a corporation ran in alternative social and economic fashion. Some may be both a corporation and a communal living area.

Even Google has their own village for employees!

That being said the systems I describe throughout the essay are based on my respective interpretation and how I would implement these type of ideas based on my currently limited but ever growing understanding of socialist economic and political systems.

NOTE: not to be taken as a set in stone description of a communal society/collecgive society, they all have their flavors and variations

What precisely is a proxy society?

Think about it, because this has already been done by many. What if the hundred socialist thinkers in x square miles, decided to throw down on a large plot of land, live communally under their own terms, and as a collective, contribute some form of tangible and or intellectual export for the rest of the outer society without necessarily being required to be apart of it.

Many Amish communities do just that and export/sell their crops and farmed goods.

Artist collectives

Artist collectives focus on the export of intellectual property. They may live collectively but for many it’s purely about the work. Why though?

Benefits to working in a collective

1. Access to resources and equipment,

2. Sets the stage for collective productivity & enhanced collaboration,

3. Working toward a common goal or with people who share a common worldview/ideology

4. The freedom of creative expression that goes with producing music and other artwork outside the main industry labels and standards.

5. To avoid a traditional capitalist work setting.

6. To feel and be a part of something bigger.

In depth explanation

A settlement, organization and or productive association where the means of production would be communally or collectively maintained controlled, and distributed through a system of possession (as opposed to a system of property. )

Where everyone can retain autonomy and individualism the sense that their talents and aspirations would shape their overall purposes within the group and that any work undertaken would be purely voluntary in nature.

Self management

Team leaders may be appointed for the sake of things like bookkeeping, budgeting, business related communications, and as a sort of administrator.

Besides administrative tasks this system will put everyone in a position of increased responsibility for themselves and their productivity. Unlike a typical work setting, a collective requires everyone to be their own manager, since their is no inherent group management.

Group Administration

The collective interest would overrule all higher group-level decision making in a profoundly democratic fashion. Everyone who contributes whether that is monitarily, or through the group labor/task system gets a vote. Membership in itself does not earn a vote, one has to be useful and make some form of contribution to the collective as a whole. One cannot buy more votes or a greater position by donating or working more towards group efforts. The only thing this will get you is more respect, appreciation, and potentially an administrative positions.

This creates a decentralized system of consensus and decision making. Where anyone who contributes, has an equal say and representation in the affairs of the whole.

Voluntary participation

Anyone would be able to leave at any given time. People who are violent, troublesome, subversively destructive or in some way or another; intentionally trying to hinder productivity or make the work of the group more difficult would be forced away from the settlement, as peacefully as the situation allows.

Relationship with host country

Another key prerequisite required to make this work would be a productive and mutualistically beneficial relationship with the host country.

This will be absolutely necessary if a communal/collective setting wants its existence to be tolerated. As a benefit of functioning independently within a larger capitalist society, it would have no real need for a military force.

Economics of a communal society

In a traditional communal society: The Individual member would not directly deal with money.

Since The work of each member toward the export of some type of goods would be essential to providing necessities to members as well as paying taxes and property fees that go with existing within the host country.

All external economic affairs would be decided by the commune. Everyone who does their part is provided for. No economic competition or market systems exist within the internal life of the commune.

Now on to my preferred approach:

Economics of a collectivist organization

If this was a collectivist work setting such as an artist collective this would function a bit differently in terms of productivity, economic distribution and group finance.

For example if I was running an artist collective,Anyone who used collective resources to produce, market and or publish/sell art, music, literature etc would obviously keep their profit.

Yet they would be highly encouraged (though never coerced or required) to return at least a minuscule portion of their profit back to the collective and a minuscule portion to charity.

If the collective was successful enough; food and quarters may be offered to members but even in that case living there would not be a requirement for membership.

Group projects and collective task-work.

Aside from individual projects the ‘team leaders’ would organize group projects in which we would come together to work on something for the sake of raising money to keep the collective afloat.

The idea is to be able to function without relying on income from the self-guided work   individual members; making sure everyone has the right to their own profits and the right to create non profit work if they so desire.

