~corti-nico/ubuntu/vivid/anarchism/fix1426015 : revision 5

1

Section I - What would an anarchist society look like?

2

3

I.1 Isn't libertarian socialism an oxymoron?

4

I.1.1 Didn't Ludwig von Mises' "calculation argument" prove that

5

socialism can not work?

6

I.1.2 Does Mises' argument mean libertarian communism is impossible?

7

I.1.3 What is wrong with markets anyway?

8

I.1.4 If capitalism is exploitative, then isn't socialism as well?

9

10

I.2 Is this a blueprint for an anarchist society?

11

I.2.1 Why discuss what an anarchist society would be like at all?

12

I.2.2 Will it be possible to go straight to an anarchist society

13

from capitalism?

14

I.2.3 How is the framework of an anarchist society created?

15

16

I.3 What could the economic structure of an anarchist society look like?

17

I.3.1 What is a "syndicate"?

18

I.3.2 What is workers' self-management?

19

I.3.3 What role do collectives play in the "economy"?

20

I.3.4 What relations exist between individual syndicates?

21

I.3.5 What would confederations of syndicates do?

22

I.3.6 What about competition between syndicates?

23

I.3.7 What about people who do not want to join a syndicate?

24

I.3.8 Do anarchists seek "small autonomous communities,

25

devoted to small scale production"?

26

27

I.4 How would an anarchist economy function?

28

I.4.1 What is the point of economic activity in anarchy?

29

I.4.2 Why do anarchists desire to abolish work?

30

I.4.3 How do anarchists intend to abolish work?

31

I.4.4 What economic decision making criteria could be

32

used in anarchy?

33

I.4.5 What about "supply and demand"?

34

I.4.6 Surely communist-anarchism would just lead to demand

35

exceeding supply?

36

I.4.7 What will stop producers ignoring consumers?

37

I.4.8 What about investment decisions?

38

I.4.9 Should technological advance be seen as anti-anarchistic?

39

I.4.10 What would be the advantage of a wide basis of surplus

40

distribution?

41

I.4.11 If libertarian socialism eliminates the profit motive,

42

won't creativity suffer?

43

I.4.12 Won't there be a tendency for capitalist enterprise to

44

reappear in any socialist society?

45

I.4.13 Who will do the dirty or unpleasant work?

46

I.4.14 What about the person who will not work?

47

I.4.15 What will the workplace of tomorrow look like?

48

I.4.16 Won't a libertarian communist society be inefficient?

49

50

I.5 What would the social structure of anarchy look like?

51

I.5.1 What are participatory communities?

52

I.5.2 Why are confederations of participatory communities needed?

53

I.5.3 What will be the scales and levels of confederation?

54

I.5.4 How will anything ever be decided by all these meetings?

55

I.5.5 Are participatory communities and confederations not just

56

new states?

57

I.5.6 Won't there be a danger of a "tyranny of the majority" under

58

libertarian socialism?

59

I.5.7 What if I don't want to join a commune?

60

I.5.8 What about crime?

61

I.5.9 What about Freedom of Speech under Anarchism?

62

I.5.10 What about Political Parties?

63

I.5.11 What about interest groups and other associations?

64

I.5.12 Would an anarchist society provide health care and other

65

public services?

66

I.5.13 Won't an anarchist society be vulnerable to the

67

power hungry?

68

I.5.14 How could an anarchist society defend itself?

69

70

I.6 What about the "Tragedy of the Commons" and all that? Surely communal

71

ownership will lead to overuse and environmental destruction?

72

I.6.1 But anarchists cannot explain how the use of property 'owned by

73

everyone in the world' will be decided?

74

I.6.2 Doesn't any form of communal ownership involve restricting

75

individual liberty?

76

77

I.7 Won't Libertarian Socialism destroy individuality?

78

I.7.1 Do tribal cultures indicate that communalism defends

79

individuality?

80

I.7.2 Is this not worshipping the past or the "noble savage"?

81

I.7.3 Is the law required to protect individual rights?

82

I.7.4 Does capitalism protect individuality?

83

84

I.8 Does revolutionary Spain show that libertarian socialism can work in

85

practice?

86

I.8.1 Wasn't the Spanish Revolution primarily a rural phenomenon and

87

therefore inapplicable as a model for modern industrialised

88

societies?

89

I.8.2 How were the anarchists able to obtain mass popular support in

90

Spain?

91

I.8.3 How were Spanish industrial collectives organised?

92

I.8.4 How were the Spanish industrial collectives co-ordinated?

93

I.8.5 How were the Spanish agricultural co-operatives organised and

94

co-ordinated?

95

I.8.6 What did the agricultural collectives accomplish?

96

I.8.7 I've heard that the rural collectives were created by force.

97

Is this true?

98

I.8.8 But did the Spanish collectives innovate?

99

I.8.9 Why, if it was so good, did it not survive?

100

I.8.10 Why did the C.N.T. collaborate with the state?

101

I.8.11 Was the decision to collaborate a product of anarchist

102

theory, so showing anarchism is flawed?

103

I.8.12 Was the decision to collaborate imposed on the CNT's

104

membership?

105

I.8.13 What political lessons were learned from the revolution?

106

I.8.14 What economic lessons were learned from the revolution?

107

108

Section I - What would an anarchist society look like?

109

110

So far this FAQ has been largely critical, focusing on hierarchy,

111

capitalism, the state and so on, and the problems to which they have

112

led, as well as refuting some bogus "solutions" that have been offered

113

by authoritarians of both the right and the left. It is now time to

114

examine the constructive side of anarchism -- the libertarian-socialist

115

society that anarchists envision. This is important because anarchism

116

is essentially a *constructive* theory, in stark contradiction to the

117

picture of usually painted of anarchism as chaos or mindless destruction.

118

119

Therefore, in this section of the FAQ we will give a short outline of what

120

an anarchist society might look like. Such a society has basic features --

121

such as being non-hierarchical, decentralised and, above all else,

122

spontaneous like life itself. To quote Glenn Albrecht, anarchists "lay

123

great stress on the free unfolding of a spontaneous order without the

124

use of external force or authority." ["Ethics, Anarchy and Sustainable

125

Development", _Anarchist Studies_, vol.2, no.2, p. 110] This type of

126

development implies that anarchist society would be organised from the

127

simple to the complex, from the individual upwards to the community, the

128

bio-region and, ultimately, the planet. The resulting complex and diverse

129

order, which would be the outcome of nature freely unfolding toward

130

greater diversity and complexity, is ethically preferable to any other

131

sort of order simply because it allows for the highest degree of organic

132

solidarity and freedom. Kropotkin described this vision of a truly free

133

society as follows:

134

135

"We foresee millions and millions of groups freely constituting themselves

136

for the satisfaction of all the varied needs of human beings. . . All

137

these will be composed of human beings who will combine freely. . .

138

'Take pebbles,' said Fourier, 'put them in a box and shake them, and

139

they will arrange themselves in a mosaic that you could never get by

140

instructing to anyone the work of arranging them harmoniously.'"

141

[_The Place of Anarchism in Socialistic Evolution_, pp. 11-12]

142

143

Anarchist opposition to hierarchy is an essential part of a

144

"spontaneously ordered" society, for authority stops the free

145

development and growth of the individual. From this natural growth

146

of individuals, groups and society as a whole anarchists expect a

147

society which meets the needs of all (both for material goods and

148

individual and social freedom). In Proudhon's words, "liberty is the

149

mother of order, not its daughter." Any attempt to force society

150

or individuals into a pre-determined structure which restricts their

151

liberty will produce dis-order as natural balances and development

152

is hindered and distorted in anti-social and destructive directions.

153

Thus an anarchist society must be a free society of free individuals,

154

associating within libertarian structures, rather than a series of

155

competing hierarchies (be they political or economical). Only in

156

freedom can society and individuals develop and create a just and

157

fair society.

158

159

As the individual does not exist in a social vacuum, appropriate social

160

conditions are required for individual freedom (and so subjectivity, or

161

thought) to develop and blossom according to its full potential. The

162

theory of anarchism is built around the central assertion that individuals

163

and their organisations *cannot* be considered in isolation from each

164

other. As Carole Pateman points out, there is "the argument that there is

165

an interrelationship between the authority structures of institutions and

166

the psychological qualities and attitudes of individuals, and . . . the

167

related argument that the major function of participation is an educative

168

one." [_Participation and Democratic Theory_, p. 27] Anarchism presents

169

these arguments in their most coherent and libertarian form. In other words,

170

freedom is only sustained and protected by activity under conditions of

171

freedom, namely self-government. Freedom is the only precondition for

172

acquiring the maturity required for continued freedom.

173

174

As individual freedom can only be created, developed and defended

175

by self-government and free association, a system which encourages

176

individuality must be decentralised and participatory in order for

177

people to develop a psychology that allows them to accept the

178

responsibilities of self-management. Living under capitalism or

179

any other authoritarian system produces a servile character, as

180

the individual is constantly placed under hierarchical authority,

181

which blunts their critical and self-governing abilities by lack

182

of use. Such a situation cannot promote freedom. Looking at

183

capitalism, we find that under wage labour, people sell their

184

creative energy and control over their activity for a given

185

period. The boss does not just take surplus value from the

186

time employees sell, but the time itself -- their ability to make

187

their own decisions, express themselves through work and with their

188

fellow workers. Wage labour equals wage slavery. You sell your time

189

and skills (i.e. liberty) everyday at work to someone else. You

190

will never be able to buy that time back for yourself. Once it is

191

gone; it is gone for good. This is why anarchists see the need to

192

"create the situation where each person may live by working freely,

193

without being forced to sell his [or her] work and his [or her]

194

liberty to others who accumulate wealth by the labour of their

195

serfs." [Kropotkin, _Words of a Rebel_, p. 208]

196

197

Anarchism is about changing society and abolishing all forms

198

of authoritarian social relationship, putting life before the

199

soul-destroying "efficiency" needed to survive under capitalism;

200

for the anarchist "takes his stand on his positive right to life

201

and all its pleasures, both intellectual, moral and physical. He

202

loves life, and intends to enjoy it to the full." [Michael Bakunin,

203

quoted by Brian Morris, _Bakunin: The Philosophy of Freedom_, p. 118]

204

205

Anarchists think that the essential social values are human values, and

206

that society is a complex of associations held together by the wills of

207

their members, whose well-being is its purpose. They consider that it is

208

not enough that the forms of association should have the passive or

209

"implied" consent of their members, but that the society and the

210

individuals who make it up will be healthy only if it is in the full

211

sense libertarian, i.e. self-governing, self-managed, and egalitarian.

212

This implies not only that all the members should have a "right" to

213

influence its policy if they so desire, but that the greatest possible

214

opportunity should be afforded for every person to exercise this right.

215

Anarchism involves an active, not merely passive, citizenship on the part

216

of society's members and holds that this principle is not only applied to

217

some "special" sphere of social action called "politics" but to any and

218

every form of social action, including economic activity.

219

220

So, as will be seen, the key concept underlying both the social/political

221

and the economic structure of libertarian socialism is "self-management,"

222

a term that implies not only workers control of their workplaces

223

but also citizens' control of their communities (where it becomes

224

"self-government"), through direct democracy and voluntary federation.

225

Thus self-management is the positive implication of anarchism's

226

"negative" principle of opposition to hierarchical authority. For through

227

self-management, hierarchical authority is dissolved as self-managing

228

workplace and community assemblies/councils are decentralised, "horizontal"

229

organisations in which each participant has an equal voice in the

230

decisions that affect his or her life, instead of merely following orders

231

and being governed by others. Self-management, therefore, is the essential

232

condition for a world in which individuals will be free to follow their

233

own dreams, in their own ways, co-operating together as equals without

234

interference from any form of authoritarian power (such as government

235

or boss).

236

237

Perhaps needless to say, this section is intended as a heuristic

238

device *only*, as a way of helping readers envision how anarchist

239

principles might be embodied in practice. They are not (nor are

240

they intended to be, nor are they desired to be) a definitive

241

statement of how they *must* be embodied. The idea that a few

242

people could determine exactly what a free society would look

243

like is contrary to the anarchist principles of free growth

244

and thought, and is far from our intention. Here we simply try

245

to indicate some of the structures that an anarchist society may

246

contain, based on the what ideals and ideas anarchists hold and

247

the few examples of anarchy in action that have existed and our

248

critical evaluation of their limitations and successes.

249

250

Of course, an anarchist society will not be created overnight

251

nor without links to the past, and so it will initially include

252

structures created in social struggle (i.e. created *within*

253

but *against* capitalism and the state -- see section J.5) and

254

will be marked with the ideas that inspired and developed within

255

that struggle. For example, the anarchist collectives in Spain

256

were organised in a bottom-up manner, similar to the way the

257

C.N.T. (the anarcho-syndicalist labour union) was organised before

258

the revolution. In this sense, anarchy is not some distant goal

259

but rather an expression of working class struggle. The creation

260

of alternatives to the current hierarchical, oppressive, exploitative

261

and alienated society is a necessary part of the class struggle and

262

the maintaining of your liberty and humanity in the insane world of

263

hierarchical society. As such, an anarchist society will be the

264

generalisation of the various types of "anarchy in action" created

265

in the various struggles against all forms of oppression and

266

exploitation (see section I.2.3).

267

268

This means that how an anarchist society would look like and work is not

269

independent of the means used to create it. In other words, an anarchist

270

society will reflect the social struggle which preceded it and the ideas

271

which existed within that struggle as modified by the practical needs of

272

any given situation. Therefore the vision of a free society indicated in

273

this section of the FAQ is not some sort of abstraction which will be

274

created overnight. If anarchists did think that then we would rightly

275

be called utopian. No, an anarchist society is the outcome of activity and

276

social struggle, struggle which helps to create a mass movement which

277

contains individuals who can think for themselves and are willing and able

278

to take responsibility for their own lives (see section J - "What do

279

anarchists do?").

280

281

So, when reading this section please remember that this is not a blueprint

282

but only one possible suggestion of what anarchy would look like. It is

283

designed to provoke thought and indicate that an anarchist society is

284

possible and that such a society is the product of our activity in the

285

here and now. We hope that our arguments and ideas presented in this

286

section will inspire more debate and discussion of how a free society

287

could work and, equally as important, help to inspire the struggle that

288

will create that society. After all, anarchists desire to build the new world

289

in the shell of the old. Unless we have some idea of what that new society

290

will be like it is difficult to pre-figure it in our activities today! A point

291

not lost on Kropotkin who argued that it is difficult to "build" "without

292

extremely careful consideration beforehand, based on the study of social

293

life, of *what* and *how* we want to build -- we must reject [Proudhon's]

294

slogan [that "in demolishing we shall build"] . . . and declare: 'in building

295

we shall demolish.'" [_Conquest of Bread_, p. 173f] More recently, Noam

296

Chomsky argued that "[a]lternatives to existing forms of hierarchy, domination,

297

private power and social control certainly exist in principle. . . But to

298

make them realistic will require a great deal of committed work, including

299

the work of articulating them clearly." [Noam Chomsky, _Turning the Tide_,

300

p. 250] This section of the FAQ can be considered as a contribution to

301

the articulating of libertarian alternatives to existing society, of want

302

we want to build for the future.

303

304

In other words, view this section of our FAQ as a guide. To use an

305

analogy, when going on holiday it is a good idea to have a map or

306

guidebook with you, otherwise you will not know where you are

307

going and, indeed, will likely end up *in the wrong place.* Thus

308

the progress towards a free society is helped by anarchist ideas

309

and visions, otherwise it may end up the opposite of what we desire.

310

However, it us important that any such guide be discussed by everyone

311

before hand, to ensure that it is a *useful* guide and one that

312

reflects everyone's interests and desires. Thus this section of

313

our FAQ is simply a contribution to this discussion, a contribution

314

inspired (in part) by previous contributions, visions and struggles.

315

316

We are not afraid that many will argue that much of the vision we present

317

in this section of the FAQ is utopian. Perhaps they are right, but, as

318

Oscar Wilde once said:

319

320

"A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth glancing at,

321

for it leaves out the one country at which Humanity is always landing. And

322

when Humanity lands there, it looks out and, seeing a better country, sets

323

sail. Progress is the realisation of Utopias." [_The Soul of Man Under

324

Socialism_, p. 1184]

325

326

However, we have attempted to be a practical as we are visionary,

327

presenting realistic problems as well as presenting evidence for our

328

solutions to these problems (as well as our general ideas) from real

329

life where possible, rather than present a series of impossible

330

assumptions which dismiss possible problems by definition. After all,

331

it is better to consider the worse possible cases for if they do not

332

appear then nothing has been lost and if they do at least we have a

333

starting point for possible solutions. So, all in all, we have tried

334

to be practical utopians!

335

336

We must stress, however, that anarchists do not want a "perfect"

337

society (as is often associated with the term "utopia"). This would

338

be as impossible as, for example, the neo-classical economic vision

339

of perfect competition. Rather we want a free society and so one based

340

on real human beings and so one with its own problems and difficulties.

341

Our use of the word "utopia" should not be taken to imply that

342

anarchists assume away all problems and argue that an anarchist

343

society would be ideal and perfect. No society has ever been perfect

344

and no society ever will be. All we argue is that an anarchist society

345

will have fewer problems than those before and be better to live within.

346

Anyone looking for perfection should look elsewhere. Anyone looking

347

for a better, but still human and so imperfect, world may find in

348

anarchism a potential end for their quest.

349

350

So anarchists are realistic in their hopes and dreams. We do not conjure

351

up visions that cannot achieved but rather base our visions in an analysis

352

of what is wrong with society today and a means of changing the world for

353

the better. And even if some people call us utopians, we shrug off the

354

accusation with a smile. After all, dreams are important, not only because

355

they often the source of change in reality but because of the hope they

356

express:

357

358

"People may . . . call us dreamers . . . They fail to see that dreams are

359

also a part of the reality of life, that life without dreams would be

360

unbearable. No change in our way of life would be possible without dreams

361

and dreamers. The only people who are never disappointed are those who

362

never hope and never try to realise their hope." [Rudolf Rocker, _The

363

London Years_, p. 95]

364

365

One last point. We must point out here that we are discussing the social

366

and economic structures of areas within which the inhabitants are

367

predominately anarchists. It is obviously the case that areas in which

368

the inhabitants are not anarchists will take on different forms depending

369

upon the ideas that dominate there. Hence, assuming the end of the current

370

state structure, we could see anarchist communities along with statist

371

ones (capitalist or socialist) and these communities taking different

372

forms depending on what their inhabitants want -- communist to individualist

373

communities in the case of anarchist ones, state socialist to private state

374

communities in the statist areas, ones based on religious sects and so

375

on. As Malatesta argued, anarchists "must be intransigent in our opposition

376

to all capitalist imposition and exploitation, and tolerant of all social

377

concepts which prevail in different human groupings, so long as they

378

do not threaten the equal rights and freedom of others." [_Life and Ideas_,

379

p. 174] Thus we respect the wishes of others to experiment and live

380

their own lives as they see fit, while encouraging those in capitalist

381

and other statist communities to rise in revolution against their masters

382

and join the free federation of communes of the anarchist community.

383

Needless to say, we do not discuss non-anarchist communities here as it

384

is up to non-anarchists to present their arguments in favour of their

385

kind of statism. We will concentrate on discussing anarchist ideas

386

on social organisation here.

387

388

So, remember that we are not arguing that everyone will live in an

389

anarchist way in a free society. Far from it. There will be pockets

390

of unfreedom around, simply because the development of ideas varies

391

from area to area. However, it would be a mistake to assume that just

392

because there are many choices of community available that it automatically

393

makes a society an anarchist one. For example, the modern world boasts

394

over 200 different states. For most of them, individuals can leave and

395

join another if it will let them. There is no world government as such.

396

This does not make this series of states an anarchy. Similarly, a system

397

of different company towns is not an anarchy either. The nature of the

398

associations is just as important as their voluntary nature. As

399

Kropotkin argued, the "communes of the next revolution will not only

400

break down the state and substitute free federation for parliamentary

401

rule; they will part with parliamentary rule within the commune

402

itself . . . They will be anarchist within the commune as they

403

will be anarchist outside it." [_The Commune of Paris_] Hence an

404

anarchist society is one that is freely joined and left and is

405

internally non-hierarchical. Thus anarchist communities may co-exist

406

with non-anarchist ones but this does *not* mean the non-anarchist

407

ones are in any way anarchistic or libertarian.

408

409

When reading this section of the FAQ remember three things. One,

410

an anarchist society will be created by the autonomous actions of

411

the mass of the population, not by anarchists writing books about

412

it. This means a real anarchist society will make many mistakes

413

and develop in ways we cannot predict. Two, that it is only a

414

series of suggestions on how things *could* work in an anarchist

415

society -- it is *not* a blueprint of any kind. Three, that we

416

recognise that anarchist areas will probably co-exist with

417

non-anarchist areas. This does not make the non-anarchist areas

418

anarchist and it is up to supporters of hierarchy to present their

419

own visions of the future. All anarchists can do is present what we

420

believe and why we think such a vision is both desirable *and* viable.

421

422

We hope that our arguments and ideas presented in this section of the

423

FAQ will inspire more debate and discussion of how a free society

424

would work. In addition, and equally as important, we hope it will

425

help inspire the struggle that will create that society. After all,

426

anarchists desire to build the new world in the shell of the old.

427

Unless we have some idea of what that new society will be like it

428

is difficult to create it in our activities in the here and now!

429

430

I.1 Isn't libertarian socialism an oxymoron?

431

432

In a word, no. This question is often asked by those who have come

433

across the so-called "libertarian" right. As discussed in section

434

A.1.3, the word "libertarian" has been used by anarchists for far

435

longer than the pro-free market right have been using it. Indeed,

436

outside of North America "libertarian" is still essentially used

437

as an equivalent of "anarchist" and as a shortened version of

438

"libertarian socialist."

439

440

This in itself does not, of course, prove that the term "libertarian

441

socialist" is free of contradiction. However, as we will show below,

442

the claim that the term is self-contradictory rests on the assumption

443

that socialism requires the state in order to exist and that socialism

444

is incompatible with liberty (and the equally fallacious claim that

445

capitalism is libertarian and does not need the state). This assumption,

446

as is often true of many objections to socialism, is based on a

447

misconception of what socialism is, a misconception that many

448

authoritarian socialists and the state capitalism of Soviet Russia

449

have helped to foster. In reality it is the term "state socialism"

450

which is the true oxymoron.

451

452

Sadly many people take for granted the assertion of many on the right

453

and left that socialism equals Leninism or Marxism and ignore the rich

454

and diverse history of socialist ideas, ideas that spread from communist

455

and individualist-anarchism to Leninism. As Benjamin Tucker once noted,

456

"the fact that State Socialism . . . has overshadowed other forms of

457

Socialism gives it no right to a monopoly of the Socialistic idea."

458

[_Instead of a Book_, pp. 363-4] Unfortunately, many on the left

459

combine with the right to do exactly that. Indeed, the right (and, of

460

course, many on the left) consider that, by definition, "socialism"

461

*is* state ownership and control of the means of production, along

462

with centrally planned determination of the national economy (and

463

so social life). This definition has become common because many Social

464

Democrats, Leninists, and other statists *call* themselves socialists.

465

However, the fact that certain people call themselves socialists does

466

not imply that the system they advocate is really socialism (Hitler,

467

for example, called himself a "National Socialist" while, in practice,

468

ensuring and enhancing the power and profits of capitalists). We need

469

to analyse and understand the systems in question, by applying critical,

470

scientific thought, in order to determine whether their claims to the

471

socialist label are justified. As we will see, to accept the above

472

definition one has to ignore the overall history of the socialist

473

movement and consider only certain trends within it as representing

474

the movement as a whole.

475

476

Even a quick glance at the history of the socialist movement indicates

477

that the identification of socialism with state ownership and control is

478

not common. For example, Anarchists, many Guild Socialists, council

479

communists (and other libertarian Marxists), as well as followers of Robert

480

Owen, all rejected state ownership. Indeed, anarchists recognised that

481

the means of production did not change their form as capital when the

482

state took over their ownership nor did wage-labour change its nature

483

when it is the state employing labour (for example, Proudhon argued that

484

if the "State confiscate[d] the mines, canals and railways" it would

485

only "add to monarchy, and [create] more wage slavery." [_No Gods, No

486

Masters_, vol. 1, p. 62]). For anarchists state ownership of capital

487

is not socialistic in the slightest but rather a tendency *within,*

488

not *opposed* to, capitalism just as the growth of larger and larger

489

companies does not imply in any way a tendency to socialism (regardless

490

of what Lenin or Marx argued -- see section H.3.12 for more on this).

491

Indeed, as Tucker was well aware, state ownership turned *everyone*

492

into a proletarian (bar the state bureaucracy) -- hardly a desirable

493

thing for a political theory aiming for the end of wage slavery!

494

495

So what *does* socialism mean? And is it compatible with libertarian

496

ideals? What do the words "libertarian" and "socialism" actually mean?

497

It is temping to use dictionary definitions as a starting point,

498

although we should stress that such a method holds problems as different

499

dictionaries have different definitions and the fact that dictionaries

500

are rarely politically sophisticated. Use one definition, and someone

501

else will counter with one more to their liking. For example, "socialism"

502

is often defined as "state ownership of wealth" and "anarchy" as "disorder."

503

Neither of these definitions are useful when discussing political ideas.

504

Therefore, the use of dictionaries is not the end of a discussion

505

and often misleading when applied to politics.

506

507

With that warning, what do we find?

508

509

_Webster's New International Dictionary_ defines a libertarian as

510

"one who holds to the doctrine of free will; also, one who upholds the

511

principles of liberty, esp. individual liberty of thought and action."

512

As we discussed earlier (see section B.1, for example), capitalism denies

513

liberty of thought and action within the workplace (unless one is the

514

boss, of course). Therefore, *real* libertarian ideas *must* be

515

based on workers self-management, i.e. workers must control and

516

manage the work they do, determining where and how they do it and

517

what happens to the fruit of their labour, which in turn means

518

the elimination of wage labour. The elimination of wage labour is the

519

common theme of socialism (in theory at least, anarchist argue that

520

state socialism does not eliminate wage labour, rather it universalises

521

it). Or, to use Proudhon's words, the "abolition of the proletariat."

522

[_Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon_, p. 179] It implies a

523

classless and anti-authoritarian (i.e. libertarian) society in which

524

people manage their own affairs, either as individuals or as part of

525

a group (depending on the situation). In other words, it implies

526

self-management in all aspects of life -- including work. It has

527

always struck anarchists as somewhat strange and paradoxical (to say

528

the least) that a system of "natural" liberty (Adam Smith's term,

529

misappropriated by supporters of capitalism) involves the vast

530

majority having to sell that liberty in order to survive.

531

532

According to the _American Heritage Dictionary_ "socialism" is "a social

533

system in which the producers possess both political power and the means

534

of producing and distributing goods." This definition fits neatly with

535

the implications of the word "libertarian" indicated above. In fact, it

536

shows that socialism is *necessarily* libertarian, not statist. For if

537

the state owns the workplace, then the producers do not, and so they will

538

not be at liberty to manage their own work but will instead be subject to

539

the state as the boss. Moreover, replacing the capitalist owning class

540

by state officials in no way eliminates wage labour; in fact it makes it

541

worse in many cases. Therefore "socialists" who argue for nationalisation

542

of the means of production are *not* socialists (which means that the

543

Soviet Union and the other 'socialist" countries are *not* socialist nor

544

are parties which advocate nationalisation socialist).

545

546

Indeed, attempts to associate socialism with the state misunderstands

547

the nature of socialism. It is an essential principle of socialism that

548

(social) inequalities between individuals must be abolished to ensure

549

liberty for all (*natural* inequalities cannot be abolished, nor do

550

anarchists desire to do so). Socialism, as Proudhon put it, "is egalitarian

551

above all else." [_No Gods, No Masters_, vol. 1, p. 57] This applies

552

to inequalities of power as well, especially to *political* power. And

553

any hierarchical system (particularly the state) is marked by inequalities

554

of power -- those at the top (elected or not) have more power than

555

those at the bottom. Hence the following comments provoked by the

556

expulsion of anarchists from the social democratic Second International:

557

558

"It could be argued. . . that we [anarchists] are the most logical and

559

most complete socialists, since we demand for every person not just

560

his entire measure of wealth of society, but also his portion of social

561

power, which is to say, the real ability to make his influence felt,

562

along with that of everybody else, in the administration of public

563

affairs." [_No Gods, No Masters_, vol. 2, p.20]

564

565

The election of someone to administer public affairs *for you* is not

566

having a portion of social power. It is, to use of words of Emile

567

Pouget (a leading French anarcho-syndicalist) "an act of abdication,"

568

the delegating of power into the hands of a few. [Op. Cit., p. 67]

569

This means that "*[a]ll political power inevitably creates a privileged

570

situation* for the men who exercise it. Thus it violates, from the

571

beginning, the equalitarian principle." [Voline, _The Unknown

572

Revolution_, p. 249]

573

574

From this short discussion we see the links between libertarian and

575

socialism. To be a true libertarian requires you to support workers'

576

control otherwise you support authoritarian social relationships. To

577

support workers' control, by necessity, means that you must ensure

578

that the producers own (and so control) the means of producing and

579

distributing the goods they create (i.e. they must own/control what

580

they use to produce goods). Without ownership, they cannot truly control

581

their own activity or the product of their labour. The situation where

582

workers possess the means of producing and distributing goods is

583

socialism. Thus to be a true libertarian requires you to be a

584

socialist.

585

586

Similarly, a true socialist must also support individual liberty of

587

thought and action, otherwise the producers "possess" the means

588

of production and distribution in name only. If the state owns the

589

means of life, then the producers do not and so are in no position

590

to manage their own activity. As the experience of Russia under

591

Lenin shows, state ownership soon produces state control and the

592

creation of a bureaucratic class which exploits and oppresses the

593

workers even more so than their old bosses. Since it is an essential

594

principle of socialism that inequalities between people must be

595

abolished in order to ensure liberty, it makes no sense for a

596

genuine socialist to support any institution based on inequalities

597

of power. And as we discussed in section B.2, the state is just such

598

an institution. To oppose inequality and not extend that opposition

599

to inequalities in power, especially *political* power, suggests

600

a lack of clear thinking. Thus to be a true socialist requires you

601

to be a libertarian, to be for individual liberty and opposed to

602

inequalities of power which restrict that liberty.

603

604

Therefore, rather than being an oxymoron, "libertarian socialism"

605

indicates that true socialism must be libertarian and that a libertarian

606

who is not a socialist is a phoney. As true socialists oppose wage

607

labour, they must also oppose the state for the same reasons. Similarly,

608

libertarians must oppose wage labour for the same reasons they must

609

oppose the state.

610

611

So, libertarian socialism rejects the idea of state ownership and

612

control of the economy, along with the state as such. Through workers'

613

self-management it proposes to bring an end to authority, exploitation,

614

and hierarchy in production. This in itself will increase, not reduce,

615

liberty. Those who argue otherwise rarely claim that political democracy

616

results in less freedom than political dictatorship.

617

618

One last point. It could be argued that many social anarchists smuggle

619

the state back in via communal ownership of the means of life. This,

620

however, is not the case. To argue so confuses society with the state.

621

The communal ownership advocated by collectivist and communist

622

anarchists is not the same as state ownership. This is because it

623

is based on horizontal relationships between the actual workers and

624

the "owners" of social capital (i.e. the federated communities as a

625

whole, which includes the workers themselves we must stress), not

626

vertical ones as in nationalisation (which are between state

627

bureaucracies and its "citizens"). Also, such communal ownership

628

is based upon letting workers manage their own work and workplaces.

629

This means that it is based upon, and does not replace, workers'

630

self-management. In addition, all the members of a participatory

631

anarchist community fall into one of three categories:

632

633

(1) producers (i.e. members of a collective or self-employed

634

artisans);

635

(2) those unable to work (i.e. the old, sick and so on, who

636

*were* producers); or

637

(3) the young (i.e. those who *will be* producers).

638

639

Therefore, workers' self-management within a framework of communal

640

ownership is entirely compatible with libertarian and socialist ideas

641

concerning the possession of the means of producing and distributing

642

goods by the producers themselves.

643

644

Hence, far from there being any contradiction between libertarianism

645

and socialism, libertarian ideals imply socialist ones, and vice versa.

646

As Bakunin argued in 1867:

647

648

"We are convinced that freedom without Socialism is privilege and

649

injustice, and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and

650

brutality." [_Bakunin on Anarchism_, p. 127]

651

652

History has proven him correct.

653

654

I.1.1 Didn't Ludwig von Mises's "calculation argument" prove that

655

socialism can not work?

656

657

In 1920, the right-wing economist Ludwig von Mises declared socialism

658

to be impossible. A leading member of the "Austrian" school of economics,

659

he argued this on the grounds that without private ownership of the means

660

of production, there cannot be a competitive market for production goods

661

and without a market for production goods, it is impossible to determine

662

their values. Without knowing their values, economic rationality is

663

impossible and so a socialist economy would simply be chaos -- "the

664

absurd output of a senseless apparatus." ["Economic Calculation in the

665

Socialist Commonwealth", in _Collectivist Economic Planning_, F.A von

666

Hayek (ed.), p.104] While applying his "calculation argument" to Marxist

667

ideas of a future socialist society, his argument, it is claimed, is

668

applicable to *all* schools of socialist thought, including libertarian

669

ones. It is on the basis of his arguments that many right-wingers claim

670

that libertarian (or any other kind of) socialism is impossible in

671

principle.

672

673

As David Schweickart observes "[i]t has long been recognised that von

674

Mises's argument is logically defective. Even without a market in

675

production goods, their monetary values can be determined." [_Against

676

Capitalism_, p. 88] In other words, economic calculation based on prices

677

is perfectly possible in a libertarian socialist system. After all, to

678

build a workplace requires so many tonnes of steel, of many bricks, so

679

many hours of work and so on. If we assume a mutualist (i.e. market

680

socialist/co-operative) libertarian socialist society, then the prices

681

of these goods can be easily found as the co-operatives in question

682

would be offer their services on the market. These commodities would

683

be the inputs for the construction of production goods and so the

684

latter's monetary values can be found (this does not address whether

685

monetary values accurately reflect real costs, an issue we will discuss

686

in the next section).

687

688

Ironically enough, von Mises *did* mention the idea of such a

689

mutualist system in his initial essay. He wrote of a system

690

in which "the 'coal [miners'] syndicate' provides the 'iron

691

[workers'] syndicate'" with goods and argued that "no price

692

can be formed, except when both syndicates are the owners of

693

the means of production employed in their business" (which

694

may come as a surprise to transnational companies whose

695

different workplaces sell each other their products!) Such

696

a system is dismissed: "This would not be socialisation

697

but workers' capitalism and syndicalism." [Op. Cit., p. 112]

698

699

However, his logic is flawed. Firstly, as we noted, modern

700

capitalism shows that workplaces owned by the same body

701

(in this case, a large company) can exchange goods via the

702

price form. That von Mises makes such a statement indicates

703

well the firm basis of his argument in reality. Secondly,

704

such a system may be, as von Mises states, "syndicalism" (at

705

least a form of syndicalism, as most syndicalists were and

706

still are in favour of libertarian communism, a simple fact

707

apparently unknown to von Mises) but it is not capitalist as

708

there is no wage labour involved as workers' own and control

709

their own means of production. Indeed, von Mises ignorance

710

of syndicalist thought is striking. In _Human Action_ he

711

asserts that the "market is a consumers' democracy. The

712

syndicalists want to transform it into a producers'

713

democracy." [p. 809] Most syndicalists, however, aim to

714

*abolish* the market and *all* aim for workers' control

715

of production to *complement* (not replace) consumer

716

choice. Syndicalists, like other anarchists, do not aim

717

for workers' control of consumption as von Mises asserts.

718

Given that von Mises asserts that the market, in which one

719

person can have a thousand votes and another one, is a

720

"democracy" his ignorance of syndicalist ideas is perhaps

721

only one aspect of a general ignorance of reality.

722

723

Indeed, such an economy also strikes at the heart of von

724

Mises' claims that socialism was "impossible." Given that

725

von Mises accepted that there may be markets, and hence

726

market prices, for consumer goods in a socialist economy

727

his claims of the impossibility of socialism seems unfounded.

728

For von Mises, the problem for socialism is that "because no

729

production-good will ever become the object of exchange, it

730

will be impossible to determine its monetary value." [Op. Cit.,

731

p. 92] The flaw in his argument is clear. Taking, for example,

732

coal, we find that it is both a means of production and of

733

consumption. If a market in consumer goods is possible for

734

a socialist system, then competitive prices for production

735

goods is also possible as syndicates producing production-goods

736

would also sell the product of their labour to other syndicates

737

or communes. Thus, when deciding upon a new workplace, railway

738

or house, the designers in question do have access to competitive

739

prices with which to make their decisions. Nor does his argument

740

work against communal ownership in such a system as the commune

741

would be buying products from syndicates in the same way as

742

one part of a multi-national company can buy products from

743

another part of the same company under capitalism. That goods

744

produced by self-managed syndicates have prices does not

745

imply capitalism, regardless of von Mises' claims.

746

747

Thus economic calculation based on competitive market prices

748

is possible under a socialist system. Indeed, we see examples

749

of this even under capitalism. For example, the Mondragon

750

co-operative complex in the Basque Country indicate that a

751

libertarian socialist economy can exist and flourish. There

752

is no need for capital markets in a system based on mutual

753

banks and networks of co-operatives (indeed, as we argue at

754

the end of section I.4.8, capital markets *hinder* economic

755

efficiency by generating a perverse set of incentives and

756

misleading information flows and so their abolition would

757

actually *aid* production and productive efficiency).

758

Unfortunately, the state socialists who replied to Mises

759

did not have such a libertarian economy in mind.

760

761

In response to von Mises initial challenge, a number of economists

762

pointed out that Pareto's disciple, Enrico Barone, had already,

763

13 years earlier, demonstrated the theoretical possibility of a

764

"market-simulated socialism." However, the principal attack on

765

von Mises's argument came from Fred Taylor and Oscar Lange (for a

766

collection of their main papers, see _On the Economic Theory of

767

Socialism_, Benjamin Lippincott (ed.), University of Minnesota,

768

1938). In light of their work, Frederick von Hayek shifted the

769

question from theoretical impossibility to whether the theoretical

770

solution could be approximated in practice. Thus even von Hayek, a

771

major free-market capitalist guru, seemed to think that von Mises's

772

argument could not be defended.

773

774

Moreover, it should be noted that both sides of the argument accepted

775

the idea of central planning of some kind or another. This means

776

that many of von Mises's and von Hayek's arguments did not apply

777

to libertarian socialism, which rejects central planning along with

778

every other form of centralisation. This is a key point, as most

779

members of the right seem to assume that "socialists" all agree

780

with each other in supporting a centralised economic system. In

781

other words, they ignore a large segment of socialist thought

782

and history in order to concentrate on Social Democracy and

783

Leninism. The idea of a network of "people's banks" and

784

co-operatives working together to meet their common interests

785

is ignored, although it has been a common feature in socialist

786

thought since the time of Robert Owen.

787

788

Nor was Taylor and Lange's response particularly convincing

789

in the first place. This was because it was based far more on

790

neo-classical capitalist economic theory than on an appreciation

791

of reality. In place of the Walsrian "Auctioneer" (the "god in

792

the machine" of general equilibrium theory which ensures that all

793

markets clear) Taylor and Lange presented the Planning Authority (the

794

"Central Planning Board"), whose job it was to adjust prices so that

795

all markets cleared. Neo-classical economists who are inclined to

796

accept Walrasian theory as an adequate account of a working capitalist

797

economy will be forced to accept the validity of Taylor and Lange's

798

version of "socialism." Little wonder Taylor and Lange were considered,

799

at the time, the victors in the "socialist calculation" debate by most

800

of the economics profession (with the collapse of the Soviet Union,

801

this decision has been revised somewhat -- although we must point out

802

that Taylor and Lange's model was not the same as the Soviet system, a

803

fact conveniently ignored by commentators).

804

805

Unfortunately, given that Walrasian theory has little bearing to

806

reality, we must also come to the conclusion that the Taylor-Lange

807

"solution" has about the same relevance (even ignoring its

808

non-libertarian aspects, such as its basis in state-ownership,

809

its centralisation, its lack of workers' self-management and so

810

on). Many people consider Taylor and Lange as fore-runners of

811

"market socialism." This is incorrect -- rather than being market

812

socialists, they are in fact "neo-classical" socialists, building

813

a "socialist" system which mimics capitalist economic *theory*

814

rather than its *reality*. Replacing Walrus's mythical creation

815

of the "Auctioneer" with a planning board does not really get

816

to the heart of the problem! Nor does their vision of "socialism"

817

have much appeal -- a re-production of capitalism with a planning

818

board and a more equal distribution of money income. Anarchists

819

reject such "socialism" as little more than a nicer version of

820

capitalism, if that.

821

822

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, it has been fashionable to

823

argue that "von Mises was right" and that socialism is impossible

824

(of course, *during* the cold war such claims were ignored as

825

the Soviet threat had to boosted and used as a means of social

826

control and to justify state aid to capitalist industry). Nothing

827

could be further from the truth. As we have argued in the

828

previous section and elsewhere, these countries were not socialist

829

at all and did not even approximate the (libertarian) socialist

830

idea (which is the only true form of socialism). Obviously the

831

Soviet Union and Eastern European countries had authoritarian

832

"command economies" with central bureaucratic planning, and so

833

their failure cannot be taken as proof that a decentralised,

834

libertarian socialism cannot work. Nor can von Mises' and von

835

Hayek's arguments against Taylor and Lange be used against a

836

libertarian mutualist or collectivist system as such a system

837

is decentralised and dynamic (unlike the "neo-classical" socialist

838

model they proposed). Libertarian socialism of this kind did,

839

in fact, work remarkably well during the Spanish Revolution in

840

the face of amazing difficulties, with increased productivity and

841

output in many workplaces as well as increased equality and liberty

842

(see Sam Dolgoff, _The Anarchist Collectives_ or Gaston Leval's

843

_Collectives in the Spanish Revolution_ as well as section I.8 of

844

this FAQ).

845

846

Thus von Mises "calculation argument" does not prove that socialism is

847

impossible. The theoretical work of such socialists as David Schweickart

848

(see his _Against Capitalism_ for an extensive discussion of a dynamic,

849

decentralised market socialist system) and others on market socialism

850

shows that von Mises was wrong in asserting that "a socialist system

851

with a market and market prices is as self-contradictory as is the notion

852

of a triangular square." Indeed, by suppressing capital markets in favour

853

of simple commodity production, a mutualist system will improve upon

854

capitalism by removing an important source of perverse incentives

855

which hinder long term investment and social responsibility (see

856

section I.4.8) in addition to reducing inequalities, increasing

857

freedom and improving general economic performance.

