An Ecosocialist Libertarian Program for People's Global Movement

by Kim Keyser - Anarkismo Sun Jul 17, 2005 07:32

The writer of the Ecosocialist Libertarian Program –”Anonymous”- share many similar ideas with anarcho-communists –like myself, and like the editors of this site. For instance, ”Anonymous” advocates a system based on direct-democratic workers councils as an alternative to the mad capitalist society we currently live in. ”Anonymous” also thinks a movement for workers councils may emerge out of a general strike –just like anarcho-communists do.

However, there is also some divergence between us. These include ”Anonymous” acceptance of using (parliamentary) elections as a vehicle for change, as well as using money in the future communist society. I´ll now expound on these divergent opinions to show what anarcho-communism offers as alternatives. We´ll first look into parliamentary elections as a strategy, before we delve into the economic conditions of our future society.

VOTING
”Anonymous” does not use all the text to propagate parliamentary election, but mentions it in a small paragraph:
”If for the sake of popular education and diplomacy a political wing wishes to run in elections in certain countries, regions or municipalities, to adhere to this program members must not have to pay dues, raising funds autonomously and through voluntary donations to enter candidates elected from grassroots organisations parallel to or within a larger eco-socialist libertarian organisation.”

Even though it´s just a small paragraph, my opinion is that it may open up for huge strategic errors.

Fighting on their premises?
Anarchists vantage point is that of prefiguretivity: we want our current activity to reflect the future society we want –the self-evident consequence beeing that our ends must be congruent with our goals. Parliamentary institutions are authoritarian and bureaucratic while our goal is libertarian and decentralized.

To choose to run in elections implies adapting the organization to the parliamentary game. First of all one normally need to choose candidates which the whole campaign will be centered on. And if they do achieve a seat they´ll receive huge salaries (especially true for parliaments and governments). Of course, it is possible to make a written mandate which constrains the delegate to fighting for specified goals in a prioritized order, and only talking about certain specific themes, using already agreed arguments, as well as binding the delegate to give all the surplus money (compared to an average job) back to the organization. I´m uncertain though that the delegate could be withdrawn without notice in a parliament. Even though this might be possible I´ve never actually heard of any such arrangement.

So this first obstacle may be overcome, but will parliamentary elections be good for popular education/propaganda?

Using parliamentary elections as a platform for popular education An often heard argument among ”revolutionary” parties which have chosen to use the parliamentary elections as a strategy is something like ”It´s true that we are against the state, but we want to use potential positions in administration as a platform for propaganda.”

Many of these get so concentrated on these elections that they prioritize parliamentary activity before supporting strikes, building unions and other much more important activity. This, of course, is not necessarily a chronic tendency, though it´s often the case.

But my question is: What positive do one achieve using parliamentary elections as a platform, instead of for example trade union activity? My answer would be: Nothing. One do achieve several negative things though: legitimizing the current order and deceiving people into thinking there´s any hope in these rotten institutions.

It is true –to a certain extent- that most people are somewhat more politically engaged in election time. But one do not need to participate in the elections to criticize them.

While using parliamentary elections as a propaganda platform only offers disadvantages, some might think that at least one can realize positive reforms. I don’t think so:

Limitations of parliamentary reform
Most of the power in society does not reside in parliamentary halls (political sphere), but in corporate board rooms (economic sphere) and military commando centers (military sphere). Understanding this is crucial to grasp where to concentrate our resources: primarily in the workplaces and secondarily in the military.

This has got serious implications for radical reformers. If the party would achieve enough leverage to decide on new reforms, it will most likely be effectively sabotaged: the state machinery will not comply with the orders, business owners will move their capital out of the country and start lockouts, and as a worst case scenario the generals will organize a coup and establish a dictatorship. Remember, this is not just abstract theory, it actually happened in Chile in 1973.

So let´s say a party wanna use all of the military budget on third world aid, and implement the 5 hour work day with full compensations. First, the highly paid clercs in fiscal and military ministries will refuse to carry out the decisions, then the bosses will lock out workers and threaten to pull out all capital, and if it still seems like a danger to the bourgeois (that is if people start backing up the reforms with militant demonstrations and strikes) they will use the military.

It´s true that a lot of reforms have been approved in parliament. But underneath the parliamentarian façade lies pressure from grassroots movements. That´s true for the massive reform packages following WWI (8 hour day, votes for all (some places including women), higher wages, recognition of unions, etc.) where the reforms was backed up by revolutionary or near revolutionary situations, and it´s true for most other real reforms as well. What´s the point of waiting for the parliament –when eight hours have passed you can go home, if a majority of our co-workers agree. Such freedoms is not given, but taken.

So, it´s hopeless and futile trying to reach parliament to implement reforms, but maybe in municipality then?

This usually has even more constraints than the parliament. The municipalities are usually only getting crumbs of the states big budgets. The option you got is not choosing between making cuts or not, but where to cut.

Surrender and disbanding?
”Anonymous” wrote ”They must surrender all power to the people and disband immediately if a majority vote is won, giving way to social revolution and complete deconstruction of the state.”

But what the heck is the point of joining parliamentary institutions at all then? When you finally get a majority (for, say free collective transport), the party shall disband?(!) I just don´t get it…

However, if ” Anonymous” were thinking about a mandate for revolution, things just don´t happen that way. If you say to people who´ve voted for you ”Go on! Create workers councils and direct democracy”, people will be totally bewildered. They will probably not kick out their boss and start a revolution, but maybe some will start discussions of what direct democracy is. Movements for a revolutionary system based on workers councils ain´t realized by governmental decrees, but grow organically out of large militant strike movements.

My conclusion is that we oughta use the resources we have to fight for direct democracy in our local unions and communities, not choose the parliamentary dead end.

Let´s move on to reflect upon the economy of a communist society.

COMMUNIST ECONOMY
Implementing a communist economy is not simply a matter of redistribution –it involves profound changes that alters the whole way production is organized, and accordingly, what´s possible to redistribute.

” Anonymous” thinks decentralization and self-sufficiency may be achieved through ”developing communal exchange by democratically administrated municipal credit and/or currency, collective provisioning, barter and localised honor systems.”

But credit/currency will open up for negative and unnecessary divisions in material well-beeing. The worst case scenario might actually be a re-instatement of a class based society.

