redstar2000
24th October 2004, 00:12
The Communal Polis: Identity and Organization in a Communist World
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 languages, 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 language, 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.
:redstar2000:
The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
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 languages, 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 language, 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.
:redstar2000:
The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas