Hey, thanks for the comments and looking forward to this conversation developing. One of the things we are going to do in the next week or so is to work to develop the main ideas we hope this title expresses. So I will attempt to do so here, but more in-depth work will come out. I think the points that are raised are very valid and I think fundamental to our collective development of what it would mean to live and work together as the original title described.
By communism, we are not referring to the ideals of communists, most of whom were essentially socialists vying for state power to then institute some utopian form of communism. So that communism was only possible after some transition period, and the accumulation of power. Both of which are false assumptions, proven over and over again by history. Be it Ethiopia, USSR, Cuba, or China, these leaders took power by whatever means, in an attempt to take over “means of production”. But the problem is not who owns the means, it is the means themselves. What we mean by “communism” is the ancient form of communism. The form of communism that arises in close knit neighborhoods, the form that Occupy, the Squares movement, and historically, the Spanish anarchists all exemplified. It is the development of common needs and the sharing of resources and property to meet those ends. I would argue that communism is our natural form of life if we consider the indigenous ways of life as well as the natural trend towards communism that occurs after natural disasters. And so when we say “living communism” it is a nod to this way of life, having nothing to do with state power and the crimes committed in its name.
As for the strategic use of rhetoric, I absolutely agree that there is a strategy around that selection. When we argue for “spreading anarchy”, it is not necessarily the “Black Bloc” that we are supporting. Nor is it the adolescent who wants to do “whatever they want” mentality of some so called anarchists. Rather what we are arguing is that anarchy as a form of organizing is fundamental to how we live. OpenCare is working to highlight decentralized groups that self-organized, most without any state support and that will aim to provide their services or goods for minimal costs, separated from the capitalist model. I would argue that this is in form “anarchist” in that there is autonomy within groups to create their own rules, there is a lack of hierarchical structure, and the goods produced are for the commons.
Interestingly, the terms “communism” and “anarchy” have both been painted so negatively by liberalism, which I think is even more potent at this juncture. Here in the US, there is a feeling of complete polarization. It is becoming impossible to be “middle of the road”. And from what we see in the UK elections, it seems that people are tired of liberalism’s vague “hopes” for freedom and equality. That people can say extreme ideas and those ideas can begin to be taken seriously. Unfortunately this works for both sides, as we see fascist language becoming more commonplace. But inevitably, I see this as a result of capitalism, not as a reaction to the left. In fact, because the left here in the US is so weak (mainly because they have been trying to “compromise” with capital), they have no power to struggle against the far right. I would argue that this is a time to recapture our language and our ideas. We are not fighting for the autonomy of Silicon Valley or the global development ideas of the World Bank. We are fighting for a new vision of the world, and I don’t see how that vision of the world is compatible with capitalism. If we believe that, then we must openly admit that we are calling for a revolutionary way of living. And to push our vision forward, we must re-appropriate the words. So maybe using strong language will push some people away. But as has been shown in struggles around the world, it has the power to attract even more. Its a gamble, but so is wanting a different way of life.