Fortunately currency is not only negative it´s also mostly unnecessary. The reason why, is that in the overwhelming majority of cases, supply will by far exceed demand. This is caused by a number of factors:

• Unleashment of suppressed technology
  The first thing that may happen is that all suppressed technology will be liberated. By suppressed technology I mean all the technology that´s beeing obstructed by companies that´ll loose money if it´s not suppressed –whether it be light bulbs that last ten times longer, cars that runs on other energy or broadband that´s many times faster. (Most companies capacity by far exceeds what´s released to the market. If light bulbs would last tens of years, people wouldn´t buy that many bulbs after all. If the speed of internet connections would rise by ten times, the companies wouldn´t be able to harness the market potenial of first releasing double speed, then triple speed, and so on and so on ).


• Gains of the replacement of capitalist competition with communist co-operation
  One of the most profound changes will be in the replacement of capitalist competition with communist co-operation. Now the companies always compete. If there´s three places too eat in one street and one of the restaurants got too much raw materials, it makes no sense to give it to one of the other restaurant –that would be helping your competitor! When one of them discovers one of the worlds best recipies ever, they won´t share it –they´ll make a patent of it if possible! And when they close down for the day, they don´t give away the food –they pay workers to throw it!

Of course this was just an extremely small and localized example –just thinking of what may become possible is beyond my imagination.

• Industrialization
  Today there are many millions still living on subsistence farming using the most primitive means of production imaginable. This is first and foremost because it´s usually much more profitable for investors to invest in industrialized countries which have already got infrastructure, a competent workforce, stability in terms of political framework, etc. In a communist society this will naturally cease, and the whole world can be industrialized (though in an ecological sustainable way, using eco-technology). This factor alone implies an enormous increase in the level of production forces, and consequently in things that can be free.


• Further accumulation of technological innovations
  Hell, this even takes place in capitalism! We will still accumulate techonological innovations which empowers the economy –the next things after internet, semi-conductors and carbon fiber.
  


• Elimination of unemployment
  In capitalism a substantial part of the workforce is constantly un- and under-employed. On a worldscale this is probably much more than ten percentages! In a communist society however, ALL can work.
  


• Motivation!
  Except –maybe- of the enormous increase in productivity caused by the replacement of competition with co-operation, motivation will be the single most important factor in increasing productivity. When you know you work to make other people happy –not subject to a boss in order to make smallcoins- you´ll definitely be more motivated to make stuff and provide services. When you combine this with work you´ve chosen freely and which you like, which will be rotated and which only demands a few hours (at least compared to now) of work each week, people will produce faster and better.
  

When we add these factors we can easily see that there´ll be a tremendous increase in production. This implies that supply will exceed demand in almost all commodities and services. All these will be completely free.

Maybe you´ll need to be listed on a waiting list with some few products where demand exceeds supply, or maybe you might get credit which just can be used to buy certain things, by serving in a hard and risky job for some while. But most of the time things will be absolutely free. Like you say: ”The bureaucratic aspects of this form of self-government would be reduced to the bare minimum, eventually dissolving completely.”

On your list:
” Universal access to clean water, food and uncontaminated soil, shelter, clothing, electricity (solar and wind power), sanitation, medicine and health care, education, communications networks and public transportation infrastructure. Collective access to tools, machines, means of mass production […]” we can surely add ”…and generally most other products, will be totally free.”

It`ll be interesting to get a response from you.

by Ilan - Anarchists Against The Wall Mon Jul 18, 2005 16:00 ilan at shalif dot com Tel Aviv

The only viable class less society is the one of Libertarian communism.

Any system offered that relate what one get from society to what one give, is rejection solidarity as the leading human factor.

You cannot go around the distribution of luxuries and individual urgs by claiming that "there will be plenty of all". The more we have, the more private urgs out of the social consumption will be supplied. To maximalize freedom and equality people will just have the option to choose their equal share from the plenty of options of luxuries.

Any one who propose "mixed" power that do not give ALL power to the assemblies of the grass root communities "The World Commune Of Grass Root Communities" express in it distrust in the people.

In a society where every one will be delagate to social tasks - including work places, working place organization will be autonomeous, but only within the boundry of the mandat given by the "supreme power" - the assemblies of members of grass root communities.

The organization of regions/tasks/decisions of social units larger than the grass root communities will not be subject to "negotiations" but to the coordination by multilevels of direct democracy delegates - who will need the final decisions of the grass root assemblies to decide.

Both the models that include in them independant worker councils and/or any kind of money for buying and selling is NOT libertarian communist, and will not be viable.

by anononymous - ? Fri Aug 05, 2005 04:46 jasone at resist dot ca

Common Values
Humanity; our essentially awakened dignity, creativity and compassion.
Diversity; natural evolution and living manifestation of social-cultural wisdom.
Community; collective independence, interdependence and social-ecological awareness of individuals living in harmony with each other and the natural world.

Integral Imperatives
To prevent systemic violence and coercion.
To prevent corruption and over-consumption.
To prevent abuse of human dignity and social exploitation.
To prevent hypocrisy and the spread of lies.
To prevent pollution and senseless destruction of natural habitat.

Libertarian Ecosocialist Principles and Theoretical Praxis:

Liberty; freedom from all forms of domination, hierarchy (namely economic classes), oppression and tyranny, by means of self-organization, popular education, building dual power structures and alternative institutions involved with struggles in the local community, direct action with tactical coordination for synchronized mass action such as general worker, student and residential rent strike with occupations and squatting of workplaces, institutions, land and residential buildings, civil disobedience and effective creative resistance.

Equality; rational tolerance, free association, voluntary cooperation, egalitarian relationships, mutual respect, solidarity and empathy amongst men and women of all ethnicities, origins, hereditary roots and sexual orientations. Freedom of migration subject only to ecological constraints, freedom of speech, freedom of public assembly as well as public control of and access to the media.

