By Usufruct Collective, first digitally published 07/28/26, public draft #1 (this will be iteratively updated)

Philosophy of Freedom, From the Science of Logic to Dialectical Naturalism

Introduction:

This essay will reason through a dialectical naturalist philosophy/worldview that develops from the general movements and determinacies of the Science of Logic, to natural philosophy, to social philosophy, to ethics, and politics. This essay will argue that dialectical naturalism– a philosophy initially developed by Murray Bookchin with significant influence from Hegel, Marx, and Kropotkin– is a worldview that is in harmony with the true and the good that can help us reason through plural wholes, parts, relations, social conditions, and possibilities towards practically changing the world through good processes towards good ends (creatively adapting universals to plural, particular, and unique contexts accordingly). Dialectical naturalism, as a whole is a system, is constituted by specific kinds of developmental/differentiating/unifying reasoning, ontology, and ethics. The spreading and development of dialectical naturalism can inform the ways we think and act and in turn be informed by further reasoning and practices to become more coherent.

This philosophical worldview of dialectical naturalism will be developed through the following order of operations. First, it will begin with a condensed rearticulation of the general movements and determinacies of the Science of Logic (with some slight addendums in regards to ecology and the good). However, It is important to note that, “No general account of dialectical reason can be a substitute for reading Hegel’s works on logic,” as “Hegel’s Science of Logic is dialectical reason in its most elaborate and dynamic form,” (Bookchin 2017). This foundation will be followed by a section moving from the Science of Logic to nature and natural philosophy. This prior section will be a bridge to a section on natural and ecological development more broadly. After the above, there will be a section on spirit and nature. Then there will be a section on social philosophy (in the sense of second nature as will be defined later on). The final section will be on the ethical life, the good life, the good place, and the development of the above including related political and economic dimensions/extensions thereof. This final section will move from social nature+potentiality+needs to the good life and the good place, social+ecological freedom and flourishing, as well as related means and ends. The final section will be followed by concluding remarks on the whole of the worldview developed (that can potentially help contextualize the next readthrough from the beginning to the end).

While this essay will in large part be working with the interplay between the philosophical worldviews of Bookchin and Hegel, this essay will also include unique lines of argumentation and will be informed by multiple sources, thinkers, as well as historical and contemporary social organizations+social constellations– enriched and glued together by a unique synthesis. And while this development of Dialectical Naturalism keeps all the necessary and sufficient features thereof, there will be aspects of this development of dialectical naturalism that differ from Bookchin.¹

The complexity of the philosophy espoused in this text, while likely to be out of the comfort zone of many, is indeed graspable to those less familiar with philosophy and political philosophy. However, this text will be a struggle in certain respects for both those familiar with the subject matter and those new to the subject matter.²

The Science of Logic:

“The Logic…seeks to provide an immanent, presuppositionless derivation of the basic categories of thought and being. This derivation of the categories is ‘presuppositionless’ because it takes for granted no specific rules of thought and, indeed, is preceded by the act of setting aside all our familiar determinate assumptions about thought and being,” (Houlgate 2006).

Doctrine of Being (Hegel 1999, Hegel 2010):

Being without any determinateness is indeterminate being that “has no diversity within itself nor any with a reference outwards. It would not be held fast in its purity if it contained any determination or content which could be distinguished in it or by which it could be distinguished from an other,” (Hegel 2005). However, being without any determinations, by not having any determinations, passes into nothing. And nothing has an “absence of all determination and content – undifferentiatedness in itself,” (Hegel 2005). Nothing, by having the same content as indeterminate being passes into indeterminate being. Being has passed into nothing, and nothing has passed into being. And this coming to be and ceasing to be of being into nothing and nothing into being passes into becoming. Being and nothing are shown to be “absolutely distinct yet equally unseparated and inseparable” and are united in becoming (Hegel 2010). Being and nothing are sublated into becoming, and through this sublation: being is becoming and nothing becomes a processual negativity– through which being is processual and coming to be and ceasing to be. Negativity becomes part of the process of being in its movement of becoming.

*Sublation is the negating and preserving that raises what is preserved to a ‘higher level’ in some respect. Sublation happens throughout the elaboration of the Science of Logic and the movement from indeterminate being to the absolute and the absolute idea via successive movements and moments in the doctrine of being, doctrine of essence, and the doctrine of idea.

Determinate being is being with quality. As revealed through the being-nothing-becoming dialectic, determinate being is qualified by becoming (and differentiates through becoming). From being as becoming, there is being with at least some determinate quality through its negation and becoming. Determinate being exists in relation to what it is not. Determinate being is what it is through its own becoming, determinateness, and not being what it is not, as well as through its relation to what it is not. And the negation of determinate being is itself negated through its becoming.

Determinate being, through determinacy, through becoming and negation, negation of negation, and its return to itself becomes self-related. This is a relation of quality to quality through its becoming and differentiation. In the self-relatedness of determinate being to itself, determinate being is something. Something is what it is through its relation to itself, relation to the becoming that constitutes it, the becoming that it gives rise to, and the other that it is in relation to. Something is being in relation to other (‘being for other’) and is something through not being what it is not. Something, through its negation, becomes other– and this other is a something that itself, through its negation becomes other. Here there is something and other; but the limit of each is the limit of the other– and each is only what each is through becoming+determinateness as well as their self-relations and relations to other. Something is the other of its other; something and other each mediate each other. Something can only be something through its self-relation to itself, its relationship to other, and it being other than its other (something is by extension being within itself and being for other). This process of becoming other is becoming other than itself and other than other and is a process of change (Houlgate 2019a). Change generates what something is through self-relatedness in and through its movements, negations, determinateness, and relations.

Something is what it is through its determinateness/qualities, its relation to other/that which it is not, something and another’s negativity/becoming, and its self-relatedness– and the preserving of its self-relatedness in relation to all of the above. “Something is in-itself in so far as it has returned from the being-for-other back to itself,” (Hegel 2010). Something undergoes determination in relation to other; and in this determination in relation to other, something changes and is reconstituted– which becomes part of the constitution of something which becomes part of its further determinations (Houlgate 2019b). This happens to something and other in relation to each other– but each something and other are limited; the limit being what such a something is that preserves itself and makes it distinct from other in relation to other. The limit of something that makes something what it is: is the limit of something and other.

The relationship of something to its limit is finitude. That which is limited and finite has an ending. If there is only finitude, then there is absolutized finitude to infinity. In something ceasing to be itself ceasing to be, it becomes another finite something– which then ceases to be and becomes another finite something. But this series of finite somethings is its own limit– its own finitude. What is other and beyond each finite something becomes another finite something endlessly. The finite, and what is beyond it, each relate to each other and each relate to themselves in their other; the affirmative of each contains the negative of each and each relates to itself through the other by moving beyond themselves (Houlgate 2019c). This movement of ceasing to be, becoming other, and then continuing in one self-related process through self-related negativity is the ‘true infinite’ (in which there are finite moments in this self-related-process). In such true infinity, being relates to itself in its negation through the other– an infinity within a finite something through its self-relation that itself has finite moments. “Since there is negation in this being, the latter is existence; but, further, since the negation is essentially negation of the negation, self-referring negation, it is the existence that carries the name of being-for-itself,” (Hegel 2010). But as a self-relating process: being-for-self has finite moments which are “being-for-one” (in the sense of being-for-one moment thereof). And in this movement of the moments of being-for-self through its difference and negation, we get the one.

But one retains its self-relation while excluding and in that exclusion it both qualifies as well as relates to another one– an immanent process which continues onwards to give us the one and the many (Houlgate 2019d). “The One passes into a plurality of ones–repulsion–and this otherness of the ones is sublated in their ideality– attraction,” (Hegel 1999). The movement of repulsion (creating many ones) and attraction (the unity and relation thereof) of the one and the many give us a field that is both continuous with due discreteness. Continuity of units that are: separate from each other, with discreetness, in tandem with continuity, and external to what they determine is quantity (Houlgate 2019d). Any determinate quality of something always has related quantitative dimensions, just as any determinate quantity of something has qualitative dimensions. At specific thresholds, change in quantity becomes a change in quality. The measure of something is the constitutive unity/ratio of quality+quantity of something. The measure of something is qualitatively determined quantity– and of qualities and quantities accordingly.

Something is determined as a unity of quality, quantity, and relations thereof– including relations to self and relations to others. The doctrine of being shows that there is a mediated unity through which something is what it is as distinct from something other; but something, others, and measures of something and others keep changing with new qualitative/quantitative relations giving rise to new determinacies (and new qualitative/quantitative relations and new measures). Measure, in tracing changing qualities, quantities, somethings, others, and relations reveals the lack of stability of measure and the measure relations of quality and quantity; and therefore passes over into essence– the overall movement of being and determinacy that comprises all being and determinacy as moments thereof and determines all determinacy accordingly.

Doctrine of Essence (Hegel 1999, Hegel 2010):

Essence “posits itself in the following determinations: I. As simple essence existing in itself, remaining in itself in its determinations; II. As emerging into existence, or according to its concrete existence and appearance; III. As essence which is one with its appearance, as actuality,” (Hegel 2010).

Essence determines other determinacies and the determinacies of essence are of determined determinacy (Winfield 2012). Essence is only what it is through its negation/becoming, determinateness, relations, differentiation, mediation, and reflection. Essence has unity and identity through its self-related negativity and differentiations. Essence is what it is through a movement of reflection: in which relations of something and others (and the relation of essence to something and others) are moments of its own relation to itself through its differentiation. The movement of negativity is what essence is– rather than essence being some static, non-reflective, immediate substrate.

Differentiation of something constitutes its identity– identity is what it is through its differentiation. Differentiation posits a plurality of determinacies and movements thereof. Such plurality of differentiated determinacies have relations and oppositions to each other– each are what they are through their relations to each other (and what each are not). Through processuality, determinacy, and relationality (including self-related negativity and through relations to others) contradictions emerge. And only through negativity can something be posited (determined as a determined determinacy). Contradictions are both generated by and constituting determinations. Through contradictions, determinations pass over into grounds for further determinations, differentiations, relations thereof, oppositions, contradictions, and further grounds for further determinations.

“Something is… only in so far as it contains contradiction within it, and moreover is this power to hold and endure the contradiction within it,” (Hegel 2005). While there are such things as incompatible contradictions: contradictions are not inherently incompatible with each other. In fact, contradictions determine the determinacy of every determination and every something. Through negativity and relationality, each determination develops its own contradiction– and this contradiction is generative of its movement. “Every determination, every concrete thing, every Notion, is essentially a unity of distinguished and distinguishable moments, which by virtue of the determinate, essential difference, pass over into contradictory moments,” (Hegel 2005). Every determination of something is in some sense also the determination of that which something is related to and by extension any determination of something is also the determination of others; something is mediated and mediating that which it is in relation to– both grounding others and grounded by others.

Determinacy reflected into essence is grounded by essence. If essence is ground and grounded as a purely internal relation, then this self grounding is insufficient to ground determinacies and insufficient to ground essence as determining determinacies. The determined determinacies grounded by essence in turn ground essence as determining determinies. Essence cannot ground itself as a purely essential+internal relation; as to be both conditioning and to be conditioned is to exist. For essence to determine determinacies that are conditioned by essence that are also conditioning essence as well as other determined determinacies of essence that themselves are conditioned and conditioning: means that essence exists+posits existence and existents. Existence is posited+grounded by essence, grounds further grounds, and grounds essence as grounding what it grounds.

Externality and determined determinacies of essence are needed for essence to be the ground of its reflections and itself and for essence to have any reflective determinacy whatsoever– and this externality is existence. The insufficiency of self-grounding of essence as a purely internal relation to essence unfolds into a plurality of distinct yet related determinacies and conditions. Existence is thus immanently posited from the movement of reflection of essence and is grounded by essence while in turn grounding essence as grounding determinacies. The unity of differentiated, distinct, and related conditions and determinations constitutes existence; a unity of differentiated and interacting processes/moments/determinacies that are conditioned and conditioning. Just as essence posits the externality of existence; externality of existence must have due internality of essence that determines its determinacies– each requires the other to exist and each grounds the other. Existence, including differentiations thereof, is a determined determinacy of essence just as essence and its reflections exist (and are themselves given such determinacy by existence which essence posits).

The self-related immediacy of existence is richly mediated with due differentiation and plurality of existents, conditions, determinacies, and relations. From the Science of Logic up until here we can derive processuality/becoming/negativity, determinacy, relationality (including to self and others), something, others/plurality, quantity, measure, reflective essence, the movement of contradictions and determinations, existence and conditions, conditioned by and conditioning webs of determinacies and relations.

Existence is qualified by all the above dimensions of the Science of Logic thus far– and as the Science of Logic develops, will be further qualified. However, there are distinctions and connections between some existent thing’s essence, some existent thing’s existence, the form of something and its contents, wholes and parts, the thing and its properties, force and expression, as well as what a thing is and how it appears, as well as the inner and outer dimensions of something. Essence appears just as appearance is of essence. That which exists has form and content mutually which mediate each other; content can only be through form just as all form has content. The processual differentiated unity of form and content have related wholes and parts that compose them– which exist in relation to each other as well as to other wholes and parts. Things, with due essence, existence, form, and content, wholes, parts, and processuality/determinacy/relationality: by extension have properties– and those properties exist through being determinacies of things. Things appear through their properties. Things and properties have forces and expressions which generate further forces and expressions and also relate to other things and properties as well as their forces and expressions. The inner only exists through the outer and the outer only exists through the inner. And all of the above are part of a unity that includes essence and existence, form and content, wholes and parts, things and properties, force and expression, inner and outer dimensions thereof. Actuality is the whole of all of the above including the unity and whole of essence and existence as well as reality and appearance thereof. Actuality also exists in various modalities: there is what is possible abstractly regardless of conditions, what is really possible given conditions, and what is necessary given all mediations, determinacies, and relations. These modalities are internal to actuality; actuality includes its own potentiality. The movement of actuality is also the movement of its real potentiality. Actuality and potentiality continuously posit each other. Existent beings, relations, and constellations thereof exist through relations to other existential beings, relations, and constellations thereof– encompassing the whole web of existential relations, determinacies, and existence. For the determinacies of the doctrine of essence to relate to each other and interact, there must be a unity of this whole web of relations and determinacies– which is substance.

The whole of substance is not a mere static substrate; it is the self-moving, differentiated, and enduring whole that is the unity and field of all relations, determinacies, and determinations including all of existence and essence. Substance as a whole has its own attributes (including other substances which are determinacies of substance as a whole). In this movement there are relational causes and effects; but a cause is only a cause through its effect just as an effect is only an effect through its cause– and “Causality is conditioned and Conditioning,” (Hegel 2010). There is reciprocal causality between cause and effect, a thing and that which it is related to, and between determinations mediated by and mediating other determinations.

In a thing determining itself, it has self-determination. The whole of substance reveals itself to be such a self-developing and self-differentiated Whole– where all becoming, determinacies, and relations develop through the self-development of the Whole. The determinations within and between the differentiations of such a whole are moments of the self-determination of such a Whole. While determinations of and between wholes, parts, and relations are sublated into self-determination of the Whole, such determinations are moments of the self-differentiation of such a whole relating to itself and determining itself as a unity-in-diversity. Each determination is a moment of self-determining whole conditioned by and conditioning other determinations.

Doctrine of the Idea (Hegel 1999, Hegel 2010):

From the doctrine of being and the doctrine of essence and all their movements, we have in some sense been dealing with the concepts thereof. Rather than assumed, being, essence, their determinations, and concepts thereof have been developed from indeterminate being onwards in the doctrine of being and doctrine of essence.

The doctrine of the idea reasons through self-determined determinacy which begins with subjectivity and by extension the concept, followed by judgement, and then the syllogism; then self-determined determinacy moves into objectivity with related mechanism, chemism, and teleology– and then moves into truth as a unification of subjectivity and objectivity (Hegel 2010, Winfield 2012). The concept of the concept is itself universal in character: Concepts determine themselves and differentiate themselves through their universality. The universal first appears as abstract. However, even such abstract universality of the concept and the universal is a particular universal. Additionally, any particular/particularity has its own related universality that determines it and composes it– and any particularity/particulars without universality/universals would lack determinate content that make them what they are. Universality and particularity are mutually needed for each to have determinate content. Universality and particularity also concretize in individuals (each individual being a unity of universality and particularity through negativity, differentiation, determinateness, and relations to self, others, conditions+possibilities, etc.). “Concrete universality contains its particularization and applies to an individuality that contains the particularization that binds it to the universal,” (Winfield 2012). Within the self-movement of the absolute and the concept, universality, particularity, and individuality are interrelated in such a way that each of the above mediates and is mediated by each other.

The self-developing Whole of processes/determinacies/relationality and reasoning through the above is a process that includes universality, particularity, and individuality as mutually qualifying and related. Judgements are subject-predicate relations where there is a universal determination relating universality, particularity, and individuality with related content. Judgements have universality, particularity, and individuality as related distinctions and dimensions thereof (not mere “empty ps and qs”). Syllogisms can sublate judgements by connecting predicate and subject of a judgement through their shared particularity; developing subject and predicate into their own judgements connected by a shared particularity. Syllogisms, distinct from mere judgements, let us relate multiple judgements. In Syllogism, “the abstract “is” of the copula has become “fulfilled” insofar as subject and predicate have each become tantamount to judgments connected to one another by the particularity they share,” (Winfield 2012). From here there are three syllogisms that follow: syllogisms of determinate being related to qualities, syllogisms of reflection and their category membership, and syllogisms of genus and species which relate to necessity and necessary connections. Universality, particularity, and individuality are mutually needed for any wholes, parts, and individuals– each in fact qualifies each other (via I-P-U, I-U-P, and P-I-U syllogisms). “Universality, particularity, and individuality have each shown themselves to be what the other two are, and in doing so, they have further proven to each be the whole. This is as expected, for if we are dealing with self-determination, every determination is a determination of the self. It is the whole that has determined itself,” (Winfield 2012).

Something and its moments are objective in that their universality, particularity, and individuality are what they are through their determinations of each other– where there are universal, particular, and individual determinations of something that are all self-determinations of itself by extension. As objects develop and persist: Even as objects are in various ways effected by and partially determined by various determinacies and relations distinct from themselves, they are also determined by themselves. Objects are determined determinacies of the self-determined determinacy of the Whole that themselves have their own self-determined determinacy.

Objects in externality move, attract, repel, impact, and interact through mechanism. However, mere mechanism on its own cannot account for rich qualifications of objects beyond determinations of placement in space+time and mass; nor can mere mechanism account for formal causes, nor final causes, nor freedom, nor right (Winfield 2012). Objectivity also includes chemism: interactions of different forms of objective entities that are relationally brought together and transformed through them being the chemical objects they are. The movement of objectivity via mechanism has related determinate means and ends (the necessary features of mechanism to continue to develop). Additionally, the movement of objectivity via chemical interaction has determinate means+ends as well (the necessary features for chemism and chemical interaction to continue to develop). In the development of both mechanism and chemism, the ends they develop become means towards further ends of themselves. The means and ends of objectivity are additionally qualified by the prior movements of logos and the whole of processes/determinacies/relationality (which structure conditions and possibilities accordingly– that help to determine actuality in tandem with natural history and all the necessities, possibilities, and contingencies thereof). Such means/ends of objectivity, which are themselves qualified by the determinacies of the Science of Logic, have tendencies towards self-organizing processes.

Processes of objectivity and tendencies towards self-organing-processes give rise to living organisms: self-organized and self-active beings that are self-producing and self-reproducing (in the sense of reproducing life processes). “The unification of means and ends in the organs sustains the unity of the organism, which itself consists of this specific complementary differentiation of the organs. The organs sustain not only one another but also the whole to which they belong. The organs do not have an existence apart from the whole but grow into being with the organism’s own development. The organism thus has a very concrete unity. The living whole determines the individual being of its components in a very exhaustive way and continually sustains them and ultimately itself,” (Winfield 2012). Life forms also exist through negativity, determinateness, self-relatedness, relations to others, relations to conditions+possibilities, with due unity through differentiation and due self-maintenance to sustain and exist. In relations of life to life to non-life, we can derive ecological relationality.³ And it is the case that, a “living organism will interact with other objects,” and “its interaction will involve mechanical and/or chemical processes,” but it is also the case that “metabolism is not just a mechanical pulverization and chewing, nor just a chemical neutralization and reduction of nutrients,” (Winfield 2012). Every living being has a genus (general features that makes it a specific kind of organism and not another kind of organism) which is further concretized in particular species as well as individuals (which also have due general features that make them some specific kind of organism or a specific organism rather than another– which exists in tandem with various kinds of qualitative continuums, patterns thereof, qualitative transformations, and exemptions/further qualifications). Through differentiation and development of life forms and processes, there are related plural genera, species, and individuals + relations and determinacies thereof (which, in philosophy and science of nature, will be further elaborated and determined by the theory of evolution).

Life without cognition does not give us thinking about thinking, nor thinking about being, nor thinking about life. However, through the development of life, thinking and cognition can develop as well as their relation to the truth– which is coherence and correspondence with the Whole (preserving coherence and correspondence theories of truth in a higher mode). Such coherence with, correspondence to, and adequate unity of concept and object is “the idea”. “The idea is the adequate Notion, that which is objectively true, or the true as such… Idea is the unity of notion and objectivity…” (Hegel 2005). Cognition is required for thinking through+knowing the adequate unity of concept to object. The unfolding of thinking and consciousness is the process through which the Whole can know itself as a self-differentiated unity of subject and object.⁴ Logical development is, “analytic because it is all contained within the encompassing subject that pervades everything and constitutes itself in pervading everything. Nothing in the logical development ever stands outside it nor moves beyond it. On the other hand, the development is equally synthetic because it is developing. It is determining itself, as opposed to remaining inertly fixed,” (Winfield 2012)

Theoretical cognition is thinking aimed at truth; correspondence/coherence/adequate unity with objectivity. Practical cognition aims to change the world through thinking in tandem with practical activity. Analytic cognition does not add anything in conclusions beyond the premises; synthetic cognition does. Cognition includes 1. analytic cognition, where the conclusion is contained in the premises, and 2. synthetic cognition, where thinking mediates premises into conclusions beyond what is already given in the mere premises alone. Theoretical and practical cognition are each analytic and synthetic; dealing with universals, particulars, individuals in their relations+interactions+mediations, differentiations, and developments. Theoretical cognition transforms subjectivity which changes practical activity, and practical cognition transforms objectivity through subjectivity. Subjective willing of thinking/willing beings is not itself sufficient for the good; the good requires related reciprocal freedom between people as well as institutions, right/duties, nomoi, social relations, collective practices, and means thereof that enable such self-determining willing to actuate politically, economically, and socially for each and all. Without such objective freedom and the means thereof, overall subjective freedom of collectives and persons cannot flourish.

Social/Thinking/willing life forms can cognize through reasoning and theorizing about what is correct and true. And through theoretical and practical reasoning via self-determined thinking and volition, social/willing/thinking beings can change themselves, social relations, and the world. Purposeful telos develops via cognized thinking/willing through self-determining/thinking/willing beings– beings which are needed for thinking through any thought about anything as well as thinking/willing in relation to reasons and purposes that drive action (in tandem with as well as in relation to relevant conditions and variables).

Self-determining thinking beings have wills and act through their thinking wills. However, mere subjective freedom of thinking+willing is insufficient for the actualization of freedom; the actualization of such subjective freedom requires due objective freedom– the conditions for freedom to actualize through communities, institutions, decision-making-processes, nomoi, rights/duties, practices, and social relations. The development thereof is constitutive of the becoming of “the good life” and “the good place”. Actualization of objective+subjective freedom is not merely abstract choosing or mere internal thinking/willing or merely of one person’s thinking/willing being: but thinking/willing/acting/relating of thinking/willing collectives and persons in harmony with mutual freedom with other thinking/willing collectives and persons. From thinking/willing beings we can derive the good in relation to the flourishing of such thinking/willing beings through their flourishing and the flourishing of subjective and objective self-determination of the will for thinking/willing beings and collectives thereof (which is constitutive of the the overall flourishing of such beings and collectives thereof). Such good ends require the constitutive means thereof. The actualization of the potentiality for objective/subjective freedom of thinking/willing beings and collectives thereof requires there to be mutual-freedom of each and all on every scale– as well as related relevant kinds of institutions, decision-making-processes, nomoi, rights and duties, practices and social relations constitutive of, in harmony with, and conducive to mutual-freedom + corresponding mutual non-domination (including the political, economic, and social dimensions thereof as well as the developmental prefiguration thereof).⁵

The absolute is the whole of determinacy, the whole of determined determinacy, and the whole of self-determined determinacy, including the self-knowing thereof, the totality of truth, and the totality of knowing of the truth (Winfield 2010). The absolute idea is the conceptual self knowing of the absolute through concept that corresponds to its object.⁶

At the end of this process, we can then go back to the beginning and re-quality/integrate all prior determinacies as moments of the whole (with all the determinacies and relations thereof).

Towards Dialectical Naturalism:

Moving from Logic to Nature:

Paraphrasing Winfield: The Science of Logic is sufficient to be a self-knowing of truth: but this is the departing point for further domains of truth (in regards to nature, spirit, sociality, and the good)– where other determinacies are added onto the foundation developed by the Science of Logic (Winfield 2010).

Quoting Winfield at length: “Taking the differentiation of determinacies into itself, the method thereby expands itself into a system (p.838). The resulting self-knowing totality does not stand over and against anything else but is purely self-related and self-differentiated (p. 840). Finally, on the concluding pages, Hegel describes how the logical totality gives itself the form of being, of immediacy, precisely in virtue of completing its own self-mediated, self-comprehended self-constitution (pp. 842–44). Engendering a determinacy beyond logic by adding being to logical totality, this transition provides the only nondogmatic access to something more than

merely logical determinacy. With the science of logic thereby achieving closure, the stage is set for philosophy to move beyond the thinking of thinking to the systematic conception of nature.” (Winfield 2012).

Paraphrasing Houlgate: By the end of the Science of Logic, we realize that logic is not just logic; the development of the logic shows (among other things…) nature to be logically necessary– what we start with in abstraction develops through reasoning into natural determinacies (such as those of physics, chemistry, life, ecology, etc. already); Nature and spirit exist and reason is immanent within each (Houlgate 2019a). “Logic works through its determinations and then reaches a point in which it makes necessary a constellation that is not purely logical. It turns into its ‘opposite’ which is nature; and then nature has its own dynamic which is structured by but not reducible to the logic,” (Houlgate 2019a).

Quoting Houlgate at length: “For Hegel, therefore, there is no ‘being’ prior to nature: nature is all there actually is (though later, of course, we shall see human consciousness or ‘spirit’ emerge out of nature). We reach this conclusion, however, by starting not directly with nature as such, but with pure indeterminate being and discovering that, logically, such being cannot be anything but nature. This may seem to be a somewhat roundabout way to proceed. Why not begin straight away with nature? Because in a presuppositionless philosophy we cannot simply assume from the start that being is nature, any more than we can assume that it is substance or will to power. We must begin with sheer indeterminate being, about which no assumptions are made, and wait to see what such being proves logically to be. Furthermore, such philosophical patience brings its own reward: for it leads to a distinctive conception of nature that we might never have gained without undertaking the presuppositionless study of being.

It becomes clear, for example, that nature is an absolute logical necessity and not just a happy accident. It also becomes clear, however, that nature has no transcendent ground or cause that exists ‘apart’ from or ‘prior’ to it. The Idea ‘grounds’ nature by proving to be nothing apart from or less than nature itself. The Idea cannot, therefore, have an independent existence prior to nature. On the contrary, it must inhabit the very nature it makes necessary and so, to borrow the words of Spinoza, be the ‘immanent, not the transitive, cause of all things’.” (Houlgate 2006).

The general determinacies and movements of the Science of Logic spill over into nature: with related externality, space, time, mechanism, chemism, organism/life, spirit, and sociality. Nature is the idea externalized in development; In the reasoning process from the Science of Logic to philosophy of nature (already of course developing in and through the Science of Logic), the absolute/ absolute idea becomes externalized as the whole of natural development. Nature as a processual, determinate, relational, differentiated unity both conditions and is conditioned by its own processes, determinacies, differentiations, and relations. Natural development coheres with the general structure of the Science of Logic with all its richness in terms of determinacies, possibilities, and conditions; as the Science of Logic is structured by actuality and nature (and reasons through underlying determinacies of ontology and natural development). The categories in the Science of Logic exist in and through nature; they exist naturally in and through specific historically constituted wholes/parts/individuals/relations. As Houlgate notes, for Hegel: “the ‘object’ with which philosophy is always concerned – itself turns out to be nothing but nature. Nature, as it emerges in Hegel’s philosophy, is in turn understood to be not just brute contingency or sheer givenness, but actually existing reason – ‘the Idea as being’,” (Houlgate 2006). Nature is the idea as actual and existing, and idea is the adequate unity of concept and object. But “only ecology can ventilate the dialectic as an orientation toward the objective world by rendering it coextensive with natural evolution, a possibility that arose…with the appearance of evolutionary theory,” (Bookchin 2017). Additionally, a dialectical approach to thinking, being, nature, and society can justify and reason through wholes, parts, relations, development, differentiation, and unity– and in doing so round out ecological and social thinking and practices towards the true and the good.

It is important to note that, “Reason does not transform itself into nature gradually over time, nor does it precede nature in time and bring nature into being through a creative act. Rather, absolute reason discloses itself actually to be nature itself by proving logically to be immediately self-relating being,” (Houlgate 2006). While nature is ontologically prior to thinking: through thinking about thinking and being, we can derive the logical determinacies, conditions, and possibilities for how nature is structured (distinct from knowledge of all specific natural/‘extra-logical’ determinacies, contingencies, existence/existents, history etc.) from reasoning about reasoning and being. Such reasoning grounding reasoning is crucial to grounding concepts and determinacies in reasoning without recourse to dogmatic presuppositions.

Natural Development:

Nature is itself developmental and relational and can be traced by developmental reason. “Precisely because it is also a system of causality, dialectic is ontological, objective, and therefore naturalistic as well as a form of reason. In ontological terms, dialectical causality is not merely motion, force, or changes of form but things and phenomena in development. Indeed, since all Being is Becoming, dialectical causality is the differentiation of potentiality into actuality, in the course of which each new actuality becomes the potentiality for further differentiation and actualization. Dialectic explicates how processes occur not only in the natural world but in the social,“ (Bookchin 2017).

Nature is qualified by determinacies of the logic accordingly as well as “extralogical” dimensions of natural development which are themselves qualified by the determinacies of the logic (and graspable through reasoning). In addition to being qualified by the general determinacies of the Science of Logic, nature is the whole gestalt of natural development more broadly in all its unity and differentiation/diversity. Nature, as the wholeness of natural development is a conceptualization of the natural world that sociality and spirit are part of+arise from+participate within. And spirit, as thinking and as self-knowing, can retain its particularities as spirit as in, through, and part of natural development. This naturalism is not a crude reductionist kind but a differentiated whole with processual+determinate+relational wholes/parts/individuals as well as a notion of natural development that includes due physical, chemical, biological/ecological, thinking/willing/spiritual, and social+cultural+institutional+political+economic dimensions.

From reasoning about reasoning and being, we obtain knowledge of the gestalt of movements and determinacies of “The Science of Logic”— including the necessity of externality, existence, actuality, wholes, parts, individuals, and relations thereof (and the processual, determinate, relationality of all of the above). From externality, we can derive space and from space we can derive three dimensions as any point in externality has due breadth, height, and depth (Hegel 2005). The negative and movement of space is time (Hegel 2005). The combination of a particular location of time and space is place. Space, through becoming, is temporal and the movement of space/time is motion (Hegel 2005). Space is related to matter which differentiates itself via attraction and repulsion (Hegel 2005). This includes the mechanical interactions of mechanism and the chemical interactions of chemism (Hegel 2010). “This externality of determinate being constitutes the special determinacy of matter. But in this it does not remain limited by a quantitative difference, rather the difference is essentially a qualitative one, so that the determinacy of matter constitutes its being,” (Hegel 1990). In addition to matter, determinacies of physics, which are knowable through natural philosophy and scientific processes through theory, practice, and observation, include gravity, light, shape, electricity (Hegel 1990, Hegel 2004)– as well as various determinacies discovered since Hegel’s time such as those discovered by relativity and quantum physics (which in specific ways relate to and qualify other determinacies accordingly⁷). It is out of physical and chemical world that organic chemistry, geological nature, living organisms, ecology, and animal organisms develop and evolve (Hegel 1990, Hegel 2004, Bookchin 2017).

The self-organization, processuality, determinacies, relationality, actuality, and potentiality of nature gives rise to life as self-maintaining metabolism and self-reproducing — which gives rise to animate and sentient life as well as thinking and willing life (Bookchin 2017, Hegel 2005). Life has related individuals, species, and genera; and the self-reproducing and self-maintaining processes thereof distinguishes life (Hegel 2010). Natural development gives rise to ecological communities: relations of life to life to non-life– which society and spirit develop from, are part of, and in relation to. “Biological nature is above all the cumulative evolution of ever-differentiating and increasingly complex life-forms with a vibrant and interactive inorganic world,” (Bookchin 2017). Life takes varying forms including single celled life, to multicellular life, to fungi and plants, to animals, to political/economic/social/thinking/willing life, etc. Life develops through natural evolution via participation, self-maintenance, reproduction, adaptation to conditions, and relations of beings to self+others+conditions+possibilities (Bookchin 2017). Evolution happens through interaction in relation to ecological dimensions as well as on multiple scales rather than being reducible to merely genes, or merely individuals, or merely collectives (Bookchin 2017, Atkins, Sloan Wilson, Hayes 2019). Life processes can take on a plurality of forms of symbiotic relations; including, but not limited to, that of mutual aid (Kropotkin 1902, Bookchin 2017). “A resplendent literature now exists that reveals the enormous extent to which symbiotic mutualism is a major factor in fostering ecological stability and organic evolution. That plants and animals continually adapt to unwittingly aid each other (be it by an exchange of biochemical functions that are mutually beneficial or even dramatic instances of physical assistance and succor) has opened an entirely new perspective on the nature of ecosystem stability and development,“ (Bookchin 2005). The overall flourishing of webs of mutual aid, freedom, subjectivity, unity-in diversity: give rise to flourishing ecological communities and the overall flourishing of participants thereof (Bookchin 2005, 2017). “Mutualism, freedom, and subjectivity are not solely human values or concerns. They appear, however germinally, in larger cosmic or organic processes,” (Bookchin 2017). It is important to note that reasoning through mutual aid as a tendency in evolution that is related to and in fact necessary for mutual flourishing of living beings is not to claim that it is the only tendency or only factor related to the flourishing of living beings. Mutual aid can develop in relation various processes/determinacies/relations within first nature and second-nature; a fuller gestalt of the good includes other dimensions qualifying and qualified by mutual aid. Different conditions and interactions (which shape each other) can enable mutual aid tendencies and other liberatory tendencies to flourish or diminish.

Natural history is ecological history including evolutionary processes, social processes, and social history. Natural Evolution is participatory through the differentiated wholes, parts, individuals, relations, forms, and contents that develop through ecological processes. While life forms are in various ways conditioned by their relations to others and ecological communities and determinacies external to themselves, life forms in various ways participate in their own development and their relations to+interactions with others and ecological communities. Participation, self-maintenance, reproduction, symbiotic relations, and ecological interaction/adaptation constitute key dimensions of natural evolution. Participatory development is realized on a new qualitative level through sociality, related thinking/willing beings, and second nature more broadly with due institutions, conceptual thinking, self-determined volition, etc– where there are self-determining willing/thinking beings whose potentiality for self-management can be actuated in and through a social constellation of political, economic, and social self-management of each and all in tandem with the means thereof (the development of the related gestalt of liberatory determinacies constitutive of self-management of each and all on every scale; a development that includes due universality creatively tailored to a plurality of contexts, conditions, and relevant variables) (Bookchin 2017, Hegel 2002).

“In the organic world, the metabolic activity of the simplest life-forms constitutes the sense of self-identity, however germinal, from which nature acquires a rudimentary subjectivity. Not only does this rudimentary subjectivity (which reductionism necessarily cannot encompass) derive from the metabolic process of self-maintenance, a process that defines any life-form as a unique whole; it extends itself beyond self-maintenance to become a striving activity, not unlike the development from the vegetative to the animative, that ultimately yields mind, will, and the potentiality for freedom. Conceived dialectically, organic evolution is, in a broad sense, subjective insofar as life-forms begin to exercise choices in adapting to new environments,” (Bookchin 2017).

Nature and Spirit:

Spirit, as thinking and spirit as self-knowing and self-determining will, participates within and is developed from natural, ecological, as well as social relations. Consciousness, conceptual thinking, the true, the good, activities for reasons: while having due qualitative distinctions and determinacies that make them what they are and not something else, are nonetheless wholly naturalistic according to a notion of nature as the whole of natural development (Bookchin 2017). There is a certain sense in which spirit can be conceived in a naturalistic+broad way as the continuum of thinking (distinct from theistic or otherwise woo notions of spirit) developed through natural evolution– natural evolution is itself a continuum that develops the broad continuum of spirit as thinking and the richer notion of spirit as thinking/willing in itself, for itself, knowing itself/aware of itself, externalized in nature+society, in relation to others and conditions, in relation to itself as a self-determining+differentiating unity (Hegel 1977). The above can be retained without some notion that such spirit is non-natural; through the notion of nature as the whole of natural development, spirit is in fact nature self-relating to itself in specific ways. Without a naturalist notion of thinking as active, creative, self-determining, related to broader social and ecological relations and conditions, and at the same time determining acts persons partake in while changing the actors interacting and the world in the process: we cannot make coherent sense of causal history, nor everyday life, nor the history and potential of deliberate wilful social development.

Spirit can retain its due relevant qualitative distinctions as developing from, within, through, in relation to, and part of nature. There is no false reductionism in this move; there is instead a phased, graded, and cumulative development of life into social life and thinking/willing life (Bookchin 2017). The differentiated whole of nature includes first nature, graded development of thinking and volition, and second nature and spirit in itself, aware of itself, and for itself. Second nature’s forms/contents of sociality and spirit develop from first nature, are distinct from first nature, and yet are part of nature more broadly as natural development and evolution (with all its due externality, internality, form, content, wholes, parts, processuality, relationality, determinacy, contradictions, conditionality, possibility, etc). All contradictions and relations within and between spirit, second nature, first nature, and nature as a whole can be retained while integrated into a notion of nature more broadly conceived.

Nature is not just externality; the externality of nature is qualified by the determinacies developed by the Science of Logic in tandem with the unfolding of nature in existence and all of the determinacies that develop via natural development and evolution. The process of natural development includes the whole of determinacies, determined determinacies, and self-determined-determinacies from the Science of Logic instantiated in natural processes, beings, qualities, and relations. And beyond such rich logical qualifications of natural development, there is also the actual movement of natural development, natural evolution, wholes+parts+individuals+relations, ecological communities, and differentiated determinacies thereof. It is out of and through natural evolution that spirit is developed– which is thoroughly part of nature, conditioned by nature, conditioning nature, and conditioning itself through processes of self-determined thinking and willing. According to the above there is a uniqueness to second nature + spirit in itself/aware of itself/for itself in relation to social and ecological communities (Hegel 1977, Bookchin 2017) AND at the same time there is also a graded development of thinking and willing that exists in the ecological/evolutionary continuum (Bookchin 2017).

The Social/Second Nature:

Thinking/willing life develops in and through natural evolution and participation in relations to self, others, and conditions (Bookchin 2017). Out of first nature, second nature develops with related qualitatively distinct institutions, malleable social relations, meta-cognition+volition, conceptualization, language, and complex technology (Bookchin 2017). Second nature has evolved through increased mutual aid, and related interaction, dialogue, reasoning, and care and cooperative+communal caregiving+social reproduction (Kropotkin 1902, Hrdy 2011). Social life and society are part of and emerge from ecological life+ecological communities and then participate in and relate to social and ecological communities; and in doing so, social relations, practices, institutions, and culture develop and transform themselves+each other, as well as related ecological communities. The way social life relates to social life determines how social life relates to the broader ecological world (Bookchin 2007, 2017). In relation to eudaimonia and wellbeing of social life, there are certain objective trans-contextual social needs (needs of second nature) for sustenance/reproduction of daily+community life and the objective/subjective actualization of freedom (Bookchin 2017, Ryan and Deci 2022, Usufruct Collective 2023); however it is also the case that various specifics of social needs and how to adequately meet them for mutual-flourishing changes according to processual, contexts, specific needs+desires, conditions, and possibilities. The movement of nature is one of natural and social history– the latter having its due qualitative distinctions while being part of the former. “The fact that first and second nature exist and can never be dualized into “parallels” or simplistically reduced to each other, accounts in great part for my phrase social ecology,” (Bookchin 2017).

“It is eminently natural for humanity to create a “second nature” from its evolution in “first nature.” By second nature, I mean the development of a uniquely human culture, with a wide variety of institutionalized human communities, effective human technics, richly symbolic languages, and carefully managed sources of nutriment,” (Bookchin 2017). This notion of “Society, in turn, is more than mere consociation or community. It is institutionalized community, structured around mutable organizational forms that may range from totalitarian despotism to libertarian municipalism. As such, society is specific to human beings,” (Bookchin 2017). On one level, thinking/willing and sociality evolve on a continuum. On another level, there is a qualitative distinction between social nature as institutional in contrast to more thin notions of the social (for example, how the ascribed conceptual content of the phrase “social animal” is commonly utilized in evolutionary theory⁸).

“The basis [Boden] of right is the realm of spirit in general and its precise location and point of departure is the will; the will is free, so that freedom constitutes its substance and destiny [Bestimmung] and the system of right is the realm of actualized freedom, the world of spirit produced from within itself as a second nature,” (Hegel 2005).

Quoting Bookchin at length:

“That second nature is the outcome of evolution in first nature and can thereby be designated as natural does not mean that second nature is necessarily creative or even fully conscious of itself in any evolutionary sense. Second nature is synonymous with society and human internal nature, both of which are undergoing evolution, for better or worse. Although social evolution is grounded in, indeed phases out of, organic evolution, it is also profoundly different from organic evolution. Consciousness, will, alterable institutions, and the operation of economic forces and technics may be deployed to enhance the organic world or carry it to the point of destruction. Second nature as it exists today is marked by monstrous attributes, notably hierarchy, class, the state, private property, and a competitive market economy that obliges economic rivals to grow at the expense of each other or perish,” (Bookchin 2017).

The History of social nature includes a history of freedom and domination. Hierarchy is historically constituted under specific conditions and not an inevitable order of social life and its potentiality for freedom; in addition to humans evolving through increased mutual aid and cooperative social reproduction (Hrdy 2011), most of temporal human history has been largely non-hierarchical (Boehm 2001, Bookchin 2005, Knight 2021).⁹ The development of domination altered relations of complementarity to relations along hierarchical lines (Bookchin 2005). The development of hierarchy (defined in the social sense of institutionalized domination and exploitation¹⁰) has included gerontocracy, patriarchy, statecraft, imperialism, colonialism, capitalism, racism, and various forms of oppression along multiple lines that are entangled in politics/economics/culture in various ways (Lerner 1986, Marx 1992, Bookchin 2005, Wolf 2010, Fields and Fields 2022). Hierarchical institutions, social relations, practices, cultural, and ideological dimensions interact and shape each other in specific processual constellations. Hierarchical institutions and relations have developed in uneven and combined ways into contemporary forms of capitalist mode of economics, politics in the mode of varying forms/contents of capitalist-statecraft (managing, reproducing, and enforcing capitalist+statist politics and economics), the interstate system, world market, with related core-periphery hierarchies/relations, entangled with various imperial, colonial, as well as patriarchal, nationalist, racist (or otherwise ethnically-xenophobic) dimensions/relations/divisions of power and labor (Bookchin 2005, Ocalan 2016). Institutional hierarchies have related epistemologies and cultural and ideological dimensions that help to both generate and uphold them (Bookchin 2005).

In relation to the emergence of generalized hierarchical society on a world scale: there are other kinds of institutions, relations, and practices that are prior to, alongside, within, against, and pointing beyond hierarchical society. There have been ways libertarian/egalitarian societies have become authoritarian/hierarchical and ways authoritarian/hierarchical societies have become libertarian/egalitarian. And there are ways societies have developed in libertarian/egalitarian directions and ways societies have developed in more authoritarian/hierarchical directions.

Contra the history of hierarchy: there have been self-managing+non-hierarchical forms of organizing, relations, and practices in multiple modes of subsistence, among many communities, across many cultures, on all inhabited continents, and for long periods of time. The history of freedom–including self-managed dialogue and decision making as well as related direct-collective-action and mutual aid+commoning– includes the ways that freedom has existed in foraging societies, village societies, cities, agricultural societies, within varied and changing subsistence patterns and lifeways, as well as within contemporary commons (Kropotkin 1902, Boehm 2001, Bookchin 1992, 2005, Federici 2018, Knight 2021, Ostrom 2021, Graeber and Wengrow 2023). Commoning+practices/relations of self-management+mutual aid+direct-collective-action have existed both in earlier human history and within the 3000ish years since the state has become the main mode of politics people live under on a planetary scale.¹¹ The content of the above demonstrates the potentiality for self-managed communal politics, economics, and social relations as well as diffusion and convergent evolution of libertarian/egalitarian processes and practices.

Additionally, there are social movements and social movement organizations in the last several hundred years that organize in self-managed ways towards goals of self-managed politics and economics. The above includes the six large scale revolutions influenced by libertarian socialism: the Morelos Commune, Makhnovia, Shinmin, the anarchist+syndicalist+communalist revolution in Spain, Zapatista Revolution (ACGAZ), and the Rojava Revolution (DAANES) (EZLN 2005, Gilly 2006, Skirda 2003, Leval 2006, Arshinov 2011, Dolgoff and Bookchin 2011, Hwang, 2016, Sixth Commission of the EZLN 2016, Min 2021, Zapata and Montano 2021, Dirik 2022, Aslan 2023, DAANES 2023, Usufruct Collective 2025). The above revolutions developed out of struggling against hierarchy while reconstructing self-management. These revolutions all radically increased social+individual freedom, needs met, and wellbeing, while demonstrating the possibility of large scale libertarian/egalitarian social transformation (Usufruct Collective 2025). And these revolutions all included communal-self-management/commoning as major parts of their development on the mass/social/popular scale. The internal self-managing politics/economics of the above revolutions satisfy criteria of Self-Determination-Theory (Ryan and Deci 2022) as well as Ostrom’s core-design principles for governing the commons (Ostrom 2021). These revolutions, for all their internal flaws and external limits, demonstrate internal well-functioning of self-management within and between specific assemblies and localities and the potential of communalized reconstructive and oppositional practices as part of liberatory social transformation on large scales. These revolutions also demonstrate ways that hierarchical powers will attack these revolutions; the major inhibiting factors of the above revolutions have been external-hierarchical violence in tandem with lack of sufficient worldwide movement development in solidarity. The goal of liberatory revolutionary social transformation points to the need for local, interlocal, and worldwide liberatory revolutionary movement development and solidarity– as well as due collective defense against hierarchy in tandem with the development of liberatory means, ends, practices, tactics, strategies, and goals.

In addition to the above, there are many other social constellations and organizations on smaller and/or less revolutionary scales rooted in communal-self-management, commoning, direct democracy, mutual aid, direct-collective-action, and opposition to domination. An approximate history of community self-management and commoning is a history that has yet to be fully written due to its living nature+potential, its historical scope, the extent of data from multiple sources, the nature of the research question and how broad it is, the theoretical lenses used and not used by people when doing social inquiry, the multiple practical constraints into doing such social science+philosophy, etc. Despite the significant contemporary and living developments of liberatory politics+economics+social relations and related successes in meeting needs, solving social problems, developing self-managed decision-making processes+commons: the contemporary constellations of politics and economics worldwide means that liberatory communities/liberatory community organizations+federations of the above, radical unions+federations of the above, etc. are surrounded by hierarchical politics and economics and a broader hierarchical world order until further interlocal social transformation. Until sufficient local, interlocal, and worldwide social transformation: liberatory developments are inhibited in various ways from their full flourishing due the content of hierarchical politics and economics as it relates to the world, to specific locales, to pockets of freedom, and struggles against hierarchy. Local, interlocal, and worldwide hierarchical society can only be overcome through sufficient local, interlocal, and worldwide solidarity via liberatory prefiguration with a content of strategic reconstructive and oppositional practices.

In addition to historical and living communalist/commoning approaches to meeting needs and solving social problems, there are broader social movements and other kinds of social movement organizations that aim for liberatory social change from below through self-managed forms of organizing that struggle against capitalism, statecraft, class society/class relations, and hierarchical society more broadly– such as but not limited to radical labor and workplace organizing. Self-managed struggles for grander freedom against hierarchy can take place where people live, work, and play in communities, workplaces, schools, and beyond. Movements+organizations+power from below struggling against hierarchical conditions are needed for liberatory social transformation and revolution while also being needed so that people can meet their needs and solve social problems directly before, during and after revolutions. Additionally, movements+organizations+power from below struggling against hierarchical conditions has been the major way towards enacting the most liberatory social reforms (such as better labor conditions, increased civil rights, grander freedom from racism, advances towards freedom+equality in regards to issues of gender and sexuality, etc).

Second nature includes immense political, economic, social, and cultural variation. Depending on conditions and volitions (which can be given social force through organizations, social relations, politics, economics, collective practices, etc): Political/economic/social/thinking/willing beings have potential to develop various libertarian/egalitarian institutions and social relations as well as various authoritarian/hierarchical institutions and social relations. Within and through both libertarian/egalitarian and authoritarian/hierarchical forms of organizing, there are pluralities of forms/contents and possible determinacies thereof (a practically endless amount of different possible ensembles/constellations of determinacies). In addition to the variations in regards to the above, there is also the immense array of plurality within and between ecological-communities, plurality within and between social communities, collectives, and individuals, plurality within and between social-ecological constellations and local + interlocal conditions, plurality of specific needs/desires/wills/abilities/capacities (and specific aggregates thereof), plurality within and between cultures and subcultures, ways of making decisions, of practices/ways of engaging in practices, ways of acting/interacting collectively to meet specific needs/desires/objectives, and a plurality of ways of becoming and doing in harmony with mutual freedom of each and all and the means thereof etc.¹²

Second nature grants political/economic/social/thinking/willing beings immense potential for restructuring social-becoming through spirals of organizing, social relations, cultural transformation, dialogue, actions/practices, strategies, and tactics (Bookchin 2005, 2017). However, we can only act in relation to our conditions; and our potential to self-manage the reproduction of daily life+communal and inter-communal politics+the making of history is inhibited by hierarchical society and related domination+exploitation+dispossession+vicious alienation. Different kinds of politics, economics, and social relations produce and reproduce determinate means and ends and patterns of political, economic, and social life (related to freedom or domination of collectives and persons, needs met or obstructed, wellbeing and illbeing, cultivation of virtues/virtuous practices and vices/vicious practices of organizations and persons, etc.). Developing liberatory spirals of organizing, social relations, cultural transformation, dialogue, actions/practices, strategies, and tactics requires iteratively developing liberatory determinacies as processual ends through liberatory means while opposing/struggling against spirals of hierarchical (or otherwise vicious) form/content. Spirals of organizing, social relations, cultural transformation, dialogue, thinking, willing, actions/practices, strategies, and tactics can develop into virtuous or vicious determinacies of politics, economics, social relations, institutions, practices, and persons– and such virtuous and vicious determinacies in turn develop and co-determine conditions for action as well as patterns of thinking, willing, and acting. Virtuous spirals and vicious spirals can be overthrown by each other.

The Ethical Life:¹³

“Dialectic explains, with a power beyond that of any conventional logic, how the organic flow of first into second nature is a reworking of biological into social reality. Each phase or “moment” pressed by its own internal logic into an antithetical and ultimately a more transcendent form, emerges as a more complex unity-in-diversity that encompasses its earlier moments even as it goes beyond them. Despite the imagery of strife that permeates the Hegelian version of this process, the ultimate point of the Hegelian Aufhebung is reconciliation, not the nihilism of pure negation. Moreover, norms—the actualization of the potential “is” into the ethical “ought”—are anchored in the objective reality of potentiality itself, not as it always “is,” to be sure, but as “should be,” such that speculation becomes a valid account of reality in its truth. Hegel, I would argue, radically expanded the very concept of Being in philosophy and in the real world to encompass the potential and its actualization into the rational “what-should-be” not only as an existential “what-is,” (Bookchin 2017)

The good for thinking/willing and political/economic/social beings includes their flourishing which is constituted by objective freedom and subjective freedom (Hegel 2002). Subjective freedom requires objective freedom in order to flourish. Actualization of objective freedom and subjective freedom is constituted by the self-management of each and all on every scale and the means thereof. Such self-management means people making decisions about what they do and are affected by on every scale. The flourishing of the actualization of mutual-self-management of each and all requires related flourishing of mutual non-domination/non-hierarchy (as domination and hierarchy develop at the expense of self-management). The actualization of the self-management of each and all requires mutual self-management as well as collective forms thereof. Such self-management is related to politics, economics, and social life– the institutions and social relations that enable us to collectively dialogue, reason, coordinate, make agreements, take action, and reproduce daily/community life by meeting needs, solving social problems, and acting upon collective/individual self-determined wills. Communal self-management includes requires sufficiently communalized social re/production and commoning within as well as between communities; Common means and fruits of existence+production+decision-making distributed to communities, collectives and persons according to mutual-needs are objective conditions for freedom of each and all needed for the overall flourishing of objective and subjective freedom. Self-management of each and all on every scale includes self-management of communities+related commons, the self-management of other variegated kinds of collectives, and the self-management of persons– and related mutual self-management of each and all within and between communities (and related intracommunal/intercommunal dialogue, decision-making, and action-taking). Self-management on organizational/collective scales entails horizontal, participatory, and directly democratic forms of organization– where collective decisions are decided upon through collective dialogue as well as direct-collective decisions which are then implemented in agreed upon ways. Horizontality/non-hierarchy, participatory agreements+free association, as well as direct-democracy (as in direct-collective-decision-making) become a gestalt that round each other out. The forms and contents of the above are constituted by collective action and mutual aid towards free-social-development, meeting needs, and solving problems, and opposing domination+exploitation– and the development and re/production+recreation of the above requires sufficient content of mutual aid and collective action accordingly.

Influenced by and building off of Kropotkin’s ethics of mutual aid→justice→morality (Kropotkin 2009) we can develop a dialectical naturalist ethics of mutual aid→mutual freedom (and the means thereof)→ethics. The flourishing of mutual aid is constitutive of the overall flourishing of life forms, ecological communities, and social communities of second nature (Kropoktin 1902, Bookchin 2017). Mutual aid is constitutive of mutual freedom. The related objective+subjective freedom of mutual-freedom is a further qualification/adaptation/extension of mutual aid in relation to social and self-determining volitional beings. Mutual freedom and the means thereof bloom a gestalt of determinacies and universals to be developed within and adapted to a plurality contexts (Usufruct Collective 2023). The development of mutual freedom requires the processual development of free institutions+social relations+practices to meet needs, solve social problems, and freely develop through the mutually-free-becoming of each and all. From the needs, nature, conditions, and possibilities of social/political/economic/thinking/willing beings, our social-relations, our institutions, the ecological webs we are part of, and our social-ecological relations: We can derive an ethics related to such mutual aid, mutual-freedom, mutual-non-domination, and direct-collective-action. Furthermore, from there we can derive related community assemblies and commoning as related to the flourishing political/economic freedom– as well as the unity of means and ends constitutive of the development of such ends. The virtue of justice in the above development is sublated into mutual-freedom; however, the virtue of justice becomes thoroughly retained as it becomes qualified by mutual-freedom and related political, economic, and social freedom, and the gestalt of determinacies the above gestalt entails (including universal, particular, objective, and subjective dimensions).

For political, economic, and social beings: for mutual freedom to be on every scale, mutual-freedom must exist politically, economically, and socially. Such ends require the development of liberatory forms/contents of organizations, social relations, and related practices as means and processes. The development of the above requires sufficient strategic prefiguration (unity of specific determinate means and ends) and development of community assemblies and related commons– communalized politics and economics for continuously meeting needs, deliberating, making-decisions, taking collective-action, solving social problems, opposing domination, reproducing daily/communal life, AND for the flourishing of collective and individual freedom in harmony with as well as through/part of such political/economic/social freedom (and the objective contents thereof) (Bookchin 2007, 2017, 2018, Federici 2018, Ostrom 2021, Usufruct Collective 2023, 2024a, 2024b). If communities, and co-federations of communities, do not directly manage political and economic life through dialogue and communal decisions/agreements : then communities, collectives, and individuals are alienated from such communal+intercommunal self-management as well as the means and fruits thereof (depriving persons of communal freedom and means+fruits of existence and production and politics persons need for their full political, economic, and social freedom in harmony with the mutual freedom of others). Without rationally communalized politics and economics, the means of politics, existence, and production persons and communities need and use become arbitrarily privatized in various ways. In addition to a liberatory unity of means and ends being needed for the overall development of good ends, it is also the case that the development of hierarchical means and ends reproduce hierarchical form and content at the expense of self-management as well as various liberatory determinacies part of the gestalt of the good.

