anarchist-communism and collectivist anarchism?
Feb 17 2005 21:07
Can anyone explain the difference between these two, suggest stuff I can read on the subject? I've not yet managed to get my head round it.
What's the difference between a commune and a collective anyway? Is it just a matter of scale?
Feb 17 2005 23:43
#2
Bakunin talked about little groups that network together into bigger groups and finaly an european union. I think most anarchists belive in that rather than the bolshevik model that is more like a reversed model of that. Calling oneself anarchistcommunist might be a way to say that you agree with Marx more or less except for his parlamentaristic ideas and dictatorship of the proleteriat. Kropotkin belongs to the anarchists who was fighting to not be kicked out of the second internationalle and therefore words like that might have been usefull. Nowadays we should be happy tough that people dont connect anarchism with communism(although it is a trouble that most nonanarchists dont see its connection with socialism) that we should be happy with. We should be happy that we dont have to defend missunderstandings of what communism means like the parlamentaristic left. There is no need for us to call ourself anarchistcommunists and thus throw ourself into the deep lake of missunderstandings. Its no way to create a sponthaneous rise of the people.
Feb 18 2005 00:07
#3
the communist vs collectivist arguement within anarchism as an arguement of the 19th century. basically it was originally a term to distinguish bakunin's brand of anarchism from proudhonist anarchism, and then later the term anarchist communism was applied to ideas probably best expressed by kropotkin. the main difference is that collectivism believes that the means of life that individuals receive under anarchism must be tied to the amount of labour they contribute, whereas kropotkin, and so the communist strand of anarchism, insists that each commune would be capable of distributing according to need after the revolution.
but as i said, the main dispute took place around the late 19th century and early 20th, and was connected to other more tactical arguements such as propaganda by the deed, the role of an anarchist organisation within mass working class organisations, and so on. nowadays i don't think anyone calls themselves an anarcho-collectivist unless their only contact with anarchism is reading the anarchist faq, so it is pretty irrelevant. probably people who call might in the 19th century have called themselves collectivists call themselves anarchist communists now, or just class struggle anarchist, as we've lost the cute idealistic streak of thinking revolution is just round the corner and have more important arguements to fight, like that against primitivism.
all of this is from reading "the spanish anarchist: the heroic years 1868-1936", which is still the best politic book i've ever read not written by george orwell. there's a bibliographical essay at the back which can probably suggest further reading if you find it in the library.
Feb 18 2005 00:55
#4
Another good example of the colectivstic movement in anarchism in those days is Kropotkin writing a whole book to prove that helping each other is as common in nature as competition(as an reply to individualistic ideas and social darwinism)
Feb 18 2005 01:02
#5
I'd like to read that Wendal - what is the title?
It is also borne out by anthropology - bones of older and crippled people from centuries ago who must have been cared for to survive.
Feb 18 2005 09:36
#6
thanks all, especially GT - that makes it clearer.
although, Colin Ward seemes to see it a bit different. it was reading his recent Very Short Introduction to Anarchism that prompted me to post. he says "Some anarchists prefer to distinguish between anarchist-communism and collectivist anarchism in order to stress the obviously desirable freedom of an individual or family to possess the resources needed for living, while not implying the right to own the resources needed by others" anyone understand what he's on about? cos I don't.
JH, i assume the book Wendal is refering to is Mutual Aid
S
Feb 18 2005 13:22
#7
I think Bakunin's collectivism still had some reliance on the idea of wages (up until the forces of production made this unnecessary?), whereas Kropotkin would have entirely followed "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need". That's how I understand it anyway.
Mar 6 2005 01:08
#8
Surely, put simply a commune has geographical limitations but collectives can be limitless.
Stop reading and start thinking! Make anarchism simple!
Mar 7 2005 15:36
#9
Anarchoneilist wrote:
Stop reading and start thinking! Make anarchism simple!
so we constantly have to recreate the wheel, and keep making the same mistakes again and again? that doesnt sound like very good advice to me. and the notion that 'thinking' and 'reading' are mutually exclusive is ridiculous.
Mar 18 2005 20:04
#10
It might seem a long way away but its quite an important issue because the free society of tomorrow is being shaped by what we do today. The question is whether we would all have equal rights in property (to take, possess, use, transform etc) or whether some people would have greater rights. Collectivists argue that the right to own or possess the means of life are a vital defence of liberty. If you have the means of life and no-one can take them away from you because you own them, then you are immune to political or social pressures at their extreme. Anarchist communists believe that property is by its very nature divisive and non-egalitarian and a restriction of freedom (if you "possess" something, I am not free to "use" it). Additionally, whatever exists is not made by us today alone but by the effort of millions of people past and present so it should be the common wealth of all of us not the sole possession of - say - a farm collective or village commune.
You can use the terms "collective" and "commune" to describe a series of relationships (local places vs far-flung or temporary affinities, for instance) but when we talk about "collectivism" and "communitarianism" or even anarchist communism, we're talking about different views of freedom and social relationships.
