In May, I attended the complex anarchism symposium in Brussels. It was a chance to dive into the intersection between complex systems, anarchism, and prefigurative praxis. I also gave a talk about my anarcho-communist planning ideas (slides). The talk was a systematic and comprehensive summary of what I've written in previous articles (here and here) and the FAQ, also focusing on which tools can be used for which system in the viable system model and on which level of the multilayered network. In this text, I'll cover some learnings from the symposium, feedback I received, and some arguments around the criticism that the Viable System Model, cybernetics, and also the ideas I presented might be going too much into the direction of central administration. This text is meant as input for further discussion around anarcho-communist economics.
In my presentation, I suggested that data about consumption and needs should be kept as local as possible to protect the privacy of individuals. On the other hand, aggregated data should be transparent if it is relevant for decisions that need to be taken. The decisions are made by those affected by the decision, and thus the relevant data should be transparent to those affected by it. Example: The amount of vegetables I consume is not recorded anywhere. The community I live in records the amount of vegetables the community consumes. The region aggregates the amount of vegetables needed in the region. The larger region does not need to know about the vegetables consumed in the region, as most of the needed vegetables are produced within the region. The goal is always to optimize the fulfillment of needs while keeping decisions and data as local as possible. Thus, the amount of decisions and data needed on a planetary level should be as minimal as possible. There was some discussion about if the data should be encrypted. I would say that's not needed, but the access to local data should be restricted to local people.
Yes, discussing needs, resources, and distribution will take more time than now. However, as fulfilling needs is the purpose of an economy, I would say that it is important not to take shortcuts here. This does not mean that everyone needs to get involved with these questions. There only needs to be the possibility, accessibility, and transparency to get involved for those who want to and to the degree they want to: People can only voice their needs, or let others voice their needs, they can take part in discussions and decisions on the community level, they can be delegetes for questions that are affecting a supralocal level, they can suggest proposals on how to distribute, they can use accessible optimization or simulation tools to support decisions, they can help to collect the required information - but they don't have to get involved with anything of this. Yes, there might be people doing tasks like this as their profession, at least temporarily with rotation, but always only in a transparent and coordinating way, not as a manager or power hungry elitist. If they tried to do so, other people would take over this coordination job. Talking about needs might sound draining and uncomfortable to us. I would expect that two things will happen: First, we will get used to it and develop methods that make it easier. Second, most things don't need to be discussed again and again, as many needs stay stable and other decisions can be taken do-ocaracy style within the limits of previous agreements without additional decisions.
My suggestion for sharing relevant non-numerical information was an information system similar to the fediverse. Everyone could then decide what they are interested in and subscribe to those sources. I might, for example subscribe to the feed of my local community, or - if I'm only interested in specific topics, to the feed of the collective I work at, and topics related to #water. I could also subscribe to selected topics of coordination committees at the supralocal or planetary level. One participat said that the idea of this information system was slightly "freaking them out" because it might still be too much content and it would be difficult to find relevant information within this. While I can understand this concern, I think we will overcome this in two ways: First, we will get used to the amount of decisions happening around us and start to trust that good decisions will be taken even if we don't get involved. We will learn to deal with FOMO. And second, we can still improve fediverse-like feeds with more personalizable configurations so that you will see information more relevant to you. E.g. you might want to filter for posts that friends of yours marked as interesting or include a specific hashtag, or you might try a search based on similarity to what you previously marked as interesting.
In the previous section, I wrote that many needs will stay stable, thus reducing the amount of necessary decisions and changes. But how can a system like this stay adaptable to changing needs and innovative ideas? Someone at the symposium said that within complex systems, norms emerge when there is some friction. Norms or agreements create some alignment to resolve the friction. However, it is a known disadvantage of self-organizing systems that these norms or agreements are then more difficult to change. The system is in an attractor state and needs some impulse to get out of this again.
Here are some ideas on how an anarcho-communist economy can avoid being stuck in a static state without adaptability: We should avoid conformity. Anarchist projects should always strive for diversity and a plurality of ideas, approaches, and methods, for a world of worlds, maybe even for the existence of multiple economic systems in the same area. This allows for inspiration, resilience, and change. For this reason, I'm also sceptical of any anarchist concepts that suggest one solution or one method or one identity.