858

859

So far, most models of market socialism have not been fully

860

libertarian, but instead involve the idea of workers' control

861

within a framework of state ownership of capital (Engler in

862

_Apostles of Greed_ is an exception to this, supporting

863

community ownership). However, libertarian forms of market

864

socialism are indeed possible and would be similar to

865

Proudhon's mutualism. As anarchist Robert Graham points

866

out, "Market socialism is but one of the ideas defended by Proudhon

867

which is both timely and controversial. . . Proudhon's market socialism

868

is indissolubly linked with his notions of industrial democracy and

869

workers' self-management." ["Introduction", P-J Proudhon, _General Idea

870

of the Revolution_, p. xxxii] His system of agro-industrial federations

871

can be seen as a non-statist way of protecting self-management, liberty

872

and equality in the face of market forces (as he argued in _The Principle

873

of Federation_, "[h]owever impeccable in its basic logic the federal

874

principle may be. . . it will not survive if economic factors tend

875

persistently to dissolve it. In other words, political right requires

876

to be buttressed by economic right" and "in an economic context,

877

confederation may be intended to provide reciprocal security in

878

commerce and industry. . . The purpose of such specific federal

879

arrangements is to protect the citizens. . . from capitalist and

880

financial exploitation. . . in their aggregate they form . . .

881

an *agro-industrial federation*" [_The Principle of Federation_,

882

p. 67 and p. 70]).

883

884

Indeed, some Leninist Marxists recognise the links between Proudhon

885

and market socialism. For example, the unorthodox Trotskyite Hillel

886

Ticktin argues that Proudhon, "the anarchist and inveterate foe of

887

Karl Marx. . . put forward a conception of society, which is probably

888

the first detailed exposition of a 'socialist market.'" ["The Problem

889

is Market Socialism", in _Market Socialism: The Debate Among

890

Socialists_, edited by Bertell Ollman, p. 56] In addition, see

891

_Against the Market_ in which the author, Dave McNally, correctly

892

argues that Proudhon was a precursor of the current market socialists.

893

Needless to say, these Leninists reject the idea of market socialism

894

as contradictory and, basically, not socialist (while, strangely

895

enough, acknowledging that the transition to Marxist-communism

896

under the workers' state would use the market!).

897

898

Thus it is possible for a socialist economy to allocate resources

899

using a competitive market. However, does von Mises's argument mean

900

that a socialism that abolishes the market (such as libertarian

901

communism) is impossible? Given that the vast majority of anarchists

902

seek a libertarian communist society, this is an important question.

903

We address it in the next section.

904

905

I.1.2 Does Mises' argument mean libertarian communism is impossible?

906

907

In a word, no. While the "calculation argument" is often used by

908

right-libertarian's as *the* "scientific" basis for the argument

909

that communism (a moneyless society) is impossible, it is based

910

on certain false ideas of what money does and how an anarchist

911

society would function without it. This is hardly surprising,

912

as Mises based his theory on the "subjective" theory of value

913

and the Marxist social-democratic (and so Leninist) ideas of

914

what a "socialist" economy would look like. As Libertarian

915

Marxist Paul Mattick correctly argued:

916

917

"However divided the old [social-democratic] labour movement

918

may be by disagreements on various topics, on the question of

919

socialism it stands united. Hilferding's abstract 'General-Cartel',

920

Lenin's admiration for the German war socialism and the

921

German postal service. Kautsky's eternalisation of the

922

value-price-money economy (desiring to do consciously what

923

in capitalism is performed by blind market forces). Trotsky's

924

war communism equipped with supply and demand features, and

925

Stalin's institutional economics -- all these concepts have

926

at their base the continuation of the existing conditions

927

of production. As a matter of fact, they are mere reflections

928

of what is actually going on in capitalist society. Indeed,

929

such 'socialism' is discussed today by famous bourgeois

930

economists like Pigou, Hayek, Robbins, Keynes, to mention

931

only a few, and has created a considerable literature to

932

which the socialists now turn for their material."

933

[_Anti-Bolshevik Communism_, pp. 80-1]

934

935

Therefore, there has been little discussion of what a true

936

(i.e. libertarian) communist society would be like, one that

937

utterly transformed the existing conditions of production by

938

workers' self-management and the abolition of both the wages

939

system and money. However, it is useful here to indicate

940

exactly why a moneyless (i.e. truly communist) "economy"

941

would work and why the "calculation argument" is flawed as

942

an objection to it.

943

944

Mises argued that without money there was no way a socialist economy

945

would make "rational" production decisions. Not even von Mises denied

946

that a moneyless society could estimate what is likely to be needed

947

over a given period of time (as expressed as physical quantities of

948

definite types and sorts of objects). As he argued, "calculation *in

949

natura* in an economy without exchange can embrace consumption-goods

950

only." [_Collectivist Economic Planning_, F.A. Von Hayek (ed.), p. 104]

951

Mises' argument is that the next step, working out which productive

952

methods to employ, would not be possible, or at least would not be

953

able to be done "rationally," i.e. avoiding waste and inefficiency.

954

As he argues, the evaluation of producer goods "can only be done

955

with some kind of economic calculation. The human mind cannot orient

956

itself properly among the bewildering mass of intermediate products

957

and potentialities without such aid. It would simply stand perplexed

958

before the problems of management and location." [Op. Cit., p. 103]

959

Mises' claimed that monetary calculation based on market prices is

960

the only solution.

961

962

This argument is not without its force. How can a producer be

963

expected to know if tin is a better use of resources than iron

964

when creating a product if all they know is that iron and tin

965

are available and suitable for their purpose? Or, if we have

966

a consumer good which can be made with A + 2B or 2A + B

967

(where A and B are both input factors such as steel, oil

968

electricity, etc.) how can we tell which method is more efficient

969

(i.e. which one used least resources and so left the most

970

over for other uses)? With market prices, Mises' argued, it

971

is simple. If the iron cost $5 and tin $4, then tin should be

972

used. Similarly, if A cost $10 and B $5, then clearly method

973

one would be the most efficient ($20 versus $25). Without

974

the market, von Mises argued, such a decision would be impossible

975

and so every decision would be a "leap in the dark."

976

977

However, Mises' argument is based on a number of flawed assumptions.

978

979

Firstly, he assumes a centralised, planned economy. While this

980

was a common idea in Marxian social democracy (and the Leninism

981

that came from it), it is rejected by anarchism. No small body

982

of people can be expected to know what happens in society ("No

983

single brain nor any bureau of brains can see to this organisation,"

984

in the words of Issac Puente [_Libertarian Communism_, p. 29]). As

985

Bakunin argued, it would lead in practice to "an extremely complex

986

government. This government will not content itself with administering

987

and governing the masses politically . . . it will also administer the

988

masses economically, concentrating in the hands of the State [all

989

economic and social activity] . . . All that will demand an immense

990

knowledge and many heads 'overflowing with brains' in this government.

991

It will be the reign of *scientific intelligence*, the most aristocratic,

992

despotic, arrogant, and elitist of all regimes. There will be a new

993

class, a new hierarchy . . . Such a regime will not fail to arouse

994

very considerable discontent in the masses of the people, and in order

995

to keep them in check . . .[a] considerable armed force [would be

996

required]." [_Bakunin on Anarchism_, p. 319] Hence anarchists can

997

agree with Mises: central planning cannot work in practice. However,

998

socialist ideas are not limited to Marxian Social Democracy, and so

999

von Mises ignores far more socialistic ideas than he attacks.

1000

1001

His next assumption is equally flawed. This is that without the market,

1002

no information is passed between producers beyond the final outcome of

1003

production. In other words, he assumes that the final product is all that

1004

counts in evaluating its use. Needless to say, it is true that without

1005

more information than the name of a given product, it is impossible to

1006

determine whether using it would be an efficient utilisation of resources.

1007

But von Mises misunderstands the basic concept of use-value, namely the

1008

utility of a good to the consumer of it. As Adam Buick and John Crump

1009

point out, "at the level of the individual production unit or industry,

1010

the only calculations that would be necessary in socialism would be

1011

calculations in kind. On the one side would be recorded the resources

1012

(materials, energy, equipment, labour) used up in production and on the

1013

other the amount of good produced, together with any by-products. . . .

1014

Socialist production is simply the production of use values from use

1015

values, and nothing more." [_State Capitalism: The Wages System Under

1016

New Management_, p. 137]

1017

1018

The generation and communication of such information implies a

1019

decentralised, horizontal network between producers and consumers.

1020

This is because what counts as a use-value can only be determined

1021

by those directly using it. Thus the production of use-values from

1022

use-values cannot be achieved via central planning, as the central

1023

planners have no notion of the use-value of the goods being used

1024

or produced. Such knowledge lies in many hands, dispersed throughout

1025

society, and so socialist production implies decentralisation.

1026

Capitalist ideologues claim that the market allows the utilisation

1027

of such dispersed knowledge, but as John O'Neil notes, "the market

1028

may be *one* way in which dispersed knowledge can be put to good

1029

effect. It is not . . . the only way." [_Ecology, Policy and

1030

Politics_, p. 118]

1031

1032

So, in order to determine if a specific good is useful to a person, that

1033

person needs to know its "cost." Under capitalism, the notion of cost has

1034

been so associated with *price* that we have to put the word "cost" in

1035

quotation marks. However, the real cost of, say, writing a book, is not

1036

a sum of money but so much paper, so much energy, so much ink, so much

1037

human labour. In order to make a rational decision on whether a given good

1038

is better for meeting a given need than another, the would-be consumer

1039

requires this information. However, under capitalism this information

1040

is *hidden* by the price.

1041

1042

Moreover, a purely market-based system leaves out information on

1043

which to base rational resource allocations (or, at the very least,

1044

hides it). The reason for this is that a market system measures, at

1045

best, preferences of *individual* buyers among the *available* options.

1046

This assumes that all the pertinent use-values that are to be outcomes of

1047

production are things that are to be consumed by the individual, rather

1048

than use-values that are collectively enjoyed (like clean air). Prices

1049

in the market do not measure social costs or externalities, meaning

1050

that such costs are not reflected in the price and so you cannot have

1051

a rational price system. Similarly, if the market measures only

1052

preferences amongst things that can be monopolised and sold to

1053

individuals, as distinguished from values that are enjoyed

1054

collectively, then it follows that information necessary for

1055

rational decision-making in production is not provided by the market.

1056

1057

In other words, prices hide the actual costs that production involved

1058

for the individual, society, and the environment, and instead boils

1059

everything down into *one* factor, namely price. There is a lack of

1060

dialogue and information between producer and consumer. As John

1061

O'Neil argues, "the market distributes a little information and

1062

. . . blocks the distribution of a great deal [more]. . . The

1063

educative dialogue exists not through the market, but alongside

1064

of it." [_Ecology, Policy and Politics_, p. 143]

1065

1066

In the words of Joan Robinson:

1067

1068

"In what industry, in what line of business, are the true social

1069

costs of the activity registered in its accounts? Where is the

1070

pricing system that offers the consumer a fair choice between

1071

air to breath and motor cars to drive about in?" [_Contribution

1072

to Modern Economics_, p. 10]

1073

1074

Indeed, prices often *mis*-value goods as companies can gain a

1075

competitive advantage by passing costs onto society (in the form

1076

of pollution, for example, or de-skilling workers, increasing

1077

job insecurity, and so on). This externalisation of costs is

1078

actually rewarded in the market as consumers seek the lowest

1079

prices, unaware of the reasons *why* it is lower (such information

1080

cannot be gathered from looking at the price). Even if we assume

1081

that such activity is penalised by fines later, the damage is

1082

still done and cannot be undone. Indeed, the company may be able

1083

to weather the fines due to the profits it originally made by

1084

externalising costs.

1085

1086

And do prices *actually* reflect costs, even assuming that they

1087

accurately reflect social costs and externalities? The question

1088

of profit, the reward for owning capital and allowing others to

1089

use it, is hardly a cost in the same way as labour, resources and

1090

so on (attempts to explain profits as an equivalent sacrifice as

1091

labour have always been ridiculous and quickly dropped). When

1092

looking at prices to evaluate efficient use for goods, you cannot

1093

actually tell by the price if this is so. Two goods may have

1094

the same price, but profit levels (perhaps under the influence

1095

of market power) may be such that one has a higher cost price

1096

than another. The price mechanism fails to indicate which uses

1097

least resources as it is influenced by market power. Indeed,

1098

as Takis Fotopoulos notes, "[i]f . . . both central planning

1099

and the market economy inevitably lead to concentrations of

1100

power, then neither the former nor the latter can produce the

1101

sort of information flows and incentives which are necessary

1102

for the best functioning of any economic system." [_Towards an

1103

Inclusive Democracy_, p. 252] Moreover, a good produced under

1104

a authoritarian state which represses its workforce would have

1105

a lower price than one produced in a country which allowed

1106

unions to organise and had basic human rights. The repression

1107

would force down the cost of labour, so making the good in

1108

question appear as a more "efficient" use of resources. In

1109

other words, the market can mask inhumanity as "efficiency"

1110

and actually reward that behaviour by market share.

1111

1112

Simply put, prices cannot be taken to reflect real costs

1113

any more that they can reflect the social expression of

1114

the valuation of goods. They are the result of a conflict

1115

waged over these goods and those that acted as their inputs

1116

(including, of course, labour). Market and social power,

1117

much more than need or resource usage, decides the issue.

1118

The inequality in the means of purchasers, in the market

1119

power of firms and in the bargaining position of labour

1120

and capital all play their part, so distorting any

1121

relationship a price may have to its costs in terms of

1122

resource use. Prices are misshapen. Little wonder Kropotkin

1123

asked whether "are we not yet bound to analyse that

1124

compound result we call price rather than to accept

1125

it as a supreme and blind ruler of our actions?" [_Fields,

1126

Factories and Workshops Tomorrow_, p. 71]

1127

1128

Von Mises argued that anyone "who wished to make calculations

1129

in regard to a complicated process of production will

1130

immediately notice whether he has worked more economically

1131

than others or not; if he finds, from reference to the

1132

exchange values obtaining in the market, that he will not

1133

be able to produce profitably, this shows that others

1134

understand how to make better use of the higher-order

1135

goods in question." [Op. Cit., pp. 97-8] However, this only

1136

shows whether someone has worked more *profitably* that

1137

others, not whether it is more economical. Market power

1138

automatically muddles this issue, as does the possibility

1139

of reducing the monetary cost of production by recklessly

1140

exploiting natural resources and labour, polluting, or

1141

otherwise passing costs onto others. Similarly, the issue

1142

of wealth inequality is important, for if the production

1143

of luxury goods proves more profitable than basic essentials

1144

for the poor does this show that producing the former is

1145

a better use of resources? And, of course, the key issue

1146

of the relative strength of market power between workers

1147

and capitalists plays a key role in determining "profitably."

1148

1149

Therefore, the claim that prices reflect real costs and so

1150

efficiency can be faulted on two levels. Moreover, without

1151

using another means of cost accounting instead of prices

1152

how can supporters of capitalism know there is a correlation

1153

between actual and price costs? One can determine whether

1154

such a correlation exists by measuring one against the

1155

other. If this cannot be done, then the claim that prices

1156

measure costs is a tautology (in that a price represents a

1157

cost and we know that it is a cost because it has a price).

1158

If it can be done, then we can calculate costs in some other

1159

sense than in market prices and so that argument that only

1160

market prices represent costs falls.

1161

1162

Similarly, von Mises assumes that capitalism can accurately

1163

estimate the costs of investing. Using the example of a

1164

new railroad, he asks "[s]hould it be built at all, and if

1165

so, which out of the number of conceivable roads should be

1166

built? In a competitive and monetary economy, this question

1167

would be answered by monetary calculation. The new road

1168

will render less expensive the transport of some goods,

1169

and it may be possible to calculate whether this reduction

1170

of expense transcends that involved in the building and

1171

upkeep of the new line." [Op. Cit., pp. 108-9] However,

1172

this is *not* the case. An investment decision is made

1173

based on estimating *possible* future events. The new

1174

line *may* reduce transportation costs but the expected

1175

reduction may be relatively less that predicted, so causing

1176

the investment to fail. Moreover, an investment may fail

1177

while it meets a social need simply because people may

1178

need the product but cannot afford to pay for it. In

1179

other words, von Mises example hardly shows the superiority

1180

of monetary calculation as the decision to invest under

1181

capitalism is as much a leap in the dark as it would

1182

be an a socialist system (the future is uncertain, in

1183

other words).

1184

1185

Lastly, Mises assumes that the market is a rational system. As

1186

O'Neil points out, "Von Mises' earlier arguments against socialist

1187

planning turned on an assumption about commensurability. His central

1188

argument was that rational economic decision-making required a single

1189

measure on the basis of which the worth of alternative states of affairs

1190

could be calculated and compared." [Op. Cit., p. 115] This central

1191

assumption was unchallenged by Taylor and Lange in their defence of

1192

"socialism", meaning that from the start the debate against von Mises

1193

was defensive and based on the argument that socialist planning could

1194

mimic the market and produce results which were efficient from a

1195

capitalist point of view. Thus, no one challenged Mises' assumptions

1196

either about the centrally planned nature of socialism or about the

1197

market being a rational system. Little wonder that the debate put

1198

the state socialists on the defensive. As their system was little

1199

more than state capitalism, it is unlikely they would attack the

1200

fundamentals of capitalism (namely wage labour and centralisation).

1201

1202

So, is capitalism rational? Well, it does exist, but that does not prove

1203

that it is rational. The Catholic Church exists, but that shows nothing

1204

about the rationality of the institution. To answer the question, we must

1205

return to our earlier point that using prices means basing all decision

1206

making on one criterion and ignoring all others. This has seriously

1207

irrational effects, because the managers of capitalist enterprises are

1208

obliged to choose technical means of production which produce the

1209

cheapest results. All other considerations are subordinate, in particular

1210

the health and welfare of the producers and the effects on the environment.

1211

The harmful effects resulting from "rational" capitalist production

1212

methods have long been pointed out. For example, speed-ups, pain, stress,

1213

accidents, boredom, overwork, long hours and so on all harm the physical

1214

and mental health of those involved, while pollution, the destruction of

1215

the environment, and the exhaustion of non-renewable resources all have

1216

serious effects on both the planet and those who live on it. As E. F.

1217

Schumacher argued:

1218

1219

"But what does it *mean* when we say that something is uneconomic? . . .

1220

[S]omething is uneconomic when it fails to earn an adequate profit in

1221

terms of money. The method of economics does not, and cannot, produce

1222

any other meaning. . . The judgement of economics . . . is an extremely

1223

*fragmentary* judgement; out of the large number of aspects which in

1224

real life have to be seen and judged together before a decision can

1225

be taken, economics supplies only one -- whether a money profit

1226

accrues *to those who undertake it* or not." [_Small is Beautiful_,

1227

pp. 27-8]

1228

1229

Schumacher stressed that "about the *fragmentary* nature of the

1230

judgements of economics there can be no doubt whatever. Even

1231

with the narrow compass of the economic calculus, these

1232

judgements are necessarily and *methodically* narrow. For one

1233

thing, they give vastly more weight to the short then to the

1234

long term. . . [S]econd, they are based on a definition of

1235

cost which excludes all 'free goods' . . . [such as the]

1236

environment, except for those parts that have been privately

1237

appropriated. This means that an activity can be economic

1238

although it plays hell with the environment, and that a

1239

competing activity, if at some cost it protects and conserves

1240

the environment, will be uneconomic." Moreover, "[d]o not overlook

1241

the words 'to those who undertake it.' It is a great error to

1242

assume, for instance, that the methodology of economics is

1243

normally applied to determine whether an activity carried

1244

out by a group within society yields a profit to society

1245

as a whole." [Op. Cit., p. 29]

1246

1247

To claim that prices include all these "externalities" is

1248

nonsense. If they did, we would not see capital moving to

1249

third-world countries with few or no anti-pollution or

1250

labour laws. At best, the "cost" of pollution would only

1251

be included in a price if the company was sued successfully

1252

in court for damages -- in other words, once the damage is

1253

done. Ultimately, companies have a strong interest in buying

1254

inputs with the lowest prices, regardless of *how* they are

1255

produced. As Noam Chomsky points out, "[i]n a true capitalist

1256

society, . . . socially responsible behaviour would be

1257

penalised quickly in that competitors, lacking such social

1258

responsibility, would supplant anyone so misguided as to be

1259

concerned with something other than private benefit."

1260

[_Language and Politics_, p. 301] It is reductionist

1261

accounting and its accompanying "ethics of mathematics"

1262

that produces the "irrationality of rationality" which

1263

plagues capitalism's exclusive reliance on prices (i.e.

1264

profits) to measure "efficiency." Moreover, the critique

1265

we have just sketched ignores the periodic crises that hit

1266

capitalist industry and economies to produce massive

1267

unemployment and social disruption -- crises that are

1268

due to subjective and objective pressures on the operation

1269

of the price mechanism (see section C.7 for details).

1270

1271

Ironically enough, von Mises also pointed to the irrational nature

1272

of the price mechanism. He states (correctly) that there are

1273

"extra-economic" elements which "monetary calculation cannot

1274

embrace" because of "its very nature." He acknowledges that

1275

these "considerations themselves can scarcely be termed

1276

irrational" and, as examples, lists "[i]n any place where

1277

men regard as significant the beauty of a neighbourhood or

1278

a building, the health, happiness and contentment of mankind,

1279

the honour of individuals or nations." He states that "they are

1280

just as much motive forces of rational conduct as are economic

1281

factors" but they "do not enter into exchange relationships."

1282

[von Mises, Op. Cit., p. 99] How rational is an economic system

1283

which ignores the "health, happiness and contentment" of people?

1284

Or the beauty of their surroundings? Which, moreover, penalises

1285

those who take these factors into consideration? For anarchists,

1286

von Mises comments indicate well the inverted logic of capitalism.

1287

That von Mises can support a system which ignores the needs of

1288

individuals, their happiness, health, surroundings, environment

1289

and so on by "its very nature" says a lot (his suggestion

1290

that we assign monetary values to such dimensions [p. 100]

1291

begs the question and has plausibility only if it assumes what

1292

it is supposed to prove. Indeed, the person who would put

1293

a price on friendship simply would have no friends. They

1294

simply do not understand what friendship is and are thereby

1295

excluded from much which is best in human life. Likewise

1296

for other "extra-economic" goods that individual's value,

1297

such as beautiful places, happiness, the environment and

1298

so on).

1299

1300

Under communist-anarchism, the decision-making system used to

1301

determine the best use of resources is not more or less "efficient"

1302

than market allocation, because it goes beyond the market-based

1303

concept of "efficiency." It does not seek to mimic the market but

1304

to do what the market fails to do. This is important, because the

1305

market is not the rational system its defenders often claim. While

1306

reducing all decisions to one common factor is, without a doubt,

1307

an easy method of decision making, it also has serious side-effects

1308

*because* of its reductionistic basis (as discussed further in the

1309

next section). As Einstein once pointed out, things should be made

1310

as simple as possible but not simplistic. The market makes decision

1311

making simplistic and generates a host of irrationalities and

1312

dehumanising effects.

1313

1314

Sections I.4.4 and I.4.5 discusses one possible framework for a

1315

communist economic decision-making process. Such a framework is

1316

necessary because "an appeal to a necessary role for practical

1317

judgements in decision making is *not* to deny any role to general

1318

principles. Neither . . . does it deny any place for the use of

1319

technical rules and algorithmic procedures . . . Moreover, there

1320

is a necessary role for rules of thumb, standard procedures, the

1321

default procedures and institutional arrangements that can be

1322

followed unreflectively and which *reduce* the scope for *explicit*

1323

judgements comparing different states of affairs. There are limits

1324

in time, efficient use of resources and the dispersal of knowledge

1325

which require rules and institutions. Such rules and institutions

1326

can fee us for space and time for reflective judgements where

1327

they matter most." [John O'Neil, Op. Cit., pp. 117-8]

1328

1329

While these algorithmic procedures and guidelines can, and indeed

1330

should be, able to be calculated by hand, it is likely that

1331

computers will be extensively used to take input data and process

1332

it into a suitable format. Indeed, many capitalist companies

1333

have software which records raw material inputs and finished

1334

product into databases and spreadsheets. Such software could be

1335

the basis of a libertarian communist decision making algorithm.

1336

Of course, currently such data is submerged beneath money and

1337

does not take into account externalities and the nature of the

1338

work involved (as would be the case in an anarchist society).

1339

However, this does not limit their potential or deny that

1340

communist use of such software can be used to inform decisions.

1341

1342

This, we must note, indicates that communist society would

1343

use various "aids to the mind" to help individuals and groups

1344

to make economic decisions. This would reduce the complexity

1345

of economic decision making, by allowing different options

1346

and resources to be compared to each other. Hence the

1347

complexity of economic decision making in an economy with

1348

a multitude of goods can be reduced by the use of rational

1349

algorithmic procedures and methods to aid the process. Such

1350

tools would aid decision making, not dominate it as these

1351

decisions affect humans and the planet and should never be

1352

made automatically.

1353

1354

It is useful to remember that von Mises argued that it is

1355

the *complexity* of a modern economy that ensures money is

1356

required. As he put it, "[w]ithin the narrow confines of

1357

household economy, for instance, where the father can

1358

supervise the entire economic management, it is possible

1359

to determine the significance of changes in the processes

1360

of production, without such aids to the mind [as monetary

1361

calculation], and yet with more or less of accuracy." However,

1362

"the mind of one man alone -- be it ever so cunning, is too

1363

weak to grasp the importance of any single one among the

1364

countlessly many goods of higher order. No single man

1365

can ever master all the possibilities of production,

1366

innumerable as they are, as to be in a position to make

1367

straightway evident judgements of value without the aid

1368

of some system of computation." [Op. Cit., p. 102]

1369

1370

That being the case, a libertarian communist society would

1371

quickly develop the means of comparing the real impact of

1372

specific "higher order" goods in terms of their real costs

1373

(i.e. the amount of labour, energy and raw materials used

1374

plus any social and ecological costs). As we noted above,

1375

this essential decision making information would have to

1376

be recorded and communicated in a communist society and used

1377

to evaluate different options using an agreed methods of

1378

comparison. This methods of comparison differs drastically

1379

from the price mechanism as it recognises that mindless,

1380

automatic calculation is impossible in social choices. Such

1381

choices have an unavoidable ethical and political dimension

1382

simply because they involve other human beings and the

1383

environment. As von Mises himself acknowledges, monetary

1384

calculation does not capture such dimensions. We, therefore,

1385

need to employ practical judgement in making choices aided

1386

by a full understanding of the *real* social and ecological

1387

costs involved using, of course, the appropriate "aids to

1388

the mind."

1389

1390

In addition, a decentralised system will by necessity have

1391

to compare less alternatives as local knowledge will eliminate

1392

many of the options available. As von Mises acknowledged,

1393

a "household economy" *can* make economic decisions without

1394

money. Being more decentralised than capitalism, a libertarian

1395

communist economy will, therefore, be able to do so as well,

1396

particularly when it uses the appropriate "aids to the mind"

1397

to evaluate external resources versus locally produced ones.

1398

Given that an anarchist society would be complex and integrated,

1399

such aids would be essential but, due to its decentralised nature,

1400

it need not embrace the price mechanism. It can evaluate the

1401

efficiency of its decisions by looking at the *real* costs

1402

involved to society rather than embrace the distorted system

1403

of costing explicit in the price mechanism (as Kropotkin once

1404

put it, "if we analyse *price*" we must "make a distinction

1405

between its different elements" in order to make rationale

1406

allocation and investment decisions [Op. Cit., p. 72]).

1407

1408

Thus, anarchists argue that von Mises' claims were wrong.

1409

Communism is viable, but only if it is libertarian communism.

1410

Economic decision making in a moneyless "economy" is possible.

1411

Indeed, it could be argued that von Mises' argument exposes

1412

difficulties for capitalism rather than for anarchism. Capitalist

1413

"efficiency" is hardly rational and for a fully human and

1414

ecological efficiency, libertarian communism is required. As

1415

two libertarian socialists point out, "socialist society still

1416

has to be concerned with using resources efficiently and

1417

rationally, but the criteria of 'efficiency' and 'rationality'

1418

are not the same as they are under capitalism." [Buick and

1419

Crump, Op. Cit., p. 137]

1420

1421

So, to claim that communism will be "more" efficient than

1422

capitalism or vice versa misses the point. Libertarian

1423

communism will be "efficient" in a totally different way

1424

and people will act in ways considered "irrational" only

1425

under the logic of capitalism.

1426

1427

I.1.3 What is wrong with markets anyway?

1428

1429

A lot. Markets soon result in what are termed "market forces,"

1430

"impersonal" forces which ensure that the people in the economy

1431

do what is required of them in order for the economy to function.

1432

The market system, in capitalist apologetics, is presented to appear

1433

as a regime of freedom where no one forces anyone to do anything,

1434

where we "freely" exchange with others as we see fit. However, the

1435

facts of the matter are somewhat different, since the market often

1436

ensures that people act in ways *opposite* to what they desire or

1437

forces them to accept "free agreements" which they may not actually

1438

desire. Wage labour is the most obvious example of this, for, as we

1439

indicated in section B.4, most people have little option but to agree

1440

to work for others.

1441

1442

We must stress here that not all anarchists are opposed to the market.

1443

Individualist anarchists favour it while Proudhon wanted to modify

1444

it while retaining competition. For many, the market equals capitalism.

1445

However, this is not the case as it ignores the fundamental issue of

1446

(economic) class, namely who owns the means of production. Capitalism

1447

is unique in that it is based on wage labour, i.e. a market for labour

1448

as workers do not own their own means of production and have to sell

1449

themselves to those who do. Thus it is entirely possible for a market

1450

to exist within a society and for that society *not* to be capitalist.

1451

For example, a society of independent artisans and peasants selling

1452

their product on the market would not be capitalist as workers would

1453

own and control their means of production and so wage labour (and so

1454

capitalism) would not exist. Similarly, Proudhon's competitive system

1455

of self-managed co-operatives and mutual banks would be non-capitalist

1456

(and socialist) for the same reason. Anarchists object to capitalism

1457

due to the quality of the social relationships it generates between

1458

people (i.e. it generates authoritarian ones). If these relationships

1459

are eliminated then the kinds of ownership which do so are anarchistic.

1460

Thus the issue of ownership matters only in-so-far it generates

1461

relationships of the desired kind (i.e. those based on liberty,

1462

equality and solidarity). To concentrate purely on "markets" or

1463

"property" means to ignore social relationships and the key aspect

1464

of capitalism, namely wage labour. That right-wingers do this is

1465

understandable (to hide the authoritarian core of capitalism) but

1466

why (libertarian or other) socialists should do so is less clear.

1467

1468

In this section of the FAQ we discuss anarchist objections to the

1469

market *as such* rather than the capitalist market. The workings of

1470

the market do have problems with them which are independent of, or

1471

made worse by, the existence of wage-labour. It is these problems

1472

which make most anarchists hostile to the market and so desire a

1473

communist-anarchist society.

1474

1475

So, even if we assume a mutualist or market-socialist system of

1476

competing self-managed workplaces, it's clear that market forces

1477

would soon result in many irrationalities occurring. Most obviously,

1478

operating in a market means submitting to the profit criterion. This

1479

means that however much workers might want to employ social criteria,

1480

they cannot. To ignore profitability would cause their firm to go

1481

bankrupt. Markets therefore create conditions that compel workers

1482

and consumers to decide things which are not be in their interest,

1483

for example introducing deskilling or polluting technology, longer

1484

hours, and so on. We could also point to the numerous industrial

1485

deaths and accidents which are due to market forces making it

1486

unprofitable to introduce adequate safety equipment or working

1487

conditions, (conservative estimates for industrial deaths in the

1488

USA are between 14 000 and 25 000 per year plus over 2 million

1489

disabled), or to increased pollution and stress levels which

1490

shorten life spans.

1491

1492

In addition, a market-based system can result in what we have

1493

termed "the ethics of mathematics," where things (particularly

1494

money) become more important than people. This can have a

1495

de-humanising effect, with people becoming cold-hearted

1496

calculators who put profits before people. This can be seen

1497

in capitalism, where economic decisions are far more important

1498

than ethical ones. And such an inhuman mentality can be

1499

rewarded on the market. Merit does not "necessarily" breed

1500

success, and the successful do not "necessarily" have merit.

1501

The truth is that, in the words of Noam Chomsky, "wealth and

1502

power tend to accrue to those who are ruthless, cunning,

1503

avaricious, self-seeking, lacking in sympathy and compassion,

1504

subservient to authority and willing to abandon principle for

1505

material gain, and so on. . . Such qualities might be just the

1506

valuable ones for a war of all against all." [_For Reasons

1507

of State_, pp. 139-140] Thorstein Veblen elaborated at length

1508

on this theme in _The Leisure Class_, a classic analysis of

1509

capitalist psychology. Needless to be said, if the market

1510

does reward such people with success it can hardly be considered

1511

as a *good* thing. A system which elevates making money to

1512

the position of the most important individual activity will

1513

obviously result in the degrading of human values and an

1514

increase in neurotic and psychotic behaviour.

1515

1516

Little wonder, as Alfie Kohn has argued, competition can have

1517

serious negative effects on us outside of work, with it damaging

1518

both our personal psychology and our interpersonal relationships

1519

(see his excellent book _No Contest_ for details). The market can

1520

impoverish us as individuals, sabotaging self-esteem, promoting

1521

conformity, ruining relationships and making use less than what

1522

we could be. This is a problem of markets as such, not only

1523

capitalist ones.

1524

1525

Any market system is also marked by a continuing need to expand

1526

production and consumption. This means that market forces ensure

1527

that work continually has to expand, causing potentially destructive

1528

results for both people and the planet. Competition ensures that

1529

we can never take it easy, for as Max Stirner argued, "[r]estless

1530

acquisition does not let us take breath, take a calm *enjoyment*.

1531

We do not get the comfort of our possessions. . . Hence it is at

1532

any rate helpful that we come to an agreement about *human* labours

1533

that they may not, as under competition, claim all our time and toil."

1534

[_The Ego and Its Own_, p. 268]

1535

1536

Value needs to be created, and that can only be done by labour. It is

1537

ironic that supporters of capitalism, while usually saying that "work" is

1538

and always will be hell, support an economic system which must continually

1539

expand that "work" (i.e. labour) while deskilling and automating it and

1540

those who do it. Anarchists, in contrast, argue that work need not be

1541

hell, and indeed, that when enriched by skills and self-management, can be

1542

enjoyable. We go further and argue that work need not take all our time

1543

and that *labour* (i.e. unwanted and boring work) can and must be

1544

minimised. Hence, while the "anti-work" capitalist submits humanity to

1545

more and more labour, the anarchist desires the liberation of "work" and

1546

the end of "labour" as a way of life.

1547

1548

In addition, market decisions are crucially conditioned by the purchasing

1549

power of those income groups that can back their demands with money. The

1550

market is a continuous bidding for goods, resources, and services, with

1551

those who have the most purchasing power the winners. This means that the

1552

market system is the worst one for allocating resources when purchasing

1553

power is unequally distributed. This is why orthodox economists make the

1554

convenient assumption of a "given distribution of income" when they try

1555

to show that a market-based allocation of resources is the best one (for

1556

example, "Pareto optimality"). While a mutualist system should reduce

1557

inequality drastically, it cannot be assumed that inequalities will

1558

not increase over time. This is because inequalities in resources

1559

leads to inequalities of power on the market. Any trade or contract

1560

will benefit the powerful more than the powerless, so re-enforcing

1561

and potentially increasing the inequalities and power between the

1562

parties. This could, over time, lead to a return to capitalism (as

1563

Proudhon himself noted, the "original equality [between contractor

1564

and workmen] was bound to disappear through the advantageous

1565

position of the master and the dependence of the wage-workers."

1566

[_System of Economical Contradictions_, p. 201]).

1567

1568

With the means of life monopolised by one class, the effects of market

1569

forces and unequal purchasing power can be terrible. As Allan Engler

1570

points out, "[w]hen people are denied access to the means of livelihood,

1571

the invisible hand of market forces does not intervene on their behalf.

1572

Equilibrium between supply and demand has no necessary connection with

1573

human need. For example, assume a country of one million people in which

1574

900,000 are without means of livelihood. One million bushels of wheat are

1575

produced. The entire crop is sold to 100,000 people at $10 a bushel.

1576

Supply and demand are in equilibrium, yet 900 000 people will face

1577

starvation." [_Apostles of Greed_, pp. 50-51] In case anyone thinks that

1578

this just happens in theory, the example of African countries hit by

1579

famine gives a classic example of this occurring in practice. There, rich

1580

landowners grow cash crops and export food to the developed nations while

1581

millions starve in their own.

1582

1583

Lastly, there are the distributional consequences of the market system.

1584

As markets inform by 'exit' only -- some products find a market, others

1585

do not -- 'voice' is absent. The operation of 'exit' rather than 'voice'

1586

leaves behind those without power in the marketplace. For example, the

1587

wealthy do not buy food poisoned with additives, the poor consume it. This

1588

means a division grows between two environments: one inhabited by those

1589

with wealth and one inhabited by those without it. As can be seen from

1590

the current capitalist practice of "exporting pollution" to developing

1591

countries, this problem can have serious ecological and social effects.

1592

So, far from the market being a "democracy" based on "one dollar,

1593

one vote," it is an oligarchy in which, for example, the "79 000

1594

Americans who earned the minimum wage in 1987 have the same influence

1595

[or "vote"] as Michael Milken, who 'earned' as much as all of them

1596

combined." [Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel, _The Political Economy

1597

of Participatory Economics_, p. 21]

1598

1599

In other words, markets are always biased in favour of effective demand,

1600

i.e. in favour of the demands of people with money. A market may be

1601

Pareto-optimal, but it can never (except in the imaginary abstractions

1602

of mathematical welfare economics) allocate the necessities of life to

1603

those who need them the most.

1604

1605

In addition, markets never internalise external costs. Two people

1606

(or companies) who strike a market-rational bargain between themselves

1607

need not consider the consequences of their bargain for other people

1608

outside their bargain, nor the consequences for the earth. Thus

1609

market exchanges are never bilateral agreements as their effects

1610

impact on the wider society (in terms of, say, pollution, inequality

1611

and so on). The market also ignores the needs of future generations

1612

as they always discount the value of the long term future. A payment

1613

to be made 1 000 years from now (a mere speck in geological time) has

1614

a market value of virtually zero according to any commonly used discount

1615

rate. Even 50 years in the future cannot be adequately considered as

1616

competitive pressures force a short term perspective on people harmful

1617

to present and future generations, plus the ecology of the planet.

1618

1619

Also, markets do not reflect the values of things we do not put a price

1620

upon (as we argued in section B.5). It cannot protect wilderness, for

1621

example, simply because it requires people to turn it into property and

1622

sell it as a commodity. If you cannot afford to visit the new commodity,

1623

the market turns it into something else, no matter how much you value

1624

it. This ensures that the market cannot really provide the information

1625

necessary for rational-decision making and so resources are inefficiently

1626

allocated and we all suffer from the consequences of that.

1627

1628

Thus are plenty of reasons for concluding that efficiency and the

1629

market not only do not necessarily coincide, but, indeed, necessarily

1630

do not coincide. Indeed, rather than respond to individual needs,

1631

the market responds to money (more correctly, profit), which by its

1632

very nature provides a distorted indication of individual preferences

1633

(and does not take into account values which are enjoyed collectively,

1634

such as clean air, or *potentially* enjoyed, such as the wilderness a

1635

person may never visit but desires to see exist and protected).

1636

1637

So, for all its talk of "invisible hands" and "individual freedom,"

1638

capitalism ignores the actual living individual in the economy and

1639

society. The "individual rights" on which capitalists' base their "free"

1640

system are said to be "man's rights," on what "man needs." But "man,"

1641

after all, is only an abstraction, not a real living being. By talking

1642

about "man" and basing "rights" on what this abstraction is said to need,

1643

capitalism and statism ignore the uniqueness of each person and the

1644

conditions required to develop that uniqueness. As Max Stirner pointed

1645

out, "[h]e who is infatuated with *Man* leaves persons out of account so

1646

far as that infatuation exists, and floats in an ideal, sacred interest.

1647

*Man*, you see, is not a person, but an ideal, a spook." [_The Ego and Its

1648

Own_, p. 79] And like all spooks, it requires sacrifice -- the sacrifice

1649

of individuality to hierarchy and authority.

1650

1651

This anti-individual biases in capitalism can be seen by its top-down

1652

nature and the newspeak used to disguise its reality. For example,

1653

there is what is called "increasing flexibility of the labour market."

1654

"Flexibility" sounds great: rigid structures are unappealing and hardly

1655

suitable for human growth. In reality, as Noam Chomsky points out

1656

"[f]lexibility means insecurity. It means you go to bed at night and don't

1657

know if you have a job tomorrow morning. That's called flexibility of the

1658

labour market, and any economist can explain that's a good thing for the

1659

economy, where by 'the economy' now we understand profit-making. We

1660

don't mean by 'the economy' the way people live. That's good for the

1661

economy, and temporary jobs increase flexibility. Low wages also

1662

increase job insecurity. They keep inflation low. That's good for people

1663

who have money, say, bondholders. So these all contribute to what's called

1664

a 'healthy economy,' meaning one with very high profits. Profits are doing

1665

fine. Corporate profits are zooming. But for most of the population, very

1666

grim circumstances. And grim circumstances, without much prospect of a

1667

future, may lead to constructive social action, but where that's lacking

1668

they express themselves in violence." [_Keeping the Rabble in Line_,

1669

pp. 283-4]

1670

1671

This does not mean that social anarchists propose to "ban" the market --

1672

far from it. This would be impossible. What we do propose is to convince

1673

people that a profit-based market system has distinctly *bad* effects on

1674

individuals, society and the planet's ecology, and that we can organise

1675

our common activity to replace it with libertarian communism. As Max

1676

Stirner argued, "competition. . .has a continued existence. . . [because]

1677

all do not attend to *their* *affair* and come to an *understanding*

1678

with each other about it. . . .Abolishing competition is not equivalent

1679

to favouring the guild. The difference is this: In the *guild* baking,

1680

etc., is the affair of the guild-brothers; in *competition*, the affair

1681

of chance competitors; in the *union*, of those who require baked goods,

1682

and therefore my affair, yours, the affair of neither guildic nor the

1683

concessionary baker, but the affair of the *united.*" [_Ego and Its Own_,

1684

p. 275]

1685

1686

Therefore, social anarchists do not appeal to "altruism" in their

1687

struggle against the de-humanising effects of the market, but rather,

1688

to egoism: the simple fact that co-operation and mutual aid is in our

1689

best interests as individuals. By co-operating and controlling "the

1690

affairs of the united," we can ensure a free society which is worth

1691

living in, one in which the individual is not crushed by market forces

1692

and has time to fully develop his or her individuality and uniqueness:

1693

1694

"Solidarity is therefore the state of being in which Man attains the

1695

greatest degree of security and wellbeing; and therefore egoism itself,

1696

that is the exclusive consideration of one's own interests, impels Man

1697

and human society towards solidarity." [Errico Malatesta, _Anarchy_, p. 28]

1698

1699

I.1.4 If capitalism is exploitative, then isn't socialism as well?