Direct democracy; auto-determination, collective responsibility and organised cooperation through participation in workplace councils and small-sized residential cooperative, neighbourhood or land-sharing committees with each person having inclusive, proportionate influence in horizontal policy-making and equal say in all decision-making affecting them. This could be organised if people form local collectives of up to maybe 20 people, probably splitting in two after that to remain more or less open to newcomers while staying small enough to facilitate discussion, debate and making consensus decisions when necessary or if desired, maximizing group intimacy and harmony while avoiding the natural formation of competing elites that tend to dominate larger groups. They could function as collective consumption councils, free associations for all sorts of social activities and might also function as workplace councils (especially agricultural ones) if all members share a workplace. The local collectives could help organise neighbourhood assemblies, village networks (worker solidarity unions for example) municipal, regional, continental and eventually global confederations (essentially anarcho-syndicalism). The larger neighbourhood assemblies would include every adult citizen in proposing and voting on municipal legislation when, while and if absolutely necessary (perhaps by three-quarter majority votes) to be enforced in rational non-authoritarian ways, establishing fair and ecological standards of local production and consumption, electing recallable delegates to higher level confederal councils and choosing individuals who volunteer to perform specific community tasks.

Communal confederation; networks of collectives, councils, syndicates and community assemblies establishing a free polity or ‘commune’ (‘communalism’ or ‘libertarian municipalism’ as defined through social ecology) which would have full autonomy and collective control of land, resources and means of production at the municipal or township level, electing a congress of delegates subject to immediate recall, participating in various administration councils responsible for making tentative decisions matters affecting large numbers of people, including adjudication and maintaining restorative (as opposed to punitive) justice, mainly through truth and reconciliation, with regular rotation of posts and complete public transparency. Citizens would probably choose to take part in a larger economic confederation, beyond territorial borders, based on social need, ecological responsibility, equity (remuneration for effort and sacrifice), participatory planning and autogestion (democratic worker self-management), while aiming towards decentralization and self-sufficiency at the subsistence level. The latter might be done by developing communal exchange with transperantly administrated municipal credit, collective provisioning, barter and localised honor systems. The bureaucratic aspects of this form of self-government must be reduced to the bare minimum, maybe eventually dissolving completely. Municipal communes or village networks would gradually become loosely connected, ecologically integrated islands in regionally shared wild spaces, parkland or commons, where some may choose to live, provided they minimize their ecological footprints. There should be free migration and open borders amongst municipal communes, subject only to environmental constraints.

Universal mutual aid; confederation of fully transparent directly democratic liberatory social institutions having recallable delegates elected from the base with limited mandates for administrative matters that require regional to global levels of control such as a world health and disaster relief organisation, monitoring and protection of ‘Universal Human Rights’ (to be revised to abolish property and state and encompass direct democracy, communalism and confederalism) and to ensure universal access to clean water, food and uncontaminated soil, shelter, clothing, electricity (solar and wind power), sanitation, medicine and health care, education, communications and independent media networks, public transportation infrastructure, tools, machines, means of mass production, recycling facilities (ultimately eliminating all hazardous wastes) and clean fuel technology. A confederal economy based on the 'Participatory Economics' model could be dynamically adapted to differences amongst various regions or communes without creating tensions, since all of the specific institutions would be subservient to individual polity or regional confederal regulations. It is an economic model that does not ignore, oversimplify or underestimate the destructive resilience and complexities of globalised corporate capitalism, and is ideal for a dual power economy (a confederation of worker cooperatives and collectives) while capitalism remains dominant. By promoting equality, diversity, solidarity and efficient autogestion, it is well-designed to bring about an ecologically sensible libertarian/anarchist - socialist/communist society. Essentially, a society with life based on affirming, nurturing and preserving humanity, diversity, and community.


The Science of Freedom

Common Truths
Life and suffering are not separable.
Suffering originates from individual and collective ignorance of and attachment to what changes and is not permanent.
There are ways that can alleviate, overcome, and prevent suffering.
These ways consist of comprehension, imagination, communication, action, devotion, gumption, intuition and concentration.

Vital Aims
To liberate ourselves and others from delusion, oppression and needless suffering.
To abandon and resist greed, hatred, ignorance, apathy and arrogance.
To generate clear awareness and truthful insight into the nature of life and death.
To fully uncover our humanity and actualize our whole potential.

Innate Means
Empathy and amity
Honesty and integrity
Stability and serenity
Tenacity and vitality
Clarity and equanimity
Simplicity and radical wisdom

The Essence of Radical Wisdom
The heart of inexhaustible compassion, stirred by profound and timeless wisdom, sees into all aspects of human nature and finds them essentially dream-like. With this insight, anguish and despair are overcome.

Reality beyond appearances is vast emptiness, emptiness is transient reality, reality is not different from unfathomable emptiness and emptiness is not different from manifest reality. Form, sensation, perception, mental reaction, and consciousness are intrinsically like this.

All things are illusory like a dream; not created or destroyed, defiled or pure, gained or lost. Therefore in emptiness there is no self that is separate from form, sensation, perception, mental reaction or consciousness; no self-identification with eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body or mind; no self that is independent of sight, sound, smell, taste, touch, or thought; no self who is seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching or thinking; no ignorance, cause and effect or end of ignorance, cause and effect; no aging and death or ending of aging and death; no suffering, no origination of suffering, no end of suffering or ways that lead from suffering; nothing to grasp or cling to, no individual attainment,.

With no individual attainment, human beings, guided and empowered by radical wisdom, lose all of their doubts and obsessions. Having no obstacles for their minds, they overcome fear and hesitation, liberating themselves entirely from illusion, experience genuine awakening and wonderful clarity. All intimately awakened human beings in the past, present, and future, relying intuitively on radical wisdom, actualize complete liberation and universal social emancipation.

by Jason Fri Aug 12, 2005 08:16 Jasone at resist dot ca

Ecosocialist Liberation Principles and Theoretical Praxis

Equality; justice, rational tolerance, free association, voluntary cooperation, egalitarian relationships, mutual respect and solidarity amongst men and women of all ethnicities, origins, hereditary roots and sexual orientations.

Liberty; freedom from all forms of domination, hierarchy, social exploitation, oppression and tyranny, by means of popular education, self-organization, direct action, civil disobedience and creative resistance using revolutionary strategy to build dual power structures and liberatory alternative institutions committed to universal social justice and ecological harmony involved in local community struggles and tactical coordination for synchronized actions such as a general strike (worker, student and rental) , occupations of workplaces, institutions, land and residential buildings.

