Council Communism” Versus “Anarchist Communism

NOTE: I use my personal definitions of both terms, which do differ slightly to moderately from popular concepts. For my definition of Anarchist Communism and its central institution of the CODAC, see my post entitled “CODAC.” I define council communism as a democratically elected minimalist regulatory and planning body that enforces equality through the production of goods and services for the People, the elimination of capitalism and monetary systems (but not private property which I view as an extension of the self for all intents and purpose and whose inequalities in distribution are eliminated by freely available property to all), and minimalist regulatory enforcement of criminal or collective rights infringing individuals/organizations.

Anarchist Communism is the ideal that I hold in my mind because it guarantees freedom from the evils of capitalism as well as personal liberty, freedom from need, and the elimination of class distinctions. Criminal and collective rights infringing individuals of society could even be held at bay by elimination of motive, proactive intervention (ie counseling at risk individuals) and exclusion from CODAC services all without any government with any executive authority. Additionally, my version of anarchist communism could be established without revolution as it could be established in any timeframe and eventually make government and capitalism irrelevant and obsolete to the People.

However, I fear that the CODAC or similar organization (through which I am convinced anarchist communism must be held together by) would simply succumb to the evils of capitalism. Greed is a powerful motive. Additionally, if there is no government in place in the future because of it irrelevance, the CODAC could mutate into a government despite the vital tenet that it shall have no executive or political power. Nature abhors a vacuum and I fear that this principle applies to power as well. I fear the People would allow a new elite to ascend to absolute or disguised power in order to be “protected” from a perceived threat, especially if nations do end up coexisting with CODAC organizations in this hypothetical future.

Perhaps council communism is a stronger system. Yes, it could be corrupted as well, but by giving it some limited executive authority, a power vacuum would be avoided. This power would of course be equitable among the People as the People, by consensus would hold the final authority over the councils as well as compose the councils. My version of council communism has two levels: the local council and the national council. The local council would consist of one councilperson for every 1000 (or other determined number of) people in a commune. These councilpersons would be seated on a yearly basis by election. They would be recallable at any time by the People. Local councilpersons would manage the production of goods and services for the residents of a commune. They would also directly administer justice including the enforcement of the abolition of trade and the protection of the individual liberties of each person from infringement by others. My hypothetical system, unlike others, does not eliminate private property, it simply prohibits the exchange of it in return for something else, especially of money. Additionally, one’s choices and actions with their property cannot infringe upon the rights of others (such as using a gun to shoot or threaten someone or building a polluting factory on private land that would cause public health effects or destroy our home, the Earth).Trade creates inherent inequalities through unfair distribution and the domineering of the weak by the strong. This is counter to the principle of absolute equality. Previously existing inequalities of the distribution of property/goods/services would be rectified by the availability of provided goods and services available to the People in equality by their individual choice. Labor for commune produced goods and services would be based on a volunteer system, again driven by an individual choice to provide for the collective good; one cannot gain if (s)he does not contribute to system that provides for all people.
On the “national” or upper level would sit another council elected by the same procedure as the local councils, except this council’s purpose would be to ensure peaceful interactions between all communes and any existing “conventional” societies that may still exist in this hypothetical future as well as to ensure all communes maintain the tenets of this form of communism.

The goal of this form of council communism is to provide for justice, liberty, freedom from need, freedom from the evils of capitalism, and freedom from class distinction and oppression with minimalist governmental power.

This type of system has the disadvantage in that it requires some sort of revolution or other device in which to effect change. This can be detrimental from its ideals and goals because it can create a minority in the party (the “movers and shakers” and the architects of policy) that end up resembling bourgeois and/or aristocratic power holders of old and create inequality such as was predicted in nucleus communist writings, such as that of the writings of Marx and Engels. Then, a “transitory communism” is placed into the seat of power when the opportunity for some sort of revolutionary device is presented. What do the People have then? They have the old system made to look new with an eye towards the utopian communism, such as what I write about. But, that ideal never seems to come and this new “communist bourgeois” never releases its death hold on power. Such is the story of so many communist states. What could be done to ensure that ideal communist ideals (such as what I will conceitedly attach an “-ism” to my last name and call my system of council communism that I write about)? That is perhaps for better thinkers than me. Regardless, capitalism and its pawn, the modern state, are evils that we all must eliminate. Their inequalities and injustices should no longer be tolerated by the oppressed majority. We must unite, we must change the world. We must resist the insidious conditioning and brainwashing that is forced upon us from the time we were small children: Capitalism is god, your government is your master. We must replace that conditioning with a new, free thinking borne on truly free choice that seeks equality for all and freedom from domination by the powerful.