Community assemblies, functioning according to communal-self-management with related commons/commoning, function through direct-collective-deliberation, direct-collective-decision-making, and direct-collective-action-taking to meet needs and solve social problems. Deliberation includes people expressing needs, abilities and capacities, reasons, arguments, desires, preferences, proposals, alternative proposals, amendments, agreements, disagreements, communication of relevant variables to make informed decisions, etc. so that persons and collectives can reason through what to do to make good-enough or better decisions about meeting needs and solving social problems. Specific direct-collective-decision making processes can vary according to needs and desires of participants but often includes: decision making that searches for consensus but can also fall back to majority decisions within free association of persons and collectives when consensus is not reached. Such assemblies (functioning according to communal-self-management) can as needed and desired create, mandate, reorganize, and recall embedded mandated and recallable councils and rotating delegate roles that implement policies and decisions from below– in such a way where all policy making power is in the hands of community assemblies and participants directly through direct democracy with related rights and duties along non-hierarchical lines (Bookchin 2007). Such embedded councils of community assemblies and participants thereof would then self-manage the implementation of communally-decided policies. Given the need for self-managed decision-making processes and decisions related to politics and economics and protection of rights of communities, collectives, and persons to self-determine their activities free from domination: functioning community assemblies and commons develop related nomoi (such as constitutions, rights/duties, ‘bylaws’, protocols, “core-design-principles”, agreed upon decision-making processes, policies, and related customs) in harmony with free and non-hierarchical form and content (Bookchin 2007, Ostrom 2021).

Mutual-freedom, mutual-non-domination, and mutual-aid+collective-action within and between communities includes co-federated forms of communal politics/economics– where inter-communal-policies and implementation thereof on inter-communal scales in such a way where all policy making power is held by communities and participants directly (Bookchin 1992). Decentralized and co-federated webs of community assemblies co-manage co-federated commons together through communal+intercommunal deliberation, agreements, and mutual aid/collective action (Bookchin 2007, Ostrom 2021). Ethical and functional development of co-federal webs of community assemblies and embedded councils engaging in commoning and related mutual aid+dialogue+agreements to share in common re/production will accordingly develop various instantiations/adaptations of the core-contents of core-design-principles of the commons (in tandem with sufficient theoretical and practical knowledge) in such a way that ensures that every commune and every person will have due access to the means and fruits of self-managed politics/economics according to needs (Kropotkin 1906, Bookchin 2018, Federici 2018, Ostrom 2021, Usufruct Collective 2024b).

Persons and communities cannot be objectively free (politically, economically, and socially) without self-managed means and fruits of re/production. Distribution of means and fruits of existence and production to persons and communities according to needs leads to sufficient communalization of the economy. To meet needs of all, community assemblies (on scales of neighborhoods, blocks when applicable, villages, towns, cities, regions, inter-regions, etc.) and co-federations of community assemblies would communalize social re/production by communalizing political-economic decision-making, means of existence and production, mutual aid, as well as agreements to share in labor/work/action to meet collective needs and desires. Co-federated assemblies would use decentralized+co-federated planning as part of inter-collective decision making processes– enabling planning to happen in such a way where all policy making power is held by participants and assemblies directly. In order to meet needs of all (including needs for self-management) through mutual-freedom, mutual-non-domination, and mutual aid: the means and fruits of such communal economics would be developed through self-managed processes via co-federations of community assemblies and related commons and the fruits of such communal economics would be distributed to all according to needs and mutually-free access (without commodification, commodity production, nor money). Sufficient communalization+intercommunalization of the economy would enable all communities and persons to have access to what they need– including the means and fruits of community-self-management and commoning. The overall and general flourishing of such communalization+commoning in tandem with liberatory technology could and should develop a post-scarcity society (Bookchin 2005, Bookchin 2018). Given needs for political, economic, and social freedom and the re/production thereof: Sufficient communalization and commoning are extensions of objective and subjective freedom politically and economically that are also necessary for and part of the developmental social reproduction and flourishing of objective freedom and subjective freedom.

The flourishing of liberatory processes as developmental ends requires the flourishing of such processes as means; that is, the developmental ends of political/economic/social freedom require the overall flourishing of specific developmental means overtime through due prefiguration, reconstruction of community assemblies+the commons and the liberatory qualities of self-management+mutual aid+direct-collective-action, and due opposition to hierarchy+domination+exploitation– including commoning through opposition to domination as well as opposing domination through means of self-management+mutual aid towards processual self-management, mutual aid, commoning, and further opposition to domination towards revolution and liberatory social transformation that develops continuous flourishing of objective/subjective/collective/individual freedom.¹⁴ Liberatory organizations, actions/practices, social relations, and cultural transformation in spirals can help each other multiply and flourish. In fact for the development of liberatory organizations, actions/practices, social relations, and cultural transformation to flourish, each of the above must jointly flourish as a processual gestalt. Such prefiguration would include the prefiguration of determinate liberatory qualities within social movement organizations and social movements, as well as the prefiguration of common forms of decision making+action taking, politics, and economics constitutive of communalized political/economic self-management. On a strategic level: Self-managed community assemblies can participate in and communalize reconstructive and oppositional practices in relation to many dimensions of life towards commoning and opposing hierarchical rule; This includes variegated strategically+tactically adapted reconstructive and oppositional measures in regards to reproduction of daily life+community life, how resources are acquired, production processes, distribution, and consumption. This enables community assemblies to both build the new world in and against the shell of the old as they engage in oppositional forms of direct-collective-action against multiple kinds of hierarchical institutions, specific hierarchical institutions, and specific authoritarian measures while also reconstructing self-management as well as variegated mutual aid+commoning practices in the process. The above form and content can help arrive at long-term, mid-term, and short-term needs/goals and can strategically link more long-term and more short-term needs/goals accordingly– with oppositional and reconstructive content helping each other bloom through liberatory processes towards liberatory ends (ends which are themselves constituted by the continual development/reproduction/recreation of liberatory processes). Opposing hierarchy without creating sufficient alternative+liberatory forms of decision-making+mutual aid+social re/production leaves a power/politics/economics/collective practice vacuum; and in the context of hierarchical society, merely developing the commons without opposing hierarchy/domination/exploitation leaves most means of political/economic decision making, existence, and production under hierarchical control. The flourishing of both liberatory reconstructive practices as well as liberatory oppositional practices are needed for the flourishing of each. And as much as the above answers, the question remains: given determinate ethical objectives and related criteria, how should reconstructive and oppositional dimensions be jointly+strategically/tactically combined by various groups in various specific moving social conditions (that are of course related to and affecting and affected by other moving social conditions in various direct and indirect ways) via spirals of organizations, actions, social relations, and cultural transformation? This needs to be worked out in practice by self-managed collectives and participants thereof as they creatively adapt liberatory universals to a plurality of contexts and relevant variables.

The development of community-self-management and commoning against hierarchical society is a development that can harmonize self-interest and social interest as well as community interest and inter-community interest– where the freedom, virtues, and wellbeing of each is enriched by the freedom, virtues, and wellbeing of others (and related institutions+rights+duties+agreements+actions in harmony with the above). Political, economic, social, thinking/willing beings have objective common needs in common freedom/politics/economics constitutive of the common good. Even if not subjectively cared about or endorsed by some or more particular persons, the flourishing of such common freedom is constitutive of the flourishing of the good life+good lives and the good place+good places and the objective conditions for freedom of communes/collectives/individuals to develop in harmony with the objective/subjective freedom of each and all. Despite such long-term common interest in mutual aid, mutual freedom, mutual non-domination, and the good place conducive to the good life (and constitutive of the overall flourishing of the good life): under hierarchical society, common humanity is divided into classes and other forms of unfree/unjust/hierarchical social stratification (along gendered, ethnic, racialized, national, and sectoral lines, etc). Under hierarchical society, there relations of rulers and ruled in regards to politics, economics, and decision-making. Within such a context, the political and economic ruling classes govern within hierarchical political and economic institutions (within the broader context of relevant conditions and determinacies) while the non-ruling-class are free from access to political and economic decision making power + free from common means of existence and production. Within such a context, the politically/economically dominated, and/or exploited, and/or dispossessed comprise most all people. In such a context, people generally are free from mutual freedom and non-domination (and related mutually-free access to means and fruits of common politics and economics). In such a context, social-ecological constellations are continually attacked by social and ecological crises that are part of a generalized crisis of capitalism, the state, and hierarchical society. The dominated, exploited, dispossessed, and the non-ruling class more broadly jointly have the potential to re/produce daily/community life via communalization/commoning+have the potential to communalize opposition to domination, exploitation, dispossession, and hierarchy in its various forms+instantiations. In the context of capitalism, the state, and hierarchy more broadly as dominant political economic determinacies on a global scale: The movement of liberatory social transformation is the evolutionary and revolutionary development of the dominated, exploited, dispossessed, and non-rulers more broadly in solidarity to build a new world in the shell of the old via due reconstructive practices as well as due oppositional practices against class-relations and hierarchy more broadly– a process of emancipation from class relations and hierarchy that also constitutes the general flourishing of humans and mutual political, economic, and social freedom (the objective and subjective actualization of the ethical potential of self-determined becoming based on us being the kind of beings that we are; political/economic/social/thinking/willing beings). As needed, community assemblies and other organizations struggling against hierarchy can establish some form of non-domination clause excluding those who are in specified positions of rulership/domination until if and when they choose to leave such hierarchical positions and join a given community assembly (or other organization) as fellow free and equal participants.

For the overall flourishing of common freedom and the means thereof to develop as processes and ends, there must be sufficient co-development of mutualistic social-ecological relations and the ecological communities second nature is part of and dependent upon. Through hierarchical institutions, relations, and practices: persons, communities, and the ecological world are instrumentalized towards power-over others and profit through means and ends of institutionalized domination and exploitation. In the process of hierarchical rule and accumulation of private profit+power-over others via domination, exploitation, and commodification, ecological and social communities are alienated from their potential for mutual-freedom and flourishing while social-ecological constellations and participants become damaged and even decimated in a generalized social-ecological crisis that is both composed of and composing many crises (with various specific instantiations and proximate causes). It is a core insight of social ecology that contemporary ecological problems are caused by social problems– predominantly capitalism, statecraft, as well as hierarchy more broadly (Bookchin 2007, 2017, 2018). Our potential to relate to each other according to mutual-freedom and mutual-aid points to different ways we can and should relate to each other and ecological communities accordingly; with radically distinct processes of social re/production related to developmental mutual-freedom and mutual-flourishing. Such mutual-freedom creates the potential for harmonious social-ecological relations that are constitutive of the long-term flourishing of social and ecological communities as well as participants thereof (Bookchin 2017).

In addition to Social Ecology: Reasoning and practice in relation to the good can be informed by and backed up by other findings in social science, such as but far from limited to the following:

1. Self-Determination-Theory looks at objective needs of autonomy, relatedness, and competency and their relationship to wellbeing/happiness/eudaimonia. The large body of research in this field shows the meeting of such needs to be necessary for the overall flourishing of persons (Ryan and Deci 2022, Ryan et al. 2022). Given the extent to which these objective needs relate to the flourishing of social animals: they have immense political, economic and ethical implications.

2. There is also the history of self-managed societies in multiple modes of subsistence (as noted earlier). This includes the history of the commons and contemporary commons. This history and the extent of community self-management and commons cross continentally over hundreds of thousands of years over multiple modes of subsistence shows us the potentiality and functionality of libertarian/egalitarian forms/contents of self-governance. The history of mutual aid more broadly is even more expansive and has been crucial towards political/economic/social/thinking/willing beings evolving and meeting their needs in multiple modes of social relations. Social science in regards to the commons (Federici 2018, Ostrom 2021, Usufruct Collective 2024b) has shown that there are core-design-principles related to flourishing commons. These core-design-principles include: participants knowing the group they are in and what the group is about, agreements for sharing in labor/work/action and fruits thereof, direct collective decision making processes by participants through deliberation, organizational transparency so that participants can know about relevant information to make informed decisions, adequate opposition to and defense against domination and exploitation, good enough conflict resolution (including organization-wide forms thereof when the conflict is on an organization-wide level as well as direct dialogue between persons, agreed upon mediation, and restorative/transformative justice approaches), co-federation, and sufficient autonomy to self-organize (Ostrom 2021, Usufruct Collective 2024b). Additionally, the flourishing of various kinds of theoretical and practical knowledge can help people make better decisions. And beyond just theoretical and practical knowledge among participants and sufficient/good-enough development of certain virtuous institutional qualities entangled with the above core-design-principles, the development of organizational forms/contents utilizing instantiations of such core design principles can be developed in more wise ways through the further development and generalized flourishing of institutional, theoretical, and practical virtues of collectives and individuals as well as related development of virtuous practices of collectives and individuals. And in further addition to the above, adapting such universals to particular contexts according to conditions, possibilities, needs, and desires in good enough and better than good-enough ways is crucial for the actualization/development of the commons.

3. There are also the psychosocial effects of structural violence and abuse and unmet needs on wellbeing and illbeing (Galtung 1969, Wilkinson and Pickett 2011). Increased structural violence (absolute and relative deprivation of access to needs): decreases social trust, increases violence+murder, creates less childhood wellbeing, worse education, increases infant morality, decreases life expectancy, decreases life satisfaction, increases addiction, and increases psychological illbeing (Wilkinson and Pickett 2011).

4. In addition to the problems of structural violence on social health: We have potential to have sufficiently decent standards of living for all in ecological ways (Rao and Min 2017, Hickel and Sullivan 2024). And far beyond mere decent standards of living for all, through wise commoning and liberatory technology tailored to ecological contexts and human needs (including an expanded and continuously transforming notion of human needs related to mutual-flourishing and mutual-freedom and the given conditions and possibilities of social life): we can arrive at a post-scarcity economy rooted in social and ecological flourishing where mutual-freedom of communes and persons harmonizes with and helps to enrich the ecological world (Kropotkin 1906, Bookchin 2017, 2018)

5. And much more.

The above social science can be integrated with each other in various ways: for example, community-self-management via community assemblies and related commoning are constitutive of the flourishing of self-determination theory’s criteria of autonomy on political and economic scales. Additionally, the overall flourishing of community-self-management and commoning helps develop political, economic, and social relatedness as well as effective collective and individual practices related to meeting needs and solving social problems– further fulfilling the criteria of Self-Determination Theory. The above social science can be qualified by the gestalt of the good and the general political, economic, and social philosophy of freedom– qualifying core-design-principles of the commons with the means and ends of self-management of each and all (and the means thereof) accordingly (Usufruct Collective 2024b).

Capitalism, statecraft, and hierarchical institutions, social relations, and cultural dimensions form in uneven and combined ways to produce and reproduce absolute and relative deprivation of people from access to the means and fruits of social life (structural violence, which is itself enforced by systematized direct violence) which can only be overcome through distribution of means and fruits of politics and economics according to needs (and by extension the flourishing of the commons and the abolition of class society, the commodity form, and hierarchical society via corresponding reconstructive and oppositional politics). On a social and technological level, we can meet all needs through self-managed decision making, agreements and action taking in tandem with ecological and liberatory technology (Kropotkin 1906, Bookchin 2005, 2018)– however this requires shifts in social relations, institutions, means and ends of politics+social re/production (in tandem with the blooming of general and specific knowledge that can enrich decision-making and action-taking).

Concluding this section¹⁵: Political, economic, and social mutual-aid, mutual-self-management, mutual-non-domination, and direct-collective-action are a gestalt; the overall flourishing of those processual means is constitutive of the flourishing of those features as ends (ends which are constituted by processes of freedom to be re/produced and recreated). The above gestalt is constitutive of the overall development of mutual flourishing, the good life, and the good place (socially and ecologically). Given potentiality and conditions of political/economic/social/thinking/willing beings: The above dimensions can+should be developed as means and ends; and as necessary features of good ethical criteria, the above dimensions (in tandem with other good criteria) can evaluate means and ends. Social and ecological processes are ethically relevant as processes related to the flourishing or withering of the good life and the good place and as processes that are part of/developing further processes related to the flourishing or withering of the good life and the good place. The means and ends of social interaction are ethically relevant– the means are relevant as their own processes related to the good life and the good place and as they relate to other processes+further processes related to the good life and the good place. In addition to the prefigurative argument that the overall flourishing of good ends requires and is constituted by the flourishing of corresponding good means (organizations, organizational qualities, social relations, practices, etc.), it is also the case that the gestalt of those liberatory determinacies are strategically and tactically useful to opposing domination while also reconstructing self-management; in fact, the gestalt of the above liberatory determinacies in tandem as well as adapted to contexts and relevant variables in wise ways has the potential of organizing collective capacities in participatory ways– unleashing a gestalt of qualitative and quantitative inter-collective, collective, and individual thinking, willing, and acting to meet needs and solve social problems. The above can actuate through the iterative development of liberatory and virtuous organizational forms, contents, thinking, willing, acting, goals, strategies, and tactics.

Upon critical reasoning in regards to the good, the good life, and the good place in relation to thinking/willing political/economic/social beings, social communities, and ecological communities: the good reveals itself to be the flourishing of political, economic, and social freedom, related ecological flourishing, related virtues of persons and organizations + liberatory (and virtuous) rights/duties/practices/rules/acts/social relations/institutions/institutional qualities+the means thereof and by extension a gestalt of the good related to the self-management of each and all on every scale, related non-domination, related collective-deliberation, direct-collective-decision-making, collective-action-taking, and mutual-aid scaled politically, economically, and socially on community and intercommunity scales through the strategic prefiguration thereof via both liberatory reconstructive politics/practices and liberatory oppositional politics/practices creatively adapted to a moving plurality contexts/variables/conditions/possibilities/needs/abilities/wills (Usufruct Collective 2023, 2024a). Through prefigurative+strategic spirals of organizations, collective practices/actions, social relations, and cultural transformation: there can be an iterative development of local+interlocal movements towards the self-management of each and all through self-managed processes–a process of meeting needs and solving social problems through both reconstructing such freedom while opposing domination. The above constitutes a “process ethics” of political, economic, and social freedom. The above process ethics is related to a prefigurative imperative to develop the means and ends of mutual-freedom and to develop one’s will and practices to be in harmony with the freedom of each and all, the means thereof, as well as the development thereof in “UniPluriversal” (universal+pluriversal) ways. Developmental ends of the good, and the processual political/economic/social freedom that constitutes the good, determine the means needed to develop good ends (Malatesta 2021). The development of specific good processes constitutive of good ends are raised into the development of good processes+ends to continuously develop accordingly. There is a unity of specific means and ends by extension; as the flourishing of the gestalt of self-management, mutual aid, direct-collective action, non-domination (with related opposition to domination as needed), and commoning/communalization+co-federation etc. are developmental means and ends that are constitutive of the development of the overall flourishing of the good life and the good place (and related political, economic, freedom + distribution according to mutual needs through self-management/mutual aid/collective action).

Adequately good-enough forms/contents of self management (with related deliberation, direct democracy/direct collective decision making, direct collective action taking), non-domination, and mutual aid are all virtuous determinacies of institutions/social relations/politics/economics that qualify each other and are jointly necessary for overall flourishing of means/ends (and processual prefiguration) of freedom and the good (Usufruct Collective 2023). Institutional, theoretical, and practical virtues of collectives and individuals can be developed (and further developed after they have been developed) through spirals of organizations, actions/practices, social relations, as well as cultural transformation. There are virtuous actions, virtuous rules, and virtuous ends (Hursthouse 2010); and the above gestalt are constituted by and constitutive of the overall flourishing of virtues, virtuous practices, and virtuous institutions, relations, and persons (Usufruct Collective 2023). In this gestalt of the good, one can move from multiple (non-arbitrary + rationally ordered) pathways from various liberatory, virtuous, and ethically relevant determinacies to the others as part of a mutually qualifying web. One can also move from the gems of truth within multiple normative theories and through immanent critique arrive at a robust process ethics of freedom and the means thereof. Because the development of the good is a gestalt with plural dimensions that mutually qualify and uphold each other: reasoning through and immanent critique of various features of the gestalt of the good can lead to pathways towards the development of the gestalt of the good and its wholeness+plural determinacies that virtuously round each other out. And one can also move from reasoning about reasoning and being, to nature philosophy, to social philosophy, to social-ecological needs, conditions, and potentialities towards a notion of social-ecological flourishing/mutual-freedom+means thereof.

“Dialectical naturalism not only grasps reality as an existentially unfolding continuum; it also forms an objective framework for making ethical judgments. The “what-should-be” becomes an ethical criterion for judging the truth or validity of an objective “what-is.” Thus ethics is not merely a matter of personal taste and values; it is factually anchored in the world itself as an objective standard of self-realization.” (Bookchin 2017).

The good is at once naturalistic and objective while also being the flourishing of collective and individual subjectivity and forms of self-managed-decision-making and action-taking in harmony with the mutual freedom of each and all and the means thereof. It is both universal and adaptive to pluriversal contexts and conditions according to needs and volitions of collectives and individuals. It is at once non-hierarchical and yet also enshrined within institutions as well as rights and duties, and nomoi. It has certain kinds of nomoi/rules without rulers and as well as certain forms of ‘leadership’ distinct from authoritarian forms of leadership. It is political (in the sense of related to community management and decision making) without being statist. It is both social and ecological. It consists of developmental ends and means/processes constitutive of those developmental ends. The good is related to virtues, it is related to acts, it is related to rights and duties, it is related to the flourishing of happiness/joy/pleasure, and it is related to the flourishing of various good goals and ends– and the flourishing of such plurality of good ends is constituted by the overall flourishing of strategically prefigured processes of self-management, non-domination, mutual-aid, and direct-collective-action on political/economic/social scales. The overall flourishing of the processual gestalt of objective+subjective freedom is constitutive of the overall flourishing of various other goods. The good is at once the flourishing of common freedom and individual freedom. The good is richly qualified while also being in various ways “unwritten” and constantly developed/co-authored by collectives and individuals through the actualization of objective and subjective freedom. The good is the development of the good place/good places, the good life/good lives, good means, good ends, and good social-ecological relations through an overall “process ethics” of political/economic/social freedom+the means thereof (which forms a moving gestalt of the good).

Dialectical naturalism is a philosophical worldview rooted in dialectical (developmental, differentiating, and unifying) reasoning+ontology (and related natural+ecological+social+thinking/willing dimensions) in tandem with a dialectical ethics of freedom emerging out of nature, needs, conditions, and possibilities related to the good place and the good life via the development of mutual political/economic/social freedom of each and all (and the means thereof) in all its universality, particularity, individuality, plurality, objectivity, and subjectivity. Dialectical naturalism is also the living movement of such a philosophy being adapted and updated while keeping its core features that make it what it is. Dialectical naturalism enables us to move from reasoning about reasoning and being, to nature and natural development, to second nature/the development of social nature, to political/economic/social freedom and the means thereof (through which subjective and objective freedom, as well as other goods, can flourish).

Conclusion:

Through thinking about thinking and being, beginning with indeterminate being, the Science of Logic rationally grounds and dialectically reasons through contents+relations of specific logical/ontological/speculative concepts and determinacies that people can, often do, and also should utilize in philosophical, scientific and practical reasoning– determinacies which are instantiated in conditions, existence, actuality, and natural/social/historical processes in richly variegated ways.

The Science of Logic provides a coherent method and system for reasoning through processes, determinacies, and relations. The self-sufficient scaffolding of the Science of Logic provides grounding for further reasoning in regards to natural and social development. The Science of Logic provides non-dogmatic reasoning and grounding for ‘realphilosophie’ and future philosophy and science.

While there are various ways of obtaining knowledge–such as through deduction, induction, abduction, eduction¹⁶, philosophy and its various subfields including natural and social sciences and the various subfields, practices, through our social relations (and through interacting with, relating to, and learning from/with others in variegated social constellations), dialogue, practical problem solving, imagination, introspection, observations/senses, experience, art/applied art, etc.: collectively and individually reasoning through the above and related processes, determinacies, wholes, parts, individuals, relations, differentiations etc. to find out what is true, good, and practical becomes a crown cardinal way of thinking through thinking and practices as well as mediating+synthesizing the various ways of knowing which can then assist in practical reasoning and action taking. Multiple ways of knowing can be integrated into the general method of dialectical reasoning towards the true, the good, and the practical.

We can develop a worldview from the Science of Logic (where reasoning about reasoning and being in fact grounds reasoning and being in reasoning) into natural and social philosophy. And, through doing nature+social philosophy/science as well as reasoning through+interacting with the world and various ways of obtaining knowledge: we can think about being and thinking as well as the categories we are using and the determinacies we are relying on and then develop the determinacies of the Science of Logic from there through reflecting upon the qualities of thinking and being as such (and from there, we can think through the general movements and determinacies of the Science of Logic including that of truth). There are various non-arbitrary pathways from reasoning about nature+social philosophy to the contents and determinacies of the Science of Logic (and even the Science of Logic as such if reasoned through from indeterminate being onwards) and back again.

While the general movements and determinacies of Science of Logic are shown to be true through reasoning grounding itself as system in reason and its own method: the determinacies of the Science of Logic can also be verified through their coherence with natural and social development, explanatory power, predictive power, and practical/reasoning applicability. The harmony between inductive and natural+social scientific methods and findings, as well as other ways of obtaining knowledge, and the determinacies/determined determinacies/self-determined determinacies of the Science of Logic show further reasons that the contents of the Science of Logic correspond to/cohere with/are in adequate unity with natural and social development.

The developing ecological and social world+developing ecological and social problems+developing practical endeavors related to daily life as well as multi-dimensional study of logic, epistemology, metaphysics, ontology, ethics, aesthetics, and technics related to the above: constitute a never-ending need for contemplative and practical philosophy and science (the latter being part of philosophy proper by an expanded conception of philosophy). Just as we are in need of philosophy (broadly conceived of as ethics, metaphysics/ontology, logic, epistemology, aesthetics, and technics etc.) for our reasoning and acting towards the good, philosophy broadly conceived is in need of continuous ecological and social thinking/philosophy/science to be in grander harmony with the true and the good in relation to developing social and ecological processes.

In the movement from the absolute to natural development: the whole of natural development is a differentiated unity that includes all wholes, parts, individuals, relations/history/processes/negativity, forms and contents thereof, all determinations, contradictions, conditions and possibilities, all mechanism, chemism, life, thinking/spirit, and sociality. Life forms have related genera, species, and individuals and evolve through their self-relations, self-determination, and relations to others and broader ecological conditions. The good life and the good place, the flourishing of life forms and ecological communities, happens through webs of direct and indirect mutual aid, unity in diversity, non-hierarchical relationships, subjectivity, volition, self-organization, and spontaneity (Bookchin 2017).

Sociality (as in second nature) and spirit are part of, caused by, and causally effecting natural development. Sociality and spirit are developments of nature participating within nature. Knowledge of logic, nature, sociality, spirit, and philosophy can be grasped through contemplative and practical reasoning of political/economic/social/thinking/willing beings. Based on the nature, needs, functions, and potentialities of political/economic/social/thinking/willing life processes: the good consists of mutual-freedom, mutual-non-domination, mutual aid, and direct-collective-action. And politics, economics, and social relations can be developed into the good place conducive to and constitutive of the overall flourishing of the good life through prefigurative spirals of community-self-management+commoning and the liberatory determinacies and means thereof strategically+creatively tailored to plural contexts.

Nature is the differentiated whole of natural development including all ecological and social processes, determinacies, and relations. And through ecological and social development, there become potentials for social and thinking/willing beings to develop political, economic, and social freedom constituting a third nature rooted in mutualistic flourishing of social and ecological processes (Bookchin 2005, 2007, 2017, Usufruct Collective 2023). The flourishing of liberatory institutions, social relations, and practices within and between social-ecological communities towards the mutual flourishing of first and second nature is constitutive of a free and ecological society (Bookchin 2017).

“In a very real sense, an ecological society would be a transcendence of both first nature and second nature into a new domain of a “free nature,”…In this new synthesis, where first and second nature are melded into a free, rational, and ethical nature, neither first nor second would lose its specificity and integrity. Humanity, far from diminishing the integrity of nature, would add the dimension of freedom, reason, and ethics to it and raise evolution to a level of self-reflexivity that has always been latent in the emergence of the natural world,” (Bookchin 2017).

Additional comments in regards to the means and ends of Social Transformation:

The overall means and ends of the good are constituted by political, economic, social, community, collective, and individual forms of self-management, the constitutive means thereof, and the mutual-flourishing of each and all of the above. The overall development of community self-management+embedded councils+commoning via unity of liberatory means and ends are nothing less than crucial to the above vision of the good life, the good place, and good politics. Over time, the overall flourishing of spirals of self-managed community assemblies and related communalized+liberatory forms of reconstructive and oppositional practices are necessary for the overall flourishing of the above. Through the sufficient flourishing of the above, communal, collective, and individual self-management can flourish. The sufficient flourishing of communal freedom and commoning can enable the flourishing of variegated forms of communal, collective, and individual projects+practices as well as the overall flourishing of variegated social arrangements according to needs and volitions.

The iterative overtime development of means and ends of co-federal community-self-management+commoning+opposition to domination can happen in tandem with other forms of liberatory organizations and broader social movement ecosystems; including syndicalist means/radical workplace organizing as well as various liberatory specific and multi issue based social movements and social movement organizations struggling around needs and solving social problems. Community assemblies and commoning (via reconstructive and oppositional practices) are not a replacement for broader social movement ecosystems; nor are broader social movement ecosystems a replacement for community assemblies and commoning.

Social movement organizations and social movements, be they community based, labor/workplace based, or otherwise, can only be developed in liberatory ways through them being, at least overtime, qualified by determinate liberatory qualities in regards to form and content; including self-management, mutual aid, direct action, federalism/co-federalism, opposition to domination /hierarchy (and independence from endorsing hierarchical politics/economics/social stratification), etc. Social movement organizations and social movements must be ethical, strategic, and tactical in relation to their conditions, possibilities, and goals– which requires due adaptation to context to get from where they are towards liberatory ends through liberatory means. Additionally, they must be reinvigorated by the thinking and wills of participants and related individual+collective knowledge and practices (and development of virtues and virtuous practices) collectives and individuals cultivate over time. The cultivation of this liberatory form and content strategically and tactically adapted to context, related to community assemblies reconstructing the commons and opposing domination (that is, lower case c communalism¹⁷), as well as broader liberatory social movement organizations and ecosystems can develop through multiple routes converging upon such liberatory form and content.

The development of liberatory form and content can be significantly catalyzed by ideologically and theoretically specific libertarian communist organizations that spread liberatory organizations and practices, processes, strategies, and tactics within social movements and various social movement organizations that have a liberatory thrust (FARJ 2008). This kind of group would not rule over social movement organizations and social movements but instead spread liberatory processes, practices, and goals through dialogue and action– a process the especifsmo tendency calls social work and social insertion (FARJ 2008). Social work and social insertion can take the form of initiating/forming organizations, filling them with a liberatory spirit and content, as well as invigorating social movements and social movement organizations with a liberatory spirit towards their own liberatory objectives + towards long-term liberatory objectives of a libertarian/egalitarian society (FARJ 2008). In addition to practices of social work and social insertion, these ideologically and theoretically specific libertarian communist organizations also have functions of producing and reproducing theory– helping to study and spread the idea of freedom, its forms, its contents, and its constitutive means and ends. The need/extreme desirability for liberatory social work and social insertion by ideologically and theoretically specific libertarian communist organizations points to the political importance of organizational dualism comprising two kinds/levels of organizing: 1. The popular/social/mass level, (including community assemblies, radical labor organizing etc.) based on shared processes, practices, meeting needs, solving social problems and reconstruction of self-management and mutual aid + opposition to domination and exploitation. 2. the ideologically and theoretically specific level related to libertarian communist organizations that have core functions of social work, social insertion, and producing, reproducing, and spreading liberatory theory and practice. The popular/social/mass level organizations, movements, and participants thereof are the main protagonists of reconstructive practices+oppositional practices to meet needs and solve social problems and bring about a free society through processes of political, economic, and social transformation. The ideologically and theoretically specific libertarian communist organizations function as organized catalysts for the development and defense of liberatory means and ends (and participants thereof are side by side with others as fellow-members within popular/social/mass level organizations).

Given the development of the whole of the above, this argues for a strain of libertarian communist ideology/theory/practice rooted in community-self-management/lower case c communalism as means and ends to be developed (with due universals adapted to plural contexts and iteratively developed overtime), syndicalism/radical workplace and labor organizing as means, variegated kinds of social movement organizations rooted in self-management, mutual aid, and direct-collective-action to meet needs and solve social problems as means, and organizational dualism. The most crucial features of social ecology and dialectical naturalism can potentially be accepted in whole or large part by all, or most, or many members of ideologically and theoretically specific libertarian communist organizations.

A brief note on theory and practice:

As revealed by the end, the wholeness of what this philosophy is engaged in is not merely related to theory; it is indeed deeply related to practices of various kinds, ethics, politics, as well as social transformation.

Having a true and good philosophy and worldview is no replacement for practical endeavors that are essential to means and ends of liberatory politics. True, good, and practical philosophy (and related good reasoning) without sufficient social force lacks sufficient power to transform the world. However, good philosophy and reasoning can have significant effects on thinking and acting– including spirals of organization, deliberation, and collective action (informing means and ends of action accordingly). As true, good, and useful as dialectical naturalism is: Fortunately for us all, people can participate well in regards to liberatory/ethical practice and social transformation by collectively acting in community organizations, workplace organizations, and other organizations that utilize self-management, mutual aid, direct-collective-action in opposition to domination to meet needs and solve social problems without having a full dialectical naturalist worldview.¹⁸

Theory and practice should inform each other through liberatory means towards liberatory ends. However, just as theory is no replacement for practice, it is also the case that practice is no replacement for theory. The content of decisions that collectives develop will be related to the reasoning persons and collectives develop which will guide deliberation, decisions, and action. The development of wise reasoning and philosophical thinking (in tandem with the development of webs of virtues/virtuous practices) helps us in reasoning towards the good and making better practical decisions in relation to conditions and possibilities; the flourishing of true, ethical, and useful knowledge, philosophy, science, reasoning, and practices are beneficial to the development of the good life, the good place, as well as related social transformation.

Bibliography:

1. Atkins, Paul W.B., David Sloan Wilson, and Steven C. Hayes. Prosocial: Using evolutionary science to build productive, equitable, and collaborative groups. Context Press, 2019.

2. Arshinov, Peter. “History of the Makhnovist Movement (1918–1921).” The Anarchist Library, 2011. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-arshinov-history-of-the-makhnovist-movement-1918-1921. 

3. Aslan, Azize. Anticapitalist economy in Rojava: The contradictions of revolution in the Kurdish struggle. Wakefield, Quebec, Canada: Daraja Press, 2023.

4. Boehm, Cristopher. Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior. Harvard University, 2001.

5. Bookchin, Murray. Urbanization without cities: The rise and decline of citizenship. Montreal: Black Rose Books, 1992.

6. Bookchin, Murray. The Ecology of Freedom: The Emergence and Dissolution of Hierarchy. Oakland, CA: AK Press, 2005.

7. Bookchin, Murray. Social Ecology and Communalism. Oakland, CA: AK Press, 2007.

8. Bookchin, Murray. Philosophy of Social Ecology. Black Rose Books, 2017.

9. Bookchin, Murray. Post-Scarcity Anarchism. AK Press, 2018.

10. DAANES. “Rojava IC.” Rojava Information Center, 2023. https://rojavainformationcenter.org/2023/12/aanes-social-contract-2023-edition/. 

11. Dirik, Dilar. The Kurdish Women’s Movement: History, theory, practice. London: Pluto Press, 2022.

12. Dolgoff, Sam, and Murray Bookchin . Anarchist Collectives Workers’ self-management in the Spanish Revolution 1936–1939. Montreal: Black Rose Books Ltd, 2011.

13. EZLN. “Sixth Declaration of the Selva Lacandona.” Enlace Zapatista, May 10, 2005. https://enlacezapatista.ezln.org.mx/sdsl-en/. 

14. FARJ. Social Anarchism and Organisation. 2008.

15. Federici, Silvia. Re-enchanting the World Feminism and the Politics of the Commons. PM Press, 2018.

16. Fields, Karen, and Barbara Fields. Racecraft the Soul of Inequality in American Life. London: Verso, 2022.

17. Galtung, Johan. “Violence, Peace, and Peace Research.” Journal of Peace Research 6, no. 3 (September 1969): 167–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/002234336900600301.

18. Gilly, Adolfo. The Mexican Revolution: A new press people’s history. New York: The New Press : Distributed by W. W. Norton & Company, 2006.

19. Graeber, David, and David Wengrow. The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2023.

20. Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. phenomenology of spirit. Translated by A.V. Miller. Oxford, United Kingdom: Clarendon Press, 1977.

21. Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences in outline and critical writings G. W. F. Hegel. Ed. by Ernst Behler. Translated by Ernst Behler. New York: Continuum, 1990.

22. Hegel, George Wilhelm Friedrich. Science of Logic. Translated by A.V. Miller. Amherst, New York: Prometheus, 1999.

23. Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. The Philosophy of Right. Hackett Publishing Company, 2002.

24. Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. Hegel’s Philosophy of Nature. Clarendon Press, 2004.

25. Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, and Stephen Houlgate. The Hegel Reader. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers, 2005.

26. Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Fredrich. The Science of Logic. Translated by George Di Giovanni. Leiden: Cambridge University Press, 2010.

27. Hickel, Jason, and Dylan Sullivan. “How Much Growth Is Required to Achieve Good Lives for All? Insights from Needs-Based Analysis.” World Development Perspectives 35 (September 2024): 100612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wdp.2024.100612.

28. Houlgate, Stephen. An Introduction to Hegel: Freedom, Truth and History. Malden: Blackwell, 2006.

29. Houlgate, Stephen. Hegel’s Science of Logic: Lectures by Stephen Houlgate (8 of 18) , September 15, 2019a.

1. Houlgate, Stephen. Hegel’s Science of Logic: Lectures by Stephen Houlgate (11 of 18) , October 6, 2019b.

1. .

2. Houlgate, Stephen. Hegel’s Science of Logic: Lectures by Stephen Houlgate (15 of 18) , November 6, 2019c.

1. .

2. Houlgate, Stephen. Hegel’s Science of Logic: Lectures by Stephen Houlgate (17 of 18) , November 14, 2019d.

1. .

2. Hrdy, Sarah Blaffer. Mothers and Others. Raleigh, N.C: Meredith College, 2011.

3. Hursthouse, Rosalind. On virtue ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.

4. Hwang, Dongyoun. “Anarchism in Korea.” The Anarchist Library, 2016. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/dongyoun-hwang-anarchism-in-korea-book. 

5. Knight, Chris. “Did Communism Make Us Human?” The Brooklyn Rail, June 2021. https://brooklynrail.org/2021/06/field-notes/Did-communism-make-us-human.

6. Kropotkin, Peter. Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution. New York: McClure Phillips and Co., 1902.

7. Kropotkin, Peter. The Conquest of Bread. 1906.

8. Kropoktin, Peter. Ethics: Origin and development | the anarchist library, 2009. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-ethics-origin-and-development.

9. Lerner, Gerda. The Creation of Patriarchy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.

10. Leval, Gaston. “Collectives in the Spanish Revolution .” libcom.org, 2006. https://libcom.org/article/collectives-spanish-revolution-gaston-leval. 

11. Malatesta, Errico. “Ends and means.” 2021. https://www.marxists.org/archive/malatesta/1922/ends-and-means.html.

12. Marx, Karl. Capital. London: Penguin , 1992.

13. Min. “Summary of the Shinmin Prefecture.” libcom.org, 2021. https://libcom.org/history/summary-shinmin-prefecture. 

14. Öcalan, Abdullah. Democratic Confederalism. Transmedia Publishing, 2014.

15. Ostrom, Elinor. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021.

16. Rao, Narasimha D., and Jihoon Min. “Decent Living Standards: Material Prerequisites for Human Wellbeing.” Social Indicators Research 138, no. 1 (May 23, 2017): 225–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-017-1650-0.

17. Ryan, Richard M., and Edward L. Deci. Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. New York: Guilford Press, 2022.

18. Ryan, Richard M., Jasper J. Duineveld, Stefano I. Di Domenico, William S. Ryan, Ben A. Steward, and Emma L. Bradshaw. “We Know This Much Is (Meta-Analytically) True: A Meta-Review of Meta-Analytic Findings Evaluating Self-Determination Theory.” Psychological Bulletin 148, no. 11–12 (November 2022): 813–42. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000385, 2022.

19. Scott, James C. The art of not being governed: An anarchist history of upland southeast asia. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2011.

20. Sixth Commission of the EZLN. Critical thought in the face of the capitalist Hydra I. Durham, NC: PaperBoat Press, 2016.

21. Skirda, Alexandre. Nestor Makhno: Anarchy’s Cossack , 2003.

22. Usufruct Collective. “Gestalt of the Good (2023 Remix).” Usufruct Collective, July 23, 2023. https://usufructcollective.wordpress.com/2023/07/18/gestalt-of-the-good-2023-remix/.

23. Usufruct Collective. Elements of Liberatory Social Movement Organizations, January 1, 2024a. https://usufructcollective.substack.com/p/elements-of-liberatory-social-movement.

24. Usufruct Collective. “Ostrom’s 8 Rules of the Commons for Anarchists .” Usufruct Collective, October 22, 2024b. https://usufructcollective.wordpress.com/2024/10/22/ostroms-8-rules-of-the-commons-for-anarchists/.

25. Usufruct Collective. “Community-Self-Management and Commoning within 6 Libertarian Socialist Influenced Revolutions .” Usufruct Collective, July 21, 2025. https://usufructcollective.wordpress.com/2025/07/16/community-self-management-and-commoning-within-6-libertarian-socialist-influenced-revolutions/.

26. Wilkinson, Richard G., and Kate Pickett. The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger. New York: Bloomsbury, 2011.

27. Winfield, Richard Dien. Lecture course on hegel’s science of logic : Richard Dien Winfield : Free download, borrow, and streaming : Internet archive, 2010. https://archive.org/details/LectureCourseInHegelsScienceOfLogic-RichardDienWinfield.

28. Winfield, Richard Dien. Hegel’s science of logic: A critical rethinking in thirty lectures. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2012.

29. Wolf, Eric Robert. Europe and the People Without History. University of California Press, 2010.

30. Zapata, Emiliano, and Otilio Montano . “Plan of Ayala.” The Anarchist Library, 2021. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emiliano-zapata-plan-of-ayala.

1. While this essay mostly agrees with Bookchin (and in fact agrees with what are arguably THE most crucial features of his worldview), there are some disagreements as well. To see core disagreements this essay has with Bookchin, see “A Friendly Critique of Murray Bookchin’s Politics”. In addition to such political critiques, this essay disagrees with some of Bookchin’s critiques of Hegel– but rather than spelling them out here, it is best for the reasoning to unfold itself. The differences in regards to evaluation of Hegel’s notion of the Absolute will be apparent to those familiar with Bookchin’s “Philosophy of Social Ecology”. ↩︎

2. However, people will get more out of this text if they are familiar with the subject matter and the sources cited. Given the scope of this synthesis, there are some radically condensed arguments and positions from said sources at times. ↩︎

3. This content of this sentence is an addendum to Hegel’s Logic but derivable from the existence of relations of life to life to non-life–although to know the specific determinacies of ecological relations, we must engage in natural philosophy. ↩︎

4. Reasoning through the concept requires cognition, which requires thinking life which requires life and the development thereof ↩︎

5. There was significant liberty taken in this paragraph to begin the development of an approach to ethics related to social freedom into political, economic, and social self-management of each and all as well as the means thereof. These ethics will be further developed later in the essay. ↩︎

6. The absolute idea is, “not a knowing of everything. It is not philosophy in its entirety, but only the science of logic. The consummation of the absolute Idea is therefore the point of departure for a further development of specific domains of truth and specific philosophical disciplines of truth, the first of which is going to be nature and philosophy of nature, to be followed by something that incorporates nature, namely mind or spirit. Hegel will therefore distinguish between the science of logic and nonlogical science, calling the latter Realphilosophie, the philosophy of what is real in the sense of being nonlogical. Realphilosophie will consist of the philosophy of nature and the philosophy of spirit,” (Winfield 2012). ↩︎

7. With or without a unified field theory in physics, truths from relativity and quantum physics can be retained and harmonized together by the core determinacies and movements of the Science of Logic (which underpin the determinacies of thinking and being) and dialectical naturalism (which reasons through core features of a ecological and social philosophy+science). ↩︎

8. All insights about “social animals” as commonly defined by contemporary evolutionary theory can be retained while making a conceptual distinction between Bookchin’s notion of social and the more vague+thin notion of social that is often employed by people. ↩︎

9. This rich history of non-hierarchical societies over hundreds of thousands of years does not mean various societies that have existed in the past were in every which way the best of all possible worlds– they were not freed from all strife and limits on possibilities, episodic domination, nor always free from warring between groups, nor always free some or more stifling traditions, etc. ; a romantic primitivist or quasi-primitivist return to the past is neither in harmony with the true, nor the good, nor what is possible, nor what is desirable. We must “get our poetry from the future” as we sublate the history of freedom and actualize our potential for mutual-freedom and mutual aid in all its universality and particularity. At the same time, it would be the height of foolishness to write off the extent of egalitarianism in human history, what it can teach us, and what it means about our potentialities for social transformation and different ways of becoming under different constellations of conditions. ↩︎

10. This social notion of hierarchy is related to institutionalized domination, rulership and authoritarianism. Such a social definition of hierarchy is distinct from differentiation and ways of organizing differentiation, leadership as such, delegation distinct from hierarchical policy making, teaching as such, ecological stewardship, etc. ↩︎

11. The source for this timeframe is James C. Scott (Scott 2011) ↩︎

12. In the following section on ethics there will be plurality of dimensions of the good, plurality of goods, plurality of instantiations thereof, plurality of good-enough ways to meet needs through collective practices, plurality of good-enough decision making processes and specific policies of self-managed organizations etc– as well as plurality of collective and individual thinking/willing/acting in harmony with the means and ends of mutual-freedom+social freedom. Variegated social arrangements and ways of doing and being in harmony with mutual-freedom and mutual-non-domination would be able to flourish in, through, and because of the development of the gestalt of the good. ↩︎

13. This section is in large part about how political, economic, and social freedom requires the prefiguration of self-managed community assemblies and related commons as well as the abolition of capitalism, the state, and hierarchical society more broadly. Despite core differences with Hegel, the content of this section nonetheless upholds the criteria of social freedom and related institutions, rights+duties, and nomoi related to social freedom. ↩︎

14. “The continuous flourishing of freedom” being the contents in harmony with the essential features of libertarian communism and lower case c communalism. ↩︎

15. For practical reasons, this section is coming to a close; there is much more to be said. ↩︎

16. See Bookchin’s use of this concept in Philosophy of Social Ecology ↩︎

17. Similar in most respects to Bookchin’s communalism although differing in other respects; See “Friendly Critique of Murray Bookchin’s Politics” by Usufruct Collective for more information on the small yet important divergences (despite a shared core politics in regards to most essential features). ↩︎

18. And fortunately for us all, there are more simple and complex ways to think about and communicate this whole worldview and parts of it– as well as different ways a dialectical naturalist worldview and parts of it be expressed (such as via different languages, different words, and different mediums). On a related tangent, when it comes to ethics and politics: The gestalt of the good can be communicated with various kinds and degrees of qualification and detail; as for one liberatory determinacy to develop and flourish to become good-enough and beyond, sufficient others must also develop and flourish; and with several of the most crucial liberatory determinacies as a moving mutually qualifying gestalt, they will develop/include other determinacies and in fact require some other determinacies as part of what is needed for the overall movement/flourishing thereof (and additionally, benefit from other determinacies). ↩︎

07/16/25

Introduction:

The notion of lower case c communalism refers to community-self-management, related mutual-aid/commoning, as well as opposition against hierarchy through communalized direct action and self-defense. There is a significant history of community-self-management and commoning prior to, alongside, influencing, part of, and influenced by libertarian socialism/communism. The communalist dimension of libertarian socialism is in favor of community assemblies+embedded councils, co-federations thereof, related dialogue/deliberation, direct-democracy (direct-collective-decision making), and mutual aid+direct action to meet needs, solve social problems, and aim towards social transformation along libertarian socialist/communist/communalist lines (Usufruct Collective, 2022). The goal of such social transformation would be a world without rulers, where means of existence and production would be held in common, with fruits thereof distributed according to needs, where communities, co-federations thereof, participants, and other collectives could all self-manage and decide on what they do and are affected by within relations of mutual-freedom and mutual-non-domination.

The following will look at 6 libertarian socialist influenced revolutions: The Morelos Commune, Makhnovshchina, Shinmin, The Spanish Revolution, The Zapatistas, and Rojava. All of these revolutions include development of community assemblies and commons to both organize the reconstruction of the new world as well as opposition against domination, exploitation, and hierarchical society. All of these revolutions were influenced by libertarian socialist theory and practice to varying degrees (although all of these revolutions also have other influences and are composed of many participants beyond ideological homogeneity). The first four of these revolutionary movements existed prior to 1940. The final two revolutions mentioned in this essay appear later on in history and continue onward to this day.

Community-Self-Management and Commoning within 6 Libertarian Socialist Influenced Revolutions:

Morelos Commune:

Within the Mexican Revolution, The Morelos Commune (1912-1918) developed. The Morelos Commune was influenced by local indigenous practices of self-management as well as agrarian socialism, Magonism, and libertarian socialism (Gilly, 1970, Correa, 2021). The movement was based on land reform through agrarian communalism in a way that was “antagonistic…to capitalism and its inherent need for the sanctity of private property” (Wehling, 2020). However, just as the Mexican Liberal Party was an anarchist party, this notion of land reform was expropriation, revolution, and social transformation. There was expropriation and communalization of land with mass support of the population (Gilly, 1970, Wehling, 2020).

“Zapatismo was the movement that, in its Plan de Ayala drafted toward the end of 1911 and in subsequent documents, proposed the most advanced programs for radical redistribution of land and communal organization of government for communities and for the whole Republic, an anti-capitalist program in its content and dynamic. And between 1912 and 1918 it implemented the program and maintained its own government in the region which came to be known as the Morelos Commune,” (Gilly, 2010). The Ayala Plan, a main document of the Morelos Commune, said, “we give notice: that [regarding] the fields, timber, and water which the landlords, científicos, or bosses have usurped, the pueblos or citizens who have the titles corresponding to those properties will immediately enter into possession of that real estate of which they have been despoiled by the bad faith of our oppressors, maintain at any cost with arms in hand the mentioned possession; and the usurpers who consider themselves with a right to them [those properties] will deduce it before the special tribunals which will be established on the triumph of the revolution,” (Zapata and Montano, 2021).

The Land was distributed to communities and individuals leading to a radically egalitarian communal form of social organization (Gilly, 1970). Neighbors’ assemblies were empowered as a form of local self-government responsible for political, economic, and defensive functions (Gilly, 1970). Quoting the General Law on Municipal Liberties decreed by Zapata, “Municipal liberty is the first and most important of democratic institutions, since nothing is more natural or worthy of respect than the right which citizens of any settlement have of arranging by themselves the affairs of their common life and of resolving as best suits them in the interests and the needs of their locality,” (Wehling, 2020). Its spirit lives on rather concretely in the continuation of community assembly and commoning movements in the region and beyond. The Morelos Commune was defeated primarily by external warfare against it as well as compromises in the face of such external attacks (Gilly, 1970).

Makhnovshchina/Makhnovia:

Another early libertarian socialist influenced revolutionary society was Makhnovshchina in Ukraine (1917-1921). Prior to the revolution, there was already a history of communal organization in Ukraine (Skirba, 2003). A peasants’ union was formed to seize territory to create free communes (Skirda, 2003). The peasants’ union had the goal of transforming “all the land, factories, and workshops into communal property as the basis on which they will build a new life,” (Makhno, 2009). Through struggle, expropriation, and communal defense thereof, “Peasants united in “communes” or “free-work soviets,” and communally tilled the land for which they had fought with the former owners. “These libertarian communes were founded upon the principle of equality and fellowship among all their members…Cooking and dining facilities were shared although any individual could see to his own meals provided proper notice was given. Everyone rose early and set to work right after breakfast. In the event of absenteeism, the commune member would let his neighbor know so that a replacement could be found. The work program was arranged by common consent at general assemblies,” (Skirda, 2003). And even though farming and social reproduction more broadly were the major economic activities, there was also craft production and some machine work as well (Skirda, 2003).

Each person would work according to their abilities and function in various temporary delegate roles and then “returned to their regular work alongside the other members of the communes,” (Guerin, 1970). Decisions about the economy were made at general assemblies of communes and included agreements to share in production and consumption to provide for the needs of people (Skirda, 2003). “The communes were not created on the basis of example or caprice, but exclusively on the basis of the vital needs of peasants who had possessed nothing before the revolution and who, after their victory, set about organizing their economic life on a communal basis,” (Arshinov, 2011). The communes were linked federally and decided on politics, economics, as well as defense– however their full flourishing was prevented by the constant state of war (Arshinov, 2011). While the insurgent peasants, Makhnovshchina revolution, and the Revolutionary Insurgent Army of Ukraine fought and won against their local exploiting-class, Austro-German imperialists, the White Army, and Ukrainian nationalists: they were eventually betrayed and defeated by the much larger Bolshevik forces (Arshinov, 2011). As the revolution progressed into its later period, people had to focus on the revolutionary war so much that it was at the expense of the further flourishing of reconstructive and socially creative aspects of the revolution (Arshinov, 2011). Additional reasons for its limits included, according to Makhno and his comrades, the lack of a sufficiently organized and populated anarchist movement that could have further helped catalyze movements within and beyond the region (Dielo Truda, 2009). The lack of a sufficiently organized anarchist movement is part of how the Bolsheviks were able to come to power and seize the revolutionary helm at the expense of peasants, the working class, and socialism.

Quoting Makhno extensively about the fundamentals of the communes: “Once the communes were set up, their members, without losing any time, began to organize themselves: some were employed in the normal springtime agricultural work, while others formed combat groups to defend the Revolution and its conquests… The majority of the agricultural communes were composed of peasants; a minority were a mixture of peasants and workers. Their organization was based on equality and… solidarity. All members of these communes… brought a very positive attitude to their work, whether it was in the field or domestic work… The communes had common kitchens and dining halls. But the wish of any members to prepare their own food for their families, or to prepare food in the communal kitchen and then carry it home, never met with any objection from the other members. Each member, or even a whole group, could organize their feeding any way they wished, on condition, however, that they give advance notice to the other members so the appropriate dispositions could be made in the communal kitchen and pantry… The members of a commune were also required to get up early to tend to the cattle and horses and take care of other domestic chores… Members of the commune had the right to absent themselves, but they were required to advise their work partner in advance so a replacement could be found. This applied to normal work days. On days of rest (Sundays) members took turns going on excursions.The program of work of the whole commune was worked out during meetings of all the members. Each of the members knew exactly what was expected from them… Each commune was composed of a dozen families of peasants and workers, reaching a size of 100, 200, or even 300 members. Each commune received from former estates of pomeshechiks, by the decision of the Raion Congress of Land Committees, a quantity of land which it would be able to farm with its own labor. Moreover, the communes received the livestock and machinery which were already on the property.” (Makhno, 2009).

Shinmin/KPAM:

The communes of the Shinmin Prefecture (1929-1931) were forged by Korean refugees escaping and opposed to Japanese imperialism– with roots in regional anarchist movements as well as prior movements against Japanese imperialism (Ki-Rak, 2012). “Many Koreans gathered in Manchuria to avoid oppression from the Japanese Empire, following the Japanese colonization of the Korean peninsula, forming their own society there,” (Min, 2016). This revolution “was formed in 1929… as a self-governing network of cooperatives, prefiguring anarchist principles while resisting Japanese occupation,” (Ramnath, 2019). The Korean Anarchist Federation in Manchuria (KAFM), distinct from many other kinds of anarchist groups, formed a “cooperative…organization on the basis of economic communities,” the eventual goal of which was to establish “an autonomous rural organization in which the farmers as members were mutually aiding one another for their survival in the harsh natural environment of Manchuria. It was thus “a practical…organization” to deal with the livelihood of the Koreans in Manchuria, who numbered about two million at the time of its establishment in 1929,” (Hwang, 2016). To further understand the goal orientation of such communal associations, KAFM said in its platform that, “its defined goal was to realize a society of “no rule,” in which human dignity and individual freedom were all completely ensured. In such a society, all individuals were expected to be socially equal and freely strive for their individual development through their own free will and free alliance based on the mutual aid idea. And finally all the individuals would strive to establish an economic order under which they could offer their labor for production according to their ability and then consume according to their needs,” (Hwang, 2016).