Direct democracy; organised self-determination, cooperation and collective responsibility through participation in workplace councils and residential cooperative, neighbourhood or small-sized land-sharing committees with each person having inclusive, proportionate influence in horizontal policy-making and equal say in all decision-making affecting them. People should try to form or join directly democratic collectives (as local as possible) of 3-20 people ideally with a balance of male and female members. These collectives must be small enough to meet regularly, facilitate friendly discussion and debate, make consensus decisions when necessary or if desired, encourage group intimacy and harmony while avoiding the formation of competing elites that tend to dominate larger groups and loose enough to peacefully split in two when the group gets too big, remaining more or less open to newcomers. Local collectives could participate together in social and environmental activist networks in the local community and try to form horizontally organized neighbourhood assemblies that meet regularly. They could function as collective consumption groups (trading or buying in bulk directly from producers and consuming some things together) and also as work councils if all members share a workplace (especially agricultural ones). Individuals who do not work in sufficiently democratic worker cooperatives or are not already participating in a sufficiently anarcho-syndicalist union, should try to organize regular meetings of (potentially militant) workers and help mobilize or join a worker’s solidarity network that would include the unemployed, a revolutionary syndicalist union or another kind of anarchist organization.

Communality; coordinated networks of local collectives, work councils, anarcho-syndicalist unions and neighbourhood assemblies establishing free communes or libertarian municipalities and townships through non-violent means or by voluntary armed defence of the social revolution (adhering to a regionally and historically coherent anarchist platform) during a general strike (‘communalism’ as defined through social ecology) which would have full autonomy and collective control of land, resources and means of production at the municipal or township level. Neighbourhood assemblies would include every adult citizen in proposing policies and voting in decisions that affect them including municipal legislation when and if absolutely necessary (perhaps decided by three-quarter majority votes) outlined in a revisable constitution, establishing fair and ecological standards of local production and consumption and electing a congress of delegates subject to immediate recall who would form various administration councils with regular rotation of posts and complete public transparency, responsible for making tentative decisions in matters affecting large numbers of people, including adjudication and administration of restorative (as opposed to punitive) justice by rational non-authoritative enforcement of legislation and processes for truth and reconciliation. Any bureaucratic aspects of this form of self-government must be reduced to the bare minimum, and should eventually dissolve completely. Municipal communes or village networks would gradually become loosely connected, ecologically integrated islands in regionally shared wild spaces, parkland or commons, where some may choose to live if they minimize their ecological footprints. Economic decentralization and self-sufficiency at the subsistence level could be accomplished by developing a communal economy with transparent administration of credit, collective provisioning, as well as autonomous barter and localised honor systems.

Universal mutual aid; regional to global confederation of free communes with open borders subject only to environmental constraints and fully transparent and inclusive democratic social institutions with recallable delegates elected from the base with limited mandates for administrative matters that require regional to global levels of control such as a world health and disaster relief organisation, monitoring and protection of ‘Universal Human Rights’ revised to abolish private property and nation-state, encompass direct democracy and communal autonomy and demand universal access to clean water, adequate food and uncontaminated soil, suitable shelter, basic clothing, sanitation, medicine and health care, education, tools and machines, electricity (solar and wind power) and clean fuel technology, communications media networks, public transportation and means of mass production and recycling (ultimately eliminating all hazardous wastes and undesirable labour). The participatory confederal economy would use inclusive democratic organizational structures for autogestion (workers’ self-management) and participatory planning with control centered at the horizontal level. Cooperative work councils would negotiate as directly as possible with consumer groups through production and neighbourhood committees establishing socially and ecologically indicative values, insuring equal opportunity and access to all basic needs, creating balanced job complexes with equitable remuneration and abiding by local regulations for social justice and ecological protection. This type of large-scale solidarity economy beyond borders would function dynamically in a perpetual social revolution, adapting itself to differences amongst communes and regions without creating political tensions. The participatory economic model does not ignore, oversimplify or underestimate the destructive resilience and complexities of global corporate capitalism and is ideal for a dual power economy while capitalism remains dominant. By promoting equality, diversity, solidarity and efficient autogestion, it could help bring about a rational and ethical society with life based on affirming, nurturing and preserving humanity, diversity, and community.

*This document is intended as a supplement to the Peoples Global Action Manifesto as well as the International Libertarian Solidarity Declaration. The author hopes that it may help unify the Anarchist International (as yet a non-organization) with a wider Peoples Global Movement.

by Jason Sat Aug 13, 2005 01:55

I know that the above summary of the authors ideas and theory is possibly incomplete in content, somewhat repetitive, unclear on certain points and quite possibly wrong about others. For now it's the best I can do in english (the most bastardized language in the world I imagine) to present my vision of anarchy, though it could be better titled 'General Socio-Ecological Principles and Anarchist Theory'.
The following is the method I believe is of serious neccessity for the praxis to work , an atheist interpretation of Buddhism, summarized from an anarchist perspective, especially influenced by Bakunin and Kropotkin (modified slightly from the version in earlier comments) :

The Science of Freedom

Common Values
Humanity; our essentially awakened dignity, creativity and compassion.
Diversity; natural evolution, social revolution and living manifestation of cultural wisdom.
Community; collective independence, interdependence and social-ecological awareness of individuals living in harmony with each other and the natural world.

Common Truths
Life and suffering are not separable.
Suffering originates from attachment to what changes and is not permanent.
There are ways that can alleviate, overcome, and prevent suffering.
These ways consist of comprehension, imagination, communication, action, devotion, gumption, intuition and concentration.

Vital Aims
To liberate ourselves and others from delusion, oppression and needless suffering.
To abandon and resist greed, hatred, ignorance, apathy and arrogance.
To generate clear awareness and truthful insight into the nature of life and death.
To fully uncover our humanity and actualize our whole potential.

Critical Imperatives
To prevent systemic violence and coercion.
To prevent corruption and over-consumption.
To prevent abuse of human dignity and social exploitation.
To prevent hypocrisy and the spread of lies.
To prevent pollution and senseless destruction of natural habitat.

Innate Means
Amity and empathy
Honesty and self-discipline
Stability and patience
Vitality and perseverance
Clarity and focused attention
Simplicity and radical wisdom

The Essence of Radical Wisdom
The heart of inexhaustible compassion, stirred by profound and timeless wisdom, sees deeply into all aspects of human nature and finds them to be essentially dream-like. With this insight, anguish and despair are overcome.

Reality beyond all appearances is vast emptiness, emptiness manifests itself as perpetually changing reality, reality is not different from sublime emptiness and emptiness is not different from transient reality. Consiousness, sensation, perception, emotion and cognition are intrinsically like this.