1700

1701

Some "Libertarian" capitalists say yes to this question, arguing that

1702

the Labour Theory of Value (LTV) does not imply socialism but what they

1703

call "self-managed" capitalism. This, however, is not a valid inference.

1704

The LTV can imply both socialism (selling the product of ones labour)

1705

and communism (distribution according to need). The theory is a critique

1706

of capitalism, not necessarily the basis of a socialist economy, although

1707

it *can* be considered this as well. For example, Proudhon used the LTV

1708

as the foundation of his proposals for mutual banking and co-operatives,

1709

while Robert Owen used it as the basis of his system of labour notes.

1710

Marx, on the other hand, use the LTV purely as a critique of capitalism

1711

while hoping for communism.

1712

1713

In other words, though a system of co-operative selling on the market

1714

(what is mistakenly termed "self-managed" capitalism by some) or exchanging

1715

labour-time values would not be communism, it is *not* capitalism. This

1716

is because the workers are not separated from the means of production.

1717

Therefore, right-libertarians' attempts to claim that it is capitalism

1718

are false, an example of misinformed insistence that virtually *every*

1719

economic system, bar state socialism and feudalism, is capitalist.

1720

Some libertarian Marxists (as well as Leninists) claim, similarly,

1721

that non-communist forms of socialism are also just "self-managed"

1722

capitalism. Why libertarian Marxists desire to reduce the choices

1723

facing humanity to either communism or some form of capitalism is

1724

frankly strange, but also understandable because of the potential

1725

dehumanising effects of market systems seen under capitalism.

1726

1727

However, it could be argued that communism (based on free access and

1728

communal ownership of resources) would mean that workers are exploited

1729

by non-workers (the young, the sick, the elderly and so on). While this

1730

may reflect the sad lack of personal empathy (and so ethics) of the

1731

pro-capitalist defenders of this argument, it totally misses the point

1732

as far as communist anarchism goes. This is because of two reasons.

1733

1734

Firstly, "anarchist communism . . . means voluntary communism, communism

1735

from free choice" [A. Berkman, _ABC of Anarchism_, p. 11], which means it

1736

is not imposed on anyone but is created and practised only by those who

1737

believe in it. Therefore it would be up to the communities and syndicates

1738

to decide how they wish to distribute the products of their labour and

1739

individuals to join, or create, those that meet their ideas of right

1740

and wrong. Some may decide on equal pay, others on payment in terms

1741

of labour time, yet others on communistic associations (we have indicated

1742

elsewhere why most anarchists consider that communism would be in people's

1743

self-interest, so we will not repeat ourselves here). The important thing

1744

to realise is that co-operatives will decide what to do with their output,

1745

whether to exchange it or to distribute it freely. Hence, because it is

1746

based on free agreement, anarchist communism cannot be exploitative.

1747

Members of a co-operative which is communistic are free to leave, after

1748

all. Needless to say, the co-operatives will usually distribute their

1749

product to others within their confederation and exchange with the

1750

non-communist ones in a different manner. We say "usually," for in

1751

the case of emergencies like earthquakes and so forth the situation

1752

would call for mutual aid.

1753

1754

Secondly, the so-called "non-workers" have been, or will be, workers.

1755

As the noted Spanish anarchist De Santillan pointed out, "[n]aturally,

1756

children, the aged and the sick are not considered parasites. The

1757

children will be productive when they grow up. The aged have already

1758

made their contribution to social wealth and the sick are only

1759

temporarily unproductive." [_After the Revolution_, p. 20] In other

1760

words, over their life time, everyone contributes to society and

1761

it so using the "account book" mentality of capitalism misses the

1762

point.

1763

1764

The reason why capitalism is exploitative is that workers *have* to

1765

agree to give the product of their labour to another (the boss) in

1766

order to be employed in the first place (see section B.4). Capitalists

1767

would not remain capitalists if their capital did not produce a profit.

1768

In libertarian communism, by contrast, the workers themselves agree to

1769

distribute part of their product to others (i.e. society as a whole,

1770

their neighbours, friends, and so forth). It is based on free agreement,

1771

while capitalism is marked by power, authority, and the firm hand of

1772

market forces. As resources are held in common, people have the option

1773

of working alone if they so desired.

1774

1775

Similarly, capitalism by its very nature as a "grow or die" system,

1776

needs to expand into new areas, meaning that unlike libertarian

1777

socialism, it will attempt to undermine and replace other social

1778

systems (usually by force, if history is any guide). As freedom

1779

cannot be given, there is no reason for a libertarian-socialist

1780

system to expand beyond the effect of a "good example" on the

1781

oppressed of capitalist regimes.

1782

1783

I.2 Is this a blueprint for an anarchist society?

1784

1785

No, far from it. There can be no such thing as a "blueprint"

1786

for a free society. All we can do here is indicate those general

1787

features that we believe a free society *must* have in order to

1788

qualify as truly libertarian. For example, a society based on

1789

hierarchical management in the workplace (like capitalism) would

1790

not be libertarian and would soon see private or public states

1791

developing to protect the power of those at the top hierarchical

1792

positions ("Anarchy without socialism. . . [is] impossible to

1793

us, for in such case it could not be other than the domination

1794

of the strongest, and would therefore set in motion right away

1795

the organisation and consolidation of this domination, that is

1796

to the constitution of government." [Errico Malatesta, _Life

1797

and Ideas_, p. 148]). Beyond such general considerations, however,

1798

the specifics of how to structure a non-hierarchical society

1799

must remain open for discussion and experimentation:

1800

1801

"Anarchism, meaning Liberty, is compatible with the most diverse

1802

economic [and social] conditions, on the premise that these cannot

1803

imply, as under capitalist monopoly, the negation of liberty."

1804

[D. A. de Santillan, _After the Revolution_, p. 95]

1805

1806

So, this section of the anarchist FAQ should not be regarded as a

1807

detailed plan. Anarchists have always been reticent about spelling

1808

out their vision of the future in too much detail for it would be

1809

contrary to anarchist principles to be dogmatic about the precise

1810

forms the new society must take. Free people will create their own

1811

alternative institutions in response to conditions specific to their

1812

area and it would be presumptuous of us to attempt to set forth

1813

universal policies in advance. In Kropotkin's words:

1814

1815

"Once expropriation [of social wealth by the masses] has been

1816

carried through . . . then, after a period of grouping, there

1817

will necessarily arise a new system of organising production and

1818

exchange . . . and that system will be a lot more attuned to

1819

popular aspirations and the requirements of co-existence and

1820

mutual relations than any theory, however splendid, devised

1821

by the thinking and imagination of reformers. . ." [_No Gods,

1822

No Masters_, vol. 1, p. 232]

1823

1824

This, however, did not stop him "predicting right now that

1825

[in some areas influenced by anarchists]. . . the foundations

1826

of the new organisation will be the free federation of producers'

1827

groups and the free federation of Communes and groups in independent

1828

Communes." [Ibid.] This is because what we think now will influence

1829

the future just as real experience will influence and change how we

1830

think. Moreover, given the ways in which our own unfree society has

1831

shaped our ways of thinking, it is probably impossible for us to

1832

imagine what new forms will arise once humanity's ingenuity and

1833

creativity is unleashed by the removal of its present authoritarian

1834

fetters. Thus any attempts to paint a detailed picture of the future

1835

will be doomed to failure. Ultimately, anarchists think that "the

1836

new society should be organised with the direct participation

1837

of all concerned, from the periphery to the centre, freely and

1838

spontaneously, at the prompting of the sentiment of solidarity

1839

and under pressure of the natural needs of society." [E. Malatesta

1840

and A. Hamon, _No Gods, No Masters_, vol. 2, p. 20]

1841

1842

Nevertheless, anarchists have been willing to specify some broad

1843

principles indicating the general framework within which they expect

1844

the institutions of the new society to grow. It is important to

1845

emphasise that these principles are not the arbitrary creations of

1846

intellectuals in ivory towers. Rather, they are based on the actual

1847

political, social and economic structures that have arisen *spontaneously*

1848

whenever working class people have attempted to throw off its chains

1849

during eras of heightened revolutionary activity, such as the Paris

1850

Commune, the Russian Revolution, the Spanish Revolution, and the

1851

Hungarian uprising of 1956, to name just a few. Thus, for example,

1852

it is clear that self-managed, democratic workers' councils are

1853

basic libertarian-socialist forms, since they have appeared during

1854

all revolutionary periods -- a fact that is not surprising considering

1855

that they are rooted in traditions of communal labour, shared resources,

1856

and participatory decision making that stretch back tens of thousands

1857

of years, from the clans and tribes of prehistoric times through the

1858

"barbarian" agrarian village of the post-Roman world to the free

1859

medieval city, as Kropotkin documents in his classic study _Mutual Aid_.

1860

Ultimately, such organisations are the only alternatives to government.

1861

Unless we make our own decisions ourselves, someone else will.

1862

1863

So, when reading these sections, please remember that this is just an

1864

attempt to sketch the outline of a possible future. It is in no way an

1865

attempt to determine *exactly* what a free society would be like, for

1866

such a free society will be the result of the actions of all of society,

1867

not just anarchists. As Malatesta argued:

1868

1869

"None can judge with certainty who is right and who is wrong, who

1870

is nearest to the truth, or which is the best way to achieve the

1871

greatest good for each and everyone. Freedom, coupled by experience,

1872

is the only way of discovering the truth and what is best; and there

1873

is no freedom if there is a denial of the freedom to err."

1874

[_Life and Ideas_, p. 49]

1875

1876

And, of course, real life has a habit of over-turning even the

1877

most realistic sounding theories, ideas and ideologies. Marxism,

1878

Leninism, Monetarism, laissez-faire capitalism (among others) have

1879

proven time and time again that ideology applied to real life has

1880

effects not predicted by the theory before hand (although in all

1881

four cases, their negative effects where predicted by others; in

1882

the case of Marxism and Leninism by anarchists). Anarchists are

1883

aware of this, which is why we reject ideology in favour of theory

1884

and why we are hesitant to create blue-prints for the future.

1885

After all, history has proven Proudhon right when he stated that

1886

"every society declines the moment it falls into the hands of the

1887

ideologists." [_System of Economical Contradictions_, p. 115]

1888

1889

Only life, as Bakunin stressed, can create and so life must

1890

inform theory -- and so if the theory is producing adverse

1891

results it is better to revise the theory than deny reality

1892

or justify the evil effects it creates on real people. Thus

1893

this section of the FAQ is not a blue print, rather it is a

1894

series of suggestions (suggestions drawn, we stress, from

1895

actual experiences of working class revolt and organisation).

1896

These suggestions may be right or wrong and informed by

1897

Malatesta's comments that:

1898

1899

"We do not boast that we possess absolute truth, on the

1900

contrary, we believe that *social truth* is not a fixed

1901

quantity, good for all times, universally applicable or

1902

determinable in advance, but that instead, once freedom

1903

has been secured, mankind will go forward discovering and

1904

acting gradually with the least number of upheavals and

1905

with a minimum of friction. Thus our solutions always leave

1906

the door open to different and, one hopes, better solutions."

1907

[Op. Cit., p.21]

1908

1909

It is for this reason that anarchists, to quote Bakunin,

1910

think that the "revolution should not only be made for

1911

the people's sake; it should also be made by the people."

1912

[_No Gods, No Masters_, vol. 1, p. 141] Social problems

1913

will be solved in the interests of the working class only

1914

if working class people solve them themselves. This applies

1915

to a social revolution -- it will only liberate the working

1916

class if working class people make it themselves, using

1917

their own organisations and power. Indeed, it is the course

1918

of struggling for social change, to correct social problems,

1919

by, say, strikes, occupations, demonstrations and other

1920

forms of direct action, that people can transform their

1921

assumptions about what is possible, necessary and desirable.

1922

The necessity of organising their struggles and their

1923

actions ensures the development of assemblies and other

1924

organs of popular power in order to manage their activity.

1925

These create, potentially, an alternative means by which

1926

society can be organised. As Kropotkin argued, "[a]ny strike

1927

trains the participants for a common management of affairs."

1928

[quoted by Caroline Cahm, _Kropotkin and the Rise of

1929

Revolutionary Anarchism_, p. 233] The ability of people

1930

to manage their own lives, and so society, becomes increasingly

1931

apparent and the existence of hierarchical authority, the state,

1932

the boss or a ruling class, becomes clearly undesirable and

1933

unnecessary. Thus the framework of the free society will be

1934

created by the very process of class struggle, as working class

1935

people create the organisations required to fight for improvements

1936

and change within capitalism (for more discussion, see section I.2.3).

1937

1938

Thus, the *actual* framework of an anarchist society and how it

1939

develops and shapes itself is dependent on the needs and desires

1940

of those who live in such a society or are trying to create one.

1941

This is why anarchists stress the need for mass assemblies in

1942

both the community and workplace and their federation from the

1943

bottom up to manage common affairs. Anarchy can only be created

1944

by the active participation of the mass of people. In the words

1945

of Malatesta, an anarchist society would be based on "decisions

1946

taken at popular assemblies and carried out by groups and

1947

individuals who have volunteered or are duly delegated." The

1948

"success of the revolution" depends on "a large number of

1949

individuals with initiative and the ability to tackle practical

1950

tasks: by accustoming the masses not to leave the common cause

1951

in the hands of a few, and to delegate, when delegation is

1952

necessary, only for specific missions and for limited duration."

1953

[_Life and Ideas_, p. 129] This self-management would be the

1954

basis on which an anarchist society would change and develop,

1955

with the new society created by those who live within it.

1956

Thus Bakunin:

1957

1958

"revolution everywhere must be created by the people, and

1959

supreme control must always belong to people organised into

1960

a free federation of agricultural and industrial associations

1961

. . . organised from the bottom upwards by means of revolutionary

1962

delegation." [_Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings_, p. 172]

1963

1964

And, we must not forget that while we may be able to roughly

1965

guess the way an anarchist society could start initially,

1966

we cannot pretend to predict how it will develop in the long

1967

term. A social revolution is just the beginning of a process

1968

that will soon lead to such a different society that we cannot

1969

predict how it will look. Unfortunately, we have to start where

1970

we are now, not where we hope to end up! Therefore our discussion

1971

will, by necessity, reflect the current society as this is the

1972

society we will be transforming. While, for some, this outlook

1973

may not be of a sufficient qualitative break with the world we

1974

now inhabit, it is essential. We need to offer and discuss

1975

suggestions for action in the *here and now*, not for some

1976

future pie in the sky world which can only possibly exist

1977

years, even decades, *after* a successful revolution.

1978

1979

For example, the ultimate goal of anarchism, we stress, is

1980

*not* the self-management of existing workplaces or industries.

1981

However, a revolution will undoubtedly see the occupation

1982

and placing under self-management much of existing industry

1983

and we start our discussion assuming a similar set-up as

1984

exists today. This does not mean that an anarchist society

1985

will continue to be like this, we simply present the initial

1986

stages using examples we are all familiar with. It is the

1987

simply the first stage of transforming industry into

1988

something more ecologically safe, socially integrated and

1989

individually and collectively empowering for people.

1990

1991

These words of the strikers just before the 1919 Seattle

1992

General Strike expresses this perspective well:

1993

1994

"Labour will not only SHUT DOWN the industries, but Labour

1995

will REOPEN, under the management of the appropriate trades,

1996

such activities as are needed to preserve public health and

1997

public peace. If the strike continues, Labour may feel led

1998

to avoid public suffering by reopening more and more activities,

1999

2000

"UNDER ITS OWN MANAGEMENT.

2001

2002

"And that is why we say that we are starting on a road that

2003

leads -- NO ONE KNOWS WHERE!" [quoted by Jeremy Brecher,

2004

_Strike!_, p. 110]

2005

2006

Some people *seriously* seem to think that after a social revolution

2007

working people will continue using the same technology, in the same old

2008

workplaces, in the same old ways and not change a single thing (except,

2009

perhaps, electing their managers). They simply transfer their own lack

2010

of imagination onto the rest of humanity. We have little doubt that

2011

working people will quickly transform their work, workplaces and

2012

society into one suitable for human beings, rejecting the legacy

2013

of capitalism and create a society we simply cannot predict. The

2014

occupying of workplaces is, we stress, simply the first stage of

2015

the process of transforming them and the rest of society.

2016

2017

People's lives in a post-revolutionary society will not centre around

2018

fixed jobs and workplaces as they do now. Productive activity will

2019

go on, but not in the alienated way it does today. Similarly, in

2020

their communities people will apply their imaginations, skills and

2021

hopes to transform them into better places to live (the beautification

2022

of the commune, as the CNT put it). The first stage, of course, will

2023

be to take over their existing communities and place them under

2024

community control. Therefore, it is essential to remember that

2025

our discussion can only provide an indication on how an anarchist

2026

society will operate in the months and years after a successful

2027

revolution, an anarchist society still marked by the legacy of

2028

capitalism. However, it would be a great mistake to think that

2029

anarchists do not seek to transform all aspects of society to

2030

eliminate that legacy and create a society fit for unique

2031

individuals to live in. As an anarchist society develops it

2032

will, we stress, transform society in ways we cannot guess at

2033

now, based on the talents, hopes, dreams and imaginations of

2034

those living in it.

2035

2036

Lastly, it could be argued that we spend too much time discussing

2037

the "form" (i.e. the types of organisation and how they make

2038

decisions) rather than the "content" of an anarchist society

2039

(the nature of the decisions reached). Moreover, the implication

2040

of this distinction also extends to the organisations created in

2041

the class struggle that would, in all likelihood, become the

2042

framework of a free society. However, form is as, perhaps more,

2043

important than content. This is because "form" and "content" are

2044

inter-related -- a libertarian, participatory "form" of organisation

2045

allows the "content" of a decision, society or struggle to change.

2046

Self-management has an educational effect on those involved, as they

2047

are made aware of different ideas, think about them and decide between

2048

them (and, of course, formula and present their own ones). Thus the

2049

nature of these decisions can and will evolve. Thus form has a decisive

2050

impact on "content" and so we make no apologies for discussing the

2051

form of a free society. As Murray Bookchin argues:

2052

2053

"To assume that the forms of freedom can be treated merely as forms

2054

would be as absurd as to assume that legal concepts can be treated

2055

merely as questions of jurisprudence. The form and content of

2056

freedom, like law and society, are mutually determined. By the

2057

same token, there are forms of organisation that promote and

2058

forms that vitiate the goal of freedom . . . To one degree or

2059

another, these forms either alter the individual who uses them

2060

or inhibit his [or her] further development." [_Post-Scarcity

2061

Anarchism_, p. 147]

2062

2063

And the *content* of decisions are determined by the individuals

2064

involved. Thus participatory, decentralised, self-managed organisations

2065

are essential for the development of the content of decisions because

2066

they develop the individuals who make them.

2067

2068

I.2.1 Why discuss what an anarchist society would be like at all?

2069

2070

Partly, in order to indicate why people should become anarchists. Most

2071

people do not like making jumps in the dark, so an indication of what

2072

anarchists think a desirable society would look like may help those people

2073

who are attracted intellectually by anarchism, inspiring them to become

2074

committed to its practical realisation. Partly, it's a case of learning

2075

from past mistakes. There have been numerous anarchistic social

2076

experiments on varying scales, and its useful to understand what

2077

happened, what worked and what did not. In that way, hopefully, we

2078

will not make the same mistakes twice.

2079

2080

However, the most important reason for discussing what an anarchist

2081

society would look like is to ensure that the creation of such a

2082

society is the action of as many people as possible. As Errico Malatesta

2083

indicated in the middle of the Italian revolutionary "Two Red Years"

2084

(see section A.5.5), "either we all apply our minds to thinking about

2085

social reorganisation, and right away, at the very same moment that

2086

the old structures are being swept away, and we shall have a more

2087

humane and more just society, open to future advances, or we shall

2088

leave such matters to the 'leaders' and we shall have a new government."

2089

[_The Anarchist Revolution_, p. 69]

2090

2091

Hence the importance of discussing what the future will be like in the

2092

here and now. The more people who have a fairly clear idea of what a free

2093

society would look like the easier it will be to create that society and

2094

ensure that no important matters are left to the "leaders" to decide for

2095

us. The example of the Spanish Revolution comes to mind. For many years

2096

before 1936, the C.N.T. and F.A.I. put out publications discussing what an

2097

anarchist society would look like (for example, _After the Revolution_

2098

by Diego Abel de Santillan and _Libertarian Communism_ by Isaac Puente).

2099

In fact, anarchists had been organising and educating in Spain for almost

2100

seventy years before the revolution. When it finally occurred, the millions

2101

of people who participated already shared a similar vision and started to

2102

build a society based on it, thus learning firsthand where their books were

2103

wrong and which areas of life they did not adequately cover.

2104

2105

So, this discussion of what an anarchist society might look like is

2106

not a drawing up of blueprints, nor is it an attempt to force the future

2107

into the shapes created in past revolts. It is purely and simply an

2108

attempt to start people discussing what a free society would be like

2109

and to learn from previous experiments. However, as anarchists recognise

2110

the importance of building the new world in the shell of the old, our

2111

ideas of what a free society would be like can feed into how we organise

2112

and struggle today. And vice versa; for how we organise and struggle today

2113

will have an impact on the future.

2114

2115

As Malatesta pointed out, such discussions are necessary and essential,

2116

for "[i]t is absurd to believe that, once government has been destroyed

2117

and the capitalists expropriated, 'things will look after themselves'

2118

without the intervention of those who already have an idea on what has

2119

to be done and who immediately set about doing it. . . . [for] social life,

2120

as the life of individuals, does not permit of interruption." He stresses

2121

that "[t]o neglect all the problems of reconstruction or to pre-arrange

2122

complete and uniform plans are both errors, excesses which, by different

2123

routes, would led to our defeat as anarchists and to the victory of

2124

new or old authoritarian regime. The truth lies in the middle."

2125

[Op. Cit., p. 121]

2126

2127

Moreover, the importance of discussing the future can help indicate

2128

whether our activities are actually creating a better world. After all,

2129

if Karl Marx had been more willing to discuss his vision of a socialist

2130

society then the Stalinists would have found it much harder to claim

2131

that their hellish system was, in fact, socialism. Unfortunately he

2132

failed to understand this. Given that anarchists like Proudhon and

2133

Bakunin gave a board outline of their vision of a free society it

2134

would have been impossible for anarchism to be twisted as Marxism was.

2135

2136

We hope that this Section of the FAQ, in its own small way, will encourage

2137

as many people as possible to discuss what a libertarian society would be

2138

like and use that discussion to bring it closer.

2139

2140

I.2.2 Will it be possible to go straight to an anarchist society from

2141

capitalism?

2142

2143

Possibly, it depends what is meant by an anarchist society.

2144

2145

If it is meant a fully classless society (what some people,

2146

inaccurately, would call a "utopia") then the answer is a clear

2147

"no, that would be impossible." Anarchists are well aware that

2148

"class difference do not vanish at the stroke of a pen whether

2149

that pen belongs to the theoreticians or to the pen-pushers who

2150

set out laws or decrees. Only action, that is to say direct action

2151

(not through government) expropriation by the proletarians,

2152

directed against the privileged class, can wipe out class

2153

difference." [Luigi Fabbri, "Anarchy and 'Scientific' Communism",

2154

in _The Poverty of Statism_, pp. 13-49, Albert Meltzer (ed.),

2155

p. 30]

2156

2157

For anarchists, a social revolution is a *process* and not an

2158

event (although, of course, a process marked by such events as

2159

general strikes, uprisings, insurrections and so on). As

2160

Kropotkin argued:

2161

2162

"It is a whole insurrectionary period of three, four, perhaps

2163

five years that we must traverse to accomplish our revolution

2164

in the property system and in social organisation."

2165

[_Words of a Rebel_, p. 72]

2166

2167

His famous work _The Conquest of Bread_ aimed, to use his words, at

2168

"prov[ing] that communism -- at least partial -- has more chance of

2169

being established than collectivism, especially in communes taking

2170

the lead . . . [and] tried . . . to indicate how, during a

2171

revolutionary period, a large city -- if its inhabitants have

2172

accepted the idea -- could organise itself on the lines of free

2173

communism." [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_, p. 298] Indeed,

2174

he stresses in _The Conquest of Bread_ that anarchists "do not believe

2175

that in any country the Revolution will be accomplished at a stroke,

2176

in the twinkling of a eye, as some socialists dream." [_The Conquest

2177

of Bread_, p. 81] Indeed, he stressed that "[n]o fallacy more harmful

2178

has ever been spread than the fallacy of a 'One-day Revolution.'"

2179

[Op. Cit., p. 81f] The revolution, in other words, would progress

2180

towards communism after the initial revolt:

2181

2182

"we know that an *uprising* can overthrow and change a government

2183

in one day, while a *revolution* needs three or four years of

2184

revolutionary convulsion to arrive at tangible results . . . if

2185

we should expect the revolution, from its *earliest* insurrections,

2186

to have a communist character, we would have to relinquish the

2187

possibility of a revolution, since in that case there would be

2188

need of a strong majority to agree on carrying through a change

2189

in the direction of communism." [Kropotkin, quoted by Max Nettlau,

2190

_A Short History of Anarchism_, pp. 282-3]

2191

2192

In addition, different areas will develop in different speeds and

2193

in different ways, depending on the influences dominant in the

2194

area. "Side by side with the revolutionised communes," argued

2195

Kropotkin, "[other] places would remain in an expectant attitude,

2196

and would go on living on the Individualist system . . . revolution

2197

would break out everywhere, but revolution under different aspects;

2198

in one country State Socialism, in another Federation; everywhere

2199

more or less Socialism, not conforming to any particular rule."

2200

Thus "the Revolution will take a different character in each of

2201

the different European nations; the point attained in the

2202

socialisation of wealth will not be everywhere the same."

2203

[_The Conquest of Bread_, pp. 81-2 and p. 81] In this, as we

2204

shall see, he followed Bakunin.

2205

2206

Kropotkin was also aware that a revolution would face many

2207

problems, including the disruption of economic activity,

2208

civil war and isolation. He argued that it was "certain that

2209

the coming Revolution . . . will burst upon us in the

2210

middle of a great industrial crisis . . . There are

2211

millions of unemployed workers in Europe at this moment.

2212

It will be worse when Revolution has burst upon us . . .

2213

The number of the out-of-works will be doubled as soon

2214

as barricades are erected in Europe and the United

2215

States . . . we know that in time of Revolution exchange

2216

and industry suffer most from the general upheaval . . .

2217

A Revolution in Europe means, then, the unavoidable

2218

stoppage of at least half the factories and workshops."

2219

He stressed that there would be "the complete

2220

disorganisation" of the capitalist economy and that

2221

during a revolution "[i]nternational commerce will come

2222

to a standstill" and "the circulation of commodities and

2223

of provisions will be paralysed." This would, of course,

2224

have an impact on the development of a revolution and so

2225

the "circumstances will dictate the measures." [Op. Cit.,

2226

pp. 69-70, p. 191 and p. 79]

2227

2228

Thus we have anarcho-communism being introduced "during a

2229

revolutionary period" rather than instantly and the possibility

2230

that it will be "partial" in many, if not all areas, depending

2231

on the "circumstances" encountered. Therefore the (Marxist

2232

inspired) claim that anarchists think a fully communist

2233

society is possible overnight is simply false -- we recognise

2234

that a social revolution takes time to develop after it

2235

starts. As Malatesta put it, "after the revolution, that

2236

is after the defeat of the existing powers and the overwhelming

2237

victory of the forces of insurrection, . . . then . . .

2238

gradualism really comes into operation. We shall have to study

2239

all the practical problems of life: production, exchange, the

2240

means of communication, relations between anarchist groupings

2241

and those living under some kind of authority, between

2242

communist collectives and those living in an individualistic

2243

way; relations between town and country . . . -- and so on."

2244

[_Life and Ideas_, p. 173]

2245

2246

However, if by "anarchist society" it is meant a society that has

2247

abolished the state and started the process of transforming society

2248

from below then anarchists argue that such a society is not only

2249

possible after a successful revolution, it is essential. Thus

2250

the anarchist social revolution would be political (abolition

2251

of the state), economic (abolition of capitalism) and social

2252

(abolition of hierarchical social relationships). Or, more

2253

positively, the introduction of self-management into every

2254

aspect of life. In other words, "political transformation

2255

. . . [and] economic transformation . . . must be accomplished

2256

together and simultaneously." [Bakunin, _The Basic Bakunin_,

2257

p. 106] This transformation would be based upon the organisations

2258

created by working class people in their struggle against

2259

capitalism and the state (see next section). Thus the

2260

framework of a free society would be created by the

2261

struggle for freedom itself, by the class struggle *within*

2262

but *against* hierarchical society. This revolution would

2263

come "from below" and would expropriate capital as well as

2264

smash the state:

2265

2266

"the revolution must set out from the first to radically

2267

and totally destroy the State . . . The natural and necessary

2268

consequence of this destruction will be . . . [among others,

2269

the] dissolution of army, magistracy, bureaucracy, police

2270

and priesthood. . . confiscation of all productive capital

2271

and means of production on behalf of workers' associations,

2272

who are to put them to use . . . the federative Alliance

2273

of all working men's associations . . . will constitute

2274

the Commune." [_Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings_, p. 170]

2275

2276

As can be seen, anarchists have long argued that a social

2277

revolution must be directed against both capitalism *and*

2278

the state. Moreover, we have always stressed the key role

2279

that workers' councils (or "soviets") would play in a

2280

socialist revolution as both a means of struggle and the

2281

basis of a free society.

2282

2283

Such a society, as Bakunin argued, will not be "perfect" by any

2284

means:

2285

2286

"I do not say that the peasants [and workers], freely organised

2287

from the bottom up, will miraculously create an ideal organisation,

2288

confirming in all respects to our dreams. But I am convinced

2289

that what they construct will be living and vibrant, a thousands

2290

times better and more just than any existing organisation.

2291

Moreover, this . . . organisation, being on the one hand open

2292

to revolutionary propaganda . . . , and on the other, not

2293

petrified by the intervention of the State . . . will develop

2294

and perfect itself through free experimentation as fully as

2295

one can reasonably expect in our times.

2296

2297

"With the abolition of the State, the spontaneous self-organisation

2298

of popular life . . . will revert to the communes. The development

2299

of each commune will take its point of departure the actual

2300

condition of its civilisation . . ." [_Bakunin on Anarchism_,

2301

p. 207]

2302

2303

The degree which a society which has abolished the state can

2304

progress towards free communism depends on objective conditions.

2305

Bakunin and other collectivists doubted the possibility of

2306

introducing a communistic system instantly after a revolution.

2307

For Kropotkin and many other anarcho-communists, communistic

2308

anarchy can, and must, be introduced as far as possible and

2309

as soon as possible in order to ensure a successful revolution.

2310

We should mention here that some anarchists, like the

2311

individualists, do not support the idea of revolution

2312

and instead see anarchist alternatives growing within

2313

capitalism and slowly replacing it.

2314

2315

So, clearly, the idea of "one-day revolution" is one rejected as a

2316

harmful fallacy by anarchists. We are aware that revolutions are a

2317

*process* and not an event (or series of events). However, one thing

2318

that anarchists do agree on is that it's essential for both the state

2319

and capitalism to be undermined as quickly as possible. It is true

2320

that, in the course of social revolution, we anarchists may not be

2321

able to stop a new state being created or the old one from surviving.

2322

It all depends on the balance of support for anarchist ideas in the

2323

population and how willing people are to introduce them. There is no

2324

doubt, though, that for a social revolt to be fully anarchist, the

2325

state and capitalism must be destroyed and new forms of oppression

2326

and exploitation not put in their place. How quickly after such a

2327

destruction we move to a fully communist-anarchist society is a moot

2328

point, dependent on the conditions the revolution is facing and the

2329

ideas and wants of the people making it.

2330

2331

In other words anarchists agree that an anarchist society cannot be

2332

created overnight, for to assume so would be to imagine that anarchists

2333

could enforce their ideas on a pliable population. Libertarian socialism

2334

can only be created from below, by people who want it and understand it,

2335

organising and liberating themselves. "Communist organisations,"

2336

argued Kropotkin, "must be the work of all, a natural growth, a

2337

product of the constructive genius of the great mass. Communism

2338

cannot be imposed from above; it could not live even for a

2339

few months if the constant and daily co-operation of all did not

2340

uphold it. It must be free." [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_,

2341

p. 140] The results of the Russian Revolution should have cleared

2342

away long ago any contrary illusions about how to create "socialist"

2343

societies. The lesson from every revolution is that the mistakes

2344

made by people in liberating themselves and transforming society

2345

are always minor compared to the results of creating authorities,

2346

who eliminate such "ideological errors" by destroying the freedom

2347

to make mistakes (and so freedom as such). Freedom is the only

2348

real basis on which socialism can be built ("Experience through

2349

freedom is the only means to arrive at the truth and the best

2350

solutions; and there is no freedom if there is not the freedom

2351

to be wrong." [Malatesta, _Life and Ideas_, p. 72]).

2352

2353

Therefore, most anarchists would support Malatesta's claim that "[t]o

2354

organise a [libertarian] communist society on a large scale it would be

2355

necessary to transform all economic life radically, such as methods of

2356

production, of exchange and consumption; and all this could not be

2357

achieved other than gradually, as the objective circumstances permitted

2358

and to the extent that the masses understood what advantages could be

2359

gained and were able to act for themselves." [_Malatesta: Life and Ideas_,

2360

p. 36]

2361

2362

This means that while the conditions necessary of a free society would

2363

be created in a broad way by a social revolution, it would be utopian

2364

to imagine everything will be perfect immediately. Few anarchists

2365

have argued that such a jump would be possible -- rather they have

2366

argued that revolutions create the conditions for the evolution towards

2367

an anarchist society by abolishing state and capitalism. "Besides,"

2368

argued Alexander Berkman, "you must not confuse the social

2369

revolution with anarchy. Revolution, in some of its stages, is

2370

a violent upheaval; anarchy is a social condition of freedom and

2371

peace. The revolution is the *means* of bringing anarchy about

2372

but it is not anarchy itself. It is to pave the road to anarchy,

2373

to establish conditions which will make a life of liberty possible."

2374

However, "to achieve its purpose the revolution must be imbued with

2375

and directed by the anarchist spirit and ideas. The end shapes the

2376

means. . . the social revolution must be anarchist in method as

2377

in aim." [_The ABC of Anarchism_, p. 81]

2378

2379

This means that while acknowledging the possibility of a transitional

2380

*society*, anarchists reject the notion of a transitional *state* as

2381

confused in the extreme (and, as can be seen from the experience of

2382

Marxism, dangerous as well). An anarchist society can only be achieved

2383

by anarchist means. Hence French Syndicalist Fernand Pelloutier's

2384

comments:

2385

2386

"Nobody believes or expects that the coming revolution . . . will

2387

realise unadulterated anarchist-communism. . . it will erupt, no

2388

doubt, before the work of anarchist education has been completed . . .

2389

[and as] a result . . . , while we do preach perfect communism,

2390

it is not in the certainty or expectation of [libertarian] communism's

2391

being the social form of the future: it is in order to further men's

2392

[and women's] education . . . so that, by the time of the day of

2393

conflagration comes, they will have attained maximum emancipation.

2394

But must the transitional state to be endured necessarily or

2395

inevitability be the collectivist [i.e. state socialist/capitalist]

2396

jail? Might it not consist of libertarian organisation confined

2397

to the needs of production and consumption alone, with all political

2398

institutions having been done away with?" [_No Gods, No Masters_,

2399

vol. 2, p. 55]

2400

2401

One thing *is* certain: an anarchist social revolution or mass movement

2402

will need to defend itself against attempts by statists and capitalists

2403

to defeat it. Every popular movement, revolt, or revolution has had to

2404

face a backlash from the supporters of the status quo. An anarchist

2405

revolution or mass movement will face (and indeed has faced) such

2406

counter-revolutionary movements. However, this does not mean that

2407

the destruction of the state and capitalism need be put off until

2408

after the forces of reaction are defeated (as Marxists usually

2409

claim). For anarchists, a social revolution and free society can

2410

only be defended by anti-statist means, for example, by "arming

2411

everyone . . . and of interesting the mass of the population in

2412

the victory of the revolution." This would involve the "creation

2413

of a voluntary militia, without powers to interfere as militia

2414

in the life of the community, but only to deal with any armed

2415

attacks by the forces of reaction to re-establish themselves,

2416

or to resist outside intervention by countries as yet not in

2417

a state of revolution." [Malatesta, _Life and Ideas_, p. 173 and

2418

p. 166] For more discussion of this important subject see sections

2419

I.5.14 and J.7.6.

2420

2421

So, given an anarchist revolution which destroys the state, the type

2422

and nature of the economic system created by it will depend on local

2423

circumstances and the level of awareness in society. The individualists

2424

are correct in the sense that what we do now will determine how the future

2425

develops. Obviously, any "transition period" starts in the *here and now,*

2426

as this helps determine the future. Thus, while social anarchists usually

2427

reject the idea that capitalism can be reformed away, we agree with the

2428

individualists that it is essential for anarchists to be active today in

2429

constructing the ideas, ideals and new liberatory institutions of the

2430

future society within the current one. The notion of waiting for the

2431

"glorious day" of total revolution is not one held by anarchists.

2432

2433

Thus, all the positions outlined at the start of this section have a grain

2434

of truth in them. This is because, as Malatesta put it, "[w]e are, in any

2435

case, only one of the forces acting in society, and history will advance,

2436

as always, in the direction of the resultant of all the [social] forces."

2437

[_Malatesta: Life and Ideas_, p. 109] This means that different areas will

2438

experiment in different ways, depending on the level of awareness which

2439

exists there -- as would be expected in a free society which is created by

2440

the mass of the people.

2441

2442

Ultimately, the most we can say about the timing and necessary

2443

conditions of revolution is that an anarchist society can only

2444

come about once people liberate themselves (and this implies an

2445

ethical and psychological transformation), but that this does not

2446

mean that people need to be "perfect" nor that an anarchist society

2447

will come about "overnight," without a period of self-activity by

2448

which individuals reshape and change themselves as they are reshaping

2449

and changing the world about them.

2450

2451

I.2.3 How is the framework of an anarchist society created?

2452

2453

Anarchists do not abstractly compare a free society with the

2454

current one. Rather, we see an *organic* connection between

2455

what is and what could be. In other words, anarchists see the

2456

initial framework of an anarchist society as being created

2457

under statism and capitalism when working class people

2458

organise themselves to resist hierarchy. As Kropotkin argued:

2459

2460

"To make a revolution it is not . . . enough that there should

2461

be . . . [popular] risings . . . It is necessary that after the

2462

risings there should be something new in the institutions [that

2463

make up society], which would permit new forms of life to be

2464

elaborated and established." [_The Great French Revolution_,

2465

vol. 1, p. 200]

2466

2467

Anarchists have seen these new institutions as being linked

2468

with the need of working class people to resist the evils

2469

of capitalism and statism. In other words, as being the

2470

product of the class struggle and attempts by working class

2471

people to resist state and capitalist authority. Thus the

2472

struggle of working class people to protect and enhance

2473

their liberty under hierarchical society will be the basis

2474

for a society *without* hierarchy. This basic insight allowed

2475

anarchists like Bakunin and Proudhon to predict future

2476

developments in the class struggle such as workers'

2477

councils (such as those which developed during the 1905

2478

and 1917 Russian Revolutions). As Oskar Anweiler

2479

notes in his definitive work on the Russian Soviets

2480

(Workers' Councils):

2481

2482

"Proudhon's views are often directly associated with the

2483

Russian councils . . . Bakunin . . ., much more than

2484

Proudhon, linked anarchist principles directly to

2485

revolutionary action, thus arriving at remarkable

2486

insights into the revolutionary process that contribute

2487

to an understanding of later events in Russia . . .

2488

2489

"In 1863 Proudhon declared . . . 'All my economic ideas

2490

as developed over twenty-five years can be summed up in

2491

the words: agricultural-industrial federation. All my

2492

political ideas boil down to a similar formula: political

2493

federation or decentralisation.' . . . Proudhon's conception

2494

of a self-governing state [sic!] founded on producers'

2495

corporations [i.e. federations of co-operatives], is

2496

certainly related to the idea of 'a democracy of

2497

producers' which emerged in the factory soviets. To

2498

this extent Proudhon can be regarded as an ideological

2499

precursor of the councils . . .

2500

2501

"Bakunin . . . suggested the formation of revolutionary

2502

committees with representatives from the barricades, the

2503

streets, and the city districts, who would be given binding

2504

mandates, held accountable to the masses, and subject to

2505

recall. These revolutionary deputies were to form the

2506

'federation of the barricades,' organising a revolutionary

2507

commune to immediately unite with other centres of

2508

rebellion . . .

2509

2510

"Bakunin proposed the formation of revolutionary committees

2511

to elect communal councils, and a pyramidal organisation

2512

of society 'through free federation from the bottom upward,

2513

the association of workers in industry and agriculture --

2514

first in the communities, then through federation of

2515

communities into districts, districts into nations, and

2516

nations into international brotherhood.' These proposals

2517

are indeed strikingly similar to the structure of the

2518

subsequent Russian system of councils . . .

2519

2520

"Bakunin's ideas about spontaneous development of the

2521

revolution and the masses' capacity for elementary

2522

organisation undoubtedly were echoed in part by the

2523

subsequent soviet movement. . . Because Bakunin . . .

2524

was always very close to the reality of social struggle,

2525

he was able to foresee concrete aspects of the revolution.

2526

The council movement during the Russian Revolution,

2527

though not a result of Bakunin's theories, often

2528

corresponded in form and progress to his revolutionary

2529

concepts and predictions." [_The Soviets_, pp. 8-11]

2530

2531

Paul Avrich also notes this:

2532

2533

"As early as the 1860's and 1870's, the followers of Proudhon

2534

and Bakunin in the First International were proposing the

2535

formation of workers' councils designed both as a weapon of

2536

class struggle against capitalists and as the structural basis

2537

of the future libertarian society." [_The Russian Anarchists_,

2538

p. 73]

2539

2540

In this sense, anarchy is not some distant goal but rather an

2541

aspect of the current struggles against domination, oppression

2542

and exploitation (i.e. the class struggle, to use an all-embracing

2543

term, although we must stress that anarchists use this term to

2544

cover all struggles against domination). "Anarchism," argued

2545

Kropotkin, "is not a mere insight into a remote future. Already

2546

now, whatever the sphere of action of the individual, he [or she]

2547

can act, either in accordance with anarchist principles or on an

2548

opposite line." It was "born among the people -- in the struggles

2549

of real life" and "owes its origin to the constructive, creative

2550

activity of the people." [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_,

2551

p. 75, p. 150 and p. 149]

2552

2553

Thus, "Anarchism is not . . . a theory of the future to be

2554

realised by divine inspiration. It is a living force in the

2555

affairs of our life, constantly creating new conditions." It

2556

"stands for the spirit of revolt" and so "[d]irect action

2557

against the authority in the shop, direct action against the

2558

authority of the law, of direct action against the invasive,

2559

meddlesome authority of our moral code, is the logical,

2560

consistent method of Anarchism." [Emma Goldman, _Anarchism

2561

and Other Essays_, p. 63 and p. 66]

2562

2563

Anarchism draws upon the autonomous self-activity and spontaneity

2564

of working class people in struggle to inform both its political

2565

theory and its vision of a free society. The struggle against

2566

hierarchy, in other words, teaches us not only how to be anarchists

2567

but also gives us a glimpse of what an anarchist society would be

2568

like, what its initial framework could be and the experience

2569

of managing our own activities which is required for such a

2570

society to function successfully.