However, the KAFM was soon resolved and integrated into KPAM (Korean People’s Association in Manchuria) (Hwang, 2016). The integration into KPAM happened “in August 1929, just a month after its establishment in July,” (Hwang, 2016). KPAM was forged through a strange alliance between anarchists and nationalists against mutual enemies (Imperial Japan and Marxist-Leninists) (Hwang, 2016). “In Manchuria, Korean anarchists were willing to work together with nationalists as long as the latter considered and adopted anarchist principles in their response to the demands and needs of Korean migrants there,” (Hwang, 2016). It was thus based on practical necessity and utilizing anarchist practices to meet such needs (Hwang, 2016). This “new commune-type organization” was supported by nearly “all Korean anarchists in China,” (Jang-Whan, 2009). KPAM organized federally on community scales, “going from village meetings to district and area conferences,” (Tokologo African Anarchist Collective et al., 2014). “Each regional division of the KPAM was the agriculture association and therefore served as a regional administration handling matters ranging from executive, judicial, finance, to education, security, picking between 5 and 9 members to carry out each task,” (Min, 2016).

KPAM “has been highly evaluated by Korean anarchists as the embodiment of anarchist principles…,” and yet, “it was not an anarchist organization. It rather defined itself in its platform as “an autonomous, self-ruling, cooperative organization” that had its own distinctive jurisdiction, similar to its predecessor,” KAFM (Hwang, 2016). KPAM’s “plans for agricultural development, education, and military training within its jurisdiction, as well as for its representative system along with its administrative body, have all been praised as a reflection of the anarchist ideal of “a government without [compulsory] government” that assured the principles of no-rule, no-naked power, and no-exploitation,” (Hwang, 2016). Prior to its collapse, KPAM operated, “in an anarchistic manner. It was structured in accordance with anarchist principles of bottom-up organization, based on free association. Each region would send their share of delegates who would manage the main issues of the association, and the general association would take care of all paperwork, decide on foreign affairs, and public relations. Each region would hold a meeting to choose delegates and write proposals to the main branch,” (Min, 2016). KPAM operated in a genuinely bottom up way until it was ultimately defeated by a deadly combination of factors which included attacks by Marxist-Leninist, Japanese Imperialist, and nationalist forces (Min, 2016).

Anarchist Collectives in the Spanish Revolution:

The anarchist revolution within the Spanish Revolution (1936-1939) had both syndicalist and communalist dimensions. The communalist practices were predominant among the more agricultural regions where territorial and economic functions were combined in a commune form with related general assemblies, commons, and federated relations between communities– with immense success except for being sabotaged by opponents and the war (Guerin, 1970). Quoting Bookchin, community assemblies “usually met weekly and formulated the policy decisions of the community as a whole,” and “decisions were executed by a committee elected from the assembly,” where “the right to recall committee members was taken for granted and they certainly enjoyed no privileges, emoluments, or institutional power,” (Dolgoff and Bookchin, 2011). The communes established mixed methods of collectivist and communist distribution systems (Gueurin, 1970). Over 90% of land workers chose to join the agricultural communes which helped create favorable conditions for workers in the more industrial areas of the revolution (Guerin, 1970). Afterall, agricultural areas were crucial for social reproduction of the revolution as such. Solving the agrarian question along common and communistic lines is crucial for meeting needs and autonomy from capitalism (Kropotkin, 1906). In addition to the rural communes “In some cases, as in Fraga, and in Rubi, the direct organisation by the city, embracing the whole, merges with that of the producing Collective, and one could say that the two structures interpenetrate. Locally, self-determination of the whole asserted itself, and the of the town was confirmed,” (Leval, 2006).

Quoting at length from Gaston Leval’s evaluation of the anarchist Collectives at length:

“In juridical principles the collectives were something entirely new. They were not syndicates, nor were they municipalities in any traditional sense… They were closer to the communal than the syndicalist spirit. Often they might just as well have been called communities, as for example the one in Binefar was. The collective was an entity; within it, occupational and professional groups, public services, trade and municipal functions were subordinate and dependent. In forms of organization, in internal functioning, and in their specialized activities, however, they were autonomous… The agrarian collectives, despite their name, were to all intents and purposes libertarian communist organizations. They applied the rule “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” Where money was abolished, a certain quantity of goods was assured to each person; where money was retained, each family received a wage determined by the number of members. Though the technique varied, the moral principle and the practical results were the same…In the agrarian collectives solidarity was practiced to the greatest degree. Not only was every person assured of the necessities, but the district federations increasingly adopted the principle of mutual aid on an inter-collective scale. For this purpose they created common reserves to help out villages less favored by nature. In Castile special institutions for this purpose were created. In industry this practice seems to have begun in Hospitalet, on the Catalan railways, and was applied later in Alcoy. Had the political compromise not impeded open socialization, the practices of mutual aid would have been much more generalized…A conquest of enormous importance was the right of women to livelihood, regardless of occupation or function. In about half of the agrarian collectives, the women received the same wages as men… The child’s right to livelihood was also ungrudgingly recognized: not as a state charity, but as a right no one dreamed of denying. The schools were open to children to the age of 14 or 15 — the only guarantee that parents would not send their children to work sooner, and that education would really be universal… In all the agrarian collectives of Aragon, Catalonia, Levant, Castile, Andalusia, and Estremadura, the workers formed groups to divide the labor or the land; usually they were assigned to definite areas. Delegates elected by the work groups met with the collective’s delegate for agriculture to plan out the work. This typical organization arose quite spontaneously, by local initiative… In addition to these methods — and similar meetings of specialized groups — the collective as a whole met in a weekly, bi-weekly or monthly assembly. This too was a spontaneous innovation. The assembly reviewed the activities of the councillors it named, and discussed special cases and unforseen problems. All inhabitants — men and women, producers and non producers — took part in the discussion and decisions. In many cases the “individualists” (non-collective members) had equal rights in the assembly… In land cultivation the most significant advances were: the rapidly increased use of machinery and irrigation; greater diversification; and forestation. In stock raising: the selection and multiplication of breeds; the adaption of breeds to local conditions; and large-scale construction of collective stock barns.

Production and trade were brought into increasing harmony and distribution became more and more unified… In Aragon, the Federation of Collectives, founded in January, 1937, began to coordinate trade among the communes of the region, and to create a system of mutual aid. The tendency to unity became more distinct with the adoption of a single “producer’s card” and a single “consumer’s card” — which implied suppression of all money, local and national — by a decision of the February, 1937 Congress. Coordination of trade with other regions, and abroad, improved steadily. When disparities in exchange, or exceptionally high prices, created surpluses, they were used by the Regional Federation to help the poorer collectives. Solidarity thus extended beyond the district… The first step toward socialization was frequently the dividing up of large estates (as in the Segorbe and Granollers districts and a number of Aragon villages). In certain other cases the first step was to force the municipalities to grant immediate reforms (municipalization of land-rent and of medicine in Elda, Benicarlo, Castillone, Alcaniz, Caspé, etc.)… Education advanced at an unprecedented pace. Most of the partly or wholly socialized collectives and municipalities built at least one school. By 1938, for example, every collective in the Levant Federation had its own school… The character of the collectives varied of course with local conditions… Although their juridical principles were strictly anarchist, a great many collectives were created spontaneously by people remote from our movement (“libertarians” without being aware of it)… Membership in the collective was voluntary: the “individualists” joined only if they were persuaded of the advantages of working in common,” (Dolgoff and Bookchin, 2011).

Additionally: the Mujeres Libres who fought for increased women’s freedom within the revolution were: “collectivist and communalist in orientation” and “committed to a vision of society in which the self-development of each is connected to the development of all,” where “freedom and equality, individual identity and community, were understood to be mutually interdependent,” believing that, “empowerment could take place only in the context of communities and/or organizations that acknowledged and valued the diversity of their constituents,” (Ackelsberg, 2005).

The factors leading to the destruction of the revolution are numerous but include Francoist/Fascist military victory over Spain, Stalinist betrayals and attacks against the anarchist, syndicalist, and communalist revolution, as well as CNT and anarchist compromises with the popular front/Republican government.

Zapatistas / ACGAZ:

The Zapatista Revolution has been ongoing since 1994 (EZLN, 2005). Zapatista communities are rooted in community assemblies and related direct democracy– where power comes from below instead of from above (EZLN, 2005, Sixth Commission of the EZLN, 2016, Subcommander Moisés, 2023). The current structure of Zapatista autonomy is called ACGAZ which stands for Assemblies of Collectives of Zapatista Autonomous Governments (Subcommander Moisés, 2023). Zapatistas strive, “Not to make agreements from above to be imposed below, but to make accords to go together to listen and to organize outrage. Not to raise movements which are later negotiated behind the backs of those who made them, but to always take into account the opinions of those participating. Not to seek gifts, positions, advantages, public positions, from the Power or those who aspire to it, but to go beyond the election calendar,” (EZLN, 2005).

The Zapatistas are composed of multiple Indigenous peoples, cultures, and languages– and includes non-indigenous people as well (Sixth Commission of the EZLN, 2016). EZLN, 2016). Zapatista politics include influences from indigenous traditions of self-management as well as influence coming from anarchism, Marxism, the original Zapatistas, Magonism, and even Liberation Theology (Lynd and Grubacic, 2008). Neo-Zapatismo should be recognized as its own unique praxis– which is not to say that there are commonalities with other distinct theories and practices rooted in community-self-management and commoning. The Zapatista revolution has been a revolution against the capitalist hydra. The Zapatista revolution has been a struggle for freedom and autonomy from capitalism, the state, imperialism, colonialism, and patriarchy (Sixth Commission of the EZLN, 2016). In addition to self-management and sharing of social re/production, the Zapatistas have developed a culture of fighting against patriarchal values inherited and passed down from colonial and capitalist forms of patriarchy (Sixth Commission of the EZLN, 2016).

The Zapatistas have related common economics where people make agreements for common and collective work (Sixth Commission of the EZLN, 2016, El Capitan, 2023). Decisions are made from below in assemblies and those delegated from below “have to follow the will of the assembly,” (Sixth Commission of the EZLN). When policies delegates want to perform are not mandated from below through a given community agreement, delegates have to consult communities and get community approvals for new policies (Sixth Commission of the EZLN). “The people organize in assemblies where they begin to express their opinions, and from there, proposals emerge, and these proposals are studied for their advantages and disadvantages to decide which one is best. Before making a decision, the proposals are taken back to the people and the assembly for approval. In this way, a decision can be made in accordance with the majority of the communities. This is Zapatista life in the communities. It has become our culture,” (Sixth Commission of the EZLN).

Solutions to social problems “can come from a community, from a particular group, or it can come from an individual– something that a companero or companera suggests,” (Sixth Commission of the EZLN). Policies and decisions about commons as well as common and collective work are made in community assemblies; and the assemblies help to monitor politics, economics, and their various councils and delegates that administer various projects (Sixth Commission of the EZLN). “For the collective work projects that we are discussing, what has really helped us is working in the following manner: dividing the month into… days of collective work and… days of family work. Each person agrees. Some places might decide differently… But each place makes their agreement at the level of the community or the region or Autonomous Municipality or the zone. These are the four levels at which the collective work projects take place, which is to say there are four levels of assemblies, which is to say four levels at which to come to agreement,” (Sixth Commission of the EZLN, 2016). “The Zapatista communities use the caracol to call and convoke the collective. For example, if there is a community problem, an issue that has to be resolved, the caracol is sounded and all of the community knows that there is a collective meeting so that thought can be spoken and we can see what we might do to resist,” (Sixth Commission of the EZLN, 2016). Zapatistas have continued to restructure themselves in a way that better approximates their ideals and aspirations while adapting to conditions (Subcommander Moisés, 2023, El Capitan, 2023). In doing so, they have continued to further develop community-self-management and commoning. It is a living revolution.

“…Self-government; it’s not that we can’t do it, but that it’s a struggle to do it. We have achieved it through our resistance and rebellion because we do a lot of political work, ideological work, a lot of explaining about how we see capitalism, and a lot of evaluating of how we are doing as an organization,” (Sixth Commission of the EZLN, 2016)

Rojava / DAANES:

The Rojava revolution, ongoing since 2012, consists of directly democratic community assemblies and federations thereof (Knapp et al., 2016, Dirik, 2022, Allsopp and Wilgenburg, 2019, DAANES, 2023). “The field research carried out in Rojava shows that all the decision-making processes have been carried out in the form of assemblies,” (Aslan, 2023). Relatedly, Rojava has a social contract with rights, duties, and political-power along egalitarian lines (DAANES, 2023). Assemblies have been key in restructuring daily life and social relations along lines of mutual freedom and mutual aid (Aslan, 2023). Quoting the DAANES social contract, “We are determined to establish a democratic system based on democratic autonomous administrations, achieve justice and equality among all peoples and communities, preserve all cultural, religious and ideological identities, spread a culture of diversity and tolerance, reject all types of violence and take the principle of legitimate defense as a basis,” (DAANES, 2023).

Further quoting from the DAANES social contract: “The Democratic Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria organizes its democratic and free community life based on the formation of: communes, councils, academies, cooperatives, community economic units and institutions that complement the community system, which organize themselves in a confederal manner. The democratic system of society develops and is consolidated based on these institutions,” (DAANES, 2003). Further, “The commune… is the basic grassroots organization form of direct democracy. It is the smallest administrative unit in the Democratic Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria. It is the place where the moral-political community develops, which produces social, economic and cultural life. The commune is a self-contained council and is the place of decision-making, administration and has the power to resolve social issues within the administrative and organizational fields,” (DAANES, 2003). The democratic confederal structure federates from commune scale to broader intercommunal scales on neighborhood, village, town, city, broader regional, cantonal, to a broader inter-cantonal council (DAANES, 2003).

Quoting the DAANES social contract, “The societal revolution that was achieved under the leadership of women in North and East Syria opened the way for an intellectual and social renaissance, and women became a fundamental pillar of our democratic system,”Rojava is a revolution rooted in democracy, ecology, and women’s liberation (Dirik, 2022). The Rojava Revolution seeks to liberate politics, economics, and everyday life from patriarchy, capitalism, the state, and bigotry along lines of ethnicity. Rojava is also rooted in equal rights and ethnic pluralism; coexistence and mutual flourishing of many people with many languages, religious views, and cultures (Dirik, 2022, DAANES, 2023). The guiding political praxis of Rojava was formulated by Abdullah Ocalan and is called Democratic Confederalism (Ocalan, 2014). The Democratic Confederalist approach emerged through a struggle within the Kurdish Freedom movement to become more free and egalitarian– a struggle that was primarily led by women (Dirik, 2022). Democratic Confederalism is highly influenced by Murray Bookchin’s communalism (which is a branch of libertarian socialism/communism). The notion of self-management that Democratic Confederalism puts forward is political, economic, and social (Ocalan, 2014, Aslan, 2023). In this social transformation, community assemblies were used to fill power vacuums, meet needs of people, and organize defense of people in response to the chaos of Syria and the Syrian civil war (Knapp et al., 2016). Rojava was the main force that fought against and defeated ISIS, Rojava has functionally expropriated mass territory, and Rojava has defended itself against aggression from the state of Turkey and Turkish-Proxy forces. Rojava has self defense militias that are embedded within and mandated by local communes and confederations thereof (DAANES, 2023).

Quoting Ocalan, the economic goal of Democratic Confederalism is to create a world where each “community… decides what society needs to survive, as well as how much should be produced to satisfy this need; how, where and with whom to cooperate, and how, by whom and with whom the fruits of production will be shared,” (Aslan, 2023). The aspirations of Democratic Confederalism also include moving beyond money, an ecological society, as well as communal, collective, and personal use replacing property (Aslan, 2023). Rojava has a communal economy and related commons that function through community assemblies and collective action to meet needs (Knapp et al., 2016, Allsopp and Wilgenburg, 2019, Dirik, 2022, DAANES, 2023).

Assemblies, committees thereof, collective work of people in everyday life, and cooperatives are aspects of the communal economy in Rojava (Aslan, 2023). And “decisions concerning cooperatives are not taken solely by its members, but also by the assemblies of the communities where the cooperatives are located. This collective process allows the larger community, and not just the workers, to create a culture of production that meets their needs. The underlying assumption is that the formation of cooperatives must develop independently of market conditions in order to enable the creation of autonomous power,” (Aslan, 2023). But if one just looks to the formal cooperatives one will miss the extent of cooperatizing and mutual-aid as part of assemblies, embedded councils thereof, commons, and transformed social relations (Aslan, 2023). While Rojava has a communal economy via communes, various formal, informal, permanent, and temporary committees and mutual-aid/commoning: Rojava is limited by multiple factors such as external war and blockades, some hangovers from prior economic inequalities of land tenure, local markets, external markets, internal conflicts between economic sectors, uneven support for communalization between communities, etc. (Aslan, 2023). “Even as the revolution takes place, capitalism as a phenomenon and concrete understanding is striving to exist and dominate in Rojava to counter the revolutionary process (counterrevolution), as are the state and power, or patriarchy, visible in the form of ISIS,” (Aslan, 2023). Finding ways to defend against and resolving hierarchical threats while also forging paths towards continued communalization of internal inequalities and fragmentations overtime would be a way of resolving these contradictions (Aslan, 2023). Social transformation in Rojava has been in a process of making, destroying, and recreating various policies and is a living revolution (Aslan, 2023).

Conclusion:

The above amalgamation can help contribute to a history of community-self-management, commoning, and freedom more broadly. The above helps highlight the extensive communalist dimensions within these libertarian socialist influenced revolutionary movements. Additionally, the above highlights communalist dimensions within libertarian socialism/libertarian communist theory and practice more broadly. Each of these revolutionary movements are simultaneously part of local, interlocal, and transnational historical developments and causes; the movements and the extensive communalist dimensions thereof can be better understood more holistically when in relationship to broader historical context/embeddedness (and the myriad of relevant political, economic, social, cultural, and ecological variables– including heterogeneous as well as non-ideal features of each respective revolution).

Each of these revolutionary movements includes community assemblies and commoning related to reconstruction of self-management as well as opposition to and defense against domination. These revolutions involved communalized decision-making+action, land, social re/production, agriculture, water, energy, buildings, infrastructure, tools, education, healthcare, self-defense, etc. There are commonalities as well as plurality within and between various assemblies and commons that are part of each of these revolutionary movements– as well as between such revolutionary movements. The general features of community-self-management and commoning can develop in multiple ways and adapt to a plurality of conditions and relevant variables. We know from a broader history of freedom that community-self-management and commoning can be resilient among large numbers of people over long periods of time, on communal and intercommunal scales across multiple modes of subsistence (Boehm, 2001, Bookchin, 2005, Federici, 2018, Ostrom, 2021). There is more than enough historical data to say that it is possible for the building blocks of community assemblies, embedded councils, mutual aid, and collective action to scale upwards via confederation. The continuation of the living Rojava and Zapatista revolutions further demonstrate resilience and longevity of large numbers of people organizing communal/intercommunal/common forms of politics and economics in spite of absurdly difficult conditions.

The community-assemblies and commons of these 6 revolutions are largely in harmony with modified versions of Ostrom’s core-design-principles for well-functioning commons (Ostrom, 2021, Usufruct Collective, 2024). All of these revolutionary movements have included: Participants of groups who know what the groups they are participating in are about, agreements to share in collective action and the fruits thereof, adaptations to local conditions, collective choice arrangements (assembly+deliberation+direct democracy+non-hierarchy), sufficient organizational and economic transparency for relevant economic monitoring from below, forms of disapproval and defense against domination, forms of conflict resolution, and existence within larger polycentric networks (Ostrom, 2021, Usufruct Collective, 2024). These revolutionary movements led to tremendous increases of political, economic, social, and individual freedom. In addition to such increases in political, economic, social, and individual freedom, these revolutions all created vast increases in relatedness among people as well as effective/ethical practice orientation dealing with self-managing political economic life.

Humans have needs for autonomy/self-management, relatedness, and effective practice/goal orientations (Ryan and Deci, 2022a, 2022b). Community-self-management and functional commons increase collective and individual autonomy and relatedness and effective+ethical collective action. Community-self-management and commoning have means and ends that can, if actuated and creatively adapted to context, lead to the flourishing of such needs being fulfilled on political, economic, social, and everyday scales. Well-functioning co-federated community-self-management and commoning embed collective and individual self-determination within social relations of mutual-freedom and mutual non-domination– where self interest and social interest are harmonized and needs of all are met through deliberation, collective-decision-making, and mutual aid+collective action. Horizontal, participatory, directly-democratic community assemblies, commons, and co-federations thereof shift social relations and contribute to greater sharing and caring within and between communities. Such a shift in social relations leads to greater flourishing of relatedness and solidarity. Such community assemblies and related commons make it so that which affects all and that which all need is deliberated upon, decided on, and managed by participants– as opposed to state, capitalist/private, or even relatively private ownership/decision making about what communities need and do. Additionally, well functioning community assemblies and commons meet needs of people at the expense of structural violence.

The above criteria of well-functioning commons, political/economic/social self-management (and the means thereof as a gestalt), increased relatedness, increased ethical/effective practices on political/economic/social and individual levels, meeting needs related to a decent standard of living, and decreasing structural violence (and abolishing entangled political/economic/social causes thereof) are related to the good life as well as social and individual flourishing (Wilkinson and Pickett, 2011, Rao and Min, 2017, Ostrom, 2021, Bookchin 2022, Ryan and Deci, 2022a, 2022b). In relation to such criteria of Self-Determination-Theory, the gestalt of social freedom and the means thereof, Ostrom’s rules for managing the commons, meeting needs (including decent standard of living for all) at the expense of structural violence and causes thereof: we can evaluate community-self-management and commoning as beneficial to overall social freedom and flourishing. And from the above criteria, we can even claim sufficient communalization (so that communities can self-manage political/economic life) is constitutive of overall social freedom and flourishing. Additionally, in relation to such a gestalt of good criteria, the politics/economics/social relations stemming from the locus of control of these 6 revolutionary movements can be evaluated as overwhelmingly positive. Such a positive evaluation is in spite of real imperfections and fallibilities of these revolutions such as insufficient communalization/communization in some sectors of the economy OR other issues like making compromises at the expense of strategic considerations and even principles at times. Community-self-management and commoning within these 6 specific revolutions also can be evaluated as overwhelmingly positive in relation to normative criteria of good rights+duties in relation to social freedom, increased needs met+ increased well-being, virtue forming practices+social relations+institutions, as well as the tripartite criteria of liberty/equality/solidarity.

***And on a brief but important tangent, given the most essential features of social ecology, the above analysis can be ecologized accordingly since: 1. Contemporary ecological problems are social problems caused by capitalism, the state, and hierarchy more broadly 2. the full flourishing of social freedom and wellbeing requires related ecological flourishing 3. Self management of each and all on every scale+means thereof is a precondition for ecological flourishing AND 4. We have the potential to be ecologically creative and mutualistic (Bookchin 2022, Usufruct Collective, 2025). Pockets of freedom as well as objective possibilities for a free and ecological society exist alongside and against dominant hierarchical and ecocidal political/economic/social tendencies that are threatening human existence and the broader web of life we are part of and dependent upon. The very kinds of organization/action spirals that can help lead to long-term social transformation can also help address more immediate practical social and ecological problems (and achieve short-term and mid-term goals from below on the way towards grander social transformation).

And while these revolutionary movements and societies GENERALLY satisfy Ostrom’s 8 core-design-principles, one of Ostrom’s core-design-principles was intentionally left out in the above positive evaluation section; the one left out was the minimal rights to organize by relevant external parties. This was left out there and then mentioned here to highlight that these revolutionary movements have NOT been meaningfully granted anything approximating the minimal rights to organize by relevant external parties. The autonomy of all these revolutionary projects has been attacked externally from multiple directions by multiple hierarchical forces and systems. The autonomy these movements have been able to develop was created, seized, and defended by participants in spite of absurdly harsh terrain.

Developing sufficient autonomy from external hierarchical forces is crucial for long term commoning and social transformation. This is particularly difficult to do within world capitalism and the interstate system, even more difficult to do when being directly and indirectly attacked, and even more difficult to do when being directly and indirectly attacked on multiple fronts by various combinations of capitalist, state, and other kinds of hierarchical forces. Those difficulties are amplified by the lack of sufficient worldwide libertarian/egalitarian movements+revolutions against hierarchical society. And while commons have been under attack by hierarchical politics, economics, and social relations for several thousands of years, there has been an intensified attack on the commons within the last several hundred years via the expansion and globalization of capitalism, contemporary statecraft, and the interstate system. Inversely, there have been new forms of struggles against hierarchical society within this period– such as but far from limited to the 6 revolutionary movements discussed in this essay.

As Caffentzis points out, the main way that commons are destroyed is through attacks on the commons by capitalist and state forces (Barbagallo et al., 2019). By learning about how specific systems, institutions, and social relations inter-relate and affect specific communities and commons, we can gain a better understanding of specific communities and commons while also gaining a better understanding of hierarchical forces inhibiting the flourishing thereof. This is not to say that there are no internal problems that stem from the “locus of control” of various social movements, communities, and collectives– such as through people making less than good enough decisions (and, even worse, foolish decisions that go against liberatory principles and goals). However, it is also important to note that the worst decisions these revolutionary movements and societies make cannot be so easily disentangled from the contexts they are embedded within and the attacks upon them from hierarchical society and instantiations thereof. Quoting Dolgoff, “anarchist and non-anarchist critics of the conduct and policies of our comrades must never lose sight of the fact that these constructive achievements were made under the worst possible circumstances,” (Dolgoff and Bookchin, 2011). The above quote rings true not just for the Spanish Revolution for all 6 of these revolutions. As Massimo De Angelis points out while synthesizing aspects of Ostrom and Caffentzis: commons are “constituted not only by their internal relations, but also by their relations to their environment,” (Barbagallo et al., 2019). It is both the case that “the ability of a commons to sustain itself depends on its management principles, even if we are talking about self-management,” AND that any commons sustaining as a liberatory force within the current hierarchical world order depend “on power relations vis-à-vis capital (and the state),” which attempt, “to enclose (and thus destroy) or to coopt,” commons by, “sucking surplus value by using commons as a way to suppress social wages,” (Barbagallo et al., 2019).

Given both ‘external’ and ‘internal’ causes of destruction of commons, social movements, and libertarian socialist influenced revolutionary movements: sufficiently communalizing power, politics, economics, social re/production, and self-defense against domination– in tandem with mass solidarity, co-federation, and generalized interlocalization of the above– can help revolutionary movements sustain and continue towards their own aspired goals through a unity of means/ends adapting to relevant conditions, volitions, capacities, and needs of participants. Such an approach can oppose hierarchies, meet needs, fill power vacuums, bridge short-term, mid-term, and long-term goals/needs, use reconstructive practices of self-management/mutual aid/commoning as part of opposition to domination, and utilize opposition to domination to help develop self-management/mutual-aid/commons. It is also important to note that the social force/power/capacity of these community organizations is generated through their joint reconstructive and oppositional dimensions. Grander interlocalization+co-federation can make it so both local and interlocal social problems can be better addressed and make it so revolutionary movements have more capacity, solidarity, and true allies. Development and prefiguration of liberatory practices, solidarity, and community-self-management+commoning before, during, and after revolutionary moments and openings helps contribute to liberatory social transformation.

The harmony of sufficient organization, self-managed power, popular legitimacy, strategy, tactics, relationships, actions, reconstructive and oppositional dimensions, etc, has made it so these 6 revolutionary movements for social transformation were able to be coordinated and powerful enough to achieve their respective liberatory accomplishments. It is precisely through building blocks of social transformation and spirals of social relations, organizations, and collective actions that such revolutionary social change can be made possible. Each of these 6 revolutionary movements have local, translocal, and transnational liberatory tendencies prior to and coalescing into their respective revolutions. They all include organizations and movements that start out more modest in scope and scale before blooming. Each of these 6 revolutions includes the prefiguration and development of practices of self-management, mutual-aid, and direct action as well as organizations that are rooted in the above (and community forms thereof).

In addition to prefiguration, multiplication, and strategic development of liberatory practices and popular organizations like community assemblies and unions: an important factor in victory of revolutionary movements is the presence+efficacy of sufficiently liberatory ideologically and theoretically specific organizations that function as catalysts towards social movement organizations becoming more ethical and effective. Ideologically and theoretically specific libertarian socialist/communist organizations can help as catalysts towards revolutionary social transformation through social insertion– through members thereof participating in social movement organizations (community assemblies, labor unions, etc.) alongside others as equal participants while working to spread and inculcate further liberatory practices/processes/goals (and oppose authoritarian ones) through dialogue and action (FARJ, 2008). Such an approach would neither be an authoritarian form of vanguardism nor a form of tailism. Dielo Truda and Platformism + FAU, FARJ, and Especifismo speak to this issue well.

Libertarian socialist/communist/communalist praxis has much to offer an approach of commoning against capitalism, the state, and hierarchical society– such as in regards to certain necessary features that must be developed as means/ends that can be adapted to pluriversal contexts as well as various additional formal+strategic+tactical approaches and lessons.

Alongside such hopeful potentialities that are illuminated by the history of freedom and these 6 revolutions (2 of which are living revolutions), there is a simultaneous revelation about how so many movements in the past that were so grand in qualities, functionality, and scale were destroyed through external hierarchical forces in tandem with tragic mistakes they made along the way. And as ethical, beautiful, and brilliant as the history and living development of social freedom is: on one level it does not FULLY capture the potential grandness of community, collective, and individual self-management and related commons blossoming onward overtime, freed from the context of hierarchical society, freed from attacks by hierarchical society, magnified ten-thousand fold (and then some)– towards sufficiency and beyond, full libertarian communism, ecological abundance, post-scarcity, etc. When learning from the history and living development of social freedom, we must continue to take our poetry from the future as well.

Ending with a quote from Azize Aslan:

“Communes and assemblies are important revolutionary practices that generate social transformation and emancipation without creating a state…Society can govern itself, determine its own destiny despite all the contradictions, proving to the people of Rojava and the whole world that this can be achieved in a democratic way,” (Aslan, 2023).

Ackelsberg, Martha A. Free women of Spain anarchism and the struggle for the emancipation of women. Oakland, CA: AK Press, 2005.

Allsopp, Harriet, and Wladimir van Wilgenburg. The Kurds of northern syria: Governance, diversity and conflicts. London: I.B. Tauris, 2019.

Arshinov, Peter. “History of the Makhnovist Movement (1918–1921).” The Anarchist Library, 2011. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-arshinov-history-of-the-makhnovist-movement-1918-1921.

Aslan, Azize. Anticapitalist economy in Rojava: The contradictions of revolution in the Kurdish struggle. Wakefield, Quebec, Canada: Daraja Press, 2023.

Barbagallo, Camille, Nicholas Beuret, and David Harvie. Commoning: With George Caffentzis and Silvia Federici. London: Pluto Press, 2019.

Boehm, Cristopher. Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior. Harvard University, 2001.

Bookchin, Murray. The Ecology of Freedom: The Emergence and Dissolution of Hierarchy. Oakland, CA: AK Press, 2005.

Gilly, Adolfo. The Mexican Revolution: A new press people’s history. New York: The New Press : Distributed by W. W. Norton & Comapny, 2006.

Gilly, Adolfo. “Genealogies of the Uprisings.” marxists.org, 2010. https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/atc/3033.html.

Correa, Felipe. “Magonism and Zapatism.” The Anarchist Library, 2021. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/felipe-correa-magonism-and-zapatism.

DAANES. “Rojava IC.” Rojava Information Center, 2023. https://rojavainformationcenter.org/2023/12/aanes-social-contract-2023-edition/.

Dielo Truda . “Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists.” The Anarchist Library, 2009. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/dielo-truda-workers-cause-organisational-platform-of-the-libertarian-communists.

Dirik, Dilar. The Kurdish Women’s Movement: History, theory, practice. London: Pluto Press, 2022.

Dolgoff, Sam, and Murray Bookchin . Anarchist Collectives Workers’ self-management in the Spanish Revolution 1936-1939. Montreal: Black Rose Books Ltd, 2011.

El Capitan. “Twentieth and Last Part: The Common and Non-Property.” Enlace Zapatista, December 22, 2023. https://enlacezapatista.ezln.org.mx/2023/12/22/twentieth-and-last-part-the-common-and-non-property/.

EZLN. “Sixth Declaration of the Selva Lacandona.” Enlace Zapatista, May 10, 2005. https://enlacezapatista.ezln.org.mx/sdsl-en/.

FARJ. Social Anarchism and Organisation , 2008.

Federici, Silvia. Re-enchanting the World Feminism and the Politics of the Commons. PM Press, 2018.

Gilly, Adolfo. The Mexican Revolution: A new press people’s history. New York: The New Press : Distributed by W. W. Norton & Comapny, 2006.

Guérin, Daniel. Anarchism, from theory to practice. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1970.

Hwang, Dongyoun. “Anarchism in Korea.” The Anarchist Library, 2016. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/dongyoun-hwang-anarchism-in-korea-book.

Jang-Whan, O. H. “Kim Joa-Jin (1889–1930).” The Anarchist Library, 2009. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/o-h-jang-whan-kim-joa-jin-1889-1930.

Ki-Rak, Ha. “A History of the Korean Anarchist Movement.” The Anarchist Library, 2012. https://libcom.org/forums/history/history-korean-anarchist-movement-ha-ki-rak-11032012.

Knapp, Michael, Anja Flach, Ercan Ayboga, David Graeber, Asya Abdullah, and Janet Biehl. Revolution in Rojava: Democratic autonomy and women’s liberation in Syrian Kurdistan. London: Pluto Press, 2016.

Kropotkin, Peter. The Conquest of Bread. 1906.

Leval, Gaston. “Collectives in the Spanish Revolution .” libcom.org, 2006. https://libcom.org/article/collectives-spanish-revolution-gaston-leval.

Lynd, Staughton, and Andrej Grubacic. Wobblies and Zapatistas. PM Press, 2008.

Makhno, Nestor. The Russian Revolution in Ukraine (March 1917 – April 1918) Edmonton, Alberta: Black Cat Press, 2009.

Min. “Summary of the Shinmin Prefecture.” libcom.org, 2021. https://libcom.org/history/summary-shinmin-prefecture.

Öcalan, Abdullah. Democratic confederalism. Transmedia Publishing, 2014.

Ostrom, Elinor. Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021.

Rao, Narasimha D., and Jihoon Min. “Decent Living Standards: Material Prerequisites for Human Wellbeing.” Social Indicators Research 138, no. 1 (May 23, 2017): 225–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-017-1650-0.

Ramnath, Maia. “Non-Western Anarchisms and Postcolonialism.” The Anarchist Library, 2019. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/maia-ramnath-non-western-anarchisms-and-postcolonialism.

Ryan, Richard M., and Edward L. Deci. Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. New York: Guilford Press, 2022a.

Ryan, Richard M., Jasper J. Duineveld, Stefano I. Di Domenico, William S. Ryan, Ben A. Steward, and Emma L. Bradshaw. “We Know This Much Is (Meta-Analytically) True: A Meta-Review of Meta-Analytic Findings Evaluating Self-Determination Theory.” Psychological Bulletin 148, no. 11–12 (November 2022): 813–42. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000385, 2022b.

Sixth Commission of the EZLN. Critical thought in the face of the capitalist Hydra I. Durham, NC: PaperBoat Press, 2016.

Skirda, Alexandre. Nestor Makhno: Anarchy’s Cossack , 2003.

Subcommander Moisés. “Ninth Part: The New Structure of Zapastista Autonomy.” Enlace Zapatista, November 13, 2023. https://enlacezapatista.ezln.org.mx/2023/11/13/ninth-part-the-new-structure-of-zapastista-autonomy/.

Tokologo African Anarchist Collective, Eric Every, Leila Veerapan-Lewis, and Lucky Sumione. “The Story of the Korean Anarchists and the Anarchist Revolution in Manchuria, 1929–1931.” The Anarchist Library, 2014. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/tokologo-african-anarchist-collective-the-story-of-the-korean-anarchists-and-the-anarchist-revo.

Usufruct Collective. Communalism: Form, Content, Means, and Ends, August 25, 2022. https://usufructcollective.wordpress.com/2021/01/08/communalism-form-content-means-and-ends/.

Usufruct Collective. “Ostrom’s 8 Rules of the Commons for Anarchists .” Usufruct Collective, October 22, 2024. https://usufructcollective.wordpress.com/2024/10/22/ostroms-8-rules-of-the-commons-for-anarchists/.

Usufruct Collective. WTF is Social Ecology?, 2025. https://usufructcollective.wordpress.com/2025/02/17/wtf-is-social-ecology/. 

Wehling, Jason. “Anarchist Influences on the Mexican Revolution.” The Anarchist Library, 2020. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/jason-wehling-anarchist-influences-on-the-mexican-revolution.

Wilkinson, Richard G., and Kate Pickett. The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger. New York: Bloomsbury, 2011.

Zapata, Emiliano, and Otilio Montano . “Plan of Ayala.” The Anarchist Library, 2021. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emiliano-zapata-plan-of-ayala

.

WTF Is Social Ecology?

From climate change, to deforestation, to destruction of biodiversity and habitats, to ocean acidification, to air, water and soil pollution, and beyond: the world is undergoing a colossal ecological crisis. If business as usual continues without sufficient opposition and alternatives, there will be escalating disasters. However, there are real possibilities to change how we relate to each other politically, economically, and socially– and by extension change how we relate to the broader ecological world we are part of. The odds may be against us, but spirals of organization and collective action can change the odds and change the world.

Ecology is the study of living organisms and their relationships to each other and their environments. Social Ecology is a framework for thinking about social and ecological processes and taking action to change the world. Social Ecology sees nature as relational and developmental. Social Ecology proposes developmental reasoning to trace social and ecological relations, processes, and possibilities. From the above, we can find what should be in relationship to social and ecological flourishing. Social Ecology was founded by philosopher Murray Bookchin in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Social Ecology is a living set of ideas that strives to continually combine the best of philosophy with the best of natural and social sciences.

Society is part of and evolved out of the natural world. By being political, economic, and social animals, with conceptual language, and technology: humans have immense potential to create and to destroy. Depending on how we relate to each other, we can play mutualistic and creative roles towards social and ecological flourishing or we can create death spirals leading to social and ecological destruction.

Social Ecology claims our major ecological problems are rooted in social problems– specifically problems of social hierarchy as well as capitalism in particular. This social definition of hierarchy refers to institutionalized domination where rulers command and the ruled obey. Contrary to anti-human myths, the ecological crisis is not caused by an excess of human freedom; it is instead caused by the destruction of social freedom that happens through domination and exploitation towards goals of profit and power-over others.

Capitalism is based on commodity production for markets, wage labor (and other exploited labor!), class relations, and class-property to competitively acquire private profit. Capitalism puts profit above social and ecological needs. Capitalism turns human labor and the ecological world more broadly into instruments and commodities to be exploited, destroyed, bought, and sold in competitive games to see who gets what and who rules who. In the process of competitively trying to increase profit, and exploiting and dominating labor in the process, ecosystems are sacrificed accordingly. Within capitalism, businesses that do not exploit labor and extract as much are at competitive disadvantages compared to competitors exploiting and extracting more.

States are hierarchical forms of politics with related monopolies on the use of violence within the territories they govern. States also have anti-social and anti-ecological imperatives. States can only exist through developing power-over others. Competing and cooperating states exist through increasing their abilities to use violence against those they rule over, external populations, and competing forces at the expense of social and ecological flourishing. The militarism of states eats social and ecological worlds. Additionally, states exploit the populations they conquer and rule over for resources and labor.

Contemporary states also enforce capitalism and by extension enforce ecological destruction caused by capitalism and are not separable from it. Capitalism has been legalized, enforced, and expanded through states. As part of the capitalist world system, imperialism, colonialism, and continuous enclosures of commons create new commodities and markets while forcing people into poverty, wage labor, and other exploited labor. Capitalist and state systems are entangled with various patriarchal, racist, imperial, colonial, and nationalist relations that function in and through such capitalist and state systems– creating populations that are hyper-exploited and hyper-dominated as well as forced to be on the frontlines of ecological disasters.

Hierarchical institutions and social relations co-create each other and exist in particular and changing ways. Hierarchies destroy and inhibit self-management and related commons. By extension, hierarchies are at the expense of the kinds of social relations necessary for social and ecological flourishing. If some hierarchies are abolished while others continue without sufficient opposition, then institutionalized domination will continue along with its anti-social and anti-ecological results.

Towards An Ecological Society:

Contrary to social hierarchy, social freedom would be self-management of communities, collectives, and individuals on every scale to act and develop without dominating each other. There is a grand history of freedom outside, alongside, and against the history of hierarchy. Out of social and ecological history, we can better understand possibilities and causes for mutual-aid, self-organization, freedom, unity in diversity, and nonhierarchical relationships. Such features are principles for both social and ecological flourishing.

Community self-management and related common resources are extensions of social freedom and meeting needs of all. Social Ecology proposes self-managed community assemblies that utilize dialogue, direct-collective-decision making, collective action, mutual-aid, and shared-common-resources to meet needs and solve social problems. Resources communities need would be held in common and resources individuals need would be given according to needs. Through non-hierarchical, participatory, and direct democracy: policies would be made by community assemblies and administration would be carried-out by mandated and recallable councils of such assemblies. Community assemblies would form inter-community associations with each other for making decisions, co-managing common resources, and mutual-aid between communities in such a way where all policy making power is held by assemblies and participants directly. Community assemblies would strive towards an ecological abundance where there is wellbeing for all in harmony with and mutualistically contributing to ecosystems they are part of and related to. Social Ecology proposes a vision where the above replaces competitively increasing profit and power-over others through domination, exploitation, commodification, and ecological destruction.

To get from here to utopia, Social Ecology proposes developing self-managed community assemblies that work on meeting short term, mid-term and long-term needs/goals. This would be done through developing common-resources, mutual-aid projects, and direct action against domination, exploitation, and ecological destruction. Associations of self-managed communities can become both alternative-powers and counter-powers against class-relations and hierarchy more broadly. Strategically applied spirals of organizations and actions, within and between community assemblies and other kinds of social movement organizations, can overtime develop popular will and capacity to overthrow hierarchical rule and create a free and ecological society. This general approach proposed by Social Ecology would be adapted to needs, conditions, and desires of participants.

“Until society can be reclaimed by an undivided humanity that will use its collective wisdom, cultural achievements, technological innovations, scientific knowledge, and innate creativity for its own benefit and for that of the natural world, all ecological problems will have their roots in social problems.” -Bookchin

///

For further reading on Social Ecology:

Remaking Society by Murray Bookchin https://libcom.org/article/remaking-society-pathways-green-future

Ecology of Freedom by Murray Bookchin https://libcom.org/article/ecology-freedom-emergence-and-dissolution-hierarchy-murray-bookchin

Philosophy of Social Ecology by Murray Bookchin https://files.libcom.org/files/ThePhilosophyofSocialEcology.pdf

Post Scarcity Anarchism by Murray Bookchin https://files.libcom.org/files/Post-Scarcity%20Anarchism%20-%20Murray%20Bookchin.pdf

Ecology of Everyday Life by Chaia Heller https://libcom.org/article/ecology-everyday-life

The commons are resources self-managed by communities who need and use them. Commons are managed through dialogue, deliberation, and collective-decision-making as well as through mutual aid to meet needs. Commoning refers to the process of developing commons. Commons can include land, water-ways, fields, factories, workshops, instruments/tools, dwellings, recreational facilities, general infrastructure, miscellaneous infrastructure, fruits of re/production, mixes of all of the above, and beyond. Flourishing commons provide communities and participants with shared means of existence, production, and politics as well as access to the fruits thereof in ways that meet the needs of all. 

The commons have been under attack by the last several thousand years of hierarchy and class society as well as the last several hundred years of capitalism. Capitalism developed through multiple factors including continuous privatization of the commons enforced through state violence (Federici, 2018). Despite such systemic violence, pockets of the commons continue to exist through people developing both new and enduring commons to meet their needs and the needs of others as well as through people resisting domination and exploitation (Federici, 2018). Commoning is not only under attack by multiple entangled forms of hierarchy (institutionalized domination) such as capitalism, statecraft, patriarchy, racism, imperialism, colonialism, and nationalism; commoning is also under ideological attack through widespread propaganda and belief systems that deem various hierarchies beneficial or inevitable. 

Arguments claiming that commons inevitably lead to tragedies of overuse and collective ruin deny the history of the commons while also assuming that commons are rooted in crude competitive acquisition without the very collective rules, agreements, and practices that enable them to be functional. Such straw men of the commons reflect the norms of competitive and hierarchical societies rather than the kinds of organized cooperation to meet needs so crucial to any well-functioning-commons. Responding to sweeping critiques of the commons, Elinor Ostrom empirically and theoretically demonstrated that commons have been, are, and can be well-managed by participants when they utilize several good-enough rules and practices (Ostrom, 2021). Many communities and persons have in their own ways and words convergently evolved and articulated variations of such core-design-principles. 

Commons and related self-managed institutions have existed within foraging societies, agricultural societies, villages, towns, blocks, neighborhoods, cities, and mixed method non-state societies (Boehm, 2001, Kropotkin 1902, Bookchin, 2005a, Federici, 2018, Ostrom, 2021, Graeber and Wengrow, 2023). Such a rich history demonstrates that well-managed-commons are possible and that such well-managed-commons predictably contribute to social and ecological flourishing. 

While there are plenty of examples Ostrom looks at that are in harmony with her 8 rules for managing the commons as well as a non-hierarchical approach to social-organization (Ostrom, 2021), other instances of the commons she looks at utilize some methods that those from an anti-hierarchical perspective would disapprove of. Truly emancipatory commons are distinct from quasi-commons that produce commodities and/or are gated against commoners having mutual-access (Federici, 2018). Given the goals of the self-management of each and all, mutual non-domination, wellbeing for all, and ecological flourishing, Ostrom’s core-design-principles can become more coherent through being remixed with insights from anarchism. 

The following adaptation of Ostrom’s rules for managing the commons is informed by libertarian socialism/communism/communalism, organizations and revolutions influenced by libertarian socialism that utilize community assemblies related to common decisions and resources, various commons Ostrom looks at, as well as an expanded history of commoning in multiple modes of subsistence:

1. Participants know they are part of a group and what the group is about (Wilson, 2016).

2. Agreements for sharing and at times rotating labor/work and implementation of decisions as well as for sharing the fruits thereof (Kropotkin, 1906, Sixth Commission of the EZLN, 2016, Ostrom, 2021, Usufruct Collective, 2022). People can co-create a cornucopia where there is more than enough for all or otherwise agree to specific ways of distributing less abundant fruits of re/production according to needs.   

3. Direct collective decision making by participants through deliberation. For there to be self-management of each and all, there must also be mutual non-domination. By extension, community assemblies related to the commons should utilize direct, participatory, and non-hierarchical forms of democracy (Bookchin, 2005b).  

4. Organizational transparency that allows participants to mutually-monitor the commons (Atkins, Wilson, Hayes, 2019). This can happen through the process of co-managing and interacting with the commons, collective action, living in community with others, relevant accounting/calculation as needed, and availability of relevant information to participants. 

5. Graduated defense against domination and exploitation such as: informal social disapproval, self-defense and defense of others as needed, and recourse to expelling someone from a particular collective (through deliberation, assembly, and due process) in response to the most extreme violations of the commons and freedoms of persons (Boehm, 2001, Ostrom, 2021, Usufruct Collective, 2023).  

6. Good-enough conflict resolution such as: people talking directly to each other, mediation to find out how to move forward, dispute resolution to resolve disputes, restorative justice and transformative justice processes for people to repair harm and transform causes thereof, and organization-wide assembly when the conflict is in regards to organizational form or content. (Kaba, 2019, Usufruct Collective, 2023). 

7. Communities and participants need sufficient autonomy to organize. 

8. The use of co-federation and embedded councils. Community assemblies can co-manage inter-communal commons in a way where policy-making power is held by participants and assemblies directly (Bookchin, 1992, Ocalan, 2014). This enables self-management and mutual aid within and between communities as well as inter-communal management of the commons. Community assemblies can utilize mandated and recallable councils and rotating delegates to implement decisions within the bounds of policies made by community assemblies directly (Bookchin, 1992, 2007, 2018). 

The above should be further fleshed out, qualified, and wisely adapted to conditions, needs, and desires of communities and participants. When there are good-enough institutions and agreements for collective action, individuals benefit through the flourishing of the commons and mutually-contributing to the commons– blending self-interest with collective-interest. Although specifically related to common-economics, Ostrom’s core-design-principles and coherent adaptations thereof can be used to reflect upon and develop various self-managed collectives that have shared practices and goals (Wilson, 2016). 

The self-management of each and all on every scale requires the flourishing of the commons and related general assemblies. Developing the commons in the context of a hierarchical society requires both the reconstruction of the commons as well as opposition to domination and exploitation. Such functions can be done through self-managed community assemblies that utilize mutual aid and direct action to meet needs and solve social problems. That kind of community organizing can happen as a crucial part of a broader social movement ecosystem that includes workplace organizing, student organizing, and beyond. In addition to the commons and related general assemblies being needed for political economic freedom of each and all: developing the commons and sharing social re/production can meet needs of social movement organizations, participants thereof, and the non-ruling class while building the new world in the shell of the old and increasing capacity for people to solve social problems and oppose hierarchies.

***

PS:

Additional critique of Ostrom: 

Ostrom does want the commons to expand and increase. However, Ostrom sees the commons as a sector that should exist alongside capitalism and states. This is distinct from the anti-domination and anti-exploitation approach of libertarian socialism. While Ostrom does talk about the need to have sufficient autonomy to self-organize, Ostrom does not properly touch upon developing the commons through opposition against capitalism, statecraft, and hierarchy more broadly.   

Atkins, Paul W.B., David  Sloan Wilson, and Steven C. Hayes. Prosocial: Using evolutionary science to build productive, equitable, and collaborative groups. Context Press, 2019.

Boehm, Cristopher. Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior. Harvard University, 2001.

Bookchin, Murray. Urbanization without cities: The rise and decline of citizenship. Montréal: Black Rose Books, 1992.

Bookchin, Murray. The Ecology of Freedom: The Emergence and Dissolution of Hierarchy. Oakland, CA: AK Press, 2005a.

Bookchin, Murray. “Municipalization: Community Ownership of the Economy.” libcom.org. 2005b. https://libcom.org/article/municipalization-community-ownership-economy.

Bookchin, Murray. Social Ecology and Communalism. Oakland, CA: AK Press, 2007.

Bookchin, Murray. Post-Scarcity Anarchism. AK Press, 2018.

Federici, Silvia. Re-enchanting the World Feminism and the Politics of the Commons. PM Press, 2018.

Graeber, David, and David Wengrow. The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2023.

Kaba, Mariame, and Shira Hassan. Fumbling towards Repair: A Workbook for Community Accountability Facilitators. Chicago: Project NIA, 2019.

Kropotkin, Peter. Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution. New York: McClure Phillips and Co., 1902.

Kropotkin, Peter. The Conquest of Bread. 1906.

Ocalan, Abdullah. Democratic Confederalism. Transmedia Publishing, 2014.

Ostrom, Elinor. Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021. 

Sixth Commission of the EZLN. Critical Thought in the Face of the Capitalist Hydra I. Durham, NC: PaperBoat Press, 2016.

Wilson, David Sloan. “The Tragedy of the Commons: How Elinor Ostrom Solved One of Life’s Greatest Dilemmas.” Evonomics, April 5, 2016. https://evonomics.com/tragedy-of-the-commons-elinor-ostrom/.

Usufruct Collective. “The Conquest of Sandwiches.” Usufruct Collective, February 1, 2022. https://usufructcollective.wordpress.com/2022/02/01/the-conquest-of-sandwiches/.

Usufruct Collective. “Kick the Cops off Your Block.” Usufruct Collective, June 14, 2023. https://usufructcollective.wordpress.com/2023/06/04/kick-the-cops-off-your-block-2/.

photo by Rory Robertson-Shaw

Version of essay featured in Dope Magazine

01/31/2024

Introduction: 

Social movement organizations are groups where people can come together to meet the needs of participants and others through reconstructing new practices, ways of relating, and decision making while also opposing domination, exploitation, and oppression. Social movement organizations can help meet people’s short-term needs while also taking actions to transform society. Social movements organizations vary in many ways. They can be in relationship to community issues, workplace issues, student issues, and beyond. At their best, social movement organizations wisely use free and egalitarian processes to meet short-term, mid-term, and long-term needs of people. However, not all social movements organizations have the kinds of organizational relations, qualities, and contents that make them ethical and effective. Free and egalitarian relations and practices require the means thereof; they will not emerge out of nowhere. The freedom of each and all has objective, universal, and necessary features as well as subjective, particular, and contingent features. The freedom of each and all  needs to be continuously recreated, co-authored, and given life by people responding to unfolding conditions. 

While social movements are needed to transform society outside of the official channels of business as usual, social movements can go terribly wrong. For example, some attempts at social movements replicate unfree and unequal structures and contents of the social order that they oppose! Some social movements do not meaningfully oppose unfreedom while others fail to meaningfully reconstruct new ways to meet people’s needs. Given the goal of using free and egalitarian processes to develop free and egalitarian social relations, the following are some foundational elements for social movement organizations. Participants in social movement organizations can agree to shared practices, processes, and goals without participants agreeing on a specific ideological line. With something like the following as a compass, social movements and participants in them will be better able to navigate from here to a better society.   

Elements of Liberatory Social Movement Organizations: 

“Not to make agreements from above to be imposed below, but to make accords to go together to listen and to organize outrage. Not to raise movements which are later negotiated behind the backs of those who made them, but to always take into account the opinions of those participating,” (EZLN, 2005).

Self Management: Self-management means people making decisions about what affects them and what they do. Self-management can exist politically, economically, socially, and personally. In self managed organizations, participants make direct collective decisions together about policy instead of being bossed about by rulers. In self-managed organizations, decisions happen through dialogue and agreements between members/participants/those who are affected. In assemblies, people deliberate about needs, abilities, proposals, possibilities, questions, desires/preferences, amendments, and disagreements to make wise decisions. In self managed organizations, after dialogue happens via assembly, decisions are made through direct democracy– often trying to reach full agreement with a fall back to majority decision making within the bounds of the free association of people (Bookchin, 2007, Mckaye, 2012). Decisions can be implemented through volunteering, agreements to share needed tasks, and mandated and recallable committees and mandated and recallable rotating delegates while all policy making power remains with assemblies and participants directly. Committees of self-managed organizations self-manage their activities within the bounds of the policies and mandates decided by the general assembly from below. Self-management can exist in combination with non-hierarchical rights and duties/bylaws/mutual agreements so that self-management happens within the bounds of certain minimal features. Self-management of each and all would mean that self-management is not used to take away the self-management of others. Self-management of each and all gives rise to dynamic collective and individual decisions. Coherent self-management includes the qualities of direct democracy (direct collective decision making), non-hierarchy, and free association. Self-determined relations and practices are necessary for the well-being of persons and characteristically contribute to enjoyable processes and excellent results (Ryan and Deci, 2022). Self-management of each and all creates organizations and practices rooted in freedom and equality in the process of striving towards such freedom and equality. The only way for freedom of each and all to flourish is if people develop organizations, relations, and practices rooted in and continuously recreating such freedom and equality. 

For reasons of necessity and desire, social movement organizations can work together on joint actions as well as work together on longer term projects. To do so without rulers, self-management can happen between organizations via dialogue between groups utilizing collectively-authored dialogue and mandated, recallable, rotating delegates of groups for communication and coordination. In such inter-collective decision making, all policy making power is held within self-managed assemblies of participants directly. Self-management on every scale includes and requires inter-collective level self-management. Formal and continuous inter-collective self-management is called Co-Federation. 

Mutual Aid: Mutual aid refers to mutual assistance towards meeting needs (Kropotkin, 1902). Mutual aid can be in relation to and aimed at meeting general and specific needs of people such as food, childcare, tools, clothing, shelter, education, meeting spaces, recreational infrastructure, fields, factories, workshops, common projects and activities etc. Mutual aid includes the development of organizations that practice mutual aid and committees thereof, common infrastructure (infrastructure managed by those who need and use it), as well as more informal multidirectional mutual assistance. Mutual aid can be in relation to many common practices and goals. Mutual aid practices, groups and committees that use such practices, common infrastructure, and common resources can assist and be part of direct actions that are opposed to various unfreedoms and injustices. Mutual aid enables social movements to achieve goals, meet their own needs, meet the needs of participants, and needs of others in a way where the burdens and the fruits are shared among participants. Mutual aid can help to develop new economic relations based on mutual-agreements, common infrastructure and management thereof, shared responsibilities, and distribution according to needs in the process of struggling towards a better society– helping bridge-short term and long-term goals. When mutual aid is sufficiently generalized through volunteering and making formal and informal agreements to help each other out, everyone (including those unable to contribute) can be provided a high quality of life and material standard of living. 