All things are illusory like a dream; nothing is actually created or destroyed, defiled or pure, gained or lost. There is no self that is separate from consiousness, sensation, perception, emotion or cognition; no self-identification with eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body or consiousness; no self that is independent of sight, sound, smell, taste, touch, or mental reaction; no self who is seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, or perceiving; no ignorance, cause and effect or end of ignorance, cause and effect; no aging and death or ending of aging and death; no suffering, no origination of suffering, no end of suffering or ways that lead from suffering; nothing to grasp or cling to and no individual attainment.

With no individual attainment, human beings, guided and empowered by radical wisdom, lose all of their doubts and obsessions. Having no obstacles for their minds, they overcome fear and hesitation, freeing themselves entirely from illusion, experiencing genuine awakening and complete equanimity. All intimately awakened human beings in the past, present, and future, relying on radical wisdom, actualize universal liberation and social emancipation.

by anonymous - ? Wed Aug 17, 2005 23:46 jasone at resist dot ca

Equality; justice, rational tolerance, free association, voluntary cooperation, egalitarian relationships, mutual respect and solidarity amongst men and women of all ethnicities, origins, hereditary roots and sexual orientations.

Liberty; freedom from all forms of domination, hierarchy, social exploitation, oppression and tyranny, by means of free education, self-organization, direct action, civil disobedience and creative resistance using to building dual power structures and liberatory alternative institutions committed to universal social justice and ecological harmony involved in local community struggles and tactical coordination for synchronized actions such as a general strike (worker, student and rental) , occupations of workplaces, institutions, land and residential buildings.

Direct democracy; organised self-determination, cooperation and collective responsibility through participation in workplace councils and residential cooperative, neighbourhood or small-sized land-sharing committees with each person having inclusive, proportionate influence in horizontal policy-making and equal say in all decision-making affecting them. People form or join(directly democratic) local collectives of 3-20 people ideally with a balance of male and female members, small enough to meet regularly and probably often, facilitate friendly discussion and debate, make consensus decisions when necessary or if desired, encourage group intimacy and harmony while avoiding the formation of competing elites that tend to dominate larger groups and loose enough to peacefully split in two when the group gets too big, remaining more or less open to newcomers. Local collectives participate and help organize social and environmental protection groups of all kinds in the local community and form horizontally organized neighbourhood assemblies that meet regularly. They would function as collective consumption groups (trading or buying in bulk directly from producers and consuming some things together) and also as production (work) councils if all members share a workplace. Individuals who do not work in sufficiently democratic worker cooperatives or are not already participating in a sufficiently (anarcho) syndicalist union, should try to organize regular meetings of (potentially militant) workers and help mobilize or join a worker’s solidarity network that would include the unemployed, a revolutionary syndicalist union or another kind of (anarchic)organization.

Communality; coordinated networks of local collectives, work councils, anarcho-syndicalist unions and neighbourhood assemblies establishing free communes or libertarian municipalities and townships through non-violent means or by voluntary armed defence of the social revolution (adhering to a regionally and historically coherent anarchist platform) during a general strike (‘communalism’ as defined through social ecology) which would have full autonomy and collective control of land, resources and means of production at the municipal or township level. Neighbourhood assemblies would include every adult citizen in proposing policies and voting in decisions that affect them including municipal legislation when and if absolutely necessary (perhaps decided by three-quarter majority votes) outlined in a revisable constitution, establishing fair and ecological standards of local production and consumption and electing a congress of delegates subject to immediate recall who would form various administration councils with regular rotation of posts and complete public transparency, responsible for making tentative decisions in matters affecting large numbers of people, including adjudication and administration of restorative (as opposed to punitive) justice by rational non-authoritative enforcement of legislation and processes for truth and reconciliation. Any bureaucratic aspects of this form of self-government must be reduced to the bare minimum, and should eventually dissolve completely. Municipal communes or village networks would gradually become loosely connected, ecologically integrated islands in regionally shared wild spaces, parkland or commons, where some may choose to live if they minimize their ecological footprints. Economic decentralization and self-sufficiency at the subsistence level could be accomplished by developing a communal economy with transparent administration of credit, collective provisioning, as well as autonomous barter and localised honor systems.

Universal mutual aid; regional to global confederation of free communes with open borders subject only to environmental constraints and fully transparent and inclusive democratic social institutions with recallable delegates elected from the base with limited mandates for administrative matters that require regional to global levels of control such as a world health and disaster relief organisation, monitoring and protection of an Earth Charter or ‘Human Rights’ revised to abolish private property and nation-state, encompass direct democracy and communal autonomy and demand universal access to clean water, adequate food and uncontaminated soil, suitable shelter, basic clothing, sanitation, medicine and health care, education, tools and machines, electricity (solar and wind power) and clean fuel technology, communications media networks, public transportation and means of mass production and recycling (ultimately eliminating all hazardous wastes and undesirable labour). The participatory confederal economy would use inclusive democratic organizational structures for autogestion (workers’ self-management) and participatory planning with control centered at the horizontal level. Cooperative work councils would negotiate as directly as possible with consumer groups through production and neighbourhood committees establishing socially and ecologically indicative values, insuring equal opportunity and access to all basic needs, creating balanced job complexes with equitable remuneration and abiding by local regulations for social justice and ecological protection. This type of large-scale solidarity economy beyond borders would function dynamically in a perpetual social revolution, adapting itself to differences amongst communes and regions without creating political tensions. The participatory economic model does not ignore, oversimplify or underestimate the destructive resilience and complexities of global corporate capitalism and is ideal for a dual power economy while capitalism remains dominant. By promoting equality, diversity, solidarity and efficient autogestion, it could help bring about a rational and ethical society with life based on affirming, nurturing and preserving humanity, diversity, and community.

*This document is intended as a supplement to the Peoples Global Action Manifesto as well as the International Libertarian Solidarity Declaration. The author hopes that it may help unify the Anarchist International (as yet a non-organization) with a wider Peoples Global Movement.

by anonymous - ? Sat Aug 20, 2005 02:18

Concerning 'Science of Freedom' -
Humanity; our essentially ((read essential)) awakened dignity, creativity and compassion.

