The social and political structure of anarchy is parallel to that of the economic structure, i.e., it is based on a voluntary federation of decentralized, directly democratic policy-making bodies, the neighborhood and community assemblies. In these grassroots political units, the concept of "self-management" becomes that of municipal self-government, a form of civic organization in which people take back control of their living places from the bureaucratic state and the capitalist class whose interests it serves. As Kropotkin argued, "socialism must become more popular, more communalistic, and less dependent upon indirect government through elected representatives. It must become more self-governing." [Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 185]
This empowerment of ordinary citizens through decentralization and direct democracy will eliminate the alienation and apathy that are now rampant in the modern city, and (as always happens when people are free) unleash a flood of innovation in dealing with the social breakdown now afflicting our urban wastelands. The gigantic metropolis with its hierarchical and impersonal administration, its atomised and isolated "residents," will be transformed into a network of humanly scaled participatory communities (sometimes called "communes"), each with its own unique character and forms of self-government, which will be cooperatively linked through federation with other communities at several levels, from the municipal through the bioregional to the global.
Of course, it can (and has) been argued that people are just not interested in "politics." Further, some claim that this disinterest is why governments exist -- people delegate their responsibilities and power to others because they have better things to do. Anarchists, however, do not draw this conclusion from the current apathy that surrounds us. In fact, we argue that this apathy is not the cause of government but its result. Government is an inherently hierarchical system in which ordinary people are deliberately marginalised. The powerlessness people feel due to the workings of the system ensure that they are apathetic about it, thus guaranteeing that wealthy and powerful elites govern society without hindrance from the majority.
This result is not an accident, and the marginalisation or ordinary people is actually celebrated in "democratic" theory. As Noam Chomsky notes, "Twentieth century democratic theorists advise that 'The public must be put in its place,' so that the 'responsible men' may 'live free of the trampling and roar of a bewildered herd,' 'ignorant and meddlesome outsiders' whose 'function' is to be 'interested spectators of action,' not participants, lending their weight periodically to one or another of the leadership class (elections), then returning to their private concerns. (Walter Lippman). The great mass of the population, 'ignorant and mentally deficient,' must be kept in their place for the common good, fed with 'necessary illusion' and 'emotionally potent oversimplifications' (Wilson's Secretary of State Robert Lansing, Reinhold Niebuhr). Their 'conservative' counterparts are only more extreme in their adulation of the Wise Men who are the rightful rulers -- in the service of the rich and powerful, a minor footnote regularly forgotten" [Year 501, p. 18]
As discussed in Section B.2.6 (Who benefits from centralisation?) this marginalisation of the public from political life ensures that the wealthy can be "left alone" to use their power as they see fit. In other words, such marginalisation is a necessary part of a fully functioning capitalist society (as predicted by Thomas Jefferson, among others, when he said that "The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when the government falls into the hands of banking institutions and monied incorporations"). Hence, under capitalism, libertarian social structures are to be discouraged. Or as Chomsky puts it, the "rabble must be instructed in the values of subordination and a narrow quest for personal gain within the parameters set by the institutions of the masters; meaningful democracy, with popular association and action, is a threat to be overcome." [Op. Cit., p. 18] This philosophy can be seen in the statement of a US Banker in Venezuela under the murderous Jimenez dictatorship: "You have the freedom here to do whatever you want to do with your money, and to me, that is worth all the political freedom in the world." [quoted by Chomsky, Op. Cit., p. 99]
Deterring libertarian alternatives to statism is a common feature of our current system. By marginalising and disempowering people, the ability of individuals to manage their own social activities is undermined and weakened. They develop a "fear of freedom" and embrace authoritarian institutions and "strong leaders," which in turn reinforces their marginalisation.
This consequence is hardly surprising. Anarchists maintain that the desire to participate and the ability to participate are in a symbiotic relationship: participation feeds on itself. By creating the social structures that allow participation, participation will increase. As people increasingly take control of their lives, so their ability to do so also increases. The challenge of having to take responsibility for decisions that make a difference is at the same time an opportunity for personal development. To begin to feel power, having previously felt powerless, to win access to the resources required for effective participation and learn how to use them, is a liberating experience. Once people become active subjects, making things happen in one aspect of their lives, they are less likely to remain passive objects, allowing things to happen to them, in other aspects.
Hence a meaningful communal life based on self-empowered individuals is a distinct possibility. It is the hierarchical structures in statism and capitalism, marginalising and disempowering the majority, which is at the root of the current social apathy in the face of increasing social and ecological disruption. Libertarian socialists therefore call for a radically new form of political system to replace the centralized nation-state, a form that would be based around confederations of self-governing communities. In other words "Society is a society of societies; a league of leagues of leagues; a commonwealth of commonwealths of commonwealths; a republic of republics of republics. Only there is freedom and order, only there is spirit, a spirit which is self-sufficiency and community, unity and independence." [Gustav Landauer, For Socialism, pp. 125-126]
To create such a system would require dismantling the nation-state and reconstituting relations between communities on the basis of self-determination and free and equal confederation from below. In this following subsections we will examine in more detail why this new system is needed and what it might look like. We will point out here that we are discussing the social structure of areas within which the inhabitants are predominately anarchists. It is obviously the case that areas in which the inhabitants are not anarchists will take on different forms depending upon the ideas that dominate there. Hence, assuming the end of the current state structure, we could see anarchist communities along with statist ones (capitalist or socialist) and these communities taking different forms depending on what their inhabitants want - communist to individualist communities in the case of anarchist ones, republician to private state organisations in the statist areas,, ones based on religious sects and so on. As it is up to non-anarchists to present their arguments in favour of their kind of statism, we will concentrate on discussing anarchist ideas on social organisation here.
As Murray Bookchin argues in The Rise of Urbanization and the Decline of
Citizenship, the modern city is a virtual appendage of the capitalist
workplace, being an outgrowth and essential counterpart of the factory
(where "factory" means any enterprise in which surplus value is extracted
from employees.) As such, cities are structured and administered primarily
to serve the needs of the capitalist elite -- employers -- rather than the
needs of the many -- their employees. From this standpoint, the city must
be seen as (1) a transportation hub for importing raw materials and
exporting finished products; and (2) a huge dormitory for wage slaves,
conveniently locating them near the enterprises where their labor is to
exploited, providing them with entertainment, clothing, medical
facilities, etc. as well as coercive mechanisms for controlling their
behavior.
