The Commune in Anarchist Communist Theory and Practice: From Paris 1871 to Today

[charlie mowbray]

Online public meeting convened by Anarchist Communist Group

7pm, April 15th
“Paris is a true paradise! No police, no nonsense, no exaction of any kind, no arguments! Everything in Paris rolls along like clockwork. If only it could stay like this forever. In short, it is a beautiful dream. All social groups are organised federally and are masters of their own fate”.
Gustav Courbet- artist and revolutionary, April the 30th, 1871.

Anarchist communists see in the commune a sketch of how society could be organised. The commune model provides an organisational basis for creating self-directing, integrated units which when federated with similar bodies could have a national and even international character. The Paris and Kronstadt Communes were both brought about under extremely difficult circumstances and lasted only for a matter of weeks. Despite their preoccupation of survival, they demonstrated the practicability of the commune as an organisational form which generated the maximum level of freedom, solidarity and equality. The commune as a geographical entity can accommodate both community and workplace anarchy.

This meeting will start with the Paris Commune, commemorating its 150th anniversary. The grass roots clubs and associations that sprung up in the neighbourhoods show the perennial capacity of the working class to create its own organisations.

Then we will consider how the idea of the commune could inspire our activities today as we struggle to create resilient working class communities in localities which have been torn apart by divisions created by capitalism and racism: between work and home, waged and unwaged, old and young.

The ‘Commune’ in Anarchist Communist Theory and Practice

Discussion of the importance of the idea of the Commune- commemorating the Paris Commune and showing how it is still relevant today

www.eventbrite.co.uk

 

[Shechemite]

What about the Russian agrarian commune?

 

[charlie mowbray]

This Thursday at 7pm

 

[charlie mowbray]

Tonight!

 

[ska invita]

Then we will consider how the idea of the commune could inspire our activities today

 

[Wilf]

Bugger, missed this (just saw it had been on on the ACG website). These are really good sessions - are you posting the talks up charlie mowbray ?

 

[danny la rouge]

Bugger, missed this (just saw it had been on on the ACG website). These are really good sessions - are you posting the talks up charlie mowbray ?

It was a good one. Well attended. It’ll be up on the website and podcast platforms when the elves get round to it.

 

[LDC]

Yeah, was very good, thanks to the speakers and all who contributed.

 

[ska invita]

Anyone fancy talking about this? I have questions

Scale: there is a small size of group where a commune can work, and other sizes where it quickly gets too cumbersome. How does that map effectively on a city of millions?

As the years go by communes would too end up creating bureaucratic positions, recallable delegates not withstanding. Bureaucracy cannot be avoided, but needs as much anarchist accountability poured on it as possible.
The idealised notion of a commune seems to want to avoid that - I think it okay for people to take on specific tasks and specialise in them - bureaucracy should be embraced!

One part of anarchist theory I have never resolved in my mind is the criticism of the state. I understand the criticism, but not the purist solution: I can't see how some form of state can be avoided in a mass modern population. That state may have horizontalism/co-operative/direct democracy/radical-federalism embedded deeply through it - great - but it would still be quite state-like. (Though the definition of a state used is often monopoly of violence/tax collection, which is another issue).

That all relates to communes as a specific smaller unit of a larger geographical-political area, where larger networks need to operate - such as natural monopoly power utilities, road networks etc

The existing network of local government wards>councils>boroughs>counties>regions>country seems to me a universal logical conclusion with the passage of time and deeper organisation. The political character of it is not a given, and can be changed. The commune dream seems to me to be to go back and start the process again during a revolutionary rupture/power vacuum, which I can imagine in a speculative-fiction kind of way, but there's a degree of reinventing the wheel there I think - in the most successful outcome it would eventually lead to rebuilding a similiar network but with anarchist principles. That might come to pass but suggests a total breakdown in society. Well who knows what might happen in a power vacuum like that. Likely end up much like the Paris commune. Call me a reformist but I think a more practical version would be to deepen direct-democracy into the already existing system.

Anyway, these bigger utopian vision questions perhaps aren't that important: in the here and now local power and community building are obviously crucial and the gap between now and the ideal is a long one, and how that might shape up is a question for another time - to be worked out down the line.

 

[redsquirrel]

Yeah, was very good, thanks to the speakers and all who contributed.

Plenty of loiners there - always a good thing

 

[LDC]

Anyone fancy talking about this? I have questions

Scale: there is a small size of group where a commune can work, and other sizes where it quickly gets too cumbersome. How does that map effectively on a city of millions?