2571

2572

Therefore, as is clear, anarchists have long had a clear

2573

vision of what an anarchist society would look like and,

2574

equally as important, where such a society would spring

2575

from. Which means, of course, that Lenin's assertion

2576

in _The State and Revolution_ that anarchists "have

2577

absolutely no clear idea of *what* the proletariat will

2578

put in its [the states] place" is simply false. [_Essential

2579

Works of Lenin_, p. 358] Anarchists supported the idea

2580

of a federation of workers' councils as the means to

2581

destroy the state over 50 years before Lenin argued

2582

that the soviets would be the basis of his "workers"

2583

state.

2584

2585

It would, therefore, be useful to give a quick summary

2586

of anarchist views on this subject.

2587

2588

Proudhon, for example, looked to the self-activity of

2589

French workers, artisans and peasants and used that as

2590

the basis of his ideas on anarchism. While seeing such

2591

activity as essentially reformist in nature, he saw the

2592

germs of anarchy as being the result of "generating from

2593

the bowels of the people, from the depths of labour, a

2594

greater authority, a more potent fact, which shall envelop

2595

capital and the State and subjugate them" as "it is of no

2596

use to change the holders of power or introduce some variation

2597

into its workings: an agricultural and industrial combination

2598

must be found by means of which power, today the ruler of

2599

society, shall become its slave." [_System of Economical

2600

Contradictions_, p. 399 and p. 398] What, decades later,

2601

Proudhon called an "agro-industrial federation" in his

2602

_Principle of Federation_.

2603

2604

He argued that workers should follow the example of those

2605

already creating Mutual Banks and co-operatives. He stressed

2606

the importance of co-operatives:

2607

2608

"Do not the workmen's unions at this moment serve as the

2609

cradle for the social revolution, as the early Christian

2610

communities served as the cradle of Catholicity? Are they

2611

not always the open school, both theoretical and practical,

2612

where the workman learns the science of the production and

2613

distribution of wealth, where he studies, without masters

2614

and without books, by his own experience solely, the laws

2615

of that industrial organisation, which was the ultimate

2616

aim of the Revolution of '89 . . . ?" [_The General Idea

2617

of the Revolution_, p. 78]

2618

2619

Proudhon linked his ideas to what working people were already

2620

doing:

2621

2622

"labour associations . . . hav[e] grasped spontaneously . . .

2623

[that] merely by liasing with one another and making loans to

2624

one another, [they] have organised labour . . . So that,

2625

organisation of credit and organisation of labour amount

2626

to one and the same. It is no school and no theoretician

2627

that is saying this: the proof of it, rather, lies in current

2628

practice, revolutionary practice . . . If it were to come

2629

about that the workers were to come to some arrangement

2630

throughout the Republic and organise themselves along

2631

similar lines, it is obvious that, as masters of labour,

2632

constantly generating fresh capital through work, they

2633

would soon have wrested alienated capital back again,

2634

through their organisation and competition . . . We want

2635

the mines, canals, railways handed over to democratically

2636

organised workers' associations . . . We want these

2637

associations to be models for agriculture, industry

2638

and trade, the pioneering core of that vast federation

2639

of companies and societies woven into the common cloth

2640

of the democratic social Republic." [_No Gods, No Masters_,

2641

vol. 1, pp. 59-61]

2642

2643

This linking of the present and the future through the

2644

self-activity and self-organisation of working class people

2645

is also found in Bakunin. Unlike Proudhon, Bakunin stressed

2646

*revolutionary* activity and so he saw the militant labour

2647

movement, and the revolution itself, as providing the basic

2648

structure of a free society. As he put it, "the organisation

2649

of the trade sections and their representation in the Chambers

2650

of Labour . . . bear in themselves the living seeds of the new

2651

society which is to replace the old one. They are creating not

2652

only the ideas, but also the facts of the future itself."

2653

[_Bakunin on Anarchism_, p. 255]

2654

2655

The needs of the class struggle would create the framework of

2656

a new society, a federation of workers councils, as "strikes

2657

indicate a certain collective strength already, a certain

2658

understanding among the workers . . . each strike becomes

2659

the point of departure for the formation of new groups."

2660

[_The Basic Bakunin_, pp. 149-50] This pre-revolutionary

2661

development would be accelerated by the revolution itself:

2662

2663

"the federative alliance of all working men's associations . . .

2664

[will] constitute the Commune . . . [the] Communal Council [will

2665

be] composed of . . . delegates . . . vested with plenary but

2666

accountable and removable mandates. . . all provinces, communes

2667

and associations . . . by first reorganising on revolutionary lines

2668

. . . [will] constitute the federation of insurgent associations,

2669

communes and provinces . . . [and] organise a revolutionary force

2670

capable defeating reaction . . . [and for] self-defence . . .

2671

[The] revolution everywhere must be created by the people, and

2672

supreme control must always belong to the people organised into a

2673

free federation of agricultural and industrial associations . . .

2674

organised from the bottom upwards by means of revolutionary

2675

delegation. . ." [_Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings_,

2676

pp. 170-2]

2677

2678

Like Bakunin, Kropotkin stressed that revolution transformed

2679

those taking part in it. As he noted in his classic account

2680

of the French Revolution, "by degrees, the revolutionary

2681

education of the people was being accomplished by the

2682

revolution itself." [Op. Cit., vol. 1, p. 261] Part of

2683

this process involved creating new organisations which

2684

allowed the mass of people to take part in the decision

2685

making of the revolution. He pointed to "the popular Commune,"

2686

arguing that "the Revolution began by creating the Commune . . .

2687

and through this institution it gained . . . immense power."

2688

He stressed that it was "by means of the 'districts' [of the

2689

Communes] that . . . the masses, accustoming themselves to

2690

act without receiving orders from the national representatives,

2691

were practising what was to be described later as Direct

2692

Self-Government." Such a system did not imply isolation,

2693

for while "the districts strove to maintain their own

2694

independence" they also "sought for unity of action,

2695

not in subjection to a Central Committee, but in a

2696

federative union." The Commune "was thus made *from below

2697

upward*, by the federation of the district organisations;

2698

it spring up in a revolutionary way, from popular initiative."

2699

[Op. Cit., p. 200 and p. 203]

2700

2701

Thus the process of class struggle, of the needs of the

2702

fighting against the existing system, generated the framework

2703

of an anarchist society -- "the districts of Paris laid the

2704

foundations of a new, free, social organisation." Little wonder

2705

he argued that "the principles of anarchism . . . already dated

2706

from 1789, and that they had their origin, not in theoretical

2707

speculations, but in the *deeds* of the Great French Revolution"

2708

and that "the libertarians would no doubt do the same to-day."

2709

[Op. Cit., p. 206, p. 204 and p. 206]

2710

2711

Similarly, we discover him arguing in _Mutual Aid_ that strikes

2712

and labour unions were an expression of mutual aid in capitalist

2713

society and of "the worker's need of mutual support." [_Mutual

2714

Aid_, p. 213] Elsewhere Kropotkin argued that "labour combinations"

2715

like the "Sections" of French revolution were one of the "main

2716

popular anarchist currents" in history, expressing the "same

2717

popular resistance to the growing power of the few."

2718

[_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_, p. 159] For Kropotkin,

2719

like Bakunin, libertarian labour unions were "natural organs

2720

for the direct struggle with capitalism and for the composition

2721

of the future social order." [quoted by Paul Avrich, _The

2722

Russian Anarchists_, p. 81]

2723

2724

As can be seen, the major anarchist thinkers pointed to

2725

forms of organisation autonomously created and managed by

2726

the working class as the framework of an anarchist society.

2727

Both Bakunin and Kropotkin pointed to militant, direct

2728

action based labour unions while Proudhon pointed towards

2729

workers' experiments in co-operative production and mutual

2730

credit.

2731

2732

Later anarchists followed them. The anarcho-syndicalists,

2733

like Bakunin and Kropotkin, pointed to the developing labour

2734

movement as the framework of an anarchist society, as providing

2735

the basis for the free federation of workers' associations

2736

which would constitute the commune. Others, such as the Russians

2737

Maximov, Arshinov, Voline and Makhno, saw the spontaneously

2738

created workers' councils (soviets) of 1905 and 1917 as the

2739

basis of a free society, as another example of Bakunin's

2740

federation of workers' associations.

2741

2742

Thus, for all anarchists, the structural framework of an

2743

anarchist society was created by the class struggle, by

2744

the needs of working class people to resist oppression,

2745

exploitation and hierarchy. As Kropotkin stressed,

2746

"[d]uring a revolution new forms of life will always

2747

germinate on the ruins of the old forms . . . It is

2748

impossible to legislate for the future. All we can

2749

do is vaguely guess its essential tendencies and clear

2750

the road for it." [_Evolution and Environment_, pp. 101-2]

2751

2752

These essential tendencies were discovered, in practice,

2753

by the needs of the class struggle. The necessity of

2754

practising mutual aid and solidarity to survive under

2755

capitalism (as in any other hostile environment) makes

2756

working people and other oppressed groups organise together to

2757

fight their oppressors and exploiters. Thus the co-operation

2758

necessary for a libertarian socialist society, like its

2759

organisational framework, would be generated by the need to

2760

resist oppression and exploitation under capitalism. The

2761

process of resistance produces organisation on a wider and

2762

wider scale which, in turn, can become the framework of a free

2763

society as the needs of the struggle promote libertarian forms

2764

of organisation such as decision making from the bottom

2765

up, autonomy, federalism, delegates subject to instant

2766

recall and so on.

2767

2768

For example, a strikers' assembly would be the basic

2769

decision-making forum in a struggle for improved wages

2770

and working conditions. It would create a strike committee

2771

to implement its decisions and send delegates to spread the

2772

strike. These delegates inspire other strikes, requiring

2773

a new organisation to co-ordinate the struggle. This

2774

results in delegates from all the strikes meeting and

2775

forming a federation (i.e. a workers' council). The

2776

strikers decide to occupy the workplace and the strike

2777

assemblies take over the means of production. The strike

2778

committees becomes the basis for factory committees which

2779

could administer the workplaces, based on workers'

2780

self-management via workplace assemblies (the former

2781

strikers' assemblies). The federation of strikers' delegates

2782

becomes the local communal council, replacing the existing

2783

state with a self-managed federation of workers' associations.

2784

In this way, the class struggle creates the framework of

2785

a free society.

2786

2787

This, obviously, means that any suggestions of how an anarchist

2788

society would look like are based on the fact that the *actual*

2789

framework of a free society will be the product of *actual*

2790

struggles. This means that the form of the free society will

2791

be shaped by the process of social change and the organs

2792

it creates. This is an important point and worth repeating.

2793

2794

So, as well as changing themselves while they change the world,

2795

a people in struggle also create the means by which they

2796

can manage society. By having to organise and manage their

2797

struggles, they become accustomed to self-management and

2798

self-activity and create the possibility of a free society

2799

and the organisations which will exist within it. Thus

2800

the framework of an anarchist society comes from the class

2801

struggle and the process of revolution itself. Anarchy is

2802

not a jump into the dark but rather a natural progression

2803

of the struggle for freedom in an unfree society. The

2804

contours of a free society will be shaped by the process

2805

of creating it and, therefore, will not be an artificial

2806

construction imposed on society. Rather, it will be created

2807

from below up by society itself as working class people

2808

start to break free of hierarchy. The class struggle thus

2809

transforms those involved as well as society *and* creates

2810

the organisational structure and people required for a

2811

libertarian society.

2812

2813

This clearly suggests that the *means* anarchists support

2814

are important as they are have a direct impact on the ends

2815

they create. In other words, means influence ends and so

2816

our means must reflect the ends we seek and empower those

2817

who use them. In the words of Malatesta:

2818

2819

"In our opinion all action which is directed toward the

2820

destruction of economic and political oppression, which

2821

serves to raise the moral and intellectual level of the

2822

people; which gives them an awareness of their individual

2823

rights and their power, and persuades them themselves to

2824

act on their own behalf . . . brings us closer to our

2825

ends and is therefore a good thing. On the other hand

2826

all activity which tends to preserve the present state

2827

of affairs, that tends to sacrifice man against his will

2828

for the triumph of a principle, is bad because it is a

2829

denial of our ends." [_Life and Ideas_, p. 69]

2830

2831

The present state of affairs is based on the oppression,

2832

exploitation and alienation of the working class. This means

2833

that any tactics used in the pursuit of a free society

2834

must be based on resisting and destroying those evils.

2835

This is why anarchists stress tactics and organisations

2836

which increase the power, confidence, autonomy, initiative,

2837

participation and self-activity of oppressed people. As

2838

we indicate in section J ("What Do Anarchists Do?") this

2839

means supporting direct action, solidarity and self-managed

2840

organisations built and run from the bottom-up. Only by

2841

fighting our own battles, relying on ourselves and our own

2842

abilities and power, in organisations we create and run

2843

ourselves, can we gain the power and confidence and experience

2844

needed to change society for the better and, hopefully, create

2845

a new society in place of the current one.

2846

2847

Needless to say, a revolutionary movement will never, at

2848

its start, be purely anarchist:

2849

2850

"All of the workers' and peasants' movements which have

2851

taken place . . . have been movements within the limits

2852

of the capitalist regime, and have been more of less

2853

tinged with anarchism. This is perfectly natural and

2854

understandable. The working class do not act within a

2855

world of wishes, but in the real world where they are

2856

daily subjected to the physical and psychological blows

2857

of hostile forces . . . the workers continually feel

2858

the influence of all the real conditions of the

2859

capitalist regime and of intermediate groups . . .

2860

Consequently it is natural that the struggle which

2861

they undertake inevitably carries the stamp of various

2862

conditions and characteristics of contemporary society.

2863

The struggle can never be born in the finished and

2864

perfected anarchist form which would correspond to

2865

all the requirements of the ideas . . . When the

2866

popular masses engage in a struggle of large dimensions,

2867

they inevitably start by committing errors, they

2868

allow contradictions and deviations, and only through

2869

the process of this struggle do they direct their

2870

efforts in the direction of the ideal for which they

2871

are struggling." [Peter Arshinov, _The History of

2872

the Makhnovist Movement_, pp. 239-40]

2873

2874

The role of anarchists is "to help the masses to take

2875

the right road in the struggle and in the construction

2876

of the new society" and "support their first constructive

2877

efforts, assist them intellectually." However, the

2878

working class "once it has mastered the struggle and

2879

begins its social construction, will no longer surrender

2880

to anyone the initiative in creative work. The working

2881

class will then direct itself by its own thought; it

2882

will create its society according to its own plans."

2883

[Arshinov, Op. Cit., pp. 240-1] All anarchists can do

2884

is help this process by being part of it, arguing our

2885

case and winning people over to anarchist ideas (see

2886

section J.3 for more details). Thus the process of

2887

struggle and debate will, hopefully, turn a struggle

2888

*against* capitalism and statism into one *for*

2889

anarchism. In other words, anarchists seek to

2890

preserve and extend the anarchistic elements that

2891

exist in every struggle and to help them become

2892

consciously libertarian by discussion and debate

2893

as members of those struggles.

2894

2895

Lastly, we must stress that it is only the *initial* framework

2896

of a free society which is created in the class struggle. As

2897

an anarchist society develops, it will start to change and

2898

develop in ways we cannot predict. The forms in which people

2899

express their freedom and their control over their own lives

2900

will, by necessity, change as these requirements and needs

2901

change. As Bakunin argued:

2902

2903

"Even the most rational and profound science cannot divine

2904

the form social life will take in the future. It can only

2905

determine the *negative* conditions, which follow logically

2906

from a rigorous critique of existing society. Thus, by means

2907

of such a critique, social and economic science rejected

2908

hereditary individual property and, consequently, took the

2909

abstract and, so to speak, *negative* position of collective

2910

property as a necessary condition of the future social

2911

order. In the same way, it rejected the very idea of the

2912

state or statism, meaning government of society from above

2913

downward . . . Therefore, it took the opposite, or

2914

negative, position: anarchy, meaning the free and

2915

independent organisation of all the units and parts of

2916

the community and their voluntary federation from below

2917

upward, not by the orders of any authority, even an

2918

elected one, and not by the dictates of any scientific

2919

theory, but as the natural development of all the

2920

varied demands put forth by life itself.

2921

2922

"Therefore no scholar can teach the people or even define

2923

for himself how they will and must life on the morrow of

2924

the social revolution. That will be determined first by

2925

the situation of each people, and secondly by the desires

2926

that manifest themselves and operate most strongly within

2927

them." [_Statism and Anarchy_, pp. 198-9]

2928

2929

Therefore, while it will be reasonable to conclude that, for

2930

example, the federation of strike/factory assemblies and their

2931

councils/committees will be the framework by which production

2932

will initially be organised, this framework will mutate to

2933

take into account changing production and social needs. The

2934

actual structures created will, by necessity, will be

2935

transformed as industry is transformed from below upwards

2936

to meet the real needs of society and producers. As Kropotkin

2937

argued, "the 'concentration' [of capital into bigger and

2938

bigger units] so much spoken of is often nothing but an

2939

amalgamation of capitalists for the purpose of *dominating

2940

the market,* not for cheapening the technical process."

2941

[_Fields, Factories and Workshops Tomorrow_, p. 154] This

2942

means that the first task of any libertarian society will

2943

be to transform both the structure and nature of work and

2944

industry developed under capitalism.

2945

2946

Anarchists have long argued that that capitalist methods

2947

cannot be used for socialist ends. In our battle to democratise

2948

the workplace, in our awareness of the importance of collective

2949

initiatives by the direct producers in transforming the work

2950

situation and the economic infrastructure, we show that

2951

factories are not merely sites of production, but also of

2952

reproduction -- the reproduction of a certain structure of

2953

social relations based on the division between those who give

2954

orders and those who take them, between those who direct and

2955

those who execute. Therefore, under workers' self-management

2956

industry, work and the whole structure and organisation of

2957

production will be transformed in ways we can only guess at

2958

today. We can point the general direction (i.e. self-managed,

2959

ecologically balanced, decentralised, federal, empowering,

2960

creative and so on) but that is all.

2961

2962

Similarly, as cities and towns are transformed into ecologically

2963

integrated communes, the initial community assemblies and their

2964

federations will transform along with the transformation of our

2965

surroundings. What they will evolve into we cannot predict, but

2966

their fundamentals of instant recall, delegation over representation,

2967

decision making from the bottom up, and so on will remain.

2968

2969

So, while anarchists see "the future in the present" as the initial

2970

framework of a free society, we recognise that such a society will

2971

evolve and change. However, the fundamental principles of a free

2972

society will not change and so it is useful to present a summary

2973

of how such a society could work, based on these principles.

2974

2975

I.3 What could the economic structure of anarchy look like?

2976

2977

Here we will examine possible frameworks of a libertarian-socialist

2978

economy. We stress that it is *frameworks* rather than framework

2979

because it is likely that any anarchist society will see a diverse

2980

number of economic systems co-existing in different areas,

2981

depending on what people in those areas want. "In each locality,"

2982

argued Spanish anarchist Diego Abad de Santillan, "the degree of

2983

communism, collectivism or mutualism will depend on the conditions

2984

prevailing. Why dictate rules? We who make freedom our banner, cannot

2985

deny it in economy. Therefore there must be free experimentation,

2986

free show of initiative and suggestions, as well as the freedom of

2987

organisation." [_After the Revolution_, p. 97]

2988

2989

In general we will highlight and discuss the four major schools of

2990

anarchist economic thought: Individualist anarchism, mutualism,

2991

collectivism and communism. It is up to the reader to evaluate

2992

which school best maximises individual liberty and the good life.

2993

There may, of course, be other economic practices but these may

2994

not be libertarian. In Malatesta's words:

2995

2996

"Admitted the basic principle of anarchism -- which is that no-one

2997

should wish or have the opportunity to reduce others to a state

2998

of subjection and oblige them to work for him -- it is clear that

2999

all, and only, those ways of life which respect freedom, and

3000

recognise that each individual has an equal right to the means

3001

of production and to the full enjoyment of the product of his

3002

own labour, have anything in common with anarchism." [_Life and

3003

Ideas_, p. 33]

3004

3005

In addition, it should be kept in mind that in practice it is

3006

impossible to separate the economic realm from the social and

3007

political realms, as there are numerous interconnections between

3008

them. Indeed, as we well see, anarchist thinkers like Bakunin

3009

argued that the "political" institutions of a free society would

3010

be based upon workplace associations while Kropotkin placed

3011

the commune at the heart of his vision of a communist-anarchist

3012

economy and society. Thus the division between social and economic

3013

forms is not clear cut in anarchist theory -- as it should be

3014

as society is not, and cannot be, considered as separate from

3015

or inferior to the economy. An anarchist society will try to

3016

integrate the social and economic, embedding the latter in the

3017

former in order to stop any harmful externalities associated

3018

economic activity being passed onto society. As Karl Polanyi

3019

argued, capitalism "means no less than the running of society

3020

as an adjunct to the market. Instead of the economy being

3021

being embedded in social relations, social relations are

3022

embedded in the economic system." [_The Great Transformation_,

3023

p. 57] Given the negative effects of such an arrangement,

3024

little wonder that anarchism seeks to reverse it.

3025

3026

Also, by discussing the economy first we are not implying that

3027

dealing with economic domination or exploitation is more important

3028

than dealing with other aspects of the total system of domination,

3029

e.g. social hierarchies, patriarchal values, racism, etc. We follow

3030

this order of exposition because of the need to present one thing

3031

at a time, but it would have been equally easy to start with the

3032

social and political structure of anarchy. However, Rudolf Rocker

3033

is correct to argue that an economic transformation in the

3034

economy is an essential aspect of a social revolution. In his

3035

words:

3036

3037

"[A] social development in this direction [i.e. a stateless

3038

society] was not possible without a fundamental revolution in

3039

existing economic arrangements; for tyranny and exploitation

3040

grow on the same tree and are inseparably bound together. The

3041

freedom of the individual is secure only when it rests on

3042

the economic and social well-being of all . . . The personality

3043

of the individual stands the higher, the more deeply it is

3044

rooted in the community, from which arise the richest sources

3045

of its moral strength. Only in freedom does there arise in

3046

man the consciousness of responsibility for his acts and

3047

regard for the rights of others; only in freedom can there

3048

unfold in its full strength that most precious of social

3049

instinct: man's sympathy for the joys and sorrows of his

3050

fellow men and the resultant impulse toward mutual aid

3051

and in which are rooted all social ethics, all ideas of

3052

social justice." [_Nationalism and Culture_, pp. 147-8]

3053

3054

The aim of any anarchist society would be to maximise freedom

3055

and so creative work. In the words of Noam Chomsky:

3056

3057

"If it is correct, as I believe it is, that a fundamental element of

3058

human nature is the need for creative work or creative inquiry, for

3059

free creation without the arbitrary limiting effects of coercive

3060

institutions, then of course it will follow that a decent society

3061

should maximise the possibilities for this fundamental human

3062

characteristic to be realised. Now, a federated, decentralised

3063

system of free associations incorporating economic as well as

3064

social institutions would be what I refer to as anarcho-syndicalism.

3065

And it seems to me that it is the appropriate form of social

3066

organisation for an advanced technological society, in which

3067

human beings do not have to be forced into the position of tools,

3068

of cogs in a machine."

3069

3070

So, as one might expect, since the essence of anarchism is opposition

3071

to hierarchical authority, anarchists totally oppose the way the current

3072

economy is organised. This is because authority in the economic sphere

3073

is embodied in centralised, hierarchical workplaces that give an elite

3074

class (capitalists) dictatorial control over privately owned means of

3075

production, turning the majority of the population into order takers

3076

(i.e. wage slaves). In contrast, the libertarian-socialist "economy"

3077

will be based on decentralised, egalitarian workplaces ("syndicates")

3078

in which workers democratically self-manage *socially* owned means of

3079

production. Let us begin with the concept of syndicates.

3080

3081

The key principles of libertarian socialism are decentralisation,

3082

self-management by direct democracy, voluntary association, and

3083

federation. These principles determine the form and function of both

3084

the economic and political systems. In this section we will consider

3085

just the economic system. Bakunin gives an excellent overview of

3086

such an economy when he writes:

3087

3088

"The land belongs to only those who cultivate it with their own

3089

hands; to the agricultural communes. The capital and all the

3090

tools of production belong to the workers; to the workers'

3091

associations . . . The future political organisation should be

3092

a free federation of workers." [_Bakunin on Anarchy_, p. 247]

3093

3094

The essential economic concept for libertarian socialists is *workers'

3095

self-management* (sometimes termed workers' control). This is

3096

essential to ensure "a society of equals, who will not be

3097

compelled to sell their hands and their brains to those who

3098

choose to employ them . . . but who will be able to apply their

3099

knowledge and capacities to production, in an organism so

3100

constructed as to combine all the efforts for procuring the

3101

greatest possible well-being for all, while full, free scope

3102

will be left for every individual initiative." [Kropotkin,

3103

_Kropotkin: Selections from his Writings_, pp. 113-4]

3104

3105

However, this concept of self-management needs careful explanation,

3106

because, like the terms "anarchist" and "libertarian," "workers'

3107

control" is also is being co-opted by capitalists to describe

3108

schemes in which workers' have more say in how their workplaces

3109

are run while maintaining wage slavery (i.e. capitalist ownership,

3110

power and ultimate control). Needless to say, such schemes are

3111

phoney as they never place *real* power in the hands of workers.

3112

In the end, the owners and their managers have the final say (and

3113

so hierarchy remains) and, of course, profits are still extracted

3114

from the workforce.

3115

3116

As anarchists use the term, workers' self-management/control

3117

means collective worker ownership, control and self-management

3118

of all aspects of production and distribution. This is achieved

3119

through participatory-democratic workers' assemblies, councils

3120

and federations, in both agriculture and industry. These bodies

3121

would perform all the functions formerly reserved for capitalist

3122

owners, managers. executives and financiers where these activities

3123

actually related to productive activity rather than the needs

3124

to maximise minority profits and power. These workplace assemblies

3125

will be complemented by people's financial institutions or

3126

federations of syndicates which perform all functions formerly

3127

reserved for capitalist owners, executives, and financiers in

3128

terms of allocating investment funds or resources.

3129

3130

This means that an anarchist society is based on "workers'

3131

ownership" of the means of production.

3132

3133

"Workers' ownership" in its most limited sense refers merely to

3134

the ownership of individual firms by their workers. In such firms,

3135

surpluses (profits) would be either equally divided between all

3136

full-time members of the co-operative or divided unequally on the

3137

basis of the type of work done, with the percentages allotted to

3138

each type being decided by democratic vote, on the principle of

3139

one worker, one vote. However, such a limited form of workers'

3140

ownership is rejected by most anarchists. Social anarchists argue

3141

that this is but a step in the right direction and the ultimate

3142

aim is *social* ownership of all the means of life. This is

3143

because of the limitations of firms being owned solely by their

3144

workers (as in a modern co-operative).

3145

3146

Worker co-operatives of this type do have the virtue of preventing

3147

the exploitation and oppression of labour by capital, since workers

3148

are not hired for wages but, in effect, become partners in the firm.

3149

This means that the workers control both the product of their labour

3150

(so that the value-added that they produce is not appropriated by a

3151

privileged elite) and the work process itself (and so they no longer

3152

sell their liberty to others). However, this does not mean that all

3153

forms of economic domination and exploitation would be eliminated if

3154

worker ownership were confined merely to individual firms. In fact,

3155

most social anarchists believe this type of system would degenerate

3156

into a kind of "petit-bourgeois co-operativism" in which worker-owned

3157

firms would act as collective "capitalists" and compete against each

3158

other in the market as ferociously as the real capitalists used to.

3159

This would also lead to a situation where market forces ensured that

3160

the workers involved made irrational decisions (from both a social

3161

and individual point of view) in order to survive in the market. As

3162

these problems were highlighted in section I.1.3 ("What's wrong with

3163

markets anyway?"), we will not repeat ourselves here.

3164

3165

For individualist anarchists, this "irrationality of rationality" is

3166

the price to be paid for a free market and any attempt to overcome this

3167

problem holds numerous dangers to freedom. Social anarchists disagree.

3168

They think co-operation between workplaces can increase, not reduce,

3169

freedom. Social anarchists' proposed solution is *society-wide* ownership

3170

of the major means of production and distribution, based on the anarchist

3171

principle of voluntary federation, with confederal bodies or co-ordinating

3172

councils at two levels: first, between all firms in a particular industry;

3173

and second, between all industries, agricultural syndicates, and people's

3174

financial institutions throughout the society. As Berkman put it:

3175

3176

"Actual use will be considered the only title [in communist anarchism] --

3177

not to ownership but to possession. The organisation of the coal miners,

3178

for example, will be in charge of the coal mines, not as owners but as

3179

the operating agency. Similarly will the railroad brotherhoods run the

3180

railroads, and so on. Collective possession, co-operatively managed in

3181

the interests of the community, will take the place of personal ownership

3182

privately conducted for profit." [_ABC of Anarchism_, p. 69]

3183

3184

While, for many anarcho-syndicalists, this structure is seen as enough,

3185

most communist-anarchists consider that the economic federation should

3186

be held accountable to society as a whole (i.e. the economy must be

3187

communalised). This is because not everyone in society is a worker (e.g.

3188

the young, the old and infirm) nor will everyone belong to a syndicate

3189

(e.g. the self-employed), but as they also have to live with the results

3190

of economic decisions, they should have a say in what happens. In other

3191

words, in communist-anarchism, workers make the day-to-day decisions

3192

concerning their work and workplaces, while the social criteria behind

3193

these decisions are made by everyone.

3194

3195

In this type of economic system, workers' assemblies and councils

3196

would be the focal point, formulating policies for their individual

3197

workplaces and deliberating on industry-wide or economy-wide issues

3198

through general meetings of the whole workforce in which everyone

3199

would participate in decision making. Voting in the councils would

3200

be direct, whereas in larger confederal bodies, voting would be

3201

carried out by temporary, unpaid, mandated, and instantly recallable

3202

delegates, who would resume their status as ordinary workers as soon

3203

as their mandate had been carried out.

3204

3205

"Mandated" here means that the delegates from workers' assemblies and

3206

councils to meetings of higher confederal bodies would be instructed,

3207

at every level of confederation, by the workers who elected them on

3208

how to deal with any issue. The delegates would be given imperative

3209

mandates (binding instructions) that committed them to a framework of

3210

policies within which they would have to act, and they could be recalled

3211

and their decisions revoked at any time for failing to carry out the

3212

mandates they were given (this support for mandated delegates has

3213

existed in anarchist theory since at least 1848, when Proudhon

3214

argued that it was "a consequence of universal suffrage" to ensure

3215

that "the people . . . do not . . . abjure their sovereignty."

3216

[_No Gods, No Masters_, vol. 1, p. 63]). Because of this right of

3217

mandating and recalling their delegates, workers' councils would

3218

be the source of and final authority over policy for all higher

3219

levels of confederal co-ordination of the economy.

3220

3221

A society-wide economic federation of this sort is clearly not

3222

the same thing as a centralised state agency, as in the concept

3223

of nationalised or state-owned industry. As Emma Goldman argued,

3224

there is a clear difference between socialisation and

3225

nationalisation. "The first requirement of Communism," she

3226

argued, "is the socialisation of the land and of the machinery

3227

of production and distribution. Socialised land and machinery

3228

belong to the people, to be settled upon and used by individuals

3229

and groups according to their needs." Nationalisation, on the

3230

other hand, means that a resource "belongs to the state; that is,

3231

the government has control of it and may dispose of it according

3232

to its wishes and views." She stressed that "when a thing is

3233

socialised, every individual has free access to it and may

3234

use it without interference from anyone." When the state

3235

owned property, "[s]uch a state of affairs may be called

3236

state capitalism, but it would be fantastic to consider it

3237

in any sense communistic." [_Red Emma Speaks_, pp.360-1]

3238

3239

Clearly, an anarchist society is based on free access and a

3240

resource is controlled by those who use it. It is a decentralised,

3241

participatory-democratic (i.e. self-managed) organisation whose

3242

members can secede at any time and in which all power and initiative

3243

arises from and flows back to the grassroots level (see section

3244

I.6 for a discussion on how social ownership would work in

3245

practice). Anarchists reject the Leninist idea that state

3246

property means the end of capitalism as simplistic and confused.

3247

Ownership is a juridical relationship. The *real* issue is one of

3248

management. Do the users of a resource manage it? If so, then we

3249

have a real (i.e. libertarian) socialist society. If not, we have

3250

some form of class society (for example, in the Soviet Union

3251

the state replaced the capitalist class but workers still

3252

had no official control over their labour or the product of

3253

that labour).

3254

3255

A social anarchist society combines free association, federalism and

3256

self-management with communalised ownership. Free labour is its basis

3257

and socialisation exists to complement and protect it.

3258

3259

Regardless of the kind of anarchy desired, anarchists all agree

3260

on the importance of decentralisation, free agreement and free

3261

association. Kropotkin's summary of what anarchy would look like

3262

gives an excellent feel of what sort of society anarchists desire:

3263

3264

"harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by

3265

obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the

3266

various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the

3267

sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the

3268

infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilised being.

3269

3270

"In a society developed on these lines . . . voluntary associations . . .

3271

would represent an interwoven network, composed of an infinite variety of

3272

groups and federations of all sizes and degrees, local, regional, national

3273

and international temporary or more or less permanent -- for all possible

3274

purposes: production, consumption and exchange, communications, sanitary

3275

arrangements, education, mutual protection, defence of the territory, and

3276

so on; and, on the other side, for the satisfaction of an ever-increasing

3277

number of scientific, artistic, literary and sociable needs.

3278

3279

"Moreover, such a society would represent nothing immutable. On the

3280

contrary -- as is seen in organic life at large - harmony would (it

3281

is contended) result from an ever-changing adjustment and readjustment

3282

of equilibrium between the multitudes of forces and influences, and

3283

this adjustment would be the easier to obtain as none of the forces

3284

would enjoy a special protection from the State." [_Kropotkin's

3285

Revolutionary Pamphlets_, p. 284]

3286

3287

If this type of system sounds "utopian" it should be kept in mind

3288

that it was actually implemented and worked quite well in the

3289

collectivist economy organised during the Spanish Revolution of

3290

1936, despite the enormous obstacles presented by an ongoing civil

3291

war as well as the relentless (and eventually successful) efforts

3292

of Republicans, Stalinists and Fascists to crush it (see Sam

3293

Dolgoff's _The Anarchist Collectives: Workers' Self-management

3294

in the Spanish Revolution, 1936-1939_ for an excellent introduction).

3295

3296

As well as this (and other) examples of "anarchy in action" there

3297

have been other libertarian socialist economic systems described in

3298

writing. All share the common features of workers' self-management,

3299

co-operation and so on we discuss here and in section I.4. These texts

3300

include _Syndicalism_ by Tom Brown, _The Program of Anarcho-Syndicalism_

3301

by G.P. Maximoff, _Guild Socialism Restated_ by G.D.H. Cole, _After

3302

the Revolution_ by Diago Abad de Santillan, _Anarchist Economics_ and

3303

_Principles of Libertarian Economy_ by Abraham Guillen, _Workers

3304

Councils and the Economics of a Self-Managed Society_ by Cornelius

3305

Castoriadis among others. A short summary of Spanish Anarchist visions

3306

of the free society can be found in chapter 3 of Robert Alexander's

3307

_The Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War_ (vol. 1). Also worth reading

3308

are _The Political Economy of Participatory Economics_ and _Looking

3309

Forward: Participatory Economics for the Twenty First Century_ by

3310

Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel which contain some useful ideas.

3311

3312

Fictional accounts include William Morris' _News from Nowhere_,

3313

_The Dispossessed_ by Ursula Le Guin, _Women on the Edge of Time_

3314

by Marge Piercy and _The Last Capitalist_ by Steve Cullen.

3315

3316

I.3.1 What is a "syndicate"?

3317

3318

As we will use the term, a "syndicate" (often called a "producer

3319

co-operative," or "co-operative" for short, sometimes "collective"

3320

or "producers' commune" or "association of producers" or "guild

3321

factory" or "guild workplace") is a democratically self-managed

3322

productive enterprise whose productive assets are either owned by

3323

its workers or by society as a whole. It is a useful generic term

3324

to describe the situation aimed at by anarchists where "associations

3325

of men and women who . . . work on the land, in the factories, in the

3326

mines, and so on, [are] themselves the managers of production." [Peter

3327

Kropotkin, _Evolution and Environment_, p. 78]

3328

3329

It is important to note that individuals who do not wish to join

3330

syndicates will be able to work for themselves. There is no "forced

3331

collectivisation" under *any* form of libertarian socialism, because

3332

coercing people is incompatible with the basic principles of anarchism.

3333

Those who wish to be self-employed will have free access to the productive

3334

assets they need, provided that they neither attempt to monopolise more

3335

of those assets than they and their families can use by themselves nor

3336

attempt to employ others for wages (see section I.3.7).

3337

3338

In many ways a syndicate is similar to a co-operative under capitalism.

3339

Indeed, Bakunin argued that anarchists are "convinced that the co-operative

3340

will be the preponderant form of social organisation in the future, in

3341

every branch of labour and science." [_Basic Bakunin_, p. 153] Therefore,

3342

even from the limited examples of co-operatives functioning in the

3343

capitalist market, the essential features of a libertarian socialist

3344

economy can be seen. The basic economic element, the workplace, will be a

3345

free association of individuals, who will organise their joint work

3346

co-operatively. To quote Bakunin again, "[o]nly associated labour,

3347

that is, labour organised upon the principles of reciprocity and

3348

co-operation, is adequate to the task of maintaining . . . civilised

3349

society." [_The Political Philosophy of Bakunin_, p. 341]

3350

3351

"Co-operation" in this context means that the policy decisions related to

3352

their association will be based on the principle of "one member, one

3353

vote," with "managers" and other administrative staff elected and held

3354

accountable to the workplace as a whole. Workplace self-management does

3355

not mean, as many apologists of capitalism suggest, that knowledge and

3356

skill will be ignored and *all* decisions made by everyone. This is

3357

an obvious fallacy, since engineers, for example, have a greater

3358

understanding of their work than non-engineers and under workers'

3359

self-management will control it directly. As G.D.H. Cole argues:

3360

3361

"we must understand clearly wherein this Guild democracy consists,

3362

and especially how it bears on relations between different classes

3363

of workers included in a single Guild. For since a Guild includes

3364

*all* the workers by hand and brain engaged in a common service,

3365

it is clear that there will be among its members very wide

3366

divergences of function, of technical skill, and of administrative

3367

authority. Neither the Guild as a whole nor the Guild factory

3368

can determine all issues by the expedient of the mass vote, nor

3369

can Guild democracy mean that, on all questions, each member is to

3370

count as one and none more than one. A mass vote on a matter of

3371

technique understood only by a few experts would be a manifest

3372

absurdity, and, even if the element of technique is left out of

3373

account, a factory administered by constant mass votes would be

3374

neither efficient nor at all a pleasant place to work in. There

3375

will be in the Guilds technicians occupying special positions by

3376

virtue of their knowledge, and there will be administrators

3377

possessing special authority by virtue both of skill an

3378

ability and of personal qualifications." [G.D.H. Cole,

3379

_Guild Socialism Restated_, pp. 50-51]

3380

3381

The fact that some decision-making has been delegated in this

3382

manner sometimes leads people to ask whether a syndicate would not

3383

just be another form of hierarchy. The answer is that it would not be

3384

hierarchical because the workers' assemblies and their councils, open

3385

to all workers, would decide what types of decision-making to delegate,

3386

thus ensuring that ultimate power rests at the mass base. Moreover,

3387

*power* would not be delegated. Malatesta clearly indicates the

3388

difference between administrative decisions and policy decisions:

3389

3390

"Of course in every large collective undertaking, a division of

3391

labour, technical management, administration, etc. is necessary.

3392

But authoritarians clumsily play on words to produce a *raison d'etre*

3393

for government out of the very real need for the organisation of work.

3394

Government, it is well to repeat, is the concourse of individuals

3395

who have had, or seized, the right and the means to make laws and to

3396

oblige people to obey; the administrator, the engineer, etc., instead

3397

are people who are appointed or assume the responsibility to carry out

3398

a particular job and so on. Government means the delegation of power,

3399

that is the abdication of initiative and sovereignty of all into the

3400

hands of a few; administration means the delegation of work, that is

3401

tasks given and received, free exchange of services based on free

3402

agreement . . . Let one not confuse the function of government with

3403

that of an administration, for they are essentially different, and if

3404

today the two are often confused, it is only because of economic and

3405

political privilege." [_Anarchy_, pp. 39-40]

3406

3407

Given that power remains in the hands of the workplace assembly, it

3408

is clear that the organisation required for every collective endeavour

3409

cannot be equated with government. Also, never forget that administrative

3410

staff are elected by and accountable to the rest of an association.

3411

If, for example, it turned out that a certain type of delegated

3412

decision-making activity was being abused, it could be revoked by

3413

the whole workforce. Because of this grassroots control, there is

3414

every reason to think that crucial types of decision-making activity

3415

which could become a source of power (and so with the potential for

3416

seriously affecting all workers' lives) would not be delegated

3417

but would remain with the workers' assemblies. For example, powers

3418

that are now exercised in an authoritarian manner by managers

3419

under capitalism, such as those of hiring and firing, introducing

3420

new production methods or technologies, changing product lines,

3421

relocating production facilities, determining the nature, pace

3422

and rhythm of productive activity and so on would remain in the

3423

hands of the associated producers and *not* be delegated to anyone.

3424

3425

New syndicates will be created upon the initiative of individuals within

3426

communities. These may be the initiative of workers in an existing

3427

syndicate who desire to expand production, or members of the local

3428

community who see that the current syndicates are not providing adequately

3429

in a specific area of life. Either way, the syndicate will be a voluntary

3430

association for producing useful goods or services and would spring up

3431

and disappear as required. Therefore, an anarchist society would see

3432

syndicates developing spontaneously as individuals freely associate to

3433

meet their needs, with both local and confederal initiatives taking place.

3434

(The criteria for investment decisions is discussed in section I.4.8).

3435

3436

What about entry into a syndicate? In the words of Cole, workers syndicates

3437

are "open associations which any man [or woman] may join" but "this does not

3438

mean, of course, that any person will be able to claim admission, as an

3439

absolute right, into the guild of his choice." [Op. Cit., p. 75] This means

3440

that there may be training requirements (for example) and obviously "a man

3441

[or woman] clearly cannot get into a Guild [i.e. syndicate] unless it needs

3442

fresh recruits for its work. [The worker] will have free choice, but only

3443

of the available openings." [Ibid.] Obviously, as in any society, an

3444

individual may not be able to pursue the work they are most interested

3445

(although given the nature of an anarchist society they would have the

3446

free time to pursue it as a hobby). However, we can imagine that an anarchist

3447

society would take an interest in ensuring a fair distribution of work and

3448

so would try to arrange work sharing if a given work placement is popular.

