Author: Joseph

ALTERNATIVES, COMMUNES AND REVOLUTION 
By Andrew Rigby
It has been one of the fundamental insights of anarcho-pacifists that people create their own tyrants by granting them obedience; that all exploitation is based, ultimately, on the co-operation of the exploited. Extended, this insight leads to the realization that the existing political, social and economic orders have their ultimate basis not so much in the armed might or economic power of ruling groups but in the fact that most people view the social world and their place in it as 'natural', as 'given', as something that exists apart from themselves and about which they can do little except conform with greater or lesser degrees of willingness to the routines and habits that the social world appears to demand from them.

Not only do many folk have little conception of alternatives to the present order of things, they are unable to conceive of the actual possibility of any kind of purposive change brought about through the actions of 'ordinary people like us.

The key process in any revolutionary period . . . involves people looking at their social arrangements and habitual living routines with new eyes, a process through which people develop their awareness to the extent that they realise that very little in the social world is 'given'.

The key process in any revolutionary period (such as I believe we are living through at the present time) involves people looking at their social arrangements and habitual living routines with new eyes, a process through which people develop their awareness to the extent that they realise that very little in the social world is 'given'. The key revolutionary process is one through which the consciousness of people is raised to the level where they realise that they, in concert with others, possess the ability to, transform the social order and that if they are ever to attain their ideals then they themselves must seek to change the world and not leave it to others to do it for them. It is this process which gives rise to the key characteristic of any revolutionary period — the breakdown and collapse of the authority of the existing powers through the spread of disaffection from the status quo amongst the population, coupled with the growth in people's awareness of their world-creating abilities, the development of new conceptions of what ought to be as opposed to what is, and the emergence of new styles of living and new forms of human relationships that seek to express the new values.

These characteristics represent the fundamentally anarchic phase that has been the hallmark of any genuine revolution (in fact, this is the revolution). Typically, such anarchic periods have been brought to an end in the past by the accession to control of centralized power of a single political group whose personnel have then sought to establish their own version of social order from above upon the masses below, thus bringing the revolutionary process to an end. (Thus, whereas for many socialists the Russian Revolution proper was encapsulated in the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks; the Bolshevik coup, in fact, marked the end of the revolutionary process in Russia.)
It follows from this perspective, then, that any attempt to inspire people with new visions, with new definitions of what is possible both for themselves as individuals and for society in general - any attempt to inspire people with new criteria by which to adjudge the quality of their lives and relationships with others — is a fundamental part of any revolutionary process. It is fundamental and basic insofar as it encourages people to transcend their habitual patterns of thinking, living and relating with others and encourages them to demand the freedom to exercise their own wills unfettered by the straight-jackets imposed by 'conventional wisdom' and the power of ruling groups.
The goal of revolution today is not merely to abolish private property and replace present ruling groups with new elites. Rather the aim must be the liberation of all areas of life from the contamination of power and domination, and the creation of a society where, above all else, human beings are valued as ends in themselves.

Another basic axiom of anarchists and pacifists has concerned the relationship between revolutionary means and ends. Emma Goldman, for instance, wrote: 'No revolution can ever succeed as a factor of liberation unless the means used to further it be identical in spirit and tendency with the purpose to be achieved.' The goal of revolution today is not merely to abolish private property and replace present ruling groups with new elites. Rather the aim must be the liberation of all areas of life from the contamination of power and domination, and the creation of a society where, above all else, human beings are valued as ends in themselves. Such a society necessarily implies the self-administration of all walks of life. Such a liberated society can only be achieved through self-activity aimed at achieving individual liberation. (As Murray Bookchin has written: 'The goal of revolution today must be the liberation of daily life ... A society whose fundamental aim is self-administration in all facets of life can be achieved only by self-activity.')

It is in this context that the potential of the communes that have emerged in recent years in Britain, the USA and elsewhere becomes manifest. For, above all else, commune members are people who have begun to see through the fictions upon which our social order rests and who have sought to create their own modes of existence. Their potential lies in the fact that rather than just talk about the evils of the present world and the possibilities of the next, they are pursuing their own form of direct action by seeking to translate their ideals and beliefs into living practice. Like all forms of direct action, the creation of communes not only has an important effect on the individuals involved — making them increasingly aware of themselves as individuals who can affect their own destiny — but also can have an important effect on others. Through their actual practical example they can provide the spark to light the dreams of others, provide others with the courage to demand the right to decide for themselves the way they should lead their lives.
Communes are living examples of the fact that people can create new styles of living and new patterns of relating with fellow human beings and with nature. They are living
proof that the gap between ideals and actual practice can be transcended (within certain limitations) in the here-and-now, without waiting for some mythical golden dawn of a new age sometime in the indeterminate future. Through pursuing what might often appear as the egoistic search for individual liberation, they are making a contribution towards the movement for societal liberation. In fact, their projects to transform the totality of their lives can be seen as central to the movement to create an alternative society, insofar as the creation of such an order presupposes the transformation of the whole of life. As such, by their life style, they are actually making revolution in our midst.

