"We understood that if no central Government was needed to rule the independent Communes, if the national Government is thrown overboard and national unity is obtained by free federation, then a central municipal Government becomes equally useless and noxious. The same federative principle could do within the Commune."—Peter Kropotkin (Modern Science and Anarchism)
The picture of anarchist social democracy that I paint is an image of utopia, an ideal theoretical model that I prefer above all others. However, the basis of the social order that I want is general consensus or agreement arising through deliberative participatory democracy at the local level and free association (confederation). This means that each local community can choose to accept or reject any one of the proposals. The anarchist social democracy, then, would not be some monolithic federation akin to a State, but a group of municipalities within a network of interconnected free associations that happen to have each embraced the key points of anarchist social democracy. They will likely all be part of a much larger defense confederation, of which most of the member communities will likely not be social democratic at all.
I am writing this particular article because of a confusion about my political views. A friend of mine has criticized my views as advocating "rule by force." I think this is a misunderstanding that comes from the fact that I have drawn an outline for a libertarian social democratic utopia, and any vision of utopia has to come across looking like a monolithic society. I described the features that would make a system, by definition, anarchist social democratic. This vision of utopia must necessarily look like a monolithic system, and it is hard to imagine a monolithic system coming about without being imposed by force. However, I am not actually proposing a single monolithic system. I am proposing libertarian municipalism, where each local community is autonomous, and democratic confederalism or combination of municipalities through free association. In short, I am proposing anarchism. At the same time, I am making certain suggestions about the way those municipalities ought to manage land, deal with social welfare, protect their citizens, enforce general rules, etc.
For illustrative purposes, I painted the picture of a single democratic confederation with all of the characteristics of libertarian social democracy. It would be nice to have a single federation with all of those features. However, it is far more likely that libertarian social democracy would emerge from the overlapping of various confederations, with anarchist social democratic municipalities being members of various different confederations; none of the confederations would actually meet the criteria of anarchist social democracy themselves, but they each might meet some of the criteria, so that some of their member communities might be able to come closer to meeting all the criteria if they are also members of other confederations that meet certain other of those criteria.
Under my model, decisions would be made locally, at the level of the neighborhood, on the basis of general consensus. And each neighborhood sends a delegate to the municipal council, but the delegate is bound by an imperative mandate, meaning that the decision is made by his constituents via consensus, and not by the delegate’s arbitrary choice. The delegate would attend the council, hear and participate in the deliberation, and then report back to the general assembly in his neighborhood, but the decisions would ultimately be made through consensus processes at the local level.
I see democratic confederalism working as a system of various overlapping networks of free association through confederation. So, imagine an entire region is united into a confederation for national defense. Suppose there are many poleis (autonomous democratic municipalities) and they are all united into a confederation for national defense. There may be other separate and independent federations in addition to this defense confederation, so each polis (municipality) may belong to various different confederations. Just as Denmark and the Netherlands are members of the EU, UN, and NATO, but Sweden joined the EU and UN while opting out of NATO, so too could these autonomous municipalities be members of separate and independent confederations and associations.
Imagine that there are various autonomous municipalities. Let’s call them a, b, c, d, and e. Let’s suppose that all 5 municipalities confederate and form a free association for national defense. They have a confederation of national guards into a unified confederal military to protect them from invasion. Municipalities a and b might form a separate and independent free association (confederation) for social welfare, choosing to collaborate together in a mutual health insurance scheme for their citizens. Municipalities c, d, and e might opt out of the mutual insurance scheme and instead form a separate free association for a communistic confederation, in which they have a syndicalist approach to sharing resources according to need. Then, suppose that a neighboring region has a confederation of municipalities for national defense; these are the municipalities of f, g, h, i, and j. Municipalities g, h, and j may make a voluntary contract with a, c, and e, forming a free association for trade purposes. Likewise, c, e, h, and j, although belonging to separate and distinct defense confederations, might confederate for social welfare purposes and create a scheme for universal basic income. Furthermore, the two defense confederations could form a free association together in order to guarantee mutual assistance in case of invasion of either territory. Also, various municipalities and provinces could, theoretically, belong to multiple defense confederations. The municipalities c and d could freely choose to join the defense confederation of f-g-h-i-j and yet remain members of the other defense confederation too. So there would be a complex network of various interlocking and overlapping federations and free associations. Furthermore, each community could choose which federations to join and which to opt out of, all on the principle of free association; and they could choose to withdraw from associations that they previously joined.
The libertarian social democratic society would actually be the area were several separate confederations overlap (a defense confederation, social welfare association, universal basic income confederation, etc.). The anarchist social democratic society, then, is more of an emergent phenomenon that arises out of the way that various networks of confederation interact and overlap. The picture below shows overlapping free associations, with the area in yellow being the portion that meets all the criteria for being classified as anarchist social democracy. The yellow portion of the diagram corresponds to the municipalities that have all of the features of anarchist social democracy.