For a good english reference, check http://asadz.com/thesaurus/
(Roget's 1916, second edition, nice and simple; better than any english dictionary i've ever come across)

Comments welcome

by anonymous - ? Tue Aug 23, 2005 09:18 jasone at resist dot ca

Disregard the www.asadz.com link. I didn't look at it carefully at all (not enough time on public computers plus personal ignorance). I do recommend Roget's original thesaurus (the first edition). It is better than any english dictionary I've ever come across.

I wish I could edit on this thread to present the last post/comment. I would like to emphasize the idea of a 'one page platform' (for easy printability/distribution). I am not much of a writer and feel quite embarassed about how this publishing ended up. I hope to get some input/comments on the last version.

by anonoymous - ? Wed Aug 24, 2005 03:54 jasone at resist dot ca

Anarcho-Ecosocialist Principles and Praxis

Equality; social justice, rational tolerance, free association, voluntary cooperation, egalitarian relationships, mutual respect and solidarity amongst men and women of all ethnicities, origins, hereditary roots and sexual orientations.

Liberty; freedom from all forms of domination, hierarchy, economic classes, social exploitation, oppression and tyranny, by means of free education, self-organization, direct action, civil disobedience and creative resistance, building dual power structures and alternative institutions committed to universal social justice and ecological harmony involved in local community struggles using tactical coordination for synchronized action; primarily, general strike (worker, student and rental) followed by occupations of workplaces, institutions, needed land and unused residential buildings.

Direct democracy; organised collective self-determination, cooperation and shared responsibility through participation in workplace councils/committees and local residential or land-sharing cooperative collectives, with each person having inclusive, proportionate influence in horizontal policy-making and equal say in all decision-making affecting them. Local collectives could buy (for the time being) as directly as possible from producers, exchange services or barter with other collectives or cooperatives, sharing and consuming things together. They could also function as work councils if all members share a workplace. These collectives would probably consist of 3 to 20 people, small enough to facilitate friendly discussion, debate, and consensus, while avoiding the formation of competing elites that tend to dominate larger groups. They could split up (peacefully) if the group gets too big, remaining more or less open to newcomers. Local collectives could organize neighbourhood or village assemblies that would need to function horizontally and meet regularly for all types of community matters. Until political/economic power can be based at this level, people can form various social solidarity networks that could include the unemployed, as well as residential and worker cooperatives.

Communality; coordinated networks of local collectives and neighbourhood assemblies, workplace councils and syndical trade-union committees establishing autonomous municipal/township communes with collective (directly democratic) control of land, resources and means of production. This may necessitate (strictly voluntary) coordinated self-defence of the social revolution during a period of political upheaval, to bring about ‘communalism’ (as defined through 'social ecology'). Neighbourhood assemblies would then include every adult citizen in proposing policies and voting in decisions that affect them. Citizens would elect a congress of delegates (subject to recall) who would form various administration councils (with regular rotation of posts and complete transparency), responsible for making (tentative) decisions in matters that effect large numbers of people; municipal legislation (to be decided by three-quarter majority votes through referenda perhaps), establishing fair and ecological standards of local production, consumption and justice in general, outlined in a communal constitution, revisable when and if necessary, as well as adjudication and administration of restorative (non-punitive) justice, through rational non-authoritative enforcement of legislation and processes for truth and reconciliation. All bureaucratic aspects of communal government would be reduced to the barest minimum, eventually dissolving completely. Municipal or township communes would gradually become loosely connected, ecologically integrated village networks, in regionally shared wild spaces and parkland commons. Economic decentralization and self-sufficiency at the subsistence level would be achieved by developing a communal economy through collective provisioning, localised service exchange, barter and honor systems.

Universal mutual aid; regional to global confederation of free communes with open borders, subject only to environmental constraints. Fully transparent and inclusive democratic social institutions with recallable delegates, elected from the base, with limited mandates for administration in matters requiring regional to global levels of organisation, such as a health and disaster relief, monitoring and protection of ‘Universal Human Rights’ or an 'Earth Charter' (revised to abolish private property and state, encompass direct democracy and demand universal access to clean water, uncontaminated soil, adequate food, shelter, clothing, sanitation, medicine, health care, education, tools and machines, solar and wind generated electricity, clean fuel technology, communications networks, public transportation, means of mass production and means of recycling ultimately eliminating all hazardous wastes and most undesirable labour. The confederal economy would use directly democratic organizational structures for autogestion (workers’ self-management) and participatory planning at the horizontal level. Workplace councils and trade union syndical production committees would stipulate with consumer collectives through neighbourhood, municipal and regional administrative committees, establishing socially and ecologically indicative values for exchange while insuring universal access to all basic needs. Every worker would have balanced job complexes with equitable remuneration and all industries would have to abide by local regulations for social justice and ecological protection. This type of large-scale solidarity economy beyond borders could function dynamically in perpetual social revolution, adapting itself to differences amongst communes and regions without creating political tensions. The 'participatory economy' model does not ignore, oversimplify or underestimate the destructive resilience and complexities of global capitalism (corporate fascism). It is ideal for building a dual power economy while capitalism remains dominant. By promoting equality, diversity, solidarity and efficient autogestion, 'participatory economics' could help bring about a rational and ethical society, with life based on affirming, nurturing and preserving humanity, diversity, and community.


*This writing is intended to supplement the Peoples Global Action Manifesto and can be printed in one page format using ‘Arial 8 pt’ on ‘Microsoft Word’.

by Tom Wetzel Thu Aug 25, 2005 12:33

Well, the Soviet Union also had no profits to drive
production and eliminated unemployment. But that didn't prevent long lines and a shortage of variety and quality of consumer products.

There are limits to increases in production due to resource constraints and needs to heal the ecosystem. We also don't want to work 14 hour days. We can eliminate poverty and severe deprivation but scarcity is part of the human condition. That is, there will always be aspirations for improvements, for more things than we have currently, for more living space or whatever.

Anarcho-communism suffers from the fact that no effective way of efficiently allocating scarce resources and our scarce time has ever been specified. What if lots of stuff is produced by it's not what you want? What's needed is a way to ensure that the economy will assign labor time and resources to produce those things that people most want produced. In a society of hundreds of millions of people with tens of thousands of products. And we have to do this without markets, since a market system inevitably breeds class division and exploitation. Mainstream and Marxist economists think the market and central planning are the only ways to allocate resources to social production. But both of those alternatives yield class divided systems. Anarcho-communists have never clearly delineated an alternative.