As the years go by communes would too end up creating bureaucratic positions, recallable delegates not withstanding. Bureaucracy cannot be avoided, but needs as much anarchist accountability poured on it as possible.
The idealised notion of a commune seems to want to avoid that - I think it okay for people to take on specific tasks and specialise in them - bureaucracy should be embraced!

One part of anarchist theory I have never resolved in my mind is the criticism of the state. I understand the criticism, but not the purist solution: I can't see how some form of state can be avoided in a mass modern population. That state may have horizontalism/co-operative/direct democracy/radical-federalism embedded deeply through it - great - but it would still be quite state-like. (Though the definition of a state used is often monopoly of violence/tax collection, which is another issue).

That all relates to communes as a specific smaller unit of a larger geographical-political area, where larger networks need to operate - such as natural monopoly power utilities, road networks etc

The existing network of local government wards>councils>boroughs>counties>regions>country seems to me a universal logical conclusion with the passage of time and deeper organisation. The political character of it is not a given, and can be changed. The commune dream seems to me to be to go back and start the process again during a revolutionary rupture/power vacuum, which I can imagine in a speculative-fiction kind of way, but there's a degree of reinventing the wheel there I think - in the most successful outcome it would eventually lead to rebuilding a similiar network but with anarchist principles. That might come to pass but suggests a total breakdown in society. Well who knows what might happen in a power vacuum like that. Likely end up much like the Paris commune. Call me a reformist but I think a more practical version would be to deepen direct-democracy into the already existing system.

Anyway, these bigger utopian vision questions perhaps aren't that important: in the here and now local power and community building are obviously crucial and the gap between now and the ideal is a long one, and how that might shape up is a question for another time - to be worked out down the line.

I might have had a few too many lagers this afternoon to say anything today, but they're all good questions! I had some stuff to say about the talk as well, I'll try and add some thoughts tomorrow, or maybe later today if I sober up and don't have a hangover.

Were you at the talk ska invita ?

 

[danny la rouge]

Scale: there is a small size of group where a commune can work, and other sizes where it quickly gets too cumbersome. How does that map effectively on a city of millions?

The scale thing is fairly straightforward. The vast majority of stuff done now is done to keep capitalism functioning. Production, distribution, consumption, even the various levels of the state. We don’t need to do all that. In fact, we need to stop urgently. Capitalism needs continual growth. The planet needs us to stop doing that.

What will be left is the stuff we actually need and want to be done. A much more manageable task.
As for the here and now, that runs into the problem of reform and co-option.

 

[ska invita]

Were you at the talk ska invita ?

yes

The scale thing is fairly straightforward. The vast majority of stuff done now is done to keep capitalism functioning. Production, distribution, consumption, even the various levels of the state. We don’t need to do all that. In fact, we need to stop urgently. Capitalism needs continual growth. The planet needs us to stop doing that.

What will be left is the stuff we actually need and want to be done. A much more manageable task.
As for the here and now, that runs into the problem of reform and co-option.

im on board in spirit danny, yes degrowth, but the idea my local commune area would be able to meet all our needs reads like anarcho-primitivism to me. bonnie was talking about growing our own veg as once the revolution (read system-collapse) comes there'll be no supermarkets. this is a hard sell on me, and im a receptive audience. i think theres a middle ground between modern consumer society and self-sufficiency. And much as I agree with the critique of the state, and understand the naivity of thinking of it can be reformed, i still think the rip it up and start it again idea is a bit defeatist and there are enough elements of the system that would be best reclaimed and repurposed rather than abandoned

on a parallel ive been thinking about the need for credible visions. One one level I don't personally need it too much, a bit like walking up a long hill, best to get your head down, look at your shoes and keep putting one foot infront of the other,
But credible semi-utopian visions can be massively inspiring to people, and theres a lack of it on the left.
Peter Frase's short book Four Futures was really good on this I think. The Future boils down to one of these four, depending on what coming struggles are won or lost:

Id like abundance and equality please. The commune vision feels like precarious scarcity.

This is from Colin Wards Anarchy in Action - 1970s vision:

"The editor of The Ecologist summed up the argument thus: 'affluence for everybody is an impossible dream: the world simply does not contain sufficient resources, nor could it absorb the heat and other waste generated by the immense amount of energy required. Indeed, the most important thing to realise, when we plan our future, is that affluence is both a local and a temporary phenomenon. Unfortunately it is the principal, if not the only, goal our industrial society gives us.'