Mar 20 2005 15:27
#11
Quote:
Another good example of the colectivstic movement in anarchism in those days is Kropotkin writing a whole book to prove that helping each other is as common in nature as competition(as an reply to individualistic ideas and social darwinism)
Something of an aside, but does anyone else feel that we need a new Mutual Aid for the post-Dawkins age?
Kropotkin's book was originally written as a series of articles rebuffing TH Huxley's 'Struggle for Existence' and 'Evolution and Ethics' which in their turn were veiled attacks on attempts to reform land ownership (Henry George's Progress and Poverty being the main target, which I believe is undergoing something of a rediscovery at the moment). Which is to point out that in the nineteenth century the various screeds about evolution and human nature flying about had very real political intentions and effects.
Now we've got people like Stephen Pinker using evolutionary psychology to naturalise patriarchy and capitalism and so on, and more sinister, less reputable types trying to use it to resurrect racist anthropology. Isn't it about time we had some left responses to this stuff that don't just take a culturalist position and actually deal in the biological and experimental nitty gritty in the way that Kropotkin did back then?
Mar 20 2005 21:17
#12
I quite like Progress and Poverty (apart from the section on interest which makes me wish George and Marx had read each other).
Mar 21 2005 07:38
#13
Quote:
I quite like Progress and Poverty (apart from the section on interest which makes me wish George and Marx had read each other).
Never managed to finish it. I read it as part of of my PhD (in an almost entirely unconnected subject) and was more interested in the Darwinism than the economics, so I just sort of skimmed it and ran on to the next book. Ken Macleod mentioned it on his blog a while ago which made me want to go back and have a look, but I haven't got round to it yet.
Mar 23 2005 09:44
#14
odessa steps wrote:
It might seem a long way away but its quite an important issue because the free society of tomorrow is being shaped by what we do today. The question is whether we would all have equal rights in property (to take, possess, use, transform etc) or whether some people would have greater rights. Collectivists argue that the right to own or possess the means of life are a vital defence of liberty. If you have the means of life and no-one can take them away from you because you own them, then you are immune to political or social pressures at their extreme. Anarchist communists believe that property is by its very nature divisive and non-egalitarian and a restriction of freedom (if you "possess" something, I am not free to "use" it). Additionally, whatever exists is not made by us today alone but by the effort of millions of people past and present so it should be the common wealth of all of us not the sole possession of - say - a farm collective or village commune..
These are also questions shaped by population size and density. That any revolution would currently take place (here at least) in a society of 60+ millions puts certain practical limits on the right to completely independent existencies - and may require certain patterns of collective ownership and control. For example, it may imply the need for certain public services and utilities - as well as some aspects of mass production (with, yes of course, workers/peoples control, federation etc.)
Mar 23 2005 18:45
#15
"......may require certain patterns of collective ownership and control...."
I think that there will certainly be diversity in our patterns of existence and this will change throughout our lives. Some people will live, work and socialise in entierly communal and collectively-managed environments, some as couples, co-ops or smaller collectives, some people as individuals largely providing for themselves. However I think that all of what exists in society should be socially owned, that is that whatever exists is the common property of all of us, whoever is using it and in what way. Whic is, of course, where we started in debating differences between collective ownership and social ownership or anarchist communism.
The key to the revolution will be preceisely the extent to which we are prepared to relinquish personal control over things (which includes that control we get from ownership, which we in turn get from having money) and are prepared to share these things on the basis of collective decision-making.
If we do all insist on having mobile phones, cars, holidays, cameras etc, whenever we want them, one for each of us, permanently in our possession for our exclusive use, then there will be no revolution and we will never be free. Freedom from things, freedom to be.
Mar 24 2005 00:48
#16
Quote:
Something of an aside, but does anyone else feel that we need a new Mutual Aid for the post-Dawkins age?Kropotkin's book was originally written as a series of articles rebuffing TH Huxley's 'Struggle for Existence' and 'Evolution and Ethics' which in their turn were veiled attacks on attempts to reform land ownership (Henry George's Progress and Poverty being the main target, which I believe is undergoing something of a rediscovery at the moment). Which is to point out that in the nineteenth century the various screeds about evolution and human nature flying about had very real political intentions and effects.
Bookchin's writing on ecology attempt to do some of this (and there's lots of them, back to the late '50s)
Mar 24 2005 11:21
#17
Quote:
Bookchin's writing on ecology attempt to do some of this (and there's lots of them, back to the late '50s)I've not read nearly enough Bookchin, mostly just his articles from the sixties - any specific examples to chase? I've a feeling that if things predate selfish gene theory then they're likely to need significantly revising to be used to refute the more conservative claims of evolutionary psychology. But it's definitely worth a look.
Mar 24 2005 11:50
#18
I haven't read it myself yet (although I think John. might be), but the Ecology of Freedom is supposed to be very good.
Mar 24 2005 12:14
#19
ticking_fool wrote:
Something of an aside, but does anyone else feel that we need a new Mutual Aid for the post-Dawkins age?
I think The Origins of Virtue by Matt Ridley goes some way towards that, without being as blatantly biased as Mutual Aid. And from pretty much an evolutionary psychology approach.