Also, while there should be some stability when it comes to the fulfillment of the most important needs, it's important to keep enough do-ocracy style wiggle room, especially with non-scarce resources for research and experimentation. If research requires scarce resources, communities could decide on a contingent of the resource dedicated to research projects.
In my presentation and FAQ, I claim that the anarchist concept of those working in a collective deciding who gets their product or service is more prone to dominance than the version in which affected people decide in councils. As this was questioned at the symposium, with the argument that councils or whole communities could also become institutions of dominance, let me try to convince you again.
First, the idea of "workers decide" is pretty close to worker-owned means of production means of production and this idea of ownership often comes with ideas of money and markets, as in mutualist anarchist concepts. I hope we all agree on the disadvantages of market ideas. Second, also in economic approaches without ownership and markets, I'm sceptical of the mental model of "workers decide" as this can accumulate power in work collectives dealing with scarce resources or critical services. This can, in turn, lead to favoritism and the emergence of in-groups and ostracism. I would also say that while it is possible that councils could degenerate into centers of dominance, it should be easier to prevent that than to prevent this from happening to worker collectives, as the idea of councils is that everyone affected can be part of the council or decisions. The idea of work collectives, on the other hand, is that those who work there decide, and the collective might even prevent unwanted people from joining their collective.
While in practice, if everything runs smoothly, both models might in fact work very similarly and produce the same results, I might still say that they are based on different mental models, which might result in different behavior. Or in complex system lingo: The constraints are slightly different, which might result in the systems sliding into different attractor states.
There was one talk at the symposium in which the presenter rejected cybernetics as a control fantasy, as a capitalist technology that can't be liberated. We agreed on the distinction between tool and technology based on the following example: a bicycle is a tool, while a car is a technology. A technology structures the social system and needs infrastructure. The presenter went on to say that cybernetics is a technology, while most people in the room agreed that it is a tool. (It's more than a tool, it can also be considered a framework or a theory.)
Someone also mentioned that the VSM (viable system model) feels like central control. I explained that the systems (boxes) within the VSM could be considered as necessary functionality for a viable (working) system, as something that just needs to be done, and that it's up to the community to decide how they want to organize to get this done. It does not have to be a hierarchy or management; it could be rotation, a plenum, or some other method. So while the boxes and arrows in the VSM diagram might indicate some hierarchy, it can be considered more as a purely functional hierarchy, similar to the ordering system of the books in the library, and not as dominance.
Another example: A hammer can be an instrument used to subdue others, a symbol of authoritarian communists, or a useful tool for practical purposes. So, is cybernetics a tool for practical purposes, or does it enforce infrastructure that is inherently dominant? I would say it does not enforce, but rather suggests some mental models for how to organize. We can make use of the ideas of cybernetics if and when they seem useful to solve a problem, but they don't force us to act or think in a given way. It's good to be sceptical if the mental models implied by cybernetics might include patterns of domination. I see that cybernetics can be abused (like so many other tools), but not that it is inherently evil. So no, cybernetics is not infrastructure, cybernetics is not a technology, it is a tool.
What about the argument that surveillance capitalism uses cybernetic tools? Also, during a workshop related to strategy, there was the concern that similar methods are used in capitalist companies. In fact, many methods and concepts originally developed in emancipatory movements have been co-opted by capitalism. This does not mean we can't use them anymore. Maybe at some point, the workers learning these emancipatory methods within capitalist contexts will notice that they run into walls and contradictions when using them within the systems of ownership, competition, and markets, and will start to rebel and employ the learned methods in emancipatory contexts, where they belong.
I would say that it's good and important for us anarchists to be vigilant when watching out for patterns of domination and raise a red flag when there are concerns; however, we should not blindly reject methods and tools just because they appear technical or remind us of something seen within the context of capitalism.