Direct Action: Direct action, in its most general sense, means acting directly with the cooperation of others to achieve shared goals (Graeber, 2010). However, the way direct action tends to be used in social movements is to refer to a large spectrum of oppositional politics done via acting directly with the cooperation of others to achieve shared goals (Graeber, 2010). Ethical and oppositional direct actions and direct action campaigns involve people acting directly to meet needs in confrontation against unfreedom, injustice, domination, exploitation, and oppression. Oppositional direct action can include everything from occupations, expropriations (including fully seizing hierarchically controlled infrastructure and placing it in the hands of social movements and communities), acts of sabotage, disruptions, property damage, blockades, strikes, pickets, boycotts, insurrections, self-defense and defense of others, etc. Direct action can be distinguished from relying on rulers and business as usual to solve social problems. Rulers and unjust rules have not historically been overturned by the benevolence of those in charge but have instead been overturned by people struggling against rulers and unjust rules from below. Direct action enables social movement organizations to struggle against hierarchical politics, economics, and social relations more broadly to arrive at goals of social transformation. While often associated with revolutionary politics, there are ways direct actions can be used to achieve more modest goals as well. Not only is direct action needed for revolution, it is needed for the flourishing of various intermediary steps along the way. Direct action can be used to achieve short-term, mid-term, and long-term goals. While mutual aid is needed for direct actions and direct action organizations to flourish, sufficient direct action is needed to seize the means of existence and production needed for generalized mutual aid to flourish.  

Opposition to Hierarchy, domination, exploitation, and oppression: 

This social definition of hierarchy does not point to mere differences in abilities and needs, nor does it point to various forms of non-authoritarian leadership, nor does it point to being a relative expert in some field or subfield of knowledge. The social definition of hierarchy refers to institutionalized forms of top-down command and obedience (Bookchin, 2005). Hierarchies institutionalize domination, exploitation, and oppression. General and specific hierarchies are not inevitable forms of social relations but are instead historically constituted and emerge because of the presence and absence of various conditions (Bookchin, 2005). Far from hierarchies being inevitable or part of human nature, large swaths and many pockets of human history have been rooted in non-hierarchical relations (Boehm, 2001, Bookchin, 2005, Graeber, 2011, Graeber and Wengrow, 2023). Hierarchies lead to a myriad of social problems and are inherently at the expense of the self-determination that people need to flourish (Wilkinson and Pickett, 2011, Ryan and Deci, 2022). There are multiple forms of hierarchy such as but NOT limited to:

1. Capitalism: Private property (private ownership of means of existence and production– distinct from personal possessions), wage labor (and other exploited labor), class relations, commodity production, for markets, to increase profits (Marx, 1992, Wolf, 2010).

2. Statecraft: Hierarchical politics (including a political ruling class)+ sovereignty/a monopoly on legitimate use of violence within a given territory (Bookchin, 2005). Such top-down political rule can take many forms.

3. Patriarchy: Absolute or probabilistic rule by men, gendered divisions of power, labor, rights, and duties, broader patriarchal gender essentialism and normativity, as well as bigotry along gendered lines (Lerner, 1982, Bookchin, 2005).

4. Racism: The invention and perpetuation of the myth of race and racial essentialism, racialized divisions of power, labor, rights, and duties, and bigotry along racialized lines. (Fields and Fields, 2022). The original and dominant form of racism is white supremacy. (***not all racism can be reduced to white supremacy– for example not all anti-Kurdish racism is white supremacy, nor are ALL racist forms of antisemitism white supremacy, etc.).

The above are brief and non-exhaustive descriptions of some forms of hierarchy. Specific hierarchies can also change overtime while still retaining the features that make them what they are. And different hierarchies can interrelate with each other and compound systemically as well as in the lives of people. When social movements are engaged in ethically grounded oppositional direct actions, they are doing such actions against some hierarchy/domination/exploitation/oppression. And in addition to opposition against institutionalized forms of domination, exploitation and oppression: there are hierarchical features that exist in extra-institutional culture that need to be effectively countered. Opposition to hierarchy includes developing social movements that do not perpetuate and reproduce hierarchical relations. Hierarchical organizations need to continuously develop hierarchical power over others in order to reproduce themselves. If social movements do not sufficiently oppose hierarchy, domination, exploitation, and oppression, then they will be inhibited from meeting the needs of people and inhibited from transforming the world into a collage of free and egalitarian associations and relations. 

Synthesizing the above: 

Self-management, mutual aid, direct action, and opposition to hierarchy, can exist in multiple kinds of social movement organizations. Each on their own are necessary but insufficient for ethical and strategic organizing. For example, mere self-management without sufficient mutual aid inhibits achieving common goals and meeting the needs of people. While mere mutual aid work without direct action work can make sense for SOME organizations, mere mutual aid without direct action makes it so there is no oppositional force against hierarchy. And it is technically possible for direct action or mutual aid to be used for nefarious goals if such practices are not rounded out by other qualities (such as the self-management of each and all and opposition to hierarchy). And in addition to each of the above elements being insufficient for social transformation without being rounded out by each other: self-management, mutual aid, direct action, and opposition to hierarchy need to be adapted according to specific conditions, needs, and desires of people. It is not enough to merely use such practices; it is important to use such practices strategically to bridge current conditions to better conditions and long-term goals. The above elements of liberatory social movement organizations can be used to meet short-term, mid-term, and long-term needs of people. Such qualities need to be developed within the means we use for those qualities to flourish as developing ends (Malatesta, 2021). The means of self-management, mutual aid, and direct action, and opposition to hierarchy are needed to multiply such features overtime. *** While such elements are some of the most important features of liberatory social movement organizations, they are not an exhaustive account thereof.

Different Kinds of Social Movement Organizations:

There are multiple kinds of social movement organizations people can form or join to meet needs and contribute to liberatory social transformation. There is community organizing, workplace organizing, student organizing, and beyond (FARJ, 2008). The following section will be a brief overview of some of the most important kinds of social movement organizations. The following kinds of groups can be infused with the above elements of liberatory social movement organizations. It is important to note that the following kinds of groups do not necessarily have liberatory qualities and wise content. Social movement organizations and participants thereof must develop and recreate such elements while adapting to relevant variables. 

Community assemblies are organizations people can start or join in regards to specific blocks, neighborhoods, villages, towns, and cities to meet needs through collective action (Bookchin, 2007, Ocalan, 2014). Community assemblies can use self-management to make decisions. Community assemblies can form direct action committees and implement direct actions and direct action campaigns against specific political and economic hierarchies. Community assemblies can potentially oppose any kind of domination, exploitation, and oppression within or even beyond a given region. Community assemblies can also help develop common infrastructure and create a plurality of mutual aid committees and projects according to people’s needs and desires. Communal and intercommunal economics would be self-managed by assemblies of people who need and interface with the economy. Such communal and intercommunal commons would be rooted in meeting needs and desires of people as well as mutual aid and responsibility to upkeep the commons through collective agreements to share the implementation of decisions. Community assemblies and co-federations thereof can be both alternative forms of governance that provide self-managed ways to make decisions and meet needs AND oppositional forces against class relations and hierarchy more broadly. 

Labor unions enable workers to meet needs and better their conditions through workplace organizing in opposition to class relations and exploitation. Labor unions can utilize direct action and organize in self-managed ways autonomous from state and business interests. Radical student unions are groups where students can organize against hierarchies on campus, within the education system, and beyond. And while the various functions of tenants unions can be done via community assemblies that also have other functions, tenants unions can be formed when needed and desired. Some tenant struggles can even culminate in the development of common housing connected to community assemblies! There are also prisoners’ unions that can enable prisoners to struggle against the prison system. Various Issue specific direct action groups (and committees of groups) can exist to are focus on something like stopping a gentrification development, or some particularly anti-ecological project, or stopping a war, or stopping a prison from being built, stopping a racist, patriarchal, or xenophobic policy, or confronting fascist and far right mobilizations, or a myriad of struggles against domination, exploitation, and oppression. And there are many issue specific mutual aid groups (and committees of various kinds of groups) that can exist focused around provisioning general and specific needs for participants, social movements, the most impoverished, and people more generally. 

The Good Place:

In a good society, self-management would flourish on every scale. In a good society, there would be non-hierarchical, directly democratic, and participatory community assemblies (and co-federations thereof) with embedded councils and rotating delegates, means of existence and production would be held and managed in common, politics and economics would meet needs and desires of people, direct collective decisions would be made through dialogue, people would share in the implementation of policies in agreed upon ways, everyone would be free from domination, exploitation, and oppression, and everyone would be free to make collective and individual decisions about what they do bounded and enriched by the freedoms of others to do the same (Kropotkin, 1906, Bookchin, 2007, Ocalan, 2014, Sixth Commission of the EZLN, 2016, Ostrom, 2021, Dirik, 2022, Usufruct Collective, 2022). Such a goal (and principles in relation to such a goal) shapes the general strategy that should be used which shapes the more variable sub-strategies and tactics that should be used (Correa and Walmsley, 2022).

Conclusion: 

There are multiple kinds of social movement organizations people can form or join including but not limited to community assemblies, labor unions, and student unions. People can form and join social movement organizations rooted in self-management, mutual aid, and direct action in opposition to hierarchy. People can also join social movement organizations to help spread those processes and practices through dialogue and demonstration in a way that makes social movements more able to achieve the goals they are aimed towards. While some liberatory elements can be forged relatively soon or at group inception, other dimensions can take more time to develop. Ethically and strategically coherent processes, practices, and goals need to be cultivated, nourished, and continuously recreated. Social movement organizations and participants thereof can strategically adapt and wield such elements of liberatory organizing according to relevant needs and variables to meet short-term, mid-term, and long-term needs and goals. We all face the hydra of hierarchy in different ways in different contexts. We can choose which social movement organizations we join and/or start with others based on needs, capacities, desires, and conditions to try to find ways to develop a free and egalitarian society and achieve positive goals along the way. It is up to people organizing together to wield the practices of self-management, mutual aid, and direct action against hierarchy towards grander horizons of freedom, equality, and solidarity. As social movement organizations and actions multiply, they can work on joint projects together and when applicable form co-federations. Overtime, through opposition and reconstruction, self-managed social movement organizations can form an alternative to business as usual and overthrow hierarchical rule. 

Boehm, Cristopher. Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior. Harvard University, 2001.

Bookchin, Murray. The Ecology of Freedom: The Emergence and Dissolution of Hierarchy. Oakland, CA: AK Press, 2005.

Bookchin, Murray. Social Ecology and Communalism. Oakland, CA: AK Press, 2007.

Correa, Felipe, and Mya Walmsley. “Elements of Anarchist Theory and Strategy.” anarkismo.net, 2022. https://www.anarkismo.net/article/32657. 

Dirik, Dilar. The Kurdish Women’s Movement: History, theory, practice. London: Pluto Press, 2022.

EZLN. “Sixth Declaration of the Selva Lacandona.” Enlace Zapatista, May 10, 2005. https://enlacezapatista.ezln.org.mx/sdsl-en/.

FARJ. Social Anarchism and Organisation. 2008.

Fields, Karen, and Barbara Fields. Racecraft the Soul of Inequality in American Life. London: Verso, 2022.

Graeber, David. Direct action: An Ethnography. AK Press, 2010.

Graeber, David. Debt: The first 5000 years. Melville House, 2011. 

Graeber, David, and David Wengrow. The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2023.

Kropotkin, Peter. Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution. New York: McClure Phillips and Co., 1902.

Kropotkin, Peter. The Conquest of Bread. 1906.

Lerner, Gerda. The Creation of Patriarchy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.

Malatesta, Errico. “Ends and means.” 2021. https://www.marxists.org/archive/malatesta/1922/ends-and-means.html.

Marx, Karl. Capital. London: Penguin , 1992.

McKay, Iain. An anarchist FAQ . Vol. 2. AK Press, 2012. 

Öcalan, Abdullah. Democratic Confederalism. Transmedia Publishing, 2014.

Ostrom, Elinor. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021.

Ryan, Richard M., and Edward L. Deci. Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. New York: Guilford Press, 2022.

Sixth Commission of the EZLN. Critical Thought in the Face of the Capitalist Hydra I. Durham, NC: PaperBoat Press, 2016. 

Usufruct Collective. “The Conquest of Sandwiches.” Usufruct Collective, 2022. https://usufructcollective.wordpress.com/2022/02/01/the-conquest-of-sandwiches/.

Wilkinson, Richard G., and Kate Pickett. The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger. New York: Bloomsbury Press, 2011.

Wolf, Eric Robert. Europe and the People Without History. University of California Press, 2010.

Subscribe now

01/14/23

The following is a DIY template for a liberatory Points of Unity for social movement groups and popular organizations. The following “Points of Unity Template” is designed to be tweaked and adapted to relevant conditions and variables of groups (including but not limited to the specific kind and functions of a group you are trying to form or assist). It is not a “one size fits all” kind of document, but something designed to critically engage with and reflect upon when starting or participating within a social movement group or popular organization. 

The following “Points of Unity Template” refers to various shared processes and practices of a group– shared processes and practices that relate to goal orientation as well as form and content of a group. Such shared processes and practices do NOT require a shared ideology among participants for participants to sufficiently agree with them in the context of group form and functions. Accepting shared qualities of a group that some ideology (or ideologies) would approve of is distinct from a group being an ideologically specific group– a group that espouses a specific ideology and that requires shared ideology among members. Additionally, such “Points of Unity for shared processes and practices” can exist within decision making processes and bylaws of organizations in tandem with or distinct from being present in a document titled as such. Groups can structurally include the following points of unity for shared processes and practices in varying ways. And such points of unity for shared processes and practices, if they are to exist overtime as qualities of a group, must be sufficiently present within (and developed by) a living content and culture made by participants. 

One crucial reason for including the following points of unity is the overall coherence of the multiple points when they are combined; for they round each other out to defend against various detrimental qualities (to the extent they are actuated in form and content of course). And yet, there is significant redundancy between the following points– and there are ways to combine the various points together to make them more succinct and less numerous. And there are ways to simplify points, elaborate points, or change wording for the sake of communication as well as needs and preferences of various groups. More numerically and descriptively skeletal and simple versions of points of unity often make more sense initially until if and when more coherent practical unity has been developed within a given group (or between various groups). For example, a group that is just starting could just have the points of direct democracy and direct action for a direct action group, or direct democracy and mutual aid for a mutual aid group, or all of the above for a group that does all such functions. It is possible for “free association” to be combined with “direct democracy” in one point through a holistic notion of participatory democracy or self-management– which can even be descriptively combined with the essential features of “horizontality”! Such a way of framing those points can be very useful, as it creates a way to take in what would otherwise be multiple points of unity within a single point. Such a simplification can be important, as the points are supposed to potentially unite lots of people. However, such a lumping of qualities together into one can have a downside as well; if such a combining of qualities into one is not done well, then it is possible for the substance of one or more of the multiple points being lumped together to be obscured in the process.

The following points of unity were made with community assembly groups in the mode of struggle against hierarchical power in mind. However, the first six points can be adapted and applied to other kinds of groups such as radical unions, issue/function-specific movement groups, direct action collectives, and mutual aid collectives, and the like.

Points of Unity template for shared processes and practices (for social movement groups and popular organizations of various kinds): ***Although descriptively accurate, the above is not formulated to be the best name for practical use in movement context as it is too jargon heavy and wordy. Alternative names: Points of Unity, Group agreements, Shared Agreements, Group Practices, Shared Practices, Group Processes, Shared Processes, even Shared Goals, etc.

Direct-Democracy: Direct democracy refers to direct collective decision making. Direct democracy enables collective dialogue, decisions, and actions to achieve various goals and solve various problems. Deliberation is foundational to a practical direct democracy as it enables questions, amendments, conversations, problems, solution criteria, multiple perspectives, critiques, concerns, alternative possibilities, dissent, and evaluation of pros and cons to round out proposals and decisions made. After deliberation, there is an aim for full agreement. If there is not full agreement, there is further discussion and then a decision is made by majority vote. ***The specifics of direct democracy can be tweaked and even left out of this section and simply included in the bylaws. 

Horizontality: Horizontality refers to the presence of self-organization and the absence of hierarchy. Hierarchy refers to institutionalized top-down command obedience relations. Horizontality includes freedom from hierarchy, freedom from oppression, freedom from domination, freedom from exploitation, and freedom to participate in self-managed groups and relations. This group strives to be internally horizontal and contribute to horizontal relations. etc. ***can alternatively be called or framed as: non-hierarchy, or egalitarian relations, or opposition to hierarchy. With different groups, different framings and wordings will make more sense. Depending on group and context, it may or may not make sense for a group to give a list of various hierarchies in such a points of unity document. For sake of brevity, it can make sense to include the substance of horizontality within other points.

Free Association and Participatory activity: Free association refers to freedom of and from associations as well as participatory activity within associations. For there to be free association and participatory activity, persons and groups must have the guaranteed freedoms to choose their activities and associations while respecting and enabling freedoms of others to do the same. All labor, work, and action within this group is to be voluntary and non-coerced. If someone does not like a policy that is made, they can continue to argue for and advocate an alternative proposal, continue to argue one’s point formally and informally, choose to not participate in the implementation of the policy they disagree with while remaining in the group, or choose to leave the association. *** This point can potentially be included in other points of unity without being its own point. Also, it is often implied that a community assembly group is a voluntary association so including this for a group as an explicit point of unity may or may not make sense.

Direct Action: Direct action refers to opposing exploitation, domination and oppression through self-managed action to meet needs of people. Direct action can be contrasted to indirect action of top-down organizing and relying on rulers to solve social problems. Direct action includes a wide array of potential activities and campaigns against specific hierarchical institutions for short term, mid-term, and long-term goals. *** A description giving examples of direct action tactics such as occupations, expropriations, blockades, strikes, boycotts, etc. is optional. An alternative to the wording to “domination, exploitation, and oppression” can be “unfreedom and injustice” or something sufficiently similar.

Mutual Aid: Mutual aid refers to voluntary multidirectional help to meet needs. Mutual aid can exist within a group, between groups, between groups and persons, between persons etc. Mutual aid enables groups and people to pool abilities, needs, ideas, proposals, actions, infrastructure, resources, tools, etc. together. Mutual aid can include a wide array of potential activities from mutual assistance towards common goals (including direct action goals), creating or participating in development of the commons (including communal fields, factories and workshops, social centers, libraries, eco-technology projects, etc), free food distribution, communal childcare, etc.  ***Such a list or variation thereof is optional to include.

For groups that collaborate with other groups in various formal and informal ways: 

                                                                                                                                                             Co-Federalism: Co-federalism refers to ways organizations can freely collaborate for inter-collective coordination, decisions, and actions in a way that enables decision making power to be in the hands of people directly. Delegated persons and councils of collectives can meet up for deliberation and administration. Such delegates and co-federal councils are mandated and recallable to their respective popular assemblies, are merely communicative, administrative, and have no policy making power. All policies are made and ratified by general assemblies directly. ***Alternatively the words federalism, confederalism, intercommunalism, inter-collectivity, egalitarian federation, etc. can be used in place of co-federalism. Co-federalism is a neologism, and confederalism and federalism both have connotative issues despite them referring to an essential practice for horizontal and free inter-organizational relations. 

Addendum point for Community assembly groups in particular: 

Communal Self Management: Communal self-management refers to horizontal, democratic, participatory community politics and economics. Such communal and intercommunal self-management can exist on every scale from the block, to the neighborhood, to the city, and beyond. Means of existence and production needed by communities are to be held and managed in common. Policies and protocols for communal economics are managed by communal assemblies and co-federations thereof. Such communal assemblies and co-federations thereof have embedded participatory councils that self-manage implementation within the bounds of their respective mandates and protocols. Such a communal economy aims towards providing each and all with free access to needs. 

***The above point is specifically for community assembly groups. And for the most part, this is for groups that are at relatively a mature level development to the point where they have sufficient power, means of existence and production, and popular support (although this point can also be aspirational).  

Alternative framing that synthesizes the first three points of unity into a single point: 

Self-Management: Self-management refers to a combination of direct collective decision making, without rulers and without hierarchy, where people freely participate in decision making and implementation of decisions. ***By condensing the substance of the first three points into a single point, a lot of clutter disappears. From here, people can fill out this point through their own descriptions or through copying, pasting, and blending some of the more essential sentences from the first three points of unity listed as needed. An alternative framing for this point could be “participatory democracy” in such a way that includes the substance of direct democracy, horizontality, and free association. As coherent as the first three points are as separate points rounding each other out, they are rather cumbersome and can be difficult to wrap one’s mind around. Creating a single point that combines the essential features of those points can help clear up confusion. Something like a practical unity of Self-Management as defined above (or alternatively called participatory democracy– or even called direct democracy but referring to direct democracy in tandem with the qualities of horizontality and free association), Direct Action, and Mutual aid can lead to a lot of coherence and functional use for groups starting from scratch or otherwise developing such points of unity overtime.  Having three points makes a points of unity for processes and practices easier to agree with, comprehend, and communicate to new people.

Why the Specific Points of Unity were chosen: 

As written earlier, the various points of unity round each other out quite well. For example, direct democracy is necessary for collective and individual freedom and decisions. And yet, if direct democracy is not rooted in horizontality and free association, then direct democratic processes can be instrumentalized to anti-egalitarian content or content that arbitrarily restricts freedoms of people. This is one of many examples where the above dimensions by themselves are necessary but not sufficient. Additionally, mere mutual aid without direct action leads to not opposing hierarchical power and by extension not being able to sufficiently develop networks of mutual aid and the commons (which requires expropriation of hierarchical property along the way to develop). And mere direct action without mutual aid leads to a radical de-emphasis on social reproduction of social movements, participants, and others which by extension is at the expense of sustained movement activity, at the expense of sustained direct action, at the expense of connecting social movements with ordinary people, at the expense of reaching out to others, and at the expense of prefiguring alternative ways of re/production.  And all of the above without co-federalism leads to a one-sided localism that will be at the expense of local and inter-local goals– for nothing less than inter-collective action and aid is needed for long term goals of a self-managed society. 

Why a points of unity for shared processes and practices: 

One crucial reason for some kind of good points of unity agreement is the fact that such good points of unity can allow differences to peacefully coexist and mutually thrive. When people have shared decision making practices, processes, goals, programs, etc. they are more able to unite through groups and actions in positive ways and disagree productively about specific decisions, actions, and worldviews. It is easier to not have consensus about specific decisions when there is at least some meaningful consensus about minimal qualities of what a group is, does, and what a group aims towards. Points of unity for shared processes and practices can help form the beginnings of what can become bylaws and programs of groups (and or additionally help supplement bylaws and programs). 

It is important to note that some kinds of points of unity de facto do exist within various groups that have the least bit of agreement. If such points of unity are explicit, they become easier for both participants of a group and people not in a group to learn about, question, critique, and agree/disagree with. Additionally, having explicit points of unity (such as in a points of unity document, or otherwise bylaws, or at least via an agreed upon decision making process, and potentially/eventually a program) makes it easier for people to hold themselves and each other accountable to free and egalitarian processes compared to arbitrary or otherwise non-transparent organizational qualities. 

The points of unity for shared processes and practices of a group as described above have some requisite organizational qualities in regards to decision making, formal structure, and even goal orientation. Although far from exhaustively dealing with the specifics of form and content of a group, such points of unity as spelled out above do deal with some of such features to the extent they are agreed to and carried through. And the qualities within a points of unity agreement can have an indirect function of illustrating features of a good society; for some qualities of a points of unity document can simultaneously make sense for some kind of group and also be qualities that are part of what a good society would consist of. And on top of illustrating some features of a good society, a good points of unity document can illustrate some practical qualities for social movement groups (which people can learn from and adapt and elaborate in their own contexts).

The specific points of unity above were chosen because: That which is good for volitional beings includes freedom, egalitarian relations, and solidarity (classic features of anarchist ethics). But for freedom, egalitarianism, and solidarity to thrive, there must be various means thereof. Such means thereof include institutional and relational qualities necessary for and contributing to freedom, egalitarianism, and solidarity. Egalitarian freedom / self-management of each and all on every scale includes direct democracy, horizontality, free association, participatory activity, mutual aid, co-federalism, and communal self-management. Direct action specifically defined as oppositional politics is necessary to get to a good society, and in a sufficiently good society, direct action would accordingly transform into self-determined activity in the mode of a free society. Such qualities (freedom, egalitarianism, solidarity and the institutional and relational qualities necessary for and contributing to such qualities) also 1. characteristically develop various good ends such as happiness, pleasure, and joy 2. have rights and duties in relationship to such a gestalt of qualities as a goal/telos 3. characteristically develop virtuous persons and virtuous activities 4. require a process ethics/right kind of unity of means and ends/right kind of prefiguration in order to flourish.

Credits:

Rather than a traditional bibliography, here is a dedication to our influences: This essay has been influenced by the broad libertarian socialist and libertarian communist tradition, specifically Rojava, MAREZ, the anarchist communes of the anarchist syndicalist revolution in Spain, the Shinmin Prefecture, the Free Territory, and the Morelos Commune. The Points of Unity template was influenced by many specific individuals, most notably Chaia Heller and Murray Bookchin.

Introduction:

For contemplative and practical purposes, we need worldviews and theories that have explanatory power, that trace causes, effects, forms, functions, contents, qualities, and relations of various institutions. Different institutions enable and constrain different activities and practices. If specific institutions and kinds of institutions are proven to be ethically unjustified, they should be dismantled and replaced by what are at least good-enough institutions and relations. One such institution to analyze and critique is the police. The existence of the police is often taken for granted rather than properly scrutinized. Whether one is operating from a place of wanting to defend good rights, and/or to do good duties, and/or to achieve good consequences, and/or to develop a virtuous society, etc., a well informed person would want to abolish the police. The critique of the police that we put forward touches upon universal features that police forces have to have in order for them to be police forces. The arguments we give later on in this paper will categorically critique police, other state security forces, as well as other hierarchical security forces more broadly. A coherent categorical critique of police needs to reason about and critique the essential unjust forms/qualities/functions of police and statecraft and other entangled hierarchies. 

We wrote this essay because we think a more holistic understanding of the police– and alternatives to the police– is needed in society, in social movements, and even in anti-police social movements. This essay is influenced by different tendencies, approaches and worldviews which we think provide ethical and effective ways of dealing with disputes and injustice/harm without police and prisons. Mediation, restorative justice and transformative justice approaches have done a lot to move in the right direction. Specifically, abolitionist praxis and transformative justice have made some of the greatest strides in regards to various alternatives to the police. There are ways such approaches are similar to how many egalitarian groups in history have handled domination. Many egalitarian groups today and in history, in various contexts, have used some version of the following for disputes and domination: mediation, dialogue driven justice/problem solving, reconciliation processes, free association, graduated informal social disapproval, and in more extreme cases self-defense, defense of others, and expulsion. There are also alternatives to police within anarchist theory and history which for the most part tend to use specific versions of the above approaches used by different kinds of egalitarian groups. There is significant convergent evolution and diffusion of various ways groups can defend themselves and each other from rulership and domination. There are group qualities that are necessary for and contribute to the likelihood of maintaining horizontal power relations against hierarchical rule– group qualities that must be sufficiently reproduced, developed, and recreated for such horizontal power relations to survive overtime. 

Meanwhile, many contemporary social movements fall apart or are significantly stifled because of insufficiently good approaches to decision making, disputes, and harms/injustices (on group and interpersonal levels). Absent good-enough ways to deal with such issues, hierarchical and/or arbitrary rule prevails. This can look like: disputes and harms not being meaningfully addressed, to a myriad of authoritarian or otherwise unwise ways of addressing disputes and harms. There are ways state agencies, abusers, and other wreckers can take advantage of this weakness of many social movements. For social movements to develop liberatory qualities, practices, and goals over sustained long periods of time, they need to come up with some good-enough alternatives to hierarchical and arbitrary conflict resolution. A failure of social movements to develop such good enough practices will make social movements brittle in the face of various kinds of disputes and harms.

We see a need for a greater integration of alternatives to state justice systems; a spectrum of good-enough approaches to dealing with conflict and harm with various “thresholds” that lead to further options. This must be general enough to be applied in a plurality of contexts and in a plurality of different ways, and specific enough to be substantial and actually tell us ways different kinds disputes and harms/injustices can be addressed without creating something wicked in the process. There are more than enough examples in history of detrimental and fundamentally flawed ways of changing the world. Given that fundamentally reshaping society can create terrible processes and results, social movements should have good-enough alternatives to “business as usual” being proposed, practiced and aimed towards. Such alternatives to business as usual to propose, practice, and aim towards should include ways of dealing with disputes and harms. We hope this essay can aid people in critical reflection and argumentation in favor of abolishing the police and the hierarchical relations they protect and serve. We hope this essay can help people think about an array of ways to deal with conflict and harm without the state. We also hope this essay can assist people in thinking about ways to bridge current conditions towards better ones.  

A coherent approach to abolishing police and prisons leads to other issues very quickly: a problem of the state as such, a problem of any kind of state security force by extension, the problem of the state being related to and infused with other kinds of hierarchies (such as but not limited to enforcement of capitalism, and racist and patriarchal divisions of power and labor within political and economic hierarchies, empire, colonization, etc.), the necessity of developing self-managed organizations as alternatives to hierarchical organizations, the necessity of aiming towards a self-managed political/economic/social world, the necessity of meeting needs of people along the way, the necessity of mutual aid and direct action to meet short term, mid term, and long term needs of people, the necessity of groups uniting and federating for common goals, the necessity of developing a plurality of good-enough ways of dealing with disputes and harms, and ultimately the necessity of social revolution etc. All of a sudden social revolution for and through self-management and against hierarchy becomes crucial to what may at first seem like one much more simple issue. Abolishing not just the police but essential policing functions is something not on the table for states to do; states require some kind of violent enforcement agency to enforce class rule (within and beyond the context of capitalism). 

Analysis and critique of police, state security forces, and hierarchical security forces:

• Police are defined as a kind of hierarchical security force of a specific unit of hierarchical politics that at least protects and enforces capitalism, hierarchical politics (statecraft), the requisite domination, exploitation, class relations and private and state property that the enforcement of capitalism and statecraft entails, as well as relevant statist laws more broadly within given jurisdictions.

  1. Hierarchical institutions refer to organizations with institutionalized top-down command and obedience relations

  2. Statist laws are being used to refer to laws that protect and enforce hierarchical politics

  3. Class rule refers to hierarchical rule/power over a ruled and exploited class (or exploited classes) by a ruling class (or ruling classes) which can happen via hierarchical ownership and management of politics, and/or means of production, and/or means of existence, and/or surplus.  

  4. Police protect and enforce the rule of both the economic ruling class and political ruling class. 

  5. Police, similar and connected to yet distinct from other kinds of state security forces, were historically developed through capitalist class relations to enforce capitalist class relations and police the working class, the dispossessed, and slaves. 

  6. The police are a historically constituted group in relation to the development and enforcement of capitalism, but: other state security forces enforce capitalism as well, and it is possible for the police to evolve as a local enforcement agency of some other hierarchical political economic order.

  7. On top of class rule and class relations as such (which existed thousands of years before capitalism), capitalism is additionally qualified by wage labor and commodity production for markets as well as specific kinds of class relations. 

• Class relations are inherently at the expense of human freedom/self-management, happiness, and virtues.

  1. hierarchical rule and class rule (of any kind) necessitate and lead to the quashing of people’s participatory activity/self-management.

  2. And additionally hierarchical rule and class rule create suffering and viciousness societally compared to their abolition (in tandem with the presence of positive social relations and institutional qualities) 

• Freedom/self-management is good for people

  1. And self-management of each and all helps contribute to happiness and virtues (which are other goods for people). 

  2. Good is defined by the flourishing of beings which includes freedom, happiness, and virtues of such beings, the means thereof (including the relations and conditions that enable such goods), and activities entangled with such goods, etc. 

• Therefore the flourishing of that which is good for people requires police abolition (and state abolition, and class abolition, and the abolition of hierarchy more broadly). 

• And therefore police are defined by (at least) enforcing that which destroys what is good for people

• And additionally, by the logic used above: the flourishing of that which is good for people requires the abolition of all hierarchical security forces. For the police AND other hierarchical security forces besides the police (such as the military) are also defined by (at least) enforcing that which destroys what is good for people.

Police additionally go over and above the features and functions police are minimally defined by: Police enforce a whole swath of unjust rules– a whole panoply of arbitrary restriction of freedoms such as but not limited to laws that put people in prison for possession of drugs or free movement across borders etc. The unjust laws on the books are changing overtime and are too numerous to practically list here. Police have enforced everything from the capitalist-wage laborer relationship, local statecraft, to colonial relations, to slavery, to Jim Crow laws, to contemporary prison slavery, to the war on drugs, and beyond. 

Police help protect and enforce the greatest causes of overall unjust violence and unmet needs, as the police enforce political and economic class property and class rule. Class relations are constituted by and perpetuating factors of hierarchical power, hierarchical ownership of the means of production and means of existence, and structural violence (absolute and relative deprivation). And absolute and relative deprivation of resources increases violence, mortality rates, addiction rates, and lowers overall happiness, freedom, and social trust (Wilkinson and Pickett 2011). Such hierarchical power the police are defined by protecting and enforcing inhibits the political, economic, and social self-determination of people. Self-determination is causally essential and partially definitive of human flourishing (Ryan and Deci 2000, 2008). Through enforcing the greatest root causes of unmet needs and unjust violence and unjust laws, police are structurally vicious (regardless of the intent of any cop involved). 

Police enforce specific unjust laws related to the protection and enforcement of capitalist and state class relations and property. And by the police protecting and enforcing the reproduction and development of political and economic class rule, the police extensionally reinforce structural forms of oppression such as racialized and gendered divisions of power and labor. And additionally, police go above and beyond such a minimal “call of duty” of merely enforcing class rule and hierarchical laws; police characteristically and systematically target specific populations more than others. The police specifically target the working class, the poor, the dispossessed, and various oppressed and discriminated against populations (which vary in important respects across social contexts, timespace locations, country to country etc.). Police forces have patterns of being intertwined with white supremacy and racism, nationalism, colonialism, patriarchal gender roles, queerphobia, transphobia, and a whole panoply of bigotry. The police are not neutral arbiters of the very unjust rules they enforce– and even if they were they would still have inherent structural problems via their essential functions.  

Although the police are a contemporary development from the last few hundred years, the history of the police can be traced to a broader history of the military and violent enforcement wing of state power going back thousands of years ago to the beginning of statecraft (Bookchin 2005). States (hierarchical political units) have always had a coercive enforcement wing to enforce against external forces and internal uprisings. Under the nation-state and capitalist politics and economics, police forces were developed to protect and enforce capitalist property, hierarchical politics, slavery, to control the behavior of the working class and the unemployed, and to provide a way to control and disperse crowds of people organizing and rebelling against class rule  (Whitehouse 2014, Williams 2015). Compared to sending in the army to slaughter people en masse, the police provide states with comparatively non-lethal ways to control and disperse crowds (Whitehouse 2014). The above still remains true even though police forces have become increasingly industrialized and militarized since their origins. Police have changed overtime and vary in different contexts while retaining their essential functions and features as police– protection and enforcement of capitalism, hierarchical politics, and laws internal to the state carved up jurisdictionally. And those very essential features of the police are inherently detrimental to the freedom and flourishing of people.

Whenever there are significant movements for positive change that go against any hierarchical law or government, it is and has been the task of the police and/or military and/or other state security forces to destroy such movements through state violence. This is demonstrated definitionally, functionally, and historically. In order to seize the means of production and existence–and make such means of production and existence held in common and self-managed by those who need and use the commons– people must overthrow hierarchical politics and the enforcement thereof. And in the interim, people must be able to achieve short term and mid term goals and secure and defend gains against statist security forces (and private police and military and other agents of reaction such as non-state right wing militias and unions of capitalists).

Hierarchical security forces do not just inhibit human freedom; they also help to destroy the entire ecological world. The following is a brief yet intense ecological critique of the cops (and hierarchical security forces more broadly): 

1. Hierarchical security forces protect and enforce political/economic/social hierarchies. 

2. Political/economic/social hierarchies are the greatest causes of ecological destruction. 

3. By extension hierarchical security forces protect and enforce the greatest causes of ecological destruction. 

The above is quite the claim, but follows if the basics of social ecology are true. Social ecology claims that root causes of ecological problems are caused by social problems, specifically the problem of hierarchy (Bookchin 2007).  

The essential qualities and functions of the police (and other hierarchical security forces) are inherently detrimental to that which is good for people and the ecological world. Even the cops that are genuinely trying to do what is good and help people still reproduce and perpetuate the intrinsic functions and evils of being a cop. The police have categorical and structural problems regardless of the intent of any cop; cops do not have to have evil intention to do evil– despite the extensive resemblances cops do have with Disney villains. And although the position of police officer and the like attracts AND forms vicious character traits: outside of the monetary incentives and various false premises and wrong systematic worldviews, many people who are cops would otherwise enthusiastically direct their efforts elsewhere. Yet nonetheless, to the extent the police merely follow orders and the laws they enforce (and reproduce and develop such an institution), they will perpetuate the most fundamental and essential problems of the police– which protect and enforce the most fundamental and essential problems of hierarchical society and ecological destruction.  

By nature of hierarchical society and structural violence, people are coerced in various ways to participate in various hierarchical institutions. But cops are a role incomparable to people who are merely working jobs in unjust institutions of various kinds in order to live; to be a cop is to enforce unjust laws, to enforce state and capitalist rule, and to dominate others for the reproduction and expansion of hierarchical rule.

A Brief critique of Prisons: 

Prisons are defined by institutionalized coercive confinement. Prisons continuously deprive people of basic human needs for self-determination and free association. “The primary functions of prisons are control and punishment,” rather than defending against harm (PREAP 2005).  Prisons functionally are forms of continuous domination to people and propagate more of such domination through their effects; for even IF “prisons might deter a very small percentage of those who have done time,…they encourage post-release crime in a far greater number of ex-prisoners,” (PREAP 2005). On a rights and freedom based level, prisons continuously violate essential freedoms of people, and on a consequential level do more damage than they shield against. Additionally, “those who find themselves entrapped in the criminal (in)justice systems most often are a select group, usually stereotype “criminals”-a threat in some way to those in power: the poor, minorities, the young,” (PREAP 2005). “Abolishing the punishment of prison is a fundamental step in abolishing the present punitive criminal (in)justice systems. Helping both wrongdoer and wronged to resolve their differences thru mediation, restitution and other reconciliatory practices, are alternatives we can build into the new system of justice,” (PREAP 2005).

A large percentage of people who are coercively confined have not been convicted or have merely been convicted of a non-violent crime (or have been convicted of a violent crime that is often far less extreme than the violent crime of imprisoning people!!!). And even for those who have done unjust violence, imprisonment is NOT a justified response. Prisons are not a way to stop unjust violence from continuing as prisons are constituted by such unjust violence, as well as “universities of crime” that contribute to high rates of repeat violent offenses. Unjust violence is for the most part caused directly and indirectly by some combination of the following: capitalism, socioeconomic hierarchy/structural violence, official violence of statecraft, patriarchal gender roles and norms, racism, bigotry in its various forms, ableism, lack of meaning and purpose in society, hierarchically organized crime (combined with profit incentives), cycles of abuse and unmet needs, lack of positive social relations and support, etc. We would be far more free if such root causes of unjust violence were transformed and if violent offenses were dealt with through a plurality of good-enough alternatives to police and prisons.

Alternatives to the police, hierarchical security forces, and prisons: 

First off, “Police don’t promote safety, they prevent it” (Kaba and Ritchie 2022). As noted earlier, the police protect and enforce detrimental unjust rules and unjust institutions that eviscerate human freedom and equality. The police enforce laws related to the protection, enforcement and development of statecraft, capitalist property, entangled hierarchies such as racism, patriarchy, imperialism, nationalism, ableism etc. and unjust restrictions on human liberty. On top of creating systematic evisceration of freedom, the hierarchical rules that police protect and serve are the very root causes of the worst kinds of individual human behavior.  

In a good society–one without police, prisons, states, hierarchies, etc.– there are rights, duties, institutional qualities, processes, and practices that are part of good and free political economic social life. “A world without policing is not a world where violence is allowed to proceed unchecked. To the contrary,… it is a world that creates greater possibilities for prevention, interruption, healing, and repair of violence by meeting material needs, fostering mutual accountability, and imposing effective consequences when necessary,” (Kaba and Ritchie 2022). “What should be minimal freedoms” of people include the freedoms of people to self-determine their activities within the bounds of the freedoms of others to self-determine their activities (which entails everything from freedom to the means of existence, production, and horizontal politics, to freedom from domination and exploitation). And there are real and hypothetical emergencies where we would want other people to help us and others out in some way or another. And as demonstrated in the above section, cops are not mere third parties, but instead are defined by functional and formal features related to enforcement of class rule and property, entangled hierarchies, and a whole array of unjust rules. If and when we develop a free and egalitarian society, there will continue to be some disputes, harmful actions, and remaining social problems of various kinds (even if the root causes of social problems are structurally abolished). Fortunately, there are many ways to protect what-should-be minimal freedoms of people and deal with disputes and harms without the police and the like. In fact, given that police and states definitionally and functionally enforce against what should be minimal freedoms of people, non-police and non-state forms of justice  are necessary to have a holistic way of dealing with disputes and harms.

There are some good protocols for how to handle different kinds of disputes, repair and transform different kinds of harms, and defend against unjust violence (and how not to) but there are also case by case dimensions to each dispute and/or harmful conflict and persons involved. It is rare that there is just one way forward: good protocols of this sort point to a “choose your own path” within specific bounds of self-management of each and all, rights and duties in relationship to such self-management of each and all, and the means thereof. There is granularity when it comes to understanding different kinds and specific instances of harms as well as general and specific causes and effects of harms. Further reasons that good-enough protocols are necessary and desirable but not sufficient is that such good-enough protocols do not exhaustively encompass the broader social means of such good-enough protocols, nor the compassion, fairness, truth seeking, and courage we need to use when dealing with specific grievances, disputes, and harms. 

***Although notions of harm/injustice/unjust violence/violations of what-should-be minimal freedoms of persons are used in this essay, we want to note something very important: not all harm/unjust violence/violations of what-should-be minimal freedoms of persons are equivalent;  the above can differ in qualitative and magnitudinal ways. For example, episodic harm is distinct patterns of harm from a specific person or within a specific relationship, which is distinct from hierarchical rule and structural violence within institutions etc. And each of the above are differentiated as there are different kinds of episodic harm, patterns of doing harm, and hierarchical rule/structural violence. And each of the above have there own internal differentiations. For example, a specific instance of harm can consist of everything from starting an unjust fistfight with someone else, to sexual assault, to murder, to stopping someone from freely choosing permissible associations and activities, etc. Although different qualities and magnitudes of harm are all harm, carelessly conflating different parts of such a harm spectrum together can create false equivalences between them and obscure the unique causes, effects, kinds, instances, and patterns of harm. It is also crucial to note that many people use various definitions of harm that are so loose that they encompass a whole host of what-should-be completely permissible behaviors (some of which might very well “not be good behaviors” in various respects yet still do not count as harmful or ethically impermissible/unjust). And some conceptions of harm narrow harm to specific instances of physical violence in such a way that makes structural violence, institutional hierarchy, and various kinds of relational domination invisible. There is actual harm that can happen when what-should-be permissible activities are treated as harmful and when harmful acts and institutions are treated as if they should-be permissible. Loose definitions/usages of harm are distinct from a tighter notion of harm as systemic injustice, unjust violence, and domination against a person’s right to self determine their own activities (within the bounds of the self determination of others) and the like. We are using such a tight definition of harm throughout this essay. But we are also speaking in this essay about harm in general. For practical purposes, when dealing with specific harms, it is often important to specify what they are rather than merely reverting to the catch all phrase of harm. The relevant variables of a specific harmful action, pattern, or institutional quality will help determine how to respond wisely.

 Here are several elements of what alternatives to the police and prisons can look like: 

1. Dealing with systemic root causes and solutions of social problems, reducing overall violations of what should be people’s freedoms. 

Human behavior and rates of violence, harm, unmet needs, and abuse are radically malleable; people have formed egalitarian societies and hierarchical societies (Bookchin 2005) as well as societies with low rates of violence and societies with high rates of violence, etc. (Wilkinson and Pickett 2011). Depending on conditions, social relations, and institutions more broadly, the worst kinds of behavior can be practically eliminated or brought down to extremely low levels.  Capitalism, the state, patriarchy, white supremacy, gerontocracy etc. create structural violence, systematic physical violence to reproduce such systems, and create the biggest causes of violence done by individuals.  An absence of the root causes of abuse and unmet needs (such as hierarchical institutions, relations, and culture and lack of distribution according to needs) will of course lead to far less abuse and unmet needs compared to their presence. Additionally, the presence of positive social relations will help contribute to a caring rational culture that tends to inculcate non-authoritarian and even virtuous people.  Rights and duties in harmony with the self-management of each and all provide people with radical self-determination on every scale of societal life bounded by and enriched by the self-determination of others. A good society would provide every person with self-management on every scale of life, and access to means of horizontal politics, means of production, means of existence, a good quality of life, and a good material standard of living. Such a shift would eliminate structural violence and eliminate the vast majority of violence and theft. A good society makes it so that self-interest and social interest are merged in a win-win game in such a way that is likely to create pro-social behavior even in crude egoists– as well as generalized internalized motivation to contribute to such a good society with good rights and duties (or as Ryan and Deci would put it “integrated and identified regulation” with good rights and duties). Even after root social problems are resolved, there are continuous issues to be addressed. In this sense, transforming causes of harm is a continuous process– even in a utopian or relevantly utopian society. Continued vigilance against domination and would be-tyrants is crucial to reproducing egalitarian social relations (Boehm 2001).  When it comes to the long term work of transforming root causes of social problems, It is important to draw the right inferences about what 1. social relations are causing harmful behaviors and 2.  what kind of new social relations would generate more positive behaviors and 3.  how to develop such better social relations out of current conditions (and an understanding of current conditions and their relevant causes). 

2. Mediation, Restorative Justice, and Transformative justice: 

Mediation, restorative justice, transformative justice, are distinct from each other but have some crucial lower common denominators, similarities, and family resemblances. They all involve forms of voluntary, self-managed, and dialogue driven processes. But they each have some qualities and functions that make them unique– making different approaches more appropriate and applicable in different contexts. Mediation is more focused on dispute resolution, restorative justice is more focused on harm resolution, and transformative justice is rooted in repairing and transforming causes of harm. 

Mediation is rooted in dialogue about a dispute, with participation by those in a dispute, with the assistance of a mediator (or mediation team) and relevant protocols, to find out how to resolve a dispute in some kind of way through mutual agreements of those involved. “Mediation is primarily motivated by the need to resolve a dispute or conflict. It does not proceed on the assumption that addressing harm or repairing a relationship is the – or even an – objective.” Although sometimes addressing harm and repairing a relationship can be part of such a process,  the main goal of mediation “is to establish agreement on how parties will relate to or engage with each other in the future and how they can avoid subsequent conflicts.” (Brookes and McDonough 2006). “There are many agreements created by mediation that are strong, enduring and have enormous value for all the parties involved, but where those parties did not (and did not want to) express their feelings to each other, or admit responsibility for their part, or apologise. They did not want, nor did they get, a ‘therapeutic process’: they only wanted to resolve the dispute, and get on with their lives; and mediation was very successful in achieving that aim,” (Brookes and McDonough 2006). 

“Restorative justice is a process to involve, to the extent possible, those who have a stake in a specific offense and to collectively identify and address harms, needs, and obligations, in order to heal and put things as right as possible,” (Zehr 2002). Restorative justice approaches have been shown to decrease recidivism, increase restitution compliance, and increase victim satisfaction compared to courts and prisons (Sherman and Strang 2007, Latimer 2005, Umbreit 1998). Restorative justice has the added benefit of not having the extensive negatives of police and prison systems. Even having identical recidivism rates without the detriments of prisons, courts, and police would be a massive victory for restorative justice processes (and other similar yet distinct approaches). Restorative justice gives victims information they want, an opportunity for truth telling, empowerment, and restitution (Zehr 2002). Restorative justice gives offenders a process that addresses harm and encourages empathy and responsibility, encouragement to experience transformation, and potential ways to reintegrate with others (Zehr 2002). Restorative justice processes and the like are designed for and work best in regards to more extreme offenses and harms and are not a way of dealing with minor offenses (Zehr 2002).

Transformative justice is rooted in the above qualities of restorative justice as well as transforming causes of harm. Transformative justice “is distinct from restorative justice practices that focus on addressing harm among individuals without addressing the larger conditions that contributed to it, ” (Kaba and Ritchie 2022). Transformative justice locates root social problems in hierarchies, domination, exploitation, and oppression. And transformative justice is an explicitly police and prison abolitionist praxis whereas restorative justice models do not categorically stand in opposition to police and prisons (although some restorative justice approaches and practitioners are abolitionist). And despite significant lower common denominators and mutual influence between restorative justice and transformative justice, transformative justice has its own unique history and practices emerging from abolitionist social movements against unjust violence. Most transformative justice processes involve a few members of the community working with someone who agrees to a transformative justice process– often after an intervention requesting someone to participate. “This process, in the best-case scenario, works so that the person who caused harm understands their actions and the impact they had on the survivor(s) and others involved, apologizes, makes amends, repairs damage caused by their actions and–most importantly–works to change their behavior so that the harm doesn’t happen again. Changing… behavior is a fundamental part of taking accountability for harm… and it is often one of the main things survivors want,” (Mingus 2018). Transformative justice is an approach that also involves social action to address hierarchy, domination, exploitation, and oppression in society beyond specific instances of harm. 

The multi-pronged approach we advocate for includes mediation, restorative justice, and transformative justice– while acknowledging the different qualities and functions each has. Mediation makes sense when the goal is finding mutual agreements and moving forward. Transformative justice has the potential to help deal with causes of harm while containing the most crucial qualities from restorative justice. But restorative justice can make sense for conflicts that can be sufficiently resolved through it (and as its own tendency, restorative justice has developed some processes and practices that can make a lot of sense in specific contexts– such as when the more approximate causes of harm are more shallow than deep). Mediation can achieve restorative outcomes or be a precursor to restorative justice and/or transformative justice processes. And there are various ways mediation, restorative justice practices, and transformative justice practices can be integrated (when that is agreed to by people involved and the goal is to both deal with disputes as well as harms). And there are ways restorative justice processes can spill into or include features/practices from transformative justice. 

Synthesizing and including a plurality of the above approaches together: If possible, people can attempt to resolve various disputes and issues with each other through direct dialogue with each other or informally with mutually agreed upon third parties. As needed and desired, formal dialogue driven self-managed justice processes involving disputes and/or harms between persons can be agreed to and assisted by an agreed upon third party person or team. People involved can decide if mediation and/or restorative justice and/or transformative justice make sense for the given dispute and/or harm and/or harmful conflict. Coherent versions of mediation, restorative justice, and transformative justice have respect for guaranteed freedoms for those involved and have their own protocols and processes opposed to hierarchical and arbitrary rule. Mediation makes sense when people agree to it and there is a dispute between people trying to reach some kind of resolution. Mediation can lead to mutual agreements about how to move forward in the case of disputes (and potentially restorative/transformative outcomes and/or mutual agreements about what happened– although that is not the primary goal of mere/pure mediation). When there is at least someone acknowledging they caused harm, restorative and transformative justice processes can make sense (although these processes can also involve various disputes along with acknowledgements). And if agreed to by participants, there can be a combination of mediation/restorative justice/transformative justice focusing on dealing with disputes and harms, causes thereof, and setting things right and transforming causes of injustice/harm. If the sole reason for people, “coming together is to address the harm that has been caused, whichever of them caused the harm in question, then they need to use a restorative… (or transformative)… approach. If they want solely to resolve a dispute, then they need to use mediation. If they are meeting in order to address harm and resolve a related dispute, then – within the context of the restorative,” or transformative “process – the facilitator will need to employ mediative skills,” (Brookes and McDonough 2006). Federated collectives can provide one another with impartial mediators and/or facilitators for mediation and/or restorative and transformative justice processes. Depending on what those involved agree to, mediation, restorative justice, and transformative justice can be done through: processes involving impartial facilitators with victims and offenders, to processes that include loved ones of those affected to different degrees, to community circles, to a mix of the above. When there is broader communal involvement, “discussions within the circle are often more wide-ranging than in other restorative justice models. Participants may address situations in the community that are giving rise to the offense, the support needs of victims and offenders, the obligations that the community might have, community norms, or other related community issues,” (Zehr 2002). It is important to note that “unlike arbitrators, conference or circle facilitators do not impose settlements. Each model allows an opportunity for participants to explore facts, feelings, and resolutions,” (2002). And when a dispute, grievance, harm, injustice, or dispute is at the level of group organizational form/content/processes/functions, then such issues should be deliberated at relevant group assemblies and decided by such group assemblies through deliberation and direct democracy within the bounds of non-hierarchical rights and duties. Through these self-managed dialogical justice processes, people try to find out how to move forward which can include: resolution of a dispute, the repairing of harm done, the stopping of ongoing/future harm, the ending to an organizational injustice, the development of the right kind of organizational qualities and practices, mutual understanding, people making sufficient amends to continue co-existing in specific kinds of relations, the transformation of social causes of harm and/or harmful patterns of behavior, etc. (Arid et al 2020). 

***If the offender acknowledges the harm they have caused, and it is impossible or inappropriate for victim and offender to be in such a process face-to-face, it is possible for restorative justice processes and the like to be initiated and happen without a direct encounter between victim and offender (Zehr 2002). Sometimes “representatives or surrogates may be used” and/or “letters or videos are used in preparation for, or in place of a direct meeting” between victim and offender (Zehr 2002). When victims “have some needs that involve the offender, they also have needs that do not. Similarly, offenders have needs and obligations that have nothing to do with the victim,” (Zehr 2002). It is also crucial to note that in at least some contexts everyone or multiple people involved are in some respects both offenders and victims (Zehr 2002). 

Mediation, restorative justice processes, and transformative justice processes have their own practices, criteria, and protocols. Yet, “we are still on a steep learning curve in this field. The most exciting practices that have emerged in the past years were not even imagined by those of us who began the first programs, and many more new ideas will surely emerge through dialogue and experimentation,” (Zehr 2002). Mediation, peacemaking, and restorative and transformative justice processes can be continually updated with new data and research to show how such processes can function better in general and in specific contexts. There are also other similar-enough ways of dealing with disputes and harms that come from their own unique traditions with their own unique practices that don’t go under the labels of restorative justice and transformative justice. Dialogue driven justice “should be built from the bottom up, by communities in dialogue assessing their needs and resources and applying the principles to their own situations,” (Zehr 2002). Such processes are not only to help those immediately involved but society as a whole through the repairing and transforming of harm, mechanisms to deal with harm and injustice, and protection of individuals against hierarchical and arbitrary sanctions. For further inquiry into such processes, we recommend “Fumbling Towards Repair” by Kaba And Hassan (Kaba and Hassan 2019) as well as educational materials put out by INCITE, The Zehr Institute, Neighborhood Anarchist Collective, and Critical Resistance. 

3. Free association:

Free association involves freedom of, from, and within associations. Sometimes, people just leaving each other alone formally and informally for periods of time can defuse unwanted interactions (such as those that could escalate into violence, or are defined by various sufficiently negatively veillanced patterns or dynamics). This can include leaving informal or formal associations of various kinds according to needs and desires of persons. For such free association, people require means of free association such as means of existence and production. Full means of free association include: a plurality of free communities and collectives, as well as means of existence and production in common. Robust free association and means of free association enables people to more easily leave dynamics they do not want to be involved with (including but not limited to domestic violence). Free association should exist within the bounds of self-management of each and all. Given such criteria, one does not have the right to freely disassociate and then enact domination, exploitation, and authoritarian relations upon people. While it is true that sometimes people leaving each other alone is a tragic failure to deal with an issue that might have been better resolved otherwise, even then it is within people’s rights to do so. Moreover, it is not always such a tragic failure– far from it. Freedom of, from, and within associations is a crucial way for people to choose the kinds of relations, collectives, and activities they want and do not want.   

4. Informal social disapproval:

Informal social disapproval can help to de-incentivize anti-social kinds of behaviors and help incentivize positive behaviors (Boehm 2001).  Informal social disapproval can include disagreement, criticism, expressing grievances etc. The more extreme ends of informal social disapproval include ridicule, mockery, and temporary or more prolonged avoidance (Boehm 2001, Lewis 2014).  Some kinds of informal social disapproval are rather gentle and and other kinds of informal social disapproval are more intense. Graduated Informal social disapproval against truly anti-social behavior and domineering behavior can make it in the interest of people to not do anti-social and domineering acts even if they want to, as life is easier with the presence of informal social approval and without more intensified versions of informal social disapproval. Inversely, informal social approval can help to motivate prosocial behavior (although it is no replacement for 1. internal motivation to do prosocial behavior as well as 2. the social relations that institute prosocial behavior via common economics and self-management of each and all as a normal part of political economic social life). 