3449

3450

Of course there may be the danger of a syndicate or guild trying to

3451

restrict entry from an ulterior motive. The ulterior motive would, of

3452

course, be the exploitation of monopoly power vis-a-vis other groups in

3453

society. However, in an anarchist society individuals would be free to

3454

form their own syndicates and this would ensure that such activity is

3455

self-defeating. In addition, in a non-mutualist anarchist system,

3456

syndicates would be part of a confederation (see section I.3.4). It

3457

is a responsibility of the inter-syndicate congresses to assure that

3458

membership and employment in the syndicates is not restricted in any

3459

anti-social way. If an individual or group of individuals felt that

3460

they had been unfairly excluded from a syndicate then an investigation

3461

into the case would be organised at the congress. In this way any

3462

attempts to restrict entry would be reduced (assuming they occurred

3463

to begin with). And, of course, individuals are free to form new

3464

syndicates or leave the confederation if they so desire (see section

3465

I.4.13 on the question of who will do unpleasant work, and for more

3466

on work allocation generally, in an anarchist society).

3467

3468

To sum up, syndicates are voluntary associations of workers who manage

3469

their workplace and their own work. Within the syndicate, the decisions

3470

which affect how the workplace develops and changes are in the hands of

3471

those who work there. In addition, it means that each section of the

3472

workforce manages its own activity and sections and that all workers

3473

placed in administration tasks (i.e. "management") are subject to

3474

election and recall by those who are affected by their decisions.

3475

(Workers' self-management is discussed further in section I.3.2 --

3476

"What is workers' self-management?").

3477

3478

I.3.2 What is workers' self-management?

3479

3480

Quite simply, workers' self-management (sometimes called "workers'

3481

control") means that all workers affected by a decision have an equal

3482

voice in making it, on the principle of "one worker, one vote." That

3483

is, workers "ought to be the real managers of industries." [Peter

3484

Kropotkin, _Fields, Factories and Workshops Tomorrow_, p. 157] As noted

3485

earlier, however, we need to be careful when using the term "workers'

3486

control," as the concept is currently being co-opted by the ruling elite,

3487

which is to say that it is becoming popular among sociologists, industrial

3488

managers, and social-democratic union leaders, and so is taking on an

3489

entirely different meaning from the one intended by anarchists (who

3490

originated the term).

3491

3492

In the hands of capitalists, "workers' control" is now referred to by

3493

such terms as "participation," "democratisation," "co-determination,"

3494

"consensus," "empowerment", "Japanese-style management," etc. As Sam

3495

Dolgoff notes, "[f]or those whose function it is solve the new problems of

3496

boredom and alienation in the workplace in advanced industrial capitalism,

3497

workers' control is seen as a hopeful solution. . . . a solution in which

3498

workers are given a modicum of influence, a strictly limited area of

3499

decision-making power, a voice at best secondary in the control of

3500

conditions of the workplace. Workers' control, in a limited form

3501

sanctioned by the capitalists, is held to be the answer to the growing

3502

non-economic demands of the workers." ["Workers' Control" in _The

3503

Anarchist Collectives_, p. 81]

3504

3505

The new managerial fad of "quality circles" -- meetings where workers

3506

are encouraged to contribute their ideas on how to improve the company's

3507

product and increase the efficiency with which it is made -- is an example

3508

of "workers' control" as conceived by capitalists. However, when it comes

3509

to questions such as what products to make, where to make them, and

3510

(especially) how revenues from sales should be divided among the workforce

3511

and invested, capitalists and managers don't ask for or listen to

3512

workers' "input." So much for "democratisation," "empowerment," and

3513

"participation!" In reality, capitalistic "workers control" is merely an

3514

another insidious attempt to make workers more willing and "co-operative"

3515

partners in their own exploitation.

3516

3517

Hence we prefer the term "workers' self-management" -- a concept which

3518

refers to the exercise of workers' power through collectivisation and

3519

federation (see below). Self-management in this sense "is not a new form

3520

of mediation between the workers and their capitalist bosses, but instead

3521

refers to the very process by which the workers themselves *overthrow*

3522

their managers and take on their own management and the management of

3523

production in their own workplace. Self-management means the organisation

3524

of all workers . . . into a workers' council or factory committee (or

3525

agricultural syndicate), which makes all the decisions formerly made by

3526

the owners and managers." [Dolgoff, Op. Cit., p. 81] As such, it means

3527

"a transition from private to collective ownership" which, in turn,

3528

"call[s] for new relationships among the members of the working

3529

community." [Abel Paz, _The Spanish Civil War_, p. 55] Self-management

3530

means the end of hierarchy and authoritarian social relationships in

3531

workplace and their replacement by free agreement, collective

3532

decision-making, direct democracy, social equality and libertarian

3533

social relationships.

3534

3535

Therefore workers' self-management is based around general meetings

3536

of the whole workforce, held regularly in every industrial or agricultural

3537

syndicate. These are the source of and final authority over decisions

3538

affecting policy within the workplace as well as relations with other

3539

syndicates. These meeting elect workplace councils whose job is to

3540

implement the decisions of these assemblies and to make the day to day

3541

administration decisions that will crop up. These councils are directly

3542

accountable to the workforce and its members subject to re-election and

3543

instant recall. It is also likely that membership of these councils will

3544

be rotated between all members of the syndicate to ensure that no one

3545

monopolises an administrative position. In addition, smaller councils

3546

and assemblies would be organised for divisions, units and work teams

3547

as circumstances dictate.

3548

3549

In this way, workers would manage their own collective affairs

3550

together, as free and equal individuals. They would associate

3551

together to co-operate without subjecting themselves to an

3552

authority over themselves. Their collective decisions would

3553

remain under their control and power. This means that

3554

self-management creates "an organisation so constituted that

3555

by affording everyone the fullest enjoyment of his [or her]

3556

liberty, it does not permit anyone to rise above the others

3557

nor dominate them in any way but through the natural influence

3558

of the intellectual and moral qualities which he [or she]

3559

possesses, *without this influence ever being imposed as

3560

a right and without leaning upon any political institution

3561

whatever.*" [_The Political Philosophy of Bakunin_, p. 271]

3562

Only by convincing your fellow associates of the soundness

3563

of your ideas can those ideas become the agreed plan of the

3564

syndicate. No one is in a position to impose their ideas

3565

simply because of the post they hold or the work they do.

3566

3567

Most anarchists think that it is likely that purely administrative

3568

tasks and decisions would be delegated to elected individuals in

3569

this way, freeing workers and assemblies to concentrate on important

3570

activities and decisions rather than being bogged down in trivial

3571

details. As Bakunin put it:

3572

3573

"Is not administrative work just as necessary to production as

3574

is manual labour -- if not more so? Of course, production would

3575

be badly crippled, if not altogether suspended, without efficient

3576

and intelligent management. But from the standpoint of elementary

3577

justice and even efficiency, the management of production need

3578

not be exclusively monopolised by one or several individuals.

3579

And managers are not at all entitled to more pay. The co-operative

3580

workers associations have demonstrated that the workers themselves,

3581

choosing administrators from their own ranks, receiving the same

3582

pay, can efficiency control and operate industry. The monopoly

3583

of administration, far from promoting the efficiency of production,

3584

on the contrary only enhances the power and privileges of the

3585

owners and their managers." [_Bakunin on Anarchism_, p. 424]

3586

3587

What is important is that what is considered as important or trivial,

3588

policy or administration rests with the people affected by the decisions

3589

and subject to their continual approval. Anarchists do not make a

3590

fetish of direct democracy and recognise that there is more important

3591

things in life than meetings and voting! While workers' assemblies

3592

play the key role in self-management, it is not the focal point

3593

of *all* decisions. Rather it is the place where all the important

3594

policy decisions are made, administrative decisions are ratified

3595

or rejected and what counts as a major decision determined. Needless

3596

to say, what is considered as important issues will be decided

3597

upon by the workers themselves in their assemblies.

3598

3599

A self-managed workplace, like a self-managed society in general,

3600

does not mean that specialised knowledge (where it is meaningful)

3601

will be neglected or not taken into account. Quite the opposite.

3602

Specialists (i.e. workers who are interested in a given area of

3603

work and gain an extensive understanding of it) are part of the

3604

assembly of the workplace, just like other workers. They can

3605

and have to be listened to, like anyone else, and their expert

3606

advice included in the decision making process. Anarchists do

3607

not reject the idea of expertise nor the rational authority

3608

associated with it. As we indicated in section B.1, anarchists

3609

recognise the difference between being *an* authority (i.e.

3610

having knowledge of a given subject) and being *in* authority

3611

(i.e. having power over someone else). We reject the latter

3612

and respect the former:

3613

3614

"Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such

3615

a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority

3616

of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads,

3617

I consult that of architect or engineer. For such or such

3618

special knowledge I apply to such or such a *savant*. But I

3619

allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the

3620

*savant* to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them

3621

freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence,

3622

their character, their knowledge, reserving always my

3623

incontestable right of criticism and censure. . . If I

3624

bow before the authority of specialists and avow a readiness

3625

to follow, to a certain extent and as long as may seem to

3626

me necessary, their indications and even their directions,

3627

it is because their authority is imposed upon me by no

3628

one, neither men nor by God . . . I bow before the authority

3629

of special men [and women] because it is imposed upon me

3630

by my own reason." [Bakunin, _God and the State_, pp. 32-3]

3631

3632

However, specialisation does not imply the end of self-management,

3633

but rather the opposite. "The greatest intelligence," Bakunin

3634

argued, "would not be equal to a comprehension of the whole.

3635

Thence results, for science as well as industry, the necessity

3636

of the division and association of labour." [Op. Cit., p. 33]

3637

Thus specialised knowledge is part of the associated workers

3638

and not placed above them in positions of power. The other

3639

workers in a syndicate can compliment the knowledge of the

3640

specialists with the knowledge of the work process they have

3641

gained by working and so enrich the decision. Knowledge is

3642

distributed throughout society and only a society of free

3643

individuals associated as equals and managing their own

3644

activity can ensure that it is applied effectively (part of

3645

the inefficiency of capitalism results from the barriers to

3646

knowledge and information flow created by the hierarchical

3647

workplace).

3648

3649

A workplace assembly is perfectly able to listen to an engineer,

3650

for example, who suggests various ways of reaching various goals

3651

(i.e. if you want X, you would have to do A or B. If you

3652

do A, then C, D and E is required. If B is decided upon, then

3653

F, G, H and I are entailed). But it is the assembly, *not* the

3654

engineer, that decides what goals and methods to be implemented.

3655

As Cornelius Castoriadis puts it, "[w]e are not saying: people

3656

will have to decide *what* to do, and then technicians will

3657

tell them *how* to do it. We say: after listening to technicians,

3658

people will decide what to do *and* how to do it. For the *how*

3659

is not neutral -- and the *what* is not disembodied. What and

3660

how are neither *identical*, nor *external* to each other. A

3661

'neutral' technique is, of course, an illusion. A conveyor

3662

belt is linked to a type of product *and* a type of producer

3663

p. 265]

3664

3665

However, we must stress that while an anarchist society would

3666

"inherit" a diverse level of expertise and specialisation

3667

from class society, it would not take this as unchangeable.

3668

Anarchists argue for "all-round" (or integral) education as

3669

a means of ensuring that everyone has a basic knowledge or

3670

understanding of science, engineering and other specialised

3671

tasks. As Bakunin argued, "in the interests of both labour

3672

and science . . . there should no longer be either workers

3673

or scholars but only human beings." Education must "prepare

3674

every child of each sex for the life of thought as well as

3675

for the life of labour." [_The Basic Bakunin_, p. 116 and

3676

p. 119] This does not imply the end of all specialisation

3677

(individuals will, of course, express their individuality

3678

and know more about certain subjects than others) but it

3679

does imply the end of the artificial specialisation developed

3680

under capitalism which tries to deskill and disempower the

3681

wage worker by concentrating knowledge into hands of management.

3682

3683

And, just to state the obvious, self-management does not imply

3684

that the mass of workers decide on the application of specialised

3685

tasks. Self-management implies the autonomy of those who do the

3686

work as well as collective decision making on collective issues.

3687

For example, in a self-managed hospital the cleaning staff

3688

would not have a say in the doctors' treatment of patients just

3689

as the doctors would not tell the cleaners how to do their work

3690

(of course, it is likely that an anarchist society will *not*

3691

have people whose work is simply to clean and nothing else,

3692

we just use this as an example people will understand). All

3693

members of a syndicate would have a say in what happens in the

3694

workplace as it affects them collectively, but individual workers

3695

and groups of workers would manage their own activity within that

3696

collective.

3697

3698

Needless to say, self-management abolishes the division of labour

3699

inherent in capitalism between order takers and order givers. It

3700

integrates (to use Kropotkin's words) brain work and manual work

3701

by ensuring that those who do the work also manage it and that a

3702

workplace is managed by those who use it. Such an integration of

3703

labour will, undoubtedly, have a massive impact in terms of

3704

productivity, innovation and efficiency. As Kropotkin argued,

3705

the capitalist firm has a negative impact on those subject

3706

to its hierarchical and alienating structures:

3707

3708

"The worker whose task has been specialised by the permanent

3709

division of labour has lost the intellectual interest in his

3710

[or her] labour, and it is especially so in the great

3711

industries; he has lost his inventive powers. Formerly, he

3712

[or she] invented very much . . . But since the great factory

3713

has been enthroned, the worker, depressed by the monotony of

3714

his [or her] work, invents no more." [_Fields, Factories and

3715

Workshops Tomorrow_, p. 171]

3716

3717

Must all the skills, experience and intelligence that very

3718

one has be swept away or crushed by hierarchy? Or could it

3719

not become a new fertile source of progress under a better

3720

organisation of production? Self-management would ensure

3721

that the independence, initiative and inventiveness of

3722

workers (which disappears under wage slavery) comes to the

3723

fore and is applied. Combined with the principles of

3724

"all-round" (or integral) education (see section J.5.13)

3725

who can deny that working people could transform the

3726

current economic system to ensure "well-being for all"?

3727

And we must stress that by "well-being" we mean well-being

3728

in terms of meaningful, productive activity in humane

3729

surroundings and using appropriate technology, in terms

3730

of goods of utility and beauty to help create strong,

3731

healthy bodies and in terms of surroundings which are

3732

inspiring to live in and ecologically integrated.

3733

3734

Little wonder Kropotkin argued that self-management and the

3735

"erasing [of] the present distinction between the brain workers

3736

and manual worker" would see "social benefits" arising from "the

3737

concordance of interest and harmony so much wanted in our times

3738

of social struggles" and "the fullness of life which would result

3739

for each separate individual, if he [or she] were enabled to enjoy

3740

the use of both . . . mental and bodily powers." This is in

3741

addition to the "increase of wealth which would result from

3742

having . . . educated and well-trained producers." [_Fields,

3743

Factories and Workshops Tomorrow_, p. 180]

3744

3745

It is the face-to-face meetings that bring workers directly into the

3746

management process and give them power over the economic decisions that

3747

affect their lives. In social anarchism, since the means of production

3748

are owned by society as a whole, decisions on matters like how to

3749

apportion the existing means of production among the syndicates,

3750

how to distribute and reinvest the surpluses, etc. will be made

3751

by the grassroots *social* units, i.e. the community assemblies

3752

(see section I.5.2), not by the workers' councils. This does not

3753

mean that workers will have no voice in decisions about such matters,

3754

but only that they will vote on them as "citizens" in their local

3755

community assemblies, not as workers in their local syndicates. As

3756

mentioned before, this is because not everyone will belong to a

3757

syndicate, yet everyone will still be affected by economic decisions

3758

of the above type. This is an example of how the social/political

3759

and economic structures of social anarchy are intertwined.

3760

3761

Lastly, the introduction of workers' self-management will be a product

3762

of two processes.

3763

3764

Firstly, the class struggle will help workers gain experience of managing

3765

their own affairs. Struggles to resist oppression and exploitation in the

3766

workplace will mean that workers will have to organise themselves to manage those struggles. This will be an important means of accustoming them to

3767

make their own decisions. By participating in the structures created to

3768

conduct the class war, they will gain the skills and experience needed

3769

to go beyond class society. The process of struggle will ensure we can

3770

manage our own working time when we take over the means of life and

3771

abolish wage slavery.

3772

3773

Secondly, today workers *do* manage their own working time to a considerable

3774

extent. As we have argued before, the capitalist may buy a hour of a

3775

workers' time but they have to ensure that the worker follows their

3776

orders during that time. Workers resist this imposition and this results

3777

in considerable shop-floor conflict. Frederick Talyor, for example,

3778

introduced his system of "scientific management" in part to try and

3779

stop workers managing their own working activity. As David Noble notes,

3780

workers "paced themselves for many reason: to keep time for themselves,

3781

to avoid exhaustion, to exercise authority over their work, to avoid

3782

killing so-called gravy piece-rate jobs by overproducing and risking

3783

a pay cut, to stretch out available work for fear of layoffs, to

3784

exercise their creativity, and, last but not least, to express their

3785

solidarity and their hostility to management." These were "[c]oupled

3786

with collective co-operation with their fellows on the floor" and

3787

"labour-prescribed norms of behaviour" to achieve "shop floor control

3788

over production." [_Forces of Production_, p. 33] In other words,

3789

workers naturally tend towards self-management anyway and it is this

3790

natural movement towards liberty during work hours which is combated

3791

by bosses (who wins, of course, depends on objective and subjective

3792

pressures which swing the balance of power towards labour or capital).

3793

3794

Self-management will built upon this already existing unofficial

3795

workers control over production and, of course, our knowledge of

3796

the working process which actually doing it creates. The conflict

3797

over who controls the shop floor -- either those who do the work or

3798

those who give the orders -- creates two processes that not only

3799

show that self-management is *possible* but also show how it can

3800

come about.

3801

3802

I.3.3 What role do syndicates play in the "economy"?

3803

3804

As we have seen, private ownership of the means of production is the

3805

lynchpin of capitalism, because it is the means by which capitalists

3806

are able to exploit workers by appropriating surplus value from them.

3807

To eliminate such exploitation, social anarchists propose that social

3808

capital -- productive assets such as factories and farmland -- be owned

3809

by society as a whole and shared out among syndicates and self-employed

3810

individuals by directly democratic methods, through face-to-face voting

3811

of the whole community in local neighbourhood and confederal assemblies,

3812

which will be linked together through voluntary federations. It does

3813

*not* mean that the state owns the means of production, as under

3814

Marxism-Leninism or social democracy, because there is no state

3815

under libertarian socialism. (For more on neighbourhood and community

3816

assemblies, see sections I.5.1 and I.5.2).

3817

3818

Production for use rather than profit/money is the key concept that

3819

distinguishes collectivist and communist forms of anarchism from market

3820

socialism or from the competitive forms of mutualism advocated by

3821

Proudhon and the Individualist Anarchists. Under mutualism, workers

3822

organise themselves into syndicates, but ownership of a syndicate's

3823

capital is limited to its workers rather than resting with the whole

3824

society. The workers' in each co-operative/syndicate share in the

3825

gains and losses of workplace. There is no profit as such, for in

3826

"the labour-managed firm there is no profit, only income to be

3827

divided among members. Without employees the labour-managed firm

3828

does not have a wage bill, and labour costs are not counted among

3829

the expenses to the subtracted from profit, as they are in the

3830

capitalist firm. . . [T]he labour-managed firm does not hire labour.

3831

It is a collective of workers that hires capital and necessary

3832

materials." [Christopher Eaton Gunn, _Workers' Self-Management in

3833

the United States_, pp. 41-2]

3834

3835

Thus mutualism eliminates wage labour and unites workers with the

3836

means of production they use. Such a system is socialist as it

3837

is based on self-management and workers' control/ownership of

3838

the means of production. However, social anarchists argue that

3839

such a system is little more than "petit-bourgeois co-operativism"

3840

in which the worker-owners of the co-operatives compete in the

3841

marketplace with other co-operatives for customers, profits, raw

3842

materials, etc. -- a situation that could result in many of the

3843

same problems that arise under capitalism (see section I.3).

3844

Moreover, social anarchists argue, such a system can easily

3845

degenerate back into capitalism as any inequalities that

3846

exist between co-operatives would be increased by competition,

3847

forcing weaker co-operatives to fail and so creating a pool

3848

of workers with nothing to sell but their labour. The successful

3849

co-operatives could then hire those workers and so re-introduce

3850

wage labour.

3851

3852

Some Mutualists recognise this danger. Proudhon, for example,

3853

argued for an "ago-industrial federation" which would "provide

3854

reciprocal security in commerce and industry" and "protect the

3855

citizens . . . from capitalist and financial exploitation." In

3856

this way, the "agro-industrial federation. . . will tend to

3857

foster increasing equality . . . through mutualism in credit

3858

and insurance . . . guaranteeing the right to work and to

3859

education, and an organisation of work which allows each

3860

labourer to become a skilled worker and an artist, each

3861

wage-earner to become his own master." Thus mutualism sees

3862

"all industries guaranteeing one another mutually" and

3863

"the conditions of common prosperity." [_The Principle of

3864

Federation_, p. 70, p. 71 and p. 72] It seems likely that

3865

this agro-industrial federation would be the body which

3866

would fix "after amicable discussion of a *maximum* and

3867

*minimum* profit margin" and "the organising of regulating

3868

societies. . . to regulate the market." [_Selected Writings

3869

of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon_, p. 70]

3870

3871

Thus, some Mutualists are aware of the dangers associated with

3872

even a self-managed, socialistic market and create support

3873

structures to defend workers' self-management. Moreover, it

3874

is likely that industrial syndicates would be linked to mutual

3875

banks (a credit syndicate). Such syndicates would exist to

3876

provide interest-free credit for self-management, new syndicate

3877

expansion and so on. And if the experience of capitalism is

3878

anything to go by, mutual banks will also reduce the Business

3879

cycle as its effects as "[c]ountries like Japan and Germany

3880

that are usually classifies as bank-centred -- because banks

3881

provide more outside finance than markets, and because more

3882

firms have long-term relationships with their banks --

3883

show greater growth in and stability of investment over time

3884

than the market-centred ones, like the US and Britain. . .

3885

Further, studies comparing German and Japanese firms with

3886

tight bank ties to those without them also show that firms

3887

with bank ties exhibit greater stability in investment over

3888

the business cycle." [Doug Henwood, _Wall Street_, pp. 174-5]

3889

3890

In addition, supporters of mutualism can point to the fact that

3891

existing co-operatives rarely fire their members and are far more

3892

egalitarian in nature than corresponding capitalist firms. This

3893

they argue will ensure that mutualism will remain socialist, with

3894

easy credit available to those who are made unemployed to start

3895

their own businesses again.

3896

3897

In contrast, within anarcho-collectivism and anarcho-communism,

3898

society as a whole owns the social capital, which allows for the

3899

elimination of both competition for survival and the tendency for

3900

workers to develop a proprietary interest the enterprises in which

3901

they work. As Kropotkin argued, "[t]here is no reason why the

3902

factory . . . should not belong to the community. . . It is evident

3903

that now, under the capitalist system, the factory is the curse of

3904

the village, as it comes to overwork children and to make paupers

3905

of its male inhabitants; and it is quite natural that it should be

3906

opposed by all means by the workers. . . But under a more rational

3907

social organisation, the factory would find no such obstacles; it

3908

would be a boon to the village." Needless to say, such a workplace

3909

would be based on workers' self-management, as "the workers . . .

3910

ought to be the real managers of industries." [_Fields, Factories

3911

and Workshops Tomorrow_, p. 152 and p. 157] This "socially organised

3912

industrial production" (to use Kropotkin's term) would ensure a

3913

decent standard of living without the problems associated with a

3914

market, even a non-capitalist one. It would enable goods to be either

3915

sold at their production prices (or labour-cost) so as to reduce

3916

their cost to consumers or distributed in accordance with communist

3917

principles (namely free); it facilitates efficiency gains through

3918

the consolidation of formerly competing enterprises; and it eliminates

3919

the many problems due to the predatory nature of competition, including

3920

the destruction of the environment through the "grow or die" principle,

3921

the development of oligopolies from capital concentration and

3922

centralisation, and the business cycle, with its periodic recessions

3923

and depressions, and the turning of free people into potential

3924

wage slaves.

3925

3926

For social anarchists, therefore, libertarian socialism is based

3927

on decentralised decision making within the framework of

3928

communally-owned but independently-run and worker-self-managed

3929

syndicates (or co-operatives):

3930

3931

"[T]he land, the instruments of work and all other capital may

3932

become the collective property of the whole of society and be

3933

utilised only by the workers, on other words, by the agricultural

3934

and industrial associations." [Bakunin, _Michael Bakunin: Selected

3935

Writings_, p. 174]

3936

3937

In other words, the economy is communalised, with land and the means

3938

of production being turned into communal "property." The community

3939

determines the social and ecological framework for production while the

3940

workforce makes the day-to-day decisions about what to produce and how

3941

to do it. This is because a system based purely on workplace assemblies

3942

effectively disenfranchises those individuals who do not work but live with

3943

the effects of production (e.g., ecological disruption). In Howard Harkins'

3944

words, "the difference between workplace and community assemblies is that

3945

the internal dynamic of direct democracy in communities gives a hearing

3946

to solutions that bring out the common ground and, when there is not

3947

consensus, an equal vote to every member of the community." ["Community

3948

Control, Workers' Control and the Co-operative Commonwealth", pp. 55-83,

3949

_Society and Nature_ No. 3, p. 69]

3950

3951

This means that when a workplace joins a confederation, that workplace is

3952

communalised as well as confederated. In this way, workers' control is

3953

placed within the broader context of the community, becoming an aspect of

3954

community control. This does not mean that workers' do not control what

3955

they do or how they do it. Rather, it means that the framework within which

3956

they make their decisions is determined by the community. For example,

3957

the local community may decide that production should maximise recycling

3958

and minimise pollution, and workers informed of this decision make

3959

investment and production decisions accordingly. In addition, consumer

3960

groups and co-operatives may be given a voice in the confederal congresses

3961

of syndicates or even in the individual workplaces (although it would

3962

be up to local communities to decide whether this would be practical or

3963

not). In these ways, consumers could have a say in the administration

3964

of production and the type and quality of the product, adding their

3965

voice and interests in the creation as well as the consumption of

3966

a product.

3967

3968

Given the general principle of social ownership and the absence of a

3969

state, there is considerable leeway regarding the specific forms that

3970

collectivisation might take -- for example, in regard to methods of

3971

surplus distribution, the use or non-use of money, etc. -- as can be seen

3972

by the different systems worked out in various areas of Spain during the

3973

Revolution of 1936-39 (as described, for example, in Sam Dolgoff's _The

3974

Anarchist Collectives_).

3975

3976

Nevertheless, democracy is undermined when some communities are poor

3977

while others are wealthy. Therefore the method of surplus distribution

3978

must insure that all communities have an adequate share of pooled revenues

3979

and resources held at higher levels of confederation as well as guaranteed

3980

minimum levels of public services and provisions to meet basic human needs.

3981

3982

I.3.4 What relations would exist between individual syndicates?

3983

3984

Just as individuals associate together to work on and overcome common

3985

problems, so would syndicates. Few, if any, workplaces are totally

3986

independent of others. They require raw materials as inputs and consumers

3987

for their products. Therefore there will be links between different

3988

syndicates. These links are twofold: firstly, free agreements between

3989

individual syndicates, and secondly, confederations of syndicates (within

3990

branches of industry and regionally). Let's consider free agreement

3991

first.

3992

3993

Anarchists recognise the importance of letting people organise their own

3994

lives. This means that they reject central planning and instead urge

3995

direct links between workers' associations. In the words of Kropotkin,

3996

"[f]ree workers would require a free organisation, and this cannot

3997

have any other basis than free agreement and free co-operation, without

3998

sacrificing the autonomy of the individual." [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary

3999

Pamphlets_, p. 52] Those directly involved in production (and in

4000

consumption) know their needs far better than any bureaucrat. Thus

4001

voluntary agreement is the basis of a free economy, such agreements

4002

being "entered by free consent, as a free choice between different

4003

courses equally open to each of the agreeing parties." [Peter

4004

Kropotkin, _Anarchism and Anarchist Communism_, p. 52] Without the

4005

concentration of wealth and power associated with capitalism,

4006

free agreement will become real and no longer a mask for hierarchy. So

4007

anarchists think that "[i]n the same way that each free individual has

4008

associated with his brothers [and sisters!] to produce . . . all that

4009

was necessary for life, driven by no other force than his desire for

4010

the full enjoyment of life, so each institution is free and self-contained,

4011

and co-operates and enters into agreements with others because by so

4012

doing it extends its own possibilities." [George Barrett, _The Anarchist

4013

Revolution_, p. 18] An example of one such agreement would be orders for

4014

products and services.

4015

4016

This suggests a decentralised economy -- even more decentralised than

4017

capitalism (which is "decentralised" only in capitalist mythology, as

4018

shown by big business and transnational corporations, for example) --

4019

one "growing ever more closely bound together and interwoven by free and

4020

mutual agreements." [Ibid., p. 18] For social anarchists, this would take

4021

the form of "free exchange without the medium of money and without profit,

4022

on the basis of requirement and the supply at hand." [Alexander Berkman,

4023

_ABC of Anarchism_, p. 69]

4024

4025

Therefore, an anarchist economy would be based on spontaneous order as

4026

workers practised mutual aid and free association. The anarchist economy

4027

"starts from below, not from above. Like an organism, this free society grows

4028

into being from the simple unit up to the complex structure. The need

4029

for . . . the individual struggle for life . . . is . . .sufficient to set

4030

the whole complex social machinery in motion. Society is the result of the

4031

individual struggle for existence; it is not, as many suppose, opposed to

4032

it." [George Barrett, Op. Cit., p. 18]

4033

4034

In other words, "[t]his factory of ours is, then, to the fullest extent

4035

consistent with the character of its service, a self-governing unit, managing

4036

its own productive operations, and free to experiment to the heart's content

4037

in new methods, to develop new styles and products. . . This autonomy of

4038

the factory is the safeguard. . . against the dead level of mediocrity,

4039

the more than adequate substitute for the variety which the competitive

4040

motive was once supposed to stimulate, the guarantee of liveliness, and

4041

of individual work and workmanship." [G.D.H. Cole, _Guild Socialism

4042

Restated_, p. 59]

4043

4044

This brings us to the second form of relationships between syndicates,

4045

namely confederations of syndicates. If individual or syndicate

4046

activities spread beyond their initial locality, they would probably

4047

reach a scale at which they would need to constitute a confederation.

4048

At this scale, industrial confederations of syndicates are necessary to

4049

aid communication between workplaces who produce for a large area. No

4050

syndicate exists in isolation, and so there is a real need for a means by

4051

which syndicates can meet together to discuss common interests and act on

4052

them. Thus confederations are complementary to free agreement. Bakunin's

4053

comments are very applicable here:

4054

4055

"[A] truly popular organisation begins from below, from the association,

4056

from the commune. Thus starting out with the organisation of the lowest

4057

nucleus and proceeding upward, federalism becomes a political institution

4058

of socialism, the free and spontaneous organisation of popular life."

4059

[_The Political Philosophy of Bakunin_, pp. 273-4]

4060

4061

Given that Bakunin, like many anarchists, considered that "the

4062

federative Alliance of all working men's [sic!] associations . . .

4063

[would] constitute the Commune," the political institutions

4064

of anarchy would be similar to its economic institutions. Indeed,

4065

Bakunin argued for a "free federation of agricultural and industrial

4066

associations . . . organised from the bottom upwards" to be the

4067

basis of a revolution (in 1905 and in 1917, revolutionary workers

4068

and peasants did exactly that, we should note, when they created

4069

*soviets* -- Russian for councils -- during their revolutions).

4070

Hence Bakunin's comments on "political" institutions and

4071

federalism are applicable to a discussion of economic institutions.

4072

[_Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings_, p. 170 and p. 172]

4073

4074

A confederation of syndicates (called a "guild" by some libertarian

4075

socialists, or "industrial union" by others) works on two levels: within

4076

an industry and across industries. The basic operating principle of these

4077

confederations is the same as that of the syndicate itself -- voluntary

4078

co-operation between equals in order to meet common needs. In other words,

4079

each syndicate in the confederation is linked by horizontal agreements

4080

with the others, and none owe any obligations to a separate entity above

4081

the group (see section A.2.11, "Why are anarchists in favour of direct

4082

democracy?" for more on the nature of anarchist confederation).

4083

4084

Kropotkin's comments on federalism between communes indicate this

4085

(a syndicate can be considered as a producers' commune):

4086

4087

"The Commune of tomorrow will know that it cannot admit any higher

4088

authority; above it there can only be the interests of the Federation,

4089

freely accepted by itself as well as other communes. . ." [_Words of

4090

a Rebel_, p. 83]

4091

4092

Nor need federalism conflict with autonomy, as each member would

4093

have extensive freedom of action within its boundaries:

4094

4095

"The Commune will be absolutely free to adopt all the institutions

4096

it wishes and to make all the reforms and revolutions it finds

4097

necessary." [Op. Cit., p. 83]

4098

4099

Moreover, these federations would be diverse and functional. Economic

4100

federation would a produce a complex inter-networking between

4101

associations and federations. In Kropotkin's words:

4102

4103

"Our needs are in fact so various, and they emerge with such rapidity,

4104

that soon a single federation will not be sufficient to satisfy them

4105

all. The Commune will then feel the need to contract other alliances,

4106

to enter into other federations. Belonging to one group for the

4107

acquisition of food supplies, it will have to join a second group

4108

to obtain other goods, such as metals, and then a third and a fourth

4109

group for textiles and works of art." [Op. Cit., p. 87]

4110

4111

As such, the confederations reflect anarchist ideas of free association

4112

and decentralised organisation as well as concern for practical needs:

4113

4114

"Anarchists are strenuously opposed to the authoritarian, centralist

4115

spirit . . . So they picture a future social life in the basis of

4116

federalism, from the individual to the municipality, to the commune,

4117

to the region, to the nation, to the international, on the basis of

4118

solidarity and free agreement. And it is natural that this ideal

4119

should be reflected also in the organisation of production, giving

4120

preference as far as possible, to a decentralised sort of organisation;

4121

but this does not take the form of an absolute rule to be applied in

4122

every instance. A libertarian order would be in itself, on the other

4123

hand, rule out the possibility of imposing such a unilateral solution."

4124

[Luigi Fabbri, "Anarchy and 'Scientific Communism", pp. 13-49, _The

4125

Poverty of Statism_, Albert Meltzer (ed.), p. 23]

4126

4127

Therefore, a confederation of syndicates would be adaptive to its members

4128

needs. As Tom Brown argued, the "syndicalist mode of organisation is

4129

extremely elastic, therein is its chief strength, and the regional

4130

confederations can be formed, modified, added to or reformed according

4131

to local conditions and changing circumstances." [_Syndicalism_, p. 58]

4132

4133

As would be imagined, these confederations are voluntary associations and

4134

"[j]ust as factory autonomy is vital in order to keep the Guild system alive

4135

and vigorous, the existence of varying democratic types of factories in

4136

independence of the National Guilds may also be a means of valuable

4137

experiment and fruitful initiative of individual minds. In insistently

4138

refusing to carry their theory to its last 'logical' conclusion, the

4139

Guildsmen [and anarchists] are true to their love of freedom and varied

4140

social enterprise." [G.D.H. Cole, Op. Cit., p. 65]

4141

4142

As we noted, in the last section, inter-workplace federations are not

4143

limited to collectivist, syndicalist and communist anarchists. Proudhon,

4144

for example, suggested an "agro-industrial federation" as the structural

4145

support organisation for his system of self-managed co-operatives. As

4146

the example many isolated co-operatives have shown, support networks

4147

are essential for co-operatives to survive under capitalism. It is no

4148

co-incidence that the Mondragon co-operative complex in the Basque

4149

region of Spain has a credit union and mutual support networks between

4150

its co-operatives and is by far the most successful co-operative

4151

system in the world.

4152

4153

If a workplace agrees to confederate, then it gets to share in the

4154

resources of the confederation and so gains the benefits of mutual aid. In

4155

return for the benefits of confederal co-operation, the syndicate's tools

4156

of production become the "property" of society, to be used but not owned

4157

by those who work in them. This does not mean centralised control from the

4158

top, for "when we say that ownership of the tools of production, including

4159

the factory itself, should revert to the corporation [i.e. confederation]

4160

we do not mean that the workers in the individual workshops will be ruled

4161

by any kind of industrial government having power to do what it pleases

4162

with [them]. . . . No, the workers. . .[will not] hand over their hard-won

4163

control. . . to a superior power. . . . What they will do is. . . to

4164

guarantee reciprocal use of their tools of production and accord their

4165

fellow workers in other factories the right to share their facilities [and

4166

vice versa]. . .with [all] whom they have contracted the pact of

4167

solidarity." [James Guillaume, _Bakunin on Anarchism_, pp. 363-364]

4168

4169

Facilitating this type of co-operation is the major role of

4170

inter-industry confederations, which also ensure that when the members of

4171

a syndicate change work to another syndicate in another (or the same)

4172

branch of industry, they have the same rights as the members of their new

4173

syndicate. In other words, by being part of the confederation, a worker

4174

ensures that s/he has the same rights and an equal say in whatever

4175

workplace is joined. This is essential to ensure that a co-operative

4176

society remains co-operative, as the system is based on the principle of

4177

"one person, one vote" by all those involved the work process.

4178

4179

So, beyond this reciprocal sharing, what other roles does the

4180

confederation play? Basically, there are two. Firstly, the sharing and

4181

co-ordination of information produced by the syndicates (as will be

4182

discussed in section I.3.5), and, secondly, determining the response to

4183

the changes in production and consumption indicated by this information.

4184

As the "vertical" links between syndicates are non-hierarchical, each

4185

syndicate remains self-governing. This ensures decentralisation of power

4186

and direct control, initiative, and experimentation by those involved in

4187

doing the work. Hence, "the internal organisation [of one syndicate] . . .

4188

need not be identical [to others]: Organisational forms and procedures

4189

will vary greatly according to the preferences of the associated workers."

4190

[Ibid., p. 361] In practice, this would probably mean that each syndicate

4191

gets its own orders and determines the best way to satisfy them (i.e.

4192

manages its own work and working conditions).

4193

4194

As indicated above, free agreement will ensure that customers would be

4195

able to choose their own suppliers, meaning that production units would

4196

know whether they were producing what their customers wanted, i.e.,

4197

whether they were meeting social need as expressed through demand. If

4198

they were not, customers would go elsewhere, to other production units

4199

within the same branch of production. We should stress that in addition

4200

to this negative check (i.e. "exit" by consumers) it is likely, via

4201

consumer groups and co-operatives as well as communes, that workplaces

4202

will be subject to positive checks on what they produced. Consumer

4203

groups, by formulating and communicating needs to producer groups,

4204

will have a key role in ensuring the quality of production and goods

4205

and that it satisfies their needs (see section I.4.7 for more details

4206

of this).

4207

4208

However, while production will be based on autonomous networking, the

4209

investment response to consumer actions would, to some degree, be

4210

co-ordinated by a confederation of syndicates in that branch of

4211

production. By such means, the confederation can ensure that resources

4212

are not wasted by individual syndicates over-producing goods or

4213

over-investing in response to changes in production (see the next

4214

section).

4215

4216

I.3.5 What would confederations of syndicates do?

4217

4218

Voluntary confederation among syndicates is required in order to decide

4219

on the policies governing relations between syndicates and to co-ordinate

4220

their activities. There are two basic kinds of confederation: within all

4221

workplaces of a certain type, and within the whole economy (the federation

4222

of all syndicates). Both would operate at different levels, meaning there

4223

would be confederations for both industrial and inter-industrial

4224

associations at the local and regional levels and beyond. The basic aim

4225

of this inter-industry and cross-industry networking is to ensure that

4226

the relevant information is spread across the various elemental parts of

4227

the economy so that each can effectively co-ordinate its plans with the

4228

others. By communicating across workplaces, people can overcome the

4229

barriers to co-ordinating their plans which one finds in market systems

4230

(see section C.7.2) and so avoid the economic and social disruptions

4231

associated with capitalism.

4232

4233

However, it is essential to remember that each syndicate within the

4234

confederation is autonomous. The confederations seek to co-ordinate

4235

activities of joint interest (in particular investment decisions for new

4236

plant and the rationalisation of existing plant in light of reduced

4237

demand). They do not determine what work a syndicate does or how

4238

they do it. As Kropotkin argued (based on his firsthand experience of

4239

Russia under Lenin):

4240

4241

"No government would be able to organise production if the workers

4242

themselves through their unions did not do it in each branch of

4243

industry; for in all production there arise daily thousands of

4244

difficulties which no government can solve or foresee. It is certainly

4245

impossible to foresee everything. Only the efforts of thousands of

4246

intelligences working on the problems can co-operate in the development

4247

of a new social system and find the best solutions for the thousands of

4248

local needs." [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_, pp. 76-77]

4249

4250

Thus Cole's statement:

4251

4252

"With the factory thus largely conducting its own concerns, the duties

4253

of the larger Guild organisations [i.e. confederations] would be mainly

4254

those of co-ordination, or regulation, and of representing the Guild in

4255

its external relations. They would, where it was necessary, co-ordinate

4256

the production of various factories, so as to make supply coincide

4257

with demand. . . they would organise research . . . This large Guild

4258

organisation. . . must be based directly on the various factories

4259

included in the Guild." [_Guild Socialism Restated_, pp. 59-60]

4260

4261

So it is important to note that the lowest units of confederation -- the

4262

workers' councils -- will control the higher levels, through their power

4263

to elect mandated and recallable delegates to meetings of higher

4264

confederal units. "Mandated" means that the delegates will go to the

4265

meeting of the higher confederal body with specific instructions on how

4266

to vote on a particular issue, and if they do not vote according to that

4267

mandate they will be recalled and the results of the vote nullified.

4268

Delegates will be ordinary workers rather than paid representatives or

4269

union leaders, and they will return to their usual jobs as soon as the

4270

mandate for which they have been elected has been carried out. In this

4271

way, decision-making power remains with the workers' councils and

4272

does not become concentrated at the top of a bureaucratic hierarchy in

4273

an elite class of professional administrators or union leaders. For the

4274

workers' councils will have the final say on *all* policy decisions,

4275

being able to revoke policies made by those with delegated

4276

decision-making power and to recall those who made them:

4277

4278

"When it comes to the material and technical method of production, anarchists

4279

have no preconceived solutions or absolute prescriptions, and bow to what

4280

experience and conditions in a free society recommend and prescribe. What

4281

matters is that, whatever the type of production adopted, it should be the

4282

free choice of the producers themselves, and cannot possibly be imposed,

4283

any more than any form is possible of exploitations of another's labour. . .