Group work may consist of group art/music projects, but there may be other forms of unrelated group work too depending on the situation.

Alternative group efforts

The group could for example own a greenhouse and ask everyone to go tend it, for a small portion of their time each day, with the growth exported for collective money(with a small amount of whatever was grown being allocated to whomever took the time to tend it.)

Alternative group work could also be self guided; any way someone can think of to help the collective will earn them respect and notoriety within the group.

Its a bit of a gray area because theirs lots of ways this can be done, but it seems it would be important to diversify the groups sources of income, so-as not too rely too heavily on any one form of export.

While one technically cannot be forced to participate in group work as with contributing a share, team members may become disgruntled if someone is constantly using up resources and equipment to make money without ever contributing monetarily nor through effort on group work.

If the people democratically vote someone out for being a leach than so be it.

Benefits of group projects.

1. Encourage productive collaboration on other projects,

2. Increased interconnectedness, better inter-group relationships.

3 Develops a sense of culture and community within the group.

4. Helps lesser known members establish credibility and build a following in their respective industry by creating something alongside better known members.

5. Generating collective income; any excess would primarily be used for better equipment, supplies, and advertising/marketing solutions. (Or in a full fledged communal society used to provide everyone with food, shelter, toiletries, etc.)

6. Increased potential for creativity due to collective brain power being utilized for a common goal.

Closing comments

 I hope this helps shed some light on alternative economic and political systems; as well as some light on the direction this group is headed in.

If you found this piece to be interesting, useful, inspiring, stupid, boring, or however you have it please let us know in the comments, we want your feedback so give it here!

 

 

On P. J. Proudhon’s ‘What is property?’

Original text available  free at Marxists.org

On our journey through anarchist philosophy, we arrive at the fourth stop.

In Hindsight, I wish I had arrived here first. The archetypal treatise known as ‘what is property? has helped me to understand the rest of the reading at a far deeper level than I had been able to ascertain prior.

Having gone through most of  the works of Mikhail Bakunin, several by William Godwin, and a brief but enjoyable stop at ‘The Communist Manifesto’ by Karl Marx; We now find ourselves at the literary doorstep of Pierre Joseph Proudhon as he lends assistance toward our understanding of the state, our place (within), and how we think about the government and our lives as a whole.

I would almost go so far as call it the Anarchist version of the communist manifesto. If Marx dealt with the who and the how of the state and revolution; Proudhon dealt with the what and the why. 

While their comparison requires one to speak in terms of apples and oranges; Proudhon seems to have peered both deeper into the roots of society, as well as having done so with better spirit and intention than Marx and at the same time falls short on Marx’s ability to verbally paint detailed pictures of societal constructs and functions as well as predict the course of their (r)evolutions. 

Highlights

1. “What is slavery? and I should answer in one word, It is murder, my meaning would be understood at once.”(Proudhon 1840)

At first our mind does not wish to reconcile these two phenomena as identical; but upon closer inspection we may begin to see the parallel. Murder is too end the life of another through execution. Slavery forces one to forfeit their life for the sake of somebody’s profit. If one is too live merely for someone else’s gain, and that alone; are they truly better off than dead?

If one is doing so for a good reason such as a parent living purely for their children or an activist living purely for their cause than certainly, because those things hold a legitimate importance and bear meaning too the individual.

However if one is living purely for the profit of a malignant superior whom they did not choose, than I say they may as well seek liberation or die trying.

While the majority of us do not live under such conditions this may just as fluently speak to smaller more personal instances, which may only pose a risk to certain degrees of comfort, wealth, free time and or reputation. A perfect example would be liberation from a destructive addiction, a toxic partner, an unfair landlord or a shitty job that has a hold on you.

 2. “What is property! may I not likewise answer, It is robbery, without the certainty of being misunderstood; the second proposition being no other than a transformation of the first? “(Proudhon 1840)

If we are a mere microcosm of the earth; than any attempt to lay claim on it is in fact a glorified act of robbery.