The attitude behind the management of these "civic" functions by the
bureaucratic servants of the capitalist ruling class is purely
instrumental: worker-citizens are to be treated merely as means to
corporate ends, not as ends in themselves. This attitude is reflected in
the overwhelmingly alienating features of the modern city: its inhuman
scale; the chilling impersonality of its institutions and functionaries;
its sacrifice of health, comfort, pleasure, and aesthetic considerations
to bottom-line requirements of efficiency and "cost effectiveness"; the
lack of any real communal interaction among residents other than
collective consumption of commodities and amusements; their consequent
social isolation and tendency to escape into television, alcohol, drugs,
gangs, etc. Such features make the modern metropolis the very antithesis
of the genuine community for which most of its residents hunger. This
contradiction at the heart of the system contains the possibility of
radical social and political change.
The key to that change, from the anarchist standpoint, is the creation of
a network of participatory communities based on self-government through
direct, face-to-face democracy in grassroots neighbourhood and community
assemblies. These assemblies will be general meetings open to all citizens
in every neighbourhood, town, and village, and will be the source of and
final authority over public policy for all levels of confederal
coordination. Such "town meetings" will bring ordinary people directly
into the political process and give them an equal voice in the decisions
that affect their lives - "a people governing itself directly - when
possible - without intermediaries, without masters." [Peter Kropotkin,
The Great French Revolution Vol 1, p. 210] Traditionally, these "town
meetings" or participatory communities were called communes in anarchist
theory.
As Kropotkin pointed out, a "new form of political organisation has to be
worked out the moment that socialistic principles shall enter our life.
And it is self-evident that this new form will have to be more popular,
more decentralised, and nearer to the folk-mote self-government than
representative government can ever be." [Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets,
p. 184] He, like all anarchists, considered the idea that socialism could
be created by taking over the current state or creating a new one as
doomed to failure. Instead, he recognised that socialism would only be
built using new organisations that reflect the spirit of socialism (such
as freedom, self-government and so on). Kropotkin, like Proudhon and
Bakunin before him, therefore argued that "[t]his was the form that
the social revolution must take -- the independent commune. . .[whose]
inhabitants have decided that they will communalize the consumption of
commodities, their exchange and their production" [Op. Cit., p. 163]
The size of the neighbourhood assemblies will vary, but it will probably
fluctuate around some ideal size, discoverable in practice, that will
provide a viable scale of face-to-face interaction and allow for both a
variety of personal contacts and the opportunity to know and form a
personal estimation of everyone in the neighborhood. Some anarchists have
suggested that the ideal size for a neighbourhood assembly might be around
300 to 600 adults, meeting in neighborhoods of 500 to 1,000 people. (See,
for example, "Green Political and Social Change" by the Syracuse/Onandaga
County Greens, in Our Generation magazine, vol. 24, No 2. ). Such
assemblies would meet regularly, perhaps monthly, and deal with a variety
of issues. "Neighborhoods of this size can support their assemblies to
oversee the administration of elementary schools, child care centers,
retail outlets for basic home supplies, solar based energy sources,
community gardens, community handicraft and machine tool workshops,
community laundries, and much more, all within close walking distance"
[Ibid].
Community assemblies and councils would be larger political units covering
groups of neighborhoods involving perhaps 5,000 to 10,000 people. Like the
neighborhood assemblies, they would be based on direct, "town-meeting"-style
democracy. Most economies of scale are reached at this size:
"For example, assuming today's technology, division of labor,
and level of workforce participation, a community of 10,000 with 2,000
manufacturing workers would be able to staff three plants of current
average size in each of the thirteen basic manufacturing categories --
enough to supply the community with most of its manufacturing needs with
considerable variety. Add multi-purpose machines, miniaturization, and
cybernation, and the possibilities for a high degree of economic
self-reliance become obvious. At this scale, the community still remains
comprehensible, community control of the economy feasible, and such
measures as distribution according to need and the regular rotation of
people through a full range of types of work and public administrative
responsibilities can be easily introduced. Communities of 5,000 to 10,000
would combine community assemblies, meeting perhaps quarterly to decide on
basic policy, with community councils consisting of mandated, recallable,
and rotating delegates from the neighborhood assemblies to oversee day to
day coordination and administration of community policies" [Ibid]
Since not all issues are local, the neighbourhood and community assemblies
will also elect mandated and recallable delegates to the larger-scale
units of self-government in order to address issues affecting larger
areas, such as urban districts, the municipality as a whole, the county,
the bioregion, and ultimately the entire planet. Thus the assemblies
will confederate at several levels in order to develop and coordinate
common policies to deal with common problems.
This need for cooperation does not imply a centralised body. As Kropotkin
pointed out, anarchists "understand that if no central government was needed
to rule the independent communes, if national government is thrown
overboard and national unity is obtained by free federation, then a
central municipal government becomes equally useless and noxious. The
same federative principle would do within the commune." [Kropotkin's
Revolutionary Pamphlets, pp. 163-164]
As in the economic federation of syndicates, the lower levels will control
the higher, thus eliminating the current pre-emptive powers of centralised
government hierarchies. Delegates to higher-level coordinating councils or
conferences will be instructed, at every level of confederation, by the
assemblies they represent, on how to deal with any issue. These
instructions will be binding, committing delegates to a framework of
policies within which they must act and providing for their recall and the
nullification of their decisions if they fail to carry out their mandates.
Delegates may be selected by election and/or sortition (random selection
by lot, as for jury duty).
Most anarchists recognize that there will be a need for "public officials"
with delegated "powers" within the social confederation. However, "powers"
is not the best word to describe their activities, because their work is
essentially administrative in nature -- for example, an individual may be
elected to look into alternative power supplies for a community and report
back on what he or she discovers. Or one may be elected to overlook the
installation of a selected power supply. Because such a person is an elected
delegate of the community, he or she is a "public official" in the broadest
sense of the word, essentially an agent of the local community who is
controlled by, and accountable to, that community.
Therefore, such "officials" are unlike politicians. This is for two reasons.
Firstly, they cannot make policy decisions on behalf of those who elected
them, and so they do not have governmental power over those who elected them.
