Sketch of an Anarchist-Collectivist Society
February 1, 2001
There are many different ways an anarchist society could be organized. This thought experiment is a vision of one way that could be done.
Every neighborhood would have it's own neighborhood or community assembly. These assemblies would consist of everyone living in that neighborhood and would meet on a regular basis. Decisions that involve everyone in the neighborhood, the entire community, would be made at these assemblies. People would come together and discuss whatever decision needed to be made. They would attempt to reach a consensus, but if, after extensive discussion of the issue, a consensus cannot be reached some form of direct democracy (majority rule) will be used.
For example, say a strong storm was coming and preparations were need to prevent flooding or other damage. The neighborhood assembly would meet to work out what preparations are needed and plan how to implement them. Individuals or groups would volunteer for the various tasks needed to implement the decisions of the assembly. These people/groups would have a clear mandate from the assembly as to what they are to do and could be recalled if they abused their power or did not follow their mandate. Decision making power would stay with the neighborhood assembly. Classical anarchists sometimes referred to these assemblies as communes.
There are many issues which may involve multiple communities, however, so these neighborhood assemblies will need to get together to address such issues. They will thus form confederations to deal with common problems. Since the distance between communities makes it impossible for everyone to get together in one big assembly, each community will send a spokesperson to facilitate communications and organization between the various assemblies.
Each assembly will discuss and decide its position on the issue and select one or more spokespeople. These spokespeople will be easily recallable, mandated (meaning they must represent the position that the assembly has decided on), and rotated so that no one can monopolize the position. Spokespeople will be selected by election and/or random selection. The spokespeople from each community assembly will form a spokescouncil by meeting to discuss whatever issue needs to be decided. They will come to agreement on that issue (ideally reaching consensus, or through direct democracy if that can't be done).
These spokescouncils will be subordinated to and controlled by the community assemblies; they're just a way for different groups to network with each other. In anarchy, the "higher" levels are controlled by the lower ones, as opposed to a hierarchy, where the top gives orders to the bottom. All spokespeople will be instructed by the assemblies, at every level, 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.
These confederations will be formed on several levels as needed. Issues that only affect a particular local region will only need to form spokescouncils from assemblies in that local region. Issues affecting larger regions would require confederations of these confederations and, as necessary, we'd have spokescouncils on multiple levels, from urban districts to bioregions and all the way up to the planetary and possibly even intergalactic level.
The power of these assemblies and spokescouncils would be limited to things that involve everyone in the same geographical area. They would NOT be able to make decisions beyond that level. In all individual matters each person would have complete control over other their own lives. In all group matters people would get an equal say in the decisions of that group. There should be no central rule making body forcing everyone to obey its dictates.
Of course, the above structure only deals with things that affect everyone in a given geographic area. A large percentage of human activity, probably a majority, doesn't involve everyone living in a geographic area. There are countless voluntary organizations, associations, and groups that will likely be formed to meet the various interests and activities that people like to engage in. All such groups should be structured along non-hierarchical lines (meaning everyone in them gets an equal say in its decisions).
The basic unit in this kind of group is the affinity group. An affinity group is a group of 5 to 25 people with shared interests and/or an affinity for each other. A group of friends in the classical example of an affinity group. Each affinity group would make its own decisions by trying to come to consensus, but if that cannot be reached they can use some form of majority vote. If the minority doesn't want to participate in the activities the majority voted on, they don't have to. They may, however, choose to do so anyway. Many groups of friends make decisions like this already (not always, though).
These affinity groups can collaborate with other affinity groups by forming spokescouncils with each other through the same process described above. By using this basic model organizations designed to do all sorts of things can be created. We can have clubs, musical groups, animal rights groups, scientific associations, groups based on sexuality, fan clubs, hobby guilds, sports groups, art associations, and numerous other groups based on whatever people happen to be interested in.
The economic structure of society must also be dealt with. Every workplace would have its own collective. These collectives would consist of everyone working in that workplace, meet on a regular basis, and run the workplace. Decisions would be made by direct democracy. People would be selected (by either election or random selection or some other means) to perform the various tasks, coordination, and roles needed.
Sub-collectives can be formed for divisions, units, and teams within the workplace as circumstances dictate. Decisions that only affect a sub-group of workers would be left to those workers to decide. On large projects collectives would federate with other syndicates, using the spokescouncil system.
To deal with consumption, each community would have its own consumption assembly (CA). Every individual, family or living unit would belong to its neighborhood CA. Each neighborhood consumption assembly would belong to a federation of neighborhood consumption assemblies the size of a rural county or city ward. Each ward would belong to a city consumption confederation, which would federate with other cities on a regional level and on up to the intergalactic level. These consumption assemblies will follow the same one-person one vote principle used in other areas above. Creating these federations of consumption assemblies allows for the fact that different kinds of consumption involve different numbers of people. The color of my socks involves only me but the frequency of buses affects everyone in the city.
On regular intervals, every individual, family and living unit would submit what they would like to consume over a period of time to the neighborhood consumption assembly. The consumption assembly would vote on whether or not to approve those things that affect multiple people in the neighborhood. The assembly would discuss and vote on whether or not to approve those requests that involve the entire neighborhood.
If a request affected more then a single neighborhood, consumption assemblies would contact the other consumption assemblies in the appropriate level of federation (e.g. if a request involved everyone in a city ward then all CAs in the city ward federation would be contacted, etc.). They would then decide whether or not they wanted to approve that consumption proposal. Each CA would basically make a list of everything its members want to consume, both individual/family requests and approved requests that affect large numbers of people, and send this to the collectives.
At the same time we would indicate, in the collectives, how much labor we would like to perform, how much we would like to produce, over the same interval of time. This would be compared with the requests for consumption from the consumption assemblies. If what we indicated we would like to produce, in the collectives, matches or exceeds what we indicated we would like to consume, in the CAs, then we simply produce what is needed and distribute it to those who want it.
If the amount we indicated we want to produce does not match or exceed what we want to consume, then our production and consumption proposals will have to be revised. Since there's a scarcity of goods, rationing will be introduced. With some exceptions, payment will be done on the basis of effort. Exceptions will be made for people who cannot reasonably be expected to do productive labor (the sick, the really old, etc.), who will receive their basic needs without having to produce anything.
Consumption assemblies and collectives receive data on the amount by which their requests are out of sync with each other. They then modify their proposals accordingly and then compare their new proposals. This repeats until supply and demand match each other. Through such a method the economy can be planned in a non-hierarchical, decentralized, participatory democratic manner without being bossed around by government bureaucrats or leaving things to the free market.