+

"Years ago George Orwell remarked: " If one considers the probabilities one is driven to the conclusion that anarchism implies a low standard of living. It need not imply a hungry or uncomfortable world, but it rules out the kind of air-conditioned, chromium-plated, gadget-ridden existence which is now considered desirable and enlightened. The processes involved in making, say, an aeroplane are so complex as to be only possible in a planned, centralised society , with all the repressive apparatus that that implies. Unless there is some unpredictable change in human nature, liberty and efficiency must pull in opposite directions. "

This, from Orwell's point of view (he was not a lover of luxury) is not in itself a criticism of anarchism, and he is certainly right in thinking that an anarchist society would never build Concorde or land men on the moon. But were either of these technological triumphs efficient in terms of the resources poured into them and the results for the ordinary inhabitant of this planet? Size and resources are to the technologist what power is to the politician: he can never have too much of them. A different kind of society, with different priorities, would evolve a different technology: its bases already exist and in terms of the tasks to be performed it would be far more ' efficient' than either Western capitalism or Soviet state-capitalism. Not only technology but also economics would have to be redefined."

-------
Reading that today (as opposed to in a squat in the 1970s) feels defeatist to me as a vision. I just dont think there's going back from the world of modern technology and interconnectedness and mass populations and mass needs that go with it. Degrow it yes, scale back the excesses definitely. In some places selfsufficient small communities aided with new tehcnology, i can see it. But we have millions living in cities, and huge infrastructure that goes with that.

 

[redsquirrel]

yes

im on board in spirit danny, yes degrowth, but the idea my local commune area would be able to meet all our needs reads like anarcho-primitivism to me.

But I do not think anyone was arguing for that. In fact surely one of the criticisms of the Paris Commune was that it was defeated precisely because it was not able to expand the revolution outwards. Degrowth and sustainability are not the same as (complete) self-sufficiency - at least not to me.

And much as I agree with the critique of the state, and understand the naivity of thinking of it can be reformed, i still think the rip it up and start it again idea is a bit defeatist and there are enough elements of the system that would be best reclaimed and repurposed rather than abandoned

As in post 9 I'm not sure what you are calling the state. However, again I (and I think plenty of others) would agree that elements of society would be 'reclaimed and repurposed rather than abandoned' - as happened in the PC. We might want very different communication and transport networks but we are going to want them in some form. We are going to want different schools, libraries, colleges, universities, galleries but we are still going to want these types of things.

Id like abundance and equality please. The commune vision feels like precarious scarcity.

I really did not get the at all from the discussion at all. I also want abundance and equality, but we need to define abundance. Everyone having an abundance very likely means that some will have to less than they currently do. But that is a far cry from advocating scarcity.
Very few people have their own plane, abundance does not me everyone suddenly getting their own personal plane. Abundance is everyone having some ability to travel/communicate long distances. Likewise does everyone need their own personal car? Collectivising car use and incorporating them into a public transport system that serves workers needs rather than capital we can have abundance, equality and sustainability.

"The editor of The Ecologist summed up the argument thus: 'affluence for everybody is an impossible dream: the world simply does not contain sufficient resources, nor could it absorb the heat and other waste generated by the immense amount of energy required. Indeed, the most important thing to realise, when we plan our future, is that affluence is both a local and a temporary phenomenon. Unfortunately it is the principal, if not the only, goal our industrial society gives us.'
...
This, from Orwell's point of view (he was not a lover of luxury) is not in itself a criticism of anarchism, and he is certainly right in thinking that an anarchist society would never build Concorde or land men on the moon. But were either of these technological triumphs efficient in terms of the resources poured into them and the results for the ordinary inhabitant of this planet? Size and resources are to the technologist what power is to the politician: he can never have too much of them. A different kind of society, with different priorities, would evolve a different technology: its bases already exist and in terms of the tasks to be performed it would be far more ' efficient' than either Western capitalism or Soviet state-capitalism. Not only technology but also economics would have to be redefined."
-------
Reading that today (as opposed to in a squat in the 1970s) feels defeatist to me as a vision. I just dont think there's going back from the world of modern technology and interconnectedness and mass populations and mass needs that go with it. Degrow it yes, scale back the excesses definitely. In some places selfsufficient small communities aided with new tehcnology, i can see it. But we have millions living in cities, and huge infrastructure that goes with that.

I do not think you are arguing against anything that was said at the meeting in that last paragraph.
There is a difference between affluence and abundance. The ecological damage of 8 billion plus people all living like the top 1% currently do would be catastrophic. But that does not mean that we cannot produce many of the things we need and want in abundance. Without capital controlling intellectual property we have a greater abundance of access to art than we do at present. A proper public transport system would increase our ability to travel. Education and care services would be more accessible. Millions of people will probably still live in cities, but those cities will probably be very different (in the long run) to what we have now.