Mar 24 2005 20:10
#20
Quote:
I think The Origins of Virtue by Matt Ridley goes some way towards that, without being as blatantly biased as Mutual Aid. And from pretty much an evolutionary psychology approach.
Quote:
the Ecology of Freedom is supposed to be very good.
Chasing both as we speak, thank you.
I think the bias of Mutual Aid is overstated a little though. Yeah, it's obviously got an agenda, but that's just a matter of honesty more than anything else. Pretty much all the evolutionary writing at the end of the nineteenth century (and a lot of it now) had some political axe or another to grind, and they weren't always up front about it. I'd rather blatant bias than a weasely false objectivity.
Mar 25 2005 00:52
#21
ticking_fool wrote:
I think the bias of Mutual Aid is overstated a little though. Yeah, it's obviously got an agenda, but that's just a matter of honesty more than anything else. Pretty much all the evolutionary writing at the end of the nineteenth century (and a lot of it now) had some political axe or another to grind, and they weren't always up front about it. I'd rather blatant bias than a weasely false objectivity.
This is true, but you have to admit Kropotkin stretched some of his examples quite a bit to fit the point he was trying to make. Which is the exact opposite of what any decent scientist should be doing (even if it's precisely what a lot of scientists are doing and always have done).
Mar 25 2005 10:40
#22
Quote:
This is true, but you have to admit Kropotkin stretched some of his examples quite a bit to fit the point he was trying to make. Which is the exact opposite of what any decent scientist should be doing (even if it's precisely what a lot of scientists are doing and always have done).
Oh definitely, but I'm willing to forgive that if it's done openly, especially in the late nineteenth century when 'scientists' are only just starting to come into existence as we recognise them. Compared to Herbert Spencer, Kropotkin's the very model of objectivity, and he's no worse for twisting things to fit than Huxley, who's still respected now.
When the evidence is potentially contradictory, partial and always provisional, as it usually is when biology and psychology hit each other, then I think the best defence against bias, both conscious and unconscious, is to be really open and honest about exactly what you're doing and where you're coming from. I'd be surprised if Kropotkin was aware of manipulating the evidence, but it's fairly obvious that that's what he was doing, and it's obvious because he was very open that he had a political agenda that he thought this study served. With some of the more polemical evolutionary psychologists it's really not obvious and you need to dig around to spot their silences and exaggerations, because they hide them, rather than flaunting their difficulties and biases as they should.
Apr 14 2005 14:43
#23
I always thought of collectivism as the transitional phase between capitalism and anarchist communism. I don't think there are many fundamental differences between the two ideas though.
Collectivism is defined as a form of market anarchism where people are paid for the amount of work they do and run their workplaces collectively, which are then federated on a regional, national and international level. Collectivism could be described as the anti-authoritarian transitional socialist phase Marx talked about.
Communism is a gift economy, where money doesn't exist and work is organised so that you give to your community what is necessary and in return receive what you need. Although in the practical organisation of economics, you would still need to be federated in the same collective way.
May 3 2005 17:22
#24
In what way does anarchism base it decision making process on direct democracy? how different is anarchism from direct democracy
May 4 2005 19:53
#25
Anarchism and direct democracy: Anarchism will use many forms of decision-making that will look like direct democracy, especially if we can achieve a society or largely self-managing and self-sustaining communes/communities: most decisions will be made and carried out through direct participation at the local level.
But there will be some functions (for instance co-ordinating long-distance distribution or complex production processes) that can only be done on a large-scale which require people to 'go' to places where decisions are made at some remove (although if we have internet a lot can be decided directly and on-line). In these situations, either there will be (recallable) delegates deciding things but in forums open to anyone to attend or scrutinise or people will volunteer from the local communities to participate in co-ordinating groups. It's important to bear in mind that in such a situation, these groups would not be 'higher', possessing more authority or power than 'local' or grassroots groups/communes.
I think that anarchism will consciously organise so that decisions can be made at the lowest/most direct level, open all decision-making to anyone who wants to participate and require all decisions to be open to scrutiny and challenge but will also reject the concept that decisions have any authority that we all must 'obey'. We will retain our right to self-expression and self-determination. To give a simple example of this, a marine community may decide that priority should be given to producing fishing boats but this would not stop a minority group going to the local boat-building co-op and asking them to think about producing a marine survey vessel, training yachts or pleasure craft. The co-op would participate in the first decision and bear it in mind but be free to decide its own production plan.
So, to summarise, the vast majority of decisions via local and direct democracy balanced against individual and group autonomy and rights to self-expression and determination, with some 'distant' decision-making which is essentially 'advisory' ("The co-ordinating syndicate suggests you plan to build 10 fishing boats this year") rather than issuing 'orders' based on 'plans'. So long as each group has the information it needs to make its own, 'rational' decisions, there would be no need for authority or hierarchies of decision-making.
TBH I have no idea.
I think when Kropotkin wrote of communes he meant, like the Paris one, large scale conurbations, whereas a collective is a small-scale productive unit maybe? I dunno people use those terms for loads of different things now