It would be in the best interest of all communities involved if each municipality adopted a geoist land value tax, universal basic income, mutualist market system, and all the other “anarchist social democratic” proposals that I suggest. However, you have to keep in mind that libertarian municipal democratic confederalism is the ultimate basis of the social order that I propose, which means that decisions are made in general assemblies on a consensus basis at the local level, which means that each autonomous community could potentially opt out. This also means that you might end up with something like “gerrymandered”-looking municipalities, where various neighborhoods within a single “city” might choose to confederate into separate municipalities. It would be the same way nationally; there might be wonky looking maps if you try to draw the territory of a confederation, because each municipality could choose to opt out of one confederation and into another one. Each municipality could choose to embrace geoism and basic income, but they also have the ability to opt out, but that doesn’t mean that the fully anarcho-social-democratic municipalities won’t be in a federation with non-anarcho-social-democratic municipalities. The map below illustrates what two different defense federations might actually look like on the map, if the free association model is used. The first confederation is shown in red, the second is shown in blue, while purple represents the parts of the map that fall under both defense confederations. Since the confederations are free associations, not territorial monopolies, it is possible for multiple confederations' territories to overlap. The overlap isn't due to disputed territory but to shared territory.
Overlapping defense confederations is actually a great way to guarantee the keeping of the peace between various defense confederations, so it would actually be beneficial to have municipalities and provinces that belong to multiple defense confederations. In order for two confederations to go to war with each other, there would have to be a general consensus of the member communities. Suppose that 10% of the members of the first confederation also belong to the second confederation. The overlapping membership means that no consensus could ever be reached for one territory to commit aggression against the other, since war between the two would be a disaster and absurdity for the 10% that belong to both associations. And if there are 20 defense confederation with overlapping memberships within a complex web, then those 20 confederations spontaneously form a peace network that is basically guaranteed to maintain the peace and ward off aggressive behavior. Thus, overlapping webs of free associations for defense could easily do what the League of Nations and the United Nations were intended to do. It would create an organic system—not an imposed or sophisticatedly designed world order, but an accidental and spontaneous order—that would guarantee lasting peace and end war.
I don’t think my model is actually “rule by force.” I think it is just a free association model, like all forms of anarchism. The only difference is my preference of economic system. If you have a model where governance is done through consensus and free association, there are any number of possibilities (mutualism, georgism, communism, individualism, etc.). Each community has to decide its own economic model and its own rules and arbitration procedure for itself. So, you have to keep in mind that the proposals I put forth are really statements of my own preference or suggestions. Each community has to make the determination for itself, but “anarchist social democracy” is the model of utopia that I would prefer for myself.
If someone mistakes my position for "rule by force," then there are two points that they are missing. First, that governance upon my model is on a general consensus basis, which means that rules and norms and membership of communities within free associations (or confederations) would be malleable and ever-changing. As new generations with different ideas start participating in the decision-making process, things will change. Anarchy is malleable and fluid. It's not a system of majority rule. Within a vast confederation, the confederal council might have to make decisions on a majority rules basis, if consensus can't be reached; but the ruling would not be binding on the non-consenting members—each community has the ability to secede or opt out. Locally, I have said that decisions should be made on a consensus basis, not by majority rule, which means that there is always room for dissent and a majority can't just choose to ignore the thoughts and opinions of a minority (consensus doesn't allow for the overruling of minorities by majority rule). Even at the level of the municipality, individuals can "stand aside" and opt out. You don't have to pay membership dues (income taxes) to the local community, but you have to keep in mind that the community is also not bound to provide you with food, shelter, and basic income if you do so opt out. So, opting out of paying taxes may amount to opting out of a lot of really great things. Now, the community may choose to provide non-taxpayers within the community with the services and basic income anyway, especially if most people do contribute, but the community could choose to exclude non-contributing individuals within the community from the benefits of the free association. By opting out, you are excluding yourself from that particular free association, so the community no longer has obligations to you since you are no longer a member of that community or free association.
It has also been suggested that my system is "rule by force" because it involves money, which is linked to wage slavery; also, because it involves taxes, which are usually compulsory. Firstly, if you have municipal socialism and universal basic income, then there can be no wage slavery. Money loses its exploitative, alienating, and despotic characteristics when you create a system such as the one that I propose. If you pay your membership dues, you get a free basic income, which would actually cover the cost of the membership dues, so it would be really stupid not to pay them. The basic income would come from the rental of communally-owned land and from the "corporate tax," which is really not a tax per se but a share of profits owed to the community since the community is actually a partial owner of all enterprises. Under a system of municipal socialism, land would be publicly owned by the local community. Thus, the "land value tax" isn't really a tax proper, but rather a fee for the privilege of exclusive use of communal land. Additionally, the community is considered partial owner of all industry and enterprises in the area since the labor of the community (in maintaining roads, infrastructure, and currency; enforcing contracts, etc.) actually contributes to the profits of the enterprises. Since labor is what makes ownership legitimate, which is why the workers should own industry, it follows that the community should have some share of ownership too, insofar as the functioning of the enterprise would be impossible apart from the community and its labor. Thus, the "corporate tax" isn't a tax proper, but a share of profits due to the members of the community as shareholders. The "income tax" is really just a sliding scale membership due. So, under voluntaryism (voluntary taxation), the "taxes" are really just voluntary contributions (membership dues to associations) or fees (land rent to the community) or dividend payments (shares of corporate profit to the community).