If everything is free, as you suggest, I can't see how this can be done because there will be no way to capture people's preferences for how they want their share of the social product to be divvied up among various possible things or services they might want. I think that, at least in regard to private consumer goods, it will be necessary to have some quantitative entitlement to consume which people can use up in requests for products. This doesn't necessarily presuppose a market economy or money in the form of money-capital.
That's what participatory economics was designed to show.

by Kim Keyser - Anarkismo Sat Aug 27, 2005 00:24

Tom argues:
"Well, the Soviet Union also had no profits to drive
production and eliminated unemployment. But that didn't prevent long lines and a shortage of variety and quality of consumer products."

Yeah, but I don´t see how this example has got any relevance for this discussion, really. Just because two phenomena shares a certain characteristic (eliminated unemployed for instance), doesn´t necesseraly imply that other things are similar (limited shortage of variety and quality for instance.) It´s like, even though a hot soup and lava is both hot, you can´t necessarily eat lava.

I would also contest that the Soviet Union made no profits, as profit is the surplus you got after deducting the expenses and investments from the revenue of the sale of products (i´m not a skilled economist, so I might be wrong on the technical term "profit"(?). But the fact that a surplus made by workers went to non-workers is no point of denying).

OK, but to the more important point you made, which I happen to agree with:
"Anarcho-communism suffers from the fact that no effective way of efficiently allocating scarce resources and our scarce time has ever been SPECIFIED." (my capitalization).

This you are quite right to claim. This is not only true with allocation of resources but quite many of the features of a future communist society -they have simply not been satisfyingly specified (that does mean that we´re completely lost, just that we´re not clear enough). This I think is true both when it comes to economy, larger direct-democratic processes, alterations of the specific branches of industry on a communist basis, defense of the revolution and more. And, of course, these shortcomings would probably have a tremendous negative impact when a revolutionary situation -with millions of people looking for answers- occurs. In the worst case scenario reactionary forces might convince them instead.

It´s true that these millions of workers might come up with magnificent solutions "out of the blue", but it´s still equally true that we won´t have anything to loose by trying to develop more specific thoughts on the revolutionary and immediately post-revolutionary period.

In fact, I´m doing some more profound writing on this topic and hope I´ll reach some helpful and clarifying conclusions. Though, it´s not exactly ready for publication yet(!).

Furthermore Tom argues:
"If everything is free, as you suggest, I can't see how this can be done because there will be no way to capture people's preferences for how they want their share of the social product to be divvied up among various possible things or services they might want."

Like I mentioned all the products where supply exceeds the demand will be free, I don´t see why anyone should contend this. And because of an immense increase in productivity, this will apply to most products (though no one knows exactly which and exactly how many products).

In some areas producers will get the same type of feedback as before -through the account of increases and decreases in what people take with them from the free "store", and through investigating what and how much people would like to have. So, for instance, when a new fruit drink is becoming popular, the production of fruit might have to be intensified. And as long as there´s enough fruit, this should probably not be much a challenge.

But there´ll also be novel ways of allocating resources: workers councils from a certain industrial branch will meet up with people who want to have their say on how and how many the products are beeing made (what might be called a consumer council). Also, people may decide on what they think some scarce resource might be invested in through their federated local councils.

Lets move on to those few -and non-vital- products (no doubt food, water, shelter etc. will be free) that are scarce. Whether this be because of ecological consideration, limited supply, lack of competence or whatever.

You say:
"I think that, at least in regard to private consumer goods, it will be necessary to have some quantitative entitlement to consume which people can use up in requests for products."
Yeah, I think so too. However ONLY WITH SOME OF THOSE PRODUCTS WHERE DEMAND EXCEEDS SUPPLY (there´s no italic button to push here =) ). I say SOME because most of the those products would be strictly allocated to needs (if a person might die if she don´t get just that organ, while another person might be able to wait several more years, the latter one should definetely not be able to buy this organ, etc.).

Some other products where demand exceeds supply might only be allocated through lottery. For instance a unique copy of the first edition of a revolutionary magazine. If this magazine should be used in research then maybe it should be allocated after need, but if not, it might be allocated through lottery. This should not be "bought" as it´s only one copy.

But with some very few products (diamonds or something, I don´t know) you might use the special capital that´s exclusively reserved for just that: choosing which luxurious product you want (the only type of capital there might be, in my opinion), instead of another.

However, focusing on how this last challenge is solved is not important, what matters is that it would be solved in time.

Also I must add: it should NOT be possible to make such "special capital" by working, inventing something new, winning in a contest or anything else -THAT would lead to inequality. If such a special capital should exist, everyone should receive the same amount, and it should only be possibly to use on SOME of the few products where demand exeeds supply.

Maybe this contradicts "Parecon", or maybe not, I haven´t read it YET. Though I´ll certaintly take the time to do so soon. I hope I made a contribution to our common understanding of a future communist economy, at least that was my intention.

I´d be interested in knowing what other people think of this as well.

by Tom Wetzel Sat Aug 27, 2005 04:15

KIm,

We should not want supply to exceed demand because that implies that we will have wasted our time in work. What we want is for the things that we produce to exactly equal what people most prefer. But to tally what people take from stores does NOT tell us what alternatives they would most prefer. That only tells us what they prefer among the options that are there in the store. Also, if everything is free, they never have to make hard choices between alternatives, which means we don't know which among the many possible alternatives they want produced. We can't produce everything everyone might want because there are only 24 hours in the day, there is limited total work time of everyone, and limited resources. Talking about rationing doesn't answer the question of how we can ensure that what is available effectively responds to what people want most.

I think we should think of the free sector as applying to public goods and to supports for people who aren't working, such as children and the disabled and retired for example. In regard to the USSR, to say that there were profits just because there was a surplus means you won't be able to differentiate capitalism from other forms of class society such as feudalism which also had a surplus controlled by an elite.