4284

Anarchists do not *a priori* exclude any practical solution and likewise

4285

concede that there may be a number of different solutions at different

4286

times." [Luigi Fabbri, "Anarchy and 'Scientific' Communism", pp. 13-49,

4287

_The Poverty of Statism_, Albert Meltzer (ed.), p. 22]

4288

4289

Confederations (negotiated-co-ordination bodies) would, therefore, be

4290

responsible for clearly defined branches of production, and in general,

4291

production units would operate in only one branch of production. These

4292

confederations would have direct links to other confederations and the

4293

relevant communal confederations, which supply the syndicates with

4294

guidelines for decision making (as will be discussed in section I.4.4)

4295

and ensure that common problems can be highlighted and discussed. These

4296

confederations exist to ensure that information is spread between

4297

workplaces and to ensure that the industry responds to changes in social

4298

demand. In other words, these confederations exist to co-ordinate major

4299

new investment decisions (i.e. if demand exceeds supply) and to determine

4300

how to respond if there is excess capacity (i.e. if supply exceeds demand).

4301

4302

It should be pointed out that these confederated investment decisions

4303

will exist along with the investments associated with the creation of

4304

new syndicates, plus internal syndicate investment decisions. We are

4305

not suggesting that *every* investment decision is to be made by the

4306

confederations. (This would be particularly impossible for *new*

4307

industries, for which a confederation would not exist!) Therefore, in

4308

addition to co-ordinated production units, an anarchist society would see

4309

numerous small-scale, local activities which would ensure creativity,

4310

diversity, and flexibility. Only after these activities had spread across

4311

society would confederal co-ordination become necessary.

4312

4313

Thus, major investment decisions would be made at congresses and plenums

4314

of the industry's syndicates, by a process of horizontal, negotiated

4315

co-ordination. This model combines "planning" with decentralisation. Major

4316

investment decisions are co-ordinated at an appropriate level, with each

4317

unit in the confederation being autonomous, deciding what to do with its

4318

own productive capacity in order to meet social demand. Thus we have

4319

self-governing production units co-ordinated by confederations (horizontal

4320

negotiation), which ensures local initiative (a vital source of

4321

flexibility, creativity, and diversity) and a rational response to

4322

changes in social demand.

4323

4324

It should be noted that during the Spanish Revolution syndicates organised

4325

themselves very successfully as town-wide industrial confederations of

4326

syndicates. These were based on the town-level industrial confederation

4327

getting orders for products for its industry and allocating work between

4328

individual workplaces (as opposed to each syndicate receiving orders for

4329

itself). Gaston Leval noted that this form of organisation (with increased

4330

responsibilities for the confederation) did not harm the libertarian

4331

nature of anarchist self-management:

4332

4333

"Everything was controlled by the syndicates. But it must not therefore

4334

be assumed that everything was decided by a few higher bureaucratic

4335

committees without consulting the rank and file members of the union.

4336

Here libertarian democracy was practised. As in the C.N.T. there was a

4337

reciprocal double structure; from the grass roots at the base . . .

4338

upwards, and in the other direction a reciprocal influence from the

4339

federation of these same local units at all levels downwards, from the

4340

source back to the source." [_The Anarchist Collectives_, p. 105]

4341

4342

Such a solution, or similar ones, may be more practical in some situations

4343

than having each syndicate receive its own orders and so anarchists do not

4344

reject such confederal responsibilities out of hand (although the general

4345

prejudice is for decentralisation). This is because we "prefer decentralised

4346

management; but ultimately, in practical and technical problems, we defer

4347

to free experience." [Luigi Fabbri, Op. Cit., p. 24] The specific form of

4348

organisation will obviously vary as required from industry to industry,

4349

area to area, but the underlying ideas of self-management and free association

4350

will be the same. Moreover, in the words of G.D.H Cole, the "essential

4351

thing . . . is that its [the confederation or guild] function should be

4352

kept down to the minimum possible for each industry." [Op. Cit., p. 61]

4353

4354

In this way, the periodic crises of capitalism based on over-investment

4355

and over-production (followed by depression) and their resulting social

4356

problems can be avoided and resources efficiently and effectively

4357

utilised. In addition, production (and so the producers) can be freed

4358

from the centralised control of both capitalist and state hierarchies.

4359

4360

Another important role for inter-syndicate federations is to even

4361

out natural inequalities. After all, each commune will not be

4362

identical in terms of natural resources, quality of land,

4363

situation, accessibility, and so on. Simply put, social

4364

anarchists "believe that because of natural differences in

4365

fertility, health and location of the soil it would be

4366

impossible to ensure that every individual enjoyed equal

4367

working conditions." Under such circumstances, it would be

4368

"impossible to achieve a state of equality from the beginning"

4369

and so "justice and equity are, for natural reasons,

4370

impossible to achieve . . . and that freedom would thus

4371

also be unachievable." [Malatesta, _The Anarchist Revolution_,

4372

p. 16 and p. 21] By federating together, workers can ensure

4373

that "the earth will . . . be an economic domain available

4374

to everyone, the riches of which will be enjoyed by all

4375

human beings." [Malatesta, _Life and Ideas_, p. 93] Local

4376

deficiencies of raw materials, in the quality of land,

4377

and, therefore, supplies would be compensated from outside,

4378

by the socialisation of production and consumption. This

4379

would allow all of humanity to share and benefit from economic

4380

activity, so ensuring that well-being for all is possible.

4381

4382

Federation would eliminate the possibility of rich and

4383

poor collectives and syndicates co-existing side by side.

4384

As Kropotkin argued, "[c]ommon possession of the necessities

4385

for production implies the common enjoyment of the fruits

4386

of common production . . . when everybody, contributing

4387

for the common well-being to the full extent of his

4388

[or her] capacities, shall enjoy also from the common

4389

stock of society to the fullest possible extent of his

4390

[or her] needs." [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_,

4391

p. 59]

4392

4393

Hence we find the CNT, arguing in its 1936 resolution on

4394

libertarian communism, that "[a]s far as the interchange

4395

of produce between communes is concerned, the communal

4396

councils are to liase with the regional federations of

4397

communes and with the confederal council of production

4398

and distribution, applying for whatever they may need and

4399

[giving] any available surplus stocks." [quoted by Jose

4400

Peirats, _The CNT in the Spanish Revolution_, vol. 1,

4401

p. 107] This clearly followed Kropotkin's comments that

4402

the "socialising of production, consumption, and exchange"

4403

would be based on workplaces "belong[ing] to federated

4404

Communes." [_The Conquest of Bread_, p. 136]

4405

4406

The legacy of capitalism, with its rich and poor areas, its

4407

rich and poor workplaces, will be a problem any revolution

4408

will face. The inequalities produced by centuries will take

4409

time to change. This is one of the tasks of the federation, to

4410

ensure the socialisation of both production and consumption

4411

so that people are not penalised for the accidents of history

4412

and that each commune can develop itself to an adequate level.

4413

In the words of the CNT during the Spanish Revolution:

4414

4415

"Many arguments are used against the idea of socialisation;

4416

one of these -- the most delightful -- says that by socialising

4417

an industry we simply take it over and run it with the consequence

4418

that we have flourishing industries where the workers are privileged,

4419

and unfortunate industries where the workers get less benefits but

4420

have to work harder than workers elsewhere . . . There are

4421

differences between the workers in prosperous industries and

4422

those which barely survive. . . Such anomalies, which we don't

4423

deny exist, are attributed to the attempts at socialisation. We

4424

firmly assert that the opposite is true; such anomalies are the

4425

logical result of the absence of socialisation.

4426

4427

"The socialisation which we propose will resolve these problems which

4428

are used to attack it. Were Catalan industry socialised, everything

4429

would be organically linked -- industry, agriculture, and the trade

4430

union organisations, in accordance with the council for the economy.

4431

They would become normalised, the working day would become more equal

4432

or what comes to the same thing, the differences between workers of

4433

different activities would end . . .

4434

4435

"Socialisation is -- and let its detractors hear it -- the genuine

4436

authentic organisation of the economy. Undoubtedly the economy has

4437

to be organised; but not according to the old methods, which are

4438

precisely those which we are destroying, but in accordance with

4439

new norms which will make our people become an example to the

4440

world proletariat." [_Solidaridad Obrera_, 30 April 1937, p. l2]

4441

4442

However, it could again be argued that these confederations are still

4443

centralised and that workers would still be following orders coming from

4444

above. This is incorrect, for any decisions concerning an industry or plant

4445

are under the direct control of those involved. For example, the steel

4446

industry confederation may decide to rationalise itself at one of its

4447

congresses. Murray Bookchin sketches the response to this situation as

4448

follows:

4449

4450

"[L]et us suppose that a board of highly qualified technicians is

4451

established [by this congress] to propose changes in the steel

4452

industry. This board. . . advances proposals to rationalise the

4453

industry by closing down some plants and expanding the operation

4454

of others . . . Is this a 'centralised' body or not? The answer

4455

is both yes and no. Yes, only in the sense that the board is

4456

dealing with problems that concern the country as a whole; no,

4457

because it can make no decision that *must* be executed for

4458

the country as a whole. The board's plan must be examined by

4459

all the workers in the plants [that are affected]. . . . The

4460

board itself has no power to enforce 'decisions'; it merely

4461

makes recommendations. Additionally, its personnel are controlled

4462

by the plant in which they work and the locality in which they

4463

live." [_Post Scarcity Anarchism_, p. 267]

4464

4465

Therefore, confederations would not be in positions of power over the

4466

individual syndicates. As Bookchin points out, "[t]hey would have no

4467

decision-making powers. The adoption, modification or rejection of their

4468

plans would rest entirely with the communities involved." [Op. Cit.,

4469

p. 267] No attempt is made to determine which plants produce which

4470

steel for which customers in which manner. Thus, the confederations of

4471

syndicates ensure a decentralised, spontaneous economic order without

4472

the negative side-effects of capitalism (namely power concentrations

4473

within firms and in the market, periodic crises, etc.).

4474

4475

It should be pointed out that these confederated investment decisions

4476

will exist along with the investments associated with the creation of

4477

new syndicates, plus internal syndicate investment decisions. We are

4478

not suggesting that *every* investment decision is to be made by the

4479

confederations. (This would be particularly impossible for *new*

4480

industries, for which a confederation would not exist!) Therefore, in

4481

addition to co-ordinated production units, an anarchist society would

4482

see numerous small-scale, local activities which would ensure creativity,

4483

diversity, and flexibility. Only after these activities had spread across

4484

society would confederal co-ordination become necessary.

4485

4486

As one can imagine, an essential feature of these confederations will be

4487

the collection and processing of information in order to determine how an

4488

industry is developing. This does not imply bureaucracy or centralised

4489

control at the top. Taking the issue of centralisation first, the

4490

confederation is run by delegate assemblies, meaning that any officers

4491

elected at a congress only implement the decisions made by the delegates

4492

of the relevant syndicates. It is in the congresses and plenums of the

4493

confederation that new investment decisions, for example, are made. The

4494

key point to remember is that the confederation exists purely to

4495

co-ordinate joint activity and share information, it does not take an

4496

interest in how a workplace is run or what orders from consumers it fills.

4497

(Of course, if a given workplace introduces policies which other

4498

syndicates disapprove of, it can be expelled). As the delegates to these

4499

congresses and plenums are mandated and their decisions subject to

4500

rejection and modification by each productive unit, the confederation is

4501

not centralised.

4502

4503

As far as bureaucracy goes, the collecting and processing of information

4504

does necessitate an administrative staff to do the work. However, this

4505

problem affects capitalist firms as well; and since syndicates are based

4506

on bottom-up decision making, its clear that, unlike a centralised

4507

capitalist corporation, administration would be smaller.

4508

4509

In fact, it is likely that a fixed administration staff for the confederation

4510

would not exist in the first place! At the regular congresses, a particular

4511

syndicate may be selected to do the confederation's information processing,

4512

with this job being rotated regularly around different syndicates. In this

4513

way, a specific administrative body and equipment can be avoided and the

4514

task of collating information placed directly in the hands of ordinary

4515

workers. Further, it prevents the development of a bureaucratic elite by

4516

ensuring that *all* participants are versed in information-processing

4517

procedures.

4518

4519

Lastly, what information would be collected? That depends on the context.

4520

Individual syndicates would record inputs and outputs, producing summary

4521

sheets of information. For example, total energy input, in kilowatts and

4522

by type, raw material inputs, labour hours spent, orders received, orders

4523

accepted, output, and so forth. This information can be processed into

4524

energy use and labour time per product (for example), in order to give an

4525

idea of how efficient production is and how it is changing over time. For

4526

confederations, the output of individual syndicates can be aggregated and

4527

local and other averages can be calculated. In addition, changes in demand

4528

can be identified by this aggregation process and used to identify when

4529

investment will be needed or plants closed down. In this way the chronic

4530

slumps and booms of capitalism can be avoided without creating a system

4531

which is even more centralised than capitalism.

4532

4533

I.3.6 What about competition between syndicates?

4534

4535

This is a common question, particularly from defenders of capitalism.

4536

They argue that syndicates will not co-operate together unless forced to

4537

do so, but will compete against each other for raw materials, skilled

4538

workers, and so on. The result of this process, it is claimed, will be

4539

rich and poor syndicates, inequality within society and within the

4540

workplace, and (possibly) a class of unemployed workers from unsuccessful

4541

syndicates who are hired by successful ones. In other words, they argue

4542

that libertarian socialism will need to become authoritarian to prevent

4543

competition, and that if it does not do so it will become capitalist very

4544

quickly.

4545

4546

For individualist anarchists and mutualists, competition is not viewed

4547

as a problem. They think that competition, based around co-operatives and

4548

mutual banks, would minimise economic inequality, as the new economic

4549

structure based around free credit and co-operation would eliminate

4550

non-labour (i.e. unearned) income such as profit, interest and rent and

4551

give workers enough bargaining power to eliminate exploitation. For

4552

these anarchists it is a case of capitalism perverting competition

4553

and so are not against competition itself (see Proudhon's _General

4554

Idea of the Revolution_, pages 50-1 for example). Other anarchists

4555

think that whatever gains might accrue from competition (assuming

4556

there are, in fact, any) would be more than offset by its negative

4557

effects, which are outlined in section I.1.3. It is to these anarchists

4558

that the question is usually asked.

4559

4560

Before continuing, we would like to point out that individuals trying to

4561

improve their lot in life is not against anarchist principles. How could

4562

it be? What *is* against anarchist principles is centralised power,

4563

oppression, and exploitation, all of which flow from large inequalities

4564

of income. This is the source of anarchist concern about equality --

4565

concern that is not based on some sort of "politics of envy." Anarchists

4566

oppose inequality because it soon leads to the few oppressing the many (a

4567

relationship which distorts the individuality and liberty of all involved

4568

as well as the health and very lives of the oppressed).

4569

4570

Anarchists desire to create a society in which such relationships are

4571

impossible, believing that the most effective way to do this is by

4572

empowering all, by creating an egoistic concern for liberty and equality

4573

among the oppressed, and by developing social organisations which encourage

4574

self-management. As for individuals' trying to improve their lot, anarchists

4575

maintain that co-operation is the best means to do so, *not* competition.

4576

And there is substantial evidence to support this claim (see, for example,

4577

Alfie Kohn's _No Contest: The Case Against Competition_).

4578

4579

Robert Axelrod, in his book, _The Evolution of Co-operation_ agrees and

4580

presents abundant evidence that co-operation is in our long term interests

4581

(i.e. it provides better results than short term competition). This suggests

4582

that, as Kropotkin argued, mutual aid, not mutual struggle, will be in an

4583

individual's self-interest and so competition in a free, sane society would

4584

be minimised and reduced to sports and other individual pastimes. As Stirner

4585

argued, co-operation is just as egoistic as competition (a fact sometimes

4586

lost on many due to the obvious ethical superiority of co-operation):

4587

4588

"But should competition some day disappear, because concerted effort

4589

will have been acknowledged as more beneficial than isolation, then

4590

will not every single individual inside the associations be equally

4591

egoistic and out for his own interests?" [_No Gods, No Masters_, vol. 1,

4592

p. 22]

4593

4594

Now to the "competition" objection, which we'll begin to answer by

4595

noting that it ignores a few key points. Firstly, the assumption that

4596

libertarian socialism would "become capitalist" in the absence of a

4597

*state* is obviously false. If competition did occur between collectives

4598

and did lead to massive wealth inequalities, then the newly rich would

4599

have to create a state to protect their private property (means of

4600

production) against the dispossessed. So inequality, not equality,

4601

leads to the creation of states. It is no co-incidence that the

4602

anarchic communities that existed for millennia were also egalitarian.

4603

4604

Secondly, as noted in section A.2.5, anarchists do not consider "equal"

4605

to mean "identical." Therefore, to claim that wage differences mean

4606

inequality makes sense only if one thinks that "equality" means everyone

4607

getting *exactly* equal shares. As anarchists do not hold such an idea,

4608

wage differences in an otherwise anarchistically organised syndicate do

4609

not indicate a lack of equality. How the syndicate is *run* is of far

4610

more importance, because the most pernicious type of inequality from the

4611

anarchist standpoint is inequality of *power,* i.e. unequal influence on

4612

political and economic decision making.

4613

4614

Under capitalism, wealth inequality translates into such an inequality of

4615

power, and vice versa, because wealth can buy private property (and state

4616

protection of it), which gives owners authority over that property and those

4617

hired to produce with it; but under libertarian socialism, minor or even

4618

moderate differences in income among otherwise equal workers would not lead

4619

to this kind of power inequality, because direct democracy, social ownership

4620

of capital, and the absence of a state severs the link between wealth and

4621

power (see further below). Empirical evidence supports anarchist claims

4622

as co-operatives have a more egalitarian wage structure than corresponding

4623

capitalist firms.

4624

4625

Thirdly, anarchists do not pretend that an anarchist society will be

4626

"perfect." Hence there may be periods, particularly just after capitalism

4627

has been replaced by self-management, when differences in skill, etc.,

4628

leads to a few people exploiting their fellow workers and getting more

4629

wages, better hours and conditions, and so forth. This problem existed in

4630

the industrial collectives in the Spanish Revolution. As Kropotkin

4631

pointed out, "[b]ut, when all is said and done, some inequalities, some

4632

inevitable injustice, undoubtedly will remain. There are individuals in

4633

our societies whom no great crisis can lift out of the deep mire of egoism

4634

in which they are sunk. The question, however, is not whether there will

4635

be injustices or no, but rather how to limit the number of them." [_The

4636

Conquest of Bread_, p. 94]

4637

4638

In other words, these problems will exist, but there are a number of

4639

things that anarchists can do to minimise their impact. Primarily there

4640

must be a "gestation period" before the birth of an anarchist society, in

4641

which social struggle, new forms of education and child-rearing, and other

4642

methods of consciousness-raising increase the number of anarchists and

4643

decrease the number of authoritarians.

4644

4645

The most important element in this gestation period is social struggle.

4646

Such self-activity will have a major impact on those involved in it

4647

(see section J.2). By direct action and solidarity, those involved develop

4648

bounds of friendship and support with others, develop new forms of ethics

4649

and new ideas and ideal. This radicalisation process will help to ensure that

4650

any differences in education and skill do not develop into differences in

4651

power in an anarchist society.

4652

4653

In addition, education within the anarchist movement should aim, among other

4654

things, to give its members familiarity with technological skills so that they

4655

are not dependent on "experts" and can thus increase the pool of skilled

4656

workers who will be happy working in conditions of liberty and equality.

4657

This will ensure that differentials between workers can be minimised.

4658

4659

In the long run, however, popularisation of non-authoritarian methods of

4660

child-rearing and education are particularly important because, as we have

4661

seen, secondary drives such as greed and the desire the exercise power over

4662

others are products of authoritarian upbringing based on punishments and fear

4663

(See sections B.1.5, "What is the mass-psychological basis for authoritarian

4664

civilisation?" and J.6, "What methods of child rearing do anarchists

4665

advocate?"). Only if the prevalence of such drives is reduced among the

4666

general population can we be sure that an anarchist revolution will not

4667

degenerate into some new form of domination and exploitation.

4668

4669

However, there are other reasons why economic inequality -- say, in

4670

differences of income levels or working conditions, which may arise from

4671

competition for "better" workers -- would be far less severe under any form

4672

of anarchist society than it is under capitalism. Firstly, the syndicates

4673

would be democratically managed. This would result in much smaller wage

4674

differentials, because there is no board of wealthy directors setting

4675

wage levels for their own gain and who think nothing of hierarchy and

4676

having elites. The decentralisation of power in an anarchist society will

4677

ensure that there would no longer be wealthy elites paying each other vast

4678

amounts of money. This can be seen from the experience of the Mondragon

4679

co-operatives, where the wage difference between the highest paid and lowest

4680

paid worker was 4 to 1. This was only increased recently when they had to

4681

compete with large capitalist companies, and even then the new ratio of 9

4682

to 1 is *far* smaller than those in American or British companies (in

4683

America, for example, the ratio is even as high at 200 to 1 and beyond!).

4684

Thus, even under capitalism "[t]here is evidence that the methods of

4685

distribution chosen by worker-controlled or self-managed firms are more

4686

egalitarian than distribution according to market precepts." [Christopher

4687

Eaton Gunn, _Workers' Self-Management in the United States_, p. 45] Given

4688

that market precepts fail to take into account power differences, this is

4689

unsurprising. Thus we can predict that a fully self-managed economy

4690

would be just, if not, more egalitarian as differences in power would

4691

be eliminated, as would unemployment (James K. Galbraith, in his book

4692

_Created Unequal_, has presented extensive evidence that unemployment

4693

increases inequality, as would be expected).

4694

4695

It is a common myth that managers, executives and so on are "rugged

4696

individuals" and are paid so highly because of their unique abilities.

4697

Actually, they are so highly paid because they are bureaucrats in

4698

command of large hierarchical institutions. It is the hierarchical

4699

nature of the capitalist firm that ensures inequality, *not*

4700

exceptional skills. Even enthusiastic supporters of capitalism

4701

provide evidence to support this claim. Peter Drucker (in _Concept

4702

of the Corporation_) brushed away the claim that corporate organisation

4703

brings managers with exceptional ability to the top when he noted that

4704

"[n]o institution can possibly survive if it needs geniuses or

4705

supermen to manage it. It must be organised in such a way as to

4706

be able to get along under a leadership of average human beings."

4707

[p. 35] For Drucker, "the things that really count are not the

4708

individual members but the relations of command and responsibility

4709

among them." [p. 34]

4710

4711

Anarchists argue that high wage differences are the result of how capitalism

4712

is organised and that capitalist economics exists to justify these results by

4713

assuming company hierarchy and capitalist ownership evolved naturally (as

4714

opposed to being created by state action and protection). The end of

4715

capitalist hierarchy would also see the end of vast differences of income

4716

because decision making power would be decentralised back into the hands of

4717

those affected by those decisions.

4718

4719

Secondly, corporations would not exist. A network of workplaces co-ordinated

4720

by confederal committees would not have the resources available to pay

4721

exorbitant wages. Unlike a capitalist company, power is decentralised in

4722

a confederation of syndicates and wealth does not flow to the top. This

4723

means that there is no elite of executives who control the surplus made

4724

from the company's workers and can use that surplus to pay themselves

4725

high wages while ensuring that the major shareholders receive high enough

4726

dividends not to question their activities (or their pay).

4727

4728

Thirdly, management positions would be rotated, ensuring that everyone

4729

gets experience of the work, thus reducing the artificial scarcity

4730

created by the division of labour. Also, education would be extensive,

4731

ensuring that engineers, doctors, and other skilled workers would do

4732

the work because they *enjoyed* doing it and not for financial reward.

4733

And lastly, we should like to point out that people work for many reasons,

4734

not just for high wages. Feelings of solidarity, empathy, friendship with

4735

their fellow workers would also help reduce competition between syndicates

4736

for workers. Of course, having no means of unearned income (such as rent

4737

and interest), social anarchism will reduce income differentials even more.

4738

4739

Of course, the "competition" objection assumes that syndicates and

4740

members of syndicates will place financial considerations above all

4741

else. This is not the case, and few individuals are the economic robots

4742

assumed in capitalist dogma. Indeed, the evidence from co-operatives

4743

refutes such claims (ignoring, for the moment, the vast evidence of

4744

our own senses and experiences with real people rather than the insane

4745

"economic man" of capitalist economic ideology). Neo-classical

4746

economic theory, deducting from its basic assumptions, argues

4747

that members of co-operatives will aim to maximise profit per

4748

worker and so, perversely, fire their members during good times.

4749

Reality contradicts these claims, with the "empirical evidence"

4750

showing that there "has been no tendency for workers to lay-off

4751

co-workers when times are good, neither in Mondragon nor in [the

4752

former] Yugoslavia. Even in bad times, layoffs are rare." [David

4753

Schweickart, _Against Capitalism_, p. 92] The experience of

4754

self-managed collectives during the Spanish Revolution also

4755

confirms this, with collectives sharing work equitably in order

4756

to avoid laying people off during the harsh economic conditions

4757

caused by the Civil War. In other words, the underlying assumption

4758

that people are economic robots cannot be maintained -- there

4759

is extensive evidence pointing to the fact that different forms

4760

of social organisation produce different considerations and

4761

people who are motivated by different considerations.

4762

4763

Also, we must remember that the syndicates are *not* competing for

4764

market share, and so it is likely that new techniques would be shared

4765

between workplaces and skilled workers might decide to rotate their

4766

work between syndicates in order to maximise the effectiveness of

4767

their working time until such time as the general skill level in

4768

society increases.

4769

4770

So, while recognising that competition for skilled workers could exist,

4771

anarchists think there are plenty of reasons not to worry about massive

4772

economic inequality being created, which in turn would re-create the

4773

state. The apologists for capitalism who put forward this argument forget

4774

that the pursuit of self-interest is universal, meaning that everyone

4775

would be interested in maximising his or her liberty, and so would be

4776

unlikely to allow inequalities to develop which threatened that liberty.

4777

4778

As for competition for scarce resources, it is clear that it would be in

4779

the interests of communes and syndicates which have them to share them with

4780

others instead of charging high prices for them. This is for two reasons.

4781

Firstly, they may find themselves boycotted by others, and so they would be

4782

denied the advantages of social co-operation. Secondly, they may be subject

4783

to such activities themselves at a future date and so it would wise for

4784

them to remember to "treat others as you would like them to treat you

4785

under similar circumstances." As anarchism will never come about unless

4786

people desire it and start to organise their own lives, it's clear that

4787

an anarchist society would be inhabited by individuals who followed

4788

that ethical principle.

4789

4790

So it is doubtful that people inspired by anarchist ideas would start

4791

to charge each other high prices, particularly since the syndicates and

4792

community assemblies are likely to vote for a wide basis of surplus

4793

distribution, precisely to avoid this problem and to ensure that

4794

production will be for use rather than profit (see section I.4.10, "What

4795

would be the advantage of a wide basis of surplus distribution?"). In

4796

addition, as other communities and syndicates would likely boycott any

4797

syndicate or commune that was acting in non-co-operative ways, it is

4798

likely that social pressure would soon result in those willing to exploit

4799

others rethinking their position. Co-operation does not imply a willingness

4800

to tolerate those who desire to take advantage of you.

4801

4802

Moreover, given the experience of the period between the 1960s and 1990s

4803

(with rising inequality marked by falling growth, lower wage growth,

4804

rising unemployment and increased economic instability) the impact of

4805

increased competition and inequality harms the vast majority. It is

4806

doubtful that people aware of these tendencies (and that, as we

4807

argued in section F.3, "free exchange" in an unequal society tends to

4808

*increase*, not decrease, inequality) would create such a regime.

4809

4810

Examples of anarchism in action show that there is frequently a

4811

spontaneous tendency towards charging cost prices for goods, as

4812

well as attempts to work together to reduce the dangers of isolation

4813

and competition. One thing to remember is that anarchy will not be

4814

created "overnight," and so potential problems will be worked out

4815

over time. Underlying all these kinds of objections is the assumption

4816

that co-operation will *not* be more beneficial to all involved than

4817

competition. However, in terms of quality of life, co-operation will

4818

soon be seen to be the better system, even by the most highly paid

4819

workers. There is far more to life than the size of one's pay packet,

4820

and anarchism exists in order to ensure that life is far more than

4821

the weekly grind of boring work and the few hours of hectic consumption

4822

in which people attempt to fill the "spiritual hole" created by a way

4823

of life which places profits above people.

4824

4825

I.3.7 What about people who do not want to join a syndicate?

4826

4827

In this case, they are free to work alone, by their own labour.

4828

Anarchists have no desire to force people to join a syndicate.

4829

As Kropotkin argued:

4830

4831

"Communist organisations . . . must be the work of all, a natural

4832

growth, a product of the constructive genius of the great mass.

4833

Communism cannot be imposed from above; it could not live even

4834

for a few months if the constant and daily co-operation of all

4835

did not uphold it. It must be free." [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary

4836

Pamphlets_, p. 140]

4837

4838

Therefore, the decision to join a commune will be a free one, with

4839

the potential for living outside it guaranteed for non-exploitative

4840

and non-oppressive individuals and groups. Malatesta stressed this

4841

when he argued that in an anarchist revolution "what has to be

4842

destroyed at once . . . is *capitalistic property,* that is, the

4843

fact that a few control the natural wealth and the instruments

4844

of production and can thus oblige others to work for them . . .

4845

[but one must have a] right and the possibility to live in a

4846

different regime, collectivist, mutualist, individualist -- as

4847

one wishes, always on the condition that there is no oppression

4848

or exploitation of others." [_Malatesta: Life and Ideas_, p. 102]

4849

4850

In other words, different forms of social life will be experimented

4851

with, depending on what people desire. Of course some people

4852

(particularly right-wing "libertarians") ask how anarchists can

4853

reconcile individual freedom with expropriation of capital. All

4854

we can say is that these critics subscribe to the idea that one

4855

should not interfere with the "individual freedom" of those in

4856

positions of authority to oppress others, and that this premise

4857

turns the concept of individual freedom on its head, making

4858

oppression a "right" and the denial of freedom a form of it!

4859

4860

However, right-wing "libertarians" do raise a valid question

4861

when they ask if anarchism would result in self-employed people

4862

being forced into co-operatives, syndicates or collectives as

4863

the result of a popular movement. The answer is no. This is

4864

because the destruction of title deeds would not harm the

4865

independent worker, whose real title is possession and the

4866

work done. What anarchists want to eliminate is not possessions

4867

but capitalist *property.*

4868

4869

As Peter Kropotkin made clear:

4870

4871

"when we see a peasant, who is in possession of just amount of land

4872

he can cultivate, we do not think it reasonable to turn him off his

4873

little farm. He exploits nobody, and nobody would have the right

4874

to interfere with his work. . . [W]hen we see a family inhabiting a

4875

house which affords them just as much space as . . . are considered

4876

necessary for that number of people, why should we interfere with

4877

that family and turn them out their house? . . . And finally, when

4878

we see a . . . cutler, or a . . . clothier working with their own

4879

tools or handloom, we see no use in taking the tools or handloom

4880

to give to another workers. The clothier or cutler exploit nobody."

4881

[_Act for Yourselves_, pp. 104-5]

4882

4883

This means that independent producers will still exist within

4884

an anarchist society, and some workplaces -- perhaps whole

4885

areas -- will not be part of a confederation. This is natural

4886

in a free society, for different people have different ideas

4887

and ideals. Nor does such independent producers imply a

4888

contradiction with libertarian socialism, for "[w]hat we

4889

concerned with is the destruction of the titles of

4890

proprietors who exploit the labour of others and, above

4891

all, of expropriating them in fact in order to put . . .

4892

all the means of production at the disposal of those

4893

who do the work." [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 103]

4894

4895

Of course, some people may desire to become capitalists, and

4896

they may offer to employ people and pay them wages. However,

4897

such a situation would be unlikely. Simply put, why would

4898

anyone desire to work for the would-be employer? Malatesta

4899

makes this point as follows:

4900

4901

"It remains to be seen whether not being able to obtain

4902

assistance or people to exploit -- and he [the would-be

4903

capitalist] would find none because nobody, having a right

4904

to the means of production and being free to work on his

4905

own or as an equal with others in the large organisations

4906

of production would want to be exploited by a small

4907

employer -- . . . it remains to be seen whether these

4908

isolated workers would not find it more convenient to

4909

combine with others and voluntarily join one of the

4910

existing communities." [Op. Cit., pp. 102-103]

4911

4912

So where would the capitalist wannabe find people to work

4913

for him? As Kropotkin argued:

4914

4915

"Everywhere you will find that the wealth of the wealthy springs

4916

from the poverty of the poor. That is why an anarchist society

4917

need not fear the advent of a Rothschild [or any other millionaire]

4918

who would settle in its midst. If every member of the community

4919

knows that after a few hours of productive toil he [or she] will

4920

have a right to all the pleasures that civilisation procures, and

4921

to those deeper sources of enjoyment which art and science offer

4922

to all who seek them, he [or she] will not sell his strength . . .

4923

No one will volunteer to work for the enrichment of your Rothschild."

4924

[Op. Cit., p. 61]

4925

4926

And, assuming that he did find someone willing to work for him (and

4927

so be governed by him), the would-be capitalist would have to provide

4928

such excellent conditions and pay such good wages as to reduce his

4929

profits to near zero. Moreover, he would have to face workers whose

4930

neighbours would be encouraging them to form a union and strike for

4931

even *better* conditions and pay, including workers' control and so

4932

on. Such a militant workforce would be the last thing a capitalist

4933

would desire.

4934

4935

However, let us suppose there is a self-employed inventor, Ferguson, who

4936

comes up with a new innovation without the help of the co-operative sector.

4937

Would anarchists steal his idea? Not at all. The co-operatives, which by

4938

hypothesis have been organised by people who believe in giving producers

4939

the full value of their product, would pay Ferguson an equitable amount

4940

for his idea, which would then become common across society. However,

4941

if he refused to sell his invention and instead tried to claim a patent

4942

monopoly on it in order to gather a group of wage slaves to exploit, no

4943

one would agree to work for him unless they got the full control over

4944

both the product of their labour and the labour process itself.

4945

4946

In addition, we would imagine they would also refuse to work for someone

4947

unless they also got the capital they used at the end of their contract

4948

(i.e. a system of "hire-purchase" on the means of production used). In

4949

other words, by removing the statist supports of capitalism, would-be

4950

capitalists would find it hard to "compete" with the co-operative sector

4951

and would not be in a position to exploit others' labour.

4952

4953

With a system of communal production (in social anarchism) and mutual

4954

banks (in individualist anarchism), "usury" -- i.e. charging a use-fee for

4955

a monopolised item, of which patents are an instance -- would no longer be

4956

possible and the inventor would be like any other worker, exchanging the

4957

product of his or her labour. As Ben Tucker argued, "the patent monopoly

4958

. . . consists in protecting inventors and authors against competition for

4959

a period of time long enough for them to extort from the people a reward

4960

enormously in excess of the labour measure of their services -- in other

4961

words, in giving certain people a right of property for a term of years in

4962

laws and facts of nature, and the power to extract tribute from others for

4963

the use of this natural wealth, which should be open to all. The abolition

4964

of this monopoly would fill its beneficiaries with a wholesome fear of

4965

competition which should cause them to be satisfied with pay for their

4966

services equal to that which other labourers get for theirs, and secure

4967

it by placing their products and works on the market at the outset at

4968

prices so low that their lines of business would be no more tempting to

4969

competitors than any other lines." [_The Anarchist Reader_, pp. 150-1]

4970

4971

So, if someone has labour to sell then they deserve a free society

4972

to do it in -- as Tucker once pointed out. Such an environment would

4973

make the numbers seeking employment so low as to ensure that the rate

4974

of exploitation would be zero. Little wonder that, when faced with a

4975

self-employed, artisan workforce, capitalists have continually turned

4976

to the state to create the "correct" market forces (see section F.8).

4977

4978

Thus while the idea that people will happily become wage slaves may

4979

be somewhat common place (particularly with supporters of capitalism)

4980

the evidence of history is that people, given a choice, will prefer

4981

self-employment and *resist* wage labour (often to the death). As

4982

E. P. Thompson notes, for workers at the end of the 18th and

4983

beginning of the 19th centuries, the "gap in status between a

4984

'servant,' a hired wage-labourer subject to the orders and discipline

4985

of the master, and an artisan, who might 'come and go' as he pleased,

4986

was wide enough for men to shed blood rather than allow themselves to

4987

be pushed from one side to the other. And, in the value system of the

4988

community, those who resisted degradation were in the right." [_The

4989

Making of the English Working Class_, p. 599] Over one hundred

4990

years later, the rural working class of Aragon showed the same

4991

dislike of wage slavery. After Communist troops destroyed their

4992

self-managed collectives, the "[d]ispossessed peasants, intransigent

4993

collectivists, refused to work in a system of private property, and

4994

were even less willing to rent out their labour." [Jose Peirats,

4995

_Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution_, p. 258] The rural economy

4996

collapsed (see section I.8.7 for more details).

4997

4998

Therefore, any perception that people will become wage-labourers

4999

through choice in a free society is based on the assumption what

5000

people accept through necessity under capitalism will pass over,

5001

without change, into a free one. This assumption is unfounded

5002

and anarchists expect that once people struggle for freedom and

5003

taste the pleasures of freedom they will not freely accept a

5004

degradation back to having a master -- and as history shows,

5005

we have some evidence to support our argument.

5006

5007

In other words, with the end of capitalism and statism, a free society

5008

has no fear of capitalist firms being created or growing again because

5009

it rejects the idea that everyone must be in a syndicate. Few, if any,

5010

people would desire to have bosses when they have the choice of being

5011

free (to use an analogy, few people prefer dictatorship to democracy

5012

once the former has been overthrown). Also, without statism to back up

5013

various class-based monopolies of capitalist privilege, capitalism

5014

could not become dominant. In addition, the advantages of co-operation

5015

between syndicates would exceed whatever temporary advantages existed for

5016

syndicates to practice commodity exchange in a mutualist market.

5017

5018

I.3.8 Do anarchists seek "small autonomous communities, devoted

5019

to small scale production"?

5020

5021

As we indicated at the start of this section, anarchists see a

5022

free society's productive activity centred around federations of

5023

syndicates. This showes that anarchism rejects the idea of

5024

isolated communes. Rather, we argue that communes and syndicates

5025

would work together in a federal structure. This would, as

5026

we argue in section I.3.5, necessitate confederations to

5027

help co-ordinate economic activity and, as indicated in

5028

section I.3.4, involve extensive links between productive

5029

syndicates and the communes they are part of.

5030

5031

The idea that anarchism aims for small, self-sufficient, communes

5032

is a Leninist slander. They misrepresent anarchist ideas on this

5033

matter, suggesting that anarchists seriously want society based

5034

on "small autonomous communities, devoted to small scale

5035

production." In particular, they point to Kropotkin, arguing

5036

that he "looked backwards for change" and "witnessed such

5037

communities among Siberian peasants and watchmakers in the

5038

Swiss mountains." [Pat Stack, "Anarchy in the UK?", _Socialist

5039

Review_, no. 246, November 2000]

5040

5041

While it may be better to cover this issue in section H.2 ("What

5042

parts of anarchist theory do Marxists particularly misrepresent?")

5043

we discuss it here simply because, firstly, it seems to be

5044

a depressingly common assertion and, secondly, it relates

5045

directly to what an anarchist society could look like. Hence

5046

our discussion of these assertions in this section of the FAQ.

5047

Also, it allows us to fill in more of the picture of what a

5048

free society could look like.

5049

5050

So what do anarchists make of the assertion that we aim for

5051

"small autonomous communities, devoted to small scale

5052

production"? Simply put, we think it is nonsense (as would be

5053

quickly obvious from reading anarchist theory). Indeed, it is

5054

hard to know where this particular anarchist "vision" comes

5055

from. As Luigi Fabbri noted, in his reply to an identical

5056

assertion by the leading Bolshevik Nikolai Bukharin, "[i]t

5057

would be interesting to learn in what anarchist book, pamphlet

5058

or programme such an 'ideal' is set out, or even such a hard

5059

and fast rule!" ["Anarchy and 'Scientific' Communism",

5060

pp. 13-49, _The Poverty of Statism_, Albert Meltzer (ed.),

5061

p. 21]

5062

5063

If we look at, say, Proudhon, we soon see no such argument

5064

for "small scale" production. He argued for "the mines, canals,

5065

railways [to be] handed over to democratically organised workers'

5066

associations . . . We want these associations to be models for

5067

agriculture, industry and trade, the pioneering core of that vast

5068

federation of companies and societies woven into the common cloth

5069

of the democratic social Republic." [_No Gods, No Masters_, vol. 1,

5070

p. 62] Similarly, rather than dismiss the idea of large-scale

5071

industry Proudhon argued that "[l]arge industry . . . come

5072

to us by big monopoly and big property: it is necessary in the

5073

future to make them rise from the [labour] association." [quoted

5074

by K. Steven Vincent, _Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican

5075

Socialism_, p. 156] As Vincent correctly summarises:

5076

5077

"On this issue, it is necessary to emphasise that, contrary to the

5078

general image given on the secondary literature, Proudhon was not

5079

hostile to large industry. Clearly, he objected to many aspects of

5080

what these large enterprises had introduced into society. For

5081

example, Proudhon strenuously opposed the degrading character of

5082

. . . work which required an individual to repeat one minor

5083

function continuously. But he was not opposed in principle to

5084

large-scale production. What he desired was to humanise such

5085

production, to socialise it so that the worker would not be the

5086

mere appendage to a machine. Such a humanisation of large

5087

industries would result, according to Proudhon, from the

5088

introduction of strong workers' associations. These associations

5089

would enable the workers to determine jointly by election how

5090

the enterprise was to be directed and operated on a day-to-day

5091

basis." [Op. Cit., p. 156]

5092

5093

Moreover, Proudhon did not see an anarchist society as one

5094

of isolated communities or workplaces. Instead, he saw the

5095

need for workplace and community federations to co-ordinate

5096

joint activities and interests. Economically, there would

5097

be an "agro-industrial federation" would "tend to foster

5098

increasing equality, by organising all public services

5099

in an economical fashion and in hands other than the

5100

state's, through mutualism in credit and insurance . . .

5101

guaranteeing the right to work and to education, and

5102

an organisation of work which allows each labourer to

5103

become a skilled worker and an artist, each wage-earner

5104

to become his own master." This would end "industrial

5105

and financial feudalism" and "wage-labour or economic

5106

servitude." [_The Principle of Federation_, pp. 70-1]

5107

5108

The need for economic federation was also required due

5109

to differences in raw materials, quality of land and

5110

so on. Proudhon argued that a portion of income from

5111

agricultural produce be paid into a central fund which

5112

would be used to make equalisation payments to compensate

5113

farmers with less favourably situated or less fertile land.

5114

As he put it, economic rent "in agriculture has no other

5115

cause than the inequality in the quality of land . . . if

5116

anyone has a claim on account of this inequality . . .