One of the criticisms made of the movement to create an alternative society has been that the movement neglects the institutional side of life. The calls for self-liberation increased awareness etc. have not been matched by the creation, or even the definition, of institutions through which these ends of individual liberation etc. can be achieved ana sustained in modern society. Communes, however, along with free universities and other alternative structures do represent important developments along the counter-institution-building path. Communes can act as zones of freedom within modern society wherein people can reach towards their ideals. They can also play a further, if related role, in sustaining the revolutionary. The individual radical/revolutionary/seeker living his or her life in the midst of 'straights' and 'non-believers' must engage in a constant struggle to sustain his or her commitment to the struggle for individual and social liberation in the face of the non-acceptance/recognition of their revolutionary ideals and aims by the bulk of people with whom her or she interacts in daily life. To sustain and further your commitment, you need the critical support, affirmation and reinforcement that can only be provided by 'fellow-believers'. Communes represent one answer to this problem.

Communal living is one form of 'coming together' — through establishing a shared pattern of living with others, one's faith and commitment to the cause of libertarian revolution can be sustained and strengthened, and with this the efficacy (and fun!) of one's individual and collective actions.

Communes are living examples of the fact that people can create new styles of living and new patterns of relating with fellow human beings and with nature.
So fat I have referred to the revolutionary potential of communes. In concluding I think it is necessary to make some observations concerning the obstacles to be overcome in the path to fulfilling this potentiality.

Obviously, at one level, there are the practical obstacles concerned with communal living that all groups encounter to a greater or lesser degree. These embrace the problems of obtaining property and creating and sustaining a viable economic base. They include the problems and hassles of personal incompatibility and interpersonal tension (you've got to be very holy to love everyone in practice - it's relatively easy to love everyone in theory!) Then there are all the problems associated with ideological conflict, different standards of cleanliness and tidiness, hangups about valued personal possessions, sexual jealousy, differing attitudes towards adult-child relationships, and (frequently the major problem) reconciling the felt need for a certain degree of individual privacy with the communal emphasis on togetherness and living one's life in the open in front of, and with, others
At another level there are the obstacles that stand in the way of increased co-operation and mutual support between communes and other 'outposts' of the alternative society. It has been my impression that there is a significant lack of sympathy and co-operation between rural-based communes and the city-based communes and related projects. A member of one city commune dismissed rural communards with the remark - "you're not achieving anything sitting on your arse all day out in the country." Whilst amongst rural dwellers one frequently gets the feeling that they are verging on the boundaries of escapism and self-indulgence of a very selfish kind — not attempting to relate with urban dwellers, developing a kind of cultural elitism in their attitudes towards those involved in urban struggles and, to my mind, too often resorting to dope as a way of 'getting by'.

Then there are the obstacles that stand in the way of establishing a full understanding between commune dwellers and non-commune dwellers. Too often one gets the impression that this relationship is analogous with that between actors or players and their audience. For 'straights', their major source of information about communes and other alternative institutions remains the mass media who present these ventures in a way which only reinforces the belief that people who engage in such projects are somehow 'not like us' — rather, they are 'strange freaks', perhaps even 'well-intentioned idealists', who have nothing of relevance to say to 'people like us'.

On the other hand, at a purely impressionistic level (what other level is there?), I also get the feeling that as time passes and increasing numbers of folk find their way into communes of one sort or another, and as the variety of communal living patterns increases, so more and more people who feel themselves tied to the daily round of '9-to-5' work and the nuclear family are beginning to think — "maybe these young folk in the communes really have got something to say to people like me." There is detect able a growth of genuine curiosity and interest on the part of many folk, if not in communal living as such, at least in the ideas that guide such ventures and the possibilities of alternatives to the present order of life.

Despite all the many obstacles and problems that stand in the way of communes fulfilling their revolutionary potential, I firmly believe that seeds are being sown and the seeds are beginning to germinate, slowly. What these seeds will grow into in the minds and actions of other folk, no one can say.

Nothing is inevitable. What one can say with certainty, however, is that the society of our dreams will never be attained unless like the communards we start to create it for ourselves here-and-now; for unless we do, someone else will create for us the society of their dreams.