The sector that provides private consumption goods to able-bodied adults, that is, to the workforce is a substantial part of an economy. I can't see how it's feasible to run this on the basis of a moneyless economy based the principle "to each according to need." To be socially responsible and to have an effective economy, we need to be able to capture people's evaluations of how important the various costs are in production, including ecological constraints and their own time,and also evaluations about how important the various possible uses of these inputs are to them. It's hard to see how to do this without this being encapsulated in quantitative comparisons, that is, prices. This need not mean that money exists in the form of money-capital . Capital is a social relationship and in the absence of that relationship prices and quantitative entitlements to consume can't imply money in the form of money-capital. But it does imply something akin to money at least as a means of social accounting.
It's hard to see how people could be socially responsible in their consumption requests if they don't know what the social cost is of the things they consume. This is why I think there is a certain amount of hyperbole in the traditional talk about "abolition of wages" and a moneyless economy. Yes, we do away with wage-slavery, with subordination to bosses. But it doesn't follow that there aren't reasons for the workforce in general to agree to some system of paying ourselves for the work that we do for each other, as a material incentive to do such work, and as a way to then capture information about people's preferences by seeing how they choose to allot this quantitative entitlement in consumption requests.

by Kim Keyser - Anarkismo Mon Aug 29, 2005 04:35

Tom said:
"What we want is for the things that we produce to exactly equal what people most prefer."

Of course we want supply to exceed demand with a reasonable -but not overwhelming- margin.

"to tally what people take from stores does NOT tell us what alternatives they would most prefer. That only tells us what they prefer among the options that are there in the store."

Yes, that´s true. If you read what I said, accounting what people take from the free "stores" is not the only way input from consumers is registered, though. Consumers input must certainly include accounting, but it must also include questionaries, meetings between the scientists, workers, communities and consumers, and other ways as well.

The accounting (of what people take from the stores) would to a huge degree regulate the production of most normal goods (though, like you pointed out, only those there are to choose from).

Like there´s usually some kind of list of ingredients on the packaging of commodities, in the future there will probably also be an estimate of how much work and resources which have been invested in the product. People have to carefully consider this list when they choose what product to consume.

There have to be regular meetings between producers and consumers. On these meetings people will have the opportunity to voice their concerns on deficiencies with those products that exists, as well as suggest totally new products.

So for instance, people who live in houses (consumers), will have the opportunity to collectively give feedback and suggestions on how they might be built differently at the regular meetings with construction workers (producers). The construction workers (consumers of building material and tools) will be able to have their say on how the tools and building materials function at the meetings with the producers of these, and so on, and so forth.

As an individual you will also be able to have your say through questionaries. On every product it must be clearly stated where you can get hold of and submit such a questionary, and in most stores there might even be a networked computer (a so called "kiosk"), where you can submit a standard questionary, whether it be complaints, questions, suggestions or whatever, as well as check up on the statistics of products, votes, etc. If a suggestion gets a certain amount of votes, it´ll be brought up at the next meeting between the pertinent producers and consumers. Sometimes suggestions might get so many votes that it´ll be executed immediately.

Also, we have to remember that a communist society is TOTALLY different from a capitalist one. So for instance, most people will most probably learn several/many different skills and work in different trades. This means that the boundary between producers and consumers will blur furthermore, and input will be made this way too.

"We can't produce everything everyone might want because there are only 24 hours in the day, there is limited total work time of everyone, and limited resources."

That´s true. But like I´ve said several times I think the productive capacity will rise dramatically, and thus people don´t have to work 24 hours a day, but maybe 4 hours, 4 days a week with 4 months vacation in a year (or something like that). Though this is impossible to give precise estimates on. However, I don´t think we need to worry about there beeing too much work -it won´t be.

Tom thinks a limited free sector and work based on some kind of wages would be feasible. This is something I think is very conservative and pessimistic, and which I STRONGLY disagree with as a libertarian(!).

Like I´ve argued two times already, the free sector must encompass all those products where supply exceeds demand (this is only logical), and this will certainly be most products as our productive capacity will rise manifold times. And like I´ve (also) already argued a significant part of those products where demand exceeds supply must be alloted according to need.

To my statement that "if a person might die if she don´t get just that organ, while another person might be able to wait several more years, the latter one should definetely not be able to buy this organ, etc.", Tom has essentially answered that this might be solved through the amount of money you´ve accumulated through your work. (It might be that I´ve misunderstood you Tom, but to me this might seem to be the corollary of you defence of wages and a limited free sphere (cause organs aren´t exactly "public", right?)).

Whether of not it was Toms intetion to argue for such an inhumane society, this is clearly a repulsive politic that must be strongly condemned, just like wages.

A less important digression to conclude my comment: Tom wrote:
"In regard to the USSR, to say that there were profits just because there was a surplus means you won't be able to differentiate capitalism from other forms of class society such as feudalism which also had a surplus controlled by an elite."

Because the defining criterion of capitalism is market economy? I have to contest this too. The bourgeois was without no doubt the class who created capitalism, by chrushing the obstacles to their trade. But a more defining criterion to what capitalism is (in relation to feudalism), is the level of productive forces. While the ruling class possessed simple means of production (primarily land and tools that would enhance the output of agricultural produce, as well as weapons of war and oppression), the modern ruling class (whether it be a state capitalist click or the oligarchs of market economies) possesses far superior means of production (industrial technologies, factories, etc.). This is the primary criterion to define whether it be feaudalism or capitalism.

Even though we clearly disagree on some vital points, I do appreciate the debate as it highlights some important issues that have not been too much discussed. Unfortunately I won´t be able to bring it much further right now, as I´ll temporarily loose my internet connection, but it should definetely be picked up again some time.

by Tom Wetzel Tue Aug 30, 2005 12:00

In regard to a need for an organ transplant,
health care is one of the areas where I think
"to each according to need" DOES make sense. That's
because the vulnterability to injury and disease
is something that affects us all. It's a matter
of basic human solidarity. But this is different
than private consumption goods because no one
wants an organ transplant unless they really do
need one. There is a broad area where the
principle "to each according to need" can
and should apply -- for taking care of the
needs of children, infirm, those for whom
we haven't provided jobs, retired, and many
public goods from ecological protection to
health care and all education throughout
life. But it doesn't follow that an entire
economy could be run effectively without
quantitative accounting & information about
preferences for private consumption goods.

Again, we should NOT want there to be any
production of supply beyond demand because any
thing that is produced beyond demand is pure
waste. It means that the labor time and the
resources that went into producing it was not
needed.

Questionaires are not adequate as a means of
capturing information about what people most
prefer because people are not forced to make
hard choices based on a finite amount that is
their share of the social product. Anything
one MIGHT want will be added to the questionaires.
But we can't produce just anything that anyone
might want. No feasible plan for social production
can be produced that way.