5117

[it is] the other land workers who hold inferior land. That

5118

is why in our scheme for liquidation [of capitalism] we

5119

stipulated that every variety of cultivation should pay

5120

a proportional contribution, destined to accomplish a

5121

balancing of returns among farm workers and an assurance

5122

of products." [_The General Idea of the Revolution_, p. 209]

5123

5124

This vision of a federation of workplaces can also be found

5125

in Bakunin's writings. As he put it, the "future organisation

5126

of society must proceed from the bottom up only, through

5127

free association or federations of the workers, into

5128

their associations to begin with, then into communes,

5129

regions, nations and, finally, into a great international

5130

and universal federation." [_No Gods, No Masters_, vol. 1,

5131

p. 176] Bakunin, like Proudhon, considered that "[i]ntelligent

5132

free labour will necessarily be associated labour" as

5133

under capitalism the worker "works for others" and her

5134

labour is "bereft of liberty, leisure and intelligence."

5135

Under anarchism, "the free productive associations"

5136

would become "their own masters and the owners of the

5137

necessary capital" and "amalgamate among themselves"

5138

and "sooner or later" will "expand beyond national

5139

frontiers" and "form one vast economic federation."

5140

[_Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings_, pp. 81-3]

5141

5142

Neither can such a vision be attributed to Kropotkin. While,

5143

of course, supporting decentralisation of power and decision

5144

making as did Proudhon and Bakunin, he did not reject the

5145

necessity of federations to co-ordinate activity. As he

5146

put it, the "commune of tomorrow will know that it cannot

5147

admit any higher authority; above it there can only be the

5148

interests of the Federation, freely accepted by itself

5149

as well as the other communes . . . The Commune will

5150

know that it must break the State and replace it by the

5151

Federation." For anarchists the commune "no longer means

5152

a territorial agglomeration; it is rather a generic name,

5153

a synonym for the grouping of equals which knows neither

5154

frontiers nor walls . . . Each group in the Commune will

5155

necessarily be drawn towards similar groups in other

5156

communes; they will come together and the links that

5157

federate them will be as solid as those that attach

5158

them to their fellow citizens." [_Words of a Rebel_,

5159

p. 83 and p. 88]

5160

5161

Nor did he see an anarchist society as one with an economy

5162

based purely around the small commune or community. He took

5163

the basic unit of a free society as one "large enough to

5164

dispose of a certain variety of natural resources -- it may

5165

be a nation, or rather a region -- produces and itself

5166

consumes most of its own agricultural and manufactured

5167

produce." Such a region would "find the best means of

5168

combining agriculture with manufacture -- the work in

5169

the field with a decentralised industry." Moreover,

5170

he recognised that the "geographical distribution of

5171

industries in a given country depends . . . to a

5172

great extent upon a complexus of natural conditions;

5173

it is obvious that there are spots which are best

5174

suited for the development of certain industries

5175

. . . The[se] industries always find some advantages

5176

in being grouped, to some extent, according to the

5177

natural features of separate regions." [_Fields,

5178

Factories and Workshops Tomorrow_, p. 26, p. 27 and

5179

pp. 154-5]

5180

5181

Kropotkin stressed that agriculture "cannot develop without

5182

the aid of machinery and the use of a perfect machinery

5183

cannot be generalised without industrial surroundings.

5184

. . . The village smith would not do." Thus he supported

5185

the integration of agriculture and industry, with "the

5186

factory and workshop at the gates of your fields and

5187

gardens." These factories would be "airy and hygienic,

5188

and consequently economical, factories in which human

5189

life is of more account than machinery and the making

5190

of extra profits." A "variety of agricultural,

5191

industrial and intellectual pursuits are combined

5192

in each community" to ensure "the greatest sum total

5193

of well-being." He thought that "large establishments"

5194

would still exist, but these would be "better placed at

5195

certain spots indicated by Nature." He stressed that

5196

it "would be a great mistake to imagine industry ought

5197

to return to its hand-work stage in order to be combined

5198

with agriculture. Whenever a saving of human labour

5199

can be obtained by means of a machine, the machine is

5200

welcome and will be resorted to; and there is hardly

5201

one single branch of industry into which machinery

5202

work could not be introduced with great advantage,

5203

at least at some of the stages of the manufacture . . .

5204

The machine will supersede hand-work in the manufacture

5205

of plain goods. But at the same time, hand-work very

5206

probably will extend its domain in the artistic finishing

5207

of many things which are now made entirely in the

5208

factory." [Op. Cit., p. 156, p. 197, p. 18, pp. 154-5

5209

and pp. 151-2]

5210

5211

Clearly Kropotkin was *not* opposed to large-scale

5212

industry as such. As he put it, "if we analyse the

5213

modern industries, we soon discover that for some of

5214

them the co-operation of hundred, even thousands, of

5215

workers gathered at the same spot is really necessary.

5216

The great iron works and mining enterprises decidedly

5217

belong to that category; oceanic steamers cannot be

5218

built in village factories." However, he stressed that

5219

this is objective necessity was not the case in many

5220

other industries and centralised production existed

5221

in these purely to allow capitalists "to hold command

5222

of the market." Once we consider the "moral and physical

5223

advantages which man would derive from dividing his work

5224

between field and the workshop" we must automatically

5225

evaluate the structure of modern industry with the

5226

criteria of what is best for the worker (and society

5227

and the environment) rather than what was best for

5228

capitalist profits and power. [Op. Cit., p. 153]

5229

5230

Clearly, Leninist summaries of Kropotkin's ideas on

5231

this subject are nonsense. Rather than seeing

5232

"small-scale" production as the basis of his vision

5233

of a free society, he saw production as being geared

5234

around the economic unit of a nation or region ("Each

5235

region will become its own producer and its own

5236

consumer of manufactured goods . . . [and] its own

5237

producer and consumer of agricultural produce."

5238

[Op. Cit., p. 40]). Industry would come to the

5239

village "not in its present shape of a capitalist

5240

factory" but "in the shape of a socially organised

5241

industrial production, with the full aid of

5242

machinery and technical knowledge." [Op. Cit.,

5243

p. 151]

5244

5245

Industry would be decentralised and integrated with

5246

agriculture and based around communes, but these

5247

communes would be part of a federation and so

5248

production would be based around meeting the needs

5249

of these federations. A system of rational

5250

decentralisation would be the basis of Kropotkin's

5251

communist-anarchism, with productive activity and

5252

a free society's workplaces geared to the appropriate

5253

level. For those forms of industry which would be

5254

best organised on a large-scale would continue to

5255

be so organised, but for those whose current (i.e.

5256

capitalist) structure had no objective need to be

5257

centralised would be broken up to allow the

5258

transformation of work for the benefit of both

5259

workers and society.

5260

5261

Thus we would see a system of workplaces geared to

5262

local and district needs complementing larger

5263

factories which would meet regional and wider needs.

5264

Kropotkin was at pains to show that such a system

5265

would be economical, stressing that "[t]his is why

5266

the 'concentration' so much spoken of is often nothing

5267

but an amalgamation of capitalists for the purpose of

5268

*dominating the market*, not for cheapening the technical

5269

process." [Op. Cit., p. 154] In other words, that

5270

the structure of modern industry was skewed by the

5271

needs of capitalist profit and power and so it cannot

5272

be assumed that what is "efficient" under a capitalist

5273

criteria is necessarily the best for a free society.

5274

5275

Kropotkin was well aware that modern industry was shaped

5276

"to suit the temporary interests of the few -- by

5277

no means those of the nation." [Op. Cit., p. 147]

5278

Therefore he made a clear division between economic

5279

tendencies which existed to aid the capitalist to

5280

dominate the market and enhance their profits and

5281

power and those which indicated a different kind of

5282

future. He placed the tendency of industry to spread

5283

across the world, to decentralise itself into all

5284

nations and regions, as a tendency of the second

5285

kind (one often swallowed up by the first, of course).

5286

As such, he looked at and analysed existing society

5287

and its tendencies. Therefore it cannot be said that

5288

Kropotkin based this analysis on "look[ing] backwards

5289

for change." Indeed, the opposite was obviously the

5290

case. He continually stressed that "the present

5291

tendency of humanity is to have the greatest possible

5292

variety of industries gathering in each country."

5293

[Op. Cit., pp. 25-6]

5294

5295

Kropotkin backed this claim, as all the claims in his work,

5296

with extensive empirical evidence and research. In other

5297

words, he clearly looked to the present for change, charting

5298

tendencies within modern society which pointed in a

5299

libertarian direction and backing up his arguments

5300

with extensive and recent research. To state otherwise

5301

simply shows an unfamiliarity with Kropotkin's work.

5302

5303

The obvious implication of Leninist comments arguments

5304

against anarchist ideas on industrial transformation

5305

after a revolution is that they think that a socialist

5306

society will basically be the same as capitalism,

5307

using the technology, industrial structure and industry

5308

developed under class society without change. After all,

5309

did Lenin not argue that "Socialism is nothing but the

5310

next step forward from state capitalist monopoly . . .

5311

Socialism is merely state capitalist monopoly *made to

5312

benefit the whole people*"? [_The Threatening Catastrophe

5313

and how to avoid it_, p. 37] Needless to say, capitalist

5314

industry, as Kropotkin was aware, has not developed neutrally

5315

nor purely because of technical needs. Rather it has been

5316

distorted by the twin requirements to maintain capitalist

5317

profits and power. The one of the first tasks of a social

5318

revolution will be to transform the industrial structure,

5319

not keep it as it is. You cannot use capitalist means for

5320

socialist ends. As Alexander Berkman correctly argued:

5321

5322

"The role of industrial decentralisation in the revolution

5323

is unfortunately too little appreciated. . . Most people

5324

are still in the thraldom of the Marxian dogma that

5325

centralisation is 'more efficient and economical.' They

5326

close their eyes to the fact that the alleged 'economy'

5327

is achieved at the cost of the workers' limb and life,

5328

that the 'efficiency' degrades him to a mere industrial

5329

cog, deadens his soul, kills his body. Furthermore, in

5330

a system of centralisation the administration of industry

5331

becomes constantly merged in fewer hands, producing a

5332

powerful bureaucracy of industrial overlords. It would

5333

indeed be the sheerest irony if the revolution were to

5334

aim at such a result. It would mean the creation of

5335

a new master class." [_The ABC of Anarchism_, pp. 80-1]

5336

5337

In other words, it would be a new bureaucracy exploiting and

5338

oppressing those who do the actual work -- as in private

5339

capitalism -- simply because capitalist economic structures

5340

are designed to empower the few over the many. Like the

5341

capitalist state, they cannot be used by the working class

5342

to achieve their liberation (they are not created for the

5343

mass participation that real socialism requires, quite the

5344

reverse in fact!). While we will "inherent" an industrial

5345

structure from capitalism it would be the greatest possible

5346

error to leave it unchanged and an even worse one to

5347

accelerate the processes by which capitalists maintain and

5348

increase their power (i.e. centralisation and concentration)

5349

in the name of "socialism."

5350

5351

One last factor should be mentioned with regards to the

5352

issue of decentralising production. Kropotkin, as well as

5353

thinking that "a country with no large factories to bring

5354

steel to a finished condition is doomed to be backward in

5355

all other industries," also saw that a society in

5356

revolution would be thrust back on its own resources

5357

as "[i]nternational commerce will come to a standstill"

5358

and the economy would be "paralysed." This would force

5359

a revolutionary people if "cut off from the world for

5360

a year or two by the supporters of middle-class rule"

5361

to "provide for itself, and to reorganise its production,

5362

so as satisfy its own needs. If it fails to do so, it

5363

is death. If it succeeds, it will revolutionise the

5364

economic life of the country." This would involve

5365

"the necessity of cultivating the soil, of combining

5366

agricultural production with industrial production

5367

in the suburbs of [cities] and its environs." Thus

5368

the danger of the initial isolation of a revolution

5369

was a factor in Kropotkin's ideas on this issue. [_The

5370

Conquest of Bread_, p. 190, p. 191, p. 192 and p. 191]

5371

5372

We are sorry to have laboured this point, but this issue

5373

is one which arises with depressing frequency in Marxist

5374

accounts of anarchism. It is best that we indicate that

5375

those who make the claim that anarchists seek "small

5376

scale" production geared for "small autonomous communities"

5377

simply show their ignorance of the source material. In

5378

actually, anarchists see production as being geared to

5379

whatever makes most social, economic and ecological sense.

5380

Some production and workplaces will be geared to the local

5381

commune, some will be geared to the district federation,

5382

some to the regional federation, and so on. It is for

5383

this reason anarchists support the federation of workers'

5384

associations as the means of combining local autonomy

5385

with the needs for co-ordination and joint activity.

5386

To claim otherwise is simply to misrepresent anarchist

5387

theory.

5388

5389

I.4 How could an anarchist economy function?

5390

5391

This is an important question facing all opponents of a given system --

5392

what will you replace it with? We can say, of course, that it is pointless

5393

to make blueprints of how a future anarchist society will work as the

5394

future will be created by everyone, not just the few anarchists and

5395

libertarian socialists who write books and FAQs. This is very true, we

5396

cannot predict what a free society will actually be like or develop and

5397

we have no intention to do so here. However, this reply (whatever its other

5398

merits) ignores a key point, people need to have some idea of what anarchism

5399

aims for before they decide to spend their lives trying to create it.

5400

5401

So, how would an anarchist system function? That depends on the economic

5402

ideas people have. A mutualist economy will function differently than a

5403

communist one, for example, but they will have similar features. As

5404

Rudolf Rocker put it:

5405

5406

"Common to all Anarchists is the desire to free society of all

5407

political and social coercive institutions which stand in the

5408

way of the development of a free humanity. In this sense,

5409

Mutualism, Collectivism, and Communism are not to be regarded

5410

as closed systems permitting no further development, but merely

5411

assumptions as to the means of safeguarding a free community. There

5412

will even probably be in the society of the future different forms

5413

of economic co-operation existing side-by-side, since any social

5414

progress must be associated with that free experimentation and

5415

practical testing-out for which in a society of free communities

5416

there will be afforded every opportunity." [_Anarcho-Syndicalism_,

5417

p. 16]

5418

5419

So, given the common aims of anarchists, its unsurprising that

5420

the economic systems they suggest will have common features such

5421

as workers' self-management, federation, free agreement and so on.

5422

For all anarchists, the "economy" is seen as a "voluntary association

5423

that will organise labour, and be the manufacturer and distributor

5424

of necessary commodities" and this "*is to make what is useful. The

5425

individual is to make what is beautiful.*" [Oscar Wilde, _The Soul

5426

of Man Under Socialism_, p. 1183] For example, the machine "will

5427

supersede hand-work in the manufacture of plain goods. But at the

5428

same time, hand-work very probably will extend its domain in the

5429

artistic finishing of many things which are made entirely in the

5430

factory." [Peter Kropotkin, _Fields, Factories and Workplaces

5431

Tomorrow_, p. 152] Murray Bookchin, decades later, argued for

5432

the same idea: "the machine will remove the toil from the

5433

productive process, leaving its artistic completion to man."

5434

[_Post-Scarcity Anarchism_, p. 134]

5435

5436

This "organisation of labour touches only such labours as others

5437

can do for us. . . the rest remain egoistic, because no one can in

5438

your stead elaborate your musical compositions, carry out your

5439

projects of painting, etc.; nobody can replace Raphael's labours.

5440

The latter are labours of a unique person, which only he is

5441

competent to achieve." [Max Stirner, _The Ego and Its Own_,

5442

p. 268] Stirner goes on to ask "for whom is time to be gained

5443

[by association]? For what does man require more time than is

5444

necessary to refresh his wearied powers of labour? Here Communism

5445

is slient." He then answers his own question by arguing it is

5446

gained for the individual "[t]o take comfort in himself as unique,

5447

after he has done his part as man!" [Op. Cit., p. 269] Which is

5448

exactly what Kropotkin also argued:

5449

5450

"He [sic!] will discharge his task in the field, the factory, and

5451

so on, which he owes to society as his contribution to the general

5452

production. And he will employ the second half of his day, his week,

5453

or his year, to satisfy his artistic or scientific needs, or his

5454

hobbies." [_Conquest of Bread_, p. 111]

5455

5456

Thus, while *authoritarian* Communism ignores the unique individual

5457

(and that was the only kind of Communism existing when Stirner wrote

5458

his classic book) *libertarian* communists agree with Stirner and

5459

are not silent. Like him, they consider the whole point of organising

5460

labour as the means of providing the individual the time and resources

5461

required to express their individuality. In other words, to pursue

5462

"labours of a unique person." Thus all anarchists base their

5463

arguments for a free society on how it will benefit actual individuals,

5464

rather than abstracts or amorphous collectives (such as "society").

5465

Hence chapter 9 of _The Conquest of Bread_, "The Need for Luxury"

5466

and, for that matter, chapter 10, "Agreeable Work."

5467

5468

Or, to bring this ideal up to day, as Chomsky put it, "[t]he task for

5469

a modern industrial society is to achieve what is now technically

5470

realisable, namely, a society which is really based on free voluntary

5471

participation of people who produce and create, live their lives

5472

freely within institutions they control, and with limited hierarchical

5473

structures, possibly none at all." [quoted by Albert and Hahnel in

5474

_Looking Forward: Participatory Economics for the Twenty First Century_,

5475

p. 62]

5476

5477

In other words, anarchists desire to organise voluntary workers associations

5478

which will try to ensure a minimisation of mindless labour in order to maximise

5479

the time available for creative activity both inside and outside "work." This

5480

is to be achieved by free co-operation between equals, for while competition

5481

may be the "law of the jungle", co-operation is the law of civilisation.

5482

5483

This co-operation is *not* based on "altruism," but self-interest. As Proudhon

5484

argued, "[m]utuality, reciprocity exists when all the workers in an industry

5485

instead of working for an entrepreneur who pays them and keeps their products,

5486

work for one another and thus collaborate in the making of a common product

5487

whose profits they share amongst themselves. Extend the principle of reciprocity

5488

as uniting the work of every group, to the Workers' Societies as units, and

5489

you have created a form of civilisation which from all points of view -

5490

political, economic and aesthetic - is radically different from all earlier

5491

civilisations." [quoted by Martin Buber, _Paths in Utopia_, pp. 29-30]

5492

In other words, solidarity and co-operation allows us time to enjoy life

5493

and to gain the benefits of our labour ourselves - Mutual Aid results in a

5494

better life than mutual struggle and so "the *association for struggle* will

5495

be a much more effective support for civilisation, progress, and evolution

5496

than is the *struggle for existence* with its savage daily competitions."

5497

[Luigi Geallani, _The End of Anarchism_, p. 26]

5498

5499

In the place of the rat race of capitalism, economic activity in an

5500

anarchist society would be one of the means to humanise and individualise

5501

ourselves and society, to move from *surviving* to *living.* Productive

5502

activity should become a means of self-expression, of joy, of art, rather

5503

than something we have to do to survive. Ultimately, "work" should become

5504

more akin to play or a hobby than the current alienated activity. The

5505

priorities of life should be towards individual self-fulfilment and

5506

humanising society rather than "running society as an adjunct to the

5507

market," to use Polanyi's expression, and turning ourselves into

5508

commodities on the labour market. Thus anarchists agree with John

5509

Stuart Mill when he wrote:

5510

5511

"I confess I am not charmed with an ideal of life held out by

5512

those who think that the normal state of human beings is that of

5513

struggling to get on; that the trampling, crushing, elbowing, and

5514

treading on each other's heels, which form the existing type of

5515

social life, are the most desirable lot of human kind, or anything

5516

but the disagreeable symptoms of one of the phases of industrial

5517

progress." [_Collected Works_, vol. III, p. 754]

5518

5519

The aim of anarchism is far more than the end of poverty. Hence

5520

Proudhon's comment that socialism's "underlying dogma" is that the

5521

"objective of socialism is the emancipation of the proletariat and

5522

the eradication of poverty." This emancipation would be achieved

5523

by ending "wage slavery" via "democratically organised workers'

5524

associations." [_No Gods, No Masters_, vol. 1, p. 57 and p.62]

5525

Or, in Kropotkin's words, "well-being for all" -- physical, mental

5526

and moral! Indeed, by concentrating on just poverty and ignoring the

5527

emancipation of the proletariat, the real aims of socialism are

5528

obscured. As Kropotkin argued:

5529

5530

"The 'right to well-being' means the possibility of living like

5531

human beings, and of bringing up children to be members of a

5532

society better than ours, whilst the 'right to work' only means

5533

the right to be a wage-slave, a drudge, ruled over and exploited

5534

by the middle class of the future. The right to well-being is the

5535

Social Revolution, the right to work means nothing but the

5536

Treadmill of Commercialism. It is high time for the worker to

5537

assert his right to the common inheritance, and to enter into

5538

possession of it." [_The Conquest of Bread_, p. 44]

5539

5540

Combined with this desire for free co-operation is a desire to end

5541

centralised systems. The opposition to centralisation is often framed

5542

in a distinctly false manner. This can be seen when Alex Nove, a leading

5543

market socialist, argues that "there are horizontal links (market),

5544

there are vertical links (hierarchy). What other dimension is there?"

5545

[Alex Nove, _The Economics of Feasible Socialism_, p. 226] In other

5546

words, Nove states that to oppose central planning means to embrace

5547

the market. This, however, is not true. Horizontal links need not be

5548

market based any more than vertical links need be hierarchical. But

5549

the core point in his argument is very true, an anarchist society must

5550

be based essentially on horizontal links between individuals and

5551

associations, freely co-operating together as they (not a central

5552

body) sees fit. This co-operation will be source of any "vertical"

5553

links in an anarchist economy. When a group of individuals or associations

5554

meet together and discuss common interests and make common decisions they

5555

will be bound by their own decisions. This is radically different from a

5556

a central body giving out orders because those affected will determine

5557

the content of these decisions. In other words, instead of decisions

5558

being handed down from the top, they will be created from the bottom up.

5559

5560

So, while refusing to define exactly how an anarchist system will work, we

5561

will explore the implications of how the anarchist principles and ideals

5562

outlined above could be put into practice. Bear in mind that this is just

5563

a possible framework for a system which has few historical examples to draw

5564

upon as evidence. This means that we can only indicate the general outlines

5565

of what an anarchist society could be like. Those seeking "recipes" and

5566

exactness should look elsewhere. In all likelihood, the framework we present

5567

will be modified and changed (even ignored) in light of the real experiences

5568

and problems people will face when creating a new society.

5569

5570

Lastly we should point out that there may be a tendency for

5571

some to compare this framework with the *theory* of capitalism

5572

(i.e. perfectly functioning "free" markets or quasi-perfect ones)

5573

as opposed to its reality. A perfectly working capitalist system

5574

only exists in text books and in the heads of ideologues who take

5575

the theory as reality. No system is perfect, particularly capitalism,

5576

and to compare "perfect" capitalism with any system is a pointless

5577

task. In addition, there will be those who seek to apply the

5578

"scientific" principles of the neo-classical economics to our

5579

ideas. By so doing they make what Proudhon called "the radical

5580

vice of political economy", namely "affirming as a definitive

5581

state a transitory condition -- namely, the division of society

5582

intto patricians and proletares." [_System of Economical

5583

Contradictions_, p. 67] Thus any attempt to apply the "laws"

5584

developed from theorising about capitalism to anarchism will

5585

fail to capture the dynamics of a non-capitalist system

5586

(given that neo-classical economics fails to understand the

5587

dynamics of capitalism, what hope does it have of understanding

5588

non-capitalist systems which reject the proprietary despotism and

5589

inequalities of capitalism?).

5590

5591

John Crump stresses this point in his discussion of Japanese

5592

anarchism:

5593

5594

"When considering the feasibility of the social system

5595

advocated by the pure anarchists, we need to be clear

5596

about the criteria against which it should be measured.

5597

It would, for example, be unreasonable to demand that

5598

it be assessed against such yardsticks of a capitalist

5599

economy as annual rate of growth, balance of trade

5600

and so forth . . . evaluating anarchist communism by

5601

means of the criteria which have been devised to

5602

measure capitalism's performance does not make sense

5603

. . . capitalism would be . . . baffled if it were

5604

demanded that it assess its operations against the

5605

performance indicators to which pure anarchists

5606

attached most importance, such as personal liberty,

5607

communal solidarity and the individual's unconditional

5608

right to free consumption. Faced with such demands,

5609

capitalism would either admit that these were not

5610

yardsticks against which it could sensibly measure

5611

itself or it would have to resort to the type of

5612

grotesque ideological subterfuges which it often

5613

employs, such as identifying human liberty with the

5614

market and therefore with wag slavery. . . The pure

5615

anarchists' confidence in the alternative society

5616

they advocated derived not from an expectation that

5617

it would *quantitatively* outperform capitalism in

5618

terms of GNP, productivity or similar capitalist

5619

criteria. On the contrary, their enthusiasm for

5620

anarchist communism flowed from their understanding

5621

that it would be *qualitatively* different from

5622

capitalism. Of course, this is not to say that the

5623

pure anarchists were indifferent to questions of

5624

production and distribution . . . they certainly

5625

believed that anarchist communism would provide

5626

economic well-being for all. But neither were they

5627

prepared to give priority to narrowly conceived

5628

economic expansion, to neglect individual liberty

5629

and communal solidarity, as capitalism regularly

5630

does." [_Hatta Shuzo and Pure Anarchism in Interwar

5631

Japan_, pp. 191-3]

5632

5633

As Kropotkin argued, "academic political economy has been

5634

only an enumeration of what happens under the . . . conditions

5635

[of capitalism] -- without distinctly stating the conditions

5636

themselves. And then, having described *the facts* [academic

5637

neo-classical economics usually does not even do that, we

5638

must stress, but Kropotkin had in mind the likes of Adam

5639

Smith and Ricardo, *not* modern neo-classical economics] which

5640

arise in our societies under these conditions, they represent

5641

to use these *facts* as rigid, *inevitable economic laws.*"

5642

[_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_, p. 179] So, by changing

5643

the conditions we change the "economic laws" of a society and

5644

so capitalist economics is not applicable to post (or pre)

5645

capitalist society (nor are its justifications for existing

5646

inequalities in wealth and power).

5647

5648

I.4.1 What is the point of economic activity in anarchy?

5649

5650

The basic point of economic activity is an anarchist society is

5651

to ensure that we produce what we desire to consume and that our

5652

consumption is under our own control and not vice versa. The

5653

second point may seem strange; how can consumption control us --

5654

we consume what we desire and no one forces us to do so! It may

5655

come as a surprise that the idea that we consume only what we

5656

desire is not quite true under a capitalist economy. Capitalism,

5657

in order to survive, *must* expand, *must* create more and more

5658

profits. This leads to irrational side effects, for example, the

5659

advertising industry. While it goes without saying that producers

5660

need to let consumers know what is available for consumption,

5661

capitalism ensures advertising goes beyond this by creating

5662

needs that did not exist.

5663

5664

Therefore, the point of economic activity in an anarchist society

5665

is to produce as and when required and not, as under capitalism, to

5666

organise production for the sake of production. Production, to use

5667

Kropotkin's words, is to become "the mere servant of consumption;

5668

it must mould itself on the wants of the consumer, not dictate to

5669

him [or her] conditions." [_Act For Yourselves_, p. 57] However,

5670

while the basic aim of economic activity in an anarchist society is,

5671

obviously, producing wealth -- i.e. of satisfying individual needs --

5672

without enriching capitalists or other parasites in the process, it

5673

is far more than that. Yes, an anarchist society will aim to create

5674

society in which everyone will have a standard of living suitable for

5675

a fully human life. Yes, it will aim to eliminate poverty, inequality,

5676

individual want and social waste and squalor, but it aims for far

5677

more than that. It aims to create free individuals who express their

5678

individuality within and without "work." After all, what is the most

5679

important thing that comes out of a workplace? Pro-capitalists may

5680

say profits, others the finished commodity or good. In fact, the

5681

most important thing that comes out of a workplace is the *worker.*

5682

What happens to them in the workplace will have an impact on all

5683

aspects of their life and so cannot be ignored.

5684

5685

Therefore, for anarchists, "[r]eal wealth consists of things of

5686

utility and beauty, in things that help create strong, beautiful

5687

bodies and surroundings inspiring to live in." Anarchism's "goal

5688

is the freest possible expression of all the latent powers of

5689

the individual . . . [and this] is only possible in a state of

5690

society where man [and woman] is free to choose the mode of

5691

work, the conditions of work, and the freedom to work. One

5692

whom making a table, the building of a house, or the tilling

5693

of the soil is what the painting is to the artist and the

5694

discovery to the scientist -- the result of inspiration, of

5695

intense longing, and deep interest in work as a creative

5696

force." [Emma Goldman, _Red Emma Speaks_, p. 53 and p. 54]

5697

5698

To value "efficiency" above all else, as capitalism says it does

5699

(it, in fact, values *profits* above all else and hinders developments

5700

like workers' control which increase efficiency but harm power

5701

and profits), is to deny our own humanity and individuality. Without

5702

an appreciation for grace and beauty there is no pleasure in creating

5703

things and no pleasure in having them. Our lives are made drearier

5704

rather than richer by "progress." How can a person take pride in

5705

their work when skill and care are considered luxuries (if not

5706

harmful to "efficiency" and, under capitalism, the profits and power

5707

of the capitalist and manager)? We are not machines. We have a need

5708

for craftspersonship and anarchist recognises this and takes it into

5709

account in its vision of a free society.

5710

5711

This means that, in an anarchist society, economic activity is the

5712

process by which we produce what is both useful *and* beautiful in

5713

a way that empowers the individual. As Oscar Wilde put it, individuals

5714

will produce what is beautiful. Such production will be based upon the

5715

"study of the needs of mankind, and the means of satisfying them with

5716

the least possible waste of human energy." [Peter Kropotkin, _The

5717

Conquest of Bread_, p. 175] This means that anarchist economic ideas

5718

are the same as what Political Economy should be, not what it actually

5719

is, namely the "essential basis of all Political Economy, the study of

5720

the most favourable conditions for giving society the greatest amount

5721

of useful products with the least waste of human energy" (and, we

5722

must add today, the least disruption of nature). [Op. Cit., p. 144]

5723

5724

The anarchists charge capitalism with wasting human energy and time

5725

due to its irrational nature and workings, energy that could be spent

5726

creating what is beautiful (both in terms of individualities and

5727

products of labour). Under capitalism we are "toiling to live, that

5728

we may live to toil." [William Morris, _Useful Work Versus Useless

5729

Toil_, p. 37]

5730

5731

In addition, we must stress that the aim of economic activity within

5732

an anarchist society is *not* to create equality of outcome -- i.e.

5733

everyone getting exactly the same goods. As we noted in section A.2.5,

5734

such a "vision" of "equality" attributed to socialists by pro-capitalists

5735

indicates more the poverty of imagination and ethics of the critics

5736

of socialism than a true account of socialist ideas. Anarchists, like

5737

other socialists, support equality in order to maximise freedom,

5738

including the freedom to choose between options to satisfy ones

5739

needs.

5740

5741

To treat people equally, as equals, means to respect their desires

5742

and interests, to acknowledge their right to equal liberty. To

5743

make people consume the same as everyone else does not respect

5744

the equality of all to develop ones abilities as one sees fit.

5745

Thus it means equality of opportunity to satisfy desires and

5746

interests, not the imposition of an abstract minimum (or maximum)

5747

on unique individuals. To treat unique individuals equally means

5748

to acknowledge that uniqueness, not to deny it.

5749

5750

Thus the *real* aim of economic activity within an anarchy is to

5751

ensure "that every human being should have the material and moral

5752

means to develop his humanity." [Michael Bakunin, _The Political

5753

Philosophy of Bakunin_, p. 295] And you cannot develop your humanity

5754

if you cannot express yourself freely. Needless to say, to treat

5755

unique people "equally" (i.e. identically) is simply evil. You

5756

cannot, say, have a 70 year old woman do the same work in order to

5757

receive the same income as a 20 year old man. No, anarchists do not

5758

subscribe to such "equality," which is a product of the "ethics of

5759

mathematics" of capitalism and *not* of anarchist ideas. Such a

5760

scheme is alien to a free society. The equality anarchists desire

5761

is a social equality, based on control over the decisions that

5762

affect you. The aim of anarchist economic activity, therefore, is

5763

provide the goods required for "equal freedom for all, an equality

5764

of conditions such as to allow everyone to do as they wish." [Errico

5765

Malatesta, _Life and Ideas_, p. 49] Thus anarchists "demand not

5766

natural but social equality of individuals as the condition for

5767

justice and the foundations of morality." [Bakunin, Op. Cit.,

5768

p. 249]

5769

5770

Under capitalism, instead of humans controlling production, production

5771

controls them. Anarchists want to change this and desire to create an

5772

economic network which will allow the maximisation of an individual's

5773

free time in order for them to express and develop their individuality

5774

(or to "create what is beautiful"). So instead of aiming just to produce

5775

because the economy will collapse if we did not, anarchists want to ensure

5776

that we produce what is useful in a manner which liberates the individual

5777

and empowers them in all aspects of their lives. They share this desire

5778

with (some of) the classical Liberals and agree totally with Humbolt's

5779

statement that "the end of man . . . is the highest and most harmonious

5780

development of his powers to a complete and consistent whole." [quoted

5781

by J.S. Mill in _On Liberty and Other Essays_, p. 64]

5782

5783

This desire means that anarchists reject the capitalist definition

5784

of "efficiency." Anarchists would agree with Albert and Hahnel when

5785

they argue that "since people are conscious agents whose characteristics

5786

and therefore preferences develop over time, to access long-term efficiency

5787

we must access the impact of economic institutions on people's development."

5788

[_The Political Economy of Participatory Economics_, p. 9] Capitalism, as

5789

we have explained before, is highly inefficient in this light due to the

5790

effects of hierarchy and the resulting marginalisation and disempowerment

5791

of the majority of society. As Albert and Hahnel go on to note,

5792

"self-management, solidarity, and variety are all legitimate valuative

5793

criteria for judging economic institutions . . . Asking whether particular

5794

institutions help people attain self-management, variety, and solidarity

5795

is sensible." [Ibid.]

5796

5797

In other words, anarchists think that any economic activity in a free

5798

society is to do useful things in such a way that gives those doing it

5799

as much pleasure as possible. The point of such activity is to express

5800

the individuality of those doing it, and for that to happen they must

5801

control the work process itself. Only by self-management can work become

5802

a means of empowering the individual and developing his or her powers.

5803

5804

In a nutshell, to use William Morris' expression, useful work will replace

5805

useless toil in an anarchist society.

5806

5807

I.4.2 Why do anarchists desire to abolish work?

5808

5809

Anarchists desire to see humanity liberate itself from "work." This may

5810

come as a shock for many people and will do much to "prove" that anarchism

5811

is essentially utopian. However, we think that such an abolition is not

5812

only necessary, it is possible. This is because "work" is one of the major

5813

dangers to freedom we face.

5814

5815

If by freedom we mean self-government, then it is clear that being subjected

5816

to hierarchy in the workplace subverts our abilities to think and judge

5817

for ourselves. Like any skill, critical analysis and independent thought

5818

have to be practised continually in order to remain at their full potential.

5819

However, as well as hierarchy, the workplace environment created by these

5820

power structures also helps to undermine these abilities. This was

5821

recognised by Adam Smith:

5822

5823

"The understandings of the greater part of men are necessarily formed by

5824

their ordinary employments." That being so, "the man whose life is spent

5825

in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects too are,

5826

perhaps, always the same, or nearly the same, has no occasion to extend

5827

his understanding . . . and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as

5828

it is possible for a human creature to be . . . But in every improved

5829

and civilised society this is the state into which the labouring poor,

5830

that is the great body of the people, must necessarily fall, unless

5831

government takes pains to prevent it." [Adam Smith, quoted by Noam

5832

Chomsky, _Year 501_, p. 18]

5833

5834

Smith's argument (usually ignored by those who claim to follow his

5835

ideas) is backed up by extensive evidence. The different types of

5836

authority structures and different technologies have different effects

5837

on those who work within them. Carole Pateman (in _Participation and

5838

Democratic Theory_) notes that the evidence suggests that "[o]nly

5839

certain work situations were found to be conducive to the development

5840

of the psychological characteristics [suitable for freedom, such as]

5841

. . . the feelings of personal confidence and efficacy that underlay

5842

the sense of political efficacy." [p. 51] She quotes one expert (R.

5843

Blauner from his _Freedom and Alienation_) who argues that within

5844

capitalist companies based upon highly rationalised work environment,

5845

extensive division of labour and "no control over the pace or technique

5846

of his [or her] work, no room to exercise skill or leadership" [Op. Cit.,

5847

p. 51] workers, according to a psychological study, is "resigned to his

5848

lot . . . more dependent than independent . . . he lacks confidence in

5849

himself . . . he is humble . . . the most prevalent feeling states . . .

5850

seem to be fear and anxiety." [p. 52]

5851

5852

However, in workplaces where "the worker has a high degree of personal

5853

control over his work . . . and a very large degree of freedom from

5854

external control . . .[or has] collective responsibility of a crew of

5855

employees . . .[who] had control over the pace and method of getting

5856

the work done, and the work crews were largely internally self-disciplining"

5857

[p. 52] a different social character is seen. This was characterised by

5858

"a strong sense of individualism and autonomy, and a solid acceptance

5859

of citizenship in the large society . . .[and] a highly developed feeling

5860

of self-esteem and a sense of self-worth and is therefore ready to

5861

participate in the social and political institutions of the community."

5862

[p. 52] She notes that R. Blauner states that the "nature of a man's

5863

work affects his social character and personality" and that an

5864

"industrial environment tends to breed a distinct social type."

5865

[cited by Pateman, Op. Cit., p. 52]

5866

5867

As Bob Black argues:

5868

5869

"You are what you do. If you do boring, stupid, monotonous work, chances

5870

are you'll end up boring, stupid, and monotonous. Work is a much better

5871

explanation for the creeping cretinisation all around us than even such

5872

significant moronising mechanisms as television and education. People who

5873

are regimented all their lives, handed to work from school and bracketed by

5874

the family in the beginning and the nursing home in the end, are habituated

5875

to hierarchy and psychologically enslaved. Their aptitude for autonomy is so

5876

atrophied that their fear of freedom is among their few rationally grounded

5877

phobias. Their obedience training at work carries over into the families

5878

they start, thus reproducing the system in more ways than one, and into

5879

politics, culture and everything else. Once you drain the vitality from

5880

people at work, they'll likely submit to hierarchy and expertise in

5881

everything. They're used to it." [_The Abolition of Work_]

5882

5883

For this reason anarchists desire, to use Bob Black's phrase, "the

5884

abolition of work." "Work," in this context, does not mean any form

5885

of productive activity. Far from it. "Work" (in the sense of doing necessary

5886

things) will always be with us. There is no getting away from it; crops

5887

need to be grown, schools built, homes fixed, and so on. No, "work" in

5888

this context means any form of labour in which the worker does not control

5889

his or her own activity. In other words, *wage labour* in all its many

5890

forms. As Kropotkin put it, "the right to work" simply "means the right

5891

to be always a wage-slave, a drudge, ruled over and exploited by the

5892

middle class of the future" and he contrasted this to the "right to

5893

well-being" which meant "the possibility of living like human beings,

5894

and of bringing up children to be members of a society better than

5895

ours." [_The Conquest of Bread_, p. 44]

5896

5897

A society based upon wage labour (i.e. a capitalist society) will result

5898

in a society within which the typical worker uses few of their abilities,

5899

exercise little or no control over their work because they are governed by

5900

a boss during working hours. This has been proved to lower the individual's

5901

self-esteem and feelings of self-worth, as would be expected in any social

5902

relationship that denied self-government to workers. Capitalism is marked

5903

by an extreme division of labour, particularly between mental labour and

5904

physical labour. It reduces the worker to a mere machine operator, following

5905

the orders of his or her boss. Therefore, a libertarian that does not

5906

support economic liberty (i.e. self-management) is no libertarian at all.

5907

5908

Capitalism bases its rationale for itself on consumption. However, this

5909

results in a viewpoint which minimises the importance of the time we

5910

spend in productive activity. Anarchists consider that it is essential

5911

for individual's to use and develop their unique attributes and capacities

5912

in all walks of life, to maximise their powers. Therefore, the idea that

5913

"work" should be ignored in favour of consumption is totally mad. Productive

5914

activity is an important way of developing our inner-powers and express

5915

ourselves; in other words, be creative. Capitalism's emphasis on consumption

5916

shows the poverty of that system. As Alexander Berkman argues:

5917

5918

"We do not live by bread alone. True, existence is not possible without

5919

opportunity to satisfy our physical needs. But the gratification of these

5920

by no means constitutes all of life. Our present system of disinheriting

5921

millions, made the belly the centre of the universe, so to speak. But in

5922

a sensible society . . . [t]he feelings of human sympathy, of justice and

5923

right would have a chance to develop, to be satisfied, to broaden and grow."

5924

[_ABC of Anarchism_, p. 15]

5925

5926

Therefore, capitalism is based on a constant process of alienated

5927

consumption, as workers try to find the happiness associated within

5928

productive, creative, self-managed activity in a place it does not exist --

5929

on the shop shelves. This can partly explain the rise of both mindless

5930

consumerism and of religions, as individuals try to find meaning for

5931

their lives and happiness, a meaning and happiness frustrated in wage

5932

labour and hierarchy.

5933

5934

Capitalism's impoverishment of the individual's spirit is hardly surprising.

5935

As William Godwin argued, "[t]he spirit of oppression, the spirit of

5936

servility, and the spirit of fraud, these are the immediate growth of

5937

the established administration of property. They are alike hostile to

5938

intellectual and moral improvement." [_The Anarchist Reader_, p. 131] In

5939

other words, any system based in wage labour or hierarchical relationships in

5940

the workplace will result in a deadening of the individual and the creation

5941

of a "servile" character. This crushing of individuality springs *directly*

5942

from what Godwin called "the third degree of property" namely "a system. . .

5943

by which one man enters into the faculty of disposing of the produce of

5944

another man's industry" in other words, capitalism. [Op. Cit., p. 129]

5945

5946

Anarchists desire to change this and create a society based upon freedom in

5947

all aspects of life. Hence anarchists desire to abolish work, simply because

5948

it restricts the liberty and distorts the individuality of those who have to

5949

do it. To quote Emma Goldman:

5950

5951

"Anarchism aims to strip labour of its deadening, dulling aspect, of its gloom

5952

and compulsion. It aims to make work an instrument of joy, of strength, of

5953

colour, of real harmony, so that the poorest sort of a man should find in

5954

work both recreation and hope." [_Anarchism and Other Essays_, p. 61]

5955

5956

Anarchists do not think that by getting rid of work we will not have to

5957

produce necessary goods and so on. Far from it, an anarchist society "doesn't

5958

mean we have to stop doing things. It does mean creating a new way of life

5959

based on play; in other words, a ludic revolution . . . a collective adventure

5960

in generalised joy and freely interdependent exuberance. Play isn't passive."

5961

[Bob Black, Op. Cit.]

