We began with a question about a word. Freedom: what does it mean, and why does it matter to an anarcho-communist? By now, I hope, the answer is clearer not in the sense of being simple (it is not simple), but in the sense of being substantive. Freedom, for the anarcho-communist, is not a liberal abstraction. It is not market freedom, not negative freedom, not the formally equal freedom of the individual to do as they please in a society structured by domination. It is the real, material, social condition of persons who are genuinely free. Free from exploitation, from coercion, from the compulsion of hunger and fear; free to participate in the collective governance of their shared life. Free to develop their full capacities and pursue their own vision of the good; free, above all, in relationship with others who are equally free.
This concept of freedom is demanding. It requires not only the abolition of capitalism and the state but the transformation of culture, the development of new institutions, the cultivation of new habits and capacities in people who have grown up under conditions of domination. It requires taking seriously the freedom of everyone, not only of workers in wealthy nations, but of colonised peoples, of women, of those whose sexuality or gender or race makes them targets of domination in particular ways. It requires attending to the means as well as the ends of political struggle, insisting that the organisations and movements we build be themselves prefigurations of the freedom we seek.This is, admittedly, a lot to demand of a political programme. But consider the alternative. The liberal conception of freedom, the one on offer in existing capitalist democracies, has produced a world in which billions of people live without adequate food, housing, or healthcare; in which a tiny fraction of humanity owns most of the planet's productive resources; in which the ecological systems on which all life depends are being systematically destroyed in the service of private profit; in which entire peoples remain subordinated through colonial and imperial structures that the rhetoric of freedom systematically obscures. If this is what freedom looks like, then freedom is not what we were promised.
The anarcho-communist insistence on a richer, more demanding, more honest concept of freedom is not naive idealism. It is a refusal to accept that the world as it is represents the best that human beings can do, a refusal grounded in both philosophical argument and historical evidence. Human beings have organised themselves in ways that were more free, more equal, and more genuinely supportive of human flourishing. They have done so without bosses, without states, without the compulsion of the market. They can do so again, at a scale appropriate to the challenges we face, if they are willing to fight for it.
Freedom, then, is not something handed down from above. It is not granted by constitutions or protected by courts or delivered by revolutionary vanguards. It is won in struggle, practised in solidarity, built in the daily work of creating free institutions and free relationships. It is always partial, always contested, always incomplete, but it is real, and it is possible, and it is worth everything.
That insistence, that we can refuse the terms offered to us, that we can act as if freedom matters even in conditions that deny it, that we can insist on the kind of freedom worth having rather than the kind we are permitted, is what anarchocommunism means by freedom. It is what it has always meant, and it is why, however imperfect our movements and however distant our goals, the tradition matters, not as a museum piece or a heritage to be curated, but as a living practice of refusal and creation, as old as domination and as urgent as today.
https://thepolarblast.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/to-be-free-together.pdf
_________________________________________
Source: A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten