The Communal Polis: Identity and Organization

[redstar2000SE]

Man is an animal that lives in a polis -- Aristotle

The single greatest political innovation of the ancient Greeks was the establishment of the polis, or "city-state" -- Richard Hooker, 1996.

Try to imagine a communist "European Union" or a communist "North America"...what do you think it would look like?

Here are these enormous and sprawling remnants of empire, containing hundreds of millions of people...people of different language, ethnic/cultural traditions, etc.

Is there any point to these enormous entities after class society has been overthrown?

Is there any point to the emotional identifications that people have established with them?

Are they useful for what we really want?

People do seem to have a marked tendency to emotionally identify with the geographical area where they live, with their own cultural/ethnic traditions, etc. I don't think it reasonable to expect that to change for a very long time...if ever.

Is there a form that would better serve our purposes than the old nation-states and empires?

I think there is...and I think the Greeks invented it 2,700 years ago: the polis.*

The traditional polis was basically a fortified city surrounded by enough agricultural land to feed itself (most of the time) and a reliable (and secure) water supply. It could (and often did) enter into alliances with other cities, but was jealous of its own autonomy. Its citizens emotionally identified with it, eagerly defended it in wartime, and often freely contributed to its welfare over and above the demands of taxation.

In Athens and some of the other cities, the institution of direct rule by the citizens in a popular assembly was invented.

As I envision it, a modern communal polis would resemble the ancient version in many respects...though, of course, on a considerably larger scale.

It would be a large city surrounded by sufficient farmland to meet most of its food requirements, would produce most of what it required in the way of technological goods, etc. It would, most likely, speak a common language and embrace a common culture...though it might remain ethnically mixed.

It would offer a source of identity "on a human scale".

It would cooperate with other such cities on projects of mutual advantage, obviously. But ultimate authority (insofar as that word would still mean something) would rest in the hands of its own popular assembly...that should consist of all citizens who wish to attend its daily meetings (supported by referendums as seen to be necessary).

There are "nations" that exist today that give us a glimpse of what such cities might look like in the future. Austria is really the "city-state of Vienna"; the Czech Republic is really the "city-state of Prague", etc. The non-aggressiveness of these small "nations" is encouraging.

Still, there is the risk that "good-natured rivalry" might spill over into "bad-natured war". The old Greek city-states quarreled nearly as often as they cooperated.

I find it difficult to imagine why one such communal polis would want to go to war with another -- though one must remember that two small central American countries fought a brief war in the last century over the outcome of a football game ("The Soccer War").

The problem of economic relations between such cities is a rather thorny one...early on, it might strongly resemble trade a lot more than we would be comfortable with. There would be no money...but it might look a lot like barter.

The communist position would be one of "generous tit-for-tat"...give the other city even more than they asked for. Let each city gradually develop the idea that "ours is the most generous and open-handed city of them all".

And things should go well.
________________________

*Note that this is one way in which communist societies might be organized. There are certain to be others.

[Laugh Riot]

Wow. That sounds very nice. In the future, we'll all be nice. Who needs all that class struggle stuff. It's so "authoritarian."

In the future, I'll be pretty, rich, well-loved and respected for my humility.

By by by, wasn't just about everyone back in ancient Greece a slave? Including all of the women and most of the men?

Didn't the "democracy" of Greece really mean that the ruling class had a mechanism for ensuring it's collective domination of everyone else?

I'd rather remember the pre-Germanic tribes that lived communally in the far north, but that's like sticking feathers in my cap and saying "one day we'll live like the Indians." It's just not reality.

I've lurked around this forum for a minute. Considering the hostility which the author of the above article has towards communists and contempt he holds every serious attempt to found a socialist soceity, I can't say I'm surprised that he's writing this kind of speculation. There is some truth in the idea, but so what? If you can't respect the road we have to walk (not THE road, just the fact of a transitionary period), then you might as well stick to science fiction.

[redstar2000SE]

Laugh Riot wrote: Wow. That sounds very nice. In the future, we'll all be nice. Who needs all that class struggle stuff. It's so "authoritarian."

Considering the rather massive number of posts I've made on this board and on the Che-Lives board about class struggle, your comment displays vast ignorance, to say the least.

Not even classless society is going to help that.

Laugh Riot wrote: In the future, I'll be pretty, rich, well-loved and respected for my humility.

I can't speak to the first three items, but I will suggest that you probably have much to be humble about.

Laugh Riot wrote: Blah, blah, blah...It's just not reality.

All of your "historical" commentary is irrelevant to my initial post.

Laugh Riot wrote: I've lurked around this forum for a minute. Considering the hostility which the author of the above article has towards communists and contempt he holds every serious attempt to found a socialist society, I can't say I'm surprised that he's writing this kind of speculation.

Those guys back in the last century, in my opinion, sincerely believed they were doing the right thing...and I do not hold them in any "contempt" whatsoever.

(By the way, they were socialists even though they called themselves "communists".)

Those who are alive today, on the other hand, and who wish to replicate those failed experiments do not inspire me with confidence in their mental acuity.

Laugh Riot wrote: There is some truth in the idea, but so what?

So this: a true idea is apt to be a superior guide to action (more useful) than ideas that are not true.

Laugh Riot wrote: If you can't respect the road we have to walk (not THE road, just the fact of a transitionary period), then you might as well stick to science fiction.

No one disputes the fact of transition; what is in dispute is the character of that period.

Read this thread...

awip.proboards23.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=theory&thread=1093812247&start=15

If "enlightened despotism" is your idea of something worth fighting for, then say so in an honest way (like Bob Avakian did).

No one is under any obligation to "respect" bad ideas.

[Snitza]

redstar2000SE said:

The problem of economic relations between such cities is a rather thorny one...early on, it might strongly resemble trade a lot more than we would be comfortable with. There would be no money...but it might look a lot like barter.

If barter and trade DO exist in such a society, then what prospect or evidence do we have that such a practice would dissappear after a while? Wouldn't it just stick around, fester, and eventually require an exchangable intermediary(currency) after a long enough time, if "barter" grows more popular?

What kind of device would be in place to kill the need for trade?

[redstar2000SE]

Snitza wrote: If barter and trade DO exist in such a society, then what prospect or evidence do we have that such a practice would disappear after a while?

As I indicated, it is a thorny problem.

I think it would become a controversy. People would point out the contradiction: "we don't do this within the polis...why are we doing it with other communes?"

And they would raise exactly the point that you raised: "What's next...money?"

So I think it would be an ideological struggle...expanding the reach of communist relations versus keeping the old relations of exchange that were typical under capitalism and would, if continued, possibly result in the restoration of capitalism. (How? Imagine each polis starting to produce commodities for exchange rather than use...eventually they would become "corporations".)

Since all of the communes would be classless societies, one can presume a certain degree of "bias" in favor of communist relations between communes.

But it could get sticky.

[RedFlagOverTrenton]

One problem I have with this proposal, or hypothetical guess as to the future of Communist, stateless society, is that it leaves the door wide open to the restoration of both the state and capitalism. It seems to me like you're trying to do away with the state by busting it down into smaller pieces. I also think it's a fairly big assumption that this "barter economy" thing between the various city-states, polis', or what have you, will actually be a "generous tit-for-tat" simply all by itself. Such a system may lead to a restoration of semi capitalist trade relations despite the abolition of the profit motive; certain polis' may end up being completely dependand, for example, on other polis' for resources they simply don't have or can't produce leading to exploitative trade relationships.

This can happen even if people are "biased" towards the communist position simply by virtue of the fact of the material situation.

Furthermore, in a modern post-industrial society I'm not sure every polis could ever be mostly self sufficient, mostly independant. Many cities simply don't have a very large manufacturing capacity, or nearly enough farmland relatively nearby to sustain a population of millions.

I think it's good that we put forward ideas as to what post-revolutionary society we want and what it may end up looking like. I just think there are too many problems with this one, in particular, to make it practiceable.

[redstar2000SE]

RedFlagOverTrenton wrote: ...certain polis' may end up being completely dependent, for example, on other polis' for resources they simply don't have or can't produce leading to exploitative trade relationships.

Yes, that could happen. However, one of the important capabilities/potentials of a technologically advanced society is the ability to substitute resources. There are many paths to providing a particular good/service and substitutes are common.

One could see the possibility of carrying independence "too far"...making inefficient choices "as a matter of principle". But if the people in one polis felt that another was "taking advantage of them", then resource substitutes would be the way to go.

