Self-governance and self-management

By governance we mean how the society that we live in is organized. The predominant form of governance in society today is state-governance. It is a hierarchical form of governance in which structures are set up so that there is a chain of command from top to bottom. Decisions are made at the top and sent down to be carried out. Thus, the state is not only an assembly of institutions and entities such as  government,  ministries, the school system, the tax office, the police and the army. It is also a social relationship, both between these different institutions and the government at the top, and between these institutions and society below a hierarchical and centralized relationship.

The nature of governance is determined not only by its organizational structures, but also by the fundamental values on which it is built. In Germany, for example, the so-called „free democratic (constitutional) order“ is invoked again and again. From the principles openly stated there, it becomes clear that competition and representation are central, instead of cooperation and direct participation („[the people] have the choice between competing parties“); or that it is about leaving  responsibility over our lives to a small group of people instead of having it in our own hands („[Basic principle:] the responsibility of the government“).

If we look at history, we see a close connection between the emergence of representative democracy and capitalism. The modern state has its origins in monarchy and feudalism, where kinship was crucial for political and economic influence and power. With trade and industrialization in the 19th century, however, new economic forces emerged that also wanted to secure a place at the table, and within a few decades the modern form of the state emerged. It is still very much in line with its origins, and the influence of economic forces, such as corporations, are still strong. Like capitalism, the state has its origins in the accumulation of capital. The preconditions for this were the exploitation of the earth and our labor, the devaluation of reproductive labor, and colonialism.

At first, the above  might sound very contradictory to what the „free democratic (constitutional) order“ uses to legitimize today’s system: Human rights, to “have a say”{{‚Having a say‘ differs from selfdetermination. One might be allowed to talk, but not make a descision. And even when this is the case, for instance in a Referendum, this is mostly advisory and not binding. Next to that, there are many obstacles to even make a referedum take place.}}, in politics through elections, social benefits, etc. We are all equal before the law, we are allowed to vote every four years, we are entitled to Harz IV if we lose our job. Reality, however, looks very different: our last name, appearance, passport, gender or how much money we have in our pockets determine how good our chances are to get these rights. The promises of  political parties to change certain conditione might sound promising. Still, but the injustices we experience every day are a direct consequence of the fact that it is in the hands of a privileged minority to interpret the aforementioned „free democratic (constitutional) order“ according to their advantage. Voting in the elections every four years will not fundamentally change this. If we want to break with this, we need a completely different foundation for our society.

We are always being told that today’s system is so complex that we as „normal people“ wouldn’t understand it anyway. We learn this at school, at work and through the media. On the contrary, as anarchists think that we as a peoples are very capable of standing up  for our own interests and of making decisions together. We are convinced that this is the only way to include the interests of all people, equally.

We believe  the basis for realizing this is through self-governance. If we look at history and go beyond our western perspectives, we see how people and communities have always come together and cooperated based on mutual material needs and shared values{{Peter Gelderloos, Anarchy Works (2010), Chapt. I. Human Nature ‚Aren’t people naturally competitive?“; https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works/#toc9}}{{Peter Kropotkin, Mutual Aid (1902), Chapt. VII. & VIII. Mutual Aid in Our Times.}}{{„Herrschaftsfreie Gesellschaften werden nicht mehr geleugnet“, Junge Welt, 08.07.2017, Wochenendbeilage}}{{H. Amborn, Das Recht als Hort der Anarchie. Gesellschaften ohne Herrschaft und Staat. Matthes & Seitz, 2016}}{{J.C. Scott, The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia, Yale University Press, 2009}}: for instance the Mbuti, who have lived for centuries in stateless, egalitarian, cooperative communities in the Ituri rainforest of what is now the DR Congo, without exploiting nature or each other;{{D. Winters, The Mbuti People, Ubuntu is Life, 26.01.2021; https://www.amplifyafrica.org/post/the-mbuti-people-ubuntu-is-life}} or as in Cherán, Mexico, where the 20,000+ inhabitants built an autonomous self-governing society centered on their needs  after driving out the cartels, local authorities, and police in 2011.{{Rebellion, Autonomy, and Communal Self-Government in the Indigenous Municipality of Cherán, Michoacán, Its Going Down, (Artikel u. Podcast) 2. Okt. 2020; https://itsgoingdown.org/rebellion-autonomy-communal-government-cheran}} The impulse for mutual aid and community organizing is evident everywhere, and at a wide variety of levels. Even in societies like ours, where the state has great influence on many aspects of our lives, we see a wide variety of associations, aid networks, and foundations.{{Peter Kropotkin, The Conquest of the Bread (1892), Chapt. III Anarchist Communism}}  We see this, too, during disaster situations where the state begins to lose control..  For example, after Hurricane Katrina in 2005 in New Orleans, USA, people independently organized rescue and supply operations when state structures collapsed and failed to meet the people’s needs.{{Rhiannon Firth, Mutual Aid, Anarchist Preparedness and COVID-19}}{{Plan C, “At the end of the day, it’s just us” – Mutual Aid, Direct Action and Disasters}}{{ Common Ground Relief; https://www.commongroundrelief.org}}{{ Mutual Aid Disaster Relief; https://mutualaiddisasterrelief.org}}