However, informal social approval and disapproval are not always wielded wisely; FAR from it. Informal social disapproval beyond mere disagreement and the like can be rather harsh if not used appropriately/proportionately and against truly anti-social and domineering behaviors. Arbitrary, overly-escalated, and unjust uses of informal social disapproval can lead to bullying and a cruel society where people feel like they are metaphorically walking on landmines as opposed to living in a truly caring, rational, and free society. And a society using such informal social disapproval in sufficiently unwise ways can disincentivize what should be completely permissible behavior and/or dissent and lead to an overly conformist type of society where people feel afraid to be agents. When informal social disapproval makes sense, ideally and when meaningfully possible and practical, more benign informal social disapproval should be sufficiently tried before escalations. Additionally it is important to note that informal social disapproval can potentially be wielded to defend any set of norms– not just liberatory ones. Informal social disapproval can be weaponized to subvert egalitarianism and freedom or to defend it. Although sometimes informal social disapproval is sufficient to remedy issues, informal social disapproval is a supplement and not replacement for the kind of formal dialogue driven and self-managed justice processes that are ideal to use in the cases of intense disputes and/or interpersonal and group level harm/injustice. 

5. Calling a Friend, Neighbor, or Loved One: 

In many emergency situations, if one needs a third party for some reason, calling a friend, neighbor, loved one, etc. can be a good enough option. A lot of the back up people need in dire emergencies can be done by friends, neighbors, loved ones, and even people and strangers nearby. By itself, this is far from sufficient. But when combined with a gestalt of other features, this actually goes a surprisingly long way. In fact, this can even be a first line of support in a great many emergency situations. Communal group text chats for emergencies can help supplement this. 

6. More people having more and better communal ties and more and better friends and acquaintances:

Under hierarchical society, people are deeply alienated and atomized and it makes it easier for various malicious actors to harm people. In an egalitarian communal society, it is known that everyone or most everyone (some may choose to be an extremely isolated hermit if that is their wish) has communal ties as well as friendship ties. Self-management on a communal level combined with people having more and better communal and social ties simultaneously inhibits people from abusing and bullying people and also gives people a sense of individual and collective purpose that can play a role in helping to form good behaviors and character traits (Martin 2014). Knowing people generally have back up from others can be an inhibiting factor for abusers, bullies, and would be hierarchical authority. Increased communal ties (of the right kinds) can create webs of mutual responsibility to others in a way where domineering behaviors are disincentivized; even crude egoists trying to selfishly self-maximize at the expense of others will find they are able to live a better quality life in a communal and cooperative society by being mutualistic and contributing to the goods of others (politically, economically, and socially). And if and when some harm does happen, people have more potential to reach out to others for help in a society with robust social and communal ties that have a plurality of good-enough ways of responding to harm. 

7. Non-Violent unarmed help teams: 

These kinds of groups can be third parties to call in case of non-violent (or not yet violent) emergencies that can help with meeting a plurality of needs, providing emergency mediation, emergency medical help and first aid, helping to stop fights before they happen/deescalation, providing people support to move away from someone else, being witnesses to a conflict etc. Groups providing this emergency help can be in blocks and neighborhoods, or even citywide and can be contacted via digital chat  or through a phone call. Good and more popularized training in various methods for dealing with various kinds of conflicts will decrease the extent to which people will need to contact such third parties while also increasing the capacity of people to help others out and act ethically and effectively. It is important to note that these kinds of unarmed third party teams are exclusively for responding through non-violent means. 

8. Deescalation: 

When it seems like unjust violence is about to happen, deescalation can be tried by those involved, nearby people, or people on call. The goal of deescalation is to stop unjust violence from happening. A significant amount of violence can be deescalated if the right methods are used in the right ways at the right times. Some guidelines for good deescalation include: being empathetic, respecting personal space, using non-threatening nonverbal communication, remaining calm and rational, focusing on feelings, redirecting confrontational questions, setting boundaries, using wise choices in what is negotiable and non-negotiable, allowing silence for reflection, and allowing time for people to make decisions (Neighborhood Anarchist Collective 2019). For some more information about how to do deescalation well, we recommend checking out the “Deescalation Skills & Mindset” document put out by the Neighborhood Anarchist Collective.  

9. Dispersal of good practical and propositional knowledge: 

Dispersal of the right kinds of practical and propositional knowledge will give more people tools to deal with harms and conflicts themselves, and give more capacity for people to help others out. This also helps people better deal with various everyday conflicts in such a way that can help prevent unjust conflicts from occurring. Dispersal of knowledge can include skills related to: deliberation, respecting, recognizing, and setting boundaries, making collective and individual decisions within the bounds of self-management of each and all, conflict resolution, negotiation, mediation and facilitation, self-defense, and deescalation skills etc. Dispersal of knowledge can include a whole array of practical knowledge that enables people to help themselves and each other meet needs and desires. This overall spreading of knowledge includes a broader philosophical education and ethical education which can help inform actions, goals, and reasoning. Theory and practice are distinct but each can (and do) help to shape one another. All else being equal, better theory helps contribute to better practice. Wise praxis consists of good theory and good practice interwoven and contextually applied. 

Education is FAR from reducible to scholastic and academic education, formal education, and other environments specifically designated as educational. Education happens through everyday life and activities, practices, organizations, relations with others, etc. Education most broadly is related to all of philosophy (and its subfields) and all practical activities, and can happen via all sorts of contemplative and practical activities. Education is also related to ethical education and the development of virtues. And the development of the virtues (character traits that contribute to happiness and wellbeing in self and others) helps to contribute to caring, rational, courageous, just, and wise persons, practices, and actions. But far more important than mere virtues in persons are the political, economic, and social institutional qualities and relations conducive to the overall flourishing of virtues and virtuous practices. Some of such political, economic, and social qualities are even constitutive of the overall flourishing of virtues in persons– for example political, economic, and social qualities such as horizontality, free association, direct democracy, federalism, justice, etc. Humans have needs for self-determined activity, relatedness, and competence (Ryan and Deci 2017). Self-determined activities, good social relations and relatedness, cooperative conflict, and participatory education processes help A. contribute to excellence in regards to knowledge acquisition and critical thinking, and B. help develop participatory practices, excellence in such practices, and virtuous character traits and actions C. contribute immensely towards happiness and wellbeing (Kohn 2017, 2018) (Ryan and Deci 2000, 2008, 2017). This brings us to a brief recursive excursion to the first point on this list, dealing with root social problems: The development of good institutional and relational qualities contributes to the flourishing of virtues and virtuous actions and the flourishing of caring and rational, theoretically and practically wise society. And the development of good institutional and relational qualities are consistent with what is prescribed by libertarian communism and the social transformations that transformative justice points towards. Such libertarian, egalitarian, solidaristic, caring, rational, and more broadly and specifically wise societies (nourished, enriched and constituted by its political, economic, and social qualities) will have drastically less harm and injustice than hierarchical orders that incentivize and inculcate authoritarian behaviors.   

***Although the above includes a brief excursion including features from virtue ethics and virtue theory, it is not true that we have to wait until people become virtuous to abolish the police. But if people are sufficiently virtuous, we do not need a special strata of hierarchical enforcers– and if people are not sufficiently virtuous, then we cannot trust them to have such power-over others and all the double standards that come with it. And even more importantly, the development of any hierarchical power structure requires and contributes to vicious collective traits, vicious character traits, and vicious practices. Hierarchical organizations inhibit self-determined activities of people, inhibit the good kinds of relatedness that enable flourishing, and inhibit people from having full access to the means of competence and mastery of various practices they want to do. Inversely, horizontal organizations (and a society based on them) provide people with self-managed decision making and implementation, the kinds of relatedness and mutual aid that leads towards mutual thriving, and provide everyone with the means to excel at practices of their choosing.  Human nature is neither inherently virtuous nor inherently vicious; depending on institutions, relations, culture and practices, different kinds of collective traits and character traits flourish and diminish. 

***If the above points are not sufficient to stop continuing harm, injustice, and violations of what should be freedoms of persons, then more extreme anti-authoritarian sanctions can be done via self defense and defense of others (in the case of stopping people from violating freedoms of others) or expulsion. 

10. Self defense and defense of others:

“Active intervention of friends, neighbours, passers-by would prevent a large proportion of conflicts. Let it be everybody’s duty… to interfere between fighting people, and police will not be required at all,” (Kropotkin 1902). In the case of unjust violence, persons have the right to defend themselves and defend others. When possible, this can take the forms of breaking up fights as well as many people taking up the initiative to do so. When breaking up a fight is not as immediately possible, there can be more escalated forms of self-defense and defense of others as needed until the violation of freedom caused through unjust violence ceases. Self defense and defense of others is rooted in stopping harm and preserving the right to self-management of each and all. Defense of self-management through self-management provides a standard of violence against a monopolization thereof. This approach of self defense and defense of others means that the least violent possible methods are used to protect the self-management of each and all (for through such an approach, defensive violence is done away with as soon as possible to do so without enabling destruction of freedom/greater harm). Self-defense on a communal scale can mean collectively organized defense against hierarchical rule and domination.

11.  Expulsion: 

In worst case scenarios, collectives can choose to expel someone. Such expulsion should only be reserved for the worst possible offenses and repeat offenses; that is reserved for the most extreme forms of “dangerous… behavior not as a way of getting rid of someone whom some group members simply find unpleasant or inconvenient,” (Vanucci and Singer 2010). Especially In the case of political economic groups, this should not be arbitrary but based on explicit standards and as a last case resort. These decisions would be made by groups as a whole through specific protocols and processes, only after sufficient extreme harm has been proven through more than sufficient evidence (the specifics of which need to be worked out well by relevant collectives). Additionally, “If you are asked to join in malicious gossip or sign a petition that makes statements against someone or calls for his expulsion… it is your responsibility to say no until you can be sure in your knowledge of the situation” and “especially if the issue is expulsion it is better to err in pursuit of fairness,” (Vanucci and Singer 2010). Due process is essential and must not be sacrificed for reasons of efficiency and extremity of allegations or popularity of people involved (or lack thereof) etc. (Vanucci and Singer 2010). A formal collective expelling a person is not about taking away every social tie such a person has and will ever have; it is instead about keeping collectives and persons free from being dominated (and free from being forced to be in relations of continuous domination) as well as creating collective anti-authoritarian defense against domination as needed. 

Expelling someone from a formal group is no silver bullet; the person expelled will go elsewhere and may even try to continue to violate people’s freedoms (although getting kicked out of self-managed collectives will certainly make that more difficult), the group could be wrong about their judgment and/or what to do (and can actually be engaged in a unjust expulsion), the group could be ignoring the social conditions that caused harm etc. Yet expelling an extreme freedom violator from a specific formal group can be in harmony with and protective of the freedom of people to self-determine their lives. Sometimes there are no real or apparent better options. Expulsion of a person can come with certain conditions for reintegration. Because expulsion can be overused and done in extremely terrible ways it is risky to put on the table, but it is more risky to not have it as a last resort. Expulsion and self-defense and defense of others can help to defend persons and groups from being ruled over and dominated (Boehm 2001). 

***If expulsion of someone (or lack of expulsion of someone) is particularly contentious and sufficiently drives people apart, it may very well be that such a conflict can split a group into multiple groups through “schismogenesis”.  

12. Popular militias as needed: 

Popular militias would have no class structures, enforce no class structures, enforce no hierarchical laws, would be made out of volunteer members, would have no professional strata, and would  be accountable to, mandated by, and recallable to horizontal communal assemblies.  Imperfect but good examples of popular militias include: The original Zapatista Militias, The Black Army, the popular militia’s of anarchist Spain, the YPG, and the contemporary Zapatista militias. Popular militias are good for defense of the revolution from hierarchy and as last resort mechanisms that can be formed in defense of people against authoritarian rule (not as a standing army or as a distinct class). Policy for such popular militias would be set by: Minimum features of a non-hierarchical rights and duties, direct collective decisions by communal assemblies, implementation that is self-managed within bounds of mandates from below. 

CONCLUDING THIS SECTION:

The above ways of solving social problems correspond to specific kinds and magnitudes of social problems. There are various conditions that need to be present for the above to truly bloom and thrive. However, the above features can be developed overtime bit by bit. The above features can be prefigured prior to revolution but can not truly fully thrive on a mass scale until near revolutionary, revolutionary, and post-revolutionary conditions. They all need to be used and developed wisely and contextually. When and how to use various methods well is more tricky. 

Summarizing the above section: When it comes to disputes and conflicts, there are multiple paths for how people can move forward that are ethically permissible but some are better than others ideally, and some are better than others given the relevant variables at hand. Additionally, not all disputes and conflicts are in regards to injustice/harm/violations of essential freedoms– far from it. And not all conflicts need to be resolved. Disagreement, differentiation, conflict, and plurality are a part of the human condition. A social world free of all such conflict and plurality is indeed an authoritarian dystopia of absurd proportions. Unity in diversity implies both the right kinds of unity, plurality, and the right kinds of respect for differences.  However, some conflicts either involve injustice/harm/violations of what-should-be essential freedoms, or are otherwise more important to resolve (as not all conflicts involving completely permissible behavior are conflicts that are best left unresolved). Depending on relevant variables of a social problem, or dispute, or conflict, or harm: People can choose to talk something out, people can express disagreements, people can get to know each other’s perspectives, there can be mutual understanding and recognition and amelioration, etc. People can leave each other alone for varying amounts of time– everything from people briefly leaving one another alone, to people not wanting to be close with one another and sufficiently freely associating and disassociating to do so informally and/or formally.  People can give graduated informal social disapproval of various kinds against domineering and authoritarian behavior. When needed in emergencies, people can call friends, neighbors, and loved ones for help. People can also contact specifically non-violent third party help teams for assistance of various kinds. When it seems like unjust violence is about to happen, people can try deescalation techniques. When the above is not enough to resolve a dispute, or repair harm, or stop future harm, a more formal mediation, peacemaking and/or restorative/transformative justice process can be proposed and agreed to (and can be ignited through communal interventions/requests). If there is a dispute between persons in search of a resolution of some kind, then mediation makes sense. Mediation can even lead to restorative justice/transformative justice processes or restorative/transformative outcomes. If there is acknowledgement of harm caused from relevant offenders, then restorative and transformative justice processes can make sense to make things right and resolve causes of harm. When there are some disputes and some harms acknowledged, there can be mediation within the context of a restorative justice/transformative justice process. When there are injustices and grievances at a group level in regards to organization, decisions, and actions, then group deliberation and democracy within the bounds of non-hierarchical rights/duties can figure out how to resolve an issue and move forward. At the most extreme ends of harm/unjust conflicts, self-managed organizations can choose to expel the worst kinds of freedom-violators from their formal associations after they have been sufficiently verified through due process as having committed the most extreme kinds of harm (and being continuous threats to freedoms of persons). Expulsions can include conditions for rejoining. When there is active unjust violence/ destruction of self-management of people, then sufficient self defense and defense of others to stop such harm is needed. The elimination of root social problems (specifically hierarchies) combined with the presence of libertarian and egalitarian relations will make harm less common, frequent, and extreme AND would be accompanied by good protocols for dealing with violations of what should be essential freedoms, AND would give rise to people who are more likely to act wisely in a myriad of different situations. Good protocols are desirable but not sufficient conditions for dealing with harms and conflicts. There is also a case by case nature to practical problem solving even when various good-enough protocols are carried through entirely. When it comes to dealing with conflicts and/or harm/injustice, one way to go about it is to: define the problem, define criteria for resolution or paths forward (ideal and good enough options), look at a plurality of ethically-permissible options going forward given the quality and magnitude of the situation, look at the pros and cons of such options, and find what seems like the best way forward. It is often that there are multiple options that will lead to good-enough resolutions or ways to move forward– some of which might be far better than others in every or most every relevant respect, and some of which might be more optimal in some respects and less optimal in regards to other dimensions.  

Additionally, the above solutions can exist in distorted ways; it is possible to have attempts at mediation or justice that are nothing more than glorified kangaroo courts– or otherwise fail to live up to their own standards and/or fail to achieve good results (through lack of sufficiently good protocols/processes, through lack of know-how, through lack of will on the part of the person who caused harm, etc.). It is possible to attempt self-defense in foolish ways or in ways that reproduce arbitrary violence beyond what is needed for defense against domination. It is possible to wield social disapproval, free association, and expulsion in ignorant and even cruel and anti-social ways (and even in ways where people wielding such methods are manipulated by an abusive person to go after their targets!), etc. Claims of harm/injustice can be weaponized by rulers and abusers alike. People and groups can be far too quick to resort to expulsion and by extension contribute to disposability culture; a culture without sufficient respect for human freedom, due process, and exploring less heavy handed methods. And it is possible for people and groups to treat what should be completely permissible behavior as impermissible (a relatively infinite amount of possible differences, disagreements, annoyances, various mannerisms, postures, moods, expressions etc.) and then lash out against perfectly permissible behavior as if it is behavior that should be impermissible. Yet the methods as enumerated in the above section, when developed and used well, give people viable alternatives to police, state security forces, states, prisons, hierarchical rule, and arbitrary rule. 

Quoting Angela Davis, “rather than try to imagine one single alternative to the existing system of incarceration, we might envision an array of alternatives that will require radical transformations of many aspects of our society,” (Davis 2011). None of the above in isolation are silver bullets to solving all social problems; But the above together, each used sufficiently well and appropriately, are far more effective than cops, courts, and prisons for dealing with stopping unjust violations of freedoms of persons, mitigating harm, and working towards positive solutions for the future. The above is not a panacea to all violations of what should be minimal freedoms of persons, but something like it is an approximation of such an ideal. The absence of any perfect alternative does not mean that we do not have significantly better alternatives to police when it comes to dealing with various kinds of disputes, harms, injustices, and grievances and moving forward in positive ways (given the goals of freedom, equality, solidarity, happiness, wellbeing, the flourishing of virtues etc). 

***On a tangential but important note, the above section of the essay points towards the kinds of dispute resolution and justice compatible with Elinor Ostrom’s eight rules for governing the commons well (Ostrom 2015). In this sense, the above approach has immense social-ecological relevance. And the above section of this essay points towards what a libertarian communist approach to dispute resolution and justice can look like.

Despite appearing like a normal aspect of political life to many people, the contemporary police forces are only a few hundred years old (Whitehouse 2014), and state security forces more broadly only exist within the last 5% of human temporal existence (Bookchin 2005). There are examples of classless societies with means of existence in common that utilize formal and informal dialogue between people, informal social disapproval, free association and dissociation, self-defense, defense of others, and expulsion as mechanisms for dealing with injustices/domination. The above mechanisms have been used by egalitarian hunter gatherer bands, other kinds of communities in villages, rural environments, and urban environments, to social movement groups of various kinds in various contexts, to full blown libertarian socialist societies (and approximations thereof). Egalitarian social groups have functional conflict resolution systems that are conducive to human freedom and wellbeing (especially compared to military, police, and prison systems). Egalitarian and libertarian societies function in part through being able to oppose domination and people trying to become rulers through multiple approaches (Boehm 2001). The multi-sided approach to conflict resolution we advocate has the presence of mediation, dialogue driven justice systems, free association and disassociation of persons, graduated informal sanctions against domination and injustice, as well as recourse of self defense, defense of others, collective forms thereof, and expulsion in the worst case scenarios. The above features enable collectives to protect egalitarian functioning against domination of various kinds without reproducing hierarchical rule (hierarchy as defined by Bookchin, not as defined by Boehm). 

From here to there:

The abolition of the police, and other hierarchical security forces, requires nothing less than social revolution towards a free and egalitarian society. Police and prison “abolitionists want to end the whole system of mutually reinforcing relationships between surveillance, policing, the courts, the imprisonment that fuel, maintain, and expand social and economic oppression, structural racist, patriarchy, ableism, and imperialism. It’s not just about prisons or even police, but the entire world they reflect and produce,” (Kaba and Ritchie 2022).  The military, the police and groups that perform essential military and police functions are essential to the functioning of capitalism, statecraft, and entangled hierarchies such as the racist and patriarchal divisions of power and labor within class society. To achieve a world without hierarchical security forces, people must develop the capacity to seize means of existence, production, and politics (not to be confused with statecraft) from hierarchical rule and then defend such gains against encroachment from hierarchical forces on both local and federated inter-local scales. The above can be actuated by developing and participating in social movements and popular organizations that functionally do oppositional politics and reconstructive politics; that is through self-managed organizations and actions that can meet people’s needs and oppose hierarchical power via direct action and mutual aid (strategically adapted to relevant variables) through decentralized, and federated organizations (Usufruct Collective 2022). 

A coherent notion of police abolition– that abolishes the police and creates something truly positive in its stead– is thus not merely police abolition; it is also class abolition, state abolition, and the abolition of social hierarchy more broadly. And a coherent approach to police abolition includes the reconstruction of society along radially egalitarian and libertarian lines. The abolition of hierarchical power and hierarchical security forces requires horizontal-democratic organizations that achieve various short term, mid-term, and long term goals, solve root causes of major social problems, and create a political economy and society rooted in the self-management of each and all (including rights and duties blossoming from such a freedom ethic). And if and when such a good society develops, and on the way there, we need to find good enough non-hierarchical ways of dealing with disputes, harm, and harmful conflicts without resorting to unjust violations of what should be guaranteed liberties. 

There is no mere reform that will bring about the abolition of police and state security forces entirely without also toppling the primary violent protective and enforcement mechanisms of hierarchical politics and economics within a given territory. On top of the police being an organ of hierarchical politics, the development of statecraft and capitalism overtime requires protection and enforcement. Without sufficient protection and enforcement, hierarchical political and economic rule can be toppled by popular movements (or by hierarchical formations). Any realistic approach to police and prison abolition must be idealistic in that it must be revolutionary, anti-hierarchical, and in favor of self-managed popular power as part of a revolutionary process and as a goal.  If such a political trajectory is not revolutionary, it will fail to get to the root causes of social problems and solutions (by leaving hierarchical systems and their requisite security forces alive). If a politics is hierarchical in its means and/or aims, then it will tend towards reproducing hierarchical structures and enforcement thereof at the expense of goals worth developing. And if a politics is not self-managed and not rooted in popular power, then such a politics will not have the requisite positive features nor capacity it needs to develop meaningful freedom and overall goals worth achieving. And if a movement is revolutionary but not connected to meeting the needs of people, it will not develop adequate social force to achieve such long term goals (FARJ 2008). 

***State power reproduces itself at the expense of self-management with recourse to violence to protect class rule/class relations. Such a statement about the state and state security forces (including the police and other statist security forces) is a universal claim of state systems. Social “democratic” and state “socialist” systems  are neither socialist nor meaningfully democratic– in the sense that they exist at the expense of common means of production and self-managed decisions. Social democratic and state socialist systems– in common with other states– depend upon a ruling class and hierarchical security forces that defend class rule and authoritarian power. Fortunately, an alternative to state politics exists in anti-state revolutionary socialist approaches. 

The following section is an incomplete exploration of how to get to an abolitionist future. Some of the following groups, qualities, and practices listed are more general and others are more specific. And some of the following groups, qualities, and practices listed are more and essential to a strategy of coherent police abolition while others are more contingent. For any of the following to function well they of course need to be adapted to relevant variables and developed strategically. 

Elements of a path towards police abolition: 

The general strategy for abolishing the police, the state, and hierarchy more broadly consists of self-managed organizations that can meet needs, oppose hierarchical power, fight for better conditions, build capacity, develop common infrastructure, multiply, and federate towards a revolution based on self-management of each and all– and more broadly the qualities of a libertarian socialist, communist, and communalist society. This looks like self-managed communal assemblies, labor unions, prisoners’ unions, students’ unions, tenants’ unions, issue and function specific social movement groups, and collective actions and projects for short term, mid-term, and long term goals (based on meeting needs of people). Such a development would consist of oppositional politics and reconstructive politics–rather than some either/or false dichotomy that doesn’t see the positives in each and the ways they can and should combine. The institution of a horizontal political economy can only happen through revolution against hierarchical politics and hierarchical economics. By extension of the functions of the police, the police will try to quash social movements that are in opposition to the hierarchical order the police protect and serve. Overcoming the obstacle of state security forces is crucial for revolutionary change and for achieving short-term and mid-term goals through direct action. In order to develop a free society, the form and content of direct democracy, horizontality, free association, direct action, and mutual aid must be wielded by many collectives deciding on particular content, tactics, sub-strategies, as well as elaborated and context-adapted versions of such a general strategy and goal orientation. 

Self-managed organizations are able to achieve collective goals of people through direct collective deliberation, decisions, and actions. Self-management is both a process and a goal orientation. Robust self-management of each and all requires horizontality, direct democracy, and free association and the means thereof. Decentralized, federated, and self-managed organizations enable flexibility, resilience, and deliberative participation. Because self-managed organizations have shared power, participants have a stake in them (leading to incentives for mutual thriving). And because self-managed organizations are participatory, people involved are empowered to be full agents. Well done deliberation enables collectives to make good decisions for achieving collective goals because decisions become rounded out by relevant needs, preferences, knowledge, abilities, etc of those involved. “It is true that there is [in the people] a great elementary force, a force that without any doubt is superior to [that of ] the government, and to [that of] the ruling classes taken together; but without organisation an elementary force is not a real force,” (FARJ 2008). When social movements and organizations are populated, multiplied, federated, and sustained overtime, they have capacity to achieve radical social change. People want to implement decisions they like or sufficiently agree with– and participatory movements and groups create decisions that everyone or most people agree with after deliberation. Self-managed organizations can aim for full agreement and fall back to majority decisions within free association (and minimal non-hierarchical rights and duties) when there is not full agreement. Self-managed groups are needed to have collective deliberation, decisions, actions, and goals without reproducing hierarchical form and content. 

Self-managed organizations can do direct actions against hierarchical rule to meet needs of people and aim towards short term, mid term, and long term goals. Direct action refers to people taking action directly in opposing injustice/exploitation/domination/oppression. Direct action can be contrasted to relying on rulers to solve social problems. Direct action can include occupations, expropriations, strikes, blockades, boycotts, and a whole array of other tactics. Direct actions can be done against any hierarchical institution in a plurality of ways by a plurality of groups and kinds of groups. In order for a libertarian socialist revolution to happen, there must be the development of popular organizations that use direct action against hierarchical institutions, the expropriation of class property, and the institution of political, economic, and social self-management. Sufficient expropriation of hierarchical property combined with defense of revolutionary gains are both needed for large scale and sustained zones free from hierarchical rule. Building enough local and interlocal capacity to make and defend such gains is crucial for such revolutionary goals. Such a revolution cannot happen without the presence of popular support, mass inter-local and inter-regional support, organizations that can sustain themselves over-time, and a content of direct action against hierarchical rule. More modest direct actions towards short-term and mid-term goals are not incompatible with a path towards revolution; in fact they are crucial to building adequate capacity and meeting the needs of people in the meantime. Achieving short-term and mid-term goals through direct action contributes to popular support, capacity, and organization to achieve long-term goals such as local and interlocal revolution and the defense thereof. Short-term and mid-term goals can be achieved through self-management, direct action, and mutual aid–meeting needs of people while building collective power and aiming towards a self-managed society. Such an approach, if done well, contributes to both revolutionary goals and more immediate less grand goals at the same time– bridging short-term, mid-term, and long-term goals together without subordinating long term goals and the final objective of a truly liberatory world. 

Mutual aid functions are crucial to means and ends of developing a free society. Mutual aid practices and projects meet people’s needs through multidirectional, horizontal, and participatory activities and methods. Mutual aid functions are crucial for social movements aimed towards common goals. There is of course the essential mutual aid that happens when collaborating with others for various life functions. And there is the essential mutual aid that happens through collaboration for direct actions through self-managed organization. Mutual aid activities can also include the reproduction of self-managed organizations, including everything from providing food, childcare, developing common infrastructure, providing meeting spaces, pooling resources, provision of medical supplies, provision of defensive equipment, skill training, etc. Mutual aid practices and projects, when done well, enable more needs to be met with less overall labor. Such mutual aid practices and projects help to sustain prolonged movement activity and enable more people to participate in social movements. Shared reproductive labor within movements helps abolish gendered divisions of labor and power and enables more generalized skill sets. All social movements need to reproduce themselves, require multi-directional support, and help to take care of members and others (especially members and others most in need). Mutual aid disproportionately helps those in most need within and outside of specific groups and movements. A plurality of mutual aid functions and groups helping people and/or social movements and/or popular organizations to meet needs is essential and indispensable to overall movement sustenance, growth, and functions. And mutual aid is NOT a mere means to an end to be instrumentalized; mutual aid is also a necessary part of a free and egalitarian world– a crucial quality among others to be continuously developed and recreated. Sufficient webs of mutual aid create cornucopian conditions that can meet the needs of everyone. Intra-group and inter-group mutual aid can be used by a plurality of groups towards common goals.  “The abolition of policing is about building a new world centered around the commons,” (Kaba and Ritchie 2022). The development of a common sphere and networks of mutual aid should be a part of social movement processes, functionally fueling direct actions and social movement ecosystems, and should eventually become the political economic fabric of a good society. Given the context of living in a hierarchical political economy, the development of a common sphere with robust mutual aid and an overflowing cornucopia for all does not just happen through pooling and mutual aid– as indispensable as those are– but also through oppositional politics of direct action and expropriation.  

Although most all the following groups in this paragraph are FAR from reducible to opposition against police and prisons, the following paragraph gives examples of how many self-managed direct action organizations can do actions specifically related to opposition against the police. There are many groups that can do police abolition work. For some examples: Community assemblies and federations thereof can create and/or assist with 1. direct actions against hierarchical institutions and infrastructure on local and interlocal levels in general and as specifically related to struggles against state rule and state security forces and 2. Providing common infrastructure and mutual aid functions to help direct actions, social movements and participants, and those in need. Community assemblies can do everything from occupations, to community defense, to expropriations, to direct actions at relevant pressure points. Community assemblies can also be formed out of anti-police social movements in some contexts as a way of creating sustained opposition to the police (as well as groups that can do other functions). Squatters’ assemblies and allied groups can help defend squatted spaces from police encroachment. Prisoners’ unions can do prison strikes, sabotage, rebellions, etc. Radical Labor Unions can do direct actions against capitalists, be oppositional against the state, do solidarity strikes with prisoners, and assist prisoners unions from outside the bars– and even do general strikes in tandem with mass street actions potentially connecting labor struggles with broader community struggles and anti-police struggles. Students’ unions can kick the cops out of their schools fight against authoritarianism towards and the policing of the youth. When social movements and groups have an anti-cop ethos, they are less assimilated into the state as such, and more open towards radical form and content. Through a plurality of groups fighting for greater freedoms and self-management for themselves and for others– and meeting needs of themselves and others in the process while building lasting ways to do so– individual interest, group interest, and broader social interest can become harmonized. Alliances of social movement groups united around short-term, mid-term, and long-term liberatory goals can coordinate on multiple fronts to do more powerful measures than they can do by themselves. 

By extension of the fact that sufficient oppositional and reconstructive politics in multiple spheres of life are needed for social revolution and coherent state and police abolition to take place, most of the groups mentioned in the above paragraph have their most important functions in general–and their most important functions related to police abolition– through their functions and activities that are not directly/merely in regards to police abolition. For example, radical community assemblies and radical unions are potentially revolutionary organizations that are able to develop the power to seize the means of existence, production, and politics away from hierarchical rule while meeting needs of people along the way through mutual aid and direct action. The development of popular organizations in multiple spheres of life that are self-managed and that use mutual aid and direct action to meet needs of people includes but goes far beyond police abolition and opposition to the police; it includes broader opposition to hierarchies AND extends beyond oppositional politics into reconstructive politics of developing a self-managed world. Popular organizations strategically oriented around direct actions at multiple pressure points are able to potentially outnumber and overwhelm state security forces to the point of them defecting, surrendering en masse, or otherwise not being able to function. The defeat of a contemporary state structure by grassroots social movements happens through a long multi-year process of movement activity that eventually leads to popular organizations being able to stop the state and capitalism from functioning. The final showdown is won before it happens through sufficient organization, action, and mobilization of popular forces. At that point, popular organizations can fully defend themselves and their gains, expropriate class property, topple the remnants of the old order, and institute a new order based on self-management of each and all and the means thereof. 

There are of course many other possible liberatory anti-police groups and specific anti-police functions besides the ones mentioned prior: Networks of loved ones of victims of direct police violence can meet up together for support, solidarity, and connections to movements. Medic collectives can help with first aid and spreading basic first aid and medical knowledge to people in movements. Function specific mutual aid groups can emerge around needs people have– such as childcare collectives, food provision collectives, etc. Function specific affinity groups can form and disperse as needed and desired. Research collectives researching the composition of state and capitalist forces can give relevant intelligence to movements allowing them to act more effectively against various class enemies. Copwatch groups and/or functions can help document, spread awareness about the evils of, and mitigate against police forces (and can operate through specific neighborhoods and downtown areas). Radical jail support and radical lawyers can help mitigate against police repression of social movements. Grassroots media projects can help cover social movements in a way that helps to give social movements a voice. Education and skillshare groups can help provide movements with literature, participatory study groups, and democratization of relevant practical knowledge. 

There are other state security forces besides the police– from the military to an entire alphabet soup. Even if the police in one location were to be abolished, other state security forces would still exist for protection of the state and capitalism. The task of abolishing all state security forces (in and outside of the state one is located in) highlights the need for nothing less than something beyond police abolition and mere local action to do police abolition well. Even massive liberated regions in the context of a broader interstate system and world market economy exist under the threat of state and capitalist encroachment– and exist in a specific context and mode of having to navigate relations in a broader hierarchical world order made out of a plurality of hierarchical institutions and incentives. Given a broader goal of opposition to statecraft, opposition to the military power of states is crucial. Coherent anti-military movements can help take actions against militarism without moral double standards and without liberal, and/or nationalist, and/or imperialist, and/or state-socialist co-optation. Hollowing out states of their military and police power is important for revolutionary goals.  

As part of movements against state violence: People can oppose the building of police, prison, and military infrastructure. There can be mass occupations and blockades at relevant pressure points to stop police and military functioning and expansion. There can be direct actions against relevant agencies involved in maintaining and expanding police and state security forces. When particularly extreme instances of police brutality and military activity occur, there can be mass protests and rebellions in response in addition to and meaningfully connected to more sustained social movements against the police and the military. There can be mass interlocal support and actions when specific movements are attacked. Direct actions can be used to achieve various demands such as decarceration, stopping a specific war, stopping a specific prison from being built, the demilitarizing, disarming, minimizing, and defunding of police and military, etc. Such demands can be made by movements and groups that have goals of full military, police, and prison abolition. It is possible to make meaningfully liberatory demands with no illusions that mere reforms are sufficient. Achieving significant reforms that are in a good direction (not to be confused with the milquetoast reforms that either increase state violence or do not meaningfully curtail it) through self-determined action in opposition to the state is distinct from mere reformism. Achieving gains through self-managed formations and methods empowers people to fight for further goals and helps to build movement momentum. 

It is crucial to get large segments of the police and the military to defect from their positions and quit their jobs. The following are some examples of what can be done to achieve such a goal of mass refusal to be part of the police and the military: 1. Movements and actions against the hierarchical order that state security forces are part of and defend 2. Movements and actions against state security forces in particular 3. Spreading awareness of specific instances of police and military brutality combined with spreading awareness of how such instances relate to deeper systemic problems and causes 4. Actions against specific instances of police and military brutality 5. Protests against police and military recruiters 6. Creating conditions of mass social persuasion to NOT be in state security forces from friends, loved ones, neighbors, strangers, and social groupings of as many people as possible.

Popular self-defense lessons can accompany social movements. The more people have self-defense skills, the more people are able to defend themselves and others against unjust violence. This enables overall resiliency against injustice and can have a mitigating effect on people being willing to initiate unjust violence. When needed, groups and persons can defend themselves and others from hierarchy and domination. Non-hierarchical self-defense collectives/popular militias that are mandated by and recallable to popular organizations can form when the conditions call for it. These kinds of groups have a radically different form and content than police. Such popular militias, “would not be a party vanguard, a police force or a standing Army in the Statist sense, but would rather be defense units self-managed by the workers and community itself, or in other words the people-in-arms” (Ervin 1995). Such popular militias are accountable to horizontal forms/horizontal assemblies that mandate them, self-manage within their mandates from below, are accountable to rights and duties in harmony with the self-management of each and all, and exist for the defense of self-management. These kinds of groups make sense for high stages of revolutionary development for defense of the revolution and gains of popular organizations.

Grassroots organizations can create mediation/peacemaking/restorative and transformative justice processes and practices and provide mediators and facilitators to each other as needed and desired. As illustrated earlier in this essay, the above approaches to dispute resolution and justice can help people in and out of movements deal with various conflicts independent of statist, authoritarian, and arbitrary ways of dealing with conflicts. This dimension of organization can exist before, during, and after revolutions. Social movements and organizations are needed for adequate social force. But sometimes there will be intense disputes and/or harmful acts and/or harmful conflicts that happen between persons (even if such harmful acts and harmful conflicts are very rare). Groups can develop internal mechanisms for mediation and restorative/transformative justice. And groups can also contact groups they are in federation with (and/or mediation/restorative justice/transformative justice collectives) to help assist when needed/desired. A failure to deal with this, and deal with this in a good enough way, can lead to the destruction of groups, liberatory features thereof, or otherwise serious roadblocks. When done sufficiently well, such dialogical dispute resolution and justice processes can lead to mutually agreed upon resolutions, can lead to reconciliation and people continuing to associate with each other, can lead to people leaving each other alone formally and/or informally, can stop future harm towards other people, can lead towards the repairing of harm done, can allow groups to continue doing work without imploding, can lead to multiple groups forming through “schismogenesis”, and can help educate people and propagate crucial practical knowledge for various kinds of problem solving (which will be crucial in any long term social movement process, any revolutionary process, as well as post-revolution). 

The flourishing of participatory and egalitarian relations and institutions requires development away from and against hierarchical institutions as well as development away from extra-institutional hierarchical dimensions of culture– institutional and cultural features of and that support capitalism, the state, white supremacy, patriarchy, nationalism, imperialism, queerphobia, transphobia, ableism, antisemitism, etc. If hierarchical features of culture are not wisely addressed and opposed within and beyond social movement processes, then they will infect the content of movements and get in the way of liberatory goals, liberatory processes, and solidarity. Self-managed politics and economics and self-managed struggle against hierarchical institutions are necessary but not sufficient to deal with societal patterns of bigoted ideologies, beliefs, and behaviors. To effectively oppose hierarchical dimensions of culture, there needs to be both institutional shifts and extra-institutional cultural changes towards egalitarianism and the freedom of each and all (and the means thereof). It is crucial for social movements to actively oppose domination, exploitation, oppression, discrimination, and prejudice (and cultural patterns thereof) to develop an ethical movement and an ethical society. A moral community rooted in egalitarianism is important for fending off hierarchical consolidation (Boehm 2011). A mix between 1. developing formally egalitarian groups that meet needs of people, fight for better conditions, and build capacity for further actions 2. effective collective actions and projects 3. bridging values and interests together 4. content related to both universal liberation and liberation of particular oppressed populations– and the connections between the two 5. and well done popular education can go a long way towards building solidarity between people and fostering formal horizontality in tandem with egalitarian cultural shifts away from racism, patriarchy, nationalism, etc. 

Ideologically specific libertarian socialist groups can help spread a coherent anti-police, anti-prison, and anti-state practices within social movements. This would be a coordinated effort done by members of ideologically specific libertarian socialist groups; the goal being to spread a cluster of liberatory institutional qualities and practices (such as direct democracy, direct action, mutual aid, federalism, opposition to hierarchy, class struggle, autonomy from and combativeness against the state etc.)  within social movements and organizations (Farj 2008). This can be done by demonstration, dialogue, and co-authoring and implementing actions alongside people in movements. Such a strategy of anarchist social work and social insertion is a way to help catalyze an anti-cop ethos within movements as well as ethical and effective practices more broadly. Such anarchist social work and social insertion can also help defend movements from tendencies that try to transform movements into top-down organizing, or appendages of electoralism, Leninism, liberalism, right wing positions, and other counterproductive paths. 

An anti-cop ethos can help contribute to greater class consciousness and consciousness of the structural evils of the state, consciousness of the state’s enforcement of capitalism, and consciousness of how cops enforce gendered and racist hierarchies entangled within an overall hierarchical division of power and labor. Such an anti-cop ethos also helps movements stay independent from the state, helps movements achieve short term goals through autonomy from and combativeness against the state, and can help movements continue forward beyond a focus on mere short-term goals that are insufficient for more ultimate objectives.  

Popular education can help spread an anti-cop ethos beyond those who already agree and help anarchists and police-abolitionists to have better theories and practices. Popular education efforts can be directed both at movement participants and the broader population. Without mass support, police abolition movements will not be able to achieve their goals. Well done education and propaganda efforts can invigorate people for action, help movements gain supporters, and help minimize opposition to social movements.

In Conclusion: 

The above has been an analysis on the police and hierarchical security forces more broadly; their intrinsic qualities and functions, their intrinsic vices/evils, what good alternatives to the police (and hierarchical security forces) look like, and some general and specific ways to move towards a future without hierarchical security forces and without the hierarchies that they enforce. Given that police abolition done well is not merely police abolition, this essay required many seeming excursions and tangents such as but not limited to a rearticulation of essential libertarian socialist practices and goals. The above analysis is heavily influenced by anarchism, libertarian socialism, social ecology, transformative justice, and broader police and prison abolitionist tendencies. This analysis, and plurality of ways towards a future without cops, is incomplete and you can help by adding onto it. 

Endnotes:

Agid, Shana, Brooks Berndt, Rachel Herzig, and Ari Wohlfeiler. “The Abolitionist Toolkit.”

https://criticalresistance.org

, 2020. https://criticalresistance.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/CR-Abolitionist-Toolkit-online.pdf.

Bookchin, Murray. The Ecology of Freedom: The Emergence and Dissolution of Hierarchy. AK Press, 2005.

Bookchin, Murray. Social Ecology and Communalism. Oakland, CA: AK Press, 2007.

Boehm, Cristopher. Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior. Harvard University, 2001. 

Davis, Angela. Are Prisons Obsolete? Seven Stories Press, 2011.

Brookes, Derek, and Ian McDonough. “The Differences between Mediation and Restorative Justice/Practice,” 2006. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335704100_The_Differences_between_Mediation_and_Restorative_JusticePractice. 

Ervin, Loenzo Kom’boa. “Manifesto to the International Anarchist Movement ,” 1995. https://azinelibrary.org/approved/manifesto-international-anarchist-movement-and-call-international-revolutionary-resistance-movement-1.pdf

FARJ. Social Anarchism and Organisation , 2008.

Kaba, Mariame, and Shira Hassan. Fumbling towards Repair: A Workbook for Community Accountability Facilitators. Chicago: Project NIA, 2019.

Kaba, Mariame, and Andrea J. Ritchie. No More Police: A Case for Abolition. New York: The New Press, 2022.

Kohn, Alfie. No Contest: The Case against Competition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2017. 

Kohn, Alfie. Punished by Rewards. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Trade & Reference Publishers, 2018.

Kropotkin, Peter. Organized Vengeance Called Justice. Freedom Press, 1902. 

Latimer et al. “The Effectiveness of Restorative Justice Practices: A Meta-Analysis,” 2005. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0032885505276969.

Lewis, Jerome. “Egalitarian Social Organisation among Hunter-Gatherers: the Case of the Mbendjele Bayaka .” libcom.org, 2014. https://libcom.org/article/egalitarian-social-organisation-among-hunter-gatherers-case-mbendjele-bayaka-jerome-lewis.

Martin, Jose. “Six Ideas for a Cop-Free World.” Rolling Stone. Rolling Stone, 2014. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/police-brutality-cop-free-world-protest-199465/. 

Mingus, Mia. “Transformative Justice: A Brief Description.” TransformHarm.org, 2018. https://transformharm.org/tj_resource/transformative-justice-a-brief-description/. 

Neighborhood Anarchist Collective . SSF Deescalation Skills & Mindset Handout, 2019. https://neighborhoodanarchists.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/SSF-Deescalation-Skills-Mindset-Handout.pdf. 

Neighborhood Anarchist Collective. “Mediation / Supported Conversation Guide.” Neighborhood Anarchist Collective, October 10, 2021. https://neighborhoodanarchists.org/mediation. 

Ostrom, Elinor. Governing the Commons. Cambridge University Press, 2015. 

Prison Research Education Action Project (PREAP). Instead of Prisons: A Handbook for Abolitionists. Critical Resistanct, 2005.

Ryan, Richard M. and Deci, Edward L. “Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being.” American Psychologist 55, no. 1 (2000): 68-78.

Ryan, Richard M. and Deci, Edward L. “Self-Determination Theory: A Macrotheory of Human Motivation, Development, and Health.” Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne 49, no. 3 (2008): 182-185.

Ryan, Richard M. and Deci, Edward L. Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and Wellness. New York: Guilford Press, 2017. 

Sherman, Lawrence, and Heather Strang. “Restorative Justice: the Evidence.”

https://restorativejustice.org.uk

, 2007. https://restorativejustice.org.uk/sites/default/files/resources/files/Restorative%20JusticeThe%20evidence%20-%20Professor%20Lawrence%20Sherman%20and%20Dr%20Heather%20Strang.pdf.

Wilkinson, Richard G., and Kate Pickett. The Spirit Level Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger. New York: Bloomsbury, 2011.

Williams, Kristian. Our Enemies in Blue: Police and Power in America. Edinburgh: AK Press, 2015.

Umbreit, Mark S. westerncriminology.org, 1998. http://www.westerncriminology.org/documents/WCR/v01n1/Umbreit/Umbreit.html.

Usufruct Collective. “Notes on: Forms of Freedom, Forms of Struggle, Universality, Particularity, Form, and Content.” Usufruct Collective. Usufruct Collective , July 2022. https://usufructcollective.wordpress.com/2022/07/28/notes-on-forms-of-freedom-forms-of-struggle-universality-and-particularity/.

Vannucci, Delfina, and Richard Singer. Come Hell or High Water: A Handbook on Collective Process Gone Awry. Edinburgh: A K Press, 2010. 

Whitehouse, David. “Origins of the Police .” Libcom, 2014. https://files.libcom.org/files/Origins%20of%20the%20police.pdf.

Zehr, Howard. The Little Book of Restorative Justice. Good Books, 2002. 

02/01/2022

The Conquest of Sandwiches:  

Intro:

Communism has been a crucial part of anarchist and libertarian socialist history: in fact the term libertarian was used as a political term by anarchist Joseph Dejacque who critiqued the politics of Proudhon from an anti-hierarchical and communistic perspective. Later on, a more fleshed out conception of communism became more and more common through large segments of the global anarchist movement to the point where it became the most prominent economic vision of anarchism. This communist turn happened relatively soon after anarchism began as a social movement. Libertarian communism has been theorized as a goal to arrive at, as something that could and should happen immediately after a revolution (or at least as much as possible after a revolution), and as something that should be prefigured in order to develop communist institutions, content, and relations. 

The Conquest of Bread by Kropotkin is a great example of 19th century communist theorizing. And building off of Kropotkin’s conception of anarchist communism, we can hopefully develop an even more holistic vision today that is updated through 1. over a hundred years of anarchist activity, history, and strategy Kropotkin never got to see 2. New historical, social, and technological conditions 3. Cutting edge social science and psychology 4. A reinvigorated ecological approach. It is a sad state of affairs that visions of a new society are so undertheorized and undervalued within many contemporary anarchistic circles in the USA and elsewhere. Despite The Conquest of Bread being written in  regards to a very specific historical context, it stands out as visionary for our times– even more so than most attempts at visionary anarchist theorizing produced today (often by a longshot). 

Clearly we should not want a blueprint that is so overly detailed that it suffocates the differentiation, experimentation, participatory action, plurality, and adaptation that is crucial to what a good society and roads towards it consists of; but we should want visions of a good society that can be fleshed out and applied to specific contexts– adapting to relevant variables while retaining specific universal features. Such broader visions of a good society should neither be too detailed nor too skeletal. Without a vision of a good society, and a conception of what the good consists of, how do we know what we should be doing, where we should be going towards, and how to get there? And when it comes to the question of how to get “there” (to a good society) and what “there” entails, it would do us well to think about how a libertarian communist economy could and should function. It is necessary but not sufficient to abolish hierarchical society; we additionally need to develop new ways to interface politically and economically to provide for the needs of all and to enable people to make decisions about what affects them and what they want to do on various scales. It is not enough for people to have knowledge of unfreedom and injustice in this world and a fiery passion to abolish such conditions and the will to act upon the above; People will and should inquire about what a good alternative political economy to the status quo is and how it would function– and it is necessary for revolutionaries to have some good answers to such questions, good goals, and good ways to get there. A libertarian communist revolution will not happen without sufficient prefiguration of new ways of relating, making decisions, forming institutions to provide for the needs and desires of people– as well as enough general education among people about how to do the above. Although a revolutionary development must be goal oriented, it ought to make good processes some of such goals to be developed– as well as make good ends developed within good processes. This is both because the processes themselves have ethical value and are not merely instrumental and because on a strategic level forms of freedom are best developed through such prefiguration as the ends determine the means we ought to use.

Communism at least entails a moneyless, classless, stateless society where means of production are held in common, and distribution is from each according to their abilities and to each according to their needs. From such necessary features, one can easily and successfully argue that many attempts at communism–such as all of the alleged communist states– were/are in fact not communist. Libertarian and anarchist communism are approaches to communism that want to use horizontalist and anti-statist means to arrive at communism. Libertarian and anarchist communists want communist ends developed through self-management, direct action, and mutual aid infused with broader non-hierarchical and free form and content. Some, but not all, general approaches of and towards libertarian communism include communalism as a prefigurative strategy (and developmental end goal) and/or syndicalism as a strategy and means towards communism. Communalists are in favor of federations of self-managed community assemblies that use direct action and mutual aid to fight for better conditions, meet needs of people, and develop and prefigure communalist (and ultimately communist) practices and relations. Syndicalists are in favor of self-managed unions that use direct action and mutual aid to fight for better conditions, meet needs of people, while aiming towards revolution and socialism (with a large amount of syndicalists additionally being communists).  

There are also non-libertarian approaches–or more appropriately authoritarian or hierarchical approaches– to arriving at communism which have been shown to be disastrous failures such as parliamentary social democratic approaches and the various Leninist statist approaches. All social democratic and Leninist approaches towards developing communism have kept capitalism and the state rather than abolishing both. Both social democratic and Leninist approaches towards trying to arrive at socialist and communist conditions are thoroughly rooted in state power/hierarchical politics. Such hierarchical politics, to the degree that they are reproduced, continue class relations intrinsic to the state and inhibit socialist and communist relations. A prerequisite for communism is the socialization of means of production. For means of production to be socialized they must necessarily neither be owned privately by capitalists nor by a political ruling class via the state (Goldman 1987). State approaches towards communism did not develop socialist relations, a precondition for communism, let alone communism in addition to socialized economics. Horizontalist politics–to the degree such politics are reproduced– at least develop their own necessary features (direct democracy, free association, non-hierarchy, etc.) and are by extension are consistent with and conducive to socialist ends. Although revolutionary anti-state movements towards communism have been imperfect, have made tragic mistakes at times, and have not yet developed global communism, such revolutionary anti-state movements towards communism have not created the extent of the failures and compromises and violations of fundamental human freedoms (and violations of basic socialist principles) that state approaches towards communism have produced. And on a positive note, libertarian and anarchist communists have developed and participated in thousands of self-managed organizations, countless actions towards a better world, as well as several revolutions with anti-hierarchical and communistic features–the overall movement spanning millions of people and all continents.  

Communism and Communalism:

Communist production, reproduction, economic decision making, and implementation could technically be done through multiple kinds of ways of arranging socialized production (socialized production as in means of production held in common and governed by self-managed collectives of some kind). Communalism ought to be the complimentary political economic form of communism. Communalism is for communalized economics and means of production and not just socialized production. Communalism properly distributes means of production according to needs of communities and persons without putting policy making power in regards to communal economics in the hands of relatively privatized sources of power. Communalization is a way of gathering all who need, use, and contribute to the commons to govern the commons at multiple scales. Such communalized economics can only be communal if managed directly by horizontal communal assemblies and networks thereof. Such community assemblies and federations thereof would have constitutions, bylaws, shared processes, practices, and goals in harmony with the following qualities: direct democracy, non-hierarchy, free association (participatory activity of each and all), mutual aid, distribution according to needs, and co-federation. Within such a practical framework, decisions about common economics would be made by such communal assemblies deliberating about how to meet aggregate needs. People would deliberate in such assemblies and pool needs, ideas, knowledge, alternative proposals, abilities, volition, skills, resources, and technology together to make decisions in relation to solving common problems or developing common projects. Participatory, horizontal, and directly democratic decision making processes would exist on a plurality of scales–from communal to intercommunal to broader co-federated scales. Such communal assemblies would have embedded participatory councils and working groups that implement decisions and self-manage within the bounds of the policies made by communal assemblies and members thereof. Such a process harmonizes self interest and social interest, is rooted in cooperative conflict and deliberation for decision making, has a form and a content that guarantees self-management of each and all on every scale to the degree it develops, has maximal political transparency, allows for decision making and coordination on a plurality of different scales, allows for function redundancy, etc. and is not internally limited by the profit motive or positions that give people power over others (and what is entailed by the maintenance of such power over others). Additionally, such an approach does not put the economy at war against itself by pitting different relatively private sectors against others. 

Communist Economics: 

Communist decision making would start with finding out the general needs and economic desires of people and then move into how such needs and desires can be met through self-managed arrangements (Crump 2014). Materials, means of production, technology, and overall societal labor/work needed to meet aggregate needs under specific conditions can be calculated to inform decision making and implementation. Deliberation and relevant economic information would inform self-managed assemblies so they can change and tweak plans as needed and as relevant changes happen. Such economic calculation can be assisted by computers and cybernation, but even when that happens all policy making power would be in hands of people directly. Dialogue augmented by cybernated systems can give people relevant information for economic decision making. Surveys, numbers from last year’s production, resources available within ecological regeneration rates, new technology, what people want to do, new needs, new desires, new luxuries, and new ecological factors (and more) can assist the iterative planning done by communal and intercommunal assemblies. It is important to note that even though such overall societal economic calculation can help assist with self-management of communal economics, communism “consists in consuming and producing without calculating the exact share of each individual” (Kropotkin 1901). Under contexts of scarcity or disaster–such as the revolutionary development of communism out of terrible conditions– there would be priority production and distribution schemas where needs take priority over relative luxuries. As such communist institutions and content develop, mutually equitable access to luxuries would be integrated as needs of all or otherwise things people have access to. Such a communist economy would ideally develop into a full post scarcity economy (which would still retain the necessary features of communism, but also be a “higher phase” thereof). Despite lack of actuation, there has been a technical potential for a global post-scarcity economy for decades (Bookchin 2004). 

Once overall needs are aggregated, communal assemblies, federations thereof, and embedded councils would devise plans to meet such needs and desires. There would be back and forth dialogue within and between assemblies of communal and intercomunal associations until common plans and policies are arrived at (which would continually get updated by participatory planning processes). Ideally, general and relevant propositional and practical knowledge would be sufficiently generalized among communards. Embedded councils, working groups, or relevant experts within or outside of specific communities can be thoroughly consulted to help round out overall knowledge communards have so they can make more informed decisions. After deliberation, political economic policy making power would be retained within horizontal participatory democratic communal assemblies with an aim towards full agreement with a fall back to majority votes within free association of persons– in harmony with the minimal norms, rights, and duties of libertarian socialist practices (Bookchin 2007). Implementation of policies would be self-managed by those who agree to implement such policies (Kropotkin 1892). Embedded councils and rotating delegates of communal assemblies would be mandated by and instantly recallable to the assemblies that they are a part of. 

External motivation is not required to incentivize the labor, work, and actions that people sufficiently want to do because of the nature of the internal motivation for such activities. Internal motivation to help others and live in a good world would go a long way towards meeting aggregate needs and creating a high quality of life for people. The lived practice and spirit of mutual aid in tandem with necessity and desire would provide motivations for individuals and communities to meet common needs. A new culture based on care, reason, freedom, creativity, virtues, mutual thriving etc. would both help to bloom and bloom from a self-managed society. There are features besides goodwill and internal motivation that can be structurally built into political, economic and social forms to both generate such internal motivation to help others and to catalyze greater assistance and participation in reproduction of daily life. In a libertarian communist society, there is no structural ability to accumulate hierarchical decision making power, hierarchical positions, hierarchical means of production, or hierarchical access to fruits of labor, work, and action. Therefore economic thriving of any individual in such a communal economy–to the extent the form and content of such an economy are actuated in fact– would only be meaningfully possible through the thriving of a common sphere (either through developing cornucopian conditions or sufficient approximations thereof). A libertarian communist political economy harmonizes self-interest and social interest by making common thriving a precondition to individuals enjoying a good material standard of living and quality of life. Initial volunteers and agreements made between people to help chip in can let people know what labor and work would be leftover to meet overall needs. Arduous and toilsome labor leftover can be largely automated or partially automated (Bookchin 2004). It is technically possible to automate the complete production of houses, automobiles and work simpler than such feats. Given current technological conditions, it would require relatively low labor and work input to actually meet baseline needs of all. Intercommunal and co-federal political economic associations and agreements can help with meeting needs of various locales. If there is leftover labor and work needed to meet the minimum of a common plan to meet people’s needs, people can then make additional rounds of volunteering and through deliberation, democracy, and free agreement find out how to share the rest of what is needed to reproduce daily life and provide for desires beyond such a minimum or otherwise update the plan. This could include collective and individual agreements among specific volunteers as well as community agreements that those who are able to do so help with some kind of needed work for at least some minimal duration within an agreed on period of time. Communal associations may opt for sortition and/or rotation for various kinds of labor/work required for meeting people’s needs. More arduous and less desired labor and work that cannot be automated that are needed to reproduce daily life can be shared in some agreed upon way where the burden is lessened.

Summarizing many of the above points: In a libertarian communist society, labor and work needed to reproduce daily life would be self-managed at every scale as well as: made more pleasant, infused with play, automated, partially automated, shared, and rotated. The above approach would be adapted and tailored to various dynamic communities. Overall, this would lessen the per capita amount of labor and work needed to reproduce daily life as well as transform it into a horizontally managed process and even a joyous one. Labor and work not related to meeting people’s needs that people do not want to do will not get done (along with labor and work that serves no positive social function), and the world will be all the better for it. “​​Communism guarantees economic freedom better than any other form of association, because it can guarantee wellbeing, even luxury, in return for a few hours of work instead of a day’s work,” (Kropotkin 1901). Freed from toil, people will have drastically more time to do what they want to do. Far from merely basking in lack of activity, people will engage (and have the means to engage) in various practices they enjoy or want to excel at and by extension enrich the cornucopian, ecological, philosophical, scientific, and artistic dimensions of the world in the process. 

In a communist society, all persons would have rights, and guaranteed access in fact, to the means of existence and necessities (food, water, dwellings, bathrooms, energy, clothing, healthcare, education, public transportation etc.), means of production (including communal fields, factories, and workshops), common spaces and infrastructure, means of artistic expression and hobbies, and means of participatory politics (horizontal communal democracy). Additionally, people would have access to common resources that are produced at free distribution sites. When there is a relative abundance of specific goods, people can take what they need from the cornucopia, and when there is scarcity of a specific kind of good, people can get together to make that kind of good abundant or otherwise ration such goods in mutually equitable ways for those who need and want them (Kropotkin 1892). As various gradations of post scarcity conditions emerge, what used to be considered scarce luxuries under more scarce contexts would be made into guaranteed necessities or otherwise goods people have access to (Kropotkin 1892, Bookchin 2004). Whatever the scale is of communal economics and self-governance–from block to neighborhood, to city, to intercommunal associations, etc.– there should be access to the means and fruits of such political economic processes to all who need and use them (and the fostering of the abundance that enables such conditions to flourish towards well-being and luxury for all). 

Library based access centers can help such a process by enabling more functional use value with less overall resource use and labor/work input. A cultural and material shift away from gratuitous personal acquisition towards an access-abundance of various library goods can help meet overall needs and help usher in a post scarcity economy. Strategic use of library access centers can contribute towards giving everyone a good material standard of living and alleviate people from a lot of needless production (and even alleviate people of all the upkeep and space that having one of every item they occasionally use takes up). Despite the many advantages of making various kinds of goods into library goods (or with library-access options), other goods (both kinds of goods and specific goods) of course make more sense as personal possessions than as library goods (and people should of course have rights and access in fact to such possessions given they are not gratuitous to the point of creating structural violence or otherwise inhibiting what should be guaranteed freedoms of others). On top of libraries for various goods, communalized tool libraries make a lot of sense for various tools people want access to that they rarely use. And additionally, a digital commons and the means thereof would enable access to an untold amount of tools, applications, media, resources, and information to be made readily available to all. Such a digital commons can help supplement and develop a post scarcity economy in conjunction with common means of production, communal access to the fruits thereof, and communal infrastructure (including, supplemented by, and not reducible to a robust library access sector). 

Sustainability protocols can be streamlined into the process of decision making and production. Policy about various protocols would be in the hands of self-managed associations. The following are examples of sustainability protocols that can be adopted, adapted, and fleshed out by particular self-managed groups: not using fossil fuels, using green energy, using recyclables when possible, design in built recyclability when possible, reusing and designing in built reusability when possible, upcycling waste when possible, finding other resources for various functions when there are shortages (creating redundancy), use of regenerative materials and technology when possible, increased durability when possible, ephemeralization (providing more use value with less resources) when possible and desirable, localization when possible and desirable, library based access systems when needed/desirable, etc. However, there will be incommensurability between at least some of the above criteria sometimes. Such conflicts will occur and deliberation and democracy can be used to resolve such conflicts and make decisions consistent with self-management and non-hierarchy on every scale. Assemblies using such protocols would not be about “maximizing efficiency” of all sustainability criteria, but instead be rooted in making sure the minimal freedoms of each and all (and the means thereof), varying degrees of cornucopian conditions, and ecological flourishing persist and thrive. Some specific technologies that make sense as liberatory technologies for the current time period include: solar, wind, wave, tidal, and geothermal energy, energy efficiency methods, mass public transit, recycled materials, reusable materials, “up-cycling” a lot of what would otherwise be waste, regenerative materials, library based access systems, organic gardening and agroecology, reforestation, biochar, open collaborative design, computerized calculation, digital commons, modular design, and automation of arduous and undesired labor and work. The specifics of liberatory technology will change and develop as new relevant variables emerge. Such liberatory technology can only be meaningfully put into practice through liberatory political, economic, social institutions and relations that enable potential liberatory technology to be developed and function (Bookchin 2005).

A communist economy would not JUST be about mere production of products (artifice of some kind) but about meeting needs more broadly. Reproductive labor, that which reproduces daily life, would be integrated into an overall political economic process. Meeting needs would not be through mere production of artifice towards meeting needs, but also through communalized reproductive labor such as growing food, cooking, childcare, teaching, healthcare etc. Communal gardens, communal kitchens, spaces for collective food projects, communal childcare, communal education facilities, communal healthcare, and the means of recreation would help meet needs and integrate reproductive labor as an essential and foundational feature of communal and intercommunal economic life and would be cared about as such. Such labor would become a self-managed and shared practice without hierarchical rule nor gendered divisions of labor. What is needed to reproduce daily life never absolutely disappears but it can be infused with freedom and the constitutive means thereof. Communal reproductive labor and productive work would both be crucial features of a communal and communist political economy, both aiming towards meeting needs of each and all and developing the freedom of each and all (and the means constitutive thereof) as well as practices and projects entangled with the above. 

In a libertarian communist society, political economic organizations– including communal reproduction, production, and distribution–would be decentralized and co-federated. The virtue of such decentralization would be the right kinds of decentralization, in the right ways, in the right contexts, for the right ends, in tandem with other features that enable such decentralization to be rounded out. Such a virtue of decentralization has decentralized and federated decision making, power, and planning from the bottom-up through horizontal participatory democratic associations. Such right kinds of decentralization of the economy enable political economic assemblies to exist at scales that are easy to deliberate within and self-manage (which can in turn easily scale out into confederated forms and networks), enable redundancy of functions within and between multiplicities of locales in such a way that fits people’s needs and preferences (creating more resilience when it comes to disasters and emergencies and everyday life), enable greater degrees of self-sufficiency, and provide various ecological benefits. Such a decentralization would also blend town and country: infusing each with good/desirable functions of the other as well as creating mutualistic relations between more urban and more rural associations. Additionally, decentralization of political economic organizations into multiplicities thereof (as needed and desired) enables people to find communities that make sense for them, allows people to use relevant local knowledge to solve problems, and enables people on local scales to utilize informal social relations, approval, and disapproval to supplement upkeeping the commons. Despite various benefits that localization can have, there are many contexts where considerations come into play that make intercommunal and confederated economic decision making and planning into something that makes more sense for multiple reasons such as: 1. That which affects multiple communities should be decided by multiple communities as various decisions are not just about a single block, neighborhood, town, or city 2. To pool needs/abilities/volunteers/resources/technology/ideas/proposals together to solve problems and develop projects on multiple scales 3. To provide for needs and desires when local scales are not absolutely self-sufficient (which they rarely are) 4. To reduce overall labor/work through mutual support and assistance on an intercommunal scale. 5. As an extension of choice and freedom of intercommunal associations to undertake joint projects. 6. To uphold responsibility and commitment towards other communities and towards forging the right kind of interdependence between communities 7. to enable intercommunal provision of the means of production when needed/desired. The above are examples of reasons why intercommunal decision making and planning can make sense in various contexts for various functions compared to mere localized approaches. Decentralized and Co-federated planning and economics enable the benefits of non-local scales without the cons of centralized power over and above self-managed collectives. And such co-federation is a desideratum beyond mere necessity as the right kind of decentralization is not about absolute self-sufficiency but the right kinds of self-governance and self-sufficiency in tandem with radically egalitarian ways of organizing interdependence. Such a mutually interrelated and multitudinous political economy enables people to associate in various communal associations, embedded councils, working groups, and varied social groups that fit their dynamic preferences– enabling a radical differentiation and pluralism in harmony with non-hierarchical freedoms and duties. 

The responsibility of each to contribute to the flourishing of the commons (where the commons in turn helps the flourishing of each) can be combined and organized through decentralized associations that federate outwards. The scale of such units can range by needs and desires of persons involved, but can be as small-scale as a block (for example). By having such decentralized associations, dynamic collective units are human-scaled, have specific loci of decision making and responsibilities in addition to both formal and informal ties between people who need and utilize the commons. The internal and external interdependence of decentralized and federated associations–along with the goal orientation of achieving common goals and solving common problems (in conjunction with a process orientation in harmony with self-management, the means thereof, and other universal freedoms)– helps enhance overall solidarity, contribution efforts, and resiliency. The above helps to avoid the problems of unmanaged commons as well as problems that can arise where responsibility is diffused in such a way where not enough people act upon it. And on top of having features that deal with such a problem that can come with vicious kinds of dispersed responsibility, such a decentralized and federated form and content positively disperses responsibility among persons and collectives in such a way that enables not only radical function redundancy, but also a qualitative responsibility of each towards the participatory activity of each and all and the means thereof (including access to means of existence and production). 

Elinor Ostrom’s rules for governing the commons provide criteria for how a common sector can function well (Ostrom 2021). Even though her politics differ in crucial ways from libertarian communism, many of the overall principles and practices for managing the commons that she outlines can strengthen libertarian communist praxis (Libertarian 2013). And although not stated until now, the above approach of libertarian communism satisfies Elinor Ostrom’s 8 rules for governing the commons: It has clear and non-hierarchical processes/practices/nomos/decision making, planning, and rules, it matches rules governing commons to local conditions (while also retaining specific universalist features), it ensures that those affected by decisions can modify them, it aims towards the commons being respected by others (through a focus on global revolution as well as defending the commons against hierarchical forces), it develops ways for people to hold each other accountable to rules of the commons without resorting to hierarchical strata and without hierarchical security forces, it has ways of dealing with rule violations as well as accessible dispute resolution (via free association/disassociation, self defense and defense of others, breaking up fights, diffuse social disapproval, and dispute resolution via mediation), and has responsibility for governing common resources in nested tiers from lowest level up to the entire interconnected system. 

And although this essay is mainly about visions of a good society and how libertarian communism can function, the following is a brief sketch of some reasons as to why it should exist (note that each of the following premises are themselves conclusions to fuller arguments that can be found elsewhere): 

Given:
1. the ethical necessity of self-management of each and all and the means thereof on every scale– thoroughly infused within political economic form, content, decision making, implementation, as well as everyday life. 
2. access to means of existence and production are necessary means of self-management 
3. that self-management of each and all on every scale and the means thereof includes a gestalt of features including direct democracy, non-hierarchy, free association, co-federalism
4. the objective potential for and history of radically different kinds of institutions and relations (including radically egalitarian and hierarchical ones)
5. the potential for and positive effects of the flourishing of the right kinds of mutual aid– including cornucopian conditions created by sufficient mutual aid
6. the history of and potential for common politics and economics and various institutional features that enable the flourishing of such a common political economy 
7. that such a commons would be a ‘cooperative game’ with win-win potentials and interests 
8. the potential for, positive effects of, and intrinsic features of cooperative conflict and deliberation as part of decision making processes
9. the positive social health effects of abolishing structural violence– including less violence, less abuse, less unmet needs, less adverse childhood experiences, less mortality, less addiction, more social trust, and more happiness.
10. the varied needs, abilities, and preferences people have
11. that any individual contribution to the economy exists in a broader social and historical context in which the labor/work/action of others makes any such contribution possible
12. the myriad of different ways communist economics can function well in the face of various predictable and unpredictable dilemmas without sacrificing the minimal features of communism
13. the goal of a good quality of life for all a good material standard of living for all
14. the goal of less per capita labor and work needed to reproduce daily life
15. the potential for wise sustainability protocols, 
16. the potential for liberatory technology, automation of toil, and a post scarcity economy 
17. the problems of centralized power in tandem with the goal of coordination within and between groups, function redundancy, adaptation to local variables, degrees of self-sufficiency, 
18. that market economies distribute resources hierarchically and arbitrarily 
19. the incentives of market economies to competitively grow or die and maximize profit in competition with others, 
20. intrinsic ethical problems of wages and commodified necessities 
21. the intrinsic ethical problems of non-communist alternatives to markets (be they right wing calls for traditionalism and/or tributary modes of production, or even left and anarchist notions of artificial markets and “collectivist wage systems”)
22. the ecological necessity of abolishing hierarchical society.
23. the social ecological potential for the reconstruction of society along free and ecological lines 

-A libertarian communist society is possible and would enable the flourishing of freedom, the means thereof, overall happiness, ecological flourishing, virtue cultivation, development of good rights and duties, and activities and practices entangled with and contributing to the above.  

Endnotes: 

Bookchin, Murray. Post-Scarcity Anarchism. A.K. Press, 2004.

Bookchin, Murray. The Ecology of Freedom: The Emergence and Dissolution of Hierarchy. Oakland, CA: AK Press, 2005.

Bookchin, Murray. Social Ecology and Communalism. Oakland, CA: AK Press, 2007.

Crump, John. Hatta Shuzo and Pure Anarchism in Interwar Japan. Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.

Goldman, Emma. There Is No Communism in Russia. Alexandria, Va: Chadwyck-Healey Inc., 1987.

Kropotkin, Peter. The Conquest of Bread. 1892.

Kropotkin, Peter. Communism and Anarchy. Freedom Journal, 1901.

Libertarian, L. (2013, September 11). The Commons – beyond the state, capitalism, and the market. Theleftlibertarian.wordpress.com. Retrieved from https://theleftlibertarian.wordpress.com/2013/09/11/the-commons-beyond-the-state-capitalism-and-the-market/

Ostrom, Elinor. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021.

Bookchin is our favorite political philosopher. Which does not mean we think he is right about everything. Despite us agreeing with most of Bookchin’s political philosophy, we also think it is important to critique it. And yet, most every critique of Bookchin’s political philosophy, even when true, leads to an overall politics less coherent and liberatory than his own. Critiques of Bookchin–from those more close and distant to his views– usually straw man him or fail to properly sublate him. Most critiques of Bookchin do not simultaneously take the most liberatory parts from his philosophy, while subtracting the worst parts of his philosophy, while adding other philosophical and political dimensions in such a way that closer approximates coherence, rationality, and ethics. Our goal is to sublate Bookchin; not to straw man him, not to discard liberatory dimensions of his political philosophy and praxis, and not to treat him like he is beyond critique. 

Some people will say that the big problems with Bookchin’s philosophy emerge later in his life. And there is both some truth and falseness to such an evaluation. Older/Later Bookchin simultaneously includes 1. Places where Bookchin made some of his most crucial errors but also where he made 2. Some of his greatest elaborations of philosophy, ethics, and political form, and content. From the 1960’s until 2004 there are continuous features to his overall politics– continuous features that do not amount to a mere skeletal lower common denominator but arguably the most essential features of his worldview in general. Such continuous features include: social ecology, direct democracy, means and ends of communal and inter-communal self-management, the development of oppositional and reconstructive politics as part of a revolutionary process, non-hierarchy, direct action, mutual aid, and libertarian communism specifically. These features are consistent in his work from “Post Scarcity Anarchism” until “The Communalist Project” (Bookchin 2007, Bookchin 2018). And we are in agreement with the above features of Bookchin’s politics. That being said, there are also ways he did change his mind overtime for better and for worse. By discarding features of Bookchin’s politics that we think are errors while adding features to his political project that are not present or sufficiently present in his recorded philosophy and worldview, we would still be agreeing with the most important features of his philosophy and worldview– or at least what we consider to be as such. In this sense, our attempt at a ruthless critique will be relatively friendly. 

What we love about Bookchin’s political philosophy: 

Starting in a controversial place, Bookchin has great polemics and critiques of various worldviews. This includes his critiques of the ecological crisis, hierarchy, capitalism, the state, patriarchy, racism, nationalism, lifestyle anarchism, deep ecology, market society and culture, religion/supernaturalism, etc. Even though at times his critiques contain some errors in them or are otherwise unnecessarily divisive, the more important features of his critiques usually hold true. Additionally, his overall ecological philosophy blossomed more fully in the 1990’s. Such a development can be seen in his book “Philosophy of Social Ecology”— where he posited a dialectical conception of nature and society and a philosophy that has branches in everything from epistemology, ontology, to ethics, and politics (Bookchin 1995). Despite some disagreements with Bookchin around the edges of dialectical naturalism, we agree with the general and most essential features of dialectical naturalism. And social ecology is to this day the best overall framework for understanding the current ecological crisis and its causes in social hierarchy– and the potential reconstructive solutions in horizontal organizations and relations (Bookchin 2007, Bookchin 2018). 

Adapting and building on his own prior notions of communal self-management (such as found in his 1960’s essay “Forms of Freedom”), Bookchin developed a fleshed out notion of revolutionary praxis. Bookchin’s later work on what constitutes extra-parliamentary grassroots communalism is even more fecund than his earlier work on the topic. Bookchin took various organizational features from syndicalism and applied them to the community sphere (Bookchin 2018, Bookchin 1990) while building off of both communal anarchist tendencies and communal tendencies beyond the anarchist tradition (Bookchin 2005, Bookchin 2007). Such communal tendencies within anarchism are found in the works of Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, as well as in movements and revolutions influenced by anarchism such as The Morelos Commune, Makhnovia, Shinmin prefecture, and the communes in the anarchist revolution in Spain. All of the above combined span millions of people between 1900-1940 on multiple continents involved in robust communal self-management. Bookchin was influenced by all of the above except the Shinmin Prefecture (which as far as we know he never mentions– likely out of ignorance and lack of adequate translations). Bookchin was also influenced by a more transhistorical history of freedom and communal self-management that existed prior to the historically constituted anarchist movement– including everything from immediate return forager societies, to early cities, to various Indigenous democratic and confederal practices, to utopian socialists, to Athens, and the Parisian sections of 1789, and beyond (Bookchin 2005, Bookchin 2021). Bookchin was also heavily influenced by Marx. Additionally, Bookchin helped round out his own thinking with studies into anthropology, history, technology, and ecology. Bookchin’s libertarian communalism is a praxis rooted in the means and ends of communal assemblies that are qualified by the features of direct democracy, non-hierarchy, confederalism, mutual aid, and direct action. According to such a praxis, communal organizations would participate in various kinds of mutual aid and direct action projects, multiply, and confederate– building the new world in the shell of the old, building popular power, while opposing hierarchical power, towards revolution and libertarian communism. 

Bookchin, opposed to authoritarians and to anti-organizationalists and even various organizational anarchists, advocated for notions of non-hierarchical governance and forms of organizations with bylaws and constitutions (Bookchin 1996, Bookchin 2007). Such notions are sacreligious to a significant number of historical and contemporary anarchists while essential or otherwise important to other kinds of anarchists. He also fleshed out processual features of direct democracy as rooted in deliberation, searching for agreement, and majority vote if there is not full agreement, bound by the free association and participatory activity of persons and minimal non-hierarchical rights and duties (Bookchin 2021, Bookchin 2004, Bookchin 2007, Bookchin 2018). These features satisfy various ideals of protecting freedoms of each and all, freedom of majorities and minorities (via collective decisions within free association within the bounds of horizontal rights and duties), with robust dialogue at the heart of decision making, encouraging dissent while forging agreements, complete with ways of making collective decisions when there is not consensus.  

And as early as the 1960’s Bookchin advanced notions of a post-scarcity economy. Looking at the potential for ecological and liberatory technology to meet human needs with less overall labor/work, he advocated for and theorized about “higher-phase communism” that would transform labor/work into a participatory and even joyous experience (Bookchin 2018). Building off of Marx, Kropotkin, Mumford, and others, his notion of post-scarcity talked about the technological potential that has existed from the 1960’s and onwards to make it so all basic needs are met in tandem with luxuries available for all– including a whole array of liberatory technology spanning everything from green energy to automation of toil. However, Bookchin was far from a technological reductionist; he advocated for a liberatory social matrix in order to actuate the means and ends of liberatory technology (Bookchin 2005, Bookchin 2018). In this sense, problems dealing with technology are societal problems with societal solutions (a kind of “social technology” theory similar to social ecology). Bookchin’s notion of communalizing the means of production that communities need compliments such communist content as such communalization properly distributes means of production according to needs (Bookchin 1986). Such communal assemblies would have embedded participatory councils that self-manage various common policies and plans (Bookchin 1994). 

So what do we take from Bookchin? A lot. Such as but not limited to: 

1. The general theory of social ecology 

2. The essential features of dialectical naturalist epistemology, ontology, and ethics 

3. The means and ends of communal self-management and a communalized economy (qualified by various libertarian features and practices)  

4. The ways he fleshed out and qualified notions of democratic processes, practices, and governance 

5. His view of liberatory technology and a post scarcity economy 

6. Many theories and facts from his various history writings 

7. A lot of his critiques of other tendencies and worldviews 

8. The overall strategy of reconstructive and oppositional politics through self-managed groups (especially communal assemblies as forms of popular power).

Despite the disagreements we have with Bookchin (some of which are NOT included in this essay at all), we consider ourselves to agree with most of the essential features of his prescriptive political philosophy. Of course, as Bookchin noted and was aware of, there needs to be some continuous adaptations/elaborations of his general political praxis (including adapting universal features of communalism to particular contexts and upgrading its praxis as needed and desired). Because communalism is a living praxis, we hope to add onto it for the better and not for the worse while not subtracting anything good from it. This is difficult to do. We wish Bookchin could respond directly to our arguments and evaluate his responses. 

Bookchin breaks with anarchism: 

The goal of this section is to clarify where Bookchin diverges from anarchism and to get an understanding of Bookchin’s politics through doing so which can help illuminate the substance of his politics. A critical assessment and appraisal of Bookchin’s history and conception of anarchism at various points in his life would be a great project, but is distinct from a critical appraisal of the substance of his prescriptive politics— a prescriptive politics which can be judged on its own merits in relation to good ethical criteria regardless of Bookchin’s analytic and historical notions of what anarchism is or is not at different points in his life. 

Bookchin ceased identifying as an anarchist later in his life. And yet, when he broke with anarchism he still considered himself a libertarian socialist/communist and was still opposed to hierarchy and still in favor of the means and ends of communalized self-management. According to Bookchin, the main distinction between his views and anarchism was the fact that he was in favor of governance and law of certain kinds (Bookchin 2004). For Bookchin, governance and law as such are not to be conflated with statist governance and statist law. For Bookchin, any formal organization had some kind of governance and by extension should have clear bylaws and processes in relation to such governance to protect against hierarchical power and enshrine participatory and popular power. Bookchin thought that governance and law could and should be qualified by a gestalt of various liberatory qualifiers (direct democracy, non-hierarchy, participatory activity/free association, confederalism etc.). And for Bookchin, new kinds of governance and law are needed (but insufficient) to create a horizontal and participatory world. For Bookchin, such non-hierarchical rights, duties, laws, and governance could create a realm of permissibility thoroughly rooted in freedom– as opposed to hierarchical and/or arbitrary rule (or otherwise mere custom). While some social anarchists would of course favor something like Bookchin’s approach to law and governance– as exemplified in various constitutions/programs/bylaws/points of unity/institutions/decision making processes of both social movements and popular organizations as well as in ideologically specific groups– many other anarchists would oppose such an approach and claim it as antithetical to anarchism. It is more than common for anarchists to define the terms law and governance as inherently statist or otherwise inherently hierarchical. Some of the disagreements between Bookchin and various anarchists in regards to “government” and “law” would be merely in regards to definitions (as Bookchin defines government and law in a way that is potentially non-hierarchical), but a lot of such disagreements would be substantial as well. The use of the terms “formal organizations with some kind of non-hierarchical rules for such organizations” as a stand in for Bookchin’s qualified conception of “government and law” would instantly create large substantial agreement between later Bookchin and most social anarchists in regards to the topic. 

Bookchin over-exaggerates the following problem at the end of his life, but a significant number of anarchists (especially self-styled anarchists) have not fleshed out notions of non-statist and non-hierarchical governance, law, and power and how a good society could/should function. Bookchin said in his last interview that a lot of anarchists have made a fetish out of NOT fleshing out notions of what a good order/polity/economy would consist of precisely because many anarchists value such a lack of definition as creating space for freedom and creativity (Bookchin 2004). However, since the ends determine the means, what a good society consists of shapes goals and by extension strategies, and tactics, and overall processes towards such goals. This makes visions of a good society rather important. Bookchin thought we could have more knowledge about what a good society consists of than many anarchists. Similar but distinct to how many anarchist-communists (such as but not limited to Kropotkin) critique labor vouchers as keeping/reinventing some kind of wage-system, Bookchin critiques notions of self-management that exclude communal self-management as kinds of relative privatization of political economic life compared to self-management that includes communal self-management (and requisite communalization of the economy). It is important to note, for the sake of clarity, that in a sense Bookchin exists on a continuum with anarchists who left significant parts of what a new society is “blank”: Bookchin did not advocate for an absolute “blueprint” in regards to a new society and how to get there but instead some universal features to be adapted to specific contexts and relevant variables. Nonetheless, Bookchin’s notions of a libertarian communist society and how to get there are more detailed than most all anarchists in regards to power, decision making, forms of organization, politics, economics, governance, law, technology, ecology, etc. This is the case even though Bookchin’s “elaborated details” of politics are rather general and even vague at times with significant room for adaptation and elaboration themselves. We agree with Bookchin’s notions of libertarian communist governance/constitutions/rights and duties/bylaws. And although controversial within anarchism, the above features are compatible with at least some strains of anarchism (especially after definitions are cleared up). 

We think it is Bookchin’s approach to local city government elections where he made one of his biggest errors. And we think Bookchin’s electoral approach is where he made the biggest break from anarchism. Some social anarchists accept Bookchin’s notions of non-hierarchical communal governance and law if not in name then in spirit, while Bookchin’s electoral approach is far less common within self-identified anarchists. This is unsurprising as Bookchin’s electoral approach is incompatible with anarchist notions of revolutionary social change. 

Bookchin and Electoralism: 

It is important to spell out what Bookchin’s approach to elections was, as it is very easy to straw man and make into a weaker position than it is. First and foremost, he saw the popular organizations (community assemblies in particular) and grassroots social movements as the main/primary/essential dimensions of developing a dual power and counterpower to hierarchical forces. The above is important to bracket as many people claim his approach to elections as far more central to his overall praxis than it actually was (although towards the very end of his life, Bookchin emphasized his electoral approach as something crucial to do when possible). But in addition to his views on grassroots social movements and popular organizations, he also had a specific approach to elections within local hierarchical politics distinct from both anarchists and social democrats (Bookchin 2021). His approach to elections within the sphere of local hierarchical politics, whatever one may think of it, has various nuances and qualifiers– and because such nuances and qualifiers are so idealistic, they do not mesh well with the brutal reality of electoral politics. Bookchin’s approach to elections can be summarized as follows: 

1. To run candidates for the most local possible elections below the state level (city or county level only)

2. With such candidates as mere delegates of grassroots groups

3. To run such candidates to increase political education about direct democracy,  anti-hierarchy, direct action, mutual aid, specific issues, and local grassroots organizations in the process of campaigning

4. With such candidates bounded by a program of sorts

5. To run such candidates to effectively abolish their positions 

6. To hollow out the state of its military and police powers 

7. To create gradations of binding directly democratic power  

8. to be a thorn in the side of hierarchical city politics

9. To create tension between the population and the state and help contribute to a counterforce against the nation state

In the history of revolutionary socialism up until the present, Bookchin’s unique approach to elections has no empirical results as a road to socialism. Various attempts thereof rarely get off the ground. Approximations thereof wind up failing, or being marginal, or compromising core features of Bookchin’s approach to elections, or reproducing mere social democratic content at best because of the compromises and realpolitiks that is statecraft on the scale of a city. Rather than educating about grassroots social movements, such an approach to elections takes a lot of energy away from social movements and can confuse people in regards to means and ends of direct democracy, popular power, where the focus of organizing should go, and if not done extremely carefully can obscure the importance of opposition to the local hierarchical government. Running within the sphere of city elections to become a politician (that is in fact a delegate for some grassroots democratic formation) that opposes representative policy making can dilute the content of the message that such an educative process would try to convey. Once such a truly libertarian municipalist candidate is in office, if ever in office that is, the position of local politician itself has structural limitations that tend towards either 1. Ineffectual idealism (not getting anything done but proclaiming radical ideals and statements) and 2. Anti-idealistic pragmatism (making pragmatic sacrifices and alliances to get small reforms passed). And even if such libertarian municipalist delegate-politicians form a majority on city-council, higher state level authority can veto and go against such idealistic city level politics– and if and when such a centralized clampdown happens, it can easily be prior to people building meaningful social force in federated grassroots movements that would be needed to ward off the state. It is the development of such social force and the means thereof (including significant reconstructive politics, mutual aid, and popular organizations) that social movements should be developing and striving towards– as such popular power is what is needed to gain and secure short-term, mid-term, long-term goals, oppose specific unfreedoms, and build alternative institutions. If a communalist movement and broader social movement ecosystem has the popular support and capacity to seize and communalize the means of existence and production and divest cops and the political ruling class of their power (and of course abolish such positions), then it should strategically, tactically, and actually do so. If such capacity and support does not exist, then people should help to foster such conditions via popular organizations and social movements through reconstructive politics and oppositional politics.  

The notion of a municipalist approach to elections within and against local statecraft contributing to a libertarian socialist revolution is speculative at best and with many counterexamples in practice– that are less counterexamples against Bookchin’s particular approach to elections as much as they are counterexamples to electoral approaches to revolution and socialism in general. And yet, Bookchin’s approach to elections is not often tried let alone carried out in any meaningful way. We think this is the case for multiple reasons, one of which being the disunity of means and ends within Bookchin’s approach to elections. In our view, Bookchin’s approach to elections tries to mix anarchism and social democracy on a local level in such a way that attempts to actuate anti-statist ideals and ends through electing delegate-politicians that are functionally effective and within the sphere of local statecraft. Additionally, the electorally minded shy away from such utopian aspirations, and idealists who favor something like the form/content of Bookchin’s politics tend to avoid electoral politics (for various good reasons).  It is unknown if we will ever see meaningful fruits from such an electoral approach Bookchin advocates, but until there is some significant proof of Bookchin’s electoral approach as an effective way to actuate libertarian ideals (that does not eviscerate such ideals in the process) in at least some contexts, we remain in disagreement with Bookchin in regards to his electoral approach and are very skeptical of it. Be it reform or revolution: it is popular power through communal assemblies, radical unions, and various social movements more broadly that are most desirable to make radical gains and keep them. 

The nature of hierarchical power is to be in self-contradiction to horizontal power (for the latter can only flourish through the destruction of the former). To the degree such positions on city council and the like continue to be hierarchical positions or are otherwise functioning within a broader context of hierarchical government on a local level, they will not be able to achieve horizontal ends. It is unknown to what extent Bookchin’s municipalist approach to elections can be a potentially mobilizing and radicalizing force among a populace (let alone a transformative force), but we are yet to see a good example of it. Meanwhile, there are counterexamples where having a “movement politician” on the inside of city government inhibits direct action against city government– de facto pacifying and misdirecting rather than amplifying popular power and social force. The communal revolutions and movements we do see (both pre-1940s and post 1940s) that are ethical and effective utilize features that approximately correspond to Bookchin’s non-electoral politics rather than his niche and eclectic approach to local elections.

We are libertarian communalists first and foremost in regards to revolutionary strategy and post-revolutionary society. Our libertarian communalism, rooted in the means and ends of horizontal community assemblies and federations thereof, is highly influenced by Bookchin. Yet, we would much prefer syndicalism as part of a revolutionary social movement ecosystem towards revolution compared to Bookchin’s approach to local elections. And we will explain our critical support of syndicalism as part of a revolutionary strategy below (through a critical appraisal of Bookchin’s critiques of syndicalism).  

Bookchin on Syndicalism: 

Syndicalism refers to a strategy to achieve revolution and socialism through self-managed labor union organizing and direct action through such unions. Syndicalism aims to achieve short term and long term goals and build capacity of popular power to seize and socialize the means of production. Syndicalism has developed various anarchistic forms of decision making and structure on mass scales. On one level Bookchin admires the organizational features of syndicalism and sees them as crucial to bring into spheres outside of workplace organizing. Bookchin rightly critiques various anarchists and anarchisms for eschewing syndicalism on the grounds that syndicalism is highly organizational. Bookchin’s communalism takes the self-organizing and direct action features of syndicalism and applies them to the community sphere more broadly. Such an approach enables community assemblies to engage in a plurality of different kinds of direct actions and direct action campaigns against local and interlocal injustices/unfreedoms and hierarchical institutions for short-term/mid-term/ and long-term goals. For Bookchin, the very parallel governance institutions he seeks to develop as a post-revolutionary political-economy can also be popular fighting forces against capitalism, the state, and hierarchy more broadly (while building gradations of communal commons in the interim to 1. meet needs 2. develop popular power 3. fuel direct action).  

There are multiple kinds of syndicalists of course: anarchosyndicalists, pure syndicalists, organizational dualist syndicalists, and even reformist and Leninist (and even worse) cooptations/deviations thereof. Anarchosyndicalism mixes anarchist ideology within and as part of union organizing to make union organizing properly anarchistic. Pure syndicalists see syndicalist organizing as sufficient on its own and think that unions must be free of ideologies to be properly mass organizations. Organizational dualists make a distinction between ideologically specific groups and mass organizations and think ideologically specific anarchist groups should interface with syndicalist unions (and potentially other popular organizations depending on the strain of organizational dualism) to add anarchistic features to unions without dominating unions nor making unions only open to those with an anarchist ideology. There are also of course some important internal disagreements within such sub-categories of syndicalism. And there are disagreements among syndicalists of various kinds about the specifics of socialism, production, and distribution post revolution (for example, not all syndicalists are communists although many are).  

In a post 1960’s context, Bookchin saw syndicalism as a moribund revolutionary strategy. He saw this as the case for multiple reasons (Bookchin 1992), such as:  

1. Increasing reformism of unions and lack of direct action by unions 

2. Increasing bureaucratization of unions

3. Increasing integration of unions with capitalism and the state 

4. Syndicalists at times claiming that syndicalist unions are the only legitimate organs for real class struggle or otherwise the hegemonic form class struggle and revolution must/should take 

5. Syndicalism by itself lacks a communalist dimension when it comes to means and ends of revolution

6. That syndicalism has a narrow focus on point of production organizing which limits struggle, revolutionary subjectivity, and even visions of a good society at times

7. That more radical movements were increasingly well outside of workplace organizing and comprised a broad swath of the non-ruling class beyond “the industrial proletariat” and even those working for wages 

8. That new compositions of capitalism make syndicalist organizing more difficult and less likely 

9. And the failures of historical syndicalist projects 

These are not the only critiques Bookchin has of syndicalism, but the above are good starting places to understand his critiques of it. And many of them simply do hold up as accurate in at least many important respects. Many relatively orthodox syndicalists of various kinds would likely even agree with a lot of them (although would disagree with Bookchin’s conclusions about syndicalism). However, such critiques Bookchin made of syndicalism do not have universal application; there are unions in the past and present that practice direct action, that are not bureaucratic, that are not integrated with capitalism and the state, that contribute to a broader social movement ecosystem that goes beyond workplace organizing (for example, the defense committees of the CNT and the communes connected with the CNT), etc.  Not all unions and contexts for unions are equivalent– and there is the potential for unions to have such a libertarian, revolutionary, and even extra-syndicalist character (in the sense of contributing to struggles outside of the workplace through tactical solidarity with social movement groups of various kinds). Unions are not intrinsically revolutionary nor non-revolutionary– and the same issue applies to communal assemblies as well. 

As FARJ notes, “There are places and contexts in which it is worth considering syndicalism as a space for social work, there are others in which it is not, and so on.” We agree thoroughly with the above sentence. And despite us being communalists who think communal assemblies are generally effective as keystone popular organizational form for direct action and mutual aid purposes that at some point should be prefigured in order for self-management to function on every scale: communal assemblies are not always the most fruitful organizational form for specific movement and revolutionary functions and goals in every real or possible context. From a thoroughly communalist perspective, communal assemblies are not the only forms of mass organizing people should engage with, nor necessarily the first organization one should help start or join, nor the main one every person should be primarily focusing on in every context. 

Bookchin’s critiques of syndicalism–even if brutally true in some, many, and even most important respects– simply do not lead to the conclusion of discarding syndicalism as A means for short-term, mid-term, and long-term gains– as part of a revolutionary toolkit. Bookchin’s critiques of syndicalism can be best responded to through a praxis that includes and goes beyond syndicalism: that is a praxis that includes both organizing in and outside of the workplace in various ways (for example a focus on community, union, student, + rather than just union organizing), and the need (or more moderately extreme desirability) for ideologically and theoretically specific groups to interface with unions (and other mass organizations) to help actualize their most liberatory and revolutionary potential– combined with a context dependent approach to evaluating how much emphasis a person or ideologically specific libertarian group should put towards union organizing compared to other spheres of organizing. 

Syndicalism has had victories such as: unions with tens and hundreds of thousands of people, creating global movement capacity that comprise millions of people, winning various reforms through direct action and directly democratic organizing (in turn meeting needs of people), connecting anarchistic practices with masses of people, invigorating other social movement action, as well as the 1936 revolution in Spain. Syndicalism has also had some failures as part of its history such as when some syndicalists took arms against the first Zapatista revolution and when the CNT made alliances with the popular front in Spain in such a way that sacrificed revolutionary goals, and when other syndicalist unions collapsed in the face of deadly cocktail of state repression, reformist tendencies, and increasing popularity of Leninism within the labor movement and the left in general. Syndicalist history is not merely one of unambiguous successes. One additional issue with syndicalism, as noted by Bookchin, is the tendency of many syndicalists to downplay non-syndicalist forms of mass organizing. However, there is nothing intrinsic to a pro-syndicalist position that must do so.     

It is important to note that Bookchin does have some pro radical union dimensions to his prescriptive political philosophy at times. For example, younger Bookchin In his 1960’s essay “Forms of Freedom”, Bookchin talks about the desirability for radical unions and self-managed workplace committees using direct action in a mode of revolutionary struggle against capitalism (not as the exclusive organs of struggle, but crucial ones alongside other organizations such as communal assemblies). Something closer to Bookchin’s 1960’s approach to syndicalism as a strategy is much more fruitful and close to our politics than later Bookchin’s notion that syndicalism does not have any revolutionary potential. Yet, even at his most non-syndicalist later on in his life, Bookchin still supported unions, democratization thereof, and direct actions through unions as ways of securing various gains and achieving various goals. But later on in his life he treats syndicalism too harshly by claiming that syndicalism lacks revolutionary potential. Bookchin understandably grew tired of debating various kinds of syndicalists who saw syndicalism as a relatively hegemonic approach towards revolution and socialism; but his counter-response went too far and threw out some babies (syndicalist unions as revolutionary organs of oppositional politics) with the bathwater (various kinds of syndicalist reductionism).  

Syndicalist-esque features of formal organization, direct democracy, bylaws, processes, mandated and recallable delegates, mandated and recallable committees are all thoroughly present within Bookchin’s communalism. Community assemblies can take on a plurality of different kinds of direct actions in multiple spheres of life. Community assemblies as Bookchin argues for are both mutual aid organizations as well as direct action organizations in the mode of struggle against class and hierarchical rule. Although Bookchin’s praxis sublates some syndicalist features within community assemblies, his overall strategy did not properly sublate syndicalism itself as A means and at times a crucial means towards revolution alongside communal assemblies and other kinds of groups. He was correct to go against notions of syndicalism as the only or otherwise hegemonic approach to class struggle and revolution (although in some contexts syndicalist unions can be the main oppositional expressions of popular power). And yet, the underemphasis on the potential for unions to be revolutionary seems to lack imagination of their potential. He also inaccurately trans-historicized his critique of unions– when depending on the various timespace/social locations, conditions, willingness, and capacity of people, unions can be particularly radical and revolutionary forces for developing socialism and even communal forms thereof. Depending on the specific geographical and social location, post-1940’s syndicalism is not a mere ghost of its former self. Depending on a variety of conditions, unions make more or less sense to be emphasized as organs of oppositional politics as part of an overall revolutionary strategy. And yet Bookchin did not disagree with syndicalism out of lack of experience– he himself being a union member and  organizer in his younger years and a dues paying member of the IWW later in his life and someone who deeply studied Anarchism in Spain and syndicalism more broadly. And yet for all his throwing the baby out with the bathwater in regards to syndicalism as A mode of revolutionary struggle (that could/should be more or less emphasized depending on the presence and/or absence of relevant variables), many of his critiques of syndicalism are true nonetheless. And many of Bookchin’s critiques of syndicalism are especially relevant to kinds of syndicalism that  1. overly reduce mass organizations to workplace organizing and those that 2. reduce social problems to economic problems in the workplace.  

Despite not ALWAYS merely being a ghost of its former self, global syndicalism is in crisis– noting the significant exceptions of course. Some places, for a variety of reasons, syndicalism is more of a fighting force or otherwise makes more strategic sense as an emphasized part of an ecosystem of social movements. Other places it truly does look relatively moribund (which is not to say there is no potential for it to become otherwise as movements eb and flow locally and globally). And there is also a crisis in organizational anarchism about how to develop the kinds of organizations that can be truly popular, ethical, and effective. An approach of community, union, student, and beyond can potentially encompass a plurality of forms of organizing and organs of oppositional politics while simultaneously emphasizing a significant communalist dimension as crucial ends (and means to be prefigured as part of such a development). Such a focus on community, union, student, and beyond is derived from the especifismo tendency. 

Green Syndicalism combines radical ecology with syndicalist organizing (Ongerth 2010). Green Syndicalism has roots prior to the contemporary ecology movement via radical unionism against various anti-ecological industries–such as radical unionism against mining corporations, timber barons, fossil fuel companies, and the like. Capitalism and anti-ecological industries destroy the ecological world for profit and instrumentalize humans in the process–exposing workers and communities to various pollutants and hazardous conditions. Green syndicalism mixes ecological praxis with radical unionism. Such an approach can simultaneously fight for better conditions for workers and the ecological world more broadly and do so through direct organizing and direct action. When it comes to ecological direct action, it is ideal for movements to have people at the point of production and people outside of the point of production doing direct actions against various anti-ecological endeavors. Green syndicalism thus adds onto social ecological praxis for various short-term, mid-term, and long-term goals for workers, communities, and ecological flourishing. It should be noted that when it comes to unionizing inherently anti-ecological industries (such as fossil fuel industries ), the goal should not be merely better conditions and even self-managed conditions within inherently anti-ecological endeavors, but the abolition of such inherently anti-ecological endeavors. The abolition of hierarchy plus the use of ecological technology in tandem with the institution of a self-managed decommodified economy (that provides everyone with a high standard and quality of life) would functionally abolish the root causes of the ecological crisis. 

Concluding this section: we agree with many of Bookchin’s critiques of syndicalism. We do not see syndicalist unions as the only nor hegemonic organizations for global libertarian communist revolution. We agree with Bookchin that communal forms generally make the most sense as the main kinds of popular organizations for revolutionary libertarian goals. We think this for many reasons such as:

1. The potential for organized reconstructive and oppositional politics outside of workplace organizing (including against specific capitalist enterprises)

2. The need and potential to unite the broad non-ruling class for overall social force (which does not only include those working for wages at the point of production but also includes: unwaged reproductive laborers, the youth, the elderly, the unemployed, the unemployable, the homeless, tenants who might not be workers, peasants, landless peasants, self-employed, cooperatively-employed, professionals who don’t occupy exploitative positions, etc.)

3. The potential for communal assemblies to participate in direct actions against specific local and interlocal hierarchies for specific short term goals 

4. The potential for communal assemblies to build power for and participate in expropriation, re-commoning, and communal self-defense 

5. Communal assemblies can illustrate and model visions of a new society in the process of struggle against hierarchy. 

6. The need to prefigure a communal and intercommunal self-management for self-management to exist on every scale at some point to achieve such ends

7. Communal assemblies can fil power vacuums during crises and revolutionary situations

8. Communal assemblies can engage in class struggle AND help oppose hierarchies and social problems not reducible to class 

9. Communal assemblies can popularize practices and institutions of horizontality, direct democracy, direct action, and mutual aid among ordinary people 

10. Communal assemblies can develop common infrastructure and resources which can help meet people’s needs and reproduce daily lives of people in social movement groups and popular organizations and help provide infrastructure for direct actions (direct actions caused both by communal assemblies directly as well as other kinds of groups)

11. Communal assemblies can create a communistic content, and the more communistic content exists within the means of struggle and prior and during revolutionary processes, the more likely such communistic content is to thrive post-revolution

12. Communal assemblies can play assist roles and co-author joint-actions and joint-projects alongside other groups

13. There is a fecund relatively global and “transhistorical” history of communal self-management

14. There is also a rich history of communal self-management influenced in part by anarchism: pre-1940’s period and post 1940’s. Communal forms are crucial features of all the main anarchist influenced revolutions including the syndicalist revolution in Spain 

15. New composition of capitalism, social movements, and labor organizing make syndicalism particularly difficult as a mass organizational strategy in many places compared to the early 1900’s (this of course does not have universal applicability)  

Where we differ from Bookchin is that we see syndicalist unions as important revolutionary building blocks that make more or less sense to be emphasized as part of a strategy depending on various conditions and contexts. We are pro syndicalist because:

1. Syndicalism can develop counterpower against bosses and capitalists within workplaces

2. Syndicalism can help popularize direct democracy and direct action and reach out to not-already politicized workers by bridging specific interests and ideals 

3. Syndicalism can popularize class struggle  

4. Syndicalism can enable people to organize on the job

5. Syndicalism can utilize withheld labor power 

6. Syndicalism can build popular power for expropriation of the means of production

7. Is conditionally very effective

8. Syndicalism and Green syndicalism can benefit workers, communities, and ecological flourishing

9. Syndicalism can at times have an extra-syndicalist character and assist struggle outside of  the workplace 

10. Syndicalist means can help develop communist and even communalist ends 

11. Syndicalism has a history of being able to secure radical reforms and make revolutionary headway

This viewpoint–that certainly is and leans communalist despite being thoroughly pro-syndicalist– is bound to be disagreeable to various orthodox syndicalists and communalists alike as it is in some sense in between both positions. Additionally, we are in favor of the prudent use of ecological direct action in and out of the workplace and are in favor of green syndicalism as A mode of struggle alongside others. Depending on the context, green syndicalism can be crucial (or otherwise extremely desirable) for halting ecological destruction while creating better conditions for workers and communities. We think social ecology as a living praxis should reintegrate syndicalism as part of a broader libertarain socialist, communist, and communalist strategy. This would mean syndicalism as a MEANS towards revolution– not as THE means, and not as the ends (that is not as an alternative way of carving up decision making power and economic life post-revolution through either union control of means of production or through mere workplace self-management that excludes communal self-management and communalized means of existence and production and politics). As opposed to communalism vs. syndicalism, we adamantly support both as part of a process towards a libertarian socialist, communist, and communalist revolution.  

Bookchin lacked a proper fleshed out conception of the relations of ideologically specific groups to social movements: 

Bookchin did at times argue for, advocate, and practice a politics that has a distinction between ideologically specific groups and popular organizations and social movements more broadly. He saw a difference for example between his notion of “libertarian vanguard group” of sorts united around tight ideas and popular assemblies organizing through shared democratic practices– and other kinds of social movement groups of various kinds. Bookchin saw a need/desirability for a militant active minority within social movements. He stressed how important various kinds of revolutionary leadership can be (and how leadership can be distinct from rulership). 

When we consider the extent that Bookchin does flesh out different dimensions of politics (forms of freedom, post-scarcity, democracy, ecology etc), his contributions to how an ideologically specific group should function in relation to broader movements are lacking in comparison. Throughout his body of work, there is nothing approximating a fleshed out conception of how ideologically specific groups should function in relation to popular movements such as that found in various Especifismo groups and writings. And yet, 1. there are ways in which features of Bookchin’s worldview can inform ideologically specific groups in some important respects (in fact his philosophy already has done so) and 2. ways ideologically specific groups can help develop structures of communal self-management with a direct action and mutual aid content (in fact some ideologically specific libertarian communist groups have already been doing this very praxis). 

On one level having a praxis involving liberatory popular organizations and social movements as the main protagonists of struggle and revolution is fundamental. But the above sentence is not to downplay the necessity–or more moderately extreme desirability– of ideologically specific libertarian communist groups catalyzing such popular formations through social insertion. If we think ideologically specific libertarian communist groups are at least extremely important (and can even help make or break revolutions as Bookchin pointed out), we can critique Bookchin for not fleshing this out– similar to how Bookchin critiqued various past anarchists for not having a fleshed out conception of how democracy should function despite them believing in some kind of direct collective decision making. Communalist praxis can benefit from learning from Especifismo, Platformism, and the like. 

Towards a reinvigorated social ecology, communalism and libertarian socialism: 

Even though this essay has been rooted in a critical appraisal of Bookchin’s politics, this essay has also been aiming to do something more: that is to sketch out how to potentially upgrade social ecological praxis through a critical appraisal of Bookchin’s politics. Social ecology and communalism should be retained because their most essential and salient features hold true. And yet, social ecology and communalism can be made more coherent. Bookchin’s written and spoken philosophy is a closed book of sorts, but social ecology and communalism are living praxes that are internally differentiated and incomplete. First and foremost, the primary way that both social ecology and communalism can be made more coherent is through retaining their most essential features as part of praxis as they develop (including horizontality, direct democracy, mutual aid, direct action, communal self-governance, confederalism, oppositional politics, reconstructive politics, and an understanding of ecological problems as having their roots in social problems of hierarchy, etc.). Such a politics would keep a communalist core through the development of communal assemblies and confederations thereof as mass organizations for functions of mutual aid and direct action towards dual power and revolution. Such communal assemblies and federations thereof would be both counterpowers to capitalism and the state and help meet needs of people in self-managed ways– while prefiguring the new world based on self-management on every scale in the shell of the old. Aside from retaining their most essential features, social ecology and communalism can be made more coherent by subtracting Bookchin’s electoral approach to politics. Additionally, social ecology and communalism can use a reintegration of syndicalism as part of a revolutionary social movement ecosystem in such a way where syndicalism is viewed as a means (not as an end or as THE means)– and one of multiple means to be strategically emphasized more or less depending on conditions. Such a reintegration of syndicalism into overall social ecological praxis does not and should not overly reduce modes of oppositional politics to syndicalism (or otherwise underemphasize communalist means and ends). A fleshed out strategy involving relations of ideologically specific groups to social movements and popular organizations can further communalist goals. And communalism can further the goals of ideologically specific libertarian communist groups through creation of and social insertion within communal assemblies as direct action and mutual aid organs (in such a way that still retains an “organizational pluralism” of sorts via social insertion in community, union, student spheres and beyond). Such a sublation of libertarian communism, communalism, syndicalism, and ways ideologically specific libertarian communist groups can interface with mass movements can potentially move social ecological praxis forward.  

Endnotes:

1. Bookchin, Murray. Post-Scarcity Anarchism. AK Press, 2018.

2. Bookchin, Murray. The Philosophy of Social Ecology: Essays on Dilectical Naturalism. Black Rose Books, 1990. 

3. Bookchin, Murray. Social Ecology and Communalism. Edinburgh: AK, 2007.

4. Bookchin, M. (2021). From Urbanization to Cities: The Politics of Democratic Municipalism. AK Press.

5. Bookchin, Murray. “Communalism, the Democratic Dimension of Anarchism.” libcom.org, 1994. https://libcom.org/library/communalism-democratic-dimension-anarchism. 

6. Bookchin, Murray. Anarchism, Marxism, and the Future of the Left: Interviews and Essays, 1993-1998. Edinburgh: AK Press, 2000.

7. Bookchin, Murray. Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism: An Unbridgeable Chasm, 1996.

8. Bookchin, Murray, and Dave Foreman. Defending the Earth: Debate between Murray Bookchin and Dave Foreman ; Foreword by David Levine. Montréal: Black Rose Books, 1991.

9. Bookchin, Murray. “Municipalization: Community Ownership of the Economy.” Libcom.org. 1986. https://libcom.org/library/municipalization-murray-bookchin.

10. One of Murray Bookchin’s Last Interviews . Pacific Street Films, 2004.

11. Bookchin, Murray. Ecology of Freedom. Ak Press, 2005.

12. Bookchin, Murray. The next Revolution: Popular Assemblies and the Promise of Direct Democracy. London: Verso, 2015.

13. Bookchin, Murray. “The Ghost of Anarcho-Syndicalism.” Institute for Social Ecology, November 6, 1992. https://social-ecology.org/wp/1992/11/the-ghost-of-anarcho-syndicalism/.

14. FARJ. Social Anarchism and Organisation , 2008.

15. Ongerth, Steve. “Redwood Uprising: The Story of Judi Bari and Earth First! – IWW Local #1.” Redwood Uprising: The Story of Judi Bari and Earth First! , April 1, 2010. http://judibari.info/. 

Self-managed forms of organizing are necessary but insufficient for any libertarian revolutionary process. Any revolutionary process has both form(s) and content(s). We should not fetishize either from the other and abstract form from content or content from form. All political/economic/social movement processes and contents have organizational forms of some kind that are part of their overall development. Such forms and contents can either be self-managed/horizontal/directly democratic/participatory, or otherwise. A notion of strategy without forms of organizing– or inversely formal structures without good contents, strategies and goals– leads to one-sided absurdity. And all organizational forms have some kind of content. It is not enough for revolution and socialism to just develop self-managed organizations– and yet self-managed organizations and the strategic prefiguration thereof are necessary prerequisites to any development of libertarian socialism. Such considerations about decision making processes and power and formal organizations are in fact essential features that separate libertarian attempts at socialism from authoritarian attempts at socialism. 

A fundamental ethical dimension underpinning and within libetarian socialist theory is the principle of freedom and more holistically “freedom of each and all ” and the means thereof (which includes and requires equality and solidarity among other features). Such freedom does not emerge in reduction in a void but through the development of a gestalt of qualities (within institutions, relations, and otherwise)– as well as the overthrow and destruction of other qualities (such as class relations, hierarchy more broadly, and domination). Such freedom is constitutive of the overall flourishing of “wellbeing for all”. 

“Freedom is not possible without equality, and real anarchy cannot exist without solidarity, without socialism.” -Malatesta

Prior to knowing a lot of the unique details of specific particular contexts we are adapting to, if we know that: A. hierarchical society exists and B. we are trying to develop libertarian socialism and C. that we are volitional/conscious/dependent/institutional beings capable of doing so, we know several things already based on the principles, practices, and ethics of (and that underpin) libertarian socialism. 

For example: 

1.  That there must be a unity/consistency of means and ends (also referred to as prefiguration)

2.  That the ends must be rooted in self-management (and so by extension the means as well) 

3. That self-management of each and all on every scale entails communal and intercommunal forms of self-management (intercommunal forms of self-management referring to federations and co-federations of communal associations for mutual aid and direct action purposes).  

4. And that such communal forms and intercommunal forms must be prefigured at some point for them to be developed. 

Additionally we know that: 

1. Common means of existence and means of production necessitate self-management structures 

2. MERE workplace self management structures (not to be confused with workers’ self management as such) would defacto privatize common means of existence and production over and above communities compared to arrangements that also have robust communal self-management structures.

3. That common means of existence and production should be managed by those who need and utilize such commons.

4. Entire communities need and utilize common means of existence and production.

5. Therefore communal self-management and intercommunal self management are necessary for common means of existence and production to be fully self-managed by those who need and utilize the commons.

6. Self-managed commons are essential for a free society (That for self-management to extend into political and economic decision making and practices, the means of existence and production would have to be in common–  with communal assemblies making policy and embedded participatory councils self-managing the implementation of communal policy).

7. Communal forms of freedom are essential features of a free society (both as an extension of self-management of each and all on every scale AND as needed for all those who interface with and need the commons to self-manage it). 

Within the context of hierarchical and ruling class politics and economics:

1. Hierarchies develop, reproduce themselves, expand, and defend themselves through and with recourse to coercion. 

2. That revolution and expropriation of class property are needed for a free society and for common means of existence and production to be developed (which is needed for a free society). 

3. That in order to expropriate class property and overthrow hierarchical politics and economics there needs to be a sufficient capacity and popular power to seize and defend means of existence and production from hierarchical forces 

4. That sufficient mutual aid and self-managed organizations and infrastructure are needed but not sufficient for the development of such an oppositional politics

5. That if such oppositional politics is organized hierarchically that it must reproduce the fundamental features of hierarchy and thus destroy the essential features of freedom. 

6. That there are multiple kinds of groups able to meaningfully contribute to oppositional politics, reconstructive politics, and revolution via self-management. 

Additionally:

1. There is the need for popular organizations and social movement groups  to do oppositional and reconstructive politics.

2. That such popular organizations and social movements need to have liberatory forms/practices/processes of horizontality/direct democracy/free association, direct action, and mutual aid for such organizations to actuate their liberatory potential.

3. And that such popular organizations cannot require ideological specificity– for that will alienate such groups from those who do not share libertarian socialist ideology. 

4. And that it is possible and good for such liberatory clusters of features (as briefly listed in point #2) to be instantiated in such groups through having such liberatory features as part of the form/practice orientation of groups

5. And that having a group that practices horizontal democracy, does direct action, and mutual aid to solve common problems through collective decisions does not require members to share a libertarian socialist ideology 

6. Such liberatory features of popular organizations and social movement groups can be developed in part through ideologically and theoretically specific libertarian socialist groups via social insertion (as defined in depth by FARJ). 

The above dimensions of an organizational, strategic, and goal orientation and what they entail (which are by no means exhaustively fleshed out above) can then be applied to particular contexts and developed overtime through various self-managed forms of oppositional politics and reconstructive politics: meeting needs, taking direct action against hierarchical power, and building the new world within the shell of the old. In such a revolutionary development, self-managed reconstructive and oppositional forms and processes fuel themselves and one another and can exist intensively within the very same organization.  

Communal assemblies are one such group that can do both oppositional politics and reconstructive politics in rather intensive ways– and prefigure such communal forms of freedom, mutual aid, and common infrastructure in the process. Communal assemblies can engage in direct action including but not limited to: specific actions against landlords, bosses, capitalists, politicians, and specific institutions perpetuating specific unfreedoms/injustices, blockades, occupations, squats, expropriations, community self defense, assisting direct actions of other groups directly (through co-participating on joint actions) and indirectly (through providing communal infrastructure and mutual aid to other direct action groups). As Bookchin said in his book Post-Scarcity Anarchism, “Assembly and community must become “fighting words,” not distant panaceas. They must be created as modes of struggle against the existing society.” Such communal assemblies are organs of both direct action and mutual aid for various short-term, mid-term, and long-term goals.

Radical labor unions and workplace committees (utilizing self-management and direct action) are groups that are specifically important for oppositional politics in the workplace. Such unions and workplace committees can fight for short-term, mid-term, and long-term goals: everything from wage increases to expropriation. However, they are not the only organs for class struggle as some might claim– as class struggle is possible outside of workplace organizing. Given libertarian goals, depending on the context one is in (and by extension a plurality of factors) syndicalist means should be more or less emphasized as part of an overall revolutionary strategy. 

Outside of just communal assemblies and labor unions, student unions, tenant unions, and prisoner unions are other such fighting groups that are particularly suited towards their particular sites of struggle. When it comes to oppositional politics there are also issue-specific and function specific social movements and groups of various kinds (for example a movement for reproductive freedom or a medic-collective). Additionally there are affinity groups that can do various direct actions and oppositional functions (an endorsement thereof as one way of organizing a direct action group among others is not an endorsement of tendencies that overly-reduce organizing to such affinity groups or otherwise have a reckless/foolish strategy. Mere affinity groups are incapable of generating adequate social force– and they can suffer from disorganization and even having an anti-organizational orientation at times. Then again no form is sufficient to generating strategic content; For example, without good content, labor unions can fall into reformism and communal associations can fall into pejorative utopianism).

In order to actuate the means and ends of horizontality/direct democracy/mutual aid/direct action/co-federation/free association/etc. in the context of living in a hierarchical and class-based society, there must be self-managed oppositional politics and direct action to overthrow class relations and hierarchy more broadly. The content to fill such self-managed forms must be deliberated about and decided by various self-managed organizations and adapted to sufficiently relevant variables. Through such an adaptation and application of universal features of liberatory forms and practices and contents to specific contexts, there is an instantiation of such universal features in particular forms of struggle and forms of freedom (with a means/ends unity of self-management/horizontality/democracy/mutual aid/participatory action etc)– which can make such universals concretized in reality. 

And yet, popular organizations and social movements are potentially susceptible to unstrategic content, bureaucratic forms, reformism (not to be confused with winning reforms through direct action and self-management), liberal cooptation, leninist co-optation, pejorative utopianism (mere reconstructive politics without oppositional politics), and unreflective actionism. Because of the above (and other reasons), it is important to develop ideologically and theoretically specific libertarian communist groups (distinct from popular organizations and social movement groups). Members of such ideologically and theoretically specific libertarian communist groups are able to create and interface with  popular organizations and social movements to help such formations develop liberatory practices/processes of self-management, direct action, mutual aid, class struggle, etc. (while learning from social movements and participating in them in the process). Popular organizations and social movements are the main protagonists in struggle and revolution, but ideologically and theoretically specific groups can act as catalysts of liberatory qualities of such groups and movements through social insertion. 

“What-should-be,” is anchored in a continuum that emerges from an objective potentiality, or “what-is… The “what-should-be” becomes an ethical criterion for judging the truth or validity of an objective “what-is.” Thus ethics is not merely a matter of personal taste and values; it is factually anchored in the world itself as an objective standard of self-realization.” -Bookchin

The principle of freedom of each and all (and the means thereof) has an objective content to it. It has universal necessary features. It refers to specific naturalistic/societal qualities that are rooted in objective conditions of what is possible. Such a principle of freedom requires and entails a gestalt of other features to be rounded out and existent (mutual aid, direct action, direct democracy, non-hierarchy, etc.), and concrete groups, processes, practices etc. are necessary to actualize and institutionalize such freedom of each and all. Such a principle of freedom for each and all and the means thereof is not merely abstract; it corresponds to the objective content of what is actually good for humans and the ecological world more broadly (for it is precisely through hierarchy and the destruction of freedom that the ecological world more broadly along with humans are instrumentalized for power-over others and profit). 

“We are not open and flexible (“anti-dogmatic”) about our principles. Those who treat principles in this way fall into a pragmatism incapable of social change or transformation. Regarding the strategy, we can say that the general strategy is more fixed, followed by the time-restricted strategy, which is a little less fixed and more flexible, and finally, by the tactics, more flexible.” -Correa

The general strategy of developing such freedom and libertarian form/content is fixed in terms of some essential features– but more flexible than the principles themselves. And more flexible still are the sub-strategies within strategies, and even more flexible than such sub-strategies are the tactics within sub-strategies. The specific ways libertarian practices/forms/contents are applied and adapted to contexts (and the specific ways groups using such liberatory practices develop content and function) are more flexible than the universal features underpinning them. 

There are multiple spheres of life to organize within– from community, union, student, and beyond. In different contexts, for various reasons, it makes sense for movements, groups, and persons to put more and less focus on specific spheres and specific kinds of projects and actions. In a particular communal assembly, it might make more sense to focus on a specific direct action campaign/goal/tactic compared to another, or to focus more/less or differently on reconstructive politics of some kind or another (based on needs of people and movements, capacity, willingness, what general and specific problems exist, terrain, balance of forces, existent or lack of federation with other groups or solidarity from other groups etc). In some time/space/group contexts it can, for example, make more sense for a person/group to focus more on radical union work of some kind or some other form of organization (which is not to say it is impossible for an ideologically specific group or a person to do both communal and workplace organizing– far from it, the goal should be to build popular power in community and union spheres and beyond). Despite and because of our view that at some point such communal forms of freedom should be prefigured (within and as part of and catalyzing a broader social movement ecosystem) and that such communal associations can and should play particularly important strategic and ethical roles in a revolutionary processes and a post-revolutionary societies, they are not necessarily the first/only/main kind of group that a person or ideologically specific libertarian socialist group should start or join or put emphasis on in every context. Effective ways to organize and practice social insertion within social movements will vary from context to context.

Such a libertarian process/goal orientation involves both universality (self managed forms of groups doing various kinds of oppositional and reconstructive politics) and particularity (specific ways groups function and are developed and adapted to context and relevant variables)– not either/or. There are both features that need to be developed to actuate the freedom of each and all, and particular ways for such qualities to be applied and adapted to context– not either/or. 

Such universal principles and/or practices of freedom, once discovered, grasped, and agreed to, can anchor people in such principles and/or practices that inform means/ends tactics/sub-strategies/strategies/goals. Once grasped, such universal features of freedom and self-management and the means thereof (including a gestalt of multiple features) can functionally inform and qualify goal AND process orientation. They can inform strategy and goals and are related to strategy (and not a distraction from it). Even though specific universal features can inform both the struggle from here to there and what a good society consists of, they do not exhaustively tell us how to adapt and apply such universals to particular contexts– there are far too many relevant variables.

Summarizing many important features of our political views: We are in favor of organizing in multiple spheres of life (community, union, student, and beyond) while also putting an emphasis/focus on the means and ends of communal self-management. We are communalists in favor of an ecological, communist, and post-scarcity economy (who differ from Bookchin most significantly in regards to the electoral dimensions to his praxis). We favor communal assemblies as keystone organs of reconstructive politics and oppositional politics, and we also are in favor other self-managed forms of reconstructive and oppositional politics. We see both reconstructive and oppositional politics as essential for the development of a libertarian revolutionary process. We are in favor of syndicalism as A means as part of a movement ecosystem. And we are in favor of organizational dualism and social insertion (specifically influenced by especifismo and platformism).

Sources: 

1. Post Scarcity Anarchism by Murray Bookchin: https://files.libcom.org/files/Post-Scarcity%20Anarchism%20-%20Murray%20Bookchin.pdf

2. Anarchy by Erico Malatesta: https://libcom.org/article/anarchy-errico-malatesta

3. Elements of Anarchist Theory and Strategy an Interview with Felipe Correa:https://www.redblacknotes.com/2022/04/26/elements-of-anarchist-theory-and-strategy-an-interview-with-felipe-correa/

4. Philosophy of Social Ecology by Murray Bookchin: https://libcom.org/article/philosophy-social-ecology-essays-dialectical-naturalism 

5. Social Anarchism and Revolution by FARJ: https://libcom.org/article/social-anarchism-and-organisation-farj

Communalism and Especifismo: 

Communalism:

What it is:

Communalism is a philosophy and praxis in favor of the means and ends of developing community assemblies with specific kinds of qualifications: those qualifications being practices and processes of horizontality, direct democracy, free association, co-federation mutual aid, and direct action. Horizontality combined with direct democracy means direct collective decision making without ruling classes, ruling strata, or domination. Free association means the freedom of, from, and within associations. Co-federation refers to ways of organizing between organizations for mutual aid and joint actions where policy making power is retained in general assemblies of groups. Mutual aid refers to multi-directional assistance to meet people’s needs. Direct action refers to direct activity of collectives and persons more broadly– but specifically refers to oppositional politics done by people directly (ethical forms thereof being oppositional actions against some hierarchy/domination/exploitation/oppression). The above dimensions are needed for the self-management of each and all on every scale. Community assemblies in harmony with communalism have the above features as part of their living practices and processes and enshrine such features in bylaws, constitutions, programs, and structures. Such assemblies are communalist assemblies not in the sense that the assemblies and the members thereof all have the specific ideology of communalism, but in the sense that such assemblies have communalist processes and practices.

What communal assemblies do and how they function:

Community assemblies in harmony with the features of communalism functionally do reconstructive and oppositional politics. Reconstructive politics refers to developing horizontal and common politics and economics, common infrastructure, mutual aid committees, projects, and practices. Oppositional politics refers to opposing hierarchies (institutionalized top-down command obedience relations), domination/exploitation/oppression, and arbitrary limits to freedom and using direct action to achieve various liberatory goals. Community assemblies can create a wide array of sustained mutual aid and direct action committees and projects. Such community assemblies pool needs, tools, resources, ideas, abilities, activities, technology, etc. together to achieve common goals through deliberation and collective action. In such assemblies, there is open dialogue, a search for agreement, disagreements, alternatives, amendments, questions etc. If full agreement is not reached, then a decision is made through majority vote. In order to be in harmony with communalist practices and processes, decisions community assemblies make must be in harmony with non-hierarchical rights, duties, form and content. Such community assemblies have mandated and recallable councils and delegates that implement various decisions that are made at the communal level by general assemblies. All policy making is held by community assemblies and participants thereof directly. Embedded councils self-manage within the limits of the policies/mandates/protocols made from below. Such embedded delegates and councils are instantly recallable by their respective community assemblies and co-federations thereof. 

In the good place:

In a good society, community assemblies and co-federations thereof become forms of horizontal political economic governance. Means of existence and production, fields, factories, and workshops would be communalized; all would have guaranteed substantial rights to common means of existence, common means of production, and the means of horizontal and democratic politics. In assemblies, people deliberate, make direct collective decisions, and make agreements to share in the implementation of decisions. Embedded mandated and recallable councils and delegates would self-manage implementation of decisions within the mandates/policies/protocols made from below. Necessities and luxuries would be free for all and made abundant in ecological ways. Persons and collectives would have access to the means to develop various social, philosophical, and artistic activities, aspirations, and hobbies. Communities would get together to make decentralized and co-federated communal and intercommunal decisions and plans to meet people’s needs within and between communities– and to develop intercommunal projects, activities, and infrastructure as expressions of participatory communal and inter-communal life. Communal self governance would become a realm of freedom where people meet needs and desires through the self-management of each and all and freedom from hierarchy/domination/exploitation/oppression. 

From here to there: 

The process of developing a communalist society is through the strategic prefiguration of communalist institutions and practices via oppositional and reconstructive politics in particular contexts adapted to relevant variables. Such a process consists of meeting people’s needs, opposing hierarchies, domination, exploitation, and oppression, developing the kinds of organizations, committees, and practices that should exist in the future society by including the features of a good society within the means used to develop such ends. Such general practices would be adapted to contexts and relevant variables to achieve short term, mid term, and long term goals. As communal organizations in harmony with the features of communalism multiply, they can constitute a “third sector” to the capitalist market and the state that can be expanded into confederations and gain legitimacy by meeting needs, opposing domination, solving problems, and developing self-managed power at the expense of hierarchical power. Overtime, this communal sector would develop itself, overthrow hierarchical institutions, and institute libertarian communism.

**The process of developing a communalist society would also include a plurality of other kinds of self-managed social movement groups in additional to communal assemblies.

Some Reasons Why: 

Self-managed community assemblies can engage in and assist oppositional and reconstructive politics in regards to extraction, reproduction of daily life, production, distribution, consumption, community life, and inter-communal life. This makes them adaptable and applicable to multitudes of specific contexts. Additionally, such community assemblies are needed for self-management of each and all on every scale. For all who need, use, and participate in the economy to make collective decisions together about social reproduction, production, consumption, and politics in a deliberative, egalitarian, and libertarian way, there needs to be self-managed community assemblies in relation to communal and intercommunal economics. For such ends and processes to be developed, they need to be prefigured– that is developed in such a way where the ends people are striving for are consistent with and as much as possible present within the means used to arrive at such goals. Through prefiguration, communalist form and content can continue to develop and multiply such form and content. Additionally, community assemblies can easily assist various groups and projects as part of a social movement ecosystem. It is for the above reasons, and others, that communal assemblies are “keystone organizations” to be developed (to use an ecological metaphor).

Especifismo and Ideologically and Theoretically Specific Libertarian Communists groups:

What is Especifismo:

Especifismo organizations are ideologically and theoretically specific groups that actively develop and interface with social movements and social movement organizations to help actualize the liberatory potentials of such movements and organizations. Whereas community assemblies and other kinds of groups like radical unions are designed to be mass organizations, ideologically and theoretically specific libertarian communist groups are distinct kinds of groups that serve distinct functions. Social movement organizations (such as but not limited to communal assemblies and radical labor unions) should develop liberatory shared processes, practices, and goals AND they should also reach out to and be comprised of common people en masse irrespective of if they have some special sauce libertarian communist ideological litmus test. Unlike social movement groups and popular organizations, ideological and theoretically specific groups are made out of people who have a sufficient degree of tight-knit ideological and theoretical unity. Members of such ideologically and theoretically specific groups function as an “active minority” and “small motor” within social movements. 

The major purpose of such ideologically and theoretically specific libertarian communist groups is to do social work and social insertion: that is to create and participate in social movements and social movement organizations in and out of the workplace (such as community assemblies, labor unions, tenants’ unions, issue specific social movements, etc) in such a way where members of ideologically and theoretically specific libertarian communist groups help to develop and assist liberatory processes, practices, and strategies of social movements and social movement organizations. While social work is part of the broader process of social insertion, an especifismo organization does, “social work when it creates or develops work with social movements, and social insertion when it manages to influence movements with anarchist practices,” (FARJ, 2008). Within social movements and social movement organizations, members of especifismo groups can advocate for practices of direct democracy, federalism, direct action, mutual aid, class struggle, and opposition to hierarchy more broadly. Libertarian practices and strategies are spread within social movements and social movement organizations through deliberation, persuasion, and demonstration. Such practices can be developed in new organizations starting from scratch or through joining already existing organizations and helping to cultivate the already existing libertarian thrust of such groups. The goal of social insertion is to spread such liberatory processes, practices, and strategies rather than to get any particular person or group to proclaim any specific ideology. However, in the process of spreading liberatory practices and strategies and giving reasons for them, various corresponding ideologies and theories will likely spread to people and become more generalized. 

Especifismo groups (and Ideologically and theoretically specific libertarian communist organizations influenced by especifismo) are places for like minded organizers and militants to produce, reproduce, deliberate and strategize about theory and practice more broadly. Especifismo groups engage in political education and propagation of libertarian communist theory and practices. These groups require a high degree of collective responsibility on the part of participants. Specifics in regards to especifismo organizations and how they function can be found in FARJ’s “Social Anarchism and Organization”. FARJ’s “Social Anarchism and Organization” is in our opinion the most comprehensive text on the subject.

Why Organizational Dualism: 

Organizational Dualism refers to the anarchist approach of having both social movement organizations AND ideologically and theoretically specific anarchist organizations. Especifismo is one such approach to organizational dualism. If libertarian socialists merely organize with libertarian socialists, then they will lose contact with the broader population they need to be reaching. If libertarian socialists merely join social movements without advocating various libertarian socialist practices that can be used, then social movements can easily drift into being susceptible to reformist, unstrategic, liberal, and leninist tendencies and opportunists. If libertarian socialists merely join social movements and try to spread ideas and practices in mere individual ways, they will be far less successful than a well thought out coordinated effort. And if ideologically and theoretically specific libertarian socialist groups try to control social movements and popular organizations from the top down, then such specific groups sacrifice their own principles and will reproduce hierarchical organizing. In contrast to authoritarian vanguardist conceptions, especifismo groups and especifists put their activity towards the self-management of movements and organizations. 

Differences Between Especifismo and other “Organizational Dualisms”: 

Especifismo is a tendency initially developed by FAU in Uruguay building off of already existing organizational dualist tendencies within anarchism. Especifismo is a living praxis being developed on multiple continents– primarily but far from exclusively within Latin America. On one level, Especifismo shares a lot of features with other approaches to organizational dualism prior and since. Some ways that especifismo is distinct from other kinds of organizational dualism is through a more polished conception of strategic unity rather than mere tactical unity, through a polished conception and strategy of social insertion, and through having a broader conception of groups to organize with and relate to beyond labor unions (Weaver, 2006). There is a tendency in organizational dualism that sees labor unions as the main mass organizations. FARJ’s iteration/articulation of especifismo in particular is in our opinion particularly holistic in its pluralist approach to social movement organizations– building off of the community, union, student model of FAU.

Communalist Especifismo: 

Communalism + especifismo would combine both praxes. Such a communalist especifist approach would be in favor of self-managed community assemblies as organizations before, during, and after revolutions AND in favor of ideologically and theoretically specific libertarian communist groups to help develop such assemblies as well as other kinds of liberatory social movement organizations. The two praxes combine through social work and social insertion in relation to community assemblies: both through starting community assemblies and helping to develop already existing community assemblies into ones that use a cluster of liberatory practices. Additionally such communalist social work and social insertion includes developing community assemblies within or connected to various issues and social movements to help achieve the goals of social movements when that makes sense in specific contexts.

Part of what distinguishes a communalist especifismo approach from classical communalism is the emphasis upon the distinction and need (or more moderately desirability) for both self-managed community assemblies AND ideologically and theoretically specific libertarian socialist organizations– as well as a strategy of social work and social insertion for purposes of revolutionary social change. Without the distinction between ideologically and theoretically specific groups and social movement organizations, it is quite possible to form a group that tries to do the functions of both yet functionally does not fulfill the functions and aspirations of either (a problem especifismo is consciously responding to). Part of what distinguishes a communalist especifismo approach from especifismo is agreeing with the most salient features of communalism– such as the notion that community assemblies in harmony with the features of communalism are “keystone organizations” to be developed before, during, and after revolutions. Such a specifically communalist orientation is not essential to especifismo despite the actually existing and rich overlap between especifismo organizations and community assemblies of various kinds. However, a communalist approach to organizational dualism heavily influenced by especifsmo (probably the more accurate way of describing this praxis) does not and should not mean a reduction of ideologically specific libertarian communist groups to merely creating and interfacing communal assemblies: Instead, such a communalist approach would be an additional emphasis upon communal assemblies as keystone popular organizations to be prefigured and developed before, during, and after revolutions (for ethical and strategic reasons). The notion that a good society consists of communalist ends shapes the strategy and tactics towards such ends. An ideologically specific libertarian communist group rooted in communalism and heavily influenced by especifismo would be composed of people who agree with communalism and especifismo. Such an ideologically specific group would be actively engaged in social work and social insertion in the spheres of community, union, student, and beyond and the development of federated self-managed communal assemblies as popular organs of oppositional politics and reconstructive politics.

Endnotes: 

Bookchin, Murray. Social Ecology and Communalism. AK Press, 2007.

FARJ. Social Anarchism and Organisation , 2008.

Weaver, Adam. “Especifismo: The Anarchist Praxis of Building Popular Movements and Revolutionary Organization in South America .” libcom.org, 2006. https://libcom.org/library/especifismo-anarchist-praxis-building-popular-movements-revolutionary-organization-south.

Usufruct Collective. Communalist Especifism. 2019

Communalism:

Communalism is a political philosophy and practice. Communalism refers to specific ends to be developed, and specific means and strategies towards developing such ends. Communalists want means and ends to “meet in a rational unity”, where people use communalist processes and practices as means to develop communalist ends (Bookchin 1992). The principles and practices that communalists are in favor of include but are not limited to communal self-governance, direct democracy, non-hierarchy, communal property and usufruct, liberatory technology, free association, co-federation, production for needs and distribution according to needs, mutual aid, and direct action (Bookchin 2007). 

Communalism is grounded in an ethics of freedom, non-hierarchy, mutual aid, complementarity, and unity in diversity (Bookchin 1996). Communalism is in favor of social freedom constituted by the institutionalization of the above ethical features, collective decision making, and the political economic social relations that give rise to good individual freedoms. People should be able to have self-management bounded by the self-management of others. Such an interdependent self -management would mean that people would have the freedom to make decisions about what they do and what affects them personally, socially, politically, economically etc. bounded by such freedoms extended to all– and the responsibility of each and all to respect such freedoms of others. For this kind of freedom to exist on every scale, there needs to be ways for people to make decisions on a community level where that which affects all is decided by all– that is community self-management. If there is a political ruling class–or other kinds of hierarchical relations– then people do not have the freedoms to actually decide how political life functions and on the decisions that they are affected by. In order for decisions about groups to be made where people retain freedoms to make decisions about what they are effected by, then there needs to be at least some kind of direct democracy– direct democracy meaning some kind of direct collective decision making process. 

Direct democracy should not be reduced to a mere vote or ballot. Direct democracy should be a process of dialogue where people collaborate in assemblies to develop plans, actions, and decisions about what effects a group and what that group and persons within it want to do. During such a process, people bring up their ideas, proposals, alternative proposals, considerations, amendments, dissent, critiques, etc. and then try to arrive at collective decisions. This process of cooperative conflict would aim to take the best parts of what everyone is saying as much as possible to round out proposals– as opposed to atomized decision making, conflict averse forms of decision making, and hierarchical power games. There are many ways to practice direct democracy, and the specifics of direct democracy can be adapted to many different kinds of contexts and preferences. If consensus is not arrived at, then a decision can be put to a vote to find out how to move forward after further deliberation. Such direct democracy should exist in tandem with the free association of individuals and individual freedoms. Communalist democracy aims for a form with a content where the decisions made do not violate good sets of freedoms persons, communities, and collectives should have. 

The freedoms persons should have should include robust freedom of and from as well as freedom within associations (participatory relations within egalitarian limits). No one would be coerced to implement decisions–participatory labor, work, and action would replace coerced labor. If a person disagrees with a decision so much that they want to leave a group they are a part of, then they are free to leave as well (and under full communalist social relations, people would be given the means of free association, including access to means of existence, production, transportation, and politics wherever they go). Communalists are in favor of creating bylaws and constitutions that enshrine freedoms and responsibilities within and between organizations.

The kinds of bylaws and constitutions communalists are in favor of are radically different from hierarchical politics. Communalists, being opposed to all hierarchies, are in favor of non-hierarchical bylaws and constitutions (Bookchin 2007). Hierarchies are forms of institutionalized top-down command obedience (Bookchin 2005). Examples of hierarchical relations include a political ruling class ruling over and above people (as exists within all state forms of government), patriarchs ruling over families, bosses commanding workers, or masters commanding slaves, and cops wielding and enforcing hierarchical rule over civilians, and the probabilistic racialized and gendered division of labor and power. Although all of the above are different, they share institutionalized top-down command obedience as a lower common denominator. They all have accompanying epistemologies of rule– worldviews and cultural dimensions that uphold hierarchical institutions (and can even cause hierarchical institutions). Without substantial freedoms from hierarchies, people cannot make decisions about what affects them. In a communalist society, freedom from hierarchy would be enshrined in institutional structures and shared practices, and additionally developed within culture. As opposed to rulers and ruled, communalists are in favor of “rules without rulers” and an expansive realm of freedom within such bounds where there is self management on every scale. Such self management on every scale of existence would include community self-management through community assemblies.

Community assemblies can make decisions on a plurality of scales from the block, to the neighborhood, to the village, to the town, to the city, to regions, etc. to intercommunal relations between all of the above. Community assemblies, and assemblies connecting such assemblies, allow everyone affected by such communal and intercommunal decisions to come together on an equal footing to participate in direct politics. Decisions about city management, communal economics (how to meet people’s needs and desires including production, reproductive labor, protocols for shared use of commons etc.), and collective actions can be made together at these assemblies– that which affects all being decided by all. This allows people to come together to dialogue about how to create a better world and ways to take action together and develop common projects and provide mutual support through horizontalist democratic processes– as well as forging cooperative incentives in the process. By giving everyone common ownership of politics and economics, everyone has a stake in the common good and mutual thriving of each other, where “the good of each cannot be pursued without also pursuing the good of all those who participate,” (MacIntyre 2002, 107). 

Acting locally on a community scale is a great place to start. However, It is not enough for us to merely act locally: on one level, different communities face common and unique problems that would be better solved with the assistance of others. And this interdependence can be organized through mutuality and complementarity as opposed to hierarchical, or competitive, or atomized relations. Additionally, if communities practice mutual assistance of one another, then they can thrive in far greater ways than if they were isolated. Pooling skills, tools, resources, ideas, desires, volunteer capacity, etc. within and between communities, enables more expansive capacity to meet people’s needs. This above kind of process can increase the overall capacity of persons and collectives to act–increasing the range of freedom (and capacity for reconstructive politics and oppositional politics). However, this should be done in a way that respects the sets of freedoms persons and communities joining together should have. Different formal collectives can link up together across distances for joint political economic activity through keeping all decision making power in the hands of people directly. The above inter-collective process is called co-federation (Bookchin 1992). 

Communalists are in favor of delegates of communal assemblies for various communicative, administrative, and coordinative functions. Some examples of delegates roles include notetaker, or facilitator, email correspondent etc, whereas other kinds of delegates are for Co-Federal communication. Such delegates are distinct from representative politicians because they do not have any policy making power and are mandated by communal assemblies (where actual decision making is retained). Such delegates act within the bounds of a mandate given to them from the assembly that delegated them. Each delegate is additionally immediately recallable by the assembly that delegated them. And on top of that, delegates rotate out; they are a temporary role shared by many people over-time. Co-Federal Delegates meet up (in person when needed and possible and supplemented with video and audio chat as needed) to discuss co-federal politics together and then bring back relevant information and communication–assisted by written communication between groups (which can be assisted via electronic communication)– to the general assemblies. This allows dialogue, political/economic activity, and decisions to be made on many scales–block, neighborhood, town/city, between cities, between regions etc. while keeping decision making power in the hands of people directly through communal assemblies. Co-federation is a way of organizing the interdependence we have upon each other along radically egalitarian lines, meeting the economic needs of all, while increasing the overall capacity of people to develop shared goals. Having significant mutual support, shared means of production, economic plans, and political projects within and between communities can help align self interest with social interest– the flourishing of co-federated communities helping the flourishing of individual communities and individual persons. Such a cooperative incentive structure in conjunction with a coherent cluster of practices allows for direct horizontalist governance of the commons (Ostrom 2019) (Bookchin 1992) (Bookchin 2007).

Communalist assemblies can additionally create embedded participatory councils to implement specific agreed upon plans, projects, and actions. These embedded councils of assemblies, like delegates, are mandated by communal assemblies and immediately recallable by them so as to ensure that policy-making power is not privatized over and above the direct assemblies. Sometimes these will be completely open committees, whereas other times specific people might be delegated for some function. Such embedded councils of various kinds self manage within the limits of the policy and mandate given by the direct assembly from below.

In a full communalist society, community assemblies would be rudders of the commons: making direct decisions about common land in use, public facilities, and means of production. Communal assemblies can make decisions about public space, resolving incompatible preferences, to protocols for use for specific infrastructure, solving common problems, and developing common projects and actions etc. The economic sphere and the reproduction of daily life would be integrated into the horizontalist political sphere of community assemblies. Under full communalism land and means of production are “integrated into the commune as a material constituent of its libertarian institutional framework, indeed as a part of a larger whole… not as vocationally oriented interest groups.” (Bookchin 2005). The economy would become “a truly political economy: the economy of the… commune” where “the economy is genuinely communized as well as politicized” (Bookchin 2005). This political economy would have embedded participatory working groups and councils implementing specific decisions and self managing within their mandates from below. This enables participatory decisions during decision making and self management during implementation without privatizing the economy over and above the communes. The self-managed work needed to reproduce daily life would be shared according to abilities and volition. Production would be for needs, desires and use. Additionally, distribution would be according to needs and desires with guaranteed access to the means of existence (food, water shelter, energy, clothing, healthcare, education, internet, instruments for hobbies, etc.) on top of access to communal cornucopia including shared means of production, communal fruits of labor, horizontalist political power, library based access systems, public spaces, facilities, public transportation, etc. Under post scarcity conditions, a functional access abundance would exist for everything people need as well as most everything people want. And on the way towards developing post-scarcity conditions– such as in a revolutionary process that is under external attack in turbulent and less than ideal conditions– communal economics can distribute more essential and abundant resources according to needs in a way where there is more than enough for all, and less essential and more scarce resources according to some communistic rationing (for example as practiced by the thousands of societies that have existed with communal property, or as talked about by Kropotkin in The Conquest of Bread, or as practiced by communes during several libertarian socialist revolutions) (Kropotkin 2017).

Communalists are in favor of using technology in an ecological and freeing way– meaning in conjunction with free political economic and social structures and relations (Bookchin 2018). What counts as liberatory technology will vary according to different relevant variables people are adapting to. Political economic and social contexts shape the means through which technology is developed, the ends through which it is developed for, and the ways technology is used (and the ends it is used for). Liberatory technology approximates a moving ideal of the right kind of technology for the right functions, in the right contexts for the right ends, through the right means. Such liberatory technology would approximate technology that is produced through liberatory means for liberatory ends, used through liberatory means for liberatory ends. Some kinds of technology would be liberatory if it were embedded within free social relations. Some Technology that would have been liberatory if it were combined with free social relations in some time/space locations would not be liberatory in other contexts (or if it were combined with other variables). For example, building a standard 1970’s solar panel would not be liberatory compared to a more efficient one with more contemporary technology. How it might make sense to adapt houses to one geographic area’s ecological features might not make sense in another area. Additionally, solar panels could be used to fuel something as wholesome as a social center or as evil as a police station! And due to people’s different needs and different preferences, one style of design of a particular thing (for example, a house, or a chair, or shoes) might make sense for some people but not for others. That being said, here is a list of some technology that could be considered to be liberatory– or more accurately potentially liberatory technology when combined with the right social processes: solar energy, wind energy, wave energy, tidal energy, geothermal energy, recycling, regenerative materials, agroecology, restoration agriculture, biochar, aeroponics plant based batteries, rainwater collection and purification, water desalination, 3d printing, modular design, free software, computers, automation of toil (which can be done to things like full production of cars and houses as well as simpler production processes), etc. Of course for any of the above to be sufficiently liberatory, they will have to be in tandem with approximations of ethical processes and ethical ends–in regards to production process, distribution, and use. 

Additionally, computerization can assist assemblies and co-federations of assemblies with decentralized planning of production and distribution (through software with interactive open collaboration between groups and people to coordinate knowledge of ecological dynamics of areas, resources available, regeneration rates, overall needs, volunteers for specific activities or kinds of activities, specific production specific people or places need help with etc.). As opposed to production of things to be bought and sold, communalist production is planned based on the needs and desires of people. Production can be implemented by participatory councils within community assemblies and some of such implementation can be entirely automated or partially automated. Most unwanted mechanical labor CAN be automated, so in a fully developed communalist production process, it would be up to people to decide what automatable mechanical processes they want to automate. Some production would be done for library based access stations (where people can access items as personal possessions that rotate), and other production would be intended for personal possessions that don’t rotate (or at least don’t rotate at the rate of specific library goods). Production protocols can be agreed upon and changed as needed. Such an approach would aim towards a post scarcity economy.

A communalist society would have a justice system that is neither based on arbitrary nor centralized power. First and foremost, a communalist society is in favor of transforming underlying hierarchical conditions that are the biggest causes of abuse, unmet needs, violence, (Wilkinson and Pickett 2011) and other violations of what should be people’s freedoms. Additionally, the presence of solidaristic, free, and egalitarian institutions and social relations help to develop virtues in people that minimize such injustice and promote pro-social behavior (Usufruct Collective 2019). The best parts of and ways of doing transformative justice and restorative justice demonstrate a justice process based on group dialogue and agreed upon steps for moving forward in a way that stops harmful behaviors or transforms underlying causes of them. Although not universally successful, such approaches have less recidivism and higher victim satisfaction compared to punitive approaches (Latimer et al. 2005)– and do not come with all of the evils of prisons and cops, which include but are not limited to enforcing the biggest causes of violent behavior (overall inequality caused by class relations and hierarchies). Self defense and defense of others is another important part of liberatory conflict resolution: in dire scenarios, using self defense and defense of others is by far the most peaceful or otherwise ethical option compared to standing idly by and a whole array of other conflict resolution options. There would be non-hierarchical standards for institutions and justified defense as opposed to hierarchical rule and arbitrary rule. As confederations of good societies develop overtime, the root causes of unjust violence would dramatically diminish.

A communalist politics would also be an ecological politics. As social ecology astutely points out, the root causes of ecological problems are caused by specific malleable political, economic, and social institutions and relations and also have political, economic, and social solutions. There are Ecological dimensions of communalism that are present within features of communalism besides ecology itself. For example, opposition to hierarchy is an ecological principle because hierarchy is the greatest cause of ecological destruction through the “power-over mechanism”– a mechanism that becomes an imperative for any ruling class or strata to maintain and expand their hierarchical power. For hierarchical institutions to develop overtime, hierarchical forms must develop hierarchical content and such a power-over mechanism will in turn instrumentalize humans and ecosystems to hierarchical power accumulation at the expense of societies and ecosystems. Capitalism in particular destroys the ecological world at particularly fast rates through the profit imperative, commodity production, and wage labor, etc. Capitalism is also enforced by states– and there are other hierarchies embedded within capitalist and state structures such as divisions of power and labor along lines of gender, race, nationality, etc. And hierarchical institutions have accompanying cultural dimensions that inhibit rational, caring, and informed actions. Communalist politics would not only abolish such hierarchical root causes of ecological destruction, but would also create mutualistic, rational, and caring inter-communal politics (with accompanying “epistemologies of freedom” as opposed to epistemologies of rule). An ecological politics would recognize the responsibilities us social-political-institutional animals have to be good ecological stewards. A communalist approach to ecological stewardship and developing mutualistic relations between human communities and broader ecological communities would include: 1. the abolition of the root causes of ecological destruction, 2. the presence of new social conditions for politics, economics, and managing the commons conducive to post scarcity and ecological economics, (Ostrom 2019) (Bookchin 2005) (Bookchin 2018) 3. a content of abolishing anti-ecological technology (such as but not limited to fossil fuels), 4. a content of using and developing ecological-technology (ecological criteria being crucial dimensions of what makes technology liberatory), and 5. the development of a meaningfully ecological sensibility and liberatory culture conducive to people making informed, rational, and caring decisions (politically and extra-politically, in regards to humans and the broader ecological world). Social ecology does not pose robust political, economic, and social freedom and a good standard of living for all against ecological resilience; instead social ecology sees the development of the former as needed to meaningfully address hierarchically induced ecological crises (Bookchin 2007).

Reconstructive Politics and Oppositional politics:

Communalist assemblies must contain/develop a gestalt of ethical principles embedded within their processes and practices to be communalist assemblies. Such assemblies have specific yet broad content that they do which can be broadly summarized as reconstructive politics and oppositional politics. 

Reconstructive politics aims at creating the institutions and actions that we should develop in the world. Communalists judge what should be reconstructed according to the above principles talked about–direct democracy, non-hierarchy, co-federalism, free association, rules without rulers, mandated and recallable delegates, embedded councils, production and distribution based on needs, etc. This creates a content of direct action, mutual aid, and communalist institution building towards a world based on such practices. Mutual aid, on a social level, refers to mutual support based on horizontalist institutions and voluntary relations to meet one another’s needs. Reconstructive politics includes things like setting up community assemblies, mutual aid collectives, collective kitchens, community centers, social centers, free food distribution, tool and resource libraries, free resource distribution, community gardens, community technology projects, community and worker controlled cooperatives, socializing labor needed to reproduce daily life, credit unions, transformative conflict resolution councils, popular education groups, etc. The list of potential mutual aid projects and reconstructive projects that could be developed is far too long to list. 

Oppositional politics should be developed so we can approximate various ethical ends including the processes and ends of good reconstructive politics. Any sustained movement that includes oppositional politics needs some way to meet the needs of the participants and would be participants. Mutual aid collectives can help and/or be part of oppositional political movements to meet their needs– and help oppositional politics become more resilient (and, however vaguely or concretely, point towards a positive program of mutual aid). In the interim from here to a better society, such reconstructive politics can fuel oppositional movements, help to meet people’s needs (a goal in itself), help educate participants through experience on how to have an organization that is self-managed, and some of such reconstructive projects can make sense as things that keep existing after the revolution such as community assemblies and various kinds of people powered infrastructure. On top of horizontalist community assemblies being reconstructive projects themselves (despite also doing oppositional politics), other reconstructive projects can be embedded within, started by, or helped by community assemblies. 

For communalists, oppositional politics refers to opposing social problems, especially opposing hierarchies. Communalists advocate for using and use direct democracy, direct action, community assemblies, and other self-managed organizations in the process through which we oppose hierarchical institutions– so that we develop processes and means conducive to liberatory ends. Direct action refers to people directly acting together without being mediated by top down command obedience in their own processes. Direct action most commonly refers to oppositional politics in particular with the above features.  Direct action is deliberated about through direct democracy. Oppositional politics against hierarchy is comprised of many kinds of actions: There are occupations, expropriations (seizing land, products, raw materials, resources, instruments of production, infrastructure etc.), blockades (blocking hierarchical processes), strikes (withholding labor), community self defense, property destruction, insurrections, boycotts, rallies, sabotage, sit-ins, marches, etc. The above can be put together strategically in tandem with reconstructive politics in concerted efforts against hierarchical institutions and for short term and long term goals. Oppositional politics can be organized through community assemblies, radical unions, tenant unions, affinity groups, issue specific social movement groups etc.– or even all of the above in some way! Direct action can be “institutionalized” via directly democratic institutions that exist to sustain direct collective action. As Bookchin says in The Ecology of Freedom, “A relationship between an assembled populace that formulates policies in a face-to-face manner and such actions as strikes, civil disobedience, and even insurrection can be established around the right of a people to assume unmediated control over public life,” (Bookchin 2005). Community assemblies can also easily play formal or informal assist roles to most any kind of direct action (and they can help catalyze other groups that can help organize direct actions, can help provide mutual aid and mutual aid infrastructure to sustained actions– as well as a solidaristic community of potential volunteers!).

A communalist politics would apply the general principles of communalism through organization building, direct action, and mutual aid on local and co-federated regional scales. This process would strive to meet people’s needs, oppose unjust and unfree institutions and relations, and build the kind of organizations that should exist as much as we can in the present, and teach and learn from one another in a process of education through dialogue and action. This process would arrive at short term gains and victories and also develop a vision and world incompatible with hierarchical society overtime. The specifics of how to apply communalism will vary based on all sorts of relevant variables such as needs and preferences of people in a given area, ecological factors, technological factors, specific power relations and infrastructure in a given area and beyond, ideological composition of the population, military and propaganda power of opponents etc. However through such adaptations, communalist politics ought to develop and maintain its essential dimensions– otherwise it could lead to a one sided politics that has some communalist features combined with some evil, unfree, unstrategic, or harmful features (or combined with a lack of features needed to round out the other features).  

Communalism aims to organize as much of the non-ruling class as possible, and seeks to unite people together through communal assemblies, other self-managed organizations, direct actions, and mutual aid projects. Communalist assembles can develop oppositional politics and reconstructive politics at the points of reproduction, production, distribution, politics (city/community management), extraction, and consumption. This allows a flexible approach that can adapt well to specific conditions while also potentially organizing on multiple fronts in strategic ways. 

If self management on every scale is good, then we need communal self management as an end. Without communal self management, decisions about community life are privatized in some sense over and above the communal sphere and the people directly. Such a goal of self management on every scale bounded by the self-management of others determines the means we ought to use. We need structures that embody communal self governance, direct democracy, non-hierarchy, co-federalism, direct action, mutual aid, etc. to develop such ends. 

////

1. Bookchin, Murray. The Philosophy of Social Ecology: Essays on Dialectical Naturalism. Montréal: Black Rose Books, 1996.

2. Bookchin, Murray. Social Ecology and Communalism. Oakland, CA: AK Press, 2007.

3. Bookchin, Murray. The Ecology of Freedom: the Emergence and Dissolution of Hierarchy. Oakland, CA: AK Press, 2005.

4. Ostrom, Elinor. Governing the Commons the Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019.

5. Bookchin, Murray. Urbanization without Cities: the Rise and Decline of Citizenship. Montréal: Black Rose Books, 1992.

6. Bookchin, Murray. Post-Scarcity Anarchism. Chico: AK, 2018.

7. Kropotkin, Petr Alekseevich. The Conquest of Bread / Peter Kropotkin. Place of publication not identified: Aziloth Books, 2017.

8. Bookchin, Murray. “Municipalization: Community Ownership of the Economy.” libcom.org, 2005. https://libcom.org/library/municipalization-murray-bookchin.

9. Latimer, Jeff, Craig Dowden, and Danielle Muise. “The Effectiveness of Restorative Justice Practices: A Meta Analysis.” The Prison Journal Vol. 85 , no. No. 2 (2005): 127–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885505276969.

10. Wilkinson, Richard G., and Kate Pickett. The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger. New York: Bloomsbury Press, 2011.

11. Usufruct Collective. “A Gestalt of the Good,” March 2019. https://usufructcollective.wordpress.com/2020/08/15/towards-a-gestalt-of-the-good/.

12. Macintyre, Alasdair. Dependent Rational Animals: Why Human Beings Need the Virtues. Chicago and La Salle (Illinois): Open Court, 2002.

12/15/18

Latest revision: 01/01/2024

Communalist Starter Kit:

Communalism:

Communalism refers to the means and ends of directly democratic, non-hierarchical, co-federated community assemblies that seek to meet people’s needs via mutual aid, oppose hierarchy and domination via direct action, and to build the new world within the shell of the old towards the formation of dual power, revolution, and libertarian communism. It is a praxis that applies universal practices to particular contexts— adapting to relevant conditions and variables accordingly. Communalist projects seek to intertwine reconstructive politics, oppositional politics, principled action, and consequential efficacy– using ethical processes and practices strategically to achieve good short-term, mid-term, and long-term goals.

The Communal Form of Freedom:

The cellular node of communalism–the major form of freedom put forward by communalism–is the community assembly. Assemblies in harmony with communalism are community assemblies that are rooted in a form and content of direct democracy, non-hierarchy/horizontality, free association, direct action, mutual aid/commoning, etc. Community assemblies are needed for self-management to exist on the community scale. Community assemblies are places for dialogue and collective decision making about how to meet needs, solve social problems, oppose domination, transform society, and develop collective actions and projects to do the above. Self-managed community assemblies have embedded participatory councils/committees/working groups/rotating delegate roles to implement specific decisions within the bounds of the overall decisions/policies/mandates/protocols decided by community assemblies. Community assemblies can co-federate to develop inter-communal mutual aid and commons, direct action, coordination, and decision making. In such co-federal arrangements, delegates are sent back and forth between co-federal councils and community assemblies where policy making power stays at the lowest level in the hands of community assemblies and participants directly.

***In addition to community assemblies, all (or most all) communalists favor an ecosystem of various self-managed organizations and social movements that use liberatory means towards liberatory ends.

Developing the commons:

Communalism aim to prefigure and develop the commons overtime. The development of the commons refers to the development of shared social re/production to meet needs/mutual-aid and related commonly held resources. Commons are managed by those who need and interact with given communities and economic life by community assemblies and their embedded councils. The prefiguration of generalized mutual aid and the commons can look like anything from general and specific mutual aid groups (providing direct goods and services for free to participants and others), community free stores, tool libraries, resource libraries, to communal housing, fields, factories, workshops, recreational facilities, and infrastructure. Prefiguring the commons can help forge mutual interest between people where the wellbeing and thriving of each happens through contributing to the wellbeing and thriving of all. The commons can be developed out of what people pool together and they can also be seized through expropriating and communalizing hierarchically managed property and then defending such commons from hierarchical forces. For the commons to fully bloom, hierarchical property must be expropriated by popular organizations and social movements. The overall development of mutual aid and the commons can help 1. Meet needs of participants in community assemblies and other social movement groups 2. Help share the social reproduction of community assemblies and social movement groups 3. Fuel and assist direct action projects of such assemblies and groups 4. Help those who are most dispossessed 5. Help multiply and prefigure the contents of communal self-management and distribution according to needs in the process of social movement development.

In a good society:

In a good society, politics and economics would be integrated into co-federated, non-hierarchical, and directly democratic communes that have embedded self managed councils and rotating delegates for implementation of communal decisions. People in assemblies would dialogue/deliberate, make direct collective decisions, and make agreements to share labor/work, and take collective action. The embedded councils of community assemblies would self-manage implementation of decisions within the bounds of policies, protocols, and mandates decided by community assemblies. Re/Production would be to meet the needs and desires of people. And accordingly, distribution would be according to needs, desires, and use where all would have access to a cornucopia that is reproduced and developed by shared participatory labor, work, and action assisted by ecological and liberatory technology.

Points of Unity for Shared Processes and Practices:

Directly democratic forms are needed for direct collective decision making about what people want to do and about what affects them. Without direct democracy, there is no collective self-determination NOR is there individual self-determination in relation to collective decisions. But direct democracy on its own is necessary but insufficient for the full flourishing of the freedom of each and all; directly democratic forms can be instrumentalized towards anti-democratic, non-egalitarian, and otherwise unfree content. To avoid authoritarian form and content, it is important that assemblies and the decisions they make are in harmony with certain minimal liberatory qualities/practices.

Community assemblies in harmony with communalism have shared processes and practices for political form and content that at least include direct democracy, free association, non-hierarchy, communal self-governance, co-federalism, mutual aid, and direct action. Direct democracy, as in direct collective decision making, is essential for collective freedom. Direct democracy within free association of persons, without ruling classes, and without hierarchical relations, makes it so the form and content of assemblies are not instrumentalized towards arbitrarily limiting freedoms of persons. Communal self governance is needed for self-management to exist on every scale and to prevent the privatization of power over and above communities. Co-federalism allows for inter-collective decision making and cooperation between community assemblies in a way where all policy making power is held by community assemblies and participants thereof directly. Mutual aid is needed for multi-directional cooperation and action to meet the needs of people. Oppositional direct action against hierarchy and domination is needed to oppose hierarchical rule and meet needs of people through such opposition. The above can be applied to particular contexts in a relatively infinite variety of ways. Self-management (including the substance of direct democracy, free association, and non-hierarchy), direct action, and mutual aid, etc. can exist as points of unity for shared processes and practices within an organization and within and through relevant constitutions, bylaws, decision making processes, rights and duties, programs, and actions of communal assemblies. It is also of course possible for the substance of such features to be included in shared processes, practices, and agreements in relation to processes and practices without using those specific words.

Strategy:

The strategy of communalism consists of developing dual power against capitalism, statecraft, and hierarchy more broadly by using communalist means, structures, and processes to develop communalist ends. Communalism involves oppositional politics– opposing hierarchies via direct action through self-managed means. Another dimension of communalism is reconstructive politics and mutual aid– meeting the needs of social movements and people more broadly through horizontal communal organizations, embedded councils/committees/working groups, common infrastructure, and pooling skills, tools, needs, abilities, resources on various scales. It is important to create a form and content rooted in communalist processes, practices, and goals. In order to do so, people must convince others through dialogue and action of various liberatory practices–such as direct democracy, direct action, and mutual aid. A good way to convince people to use such methods is to focus together on common needs, common goals, and common struggles and to use dialogue and demonstration to show that horizontal direct democracy, mutual aid, and direct action etc. can help arrive at various goals people have better than hierarchical means. It is up to participants of assemblies to nourish assemblies with an ethical and effective oppositional content.

Community assemblies and embedded councils can develop oppositional and reconstructive politics at the points of reproduction, production, distribution, extraction, consumption, and community life. Community assemblies can potentially organize direct actions, direct action campaigns, and direct action committees against any general and particular hierarchy within and beyond a specific community or region. Additionally, community assemblies can potentially organize around meeting a whole array of specific and general needs through mutual aid and commoning (the development of the commons and related social relations and community resources). Community assemblies and embedded councils can develop, help with, and participate in many different kinds of oppositional and reconstructive politics. Direct action tactics aimed at specific hierarchies for specific goals can include chains and combinations of occupations of hierarchical infrastructure, full on expropriation of hierarchical infrastructure and land, means of production and fruits of labor, oppositional civil disobedience, picket lines, strikes, blockades, sabotage, boycotts, insurrections, marches, and community self defense. The content of mutual aid can be related to the mutual aid that goes into direct action as well as free food distribution, free resource and service distribution more broadly, developing common means of existence and production, common/collective-work, and common infrastructure, etc.

As community assemblies start developing across different blocks, neighborhoods, villages/towns/cities, and regions, they can work on joint actions and projects as well as form more formal and continuous co-federal structures of community assemblies on various scales. Community assemblies rooted in communalist practices aim towards democratizing and communalizing power, meeting people’s needs, coordinating direct action against various hierarchical powers, while developing the commons and horizontal governance structures to replace hierarchical economics and governance structures before, during, and after revolutionary moments. As community assemblies multiply and coordinate on joint actions and joint projects, they can gain sufficient capacity, organizational virtues, collective wisdom, experience, momentum, and legitimacy to contest local and regional hierarchical governments, expropriate hierarchical infrastructure institute community and inter-community self-management as a new form of politics and economics.

In a sense, communalism is to community organizing as syndicalism is to workplace organizing. Syndicalism is rooted in self-managed workplace organizing towards revolution and socialism through meeting immediate needs via oppositional direct action against capitalism and other hierarchies. In contrast, communalism is focused on self-managed community organizing, reconstructive politics of prefiguring the commons, mutual aid, and new forms of decision making and governance WHILE also doing oppositional direct actions against multiple forms of political, economic, and social hierarchies– aimed at revolution and a communalist society and meeting needs of people along the way.

The process of developing a liberatory ecosystem of collectives is done in part through developing community assemblies and embedded councils /working groups of community assemblies. However, it is also through incubating and/or assisting various groups–such as solidarity networks, direct action collectives, mutual aid collectives, popular education organizations, free stores, tenants’ unions, radical labor unions, community and worker controlled cooperatives that help social movements, ecological technology projects, a multitude of issue specific groups, etc. These building blocks can collaborate to help each other out mutualistically and create alternative and counter institutions to business as usual. Community assemblies–outside of developing the commons, direct action arms, and other embedded projects of assemblies– can incubate, coordinate with, and help other organizations rooted in direct democracy, direct action, and mutual aid. Such potentially revolutionary building blocks can join to become more than the sum total of their parts in mutualistic relationships. Such an approach can develop and coordinate more fragmented movements and unite them through shared projects and events rooted in practices of direct democracy, direct action, and mutual aid (distinct from getting groups to adopt libertarian socialism as an ideology).

Communalist politics are prefigurative in the sense that such community assemblies and self-managed institutions try to model the world they want to create in their forms, contents, and processes. Communalist politics are also are goal oriented require strategy; the new world does not exist yet and is something that we need to develop out of unfolding conditions to bridge the gap from here to there. The necessary features of communalism (form and content wise) are necessary but insufficient for communalist goals. It is crucial for communalist practices to be adapted and modified according to relevant variables, conditions, needs, and desires. Although it is of course true that instrumental strategic reasoning without due ethical considerations for means and processes utilized can lead to brutality: merely prefigurative approaches–especially ones that don’t realize a distance between means and ends, and not just where there should be consistency between them– can lead to projects with no meaningful attempt to re-organize power and confront hierarchical conditions.

ByLaws/Decision Making Process:

Bylaws should be fleshed out as a community assembly develops. A good initial aspect of communalist bylaws is some kind of good-enough decision making process. This can be as simple as follows:

1. Deliberation happens through volunteering to speak and forming a stack. *people in important disagreements should be given due time to go back and forth about their disagreements before returning to stack so they can clarify and argue for their positions. Specific mechanisms for this need to be fleshed out

2. Decisions are made through deliberation. Deliberation includes finding out needs, desires, abilities, relevant variables and conditions, talking about problems, possible solutions, questions, critiques, agreements, disagreements, amendments, counter-proposals, etc. The assembly tries to develop consensus. When there is not a consensus, then the decision is further deliberated upon and then gets put to vote.

3. If consensus is not arrived at, then decisions are made by simple majority–decentralizing decision making and veto power.

4. Part of a deliberation and decision making process includes how such decisions will be implemented and who will implement such decisions. Implementation of decisions is done via free agreement of groups and persons.

5. Committees and rotating delegates do not make policy over and above the assemblies that mandate them. They are to self manage within the bounds of the policies, protocols, and mandates from the community assembly. Committees and rotating delegates are to be subject to immediate recall by the community assembly.