RedFlagOverTrenton wrote: Furthermore, in a modern post-industrial society I'm not sure every polis could ever be mostly self sufficient, mostly independent. Many cities simply don't have a very large manufacturing capacity, or nearly enough farmland relatively nearby to sustain a population of millions.

We don't live in a "post-industrial society"...the industry is on the other side of the planet and out of our view.

I think every polis will have to build up an industrial infrastructure or rehabilitate the one that is languishing...we cannot expect, as a communist society, to live off the industrial labor of the non-western world. There's no way to make that "fair" or "equitable".

As to farming with a "shortage" of land, there are two possible solutions and perhaps both will be used.

Most American cities are surrounded by sprawling suburbs that were (and still are being) constructed on perfectly good farmland. This suggests that the suburbs should be gradually dismantled while new housing is constructed in the city proper. Also, it should be noted that greenhouse farming is much more productive than ordinary outdoor farming. A polis short of "good land" could construct hundreds of such productive facilities. It might even prove to be fairly simple to automate them.

RedFlagOverTrention wrote: I just think there are too many problems with this one, in particular, to make it practicable.

You may be right. But then what are we to do with these sprawling "remnants of empire" that we will inherit from the old order? How are we to "run them" without sinking into the pit of a monstrously swollen bureaucracy?

Look at China.

[RedFlagOverTrenton]

I suppose the solutions you propose might be plausible; I don't know. I'm neither an agricultural expert, nor an urban planner or civil engineer. I am curious as to what you mean by "substitute resources" though.

I also didn't take into account the fact that the US by virtue of its status as a highly developed nation has a large quantity of "primary machinerey", that is, machine tools used to create other machine tools. So yes, it might be possible to reindustrialize on a national level in a (relatively) short period of time.

As for alternatives, I suppose I'd like to see a system similar to the one set up in the wake of Russia's October revolution, i.e. one in which the Soviets of workers did, in fact, hold supreme power. You seem to think the degeneration into beuracratic, authoritarian tendancies is inevitable; I disagree and feel it was more a result of material conditions in Russia at the time than anything else. With the USSR's proletariat making up at most %15 of the population, and at least %67 of this being killed or maimed in the brutal civil war which followed, creating a beuracratic state apparatus may have seemed like the only choice at the time. I don't fear the same situation being the case in the US.

[redstar2000SE]

RedFlagOverTrenton wrote: I am curious as to what you mean by "substitute resources" though.

Its meaning is the obvious one; if you don't have X (for any reason) then you substitute Y which will serve the same purpose, more or less.

In a high-tech society, many such substitutions are, in principle, possible. They don't exist now (for the most part) because cheaper alternatives are available.

But if there were important reasons to develop them, then they would work.

RedFlagOverTrenton wrote: As for alternatives, I suppose I'd like to see a system similar to the one set up in the wake of Russia's October revolution, i.e. one in which the Soviets of workers did, in fact, hold supreme power. You seem to think the degeneration into bureaucratic, authoritarian tendencies is inevitable; I disagree and feel it was more a result of material conditions in Russia at the time than anything else.

It was Marx's insight that a workers' parliament should combine the functions of what we think of as legislative and executive. Think of what this would mean in a polis...and what it would mean for a huge and populated territory like the United States.

Secondly, think of the numbers of "workers' delegates" that would be involved. A polis might get by with a "soviet" of 500 members and be fairly representative; a similar degree of representation for the entire United States would require a "soviet" of 30,000 delegates or more. It would have to meet in a stadium.

Such a huge body would become ceremonial...and real power would drift to (or be grabbed by) subcommittees, special assistants, etc.

In short, it would become heavily bureaucratized.

I agree with you that material conditions ultimately determined the unhappy fates of Russia, China, et.al.

But I disagree with Max Weber and all his contemporary descendants that "modern society must have an elaborate bureaucracy".

No doubt it needs some...but as communists, I think we should be heavily biased against it from the beginning.

A polis could be bureaucratic, of course. But the bureaucracy would be small enough to directly struggle against and even remove entirely, if that were required.

A vast centralized bureaucracy, especially one with a professional army at its disposal, can only be overcome with a second revolution.

And those cannot be arranged "as needed".