Taking the example of alternative power supplies, the elected "official"
would present findings to the body by which he or she had been mandated.
These findings are not a law which the electors are required to follow,
but a series of suggestions and information from which they chose what
they think is best. By this method the "officials" remain the servants of the
public and are not given power to make decisions for people. In addition,
these "officials" will be rotated frequently to prevent a professionalization
of politics and the problem of politicians being largely on their own once
elected.
Therefore, such "public officials" would be under the strict control of
the organisations that elected them to administration posts. But, as
Kropotkin argued, the general assembly of the community "in permanence -
the forum always open - is the only way . . .to assure an honest and
intelligent administration . . . [and is based upon] distrust of all
executive powers." [The Great French Revolution Vol.1, p. 211]
As Murray Bookchin argues, a "confederalist view involves a clear distinction
between policy making and the coordination and execution of adopted policies.
Policy making is exclusively the right of popular community assemblies based
on the practices of participatory democracy. Administration and coordination
are the responsibility of confederal councils, which become the means for
interlinking villages, towns, neighbourhoods, and cities into confederal
networks. Power flows from the bottom up instead of from the top down, and
in confederations, the flow of power from the bottom up diminishes with the
scope of the federal council ranging territorially from localities to
regions and from regions to ever-broader territorial areas." ["The Meaning
of Confederation", p. 48, Society and Nature No.3, pp. 41-54]
Thus the people will have the final word on policy, which is the essence
of self-government, and each citizen will have his or her turn to
participate in the coordination of public affairs. In other words, the
"legislative branch" of self-government will be the people themselves
organized in their community assemblies and their confederal coordinating
councils, with the "executive branch" (public officials) limited to
implementing policy formulated by the legislative branch, that is, by the
people.
Besides rotation of public officials, means to ensure the accountability
of such officials to the people will include a wider use of elections and
sortitions, open access to proceedings and records of "executive"
activities by computer or direct inspection, the right of citizen
assemblies to mandate delegates to higher-level confederal meetings,
recall their officials, and revoke their decisions, and the creation of
accountability boards, elected or selected by lot (as for jury duty), for
each important administrative branch, from local to national.
Virtually all the services and productive enterprises necessary to meet
the needs of the population are present in today's small cities of 50,000
to 100,000. Beyond this size, diseconomies of scale begin to appear due to
the complexities of coordinating urban services across wide areas and
large populations. Therefore a libertarian-socialist society would
probably form another level of confederation at the 50,000 to 100,000
range. Such units of confederation would include urban districts within
today's large cities, small cities, and rural districts composed of
several nearby towns. At this size, economies of scale can be achieved for
nearly all the remaining social needs such as universities, hospitals, and
cultural institutions.
However, face-to-face meetings of the whole population are impractical at
this size. Therefore, the legislative body at this level would be the
confederal council, which would consist of mandated, recallable, and
rotating delegates from the neighborhood assemblies. These delegates would
formulate policies to be discussed and voted on by the neighborhood
assemblies, with the votes being summed across the district to determine
district policy by majority rule.
To quote the Syracuse/Onandaga County Greens again, "Since almost all of
the economies of scale and public decisions necessary for social
self-management can be achieved by the time we reach the 50,000 to 100,000
scale, larger levels of confederation can be oriented mainly around
bioregional and cultural affinities and the few remaining but important
economic resources that must be shared at these scales." ["Green Political
and Social Change", Ibid]
Ties between bioregions or larger territories based on the distribution of
such things as geographically concentrated mineral deposits, climate dependent
crops, and production facilities that are most efficient when concentrated
in one area will unite communities confederally on the basis of common
material needs as well as values. At the bioregional and higher levels of
confederation, councils of mandated, recallable, and rotating delegates
will coordinate policies at those levels, but such policies will still be
subject to approval by the neighborhood and community assemblies through
their right to recall their representatives and revoke their decisions.
In the final analysis, libertarian socialism cannot function optimally --
and indeed may be fatally undermined -- unless the 000
rangeded?
Since not all issues are local, the neighbourhood and community assemblies
will also elect mandated and recallable delegates to the larger-scale
units of self-government in order to address issues affecting larger
areas, such as urban districts, the municipality as a whole, the county,
the bioregion, and ultimately the entire planet. Thus the assemblies
will confederate at several levels in order to develop and coordinate
common policies to deal with common problems.
This need for cooperation does not imply a centralised body. As Kropotkin
pointed out, anarchists "understand that if no central government was needed
to rule the independent communes, if national government is thrown
overboard and national unity is obtained by free federation, then a
central municipal government becomes equally useless and noxious. The
same federative principle would do within the commune." [Kropotkin's
Revolutionary Pamphlets, pp. 163-164]
As in the economic federation of syndicates, the lower levels will control
the higher, thus eliminating the current pre-emptive powers of centralised
government hierarchies. Delegates to higher-level coordinating councils or
conferences will be instructed, at every level of confederation, by the
assemblies they represent, on how to deal with any issue. These
instructions will be binding, committing delegates to a framework of
policies within which they must act and providing for their recall and the
nullification of their decisions if they fail to carry out their mandates.
Delegates may be selected by election and/or sortition (random selection
by lot, as for jury duty).
Most anarchists recognize that there will be a need for "public officials"
with delegated "powers" within the social confederation. However, "powers"
is not the best word to describe their activities, because their work is
essentially administrative in nature -- for example, an individual may be
elected to look into alternative power supplies for a community and report
back on what he or she discovers. Or one may be elected to overlook the
installation of a selected power supply. Because such a person is an elected
delegate of the community, he or she is a "public official" in the broadest
sense of the word, essentially an agent of the local community who is
controlled by, and accountable to, that community.
Therefore, such "officials" are unlike politicians. This is for two reasons.
Firstly, they cannot make policy decisions on behalf of those who elected
them, and so they do not have governmental power over those who elected them.
Taking the example of alternative power supplies, the elected "official"
would present findings to the body by which he or she had been mandated.
These findings are not a law which the electors are required to follow,
but a series of suggestions and information from which they chose what
they think is best. By this method the "officials" remain the servants of the
public and are not given power to make decisions for people. In addition,
these "officials" will be rotated frequently to prevent a professionalization
of politics and the problem of politicians being largely on their own once
elected.