In the free and classless society to which we aspire, the following fundamental values are important. First, the principle of free association, by which we mean that we should all be free to decide with whom and where we organize our lives, as long as that is not used to oppress or exploit others. Second, mutual responsibility, from individual to individual, between individual and community, but also from community to community.{{Bookchin, M. – The meaning of confederalism (1976), k. Decentralism and Self-Sustainability; https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/murray-bookchin-the-meaning-of-confederalism#toc2}} Third, mutual aid, because no community can completely independently meet all its needs, and because cooperation among different communities provides a more sustainable foundation than competition.{{Bookchin, M. – The meaning of confederalism (1976), k. Problems of Decentralism; https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/murray-bookchin-the-meaning-of-confederalism#toc2}}

To prevent new structures of domination, two things are important: first, the structures of the new society should be built in such a way as to make it impossible for power to be permanently concentrated in the hands of a few people; second, it requires society’s ability to detect and prevent power concentrations early on, if and when they occur.{{Diana Denham and the C.A.S.A. Collective, Teaching Rebellion: Stories from the Grassroots Mobilization in Oaxaca, PM Press, 2008, Kap. „David“, S. 288}}

In today’s administrative apparatus, the interests of many social groups affected by structural oppression are not taken into account. For instance, the perspectives of women* and queer people, people of color and migrants, or people with disabilities are often not represented. And in cases where these groups interests are taken into account, it usually does not come through direct representation We think that marginalized people themselves know best what they are affected by, and can stand up for their needs. Therefore self-governing structures should both represent the composition of society, and  should also be comprised of autonomous structures that ensure that the perspectives and needs of these groups are given the weight they deserve in shaping society.

This being said, we will not be able to implement  all the basic values and skills necessary for a self-governing society from one day to the next. Nevertheless, there are already existing social struggles – as well as past struggles – that are driving the process of increasing such skills within particular communities. There are, however, already many social struggles that drive this process (both in the past and the present). These struggles are the seeds for a future society.

This part of the program is the basis of all the other parts. In it we describe how the different areas of society (e.g. work, housing or justice) could be related to each other.

1. Where do we want to go in the long term?

1.1 Basic principles of self-governance and self-management

  • A. All power to the social base: Politics should no longer be a matter for a small group of professionals. Everyone can participate in decision-making, if they are directly affected by it. This requires active participation. Decisions are made, for example, at general assemblies organized around specific areas of life (e.g., a city, village, neighborhood, housing block or workplace).
  • B. Self-determination of the individual: The success of a free society depends on both the self-determined initiative of the individual and on united action. Each individual is free to settle where desired, to develop activities independently and to participate in social life. At the same time, there is a dependence on the community for access to material well-being, opportunities for personal development, resources and security. That is, the freedom of the individual is related to the freedom of the collective; there exists a mutual responsibility between the individual and the collective.
  • C. Council system: councils are smaller groups of people designated from plenary assemblies to prepare decisions or delegate them to larger levels. The social base decides how much trust to give to the councils, i.e., what decisions they are allowed to make autonomously.
  • D. Imperative mandate: delegates (e.g. in the councils) always represent the decisions of the structures that send them. This requires regular consultation, e.g. at plenary meetings. They can be voted out of position at any time to prevent them from abusing their position: for example if they do not represent what they were sent to represent.
  • E. Mandate of trust: means that a larger group of people (e.g., an assembly) trusts a smaller group (e.g., a council) to make certain decisions independently. Although everyone has the ability to co-decide on issues that affect them, in order to remain capable of acting, it should also be possible for councils to make decisions or for the social base to be advised by them (e.g. by expert councils that deal with certain topics). The social base, however, always retain control and can withdraw trust at any time.
  • F. Co-delegation: There should always be at least two delegates from a structure that reflects the composition of the society as much as possible (e.g. at least one WLINT).{{WLINT: Woman Lesbian Intersexual Non-Binary Trans}}
  • G. Autonomous organizing at all levels of society’s self-management: Groups that experience oppression (today) can best represent their needs themselves. For example, there can be councils or general assemblies of BIPoC, migrants, women*, queer people, people with disabilities, or youth. Their perspective is essential if we are to overcome oppression and exclusion, so their voice will be weighted accordingly.
  • H. Enabling participation for all: in order to participate in self-governing structures, certain skills are needed (e.g. debating, expressing oneself in an understandable way, taking responsibility). Learning this should be part of education and thus is also a responsibility of the commune. (See also ‘Education and Science’) In order for everyone to be able to participate equally, all work, including reproductive work, must be distributed more equally. (See also ‘Work’)
  • I. Social consensus: agreement on shared values and rules among all people living in a community. Formulation is communal, and agreement is informed and voluntary. Social consensus is modifiable through regular open forums and surveys (e.g., annual).