In the complex systems bubble of the symposium, I also heard that concepts were rejected as being "not complex enough". One example of this was the “No god, no state”-anarchism. Another example is the VSM that was pejoratively rejected as being first-order cybernetics and thus somehow outdated. I don't agree that the VSM is part of first-order cybernetics (Wikipedia), and even if it were, I would not say we should reject methods based on their complexity. There might be a tendency to undervalue ideas that seem too simple, suspecting that simple things would always be of low complexity. And also, low-complexity tools can be useful for a given purpose. We need methods and concepts that are complex enough to handle a given problem in complex systems. Making things unnecessarily complicated does not always increase complexity and does thus not necessarily help in handling complexity. Concepts could sound simple, but still handle enough complexity. In fact, keeping things as simple as possible is a known method for handling complexity. The concepts rejected as “not complex enough” might be simple building blocks, like molecules in a living body, that can be combined with other concepts to create a framework that can handle an adequate amount of complexity.
One way to keep things simple is the method of encapsulation, also known as black boxes. The idea is to "hide" or encapsulate complexity within a subsystem so that this subsystem appears as a simpler (easier to understand) actor from the outside. This concept of black boxes was also rejected by the presenter who spoke out against cybernetics. I would argue that the method of black boxes is useful, but we should make sure that the inside of a black box can be transparently inspected by those interested. I.e. that the black box has only the purpose of simplification and not that of knowledge elitism and hidden power structures.
Related to the valid scepticism regarding methods that might lead to dominance, there is also the anarchist scepticism that concepts might be "too central". I agree that systems that are "too central" should be rejected for various reasons, including the psychological effect they have on the interaction between humans. The question is what we consider "too central".
At the symposium, we used a method called "Future Wheel" to understand the potential impact of a presented suggestion and used my anarcho-communist economics proposal to try the method. (In hindsight, I would say that we should have tried something less complex or spent a whole day with the method.) Two concerns mentioned within this method, related to my proposal being too central, were "mass surveillance" and "global knowledge elite". (The person who voiced these concerns did not attend the session in which I presented my idea, and this was partly voiced to explore the method, but let me still address this thoroughly.)
I think most people at the symposium would have agreed on the following two points: First, complex systems need light constraints, like protocols or a set of agreements. (Quote from the symposium: "good protocols create cohesion with minimum or no loss of autonomy".) Second, the societies we live in are complex systems, and complexity can't be handled adequately by central systems. However, we might disagree on what should be considered adequate light constraints.
In a role-play game we played at the symposium, it was noted that panic can cause problems with strategies, i.e. the ideas we discussed before did not work out as expected once we got into panic mode. To prevent systems from breaking down in crisis, it's good to have some iteratively improved plans, agreements, structures, and light constraints.
I would say that when looking at economies, we are constrained on the one hand by the goal of fulfilling the needs of the people as best as possible, and on the other hand by the limited resources of the planet we live on, keeping the sustainability of the ecosystems of the planet in mind. Additionally, I would suggest that when it comes to the most important needs (what's considered important is defined by each individual), we should strive for a system that is slightly further away from the edge of chaos than, for example, the complex system representing the interactions in the research community. As a consequence, I would accept some more constraints for economic systems, especially for the most critical parts of it, than for other less critical systems.
Most of us would probably also agree that some planetary or regional structures are desirable. E.g. one or multiple planetary open knowledge databases with resource results and best practices, one or multiple git repository hosting services for Open Source software, one or multiple federated information/data systems for sharing information with those that need it as a basis for decisions they are affected by. Also, in the transport and logistics sector, some planetary norms and agreements can be helpful, like container sizes or delivery schedules. With regard to the climate crisis, planetary agreements on how to counteract it would also be useful. And when it comes to the question of undoing the damage of colonialization and striving for global justice, planetary transparency on the distribution of some key resources might be a good idea.
Are those planetary structures a form of centralization that should be criticized? I would say this depends on whether they are power structures or not. In the economics concept I proposed, they are no power structures as there are no laws, no enforcement, and no jurisdiction. There are however, agreements, conflict resolution methods and -collectives, as well as methods of scandalization, and, in the worst case, exclusion from communities in case of prolonged non-adherence to agreements.
Yes, some anarchists will reject these ideas as too authoritarian or too central. I think they are the constraints needed to support anarchist economics with the goal of fulfilling needs based on the values of both freedom and solidarity.
Let's discuss what happens if there are not enough light constraints for a moment: peer-to-peer systems in which there are only agreements between these peers might not have enough overview over the overarching system to decide about fair, needs-based distribution. They are thus limited in realizing solidarity. With missing transparency and explicit agreements, systems are also in danger of sliding into a tyranny of structurelessness, ending up with hidden power centers.