(On a personal note while I reject the Malthusian politics of some environmentalists I do hope, and have confidence, that greater equality and abundance to goods and services for all will result in a levelling off, or even decline in the total population)

 

[danny la rouge]

bonnie was talking about growing our own veg as once the revolution (read system-collapse) comes there'll be no supermarkets.

I must have been at a different meeting.

We have the technology and resources to live in post-scarcity. What we don’t have the resources for is to continue with the waste, the inefficiency, the production of just crap for the sake of economic growth, that capitalism requires for its economic model.

The way capitalism does distribution will be replaced, but distribution will still occur. People will still grow coffee in regions that coffee can grow, and people in regions that it can’t grow will want it. But instead of a system based on wage slavery and consumption-driven growth, we’ll have a system based on free association, federation and solidarity.

I walked along Great Western Road yesterday looking at the closed shops. (We haven’t emerged from lockdown as much as England has). So many of them were filled with crap. Just stuff for the sake of stuff. I know that the way we organise the economy we need people who want to buy that stuff and the people who make and sell that stuff need their incomes. But it’s so much wasted energy. The time, the transport, the resources to make several brands of fidget spinners, and several brands of mobile phone cover, and several choices of novelty neon lights for your living room that don’t actually do anything but spell out “home”, or “Paris”, or something else, choices, choices choices of stuff to spend your money on just so that money will be spent.

Imagine the extra time, energy and resources we’d have if we didn’t do all that. If we produced record players that actually worked well and distributed those. If we produced food with nourishing people in mind instead of with “adding value” in mind.

It does require a complete rethink of priorities, but that doesn’t mean abandoning the skills, science, technological advancements we’ve made. It means reapplying them for human wellbeing instead of to feed the ravenous furnace of capitalism’s need for growth for the sake of growth.

 

[CNT36]

I walked along Great Western Road yesterday looking at the closed shops. (We haven’t emerged from lockdown as much as England has). So many of them were filled with crap. Just stuff for the sake of stuff. I know that the way we organise the economy we need people who want to buy that stuff and the people who make and sell that stuff need their incomes. But it’s so much wasted energy. The time, the transport, the resources to make several brands of fidget spinners, and several brands of mobile phone cover, and several choices of novelty neon lights for your living room that don’t actually do anything but spell out “home”, or “Paris”, or something else, choices, choices choices of stuff to spend your money on just so that money will be spent.

Its a difficult one in so far as what stuff is just for the same of it? When I think of the absolutely useless shit produced by capitalism I often think of this Monbiot articles that did the rounds on Facebook. It places everything on the consumers, doesn't offer an alternative beyond baking a cake and is George by numbers but its description of the waste is pretty shocking. When is an object more than just landfill in waiting.. Do you really need that wonderful T-shirt? Does Lynn really need Kettlebells? Do I really need a rowing machine? There are other ways to keep fit or look awesome without purchasing them but fuck would life be miserable. I doubt anyone is going to feel they're missing out because they don't have a singing crazy frog fridge magnet. I get pissed off every Christmas/birthday and useless shit or stuff I have no interest in. It's not ingratitude but just annoyance at the waste. I don't think it is healthy. It all just seems unnecessary.

If the point of a commune is to give people more control including over production it may be that people will sort this out pretty quickly. However that control is exercised who is going to waste time, effort and resources on this shit? An atomised decision in a shop is one thing but a decision made with others to produce tonnes of crap without a profit motive? Seems unlikely. I can still see hobbyist stuff produced by individuals committed to it. It happens now. My Dad is an electrical engineer and he has always seemed to spend almost as much time working on things for mates or people with shared interests as for money. He's into wireless radio and helps maintain a local repeater for free. If people have an interest they will make it happen, they'll help other people with their interests and share skills with others where needed.

 

[Logan^B]

Sorry to go off topic but what is the anarchist direct action??

Anyone read The hidden target by Helen MacInnes

 

[Serge Forward]

The sort of direct action anarchists mean is the kind of DIY action that is not conducted through an intermediary (such as your MP). So, going on strike or work to rule is direct action, so is this and this and this and this. The opposite of direct action would be, for example, voting for your MP or relying on "the authorities" to do things for us. The ultimate form of direct action would be the workers forming mass independent organisations, siezing control of the means of production, dismantling capitalism and the state and setting up a society based on freedom, equality, solidarity and the principle "from each according to ability to each according to need".

That book you mentioned looks exciting, but probably nowt to do with "anarchist direct action".