6. Proposals and Decisions must be in harmony with the relevant group constitution/bylaws/rights and duties/or points of unity for process and practice. *such group constitution/bylaws/rights and duties/points of unity for process and pracrtice etc. should be rooted in direct democracy/free association/non-hierarchy/co-federation/mutual-aid/direct action etc.

This can be fleshed out and adapted as needed. Focusing too much on the specifics of decision making processes and bylaws at the beginning can turn people away and also become unnecessarily process oriented at the expense of collective action and goals. However, not having a good enough processes can lead to hierarchical and arbitrary power instead of clear horizontal democratic methods. It is important to use sufficiently ethical and practical processes to develop actions and ends worth developing. Having some kind of rudimentary liberatory structure from the beginning for people to deliberate about and modify can help set a project up on self-managed terms– which can be tweaked and fleshed out as needed. It is important to think about deliberation and decision making processes, dispute resolution processes, various delegate positions, and ways that committees and delegates relate to the community assemblies they are a part of as these kinds of issues will come up relatively soon in the process of organizing.

In self-managed community assemblies, the policies are decided by community assemblies and participants thereof. Embedded committees then self-manage the implementation of that policy within the mandates, policies, and protocols decided by the community assembly. Similarly, delegates would have no policy making power and would serve purely communicative, coordinative, and administrative roles within their mandates. Such roles would be rotated and there would be a fostering of general knowledge throughout the assembly project about how to do various roles. Part of the assembly project is a process of practical education for those involved to find out how to self-manage an organization. People bring their different propositional and practical knowledge to the table and the assembly should serve as a teaching and learning experience for all involved.

Embedded Councils/Committees/Working Groups:

When community assemblies vote on specific policies, embedded councils/committees/working groups can be started to then implement the policy. At community assemblies, people can make agreements to share the labor/work needed to implement various policies. Embedded councils/committees/working groups of community assemblies self-manage their own affairs within the bounds of the policies, protocols, and mandates decided by community assemblies from below. The policies/protocols/mandates from below should at least be in harmony with minimal liberatory processes and practices enshrined within the formal organizational structures and rulesets of community assemblies. Embedded councils/committees/working groups can have broad or specific mandates–and depending on the specific decisions and contexts, the mandates should be more specific or more broad. It will make sense to make some committees open to all members of community assemblies (or even non-member volunteers at times!), and to make other committees closed (where only those specifically delegated can join). Sometimes it makes sense for councils/committees/working groups to be made of only a few people whereas other times it makes sense for them to be more populous. Different embedded councils/committees/working groups can bring relevant information and proposals to the respective assemblies they are part of. Embedded councils/committees/working groups are instantly recallable by their respective assemblies. Community assemblies can reorganize embedded councils/committees/working groups at will. Assemblies are also places for participants/multiple councils/committees/working groups of assemblies to coordinate together on joint actions and projects. People can work on multiple councils/committees/working groups and volunteer for, share, and rotate labor/work going into them as needed and desired.

Some embedded councils/committees/working groups will be designed to be continuous and ongoing. Other embedded councils/committees/working groups might be intentionally designed to disappear after a specific event, chain of events, or project. Others embedded councils/committees/working groups might be intended to be continuous only but wind up only making sense as temporary or vice versa. Some of these embedded councils/committees/working groups will be more rooted in oppositional politics while others will be more rooted in reconstructive politics– while others participate rather thoroughly in both. By being part of a generalized communalist project and being strategically assembled, multiple councils/committees/working groups and kinds thereof can help the general communalist project and each other.

Some embedded councils/committees/working groups will be of communal assemblies whereas other embedded councils/committees/working groups will be in relation to co-federations of assemblies. Assemblies should be big enough to have multiple embedded councils/committees/working groups, but also small enough to enable everyone to meaningfully participate in deliberation and decision making together. When assemblies get too populous, they can decentralize into multiple assemblies that then federate together.

***Some projects can be incubated within assemblies with the goal of such projects becoming their own stand alone projects over time. Whether a specific project should be embedded within assemblies, incubated by assemblies but eventually distinct, in relations of mutual assistance with assemblies, or separate from assemblies will vary from project to project and context to context. On one level ecosystems of liberatory organizations and movements are needed. However, if different groups do not strategically combine forces to row in a similar enough and/or mutualistic direction, then movements can be limiting their potential and even acting in a way that is less than the sum total of their parts!

Delegate Roles:

Although communalism is against any kind of representative policy making, communalism is not against coordinative, communicative, and administrative roles. Such roles should be mandated and recallable and have no policy making power. Such roles should be rotated–so no one person has to do too much work, so no one person monopolizes such roles, and to increase general knowledge of participants. Sometimes it can make sense for some delegate roles to be done by co-delegates. For some examples, delegate roles can include a secretary or note taker position, a treasurer position, a digital outreach coordinator (emails, website, social media, etc), and co-federal delegates to coordinate between assemblies and then go back to the assembly base where actual decisions are made.

A crucial goal of delegates, outside of the functions they are delegated to do, is to organize themselves out of their positions and make sure the torches get passed on– along with the knowledge needed for their roles. This creates function redundancy and resiliency. One way to do this is to stagger the role so the new person coming into a delegate role learns from the prior delegate. Delegates can exist through nomination and self nomination and then a vote (or lack of dissent). Delegates should be rotating rather than permanent. Some kind of spinning role chart (that passes applicable delegate roles in a circle overtime between all members of an organization) or sortition process might also make sense for some delegate roles or tasks to carry out in some assemblies. Such processes can encourage shared labor, shared knowledge of how to do various delegate functions, and encourage people and assemblies to not turn such temporarily held delegate roles into roles permanently occupied by anyone. All else equal: The more the social reproduction of an assembly is shared among many participants–within and outside of specific delegate roles– the more resilient that overall project will be. Additionally, sharing such social reproduction is crucial to overcoming gendered divisions of labor.

Before one starts a Community Assembly:

It can be good to start with a core group of people who understand the basic praxis of communalism (although this is not needed). It might even make sense to even start as a reading group to review the basics of libertarian communism and communalism and to dialogue, theorize, and strategize about what it would mean to apply communalist praxis to one’s specific location. Ideally, some of the people helping to start a community assembly are well versed in the basic theories and practices of libertarian socialism, communalism, social ecology and/or other philosophies and practices based on features such as “communal property”, commons, usufruct, direct collective decision making etc. All else equal: if initial assembly members are not all from identically overlapping social circles, then assemblies will be better able to reach out to others for collaborative projects. For example, if three people trying to coauthor a communalist project each know two potentially interested neighbors the others do not know, and those potentially interested neighbors each know two potentially interested neighbors the others do not know: then assembly members can more quickly multiply to include more and more people within a given locale.

It can be helpful to find people already sympathetic and then reach out to others–that is to reach inwards for the express purpose of gaining capacity to reach outwards to ordinary people with such a project. It is important for community assemblies to be popular organizations rather than ideologically specific groups or “lower common denominator of the left” kinds of organizations. The goal is to reach outwards to ordinary people and fellow weirdos through a community assembly project rooted in meeting needs without compromising on the minimal practices of direct democracy, non-hierarchy, mutual aid, and direct action. The goal is for such liberatory practices to be wielded by people to meet their needs and the needs of others. If there are not as many ideologically motivated libertarian socialists and the like in one’s given organizing locale, then one can start by finding a few people sufficiently interested in some of the processes/practices/goals of community assemblies to help start such a project; the chances are that if one searches, one can find some comrades, friends, and neighbors interested in an egalitarian community assembly to address needs through direct democracy and collective action up. While one or two people can (and sometimes should) do an initial public call for an assembly to find others, ideally one is working in a group of three or more people to get an initial assembly started.

Before one brings a community assembly to the public, it can make sense to have some kind of pre-drafted idea of the skeletal structure and orientation of the project which can then be proposed to and modified by people who are interested in co-authoring a community assembly project. The structure of assemblies should be fleshed out enough to be coherent, transparent, and practical while being flexible enough to be adaptable and to include a large realm of permissibility within the bounds of the self management of each and all. Although the following will have to be deliberated amongst people and adapted to needs and preferences of participants: having a consistent meeting space ready, some brief skeletal organizational proposals (for example skeletal versions of good-enough and brief decision making processes/bylaws/points of unity for practice), an outreach plan, and some initial projects that are possible (not necessarily to be proposed but more to stimulate imagination and interest) can be useful before starting a community assembly. If people cannot find a more ideal meeting space, then a backyard, garage, or public space of some kind can work sufficiently well.

All else equal, It is ideal to plan how a community assembly is strategically introduced to the public. However, the starting point is distinct from its overall developmental potential and is just one of many features to think about when developing a community assembly. It is almost always more sustainable long term for a group to start out moving at a slow pace–working on short-term goals and tangible achievable projects through self-managed processes to build themselves up before they more fully reach out and take on more difficult projects. It is also possible to start a communalist project too slowly– to the point where important moments get missed where it would have made sense for a project to have already been introduced to the public and/or already be tackling larger scale and more difficult issues. No amount of prior planning will be able to exhaustively deal with the turbulence of putting theories into action. However, thinking about how to develop a meaningful beginning and trajectory is far more fruitful than throwing darts at a board in the dark and hoping they stick.

Sometimes it makes sense to start a community assembly around a specific issue or project that people are interested in. Other-times it makes sense to start assemblies to find out what issues or projects should be focused on. Both approaches have pros and cons. Starting with specific issue based projects (related to or not related to already existing movements with momentum) can lead to getting pigeonholed into particular areas that are reductionist compared to the wide array of content assemblies can and should develop. Starting with assemblies to then collectively find projects to develop together to meet needs can be too vague and abstract to motivate people– especially at first. However such a process begins, overtime, both assemblies and specific projects that they focus on need to develop in tandem. There are MANY ways to start self-managed community assemblies and the way a specific assembly starts is less important than how it develops.

Research/Community Mapping:

Questions like “how do we reach out and organize with the unorganized/the non-ruling class/ordinary people/fellow weirdos?”, “what committees and projects should we try to develop?”, “what collectives already exist that we can work with on various levels?”, “how do we spread popular education initiatives?”, “how do we keep our eyes on the prize of transforming society while engaging in intermediate steps?”, “how do we link short-term and long-term goals?”, “which projects should we focus on given current conditions and our current levels and limits of capacity?” “how do we reach out without sacrificing what should be minimal goals we have and minimal practices we use?”, “how do we use our collective capacity in a way where we become more than the sum total of our parts?” etc. are just some of the many important questions one should be asking oneself and others when organizing a communalist project.

Community assemblies can include various kinds of self-managed grassroots social science research that can help inform decisions people make. People starting or otherwise participating in community assemblies should try to map out who potential participants and supporters are. People can do continuous inquiry to find out the political/economic/social compositions of the non-ruling class (and segments thereof) and the ruling class. Forging a living map of local political, economic, and social life can help with general assembly functioning. People can do continuous inquiry to find out problems people face and aspirations people have. Assemblies and committees and co-researchers can utilize many methods such as: already existing data and research, local history, trans-local history, ethnography/participant observation, surveys, oral history, workers’ inquiry and community inquiry, sociological statistical methods, ecological surveys, etc. Such community produced social science can be as fleshed out or skeletal as assemblies, committees, and participants want it to be and can be done with various social movement researchers. Such a process, aside from providing relevant information for decision making and movement strategy, can help generalize practical social science and research methods to assembly members (which can also help people make wiser decisions). Far from social science methods being beyond the grasp of ordinary people, they are methods people can utilize to assist social movement action. Relevant unfolding political, economic, social, and ecological variables can be compiled and shared with assembly members and the public as needed/desired. Such data combined with various kinds of local knowledge people have can help inform decisions people make.

People starting a community assembly should try to map out various forces opposed to such a project. It is important to be aware of who the local ruling class are, which right wing, liberal, and authoritarian-“left” organizations might be obstacles, and to research potential for police and state repression in one’s area and generally. People can also research various pressure points of relevant local and regional hierarchical systems to help think about potential ways action can be applied by popular movements to such pressure points to achieve liberatory goals.

***Research and community mapping should be adapted to specific projects, actions, and goals and integrated as part of deliberation in assemblies and embedded councils.

Outreach:

Outreach can be done in a plurality of ways. Different methods will make more and less sense to utilize depending on the scale of the assembly or assembly project being promoted (as well as many other relevant variables). Word of mouth, face-to-face , and one-on-one interactions and communication are very important. One-on-one outreach can also be done via one-on-one text invitations. Door-to-door approaches are underused and very effective at reaching out beyond the already existing left. People can do word of mouth, flyering, and handbill outreach for assemblies, actions, and events at public and semi-public spaces, apartment buildings, residency blocks, workplaces, community institutions, parks, libraries, farmers’ markets, various sub-cultural spaces etc. Flyering is important–whether or not one lives in a city that has a culture of flyering for events. Bus-stops, streetlights, cafes, walls throughout cities, etc. should be flyered thoroughly when trying to do public outreach. It is important for flyers to include relevant information about the organization, some explanation of what a given event is, as well as the time and space location of the event, and where to find more information. Handbill flyers can be made to pass out to people at various political, countercultural, subculture, and common spaces, workplaces, apartment complexes, every day events, and while people run into people throughout their everyday travels. Handing out handbills and flyers to many people and/or creating flyering teams and work parties can help make such processes enjoyable and shared. Announcing an event during announcement sections of groups that are fine with announcements for other groups can also be fruitful. Potlucks and Block parties can also be good ways to do outreach and build community as part of a community assembly project. Some people and groups that are pillars of the local community can be especially important for reaching people. The internet is an important tool as well–but has many limits. Text message groups, social media events, and internet groups can be used to reach out to people and do in-reach but they should not be relied upon at the expense of face to face organizing. Having an internet presence of some kind will often make sense for community assemblies to do outreach, spreading practices, and forging ties of mutual support between other groups (although such assembly projects will sometimes have to be or want to be more incognito). Having an encrypted group text-chat can be an important tool to utilize for in-reach and coordination. Even though community assemblies ought to be secular and include freedom of and from religion: reaching out to left leaning religious congregations can be an important part of outreach. Outreach through mutual aid, direct action and shared participation in social struggles is indispensable. Do not underestimate the potential of collective action and projects thereof to help build community for further actions. People with specific problems they are facing and/or people who are sympathetic to such a directly democratic community project and grassroots ways to meet people’s needs are likely to be the first people who join. But if community assemblies can effectively address people’s needs and desires then others will join overtime.

If various social movement groups already exist, then one can do outreach to those social movement groups that are likely to be sympathetic to self-managed+reconstructive_oppositional community assemblies. Various building blocks of freedom in one’s own locale can include: a local radical union branch, a local issue specific social movement group, a local libertarian socialist group, a direct action group of some kind, a mutual aid group of some kind, movement oriented cooperatives, ecologically oriented groups, etc. However, it is crucial to reach outside of the already existing leftist and radical population– and to do such outreach to other social movement groups wisely in a way that is respectful of the groups one is doing outreach towards.

Many people are not initially radicalized (as in activated to get involved in transformative politics that get to root problems and solutions) by going to meetings, but by participating in direct actions. Many people are initially radicalized by mutual aid projects instead of direct actions. Many people are initially radicalized through popular education rather than through any of the above, etc. It is often when people deepen their understandings of activities within the processes of direct actions, mutual aid projects, and popular education that people often see the importance of going to meetings, making collective decisions, and doing the activities that make popular organizations, direct actions, and revolutions possible.

Initial projects to start:

Exactly what projects to begin with can be tricky; there is no silver bullet answer that will make sense across all contexts. It is ultimately for participants to decide. One way to start community assemblies and projects within assemblies is to host issue specific forums and assemblies where specific social problems are deliberated about in depth to find an action plan from there. People can even start community assemblies in relation to particular social problems that local or regional social movements are already focused on (although overtime, it is crucial that long term community assemblies do not get pigeonholed into single issue organizing. However, short-term issue specific community assembly based organizing can have its merits as well). Alternatively, people can start with a comunity assembly to find out what issues/social problems/needs to focus on. One function community assemblies are able to do particularly well is prefigure the commons (means of existence and production held and managed in common and accessed freely according to needs). However, to meaningfully develop the commons on a large enough scale, the means of existence and production must be seized and defended from hierarchical rule. In order to meet the needs of people, oppositional politics is needed down the line (if not initially).

Reconstructive mutual aid projects of various kinds are sometimes ideal projects to start with. They are usually lower risk than oppositional actions (not that “low risk” is the only thing to take into consideration). Mutual aid projects use horizontal organization to meet people’s needs via cooperation, multi-directional assistance, and collective action. Such projects lead towards mutual flourishing of persons involved in an organization while disproportionately helping those in poverty and otherwise most in need. And reconstructive mutual aid projects do the above while using and multiplying horizontal forms, participatory organizing, with communistic content. Additionally, mutual aid projects are generally the most agreeable possible projects! And such reconstructive mutual aid projects can be great learning experiences for those involved. Despite reconstructive mutual aid projects sometimes and even often making sense as the first projects community assemblies start, there are many good first projects that community assemblies can start and no uniform formula for what problems should be tackled first and what projects should be started first.

Oppositional direct action against domination and exploitation most always involve more risk than mere reconstructive mutual aid projects– although the two can and should be strategically combined as part of action and chains/spirals of actions. Additionally, collective direct action in opposition to domination includes the use of self-management and mutual aid among participants as part of the processes through which it happens. Direct action committees of community assemblies meet needs and solve social problems through opposition against specific hierarchies. Community assemblies can forge direct actions, direct action campaigns, and direct action committees against specific and general hierarchical governments and businesses, politicians, cops, capitalists, bosses, landlords, etc. Direct action projects can start out more modest and escalate as needed. Overtime, federations of community assemblies and direct action committees thereof can develop enough capacity to expropriate and communalize means of existence and production. Community assemblies can manage such commons and can also form self-defense committees and coalitions to defend the commons against hierarchical forces. If assemblies do not develop an anti-hierarchical and class struggle character, then they can become resigned to merely creating small pockets of mutual aid within the bounds of a hierarchical society. Community assemblies, in the mode of existing in a hierarchical society, must be oppositional against domination and exploitation if they are to meet long-term needs of people.

Because of various conditions such as urgency, needs and desires of people, strategic openings, wanting the assembly to start with an explicit class struggle approach etc: direct action against domination sometimes makes the most sense as an initial project for community assemblies to organize around. In other time space locations with different social relations, general and specific mutual aid projects and community infrastructure development more broadly might make more sense as initial projects to start. Given the nature of hierarchical society, both reconstructive politics and oppositional politics are needed to address social problems. In the context of existing within a hierarchical society: However a community assembly project starts, it should eventually do both reconstructive and oppositional functions while also finding ways to strategically combine such functions in specific actions and projects.

When starting out and down the line: fundraisers, potlucks, and block parties can be ways to build community, spread social movements, promote important causes, distribute pamphlets/literature, develop relationships, and create spaces for informal dialogue (and are relatively easy to do). Skill-shares, reading groups, and popular education projects can help generalize and deepen theoretical and practical knowledge and serve as gatherings for reflection that can help further organizing efforts.

One of the strengths of community assemblies is their potential to do a lot of different types and sub-types of activities. However, this can also be a strategic weakness of community assemblies if this is not utilized well; if community assemblies are taking on more projects than they can handle, they can wind up squandering effort in many projects that do not have enough capacity for any of them to bloom. Inversely, “planting many seeds” can allow some to blossom. Finding ways to strategically row the communal ship together in a strategic way requires adjusting how many projects an assembly takes on overtime as well as which projects an assembly project takes on.

Where to start: Block by Block, neighborhood by neighborhood, or beyond?:

One way to start community assemblies is going block by block to organize specific blocks and neighborhoods into block assemblies and neighborhood assemblies. Another way to begin such a process might be to organize a broader city/town/village wide assembly project of some kind and then decentralize into smaller scale assemblies as people join and capacity allows. While there is no one size fits all approach, a neighborhood scale (or something similar scale wise) is often a good “goldilocks zone” to start with as the neighborhood is sufficiently intimately scaled while including people beyond a given block. Some blocks are so dense, that they are practically a neighborhood in themselves! Some blocks, neighborhoods, cities/towns/villages, and regions can be particularly important and strategic to focus on due to political, economic, and social compositions of people there. People can start or join community assemblies wherever they are and wherever they go. Common needs, common struggles, common desires, and common values are different bridges that can lead towards community assemblies that utilize communalist practices towards communalist goals.

Short-Term vs Long-Term:

There is an important urgency to change the world and therefore we must take our time with these projects and build them in a generative way. Developing goods kinds of organizations, relationships, cumulative experience as collectives related to wise collective decision making and implementation, achieving the short-term and mid-term goals that can lead to popular support for long-term goals, etc. can take time. Revolution towards utopia is a long term goal. One can not expect a community assembly to be successful overnight. There will be many failures along the way even when using some wise practices. How community assemblies and participants adapt to such failures can determine whether or not they continue and blossom. Giving up at every significant roadblock ensures that an organization will not sustain. Although more periodic kinds of groups that only exist for a few months or a few years can do a lot of good actions within a specific community or region (through their activity and the indirect influence): organizations that continue onward many years beyond their initial jumping off point, that are ethically prefigured, that meet needs, and that strategically use oppositional and reconstructive approaches can potentially arrive at long term sustained goals and even revolutionary goals. Groups that do not last as long can also help to plant seeds of actions, ideas, and organization that ripple out beyond their more immediate impacts.

Community assemblies should aim to bridge short-term, mid-term and long-term goals together. By achieving short-term and mid-term goals through practices of self-management, direct action, and mutual aid: not only do needs get met, not only does the given community assembly gain more capacity and legitimacy from people, not only do individuals and collectives gain wisdom for self-management and opposition to hierarchy, but the methods of freedom themselves become popularized within and beyond the specific community assembly. Developing sufficient capacity for abolishing hierarchical rule and replacing it with co-federally organized self-managed communities connected to common means of existence and means of production takes time. Mere short-term goals without long-term goals are insufficient to transform society. Mere long term goals without short-term and mid-term goals provide no bridge to get from here to the good place. There is a degree of patience that is needed for any grassroots long term collective building process related to social transformation.

Frequency:

There is no uniform answer as to how often Assemblies and committee meetings should meet. Monthly, or every other week, or weekly + as needed can be good options for assemblies and committees. Ideal frequency depends on the conditions, needs, abilities, and desires of participants. Assemblies, committees, and participants thereof will need to choose frequencies that make sense for them and their contexts. Assemblies need to both be functioning and consistent while also meaningfully open to all who want to meaningfully participate as full equals. This means assembly frequency will need to move slower than the people with the most time on their hands and/or people with relatively boundless energy for such a project. People working jobs full time and/or taking care of other people informally should be taken into consideration. Those who want to and are able to contribute more to assembly projects can help in between assemblies and committees in various ways while still keeping assemblies and committees moving at a pace where everyone who wants to can contribute with equal formal deliberation and policy making power. Many people volunteering just a few hours towards meetings and action in between meetings on monthly, or biweekly, or weekly intervals can go a long way.

General Practices and Particular Contexts:

Community assemblies can be started in a variety of ways. Different approaches of applying general practices make more and less sense in different contexts. The general minimum features of communalism are necessary but insufficient for their application to particular conditions. The cutting edge of communalist praxis deals with applying the general practices to particular contexts and creating strategic content to achieve liberatory goals (accompanied by tactics appropriate for such strategy). This is where praxis can get especially tricky and where general theory and approaches fail to be a sufficient guiding path–as necessary, desirable, and important as they can be. Community assemblies can adapt to various ecological, social, political, economic, historical, cultural, and technological contexts while still retaining the essential features of communalism. But the only way to forge a path from where one is to a good society is by organizing together with people using liberatory processes/practices to solve political, economic, and social problems and co-create collective decisions, actions, and projects to meet short-term, mid-term, and long-term needs. Within the bounds of the minimal features of communalism, communalist projects are a constant “choose your own adventure”. To create an assembly with strategic content, people must wisely adapt to relevant conditions, general and local knowledge, emergent variables, needs, desires, political/economic/social composition of people, etc. Whether existing in the mode of opposition against hierarchy or in the mode of a free society: community assemblies must wisely adapt to new relevant variables in order to flourish.

Community assembly projects will be different in different places despite retaining general lower common denominators. Even though there will be surprising similarities about how to wisely apply general practices to particular contexts: Wisely applying such practices in Oakland will be different than applying such principles in New York City, which will be different than applying such principles in Jackson, Mississippi, which will be different than applying such principles in rural Vermont, which will be different than applying such principles in Kobani, or Cheran, or Mexico City etc. And specific locales are not static places but constantly in motion and in relation to other places. Even within a relatively brief time period, the best ways to apply communalist practices to various particular contexts might significantly change in one or more important ways! While there are certain general features to ethical and effective community assemblies and commons: there are many good-enough+ ways to develop such politics/economics/social relations.

Shared conditions, processes, practices, and goals vs shared ideology:

Community assemblies are rooted around meeting the needs of people (participants and others) rather than everyone in such an assembly having a shared ideology. Community assemblies consist of people with differentiated and shared conditions. Community assemblies, in the mode of opposition against hierarchy, are made out of the broad non-ruling class. Assemblies can make not holding a formal position of domination and exploitation a prerequisite to joining. People have shared needs for: self-determination, for good social relations, for access to means of existence and production and the fruits thereof, for living in a world free from hierarchy and ecological destruction. Despite the vast array of differences people have with each other, such common conditions are related to what would be needed for each and all to flourish. From such common needs for flourishing, we get certain universal features related to the self-management of each and all on every scale and the means thereof– including non-hierarchy needed for such freedom of each and all, self-management on the community scale for such freedom of each and all, sufficient continuous mutual aid to meet needs of all through generalized reciprocity, as well direct action and opposition against hierarchies to arrive at a world without them.

Not having sufficiently coherent form or content can create incoherence to the point where the assembly subverts its own liberatory features. A way to round out an assembly or a collective without making the group based on shared ideology is to have libertarian and egalitarian processes and practices embedded in the structure, constitution, bylaws, rights, and duties. Such an approach is rooted in shared processes/practices/goals while being radically distinct and serving qualitatively different functions than a shared ideology approach. Agreements about shared processes and practices and goals can exist within an organization without ideological prerequisites. While making various good ideas, premises, theories, etc. popular within social movements is important for developing wise content: one of the goals of a communalist project is to reach out to people beyond ideologically and theoretically specific lines.

To join a community assembly in harmony with processes, practices, and goals that are in harmony with communalism one does NOT need to be an ideological libertarian socialist or communalist. In fact, a community assembly requiring agreement with a communalist ideological and theoretical line would defeat the purpose of having practices of direct democracy, non-hierarchy, direct action, and mutual aid wielded by communities of people to meet their own needs and the needs of others. It would be unnecessarily alienating to most everybody if a community assembly required everyone in it to be a libertarian communist to join. Rather than making the belief system “communalism” or “libertarian communism” a prerequisite to joining a community assembly: It would make more sense for the assembly project to in fact meet people’s needs through direct democracy, direct action, mutual aid, and developing the commons. Various practices in harmony with/endorsed by libertarian socialism/communism/communalism can flourish within social movement organizations without such organizations being ideologically and theoretically specific groups. Various liberatory practices can be features of social movement organizations from the inceptions of such groups and/or iteratively developed overtime within organizations as people agree to them. Communalists need to find ways to communicate and popularize communalist practices and have them enshrined within the structures and contents of community assemblies without unnecessarily alienating people– and without making adherence to communalist ideology or libertarian communist ideology a prerequisite for joining such assemblies.

***

People join social movements and are introduced to them through many ways: protests and direct actions of various kinds, mutual aid projects, giant movement waves, invitation and awareness about issues through neighbors, coworkers, friends, kinship, and strangers, experiencing and/or seeing suffering and illbeing locally and around the world, having a vision of a good or better society, through some specific issue they are passionate about, being influenced by specific ideas, thinkers, research projects, current and historical political tendencies, etc. Usually people join social movements through some mix and match of the above (as well as other reasons and entry points). There is no one size fits all approach to how people get involved in social movements. Common conditions, and/or desires and/or principles can develop into organizations and shared processes, practices, and goals. Most everyone has at least a particular issue they care about and/or at least a value/notion of what is good for people (such as freedom, equality, justice, wanting wellbeing, happiness, and pleasure to flourish, wanting needs of people to be met, developing a society where virtues, virtuous practices, and the means thereof flourish, having a society with good rights/duties etc.) that if wisely thought about would be better actuated through a cluster of liberatory processes, practices, and goals that are in harmony with a libertarian socialism/communism/communalism. The above can be a bridge towards root problems, root solutions, and grassroots social movement organizations.

It is important to note that there are many people who will join community assemblies and other social movement organizations only if such organizations can sufficiently demonstrate that they are effective at meeting people’s needs. Quite reasonably, a lot of people will want to see that organizational forms and meetings are connected to practices and content that are helping people out before they deem such forms and meetings as worth joining and participating in. It is often multiple reasons and multiple factors and multiple entry points that lead people to being more continuously involved in social movement organizations. As people join social movements, people will generally realize that being more effective, getting stuff done, and fully participating includes joining or starting organizations, attending meetings, making collective decisions, and sharing in the implementation of decisions. Community assemblies are one such organization people can form or join but they are not merely one form among others (for multiple reasons such as but far from limited to 1. their prefiguration being needed for the thriving of commons and community self management which is needed for the self-management of each and all on every scale AND because 2. community assemblies can do large arrays of oppositional and reconstructive politics). People continue to be in social movement organizations for many reasons such as: when social movement organizations are effectively and continuously achieving goals and meeting needs, where there is shared deliberation, decision making, and implementation between people, where there are enriching formal and informal relations between participants, and when the organization is self-reproducing and sustainable to be a part of overtime.

Communalism and Ideologically and theoretically specific libertarian communist groups:

If sufficient common ideology exists between people, people can form and join ideologically and theoretically specific libertarian communist groups distinct from social movement organizations. Such ideologically and theoretically specific libertarian communist groups can help to create multiple kinds of social movement organizations rooted in direct democracy, mutual aid, and direct action (not shared ideology). Additionally, members from ideologically specific groups can join social movement organizations (such as but not limited to community assemblies, labor unions, and student organizations) and help spread direct democracy, mutual aid, direct action, and opposition to hierarchy etc. within social movement organizations through dialogue and demonstration. The above approach is rooted in “organizational dualism” and what has been called “social work and social insertion” by the especifismo tendency of organizational dualism. Such an approach aims towards the self management of popular organizations and social movements as opposed to taking a hierarchical vanguardist approach. It can be useful if community assemblies are initially forged by some members of (sufficiently ethical and strategic) ideologically and theoretically specific libertarian communist groups– or otherwise if members of such ideologically and theoretically specific groups join community assemblies and help spread liberatory methods to help assemblies achieve their own goals. The kinds of ideologically and theoretically specific libertarian communist groups that are best situated to help communalist projects flourish are ideologically and theoretically specific groups that closely align with the communalist tendency within libertarian socialism.

Opposition to patriarchy, racism and oppression:

Given the goals of abolishing class relations and racialized and gendered divisions of labor and power– as well as racism and patriarchy more broadly as well other forms of domination and bigotry– it is crucial for community assemblies to prefigure egalitarian relations. Social reproduction of assemblies should be a shared endeavor and not something that falls along gendered and racialized lines. Equality of formal power, equal rights for all, free agreements between people to share labor/work getting done, and the cultivation of a culture that opposes domination, exploitation, oppression, and bigotry help create conditions conducive towards prefiguring a world beyond hierarchy and maximizing participation of people. Issues related to particular forms of domination and oppression drastically affect some people more than others. Without addressing such issues meaningfully, no one can live in a fully free and egalitarian world. For ethical reasons of developing freedom, mutual aid, solidarity, care, and cultivating a knowledgeable and ethical society: Community assemblies must be/become organizations that are rooted in non-domination, non-bigotry, as well as opposition to domination and bigotry as needed. Doing so helps create organizations worth joining and inviting people into and helps increase overall participation in deliberation/decision making/implementation. Assemblies should be meaningfully inclusive and cosmopolitan places where people who face various kinds of oppression are welcome, given full equal power and freedoms, are free from harassment and discrimination, are treated as full persons, and where issues related to specific forms of domination and bigotry can be meaningfully addressed.

***While assemblies and co-federations thereof should be maximally cosmopolitan spaces where everyone has equal formal power, people facing specific forms of oppression can caucus as needed to help assemblies address specific issues they face.

Grievance processes:

When people have grievances about assembly processes and functioning, such grievances can be addressed through assemblies. Through due process, deliberation, and direct democracy (within the bounds of non-hierarchical rights/duties), free agreement of collectives and individuals, decisions can be made about how to resolve such grievances. When people have grievances and disputes with each other, then they can use direct dialogue and if needed/desired agreed upon mediation processes to meaningfully resolve the dispute or at least come to a mutual agreement about how to move forward– which in some cases could be agreeing to leave each other alone. Mediation can be done in multiple good-enough ways by facilitators and by circles of people. When someone admits they have violated the freedoms of others, they can agree to enter a restorative justice/transformative justice process of some kind rooted in repairing harm caused (to the extent possible) and stopping causes of harm in the future. Some good books about the above issues include “Fumbling Towards Repair”, “Come Hell or Highwater”, and “The Little Book of Restorative Justice”. Having wise grievance processes is important; organizations that fail to come up with sufficiently good-enough ways to deal with grievances leave a power vacuum for arbitrary and hierarchical rule to potentially fill.

What might inhibit Communal Assemblies:

The following are some issues that can inhibit community assembly projects. The following are obstacles that need to be understood precisely for the reason that they are possible to overcome through wise collective action. The inhibiting factors of community assemblies will differ from region to region over time and space. However, many of such inhibiting factors are common to assembly projects in many different contexts.

State repression can try to destroy such movements. When people break unjust laws struggling towards grander horizons of freedom, armed forces of the state and other reactionary forces try to quash such rebellions. While the following is an obstacle that has been overcome time and time again: capitalism and paying money to live can make it difficult for people to organize together and coordinate time and effort. Capitalism and statecraft cause a lack of public space to organize in. Lack of access to robust common infrastructure more broadly makes it difficult to do many collective projects people would otherwise want to do– limiting mutual aid and direct action efforts. Even when full revolutions within cities and regions are successful (or if people have managed to evade the state and build autonomy external to where hierarchy can reign): due to the dynamics of statecraft and capitalism, state and capitalist institutions tend to invade places to transform land/resources/labor into resources that serve specific goals of competing for profit and power-over others. It is common for movements that have autonomy from state structures to be attacked by external hierarchical forces. The world market also makes it difficult to carve out a sufficient niche outside of its logic. Internally communistic societies engaging on a world economic level will have to deal (or find ways to not deal) with prices and markets and a broader interstate system (and will often be inhibited by such forces from developing the full extent of communistic content they may strive towards).

Racism, patriarchy, and other forms of oppression and bigotry are inhibiting factors that make it difficult to build relationships and trust to work together on common issues and issues that drastically affect some people more than others. Racist, patriarchal, and oppressive behavior inhibit the kind of egalitarian relations needed for a project to be worth fighting for. Such issues exist both within the wider society and within social movement circles. They minimize participation in social movements, inhibit solidarity between people, AND eviscerate ethics and wisdom of social movements to the degree they flourish.

Lack of sharing labor/work leads to less organizational resilience and often leads to recreating gendered divisions of labor/work/action. All else equal: The more organizations and movements are self reproducing, with collective agreements about policy and sharing implementation of decisions (including the reproduction of daily and social life going into all continuous organizing), the more organizations and participants thereof will have capacity to achieve liberatory goals overtime.

Lack of sufficient co-federation of community assemblies can lead to community assemblies having insufficient capacity to meaningfully meet needs of people and challenge hierarchical power. Sufficient co-federation can enable assemblies to take on more and more ambitious reconstructive and oppositional projects. Without sufficient co-federation, community assemblies are at best pockets of freedom making the world a better place. But for community assemblies to be revolutionary, they need to be multiplied, populated, co-federated, coordinated, and nourished with wise content by participants.

Different genres of political tendencies can negatively affect the development of a community assembly. Some brief examples: Far right wing, and fascist formations inside and outside of the state will be particularly violent towards egalitarian social movements that confront hierarchical power. While the less extreme right wing variants and the far right have various porous membranes between them and points of convergence, the less extreme right wing will tend to attack anti-hierarchical social movements via support of state power, right wing politicians and policies, support for capitalism, and support for cultural conservatism. There is of course TINA, “There is No Alternative”, a prevailing theoretical and practical orientation that inhibits any radical critique of business as usual. Liberal wings of business as usual have fundamental commonalities with right wing politics–such as support for capitalism and the state as well as agreements on many key policies and goals. Liberal, left-liberal, and ostensibly leftist political parties have an array of activists and institutions that spread electoralist approaches to social change and means and ends of representative forms of rulership. The tendency known as “Social democracy” (scare quotes intentional) has a statist and electoral orientation at the expense of social movement autonomy from the state. Leninist organizations may try to enter into social movement organizations to restructure social movements into hierarchical forms aimed towards state socialist revolution, or they may otherwise try to subsume social movements to the ends of their hierarchical party formations, or perhaps even try to subvert such such a project altogether! Electoral and revolutionary Statist approaches to socialism have not historically led to socialism but instead have led to specific forms of hierarchical political and economic rule. Fortunately, egalitarian cosmopolitan community assemblies aimed towards meeting the needs of all scare away people with the worst kinds of politics while uniting with MANY ordinary people in a given block/neighborhood/village/town/city/region/etc. who are not ‘card carrying anarchists’ along the lines of self-management and non-hierarchy! But of course non-hierarchical forms of organizing are not sufficient for wise and strategic content; If wise and sufficiently radical content does not yet exist within the assembly form despite some formal shared agreements, then best to cultivate such content through dialogues, actions, forging relations with people, and helping people out.

Identity reductionism fetishizes identity by abstracting identity related issues from political economic hierarchies they are entangled with, caused by, and not reducible to. Identity reductionism further obscures issues related to identity through not noting the complexities of people– the differentiation within subject positions, the commonalities between them, the fact that positionality and oppression do not inherently lead to any specific ideology, political position, or virtue, etc. Class reductionism obscures the way social reality, social problems, and social solutions are not reducible to economics and class relations. Class reductionism obscures the multidirectional causality of politics, economics, culture, and social relations in favor of a one sided cartoonish picture. Both identity reductionism and class reductionism inhibit an understanding of both social relations and individuals and get in the way of praxis accordingly. Ideally, community assemblies and participants wisely address issues related to politics, economics, culture, and social relations without falling into vicious forms of reductionism.

At times, pragmatic concerns can cause some people towards instrumentalizing long term-goals, liberatory organizations, and liberatory features of organizing to achieve short-term goals. Such an approach is a dire error. Instead of falling into such a MERE short-term focus at the expense of good-enough processes and practices: Community assemblies can embody and utilize general communalist processes and practices and adapt them to particular contexts to achieve short-term, mid-term and long-term goals. If community assemblies and other social movement organizations do not find ways to meet short-term goals and mid-term goals, then they will likely be unable to achieve long term goals of revolution and social transformation. Community assemblies should be both prefigurative (in the sense of building and reproducing the kinds of organizational relations that are being aimed towards) and strategic (in the sense of being oriented towards short-term, mid-term, and long-term goals and trying to arrive at them out of dynamic unfolding conditions rather than merely prefiguring good process/structure). The strategy of community assemblies should be in harmony with good-enough processes, practices, and goals rather than at the expense thereof.

The development of a culture of sharing, caring, thinking, mutual aid, and trust are crucial to the flourishing of social movement organizations and functions– and developing a good society! A lack of sufficient sharing, caring, thinking, mutual-aid and trust between people will inhibit liberatory activity. There are an array of other relational-virtues that could be included in the above list thereof. Liberatory social movement organizations will characteristically create solidarity between participants, generalized reciprocity, and webs of friendship. And as important as friendship is in organizing and outside of organizing, such assemblies should not devolve into a mere politics of friendship. People do not have to be friends with one another to treat each other well and work meaningfully together politically on shared goals through shared processes and practices.

And community assemblies can be inhibited by decisions made by community assemblies themselves! This can happen through decisions that go against what should be essential features of the group, lack of strategic and/or tactical content, lack of good relations between persons, lack of prudent vision (such as short-term goals at the expense of long-term goals), not reaching out to people, not engaging in sufficient reflection, research, and education as part of movement work, not having good enough structure, not sharing social reproduction, not rotating delegate roles etc. No matter how good the form of an organization is, it does not necessarily entail good content. Even if good formal qualities and good shared practices are carried through within the content of an organization, the content itself might not be strategic and generative towards short-term, mid-term, and long-term goals.

Is the Assembly the best place for you to start?:

All else equal, It is easier to start a community assembly when various liberatory social movement groups and liberatory cultural dimensions already exist. Inversely, community assemblies are also very helpful for developing the very institutional and cultural shifts that make them and other social movement organizations easier to develop! Community assemblies can be a great project to start even when there is not already a broader left social movement ecosystem. When no other social movements meaningfully exist within a given locale, a community assembly can be an ideal or good-enough organization to start with. Given the wide array of content community assemblies can potentially do, they can be a form that gives rise to particular actions related to meeting specific needs and helping to solve specific social problems. A social movement ecosystem is not a replacement for community assemblies and NOR are community assemblies a replacement for a broader social movement ecosystem. There is no uniform order of operations for which organizations, committees, and actions to develop. Not only does context vary but there are usually multiple good enough options (even as some might be significantly better than others given goals of meeting needs and social transformation).

Learning from history:

Fortunately, when starting a community assembly–or some other kind of social movement organization– we do not have to completely reinvent the wheel: Looking through history, we can find many ways community self-management, direct democracy, direct action, and mutual aid have contributed to well-being, happiness, and freedom. There are ways social movements have been successful or approximately so at arriving at liberatory goals as well as ways that social movements have failed, have been too one-sided, or have otherwise been inhibited from achieving their most liberatory goals by external forces. There are important lessons we can find throughout the history of human freedom and attempts at striving towards it. Knowledge of self-managed revolutionary movements such as Rojava, The Zapatistas, anarchist regions in the Spanish civil war, The Shinmin Prefecture, The Free Territory, and the Morelos Commune are helpful for thinking about bottom-up social transformation. We can glean the various lower common denominators and particularities of each of the above revolutionary movements and see what aspects of the above revolutions make sense for us to apply in our specific contexts. The history of communalism is also far more broad than communalist projects influenced by the historically constituted libertarian socialist revolutionary history; a more transhistorical communalism includes many communities and commons throughout history across many cultures, regions, and continents in varying social/ecological/technological contexts. The broader history of freedom also includes the myriads of ways people have formally and informally practiced mutual aid and generalized reciprocity throughout the ages AND the history of people engaging in practices of their choosing (given they do not inhibit what should be the freedoms of others). The history of freedom also includes the broader history of people rebelling for more freedom and equality, issue specific social movements, the history of syndicalism, the broader history of socialism, anarchism, the left, and beyond.

It would be foolish to not glean gems from revolutionary history. However, this can only be done well through critical investigation of history– including a critical evaluation of one’s favorite revolutions and societies in history. A critical historical inquiry would try to find anti-liberatory dimensions even in the most liberatory of organizations and movements as well as strategic and tactical blunders made by various revolutionary groups. The goal of such an inquiry would not be to do an unfair rejection of the most positive elements of past social movements. Such an inquiry should avoid the kind of non-critical cheer-leading that inhibits us from seeing ways specific and general projects can do better according to good ethical criteria. When looking at various organizations and movements in history we can ask questions like “How did they start? What was their development? What were roadblocks they dealt with? Where were they successful? Where did they miss the mark because of their own blunders? How did they make decisions? How did they share labor/work? How did they achieve short-term, mid-term, and long-term goals? What forms of struggle and organization were there? How did they reach out to people? What were some of the main internal disagreements?,” etc. A good analysis of history will help people remix the right practices from history and adapt them to specific contexts as new, unique, and uncharted relevant variables emerge. And as important as it is to learn from history, the answers to current and future problems have not been exhaustively answered by the past.

11/09/19

Communalism:

Communalism is rooted in the development of horizontalist democratic community assemblies. Communalism is a “revolutionary political theory and practice, deeply rooted in the general socialist tradition” that would not just seek to create cooperative relations but forms that “confront capital and the basic structures of state power” (5). Communalist assemblies have bylaws, constitutions, and structures that embody terms of practice rooted in libertarian socialist principles. Such principles include but are not limited to Non-hierarchy, Direct Democracy, Co-federation, and Ecology. Community assemblies–and co-federations thereof– make policies that can be implemented by participatory committees and delegates that are mandated by community assemblies and immediately recallable by community assemblies. Embedded committees and delegates of horizontalist community assemblies do not have policy making power over and above community assemblies (1). Embedded committees of assemblies self manage within the mandates from below. Communalist assemblies have decision making processes rooted in deliberation, and cooperative conflict, and direct democracy to come to collective decisions. In a communalist society, political economic decisions are made through non-hierarchical laws and structures, in communal assemblies, through deliberation, with a majority vote when there is not full agreement, within free association in tandem with webs of non-hierarchical rights and responsibilities. Such community assemblies create embedded committees and auxiliary collectives, while also planning direct actions and mutual aid projects, while additionally helping with popular education. Communalist assemblies–and co-federations thereof– would link up together to do both oppositional and reconstructive politics at the points of extraction, production, reproduction, distribution, consumption, and at the point of the community sphere. Communalist assemblies would also prefigure such assemblies as forms of governance to exist in a post revolutionary society–rather than merely forms to bring about a revolution or merely forms for after the revolution. Communalist economics would be rooted in communal assemblies, fields, factories, and workshops, production for needs, distribution according to needs, and the sharing of self-managed work needed to reproduce daily life assisted by liberatory technology.

Especifism and Communalism:

Communalism and especifism are both libertarian communist tendencies. They share an ethical, organizational, and strategic orientation in regards to direct democracy, anti-hierarchy, federalism, distribution according to needs, and revolutionary politics. The focus both tendencies have on libertarian governance (rather than no governance) prior to, during, and after revolutions place both tendencies firmly in the organizational branch of anti-state socialism. Despite encompassing a majority of anarchism’s history–and the majority of anarchism’s victories– the most organizational branches of anti state socialism are not considered anarchism proper by a significant number of anarchists and non-anarchists alike.

Especifist praxis is rooted in, “1. The need for specifically anarchist organization built around a unity of ideas and praxis. 2. The use of the specifically anarchist organization to theorize and develop strategic political and organizing work 3. Active involvement in and building of autonomous and popular social movements, which is described as the process of “social insertion.” (3). The specific ideological agreements especifist groups have include libertarian socialist/communist principles as well as some dimensions that platformists share such as theoretical unity, tactical unity, federalism and collective responsibility. However, that agreement with platformism does not mean complete agreement to everything written in the original platform– which was written in regards to a very specific revolutionary context involving military action (4). Furthermore, especifism has made advances compared to traditional platformism in regards to its theory of what the relationship between ideologically libertarian socialists specific groups and broader social movements should be– in part by going way beyond relationships of ideologically specific libertarian socialist groups to labor unions into a broader conception of organizations and social movements against hierarchy (3). This makes especifist groups well suited for helping community assemblies and daily struggles in and out of the workplace. The ways especifist groups can start and catalyze community assemblies is something that has already developed in practice by especifists (3). Furthermore, especifist groups use strategic unity (not just tactical unity) based on common analysis, shared theory and social insertion to get from here to a libertarian socialist revolution (3).

Social insertion has a very advanced and practical understanding of how the relationships between ideologically specific organizations and social movements groups should function. Especifists center their strategy of social change around a mutualistic relationship between ideologically specific libertarian communist groups and broader social movements. As the Black Rose Federation article “Building a Revolutionary Anarchism” (2) describes and prescribes: There should be dual membership within ideologically specific libertarian socialist organizations and within popular organizations. Doing so puts libertarian socialists in contact with broader populations than merely themselves. Within such movements, libertarian socialists should advocate for practices of horizontalist democracy, direct action, anti capitalism, and class struggle to further the goals of social movements–as well as argue for such positions when they are minority positions as active minorities furthering libertarian socialist practice. Especifist groups are in favor of popularizing libertarian socialist practice in large part teaching by demonstration. Such a process can help make libertarian socialism relevant to the lives of people struggling towards liberatory goals of various kinds in class struggle and daily struggle in and out of the workplace. Such a process can combine revolutionary organizing with popular organizing. Especifist groups and libertarian socialists–and various groups centered around such theory and/or practice– should help social movements by enabling them to access their greatest strength: the capacity of thousands of people thinking and acting together (which can be better unleashed through direct democracy). Hierarchical organizations inhibit participation from people involved, whereas directly democratic organizing can give people more ways to participate meaningfully. Without a class struggle perspective, social movements wind up making the wrong alliances and not engaging in the kinds of oppositional actions that are needed for revolution–defanging the social movements and disempowering membership. Libertarian socialists need social movements to ground libertarian socialism in popular movements and among the working class, the dispossessed, and oppressed more broadly, to learn organizational skills, to develop better praxis, and to minimize the disconnect between libertarian socialism and the general public. When doing so, it is important to not unnecessarily go against the tide– libertarian socialists should find the already existing common values and practices within popular organizations and social movements and then work to develop that already existing libertarian socialist and anti-hierarchical thrust (3). An essential part of social insertion is to unite people in the social movement along such libertarian socialist practice– not necessarily getting any specific person to proclaim any specific ideology– although such social insertion would spread theory as well through dialogue. Popular education collectives can help supplement especifist groups, communalist assemblies, and broader social movements by spreading and popularizing good theory and critical thinking.

Communalist assemblies (rather than mere community assemblies) are popular assemblies in the community sphere that also have a coherent form and content– that at least follows from minimal libertarian socialist principles in conjunction with a community sphere and communal self-governance. Communalist assemblies are distinct from other kinds of popular organizations that primarily organize around specific workplace struggles and at the point of production such as syndicalist approaches. Communalist assemblies are also distinct from ideologically specific groups. Communalist assemblies do not require a shared ideology between individuals even though they necessarily have to have a shared terms of practice between people (which can be expressed in bylaws, bills of rights, structures, short term and long term programs of groups, or even points of unity for practice, etc.). Such practices are of course theory laden and can be evaluated by theory but are distinct from requiring theoretical and ideological unity. Furthermore, the overall content of social movements and popular organizations is improved by the popularization of good theories, propositional knowledge, and practical knowledge (which especifist groups can help catalyze). Communalist assemblies are designed to be much more inclusive compared to especifist groups–although especifist groups should seek popularity within the terms that make them ethical and effective without sacrificing their coherence and functionality to a false unity. Through having a coherent theoretical and strategic unity, especifist groups have functions such as assisting and developing self-managed popular organizations, advocating for libertarian socialist practices such as direct democracy, direct action, and mutual aid to further more immediate goals of social movements, popularizing libertarian socialist praxis, while also aiming towards a long term goal of libertarian communism.

Communalists want community assemblies as revolutionary forms and also want the economy to be politicized– that is for the means of production, including land in use, to be put into the hands of co-federated communal assemblies that have embedded participatory councils that implement decisions within the mandate made from below (where all policy making power resides). Especifists are often, but by no means always, working with or in favor of communal forms of freedom that are either identical to or similar to the ones advocated for and practiced by communalists. Especifist groups have been more pluralistic than communalists in regards to the visions of a post-revolutionary economy as well as keystone revolutionary forms that they advocate, develop, and participate in. Often times especifist groups organize with and/or favor syndicalist formations and workers’ councils– but other times they might organize with and/or favor commune formations. Although working with various groups–communal assemblies, syndicalist unions and workers’ councils, issue specific movements and organizations, etc.– can make sense towards developing a revolution, a modest appeal for communalism would be that the communalist political economy should be developed overtime because 1. Without a communalist political economy power is privatized over and above direct communities into segmented fields that make decisions over and above people affected by such economic matters 2. Self management within egalitarian bounds should be in every sphere including the communal sphere which necessitates a co-federated communal economy 3. That our means should be consistent with or conducive to such development. 4. Additionally, on a strategic level, communalism can organize oppositional and reconstructive politics at points of extraction, production, distribution, reproduction, consumption and community life.

Towards Communalist Especifism:

Especifism is in favor of interfacing with popular organizations and social movements in a productive way as illustrated in the above section and as talked about in detail in the brilliant text “Social Anarchism and Organization” by FARJ. A communalist especifist group would be in favor of social insertion and also view communalist assemblies as keystone organizations to be developed. Such communalist assemblies would be keystone organizations for both ethical and strategic reasons: an ethical (and strategic) reason being that developing communalist assemblies is necessary for egalitarian self management in every sphere, some strategic (and ethical) reasons being that such assemblies are radically flexible to working on oppositional and reconstructive politics in every sphere and are able to be especially mutualistic towards other liberatory collectives and projects.

Communalist assemblies could help other groups and social movements in regards to specific issues and struggles with both solidarity actions and capacity while in turn gaining support from social movements for future common actions. Expanding capacity of communalist assemblies would fuel projects of communalist assemblies as well as other liberatory social movements communalist assemblies become in solidarity with. Although it will often make sense for communalist especifists to be developing community assembly projects, communalist especifists should also organize with other kinds of liberatory groups and social movements to advocate for practices of direct action, direct democracy, opposition to hierarchy, and class struggle. That would help with maximizing overall participation and capacity of people involved in movements–and help qualify such participation through good terms of practice– to further the liberatory goals of social movements as well as the goal of developing libertarian socialism. In the process of struggle, it might make sense to add support to various groups and movements with solidarity from community assemblies if they exist, if such help is wanted, and if community assemblies are willing to help. Sometimes it can make sense to start community assemblies in the process of achieving some specific goal as part of some issue specific social movement.

Communalist especifists would advocate for and develop community assemblies as part of a social movement ecosystem, and also advocate for and develop direct action, direct democracy, class struggle, and opposition to hierarchy within community assemblies and other groups and movements. This would help to generalize good praxis within an ecosystem of social movement groups and emerging popular assemblies which can interact together when it strategically makes sense for specific struggles and goals. The communalist assemblies would be popular anti-state political organizations rooted in libertarian socialist practice on a community scale and the communalist especifist groups would be ideologically specific and tight knit advancing libertarian socialist practice and communalist practice within social movements and popular organizations through social insertion– with a focus on working with and developing community assemblies and also working on other fronts as it makes sense according to context. Although it makes sense to do social insertion in more than one group and more than one front at a time, It is important for communalist especifist groups and persons within them to not “step on each other’s toes” through incompatible strategies, or “spread themselves to thin”, by “all rowing in different directions”. Communalist especifist groups, rather than instrumentalizing social movements and groups to their rule, would be instrumentalized to establishing, catalyzing, and helping the self-management of communalist assemblies and other liberatory movements and groups.

There is a distinction between community assemblies and communalist assemblies. Whereas a community assembly is merely an assembly on a community sphere, a communalist assembly has additional qualifiers on top of being an assembly on the community scale. Communalist assemblies have a form and content that is qualified by a gestalt of libertarian socialist practices. Communalist especifists in large part help community assemblies flourish into communalist assemblies through social insertion.

Especifists sometimes call the level of ideologically specific organization that they are involved with political and they often call other kinds of organizing social (4). This is distinct from the way communalists would use the term political. For communalists, politics refers to city management– and libertarian socialist politics would entail egalitarian participatory forms of community governance. Politics can be contrasted to statecraft through the state necessarily being hierarchical and politics potentially being non-hierarchical. There is nothing in city management itself that necessitates a ruling class. In this sense, communalist organizations are anti statist forms of political organizations (that have some specific qualifiers for them to be communalist assemblies and not merely community assemblies) that can be a part of and in relation to yet distinguished from mere social movements without adjectives. Social movements can include a plurality of organizations from assembly projects, to workers’ councils, to affinity groups, to direct action collectives and networks, mutual aid collectives and networks, popular education collectives, etc. Communalist especifists groups would practice development of social insertion within social movements more broadly, and also practice social insertion within community assemblies more specifically to develop communalist assemblies. Using the communalist categorization of politics, Especifism is of course political, as in related to politics, but so are social movements. An alternative categorical framing for Especifist groups–consistent with how communalists use the term politics– is to say that they operate on an ideologically specific political level which is not equivalent to a political level more broadly as in relationship to city management–or the political level more specifically as a potentially non-hierarchical public sphere for communal deliberation and decisions about city management.

Endnotes:

1. http://social-ecology.org/wp/2002/09/harbinger-vol-3-no-1-the-communalist-project/

2. http://blackrosefed.org/building-a-revolutionary-anarchism/

3. http://blackrosefed.org/especifismo-weaver/

4. http://anarkismo.net/article/22146

5. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/murray-bookchin-toward-a-communalist-approach

6. https://libcom.org/library/social-anarchism-organisation

Sign up now so you don’t miss the first issue.

Subscribe now

In the meantime, tell your friends!