If you go hiking through the woods and catch a tick, does that tick now legally possess the right to unpack, set up shop, start a dynasty, partition your skin, seize your bodies means of production and create a monopoly on your skin cells and hair follicles?

Didn’t think so; most of us would likely remove it as soon as we were aware of it’s presence, which causes one too wonder if this is part of the planet’s agenda.

The irony here is that some conservative thinkers are fond of deeming those who collect social security parasites; while this in a sense this may be true, they are in fact only leaching off a larger and more destructive parasite. In another sense this need not be true. Unlike real parasites, every parasitic force in this world has the ability to become a mutualite. That is too say that you contribute something to your host. If every parasite underwent this transformation, the world would be a perfect place.

This is not communism, this is not too say you work only for the state, but you work for the state and yourself. I believe however taxes aren’t a very good way to accomplish this. Charity, and investments into the quality of life of the public at whatever reasonable level you can afford, ought to be mandatory and replace the idea of taxation.

That said a perfect society, would be a capitalist direct-democratic society in which anyone with wealth and power was an egalitarian who thought like a Green-Market Socialist, an Anarcho-syndicalist , or an outright saint. Those who believe such a feet to be out of reach will be in for a rude awakening.

     3. Property is robbery! That is the war-cry of ’93! That is the signal of revolutions!”(Proudhon 1840)

This was also the war cry of 2000s anarcho-punk band Wingnut dishwashers Union on their track ‘Proudhon in Manhattan’ “Throw your hands in the air cause property is robbery.”

4. “If your conscience is free, if your mind can unite two propositions and deduce a third therefrom, my ideas will inevitably become yours.” (Proudhon 1840)

Proudhon makes it a point to inform us that utilizing what he has left us will require arduous deductive reasoning in order to read between the overlapping borders of his ideological web.

The process of deducing additional information from the cross reference of two statements will be key in the analysis of his work.

5.”every perception received by the mind is determined by certain general laws which govern the mind;”(Proudhon 1840)

That is to say that we view all that we are met with in terms of how our mind wants us too see it. To say that our individual perspectives are sculpted by and in conformity with our worldview.

That while our worldview may grow and change it always serves to reconcile our experiences and knowledge with it’s own most primitive form.

6.”If the mind has no innate ideas, it has at least innate forms” (Proudhon 1840)

If the mind cannot produce ideas which are purely independent of what it is exposed to, it would still however possess the ability to take shape and execute functions which exist independently of the mind.

Systems like anarchism and communism may be modeled and replicated in the mind while existing independently of it’s container.

Likewise our minds may take variants of pre-determined shapes according to what types of problems we want too solve, what kind of tasks we wish to complete, and how we wish to exist and portray ourselves.

This allows archetypal personality types such as Tyrant, Artist, Peasant, Merchant and Scholar to take forms which are transient of the minds they occupy.

7.”(That) very thing which exists implies the ideas of substance, mode, relation, number.”(Proudhon 1840)

For something to exist:

  1. It must consist of one or more smaller somethings (substance)

2. Must be identifiable with some form of categorically qualitative property (mode)

3. Must have the ability to interact with other somethings (relation)

4. Must be rationally quantifiable. (number 

9. “Even when we are fighting against a principle which our mind thinks false … we obey it while attacking it” (Proudhon 1840)

This speaks to a strange situation many who seek communities or roles of resistance find themselves in. It causes one to antagonize the host from the inside, yet itself being a working component of that society.

Kinda like an unending game of ‘devils advocate’; in which ones mind is always always at odds with the bodies actions due to ideological or emotional friction created by the subjected scenario therein.


10. This principle, impaired by our ignorance, is honored and cherished; for if it were not cherished it would harm nobody, it would be without influence … what is it? Can it be religion? (Proudhon 1840) 

The answer is yes.

People have used religion as an excuse to do harm but this does not make any religion inherently harmful. One may also make the same claim about the Arts, Philosophy and Mathematics. For all of these exist primarily to serve as tools for our mental canvas and a point of reference for thoughts and ideas.