1.2 Commune

  • A. A commune is a community of people. Within it, members produce, consume, and shape their lives based on shared values and interests. Each individual is free to choose a commune and also to organize with individuals from other communes. The term commune should not be equated here with the contemporary municipality, which is an administrative unit of the capitalist state.
  • B. The core of social self-management is the commune. These should not be too large, in order to be able to keep a relation to each other and to guarantee self-determination. It can include a neighborhood or a small village.
  • C. Delegates of the councils of all social areas (e.g. neighborhoods, businesses, autonomous organizations, justice structures, infrastructure, education) exchange ideas and make decisions with the imperative mandate of their base.
  • D. Transparent decisions and maximum local participation through easily accessible minutes and accessible processes.
  • E. Responsible for all local issues: e.g. housing (and distribution), food distribution, education, justice, environmental protection, infrastructure, communal property (and distribution thereof), self-defense.

1.3 Confederation

  • A. Confederation: local self-governing units (communes) join together regionally according to common interests. There can be different levels. In a larger cities like Berlin, a neighborhood would form a commune. This sends delegates to the confederation on district level. From this, delegates can then be sent again to the city level, and so on. The communes have a high degree of autonomy.
  • B. Free association as a basis for transregional cooperation: all communes are free to send delegates, together the participating communes can agree on values and needs of the members of the confederation.
  • C. Beyond today’s nation-state borders: the borders we have today are often arbitrarily drawn and cut through areas that actually have common local interests (e.g. economic or because they are on the same body of water) or areas with a common language or culture.
  • D. Decentralization: confederations are exclusively responsible for areas that transcend the communal level (e.g., large-scale infrastructure such as electricity, water, transport, internet, exchange of goods, public transport, and if necessary justice and self-defense).
  • E. Variation of the social consensus: even if the confederation is based on shared values, each municipality can decide for itself how exactly to shape communal life.

2. Transitional phase

  • A. Material basis: If we want to organize our society in a self-managed way, it must be made possible for everyone to participate. But how can we do this at a phase where we are still dependent on wage labor and have to do all these tasks in our „free time“? An approach to overcome this could be mutual support and redistribution.
  • B. Conflicting systems: As soon as the self-governing structures represent a degree of power that makes state structures superfluous, the state will not simply accept this. What does this mean for the self-governing structures? How can we prepare for this?
  • C. Conflicts of interest: Unlike other forms of society, no one can be forced into self-governance. How do we deal with it, when a large parts of the people in a place have chosen to organize themselves from below, but there are institutions or organizations that want to impose centralized, authoritarian or reactionary models of society?
  • D. Self-Sufficiency vs. economic dependency: Because of globalization and the way in which economies are organized around the world today, no place in the world is able to be completely self-sufficient. Complete economic self-sufficiency – autarky – is difficult to achieve, and may not even be desirable.{{Murray Bookchin, The meaning of confederalism (1990), Chapt. Problems of dezentralism […] „Without such wholistic cultural and political changes as I have advocated, notions of decentralism that emphasize localist isolation and a degree of self-sufficiency may lead to cultural parochialism and chauvinism. Parochialism can lead to problems that are as serious as a “global” mentality that overlooks the uniqueness of cultures, the peculiarities of ecosystems and ecoregions, and the need for a humanly scaled community life that makes a participatory democracy possible.“ Next to that, it might be impossible to produce certain goods locally, for instance because of a lack of resources or while the circumstances for its production are unfavorable.}} What does this mean in the case of a self-governing society initially established in  small areas? Economic exchange can quickly lead to dependency and thus be used as leverage to reinstall the old order. How can we prevent this?
  • E. International networking: The conclusion from this is that it can only work in the long-term if areas as large as possible, and even the whole planet, live in a self-managed way. When we build popular-power, it usually starts small, at a local level. How can we organize with each other on a regional and international level today?
  • F. Constant change vs. stability: If we look at historical and more recent revolutions, there are phases of pro-active change and construction, but also phases where the need for stability grows. It is precisely then that it is important to stabilize the revolution without getting bogged down, as there is a risk of falling back into old, hierarchical patterns. What is a good long-term balance between stability and reliability on the one hand, and openness to new perspectives, change and development on the other?