Therefore, such "public officials" would be under the strict control of
the organisations that elected them to administration posts. But, as
Kropotkin argued, the general assembly of the community "in permanence -
the forum always open - is the only way . . .to assure an honest and
intelligent administration . . . [and is based upon] distrust of all
executive powers." [The Great French Revolution Vol.1, p. 211]
As Murray Bookchin argues, a "confederalist view involves a clear distinction
between policy making and the coordination and execution of adopted policies.
Policy making is exclusively the right of popular community assemblies based
on the practices of participatory democracy. Administration and coordination
are the responsibility of confederal councils, which become the means for
interlinking villages, towns, neighbourhoods, and cities into confederal
networks. Power flows from the bottom up instead of from the top down, and
in confederations, the flow of power from the bottom up diminishes with the
scope of the federal council ranging territorially from localities to
regions and from regions to ever-broader territorial areas." ["The Meaning
of Confederation", p. 48, Society and Nature No.3, pp. 41-54]
Thus the people will have the final word on policy, which is the essence
of self-government, and each citizen will have his or her turn to
participate in the coordination of public affairs. In other words, the
"legislative branch" of self-government will be the people themselves
organized in their community assemblies and their confederal coordinating
councils, with the "executive branch" (public officials) limited to
implementing policy formulated by the legislative branch, that is, by the
people.
Besides rotation of public officials, means to ensure the accountability
of such officials to the people will include a wider use of elections and
sortitions, open access to proceedings and records of "executive"
activities by computer or direct inspection, the right of citizen
assemblies to mandate delegates to higher-level confederal meetings,
recall their officials, and revoke their decisions, and the creation of
accountability boards, elected or selected by lot (as for jury duty), for
each important administrative branch, from local to national.
Virtually all the services and productive enterprises necessary to meet
the needs of the population are present in today's small cities of 50,000
to 100,000. Beyond this size, diseconomies of scale begin to appear due to
the complexities of coordinating urban services across wide areas and
large populations. Therefore a libertarian-socialist society would
probably form another level of confederation at the 50,000 to 100,000
range. Such units of confederation would include urban districts within
today's large cities, small cities, and rural districts composed of
several nearby towns. At this size, economies of scale can be achieved for
nearly all the remaining social needs such as universities, hospitals, and
cultural institutions.
However, face-to-face meetings of the whole population are impractical at
this size. Therefore, the legislative body at this level would be the
confederal council, which would consist of mandated, recallable, and
rotating delegates from the neighborhood assemblies. These delegates would
formulate policies to be discussed and voted on by the neighborhood
assemblies, with the votes being summed across the district to determine
district policy by majority rule.
To quote the Syracuse/Onandaga County Greens again, "Since almost all of
the economies of scale and public decisions necessary for social
self-management can be achieved by the time we reach the 50,000 to 100,000
scale, larger levels of confederation can be oriented mainly around
bioregional and cultural affinities and the few remaining but important
economic resources that must be shared at these scales." ["Green Political
and Social Change", Ibid]
Ties between bioregions or larger territories based on the distribution of
such things as geographically concentrated mineral deposits, climate dependent
crops, and production facilities that are most efficient when concentrated
in one area will unite communities confederally on the basis of common
material needs as well as values. At the bioregional and higher levels of
confederation, councils of mandated, recallable, and rotating delegates
will coordinate policies at those levels, but such policies will still be
subject to approval by the neighborhood and community assemblies through
their right to recall their representatives and revoke their decisions.
In the final analysis, libertarian socialism cannot function optimally --
and indeed may be fatally undermined -- unless the 000
rangeded?
Since not all issues are local, the neighbourhood and community assemblies
will also elect mandated and recallable delegates to the larger-scale
units of self-government in order to address issues affecting larger
areas, such as urban districts, the municipality as a whole, the county,
the bioregion, and ultimately the entire planet. Thus the assemblies
will confederate at several levels in order to develop and coordinate
common policies to deal with common problems.
This need for cooperation does not imply a centralised body. As Kropotkin
pointed out, anarchists "understand that if no central government was needed
to rule the independent communes, if national government is thrown
overboard and national unity is obtained by free federation, then a
central municipal government becomes equally useless and noxious. The
same federative principle would do within the commune." [Kropotkin's
Revolutionary Pamphlets, pp. 163-164]
As in the economic federation of syndicates, the lower levels will control
the higher, thus eliminating the current pre-emptive powers of centralised
government hierarchies. Delegates to higher-level coordinating councils or
conferences will be instructed, at every level of confederation, by the
assemblies they represent, on how to deal with any issue. These
instructions will be binding, committing delegates to a framework of
policies within which they must act and providing for their recall and the
nullification of their decisions if they fail to carry out their mandates.
Delegates may be selected by election and/or sortition (random selection
by lot, as for jury duty).
Most anarchists recognize that there will be a need for "public officials"
with delegated "powers" within the social confederation. However, "powers"
is not the best word to describe their activities, because their work is
essentially administrative in nature -- for example, an individual may be
elected to look into alternative power supplies for a community and report
back on what he or she discovers. Or one may be elected to overlook the
installation of a selected power supply. Because such a person is an elected
delegate of the community, he or she is a "public official" in the broadest
sense of the word, essentially an agent of the local community who is
controlled by, and accountable to, that community.
Therefore, such "officials" are unlike politicians. This is for two reasons.
Firstly, they cannot make policy decisions on behalf of those who elected
them, and so they do not have governmental power over those who elected them.
Taking the example of alternative power supplies, the elected "official"
would present findings to the body by which he or she had been mandated.
These findings are not a law which the electors are required to follow,
but a series of suggestions and information from which they chose what
they think is best. By this method the "officials" remain the servants of the
public and are not given power to make decisions for people. In addition,
these "officials" will be rotated frequently to prevent a professionalization
of politics and the problem of politicians being largely on their own once
elected.
Therefore, such "public officials" would be under the strict control of
the organisations that elected them to administration posts. But, as
Kropotkin argued, the general assembly of the community "in permanence -
the forum always open - is the only way . . .to assure an honest and
intelligent administration . . . [and is based upon] distrust of all
executive powers." [The Great French Revolution Vol.1, p. 211]
As Murray Bookchin argues, a "confederalist view involves a clear distinction
between policy making and the coordination and execution of adopted policies.