The exception being religion (and art depending on how you look at it) in serving for it’s subscribers as a way to facilitate spiritual growth or a ‘personal connection’ with God/Universe/Allah/Yahweh if you believe in that sort of thing.

Faith is something I would probably recommend purely because it has improved my quality of life, but everyone is and ought to always be free to form their own choices and beliefs.

The last thing I want is too appear as if I’m telling anybody what they ought to believe; unless that consists of telling people to believe in equal opportunity, non-violence, and freedom of speech.  

11. Do unto others that which you would that others should do unto you; Do not unto others that which you would not that others should do unto you.(Proudhon 1840)

This age old wisdom is still repeated today as the golden rule of ‘treat others how you’d like to be treated’ I don’t think the fact that it carries a tremendous amount of merit on any and every level of the social sphere needs much explaining.

Well this just covers the tip of the iceberg for this work, but I don’t wanna drag you along all day just quite yet. If you find this sort of stuff interesting, by all means read the original text! I hope all of you have a wonderful day, and let us not forget ladies and gentleman: PROPERTY IS ROBBERY!

 

Do religions & philosophies = operating systems for our brains?

I recall as a young elementary student, being told that brains are essentially computers. This made sense to me at a young age, but it wasn’t until way later that I began to abstract from the cross reference of cognition and computation.

This perhaps may be the most obvious parallel, but programming languages are inherently languages. Whilst one could argue that they work differently from a functional perspective as well as in the types of problems they’re intended to solve, when one begins to expand and broaden their understanding of language as a tool the differences seem to become increasingly arbitrary.

One begins to wonder, how does one written doctrine or collection of doctrines, dictate the way in which people live and organize for centuries to come; as is seen of successful religious, political, and philosophical systems.

In a sense these things exist as a set of instructions for a (group of) human(s) to follow, much like a program acts as a set of instructions to be followed by Computer processing units.

Let’s take operating systems for example. Most operating systems are created by various programming languages; as a parallel. Most belief systems, regardless of whether they exist as political, religious, spiritual, or philosophical; are conveyed through either written text or word of mouth, both of which require some level of articulated language.

Much like an operating system, the purpose which belief systems serve; is to increase, expand and or simplify the functionality of the core machinery. If one ascribes to belief system, than ideally most of their interactions with the world around them will be internalized and understood in accordance with and through that perceived medium.

Similarly most interfacing that we do with our computers is done through the medium of our operating system or tools for expanding upon our system aka languages/programming languages, and by extension schools of thought which may correlate to libraries, frameworks, and APIs for programming languages.

This can in both instances incite compatibility issues. For example if you are a believer in a creationist system like most form of Christianity than their system is in its default state incompatible with the Big Bang theory ‘thoughtware package’. Among many others. On the contrary if your an atheist, than the belief in god is incompatible.

I personally believe the world would be a far better place if more people realized they could believe in god and develop their spiritual lives and connections to the divine without ascribing to beliefs which inherently contradict scientific data, logic, reason, or common decency, but hey to each their own.

I also posit that by extension this would make Scientology the spiritual equivalent to temple OS. Both impressive systems invented under highly questionable pretenses. Both seemingly exist purely because they can, rather than arriving out of any real necessity, and both did a great job of attracting the public eye in spite of high degrees of obscurity within their respective domains.

On a similar note Since Jewish people have to be born Jewish to be accepted within the religion, doesn’t that make it kinda like Mac OS which under general circumstances is only intended to work on Apple hardware?

And what about Linux? They make it really easy for anyone to create their own version. Does Hinduism not allow for anyone to make their own derivation from its ideological kernel?

This could be argued as being true for Christianity as well, however Christianity is more often innovated by its own elected clerical leaders, rather than followers and layman. On the contrary, while existing Linux versions are often up-kept by their respective developers, new ones are being created all the time by anyone who wishes.

Technically someone could write their own version of the Bible (or windows.) But one would likely face religious and or corporate prosecution for doing so, in regards to either heresy or plagiarism respectably.

