The concept of Utopia has always been used as a tool of the established order to justify its own existence. Thomas More’s Utopia is a perfect example of this tool put in action. He explains his Utopia as a peaceful and productive place where everyone is happy, but this Utopia relies on external factors to keep it stable, like geography and the esoteric pseudoscience of “human nature”. By doing this he tries to show that a society that has a high standard of living and a high degree (at least for its time) of individual freedom is impossible on this earth. Therefore, strong leaders like More- the lawyer, priest, politician- are needed to keep inherently flawed individuals in line and to control nation’s resources in a scarcity based economy. This is simply a reassertion of the thought system that kept and still keeps the power of the state, capitalism, and patriarchy safe from the people.
In the grand Western techno-centric tradition civilization is seen as a linear progression of endlessly improving technology and increasing productivity. In this view the world 100 years ago was “behind,” simple, and ignorant. 30,000 years ago we were primitive subhumans whose lives were brutish and short. Similarly, 100 years from now are lives will be infinitely more complex and wondrous. Time is a great big dichotomy, with complexity and future being “forward” and “good”, while simplicity and past being “backwards” and “bad.” This is the great myth of Civilization.
This myth is just that; a myth. Many people like to view society as an organism. And if it is an organism, that means it is constantly evolving. Any biologist can tell you that evolution doesn’t mean animals get larger or smarter over time. Sure, simple fish can evolve into sharks the size of buses, but once proud dinosaurs can also shrink over the course of time into chickens and turkeys. Evolution doesn’t ever make any species “better”, it only makes them better suited for their environment. If you were to put a Tyrannosaurus Rex in the middle of Illinois today, it would be dead within a month from starvation in a biosphere that no longer has the calories to feed it. Really, that’s what civilization is. A monolith that continues to use up a dwindling amount of resources while growing larger and larger. It is ironic that in a society based on the supremacy of science and technology people are so unscientific and downright naive in their basic perceptions of civilization.
Despite all of this, I truly believe that a world Utopia on earth is not only possible, but realistic. The failure of every previous Utopian is that they never thinks outside the box. They take what they see as the “good” parts of our civilization like technology, industrialization, and productivity and envision a world where these factors are as powerful and prevalent as possible. In reality the end of industrial civilization is the only way Utopia could be possible. By this I mean a dismantling and population shift out of population centers, workshop based production, and hunting rather than farming for meat.
When I talk about politics a question I am frequently asked is what my Utopia would look like. This is a hard question to answer, not because I cant think of what one could look like, but because that question misses the point entirely. Anarchism is not a specific political program like capitalism, feudalism, or socialism, but an entirely different way of organizing literally every aspect of society. Anything or anywhere can actually be anarchist if it is free from hierarchy, centralism, and dominance. This can be an entire revolutionary commune the size of Hinsdale or just a couple of friends getting together to hang out after school. Most of the time anyone spends outside of work, school, or any other institution based on hierarchy is spent in anarchy. The key is that there is no leaders or power, but the total freedom and true democracy that free association brings.
What I have always fantasized a world anarchist society would look like is based around the commune. The commune should be the basic form of human social interaction. This commune would be small in population, anywhere from 50 at the smallest and 500 at the absolute largest. The commune would be based on mutual aid and gift economy, with communization of all capital. If you were a shoe maker for instance, you would give the shoes you make to the Hinsdale commune, and in return you would receive all of the resources and support the rest of the commune offers. This means food, water utility, and anything else needed. In such a small community it is within an individuals self-interest to provide their goods because benefiting your comrades directly helps you. If the shoemaker increases productivity and quality, the other producers in the commune can increase their own productivity. For example, shoes made for the apple farmer means that he could increase his own productivity. Maybe by next harvest the shoemaker, along with everyone else in the Hinsdale commune, will notice an increase in their apple stores.
Real world examples as well as logic prove that mutual aid based economies work very well. People have an increased motivation to work hard and do their jobs well when they themselves as well as the people they are close to depend on it, even if they aren’t getting the direct recuperation that the capitalist wage system gives them. However, if there is ever an able person who refuses to contribute to the group while still using the group’s resources, the commune can peacefully and easily remedy this solution. They can do this by simply refusing to work with that person or give him their surplus. Since you can’t live on your own with only the skills of a shoemaker or farmer, they would have to learn to cooperate or go their separate way. The basic framework of the commune is the backbone of my anarchist society.
A commune needs more than what it can provide for itself to thrive. The people need schools, libraries, roads, parks, and theaters. All of these things the Hinsdale commune wouldn’t have the resources to provide for itself. The commune can create all of these things by cooperating and federating with the other communes around it. The Oakbrook and Downers Grove communes could cooperate and build a high school that all could attend. One of the great benefits of an egalitarian anarchist economy is that when people are not in a mad dash do accumulate as much capital as possible collective democratic and consensus decisions always favor the creation of more public goods. This would lead to a much higher standard of living.
For even larger projects the union between the Oakbrook, Hinsdale, and Downers Grove could federate even further by joining other unions to form a syndicate. This could be the top third of Illinois for example. They could complete projects like large roads or canals. This syndicate could federate even more into a bioregion. This organization would be based around the productive capabilities of each environment and then resources could be shared within them. The Great Plains bioregion that Hinsdale would be a part of can export corn and wheat, while the Cascadia bioregion could export salmon and lumber. Internationally, a desolate bioregion like the Sahara could export glass and salt while importing food from more fertile lands. All of this is possible without capitalism.
Utopia for me doesn’t mean a perfect world, because as people who doubt my political views never cease telling me, nobody is perfect and everyone is inherently. My Utopia is a society that in spite of that has a basic framework that offers racial, sexual, and economic equality and a complete freedom from any form of domination. I want total anarchy.