Policy making is exclusively the right of popular community assemblies based
on the practices of participatory democracy. Administration and coordination
are the responsibility of confederal councils, which become the means for
interlinking villages, towns, neighbourhoods, and cities into confederal
networks. Power flows from the bottom up instead of from the top down, and
in confederations, the flow of power from the bottom up diminishes with the
scope of the federal council ranging territorially from localities to
regions and from regions to ever-broader territorial areas." ["The Meaning
of Confederation", p. 48, Society and Nature No.3, pp. 41-54]
Thus the people will have the final word on policy, which is the essence
of self-government, and each citizen will have his or her turn to
participate in the coordination of public affairs. In other words, the
"legislative branch" of self-government will be the people themselves
organized in their community assemblies and their confederal coordinating
councils, with the "executive branch" (public officials) limited to
implementing policy formulated by the legislative branch, that is, by the
people.
Besides rotation of public officials, means to ensure the accountability
of such officials to the people will include a wider use of elections and
sortitions, open access to proceedings and records of "executive"
activities by computer or direct inspection, the right of citizen
assemblies to mandate delegates to higher-level confederal meetings,
recall their officials, and revoke their decisions, and the creation of
accountability boards, elected or selected by lot (as for jury duty), for
each important administrative branch, from local to national.
Virtually all the services and productive enterprises necessary to meet
the needs of the population are present in today's small cities of 50,000
to 100,000. Beyond this size, diseconomies of scale begin to appear due to
the complexities of coordinating urban services across wide areas and
large populations. Therefore a libertarian-socialist society would
probably form another level of confederation at the 50,000 to 100,000
range. Such units of confederation would include urban districts within
today's large cities, small cities, and rural districts composed of
several nearby towns. At this size, economies of scale can be achieved for
nearly all the remaining social needs such as universities, hospitals, and
cultural institutions.
However, face-to-face meetings of the whole population are impractical at
this size. Therefore, the legislative body at this level would be the
confederal council, which would consist of mandated, recallable, and
rotating delegates from the neighborhood assemblies. These delegates would
formulate policies to be discussed and voted on by the neighborhood
assemblies, with the votes being summed across the district to determine
district policy by majority rule.
To quote the Syracuse/Onandaga County Greens again, "Since almost all of
the economies of scale and public decisions necessary for social
self-management can be achieved by the time we reach the 50,000 to 100,000
scale, larger levels of confederation can be oriented mainly around
bioregional and cultural affinities and the few remaining but important
economic resources that must be shared at these scales." ["Green Political
and Social Change", Ibid]
Ties between bioregions or larger territories based on the distribution of
such things as geographically concentrated mineral deposits, climate dependent
crops, and production facilities that are most efficient when concentrated
in one area will unite communities confederally on the basis of common
material needs as well as values. At the bioregional and higher levels of
confederation, councils of mandated, recallable, and rotating delegates
will coordinate policies at those levels, but such policies will still be
subject to approval by the neighborhood and community assemblies through
their right to recall their representatives and revoke their decisions.
In the final analysis, libertarian socialism cannot function optimally --
and indeed may be fatally undermined -- unless the 000
rangeded?
Since not all issues are local, the neighbourhood and community assemblies
will also elect mandated and recallable delegates to the larger-scale
units of self-government in order to address issues affecting larger
areas, such as urban districts, the municipality as a whole, the county,
the bioregion, and ultimately the entire planet. Thus the assemblies
will confederate at several levels in order to develop and coordinate
common policies to deal with common problems.
This need for cooperation does not imply a centralised body. As Kropotkin
pointed out, anarchists "understand that if no central government was needed
to rule the independent communes, if national government is thrown
overboard and national unity is obtained by free federation, then a
central municipal government becomes equally useless and noxious. The
same federative principle would do within the commune." [Kropotkin's
Revolutionary Pamphlets, pp. 163-164]
As in the economic federation of syndicates, the lower levels will control
the higher, thus eliminating the current pre-emptive powers of centralised
government hierarchies. Delegates to higher-level coordinating councils or
conferences will be instructed, at every level of confederation, by the
assemblies they represent, on how to deal with any issue. These
instructions will be binding, committing delegates to a framework of
policies within which they must act and providing for their recall and the
nullification of their decisions if they fail to carry out their mandates.
Delegates may be selected by election and/or sortition (random selection
by lot, as for jury duty).
Most anarchists recognize that there will be a need for "public officials"
with delegated "powers" within the social confederation. However, "powers"
is not the best word to describe their activities, because their work is
essentially administrative in nature -- for example, an individual may be
elected to look into alternative power supplies for a community and report
back on what he or she discovers. Or one may be elected to overlook the
installation of a selected power supply. Because such a person is an elected
delegate of the community, he or she is a "public official" in the broadest
sense of the word, essentially an agent of the local community who is
controlled by, and accountable to, that community.
Therefore, such "officials" are unlike politicians. This is for two reasons.
Firstly, they cannot make policy decisions on behalf of those who elected
them, and so they do not have governmental power over those who elected them.
Taking the example of alternative power supplies, the elected "official"
would present findings to the body by which he or she had been mandated.
These findings are not a law which the electors are required to follow,
but a series of suggestions and information from which they chose what
they think is best. By this method the "officials" remain the servants of the
public and are not given power to make decisions for people. In addition,
these "officials" will be rotated frequently to prevent a professionalization
of politics and the problem of politicians being largely on their own once
elected.
Therefore, such "public officials" would be under the strict control of
the organisations that elected them to administration posts. But, as
Kropotkin argued, the general assembly of the community "in permanence -
the forum always open - is the only way . . .to assure an honest and
intelligent administration . . . [and is based upon] distrust of all
executive powers." [The Great French Revolution Vol.1, p. 211]
As Murray Bookchin argues, a "confederalist view involves a clear distinction
between policy making and the coordination and execution of adopted policies.