Note: This should go without saying but I will anyways: this is not to be interpreted as perfect comparison, but rather a broad theoretical framework for comparison. If my article offends you please do both of us a favor and unsubscribe. With all due to respect if philosophizing about the interconnectedness of all forms of knowledge plays on your emotions, you are without a doubt in the wrong place. However If you disagree and wanna talk about it from a level headed perspective that’s awesome, please disagree as actively as you’d like as long as your format is coherent with reason.

Now back to my train of thought. This could be a far fetched claim, but one could also correlate the innovation of blockchain technology, with Anarchist philosophy finally nearing full circular functionality.

Okay now slow down what are you getting at?

Well before blockchain technology it was kinda impossible to imagine an economic society functioning without an inherent leader. However I theorize that decentralized blockchain ledgers are the or at least one of the missing piece(s) that anarchist philosophy has been missing the whole time.

That is a way to deal with the transferring of resources without any central form of imposed government. With every end user hosting a copy of the block chain acting as a node for the server, every participating member thus holds an equal and identical representation and record.

If you really think about it, isn’t an economy where every participating member gets an equal amount of leadership; essentially the same as saying their are no true leaders?

To myself this whole thing sounds very much reflective of the systems detailed in theories which stemmed from primitive-anarchism such as mutualism, syndicalism and collectivism. I believe it indirectly speaks from all three, while still being compatible with the core fundamentals of Capitalism and thus retaining our ideological fertilizer for innovation.

There are many other places I could take this, such as the comparison of servers to real life hosts of business, services and knowledge. Or how computer networks resemble the flow of resources and information through various economic, academic, religious, political and social systems serving as network mediums.

After all networks existed before the computers we know today, postal systems a telegraph systems and telephone are all fully functioning networks. Albeit less efficient yet equally plausible methods of communicating and transmitting information even in the modern age.

I could go on much longer But I think I’ll cut this one short, as I feel I’ve painted enough of a general picture for readers to take this thought and run with it, expand on it, etc.

Actually quite literally, if a pictures worth a thousand words than this article is roughly equivalent to an entire picture. Regardless of that sentiment I hope anyone who took the time to read this article got something out of it, regardless of the how or the why. Well readers; I hope you all have a great day, thanks for taking the time to read as always!

Das Ende.

On Bakunin’s Catechism(1851)

Original Text (1971 English Translation)

Before my intentions have the chance to be skewed I want to explicitly state that I strongly disagree with all anti antisemitic claim made by Mikhail Alexandrovich Bakunin.

Despite this flaw of character I find most of his other sociological outlooks to be in many ways quite innovative, under examined and potentially even prophetic(if one believes in that sort of thing).

For those who are unaware of who he is, (I suspect many would be as not many people I have met have the desire nor time to study anarchist philosophy.) Bakunin was a Russian political-philosopher became well known for a school of ideological thought known as syndicalism.

This is often thought to be a sub-type of anarchism, and while Bakunin certainly did carry many anarchist ideals along with a very-anti-authoritarian outlook, I question whether or not I would consider the fundamental ideas behind the initial backbone of this theory established throughout his 1851 work: Catechism to be inherently anarchistic.

Regardless the translator cites this accreditation in the preface by H. E, Kaminski which refers to this work as “The spiritual foundation of the entire anarchist movement….”

Herein are many of the defining principals and conditions which it posited, along with an attempt to analyze, simplify, and draw associative connections throughout to the best of my ability.

“III. Freedom is the absolute right of every adult man and woman to seek no other sanction for their acts than their own conscience and their own reason, being responsible first to themselves and then to the society which they have voluntarily accepted.”(Bakunin 1851)

Here we can see the anti-authoritarian fail-safe that will become a backbone to protect the anarchist ideal from the less libertarian parts of this theory. This means that all individuals ought to possess the right to voluntarily choose what society or ‘syndicate‘ one would like to live in. This also guarantees the anarchist-friendly principal which allows any to act as an autonomous entity if one so desires.