Thus, constraints should not only be scrutinized for being "too central", they can, if applied with anarchist values in mind, also be a measure to prevent a system from becoming authoritarian. Constraints to prevent this can be agreements and methods that strive for diversity and a plurality of approaches, as mentioned above. Additionally, to decentralize, keeping data and decisions as local as possible, and local communities focusing on collective care practices are more ideas for agreed on structures or light constraints, that are a safty measure against slighting into central power structures.
Let's keep watching out for structures that are "too central", but not reject any structure or agreement as an evil institution that is close to equal to an authoritarian state. To give an example: In one workshop at the symposium, the presenter claimed that we (the social movements) need a shared identity to achieve scale (to make some relevant change). I would say that while we might need some broad agreement on values and goals, we might be able to have diverse and decentralized identities, especially with regard to the ideas of intersectionality and identity pluralism.
Some people mentioned other concepts to me that I was not aware of or did not know in detail, and asked how they compared to what I'm suggesting. So I did some research:
I was introduced to the offer network (ON). Here are the differences I see between ON and what I'm proposing for anarcho-communist economies:
ON mostly keeps the idea of exchange, however, the exchange can happen in a larger circle of more than two agents. They also want to keep ideas of the market. I'm not a fan of the inherently ableist quid pro quo that comes with markets and exchange. Instead, I suggest focusing on resources and needs.
In the ON model, agents "own" work and decide about their demands and offers. In my proposal, not the work collectives alone, but those affected by a decision decide how to distribute.
I was also asked about the difference between my proposal and the idea of the ValueFlows (VF) model.
Similar to OF, VF sticks to the idea of exchange/reciprocity. The introduction says, "reciprocity with or without money, money is not assumed".
VF sees "ecological agents" (the environment/biosphere) as part of the network for which the externalities need to be managed. I would rather see the biosphere as an actor with needs, similar to humans and non-human animals.
VF is a tool to facilitate resource flows. As thus, it could be used in anarcho-communist economies (if we were to get rid of the exchange logic). VF, as a tool, is explicitly open to be used by actors in the existing capitalist economies. In contrast, my proposal is explicitly anarcho-communist and does not only focus on resource distribution but also on organizational aspects related to that (who decides, who has access to information, who owns the means of production).
When talking about anarchist economies or anarchist societies in general, the question often asked is how to get there. At the symposium, I was also asked if I could describe a minimum viable system. These are the difficult questions. We know that some prefigurative projects already experiment with anarchist economics models and try to exist within the contradictions of capitalism. Could we call them a minimum viable model, maybe not, as they still need to heavily interact with capitalist markets and/or competition. We also know that on the one hand agent-based models could be a way to gain further insight into viable anarchist structures, and on the other hand, trying to model a complex system will probably result in an insufficiently correct model.
One practical idea that was often discussed during the symposium and that can improve both the imagination of anarchist societies and the transition phase is to tell stories. Stories from already lived practices of anarchist organizing, solidarity, and care. And fictional storiess that spark the imagination.
A slightly more specific how-to-get-there question in the context of anarcho-communist economics is how the huge culture shift from a property-based economy to needs-based can work. This might need more stories to convince people that they don't need to fear being thrown out of the houses they live in or having their underwear taken away. I imagine a slow transition in which factories and land are being coordinated by those working there, larger houses being shared, luxurious houses being transformed into centers of care, and ownership becoming more and more irrelevant, people giving up ownership voluntarily as they see a new economic system emerge and a few resisters still having to be convinced over time with measures of conflict resultion, scandalization, and exclusion from communities if needed.
We will continue both the research and the prefigurative praxis and answer more questions while moving towards our iteratively refined goals. Similar to how the goal is a diversity and a plurality of emancipatory concepts, the ways to transform can and should take multiple forms and adapt to the capabilities of the people involved. The important part is, as it was said at the symposium to overcome the "complexity despair", the feeling of helpnessness between all these crisis, injustices, and complexities, and to concentrate on how you as an individuum or we as a potential project group can support social systems to develop into anarchist societies.