Anarchist Social Democracy
Basic Income, Democratic Confederalism, and Free Banking
Geo-Distributism
I advocate geo-distributism, an economic system in which rent would be collected by the community via land value tax and, whatever amount is in excess of what is needed to fund public goods, would be distributed evenly amongst its members. Geo-distributism simultaneously is and is not communism. It, of course, does not advocate the abolition of money nor does it propose the conventional communist approaches to distribution. It is, in that sense, not communist. On the other hand, it does live up to the maxim of communism: “from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.” Those who have the most ability are clearly those who own the most land, so a land value tax comes “from each according to their ability.” At the same time, the distribution of the revenue as a social dividend or universal basic income amounts to “to each according to their need.” In a geo-distributist system, land is essentially communally owned. The geo-distributist system is, like Kropotkin’s model, “expropriating society’s wealth and putting it at the disposal of everyone.”(Kropotkin, Workers’ Organization) While the economic model of geo-distributism is at odds with Kropotkin’s communism, the two economic approaches agree in principle. They are simply different approaches to accomplishing the same goal.
Cellular Democracy or Democratic Confederalism
Anarchism generally proposes a democratic confederalist approach to political organization. Local municipalities would be directly democratic, and the community members would make decisions directly through democratic assemblies at the local level. Such communities would then federate into larger confederations for purposes of trade, mutual cooperation, and territorial defense. This approach was advocated by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin, and Peter Kropotkin. Murray Bookchin calls this approach libertarian municipalism, and Fred Foldvary calls it cellular democracy.
Bookchin’s model relies on municipalizing the economy or organizing industry communistically at the local level. Foldvary, on the other hand, like Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Benjamin Tucker, and Lysander Spooner, has a vision of market anarchism in which money and the pricing mechanism are preserved under a system without a centralized state. Foldvary points to various proprietary communities that currently or historically operated under Georgist principles and which provide public goods voluntarily rather than compulsorily. These types of communities are proprietary in the sense that they have purchased land on which to build an intentional community, and the individuals or corporations that own the land collect rent from the community. Foldvary points out that such proprietary intentional communities have a tendency to become democratic. (Cf. Fred Foldvary, Public Goods and Private Communities: The Market Provision of Social Services) While such communities may not be examples of anarchism working, they do demonstrate that the provision of public goods by private communities on a voluntary basis is feasible.
An anarchist model of cellular democracy would have local municipalities governed on a directly democratic basis. The municipality (commune) would own the land, and the community members, as shareholders, would thereby share in collective ownership. Rent could then be collected by the municipality and used to provide public goods and services, with any excess distributed evenly among the members.
Free Banking
F. A. Hayek argued for a system where private banks issue their own currencies, competing with each other to maintain the value of their money. In his view, government monopolies over currency lead to inflation and mismanagement. By allowing banks to issue competing currencies, people would choose the most stable and reliable one, creating a natural check on inflation and government manipulation of the money supply. The key idea is that banks are free to issue their own fiat currencies, and the competition between banks in the market ensures the stability and value of the currency. The theory of free banking was further developed by George Selgin and Steven Horwitz, who look at historical examples where free banking worked successfully.
A geo-distributist model of anarchism would require the preservation of money within a stateless society. Free banking is the most feasible way of preserving money within a stateless paradigm.
Social Insurance & Healthcare
All societies that have accomplished universal healthcare have done so on a market basis. The simplest way to achieve universal healthcare is via social insurance. The preservation of a monetary system under geo-distributist anarchism allows for the local municipality, or the confederation to which it belongs, to offer a form of social insurance like Universal Catastrophic Coverage or Medicare-for-All. Such social insurance can be funded out of the land value tax or ground-rent collected by the community.
Anarchist Social Democracy
This unique combination of features is what I have elsewhere called libertarian or anarchist social democracy. Land value tax and universal basic income in the form of a citizen’s dividend as a share of ground-rent is the bedrock, the foundation, of true libertarianism. But liberty also requires access to affordable and reliable healthcare to the greatest extent feasible. If you can easily be enslaved by debt because of medical bills, then you are not actually free. Certain welfare measures, like universal healthcare and universal basic income, lay the foundation for a truly libertarian society. This is what I call libertarian social democracy — social democracy reoriented towards human liberation.
Utopia and Dialectical Libertarianism
I believe that the adoption of anarchism would result in a system that is far more geo-distributist than communist. If we look at private communities that have been successful at providing public goods, they tend to do so by collecting rent and using it for public purposes. Anarchist communities are likely to adopt this same approach, as the communist alternative has been tried and failed. No large-scale or technologically-advanced community has ever successfully provided for the needs of all of its members without utilizing money and a market system. Since the communities would be directly democratic, it seems likely that the members would choose to distribute any excess revenue (not needed for public goods) as a social dividend. Thus, anarchist communities would likely adopt land value tax and universal basic income.
This anarchist social democracy is the pure libertarian ideal that I look forward to. Regardless of whether or not it can ever actually be achieved, it is the ideal system that guides my thinking. When I look at the current system, I ask, “How can we reform this system to be more like my ideal?” If we cannot completely abolish the state and capitalism and replace them with such an anarchistic vision of social democracy, then we ought to, at least, push for reforms that will lead to results more like what might be expected to occur under our ideal system.