Furthermore, it advocates that while their responsibility to their society ought to be upheld, their duty to satisfy their own basic necessities for themselves ought to supersede, which to me sounds like an idealistic portrayal of certain aspects found in modern capitalism.

“V. The freedom of each is therefore realizable only in the equality of all. The realization of freedom through equality, in principle and in fact, is justice.”(Bakunin 1851) 

Contrary to his anti-Semitic claims he appears to display a very Egalitarian sociological outlook. This is demonstrated by the claim that the freedom of all is a necessary requirement for the freedom of any. It does this by positing equality to be responsible and inherently required for the existence of genuine freedom.

“VII. Absolute rejection of every authority including that which sacrifices freedom for the convenience of the state.” (Bakunin 1851)

Here we can see anarchist fundamentals beginning to take shape. This makes a broad call which underlies a key ideal common among most if not all anarchist thinkers being the abolition of all authoritarian power structures.

This Particularly addresses administrative functions of society which infringe on the Liberty of it’s people in order to maintain order and protect the interests of leadership. It’s easy to see imagine that Bakunin probably would’ve despised the United states Patriot Act!

“Liberty must result from the greatest possible realization of individual liberty, as well as of liberty on all levels of social organization.”(Bakunin 1851) 

Unlike many modern conceptions of Anarchism, Bakunin’s theory did not inherently call for the abolition of organized society, merely the parasitic authoritarian power structures. He believed that in the absence of all authoritarian leadership, humans would still be capable of fully organizing themselves around the necessities of liberty and the preservation of collective interests such as production, maintenance of equality through justice; and functions which serve the general good of society such as education and health services.

At first this comes off as a bit Utopian, but think about it. If the cells in our body could evolve over time into a working homeostasis as complex as the human body, who’s to say that humans could not also be capable of doing the same on a macro-cosmic scale. As if the principals of biological evolution were carrying over into sociological evolution.

To some this may start to be sounding a bit like Marxism, and while many key ideas of Karl Marx are compatible with the ideas of Bakunin he seems to condense the Marxist societal model into only a portion of his own, allowing it to mutually coexist with multiple other flavors of voluntary cooperation.

Bakunin believed that society ought to be formed “according to the principles of free association and federation.” This can be a little difficult to fathom at first, but once you catch on, an entire new world of possibility for the socioeconomic future of mankind becomes available for contemplation.

“\The life of each nation is subordinated to a plethora of different historical, geographical, and economic conditions, making it impossible to establish a model of organization equally valid for all. Any such attempt would be absolutely impractical. It would smother the richness and spontaneity of life which flourishes only in infinite diversity and, what is more, contradict the most fundamental principles of freedom.”(Bakunin 1851)

Above is what I believe to be one of the most compelling arguments for the development of such a system. This vastly multi-paradigmatic societal system could potentially be compared to the different organ structures which make up an organism, as well as the different components which compose a working machine, depending on how one would prefer to look at it.

With this principal in place, societies could theoretically coexist in such a way that a barter capitalist society, a 60s counter-culture styled hippy commune, a direct-democracy, and a socialist-republic could all co exist peacefully as co-operating participants of a larger collective unit, and everyone would get a voluntary choice over which type of society they would like to live under if any, or start there own should they please. This allows for lack of better words the existence of a modular form of society.

In some ways this could almost be seen as similar to modern day United States… If we were to eliminate the need for federal and state governments as we know them today, instead delegating all leadership to court systems and what appears to be the purest form of popular sovereignty I have yet to come across.

Bakunin goes into further detail into explaining the intricacies of his ideas throughout the rest of the essay as well as his many subsequent works. These are however outside the scope of this article’s goal of painting a broad conceptual analysis and explanation of his often overlooked and poorly understood syndicalist-anarchist school of thought.

I hope we all were able  to get something out of this. Even more so, I hope you are inspired to read further into the works of Bakunin and the world of Anarchist Philosophy and political theory in general.

Since I began reading his works the revolutionary ideas within have never ceased to stir up, intrigue, and inspire the intellectual capacities of my mind. You can likely expect more on him as I progress through his work and occupy myself with the contemplation, association, and analysis of his thoughts and ideas.

