Economic Organisation in an Anarchist Society

Some anarchists would be happy to accept the apparently contradictory label “anarchist communist" but the concept of free communism is rarely clearly defined. Personally, I do find "anarchist communist" contradictory when it is taken to mean that an anarchist society must necessarily and universally be a communist society. Fortunately, most anarchists who would describe themselves thus are merely indicating their own personal preferences for a communist relationship with their fellows within a free society, rather than indicating their desire to impose this form of social organisation on anyone else.

Some anarchists have tried to find some alternative way of life here and now in the form of communal living. The sweeping assumption made by so many modern communards is that the family is inevitably authoritarian and exploitative and that the commune is inevitably liberating. The most passionate opponents of "the Family" are the Women's movements which see it as the source of all iniquity rather than as the consequence of the biological facts of childbirth and the human need for a stable, loving environment. They do not even seem to realize that in the unfulfilled search for the ideal commune is, in fact, the search for a non-authoritarian family relationship. All of which ignores the loving, libertarian families in which children have a secure base in which to grow up in freedom - and, in contrast, the tyranny of so many commune gurus. The right to assert one's individuality in terms of privacy, personal possessions and independent action are rejected by many communards as "bourgeois" or "anti-social" in a terrifying surrender to the common will. Far from limiting individual freedom and initiative a free society will positively encourage it so that we may all find our true, loving humanity without any laws, written or unwritten.

Free communism should not be seen as a religious doctrine, as an ideal end in itself, but merely as a means of satisfying the individual's needs for the necessities of life through co-operation, and to give substance to his or her innate sympathy towards other human beings. Wherever there is a widely accepted communist ideology there is the obvious risk of the subtle (or not so subtle!) authority of majority opinion and the feelings of guilt likely to be induced in the dissenting individual. It is significant that the long-lasting alternative communities have been held together on a common religious belief which implies a certain negation of individuality. This crucial problem must make the endless extension of individual freedom and initiative the goal of a free commune and its main defence against the deterioration into a new tyranny.

The property rights which anarchists should object to are those which are used to exploit the labour and needs of others. Apart from the classic exploitation of our labour under capitalism we also experience alienation in different ways as consumers. As more and more of us spend our days in totally unproductive and futile work - or in the production of useless products where we experience only some mindless task in a mass-production process - we are estranged from any practical skills and we are drawn into the vicious circle of increasing dependence on the system which slowly strangles the life out of us. The process is probably more effective than anything the advertising men can do to train us as obedient consumers and workers.

In a society where the centralized authority of the State has collapsed it is obvious that various forms of alternative social organisation will be attempted by various groups and individuals in different areas according to their inclinations and the absence of some new authority. The anarchist alternatives will range from communism, through various collectivist and co-operative relationships to the individual producer pursuing his or her craft. All these are justifiable if they do not rest on the exploitation of others, and they are compatible in a free society where a harmonious relationship between them can be found if no group seeks to impose its own vision on others.

One of the most depressing aspects of the anarchist movement in Britain in recent times is the common tendency to try and limit the definition of anarchism to within a narrow economic or organisational view. The struggle before us is to throw off all forms of authority - rather than to establish new forms of discipline and economic dogma - so that as free individuals we can build a new society which allows an infinite variety of relationships and initiatives in the pursuit of human happiness. In the crucible of experience those forms of social organisation which most faithfully serve the needs and aspirations of free men and women will demonstrate their superiority in a way in which no theoretical debate can ever do so.

Terry Phillips

A version of this article first appeared in Freedom on 20 January 1973 under the title What is Property?.

You can contact me by DM on Twitter

© Terry Phillips 1973-2024 .