I have a limited understanding of theory, so take that into consideration. I have recently been researching geopolitics and world systems theory and trying to apply it to political economies. From my understanding, communism is achievable in simple societies, but difficult in complex societies. Complex societies tend to foster social hierarchies and authoritarianism due to their complexity. If anyone can give me their opinions I would appreciate it. Whether it’s an area for further study or someone else’s research.
I’m somewhat familiar. How would warring between communities be prevented? It’s naive to think that conflicts won’t occur. How would stasis be maintained?
Most wars are fought over property (land, resources, etc.)
A society that isn't based on property would have a lot less to fight about.
And most anarcho-comnunist style social structures are thought of as being post revolution. So it will be war to get there, but an economic war fought by workers against the oligarchs using solidarity and work stoppages as the weapons.
Solidarity, taken as a value, is another way to prevent war between the syndicates. Everyone would be workers and fighting against other workers would be socially unacceptable. Like dropping a fart in a crowded subway car, no one wants to be the one doing it.
I do expect there would still be conflict. Two syndicates may both want a rare resource. I imagine each syndicate would be able to elect a representative to some sort of larger democratic body. Like the UN, but without all the fucked up veto powers by nuclear armed states that prevents our actual UN from having any real power.
edit: Buddhism has existed for 2500 years as a loose connection of syndicates without serious infighting. Letting go of property and focusing on community goes a long long way.
I tend to think of it in terms of evolutionary pressure; either complex societies begin to develop communism or pretty soon complex societies won't be possible anymore, given how we've been interacting with the natural world. If it is the former, it won't be pretty. History rarely develops nicely. And it won't be fast. It will take generations, as people figure out how to organize and balance industrial economy with our triaged ecology.
If it's the latter... well, I suppose the people that come after will have an easier time organizing themselves? That's not... a particularly comforting thought. I'm an industrialized, computerize ape. You can take me out of the complex society, but you can't take the complex society out of me. I'd like to see what our complex societies are capable of, when all that amazing engineering and knowledge and labor is unshackled from the profit-motive. There is so much potential in what we have, it seems a tragedy that we might not see what it can become.
My glib answer is to say look at China. They've managed to use capital to build their productive capacity without giving up the reigns of the overall economy. Yes, it's not perfect and yes it's still a state using the coercive methods that come with it. But it is, at least for now, moving and planning in a direction that capitalist countries just cant. I kinda think this is the make-or-break century for that project. As US empire continues to decay, we'll get to see if China really is laying the foundation for future socialism, like they claim.
Complex societies tend to foster social hierarchies and authoritarianism due to their complexity
This is an assumption. While it's common in social sciences, it's not rigorous. It's a rhetoric that serves to separate colonial societies from the societies they oppress.
Graeber and Wengrow expand on this in Dawn of Everything, which is a really good book to read if you're thinking about the possibility of Equality.
I have a limited understanding of theory, so take that into consideration. I have recently been researching geopolitics and world systems theory and trying to apply it to political economies. From my understanding, communism is achievable in simple societies, but difficult in complex societies. Complex societies tend to foster social hierarchies and authoritarianism due to their complexity. If anyone can give me their opinions I would appreciate it. Whether it’s an area for further study or someone else’s research.
To add to what the other poster said, take a look at anarcho-syndicalism
I’m somewhat familiar. How would warring between communities be prevented? It’s naive to think that conflicts won’t occur. How would stasis be maintained?
Most wars are fought over property (land, resources, etc.)
A society that isn't based on property would have a lot less to fight about.
And most anarcho-comnunist style social structures are thought of as being post revolution. So it will be war to get there, but an economic war fought by workers against the oligarchs using solidarity and work stoppages as the weapons.
Solidarity, taken as a value, is another way to prevent war between the syndicates. Everyone would be workers and fighting against other workers would be socially unacceptable. Like dropping a fart in a crowded subway car, no one wants to be the one doing it.
I do expect there would still be conflict. Two syndicates may both want a rare resource. I imagine each syndicate would be able to elect a representative to some sort of larger democratic body. Like the UN, but without all the fucked up veto powers by nuclear armed states that prevents our actual UN from having any real power.
edit: Buddhism has existed for 2500 years as a loose connection of syndicates without serious infighting. Letting go of property and focusing on community goes a long long way.
Thanks. Good insight. I do think that achieving a collectivist mindset/ culture will go a long way in achieving true communism.
I tend to think of it in terms of evolutionary pressure; either complex societies begin to develop communism or pretty soon complex societies won't be possible anymore, given how we've been interacting with the natural world. If it is the former, it won't be pretty. History rarely develops nicely. And it won't be fast. It will take generations, as people figure out how to organize and balance industrial economy with our triaged ecology.
If it's the latter... well, I suppose the people that come after will have an easier time organizing themselves? That's not... a particularly comforting thought. I'm an industrialized, computerize ape. You can take me out of the complex society, but you can't take the complex society out of me. I'd like to see what our complex societies are capable of, when all that amazing engineering and knowledge and labor is unshackled from the profit-motive. There is so much potential in what we have, it seems a tragedy that we might not see what it can become.
I feel the same way brother. I think we could have a complex society with a planned economy. I’m wondering how t that would develop and be maintained?
My glib answer is to say look at China. They've managed to use capital to build their productive capacity without giving up the reigns of the overall economy. Yes, it's not perfect and yes it's still a state using the coercive methods that come with it. But it is, at least for now, moving and planning in a direction that capitalist countries just cant. I kinda think this is the make-or-break century for that project. As US empire continues to decay, we'll get to see if China really is laying the foundation for future socialism, like they claim.
This is an assumption. While it's common in social sciences, it's not rigorous. It's a rhetoric that serves to separate colonial societies from the societies they oppress.
Graeber and Wengrow expand on this in Dawn of Everything, which is a really good book to read if you're thinking about the possibility of Equality.
Small society cells can form larger more complex societies as networks. Kind of a federative system.
I feel like there would have to be an authority. A government, to maintain the system.
Each cell could have representative councils with decisive power, there doesn't need to be repressive authority in existence
I’ve always been partial to council communism. Thanks for the input. Maybe I need to learn more about this.