Policy making is exclusively the right of popular community assemblies based
on the practices of participatory democracy. Administration and coordination
are the responsibility of confederal councils, which become the means for
interlinking villages, towns, neighbourhoods, and cities into confederal
networks. Power flows from the bottom up instead of from the top down, and
in confederations, the flow of power from the bottom up diminishes with the
scope of the federal council ranging territorially from localities to
regions and from regions to ever-broader territorial areas." ["The Meaning
of Confederation", p. 48, Society and Nature No.3, pp. 41-54]
Thus the people will have the final word on policy, which is the essence
of self-government, and each citizen will have his or her turn to
participate in the coordination of public affairs. In other words, the
"legislative branch" of self-government will be the people themselves
organized in their community assemblies and their confederal coordinating
councils, with the "executive branch" (public officials) limited to
implementing policy formulated by the legislative branch, that is, by the
people.
Besides rotation of public officials, means to ensure the accountability
of such officials to the people will include a wider use of elections and
sortitions, open access to proceedings and records of "executive"
activities by computer or direct inspection, the right of citizen
assemblies to mandate delegates to higher-level confederal meetings,
recall their officials, and revoke their decisions, and the creation of
accountability boards, elected or selected by lot (as for jury duty), for
each important administrative branch, from local to national.
Virtually all the services and productive enterprises necessary to meet
the needs of the population are present in today's small cities of 50,000
to 100,000. Beyond this size, diseconomies of scale begin to appear due to
the complexities of coordinating urban services across wide areas and
large populations. Therefore a libertarian-socialist society would
probably form another level of confederation at the 50,000 to 100,000
range. Such units of confederation would include urban districts within
today's large cities, small cities, and rural districts composed of
several nearby towns. At this size, economies of scale can be achieved for
nearly all the remaining social needs such as universities, hospitals, and
cultural institutions.
However, face-to-face meetings of the whole population are impractical at
this size. Therefore, the legislative body at this level would be the
confederal council, which would consist of mandated, recallable, and
rotating delegates from the neighborhood assemblies. These delegates would
formulate policies to be discussed and voted on by the neighborhood
assemblies, with the votes being summed across the district to determine
district policy by majority rule.
To quote the Syracuse/Onandaga County Greens again, "Since almost all of
the economies of scale and public decisions necessary for social
self-management can be achieved by the time we reach the 50,000 to 100,000
scale, larger levels of confederation can be oriented mainly around
bioregional and cultural affinities and the few remaining but important
economic resources that must be shared at these scales." ["Green Political
and Social Change", Ibid]
Ties between bioregions or larger territories based on the distribution of
such things as geographically concentrated mineral deposits, climate dependent
crops, and production facilities that are most efficient when concentrated
in one area will unite communities confederally on the basis of common
material needs as well as values. At the bioregional and higher levels of
confederation, councils of mandated, recallable, and rotating delegates
will coordinate policies at those levels, but such policies will still be
subject to approval by the neighborhood and community assemblies through
their right to recall their representatives and revoke their decisions.
In the final analysis, libertarian socialism cannot function optimally --
and indeed may be fatally undermined -- unless the 000
rangeded?
Since not all issues are local, the neighbourhood and community assemblies
will also elect mandated and recallable delegates to the larger-scale
units of self-government in order to address issues affecting larger
areas, such as urban districts, the municipality as a whole, the county,
the bioregion, and ultimately the entire planet. Thus the assemblies
will confederate at several levels in order to develop and coordinate
common policies to deal with common problems.
This need for cooperation does not imply a centralised body. As Kropotkin
pointed out, anarchists "understand that if no central government was needed
to rule the independent communes, if national government is thrown
overboard and national unity is obtained by free federation, then a
central municipal government becomes equally useless and noxious. The
same federative principle would do within the commune." [Kropotkin's
Revolutionary Pamphlets, pp. 163-164]
As in the economic federation of syndicates, the lower levels will control
the higher, thus eliminating the current pre-emptive powers of centralised
government hierarchies. Delegates to higher-level coordinating councils or
conferences will be instructed, at every level of confederation, by the
assemblies they represent, on how to deal with any issue. These
instructions will be binding, committing delegates to a framework of
policies within which they must act and providing for their recall and the
nullification of their decisions if they fail to carry out their mandates.
Delegates may be selected by election and/or sortition (random selection
by lot, as for jury duty).
Most anarchists recognize that there will be a need for "public officials"
with delegated "powers" within the social confederation. However, "powers"
is not the best word to describe their activities, because their work is
essentially administrative in nature -- for example, an individual may be
elected to look into alternative power supplies for a community and report
back on what he or she discovers. Or one may be elected to overlook the
installation of a selected power supply. Because such a person is an elected
delegate of the community, he or she is a "public official" in the broadest
sense of the word, essentially an agent of the local community who is
controlled by, and accountable to, that community.
Therefore, such "officials" are unlike politicians. This is for two reasons.
Firstly, they cannot make policy decisions on behalf of those who elected
them, and so they do not have governmental power over those who elected them.
Taking the example of alternative power supplies, the elected "official"
would present findings to the body by which he or she had been mandated.
These findings are not a law which the electors are required to follow,
but a series of suggestions and information from which they chose what
they think is best. By this method the "officials" remain the servants of the
public and are not given power to make decisions for people. In addition,
these "officials" will be rotated frequently to prevent a professionalization
of politics and the problem of politicians being largely on their own once
elected.
Therefore, such "public officials" would be under the strict control of
the organisations that elected them to administration posts. But, as
Kropotkin argued, the general assembly of the community "in permanence -
the forum always open - is the only way . . .to assure an honest and
intelligent administration . . . [and is based upon] distrust of all
executive powers." [The Great French Revolution Vol.1, p. 211]
As Murray Bookchin argues, a "confederalist view involves a clear distinction
between policy making and the coordination and execution of adopted policies.
Policy making is exclusively the right of popular community assemblies based
on the practices of participatory democracy. Administration and coordination
are the responsibility of confederal councils, which become the means for
interlinking villages, towns, neighbourhoods, and cities into confederal
networks. Power flows from the bottom up instead of from the top down, and
in confederations, the flow of power from the bottom up diminishes with the
scope of the federal council ranging territorially from localities to
regions and from regions to ever-broader territorial areas." ["The Meaning
of Confederation", p. 48, Society and Nature No.3, pp. 41-54]
Thus the people will have the final word on policy, which is the essence
of self-government, and each citizen will have his or her turn to
participate in the coordination of public affairs. In other words, the
"legislative branch" of self-government will be the people themselves
organized in their community assemblies and their confederal coordinating
councils, with the "executive branch" (public officials) limited to
implementing policy formulated by the legislative branch, that is, by the
people.