Until than I wish you all a wonderful day/evening/!

.

Poole’s land: The Rain Forest Utopia

 

Not feeling particularly ambitious, inspired or energetic I settled on browsing YouTube videos for inspiration. Coulden’t hurt right? Well this turned out to be a much more fruitful Idea than I was expecting when I stumbled on what might be one of the closest thing to a genuine off the grid Anarchist Utopia that our species has managed to sustain.

I was feeling nothing short of exhilarated when I clicked on this short documentary styled tour of The Anarchist commune by the name of Poole’s land. Initially the word commune was setting off some red flags in my head, but this was heavily counter balanced by the green flags set off by the word Anarchist.

Nested within the rural Rain forests of the Canadian province known as British Columbia Poole’s land was founded by a man named Michael Poole in 1988 and 3 decades later they are still going strong!

On their website they provide this  short description of their itinerary and mission statement:

“At a time when sustainable living, renewable energy, and trying to reduce the harm that we cause to the planet are among the foremost of the international community’s concerns, Poolesland’s continued mission is to help to facilitate these changes, while looking for new and creative solutions in every day living situations in the often challenging surroundings of a beautiful moderate rain forest climate. At the heart of Poole’s mission and vision are the people that inhabit the land and contribute to its continued growth. Over the course of the 3 decades of it’s existence, many have visited and stayed on Poole’s Land to share in the continuing goal of developing sustainable communities that share in the love for mother earth and each other.” (Poole’s Land 2018)

First I want to note that I look toward their disposition toward the environment with a large degree of admiration. As both an environmentalist and an anarchist (Anarchist in a philosophical sense)these guys had really won me over before I even got the chance to visit their website. The more I learned I even began considering moving to join the commune myself!

What I found to be most noteworthy is simply how long they have sustained this An anarchist settlement lasting 30 years is almost unheard of! Certainly doing better off than the folks back in the late 30s of Catalonia. These people are said to be incredibly peaceful despite hardly having any real form of police. The grounds are also not only rent free but open invite. So If you’ve ever wanted to escape the trenches of urban life and retreat to something a little more primal and down to earth, this might be the escape for you!

The video began with one of the interviewers and a few of the native inhabitants busy at work harvesting Psilocybin (magic) mushrooms. These are consumed quite frequently along with other similar natural and semi-natural psychedelic compounds grown and produced on this 17 acre peaceful resistance center. Other substances mentioned to be circulated as payment for labor include cannabis, peyote, Ayahuasca, and LSD, but paper money is rarely ever used, and their are no taxes paid aside from that of the property owner.

It’s like a flashback of the 60s counterculture movement that took place in America. Just to be clear I do not condone the use of illegal drugs. this political experiment is profoundly cool for a lot of reasons. The fact that they’re functioning without any real government or leadership. That not only are they functioning but everyone works cooperatively without very much if any crime or significant conflict at all, and these people don’t even have a police force.

Though I will admit the idea of working for free doobies doesn’t sound like such a bad deal, however my state has yet to legalize so I can only dream of such a paycheck.

As I’ve mentioned in past articles I am in huge support of the legal reconsideration and further medical testing of serotonin agonizing substances, and I feel like the success and relative happiness of the people living in this commune is a standing example for their benignity and potential therapeutic value.

Well that’s all I have to say for now. I may return to this topic in a future article as I learn more, and may even contact the organization in an attempt to learn more about them or possibly attempt to request some sort of an online interview. Visiting seems like it would be an incredible adventure, but my budget and lack of vehicle don’t exactly compliment that idea. On the same note I may also search for more micro-societies following similar ideologies. If this is something that interests you than I’ve included the link to their official website below as well as the video!

As usual thank you all for reading, don’t forget to like, share, subscribe, and share your thoughts with us in the comments section!

-Alexander from TheGreatestNever.Win

Link to the video above:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bs24nK5er8

Official website:

http://www.poolesland.com/