3. What can we do in the short term?

3.1 Building counter-power

  • A. The means determine the outcome, therefore, basic principles of self-governance (see above) have to already be implemented in today’s social and political structures. In particular, co-delegation and autonomous organizing to reflect the composition of society e.g. in the workplace, associations, organizations or neighborhood councils.
  • B. Strengthening neighborhood assemblies and forming new ones: there mutual aid can be organized, skills and resources can be shared, people who live next to each other can network and organize together, instead of each person having to deal with everyday problems alone.
      • B.1. Form neighborhood councils from this, in order to use these neighborhood assemblies for more effective joint organization in the medium term and to confederate different assemblies with each other. In order for them to stand up for the concerns of all participating, they should be controlled by the social base (i.e., the assembly), not by state-sponsored and centralized institutions, as happens for example with neighborhood management.
      • B.2. Use self-organized spaces for this purpose, defend   them, and build new ones.{{Kiezkommune, Das Konzept Kiezkommune, https://kiezkommune.noblogs.org/die-kiezkommune}}{{Kiezhaus Agnes Reinhold, Selbstverständniss, https://www.kiezhaus.org/ueberuns/selbst}}
  • C. Strengthen self-organization and -management: Strengthen and defend existing initiatives, projects and assemblies such as cooperatives, labor struggles from below, migrant and feminist self-organization, etc. Build structures of joint organization between different projects and promote exchange between them.
      • C.1. Connecting collectives and cooperatives to collectively gain a stronger and more stable economic position and make them more accessible.
  • D. Combating all fascist structures: the entanglement of fascist structures, the police and military apparatus and government should be should be investigated, exposed, and halted. The NSU complex
  • {{Analyse und Recherche, NSU-Watch (https://www.nsu-watch.info/category/analyse-recherche)}}, the difficulties in the aftermath of the Hanau massacre{{Angehörige und Überlebende fordern unabhängige Untersuchungskomission, Initiative 19. Februar Hanau, März 2021 (https://19feb-hanau.org/2021/03/09/angehoerige-und-ueberlebende-fordern-unabhaengige-untersuchungskommision)}}, the Hannibal-network and the scandal with the MAD – during which far-right extremists within the military were warned ahead of time of impending investigations  – all show that there is a deep entanglement between far-right extremists, the so-called ’security authorities‘ and the administrative apparatus.{{IMI-Studie nr. 4, 4b, Informationsstelle Militarisierung e.V., Juli 2019,; https://www.imi-online.de/publikationen/imi-studien}}{{Wie viel Staat steckt in rechten Terrorstrukturen?, Kommunistischer Aufbau, Oktober 2019; https://komaufbau.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Rechter-Terror.pdf}}

3.2 Reforms

  • A. Enable collective organization and self-management (at work, home, etc.) by law: Laws that prevent collective self-management should be repealed. A legal basis should be created that enables precisely this.
    • A.1 Enable collective ownership by law: Legal forms for individual ownership are readily available, recognized collective legal forms, however, hardly exist. Collectives , for example, hardly have access to financial resources because they are not recognized by banks.
    • A.2 Extended and facilitated possibility for the expropriation and socialization of private property like the means of production, real estate, etc.: Management of this e.g. by neighborhood councils or workers councils, whereby these should not profit from it more than others. Profits could be invested in expanding cooperative networks, socialized housing, etc.{{Deutsche Wohnen und Co. enteignen, Warum enteignen?, https://www.dwenteignen.de/warum-enteignen}}{{Interventionisitische Linke, Rotes Berlin, 2018; https://interventionistische-linke.org/sites/default/files/attachements/rotes_berlin_-_2_auflage_onlineversion_final.pdf}}{{Mieter*innen für die Demokratisierung der Wohnraumversorgung, Kommunal & selbstverwaltet wohnen (2018), https://kommunal-selbstverwaltet-wohnen.de/2018_kuswo_broschuere.pdf}}
    • A.3 Enable socialization by law: Just like privatization, socialization can be enabled by law. The costs of socialization should not be borne by society. If expropriated owners are to be compensated, this means that they will at most get back their original investment (not today’s market price), with deduction of profits already made – in the case of insolvency, exemption from damages is excluded.
  • B. Wealth and inheritance taxes and expropriation of large sums of capital: With economic power comes political influence. To curb this influence, the economic power of people with a lot of capital must be limited.
      • B.1 Money made available through these practices should be used to build up social infrastructure.
      • B.2 In order to ensure that everyone has an equal opportunity to develop and contribute, it is important to prevent the unequal access to resources being passed on to next generations. An inheritance tax can help to level this out.
  • C. End lobbying: As in point 3.2.B. (wealth and inheritance tax), in the current system political influence is linked to economic power. To stop the influence of big businesses on politics, ending of lobbying could be an instrument. Lobbying mostly takes place out of public sight and public influence, making it untransparent (opaque?) and undemocratic. Political influence in general can hardly be prevented, but it should be transparent and accessible to all.