Besides rotation of public officials, means to ensure the accountability
of such officials to the people will include a wider use of elections and
sortitions, open access to proceedings and records of "executive"
activities by computer or direct inspection, the right of citizen
assemblies to mandate delegates to higher-level confederal meetings,
recall their officials, and revoke their decisions, and the creation of
accountability boards, elected or selected by lot (as for jury duty), for
each important administrative branch, from local to national.
Virtually all the services and productive enterprises necessary to meet
the needs of the population are present in today's small cities of 50,000
to 100,000. Beyond this size, diseconomies of scale begin to appear due to
the complexities of coordinating urban services across wide areas and
large populations. Therefore a libertarian-socialist society would
probably form another level of confederation at the 50,000 to 100,000
range. Such units of confederation would include urban districts within
today's large cities, small cities, and rural districts composed of
several nearby towns. At this size, economies of scale can be achieved for
nearly all the remaining social needs such as universities, hospitals, and
cultural institutions.
However, face-to-face meetings of the whole population are impractical at
this size. Therefore, the legislative body at this level would be the
confederal council, which would consist of mandated, recallable, and
rotating delegates from the neighborhood assemblies. These delegates would
formulate policies to be discussed and voted on by the neighborhood
assemblies, with the votes being summed across the district to determine
district policy by majority rule.
To quote the Syracuse/Onandaga County Greens again, "Since almost all of
the economies of scale and public decisions necessary for social
self-management can be achieved by the time we reach the 50,000 to 100,000
scale, larger levels of confederation can be oriented mainly around
bioregional and cultural affinities and the few remaining but important
economic resources that must be shared at these scales." ["Green Political
and Social Change", Ibid]
Ties between bioregions or larger territories based on the distribution of
such things as geographically concentrated mineral deposits, climate dependent
crops, and production facilities that are most efficient when concentrated
in one area will unite communities confederally on the basis of common
material needs as well as values. At the bioregional and higher levels of
confederation, councils of mandated, recallable, and rotating delegates
will coordinate policies at those levels, but such policies will still be
subject to approval by the neighborhood and community assemblies through
their right to recall their representatives and revoke their decisions.
In the final analysis, libertarian socialism cannot function optimally --
and indeed may be fatally undermined -- unless the 000
rangeded?
Since not all issues are local, the neighbourhood and community assemblies
will also elect mandated and recallable delegates to the larger-scale
units of self-government in order to address issues affecting larger
areas, such as urban districts, the municipality as a whole, the county,
the bioregion, and ultimately the entire planet. Thus the assemblies
will confederate at several levels in order to develop and coordinate
common policies to deal with common problems.
This need for cooperation does not imply a centralised body. As Kropotkin
pointed out, anarchists "understand that if no central government was needed
to rule the independent communes, if national government is thrown
overboard and national unity is obtained by free federation, then a
central municipal government becomes equally useless and noxious. The
same federative principle would do within the commune." [Kropotkin's
Revolutionary Pamphlets, pp. 163-164]
As in the economic federation of syndicates, the lower levels will control
the higher, thus eliminating the current pre-emptive powers of centralised
government hierarchies. Delegates to higher-level coordinating councils or
conferences will be instructed, at every level of confederation, by the
assemblies they represent, on how to deal with any issue. These
instructions will be binding, committing delegates to a framework of
policies within which they must act and providing for their recall and the
nullification of their decisions if they fail to carry out their mandates.
Delegates may be selected by election and/or sortition (random selection
by lot, as for jury duty).
Most anarchists recognize that there will be a need for "public officials"
with delegated "powers" within the social confederation. However, "powers"
is not the best word to describe their activities, because their work is
essentially administrative in nature -- for example, an individual may be
elected to look into alternative power supplies for a community and report
back on what he or she discovers. Or one may be elected to overlook the
installation of a selected power supply. Because such a person is an elected
delegate of the community, he or she is a "public official" in the broadest
sense of the word, essentially an agent of the local community who is
controlled by, and accountable to, that community.
Therefore, such "officials" are unlike politicians. This is for two reasons.
Firstly, they cannot make policy decisions on behalf of those who elected
them, and so they do not have governmental power over those who elected them.
Taking the example of alternative power supplies, the elected "official"
would present findings to the body by which he or she had been mandated.
These findings are not a law which the electors are required to follow,
but a series of suggestions and information from which they chose what
they think is best. By this method the "officials" remain the servants of the
public and are not given power to make decisions for people. In addition,
these "officials" will be rotated frequently to prevent a professionalization
of politics and the problem of politicians being largely on their own once
elected.
Therefore, such "public officials" would be under the strict control of
the organisations that elected them to administration posts. But, as
Kropotkin argued, the general assembly of the community "in permanence -
the forum always open - is the only way . . .to assure an honest and
intelligent administration . . . [and is based upon] distrust of all
executive powers." [The Great French Revolution Vol.1, p. 211]
As Murray Bookchin argues, a "confederalist view involves a clear distinction
between policy making and the coordination and execution of adopted policies.
Policy making is exclusively the right of popular community assemblies based
on the practices of participatory democracy. Administration and coordination
are the responsibility of confederal councils, which become the means for
interlinking villages, towns, neighbourhoods, and cities into confederal
networks. Power flows from the bottom up instead of from the top down, and
in confederations, the flow of power from the bottom up diminishes with the
scope of the federal council ranging territorially from localities to
regions and from regions to ever-broader territorial areas." ["The Meaning
of Confederation", p. 48, Society and Nature No.3, pp. 41-54]
Thus the people will have the final word on policy, which is the essence
of self-government, and each citizen will have his or her turn to
participate in the coordination of public affairs. In other words, the
"legislative branch" of self-government will be the people themselves
organized in their community assemblies and their confederal coordinating
councils, with the "executive branch" (public officials) limited to
implementing policy formulated by the legislative branch, that is, by the
people.
Besides rotation of public officials, means to ensure the accountability
of such officials to the people will include a wider use of elections and
sortitions, open access to proceedings and records of "executive"
activities by computer or direct inspection, the right of citizen
assemblies to mandate delegates to higher-level confederal meetings,
recall their officials, and revoke their decisions, and the creation of
accountability boards, elected or selected by lot (as for jury duty), for
each important administrative branch, from local to national.
Virtually all the services and productive enterprises necessary to meet
the needs of the population are present in today's small cities of 50,000
to 100,000. Beyond this size, diseconomies of scale begin to appear due to
the complexities of coordinating urban services across wide areas and
large populations. Therefore a libertarian-socialist society would
probably form another level of confederation at the 50,000 to 100,000
range. Such units of confederation would include urban districts within
today's large cities, small cities, and rural districts composed of
several nearby towns. At this size, economies of scale can be achieved for
nearly all the remaining social needs such as universities, hospitals, and
cultural institutions.
However, face-to-face meetings of the whole population are impractical at
this size. Therefore, the legislative body at this level would be the
confederal council, which would consist of mandated, recallable, and
rotating delegates from the neighborhood assemblies. These delegates would
formulate policies to be discussed and voted on by the neighborhood
assemblies, with the votes being summed across the district to determine
district policy by majority rule.
To quote the Syracuse/Onandaga County Greens again, "Since almost all of
the economies of scale and public decisions necessary for social
self-management can be achieved by the time we reach the 50,000 to 100,000
scale, larger levels of confederation can be oriented mainly around
bioregional and cultural affinities and the few remaining but important
economic resources that must be shared at these scales." ["Green Political
and Social Change", Ibid]
Ties between bioregions or larger territories based on the distribution of
such things as geographically concentrated mineral deposits, climate dependent
crops, and production facilities that are most efficient when concentrated
in one area will unite communities confederally on the basis of common
material needs as well as values. At the bioregional and higher levels of
confederation, councils of mandated, recallable, and rotating delegates
will coordinate policies at those levels, but such policies will still be
subject to approval by the neighborhood and community assemblies through
their right to recall their representatives and revoke their decisions.
In the final analysis, libertarian socialism cannot function optimally --
and indeed may be fatally undermined -- unless the 000
rangeded?
Since not all issues are local, the neighbourhood and community assemblies
will also elect mandated and recallable delegates to the larger-scale
units of self-government in order to address issues affecting larger
areas, such as urban districts, the municipality as a whole, the county,
the bioregion, and ultimately the entire planet. Thus the assemblies
will confederate at several levels in order to develop and coordinate
common policies to deal with common problems.
This need for cooperation does not imply a centralised body. As Kropotkin
pointed out, anarchists "understand that if no central government was needed
to rule the independent communes, if national government is thrown
overboard and national unity is obtained by free federation, then a
central municipal government becomes equally useless and noxious. The
same federative principle would do within the commune." [Kropotkin's
Revolutionary Pamphlets, pp. 163-164]
As in the economic federation of syndicates, the lower levels will control
the higher, thus eliminating the current pre-emptive powers of centralised
government hierarchies. Delegates to higher-level coordinating councils or
conferences will be instructed, at every level of confederation, by the
assemblies they represent, on how to deal with any issue. These
instructions will be binding, committing delegates to a framework of
policies within which they must act and providing for their recall and the
nullification of their decisions if they fail to carry out their mandates.
Delegates may be selected by election and/or sortition (random selection
by lot, as for jury duty).
Most anarchists recognize that there will be a need for "public officials"
with delegated "powers" within the social confederation. However, "powers"
is not the best word to describe their activities, because their work is
essentially administrative in nature -- for example, an individual may be
elected to look into alternative power supplies for a community and report
back on what he or she discovers. Or one may be elected to overlook the
installation of a selected power supply. Because such a person is an elected
delegate of the community, he or she is a "public official" in the broadest
sense of the word, essentially an agent of the local community who is
controlled by, and accountable to, that community.
Therefore, such "officials" are unlike politicians. This is for two reasons.
Firstly, they cannot make policy decisions on behalf of those who elected
them, and so they do not have governmental power over those who elected them.
Taking the example of alternative power supplies, the elected "official"
would present findings to the body by which he or she had been mandated.
These findings are not a law which the electors are required to follow,
but a series of suggestions and information from which they chose what
they think is best. By this method the "officials" remain the servants of the
public and are not given power to make decisions for people. In addition,
these "officials" will be rotated frequently to prevent a professionalization
of politics and the problem of politicians being largely on their own once
elected.
Therefore, such "public officials" would be under the strict control of
the organisations that elected them to administration posts. But, as
Kropotkin argued, the general assembly of the community "in permanence -
the forum always open - is the only way . . .to assure an honest and
intelligent administration . . . [and is based upon] distrust of all
executive powers." [The Great French Revolution Vol.1, p. 211]
As Murray Bookchin argues, a "confederalist view involves a clear distinction
between policy making and the coordination and execution of adopted policies.
Policy making is exclusively the right of popular community assemblies based
on the practices of participatory democracy. Administration and coordination
are the responsibility of confederal councils, which become the means for
interlinking villages, towns, neighbourhoods, and cities into confederal
networks. Power flows from the bottom up instead of from the top down, and
in confederations, the flow of power from the bottom up diminishes with the
scope of the federal council ranging territorially from localities to
regions and from regions to ever-broader territorial areas." ["The Meaning
of Confederation", p. 48, Society and Nature No.3, pp. 41-54]
Thus the people will have the final word on policy, which is the essence
of self-government, and each citizen will have his or her turn to
participate in the coordination of public affairs. In other words, the
"legislative branch" of self-government will be the people themselves
organized in their community assemblies and their confederal coordinating
councils, with the "executive branch" (public officials) limited to
implementing policy formulated by the legislative branch, that is, by the
people.
Besides rotation of public officials, means to ensure the accountability
of such officials to the people will include a wider use of elections and
sortitions, open access to proceedings and records of "executive"
activities by computer or direct inspection, the right of citizen
assemblies to mandate delegates to higher-level confederal meetings,
recall their officials, and revoke their decisions, and the creation of
accountability boards, elected or selected by lot (as for jury duty), for
each important administrative branch, from local to national.
I.5.1 What are participatory communities and why are they needed?
I.5.2 Why are confederations of participatory communities needed?
I.5.3 What will be the scales and levels of confederation?
I.5.3 What will be the scales and levels of confederation?
I.5.3 What will be the scales and levels of confederation?
I.5.3 What will be the scales and levels of confederation?
I.5.3 What will be the scales and levels of confederation?
I.5.3 What will be the scales and levels of confederation?