5962

5963

This means that in an anarchist society every effort would be made to reduce

5964

boring, unpleasant activity to a minimum and ensure that whatever productive

5965

activity is required to be done is as pleasant as possible and based upon

5966

voluntary labour. However, it is important to remember Cornelius Castoriadis

5967

point that a "Socialist society will be able to reduce the length of the

5968

working day, and will have to do so, but this will not be the fundamental

5969

preoccupation. Its first task will be to . . .transform the very nature of

5970

work. The problem is not to leave more and more 'free' time to individuals -

5971

which might well be empty time - so that they may fill it at will with

5972

'poetry' or the carving of wood. The problem is to make all time a time

5973

of liberty and to allow concrete freedom to find expression in creative

5974

activity." Essentially, "the problem is to put poetry into work."

5975

[_Workers' Councils and the Economics of a Self-Managed Society_,

5976

p. 14 and p. 15]

5977

5978

This is why anarchists desire to abolish "work" (i.e. wage labour), to

5979

ensure that whatever "work" (i.e. economic activity) is required to be

5980

done is under the direct control of those who do it. In this way it can

5981

be liberated and so become a means of self-realisation and not a form of

5982

self-negation. In other words, anarchists want to abolish work because

5983

"[l]ife, the art of living, has become a dull formula, flat and inert."

5984

[A. Berkman, Op. Cit., p. 27] Anarchists want to bring the spontaneity

5985

and joy of life back into productive activity and save humanity from

5986

the dead hand of capital.

5987

5988

All this does not imply that anarchists think that individuals will

5989

not seek to "specialise" in one form of productive activity rather

5990

than another. Far from it, people in a free society will pick

5991

activities which interest them as the main focal point of their

5992

means of self-expression. "It is evident," noted Kropotkin, "that

5993

all men and women cannot equally enjoy the pursuit of scientific

5994

work. The variety of inclinations is such that some will find

5995

more pleasure in science, some others in art, and other again in

5996

some of the numberless branches of the production of wealth." This

5997

"division of work" is commonplace in humanity and can be seen under

5998

capitalism -- most children and teenagers pick a specific line of

5999

work because they are interested, or at least desire to do a

6000

specific kind of work. This natural desire to do what interests

6001

you and what you are good at will be encouraged in an anarchist

6002

society. As Kropotkin argued, anarchists "fully recognise the

6003

necessity of specialisation of knowledge, but we maintain that

6004

specialisation must follow general education, and that general

6005

education must be given in science and handicraft alike. To

6006

the division of society into brain workers and manual workers

6007

we oppose the combination of both kinds of activities . . . we

6008

advocate the *education integrale* [integral education], or

6009

complete education, which means the disappearance of that

6010

pernicious division." He was aware, however, that both

6011

individuals and society would benefit from a diversity of

6012

activities and a strong general knowledge. In his words, "[b]ut

6013

whatever the occupations preferred by everyone, everyone

6014

will be the more useful in his [or her] branch is he [or she]

6015

is in possession of a serious scientific knowledge. And,

6016

whosoever he [or she] might be . . . he would be the gainer

6017

if he spent a part of his life in the workshop or the

6018

farm (the workshop *and* the farm), if he were in contact

6019

with humanity in its daily work, and had the satisfaction

6020

of knowing that he himself discharges his duties as an

6021

unprivileged producer of wealth." [_Fields, Factories and

6022

Workshops Tomorrow_, p. 186, p. 172 and p. 186]

6023

6024

However, while specialisation would continue, the permanent division

6025

of individuals into manual or brain workers would be eliminated.

6026

Individuals will manage all aspects of the "work" required (for

6027

example, engineers will also take part in self-managing their

6028

workplaces), a variety of activities would be encouraged and

6029

the strict division of labour of capitalism will be abolished.

6030

6031

In other words, anarchists want to replace the division of labour

6032

by the division of work. We must stress that we are not playing

6033

with words here. John Crump presents a good summary of the ideas

6034

of the Japanese anarchist Hatta Shuzo on this difference:

6035

6036

"[W]e must recognise the distinction which Hatta made between

6037

the 'division of labour' . . . and the 'division of work' . . .

6038

he did not see anything sinister in the division of work . . .

6039

On the contrary, Hatta believed that the division of work

6040

was a benign and unavoidable feature of any productive

6041

process: 'it goes without saying that within society,

6042

whatever the kind of production, there has to be a

6043

division of work.'" [_Hatta Shuzo and Pure Anarchism in

6044

Interwar Japan_, pp. 146-7]

6045

6046

As Kropotin argued:

6047

6048

"while a *temporary* division of functions remains the surest

6049

guarantee of success in each separate undertaking, the *permanent*

6050

division is doomed to disappear, and to be substituted by a variety

6051

of pursuits -- intellectual, industrial, and agricultural --

6052

corresponding to the different capacities of the individual, as

6053

well as to the variety of capacities within every human aggregate."

6054

[_Fields, Factories and Workshops Tomorrow_, p. 26]

6055

6056

As an aside, supporters of capitalism argue that *integrated* labour

6057

must be more inefficient than *divided* labour as capitalist firms

6058

have not introduced it. This is false for numerous reasons.

6059

6060

Firstly, we have to put out the inhuman logic of the assertion.

6061

After all, few would argue in favour of slavery if it were, in fact,

6062

*more* productive than wage labour but such is the logical conclusion

6063

of this argument. If someone did argue that the only reason slavery

6064

was not the dominant mode of labour simply because it was inefficient

6065

we would consider them as less than human. Simply put, it is a sick

6066

ideology which happily sacrifices individuals for the sake of

6067

slightly more products. Sadly, that is what many defenders of

6068

capitalism do, ultimately, argue for.

6069

6070

Secondly, capitalist firms are not neutral structures but rather

6071

a system of hierarchies, with entrenched interests and needs.

6072

Managers will only introduce a work technique that maintains

6073

their power (and so their profits). As we argue in section

6074

J.5.12, while workers' participation generally see a rise in

6075

efficiency managers generally stop the project simply because

6076

it undercuts their power by empowering workers who then can fight

6077

for a greater slice of the value they produce. So the lack of

6078

integrated labour under capitalism simply means that it does not

6079

empower management, not that it is less efficient.

6080

6081

Thirdly, the attempts by managers and bosses to introduce

6082

"flexibility" by eliminating trade unions suggests that

6083

integration *is* more efficient. After all, one of the

6084

major complains directed towards trade union contracts

6085

were that they explicitly documented what workers could

6086

and could not do. For example, union members would refuse

6087

to do work which was outside their agreed job descriptions.

6088

This is usually classed as an example of the evil of

6089

regulations.

6090

6091

However, if we look at it from the viewpoint of contract, it

6092

exposes the inefficiency and inflexibility of contract as a

6093

means of co-operation. After all, what is this refusal actually

6094

mean? It means that the worker refuses to do what is not

6095

specified in his or her contract! Their job description indicates

6096

what they have been contracted to do and anything else has

6097

not been agreed upon in advance. It specifies the division of

6098

labour in a workplace by means of a contract between worker

6099

and boss.

6100

6101

While being a wonderful example of a well-designed contract,

6102

managers discovered that they could not operate their workplaces

6103

because of them. Rather, they needed a general "do what you are told"

6104

contract (which of course is hardly an example of contract reducing

6105

authority) and such a contract *integrates* numerous work tasks

6106

into one. The managers diatribe against union contracts suggests

6107

that production needs some form of integrated labour to actually

6108

work (as well as showing the hypocrisy of the labour contract

6109

under capitalism as labour "flexibility" simply means labour

6110

"commodification" -- a machine does not question what its used for,

6111

the ideal for labour under capitalism is a similar unquestioning

6112

nature for labour). The union job description indicates that

6113

not only is the contract not applicable to the capitalist

6114

workplace but that production needs the integration of labour

6115

while demanding a division of work. As Cornelius Caastoriadis

6116

argued:

6117

6118

"Modern production has destroyed many traditional professional

6119

qualifications. It has created automatic or semi-automatic

6120

machines. It has thereby itself demolished its own traditional

6121

framework for the industrial division of labour. It has given

6122

birth to a universal worker who is capable, after a relatively

6123

short apprenticeship, of using most machines. Once one gets

6124

beyond its class aspects, the 'posting' of workers to

6125

particular jobs in a big modern factory corresponds less and

6126

less to a genuine division of *labour* and more and more

6127

to a simple division of tasks. Workers are not allocated to

6128

given areas of the productive process and then riveted to

6129

them because their 'occupational skills' invariably

6130

correspond to the 'skills required' by management. They

6131

are placed there . . . just because a particular vacancy

6132

happened to exist." [_Political and Social Writings_,

6133

vol. 2, p. 117]

6134

6135

Of course, the other option is to get rid of capitalism by

6136

self-management. If workers managed their own time and labour,

6137

they would have no reason to say "that is not my job" as they

6138

have no contract with someone who tells them what to do. Similarly,

6139

the process of labour integration forced upon the worker would be

6140

freely accepted and a task freely accepted always produces superior

6141

results than one imposed by coercion (or its threat). This

6142

means that "[u]nder socialism, factories would have no reason

6143

to accept the artificially rigid division of labour now

6144

prevailing. There will be every reason to encourage a

6145

rotation of workers *between shops and departments* and

6146

between production and office areas." The "residues of

6147

capitalism's division of labour gradually will have to be

6148

eliminated" as "socialist society cannot survive unless it

6149

demolishes this division." [Ibid.]

6150

6151

Division of tasks (or work) will replace division of labour

6152

in a free society. "The main subject of social economy," argued

6153

Kropotkin, is "the *economy* of energy required for the

6154

satisfaction of human needs.*" These needs obviously expressed

6155

both the needs of the producers for empowering and interesting

6156

work and their need for a healthy and balanced environment.

6157

Thus Kropotkin discussed the "advantages" which could be

6158

"derive[d] from a combination of industrial pursuits with

6159

intensive agriculture, and of brain work with manual work."

6160

The "greatest sum total of well-being can be obtained when

6161

a variety of agricultural, industrial and intellectual

6162

pursuits are combined in each community; and that man [and

6163

woman] shows his best when he is in a position to apply

6164

his usually-varied capacities to several pursuits in the

6165

farm, the workshop, the factory, the study or the studio,

6166

instead of being riveted for life to one of these pursuits

6167

only." [_Fields, Factories and Workshops Tomorrow_, pp. 17-8]

6168

6169

By replacing the division of labour with the division of work,

6170

productive activity can be transformed into an enjoyable task

6171

(or series of tasks). By integrating labour, all the capacities

6172

of the producer can be expressed so eliminating a major source

6173

of alienation and unhappiness in society.

6174

6175

One last point on the abolition of work. May 1st -- International

6176

Workers' Day -- which, as we discussed in section A.5.2, was created

6177

to commemorate the Chicago Anarchist Martyrs. Anarchists then, as

6178

now, think that it should be celebrated by strike action and mass

6179

demonstrations. In other words, for anarchists, International

6180

Workers' Day should be a non-work day! That sums up the anarchist

6181

position to work nicely -- that the celebration of workers' day

6182

should be based on the rejection of work.

6183

6184

I.4.3 How do anarchists intend to abolish work?

6185

6186

Basically by workers' self-management of production and community

6187

control of the means of production. It is hardly in the interests

6188

of those who do the actual "work" to have bad working conditions,

6189

boring, repetitive labour, and so on. Therefore, a key aspect of

6190

the liberation from work is to create a self-managed society, "a

6191

society in which everyone has equal means to develop and that all

6192

are or can be at the time intellectual and manual workers, and the

6193

only differences remaining between men [and women] are those which

6194

stem from the natural diversity of aptitudes, and that all jobs,

6195

all functions, give an equal right to the enjoyment of social

6196

possibilities." [Errico Malatesta, _Anarchy_, p. 40]

6197

6198

Essential to this task is decentralisation and the use of appropriate

6199

technology. Decentralisation is important to ensure that those who do

6200

work can determine how to liberate it. A decentralised system will

6201

ensure that ordinary people can identify areas for technological

6202

innovation, and so understand the need to get rid of certain kinds

6203

of work. Unless ordinary people understand and control the

6204

introduction of technology, then they will never be fully aware

6205

of the benefits of technology and resist advances which may be in

6206

their best interests to introduce. This is the full meaning of

6207

appropriate technology, namely the use of technology which those

6208

most affected feel to be best in a given situation. Such technology

6209

may or may not be technologically "advanced" but it will be of the kind

6210

which ordinary people can understand and, most importantly, control.

6211

6212

The potential for rational use of technology can be seen from capitalism.

6213

Under capitalism, technology is used to increase profits, to expand the

6214

economy, not to liberate *all* individuals from useless toil (it does,

6215

of course, liberate a few from such "activity"). As Ted Trainer argues:

6216

6217

"Two figures drive the point home. In the long term, productivity (i.e.

6218

output per hour of work) increases at about 2 percent per annum, meaning

6219

that each 35 years we could cut the work week by half while producing as

6220

much as we were at the beginning. A number of OECD . . . countries could

6221

actually have cut from a five-day work week to around a one-day work

6222

week in the last 25 years while maintaining their output at the same

6223

level. In this economy we must therefore double the annual amount we

6224

consume per person every 35 years just to prevent unemployment from

6225

rising and to avoid reduction in outlets available to soak up

6226

investable capital.

6227

6228

"Second, according to the US Bureau for Mines, the amount of capital per

6229

person available for investment in the United States will increase at 3.6

6230

percent per annum (i.e. will double in 20-year intervals). This indicates

6231

that unless Americans double the volume of goods and services they consume

6232

every 20 years, their economy will be in serious difficulties.

6233

6234

"Hence the ceaseless and increasing pressure to find more business

6235

opportunities" ["What is Development", p 57-90, _Society and Nature_,

6236

Issue No. 7, p. 49]

6237

6238

And, remember, these figures include production in many areas of the

6239

economy that would not exist in a free society - state and capitalist

6240

bureaucracy, weapons production, and so on. In addition, it does not

6241

take into account the labour of those who do not actually produce

6242

anything useful and so the level of production for useful goods would

6243

be higher than Trainer indicates. In addition, goods will be built to

6244

last and so much production will become sensible and not governed by an

6245

insane desire to maximise profits at the expense of everything else.

6246

6247

The decentralisation of power will ensure that self-management becomes

6248

universal. This will see the end of division of labour as mental and

6249

physical work becomes unified and those who do the work also manage it.

6250

This will allow "the free exercise of *all* the faculties of man" both

6251

inside and outside "work." [Peter Kropotkin, _The Conquest of Bread_,

6252

p. 148] The aim of such a development would be to turn productive

6253

activity, as far as possible, into an enjoyable experience. In the

6254

words of Murray Bookchin it is the *quality* and *nature* of the

6255

work process that counts:

6256

6257

"If workers' councils and workers' management of production

6258

do not transform the work into a joyful activity, free time

6259

into a marvellous experience, and the workplace into a

6260

community, then they remain merely formal structures, in

6261

fact, *class* structures. They perpetuate the limitations

6262

of the proletariat as a product of bourgeois social conditions.

6263

Indeed, no movement that raises the demand for workers'

6264

councils can be regarded as revolutionary unless it tries to

6265

promote sweeping transformations in the environment of the

6266

work place." [_Post-Scarcity Anarchism_, p. 146]

6267

6268

Work will become, primarily, the expression of a person's pleasure in

6269

what they are doing and become like an art - an expression of their

6270

creativity and individuality. Work as an art will become expressed in

6271

the workplace as well as the work process, with workplaces transformed

6272

and integrated into the local community and environment (see section

6273

I.4.15 -- What will the workplace of tomorrow be like?). This will

6274

obviously apply to work conducted in the home as well, otherwise the

6275

"revolution, intoxicated with the beautiful words, Liberty, Equality,

6276

Solidarity, would not be a revolution if it maintained slavery at

6277

home. Half [of] humanity subjected to the slavery of the hearth would

6278

still have to rebel against the other half." [Peter Kropotkin, _The

6279

Conquest of Bread_, p. 128]

6280

6281

In other words, anarchists desire "to combine the best part (in fact,

6282

the only good part) of work -- the production of use-values -- with

6283

the best of play . . . its freedom and its fun, its voluntariness and

6284

its intrinsic gratification" -- the transformation of what economists

6285

call production into productive play. [Bob Black, _Smokestack Lightning_]

6286

6287

In addition, a decentralised system will build up a sense of community

6288

and trust between individuals and ensure the creation of an ethical

6289

economy, one based on interactions between individuals and not

6290

commodities caught in the flux of market forces. This ideal of a

6291

"moral economy" can be seen in both social anarchists desire for

6292

the end of the market system and the individualists insistence that

6293

"cost be the limit of price." Anarchists recognise that the "traditional

6294

local market . . . is essentially different from the market as it

6295

developed in modern capitalism. Bartering on a local market offered

6296

an opportunity to meet for the purpose of exchanging commodities.

6297

Producers and customers became acquainted; they were relatively small

6298

groups . . . The modern market is no longer a meeting place but a

6299

mechanism characterised by abstract and impersonal demand. One produces

6300

for this market, not for a known circle of customers; its verdict is

6301

based on laws of supply and demand." [_Man for Himself_, pp. 67-68]

6302

6303

Anarchists reject the capitalist notion that economic activity should

6304

be based on maximising profit as the be all and end all of such work

6305

(buying and selling on the "impersonal market"). As markets only work

6306

through people, individuals, who buy and sell (but, in the end, control

6307

them -- in the "free market" only the market is free) this means that

6308

for the market to be "impersonal" as it is in capitalism it implies

6309

that those involved have to be unconcerned about personalities,

6310

including their own. Profit, not ethics, is what counts. The

6311

"impersonal" market suggests individuals who act in an impersonal,

6312

and so unethical, manner. The morality of what they produce, why

6313

they produce it and how they produce it is irrelevant, as long as

6314

profits are produced.

6315

6316

Instead, anarchists consider economic activity as an expression of the

6317

human spirit, an expression of the innate human need to express ourselves

6318

and to create. Capitalism distorts these needs and makes economic activity

6319

a deadening experience by the division of labour and hierarchy. Anarchists

6320

think that "industry is not an end in itself, but should only be a means to

6321

ensure to man his material subsistence and to make accessible to him the

6322

blessings of a higher intellectual culture. Where industry is everything

6323

and man is nothing begins the realm of a ruthless economic despotism

6324

whose workings are no less disastrous than those of any political despotism.

6325

The two mutually augment one another, and they are fed from the same

6326

source." [Rudolph Rocker, _Anarcho-Syndicalism_, p. 11]

6327

6328

Anarchists think that a decentralised social system will allow "work" to

6329

be abolished and economic activity humanised and made a means to an end

6330

(namely producing useful things and liberated individuals). This would

6331

be achieved by, as Rudolf Rocker puts it, the "alliance of free groups of

6332

men and women based on co-operative labour and a planned administration of

6333

things in the interest of the community." [Op. Cit., p. 62]

6334

6335

However, as things are produced by people, it could be suggested that a

6336

"planned administration of things" implies a "planned administration of

6337

people" (although few who suggest this danger apply it to capitalist

6338

firms which are like mini-centrally planned states). This objection is

6339

false simply because anarchism aims "to reconstruct the economic life

6340

of the peoples from the ground up and build it up anew in the spirit of

6341

Socialism" and, moreover, "only the producers themselves are fitted for

6342

this task, since they are the only value-creating element in society out

6343

of which a new future can arise." Such a reconstructed economic life

6344

would be based on anarchist principles, that is "based on the principles

6345

of federalism, a free combination from below upwards, putting the right

6346

of self-determination of every member above everything else and recognising

6347

only the organic agreement of all on the basis of like interests and

6348

common convictions." [Op. Cit., p. 61 and p. 53]

6349

6350

In other words, those who produce also administer and so govern themselves

6351

in free association (and it should be pointed out that any group of

6352

individuals in association will make "plans" and "plan," the important

6353

question is who does the planning and who does the work. Only in anarchy

6354

are both functions united into the same people). Rocker emphasises this

6355

point when he writes that:

6356

6357

"Anarcho-syndicalists are convinced that a Socialist economic

6358

order cannot be created by the decrees and statutes of a

6359

government, but only by the solidaric collaboration of the

6360

workers with hand and brain in each special branch of production;

6361

that is, through the taking over of the management of all plants

6362

by the producers themselves under such form that the separate

6363

groups, plants, and branches of industry are independent members

6364

of the general economic organism and systematically carry on

6365

production and the distribution of the products in the interest

6366

of the community on the basis of free mutual agreements."

6367

[Op. Cit., p. 55]

6368

6369

In other words, the "planned administration of things" would be done

6370

by the producers *themselves,* in independent groupings. This would

6371

likely take the form (as we indicated in section I.3) of confederations

6372

of syndicates who communicate information between themselves and respond

6373

to changes in the production and distribution of products by increasing or

6374

decreasing the required means of production in a co-operative (i.e. "planned")

6375

fashion. No "central planning" or "central planners" governing the economy,

6376

just workers co-operating together as equals (as Kropotkin argued, free

6377

socialism "must result from thousands of separate local actions, all

6378

directed towards the same aim. It cannot be dictated by a central body:

6379

it must result from the numberless local needs and wants." [_Act for

6380

Yourselves_, p. 54]).

6381

6382

Therefore, an anarchist society would abolish work by ensuring that

6383

those who do the work actually control it. They would do so in a network

6384

of self-managed associations, a society "composed of a number of societies

6385

banded together for everything that demands a common effort: federations

6386

of producers for all kinds of production, of societies for consumption . . .

6387

All these groups will unite their efforts through mutual agreement . . .

6388

Personal initiative will be encouraged and every tendency to uniformity

6389

and centralisation combated." [Peter Kropotkin, quoted by Buber in

6390

_Paths in Utopia_, p. 42]

6391

6392

In response to consumption patterns, syndicates will have to expand or

6393

reduce production and will have to attract volunteers to do the necessary

6394

work. The very basis of free association will ensure the abolition of work,

6395

as individuals will apply for "work" they enjoy doing and so would be

6396

interested in reducing "work" they did not want to do to a minimum. Such

6397

a decentralisation of power would unleash a wealth of innovation and ensure

6398

that unpleasant work be minimised and fairly shared (see section I.4.13).

6399

6400

Now, any form of association requires agreement. Therefore, even a

6401

society based on the communist-anarchist maxim "from each according

6402

to their ability, to each according to their need" will need to make

6403

agreements in order to ensure co-operative ventures succeed. In other

6404

words, members of a co-operative commonwealth would have to make and

6405

keep to their agreements between themselves. This means that the members

6406

of a syndicate would agree joint starting and finishing times, require

6407

notice if individuals want to change "jobs" and so on within and between

6408

syndicates. Any joint effort requires some degree of co-operation and

6409

agreement. Moreover, between syndicates, an agreement would be reached

6410

(in all likelihood) that determined the minimum working hours required

6411

by all members of society able to work. How that minimum was actually

6412

organised would vary between workplace and commune, with work times,

6413

flexi-time, job rotation and so on determined by each syndicate

6414

(for example, one syndicate may work 8 hours a day for 2 days, another

6415

4 hours a day for 4 days, one may use flexi-time, another more rigid

6416

starting and stopping times).

6417

6418

As Kropotkin argued, an anarchist-communist society would be based upon

6419

the following kind of "contract" between its members:

6420

6421

"We undertake to give you the use of our houses, stores, streets,

6422

means of transport, schools, museums, etc., on condition that, from

6423

twenty to forty-five or fifty years of age, you consecrate four or

6424

five hours a day to some work recognised as necessary to existence.

6425

Choose yourself the producing group which you wish to join, or organise

6426

a new group, provided that it will undertake to produce necessaries. And

6427

as for the remainder of your time, combine together with whomsoever you

6428

like, for recreation, art, or science, according to the bent of your

6429

taste . . . Twelve or fifteen hundred hours of work a year . . . is

6430

all we ask of you. For that amount of work we guarantee to you the

6431

free use of all that these groups produce, or will produce." [_The

6432

Conquest of Bread_, pp. 153-4]

6433

6434

With such work "necessary to existence" being recognised by individuals

6435

and expressed by demand for labour from productive syndicates. It is, of

6436

course, up to the individual to decide which work he or she desires to

6437

perform from the positions available in the various associations in

6438

existence. A union card would be the means by which work hours would be

6439

recorded and access to the common wealth of society ensured. And, of course,

6440

individuals and groups are free to work alone and exchange the produce of

6441

their labour with others, including the confederated syndicates, if they so

6442

desired. An anarchist society will be as flexible as possible.

6443

6444

Therefore, we can imagine a social anarchist society being based on two

6445

basic arrangements -- firstly, an agreed minimum working week of, say, 20

6446

hours, in a syndicate of your choice, plus any amount of hours doing "work"

6447

which you feel like doing -- for example, art, experimentation, DIY, playing

6448

music, composing, gardening and so on. The aim of technological progress

6449

would be to reduce the basic working week more and more until the very

6450

concept of necessary "work" and free time enjoyments is abolished. In

6451

addition, in work considered dangerous or unwanted, then volunteers could

6452

trade doing a few hours of such activity for more free time (see section

6453

I.4.13 for more on this).

6454

6455

It can be said that this sort of agreement is a restriction of liberty

6456

because it is "man-made" (as opposed to the "natural law" of "supply

6457

and demand"). This is a common defence of the free market by individualist

6458

anarchists against anarcho-communism, for example. However, while in theory

6459

individualist-anarchists can claim that in their vision of society, they

6460

don't care when, where, or how a person earns a living, as long as they are

6461

not invasive about it the fact is that any economy is based on interactions

6462

between individuals. The law of "supply and demand" easily, and often, makes

6463

a mockery of the ideas that individuals can work as long as they like -

6464

usually they end up working as long as required by market forces (i.e. the

6465

actions of other individuals, but turned into a force outwith their control,

6466

see section I.1.3). This means that individuals do not work as long as

6467

they like, but as long as they have to in order to survive. Knowing that

6468

"market forces" is the cause of long hours of work hardly makes them any

6469

nicer.

6470

6471

And it seems strange to the communist-anarchist that certain free

6472

agreements made between equals can be considered authoritarian while

6473

others are not. The individualist-anarchist argument that social

6474

co-operation to reduce labour is "authoritarian" while agreements

6475

between individuals on the market are not seems illogical to social

6476

anarchists. They cannot see how it is better for individuals to be

6477

pressured into working longer than they desire by "invisible hands"

6478

than to come to an arrangement with others to manage their own affairs

6479

to maximise their free time.

6480

6481

Therefore, free agreement between free and equal individuals is considered

6482

the key to abolishing work, based upon decentralisation of power and

6483

the use of appropriate technology.

6484

6485

I.4.4 What economic decision making criteria could be used in anarchy?

6486

6487

Firstly, it should be noted that anarchists do not have any set idea

6488

about the answer to this question. Most anarchists are communists,

6489

desiring to see the end of money, but that does not mean they want

6490

to impose communism onto people. Far from it, communism can only be

6491

truly libertarian if it is organised from the bottom up. So, anarchists

6492

would agree with Kropotkin that it is a case of not "determining in

6493

advance what form of distribution the producers should accept in

6494

their different groups -- whether the communist solution, or labour

6495

checks, or equal salaries, or any other method" while considering a

6496

given solution best in their opinion. [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary

6497

Pamphlets_, p. 166] Free experiment is a key aspect of anarchism.

6498

6499

While certain anarchists have certain preferences on the

6500

social system they want to live in and so argue for that, they

6501

are aware that objective circumstances and social desires will

6502

determine what is introduced during a revolution (for example,

6503

while Kropotkin was a communist-anarchist and considered it

6504

essential that a revolution proceed towards communism as quickly

6505

as possible, he was aware that it was unlikely it would be

6506

introduced immediately -- see section I.2.2 for details).

6507

6508

However, we will outline some possible means of economic decision making

6509

criteria as this question is an important one (it is the crux of the

6510

"libertarian socialism is impossible" argument, for example). Therefore,

6511

we will indicate what possible solutions exist in different forms of

6512

anarchism.

6513

6514

In a mutualist or collectivist system, the answer is easy. Prices will exist

6515

and be used as a means of making decisions. Mutualism will be more market

6516

orientated than collectivism, with collectivism being based on confederations

6517

of collectives to respond to changes in demand (i.e. to determine investment

6518

decisions and ensure that supply is kept in line with demand). Mutualism,

6519

with its system of market based distribution around a network of co-operatives

6520

and mutual banks, does not really need a further discussion as its basic

6521

operations are the same as in any non-capitalist market system. Collectivism

6522

and communism will have to be discussed in more detail. However, all systems

6523

are based on workers' self-management and so the individuals directly affected

6524

make the decisions concerning what to produce, when to do it, and how to do

6525

it. In this way workers retain control of the product of their labour. It

6526

is the social context of these decisions and what criteria workers use to

6527

make their decisions that differ between anarchist schools of thought.

6528

6529

Although collectivism promotes the greatest autonomy for worker associations,

6530

it should not be confused with a market economy as advocated by supporters

6531

of mutualism (particularly in its Individualist form). The goods produced

6532

by the collectivised factories and workshops are exchanged not according to

6533

highest price that can be wrung from consumers, but according to their actual

6534

production costs. The determination of these honest prices is to be by a "Bank

6535

of Exchange" in each community (obviously an idea borrowed from Proudhon).

6536

These "Banks" would represent the various producer confederations and

6537

consumer/citizen groups in the community and would seek to negotiate these

6538

"honest" prices (which would, in all likelihood, include "hidden" costs

6539

like pollution). These agreements would be subject to ratification by

6540

the assemblies of those involved.

6541

6542

As Guillaume puts it "the value of the commodities having been established

6543

in advance by a contractual agreement between the regional co-operative

6544

federations [i.e. confederations of syndicates] and the various communes,

6545

who will also furnish statistics to the Banks of Exchange. The Bank of Exchange

6546

will remit to the producers negotiable vouchers representing the value of their

6547

products; these vouchers will be accepted throughout the territory included

6548

in the federation of communes." [_Bakunin on Anarchism_, p. 366] These

6549

vouchers would be related to hours worked, for example, and when used as a

6550

guide for investment decisions could be supplemented with cost-benefit

6551

analysis of the kind possibly used in a communist-anarchist society (see

6552

below).

6553

6554

Although this scheme bears a strong resemblance to Proudhonian "People's

6555

Banks," it should be noted that the Banks of Exchange, along with a "Communal

6556

Statistical Commission," are intended to have a "planning" function as well

6557

to ensure that supply meets demand. This does not imply a "command" economy,

6558

but simple book keeping for "each Bank of Exchange makes sure in advance that

6559

these products are in demand [in order to risk] nothing by immediately issuing

6560

payment vouchers to the producers." [Op. Cit., p. 367] The workers syndicates

6561

would still determine what orders to produce and each commune would be free

6562

to choose its suppliers.

6563

6564

As will be discussed in more depth later (see section I.4.8) information

6565

about consumption patterns will be recorded and used by workers to inform

6566

their production and investment decisions. In addition, we can imagine that

6567

production syndicates would encourage communes as well as consumer groups and

6568

co-operatives to participate in making these decisions. This would ensure

6569

that produced goods reflect consumer needs. Moreover, as conditions permit,

6570

the exchange functions of the communal "banks" would (in all likelihood) be

6571

gradually replaced by the distribution of goods "in accordance with the needs

6572

of the consumers." In other words, most supporters of collectivist anarchism

6573

see it as a temporary measure before anarcho-communism could develop.

6574

6575

Communist anarchism would be similar to collectivism, i.e. a system of

6576

confederations of collectives, communes and distribution centres ("Communal

6577

stores"). However, in an anarcho-communist system, prices are not used. How

6578

will economic decision making be done? One possible solution is as follows:

6579

6580

"As to decisions involving choices of a general nature, such as what

6581

forms of energy to use, which of two or more materials to employ to

6582

produce a particular good, whether to build a new factory, there is

6583

a . . . technique . . . that could be [used] . . . 'cost-benefit

6584

analysis' . . . in socialism a points scheme for attributing relative

6585

importance to the various relevant considerations could be used . . .

6586

The points attributed to these considerations would be subjective,

6587

in the sense that this would depend on a deliberate social decision

6588

rather than some objective standard, but this is the case even under

6589

capitalism when a monetary value has to be attributed to some such

6590

'cost' or 'benefit' . . . In the sense that one of the aims of socialism

6591

is precisely to rescue humankind from the capitalist fixation with

6592

production time/money, cost-benefit analyses, as a means of taking into

6593

account other factors, could therefore be said to be more appropriate for

6594

use in socialism than under capitalism. Using points systems to attribute

6595

relative importance in this way would not be to recreate some universal

6596

unit of evaluation and calculation, but simply to employ a technique to

6597

facilitate decision-making in particular concrete cases." [Adam Buick and

6598

John Crump, _State Capitalism: The Wages System Under New Management_,

6599

pp. 138-139]

6600

6601

This points system would be the means by which producers and consumers

6602

would be able to determine whether the use of a particular good is

6603

efficient or not. Unlike prices, this cost-benefit analysis system

6604

would ensure that production and consumption reflects social and

6605

ecological costs, awareness and priorities. Moreover, this analysis

6606

would be a *guide* to decision making and not a replacement of human

6607

decision making and evaluation. As Lewis Mumford argues:

6608

6609

"it is plan that in the decision as to whether to build a bridge

6610

or a tunnel there is a human question that should outweigh the

6611

question of cheapness or mechanical feasibility: namely the number

6612

of lives that will be lost in the actual building or the advisability

6613

of condemning a certain number of men [and women] to spend their

6614

entire working days underground supervising tunnel traffic. As soon

6615

as our thought ceases to be automatically conditioned by the mine,

6616

such questions become important. Similarly the social choice

6617

between silk and rayon is not one that can be made simply on

6618

the different costs of production, or the difference in quality

6619

between the fibres themselves: there also remains, to be integrated

6620

in the decision, the question as to difference in working-pleasure

6621

between tending silkworms and assisting in rayon production. What

6622

the product contributes to the labourer is just as important as what

6623

the worker contributes to the product. A well-managed society might

6624

alter the process of motor car assemblage, at some loss of speed

6625

and cheapness, in order to produce a more interesting routine for

6626

the worker: similarly, it would either go to the expense of

6627

equipping dry-process cement making plants with dust removers --

6628

or replace the product itself with a less noxious substitute. When

6629

none of these alternatives was available, it would drastically

6630

reduce the demand itself to the lowest possible level." [_The

6631

Future of Technics and Civilisation_, pp. 160-1]

6632

6633

Obviously, today, we would include ecological issues as well as

6634

human ones. However Mumford's argument is correct. Any decision

6635

making process which disregards the quality of work or the effect

6636

on the human and natural environment is a deranged process. However,

6637

this is how capitalism operates, with the market rewarding capitalists

6638

and managers who introduce de-humanising and ecologically harmful

6639

practices. Indeed, so biased against labour and the environment

6640

is capitalism that economists and pro-capitalists argue that

6641

reducing "efficiency" by such social concerns is actually *harmful*

6642

to an economy, which is a total reversal of common sense and

6643

human feelings (after all, surely the economy should satisfy human

6644

needs and not sacrifice those needs to the economy?). The argument

6645

is that consumption would suffer as resources (human and material)

6646

would be diverted from more "efficient" productive activities and

6647

so reduce, over all, our economic well-being. What this argument

6648

ignores is that consumption does not exist in isolation from the

6649

rest of the economy. What we what to consume is conditioned, in

6650

part, by the sort of person we are and that is influenced by the

6651

kind of work we do, the kinds of social relationships we have,

6652

whether we are happy with our work and life, and so on. If our

6653

work is alienating and of low quality, then so will our consumption

6654

decisions. If our work is subject to hierarchical control and

6655

servile in nature then we cannot expect our consumption decisions

6656

of totally rational -- indeed they may become an attempt to find

6657

happiness via shopping, a self-defeating activity as consumption

6658

cannot solve a problem created in production. Thus rampant

6659

consumerism may be the result of capitalist "efficiency" and so

6660

the objection against socially aware production is question

6661

begging.

6662

6663

Of course, as well as absolute scarcity, prices under capitalism

6664

also reflect relative scarcity (while in the long term, market prices

6665

tend towards their production price plus a mark-up based on the

6666

degree of monopoly in a market, in the short term prices can change

6667

as a result of changes in supply and demand). How a communist society

6668

could take into account such short term changes and communicate them

6669

through out the economy is discussed in section I.4.5 (What about "supply

6670

and demand"?). Needless to say, production and investment decisions based

6671

upon such cost-benefit analysis would take into account the current

6672

production situation and so the relative scarcity of specific goods.

6673

6674

Therefore, a communist-anarchist society would be based around a network

6675

of syndicates who communicate information between each other. Instead of

6676

the "price" being communicated between workplaces as in capitalism, actual

6677

physical data will be sent. This data is a summary of the use values

6678

of the good (for example labour time and energy used to produce it,

6679

pollution details, relative scarcity and so forth). With this information a

6680

cost-benefit analysis will be conducted to determine which good will be best

6681

to use in a given situation based upon mutually agreed common values. The

6682

data for a given workplace could be compared to the industry as a whole (as

6683

confederations of syndicates would gather and produce such information --

6684

see section I.3.5) in order to determine whether a specific workplace will

6685

efficiently produce the required goods (this system has the additional

6686

advantage of indicating which workplaces require investment to bring them

6687

in line, or improve upon, the industrial average in terms of working

6688

conditions, hours worked and so on). In addition, common rules of thumb

6689

would possibly be agreed, such as agreements not to use scarce materials

6690

unless there is no alternative (either ones that use a lot of labour,

6691

energy and time to produce or those whose demand is currently exceeding

6692

supply capacity).

6693

6694

Similarly, when ordering goods, the syndicate, commune or individual involved

6695

will have to inform the syndicate why it is required in order to allow the

6696

syndicate to determine if they desire to produce the good and to enable them

6697

to prioritise the orders they receive. In this way, resource use can be guided

6698

by social considerations and "unreasonable" requests ignored (for example, if

6699

an individual "needs" a ship-builders syndicate to build a ship for his

6700

personal use, the ship-builders may not "need" to build it and instead builds

6701

ships for the transportation of freight). However, in almost all cases of

6702

individual consumption, no such information will be needed as communal stores

6703

would order consumer goods in bulk as they do now. Hence the economy would be

6704

a vast network of co-operating individuals and workplaces and the dispersed

6705

knowledge which exists within any society can be put to good effect (*better*

6706

effect than under capitalism because it does not hide social and ecological

6707

costs in the way market prices do and co-operation will eliminate the business

6708

cycle and its resulting social problems).

6709

6710

Therefore, production units in a social anarchist society, by virtue of

6711

their autonomy within association, are aware of what is socially useful

6712

for them to produce and, by virtue of their links with communes, also

6713

aware of the social (human and ecological) cost of the resources they

6714

need to produce it. They can combine this knowledge, reflecting overall

6715

social priorities, with their local knowledge of the detailed circumstances

6716

of their workplaces and communities to decide how they can best use their

6717

productive capacity. In this way the division of knowledge within society

6718

can be used by the syndicates effectively as well as overcoming the

6719

restrictions within knowledge communication imposed by the price mechanism.

6720

6721

Moreover, production units, by their association within confederations

6722

(or Guilds) ensure that there is effective communication between them. This

6723

results in a process of negotiated co-ordination between equals (i.e. horizontal

6724

links and agreements) for major investment decisions, thus bringing together

6725

supply and demand and allowing the plans of the various units to be

6726

co-ordinated. By this process of co-operation, production units can reduce

6727

duplicating effort and so reduce the waste associated with over-investment

6728

(and so the irrationalities of booms and slumps associated with the price

6729

mechanism, which does not provide sufficient information to allow

6730

workplaces to efficiently co-ordinate their plans - see section C.7.2).

6731

6732

Needless to say, this issue is related to the "socialist calculation"

6733

issue we discussed in section I.1.2. To clarify our ideas, we shall

6734

present an example.

6735

6736

Consider two production processes. Method A requires 70 tons of steel

6737

and 60 tons of concrete while Method B requires 60 tons of steel and

6738

70 tons of concrete. Which method should be preferred? One of the

6739

methods will be more economical in terms of leaving more resources

6740

available for other uses than the other but in order to establish

6741

which we need to compare the relevant quantities.

6742

6743

Supporters of capitalism argue that only prices can supply the necessary

6744

information as they are heterogeneous quantities. Both steel and

6745

concrete have a price (say $10 per ton for steel and $5 per ton for

6746

concrete). The method to choose is clearly B as it has a lower

6747

price that A ($950 for B compared to $1000 for A). However, this

6748

does not actually tell us whether B is the more economical method

6749

of production in terms of minimising waste and resource use, it

6750

just tells us which costs less in terms of money.

6751

6752

Why is this? Simply because, as we argued in section I.1.2,

6753

prices do not totally reflect social, economic and ecological

6754

costs. They are influenced by market power, for example, and

6755

produce externalities, environmental and health costs which

6756

are not reflected in the price. Indeed, passing on costs in

6757

the form of externalities and inhuman working conditions

6758

actually are rewarded in the market as it allows the company

6759

so doing to cut their prices. As far as market power goes, this

6760

has a massive influence on prices, directly in terms of prices

6761

charged and indirectly in terms of wages and conditions of

6762

workers. Due to natural barriers to entry (see section C.4),

6763

prices are maintained artificially high by the market power of big

6764

business. For example, steel could, in fact cost $5 per ton to

6765

produce but market power allows the company to charge $10 per ton,

6766

6767

Wage costs are, again, determined by the bargaining power of

6768

labour and so do not reflect the real costs in terms of health,

6769

personality and alienation the workers experience. They may

6770

be working in unhealthy conditions simply to get by, with

6771

unemployment or job insecurity hindering their attempts to

6772

improve their conditions or find a new job. Nor are the social

6773

and individual costs of hierarchy and alienation factored

6774

into the price, quite the reverse. It seems ironic that an

6775

economy which it defenders claim meets human needs (as

6776

expressed by money, of course) totally ignores individuals

6777

in the workplace, the place they spend most of their waking

6778

hours in adult life.

6779

6780

So the relative costs of each production method have to be

6781

evaluated but price does not, indeed cannot, provide an real

6782

indication of whether a method is economical in the sense of

6783

actually minimising resource use. Prices do reflect some of

6784

these costs, of course, but filtered through the effects of

6785

market power, hierarchy and externalities they become less

6786

and less accurate. Unless you take the term "economical" to

6787

simply mean "has the least cost in price" rather than the

6788

sensible "has the least cost in resource use, ecological

6789

impact and human pain" you have to accept that the price

6790

mechanism is not a great indicator of economic use.

6791

6792

What is the alternative? Obviously the exact details will be

6793

worked out in practice by the members of a free society,

6794

but we can suggest a few ideas based on our comments above.

6795

6796

When evaluating production methods we need to take into account

6797

as many social and ecological costs as possible and these have

6798

to be evaluated. Which costs will be taken into account, of

6799

course, be decided by those involved, as will how important

6800

they are relative to each other (i.e. how they are weighted).

6801

Moreover, it is likely that they will factor in the desirability

6802

of the work performed to indicate the potential waste in human

6803

time involved in production (see section I.4.13 for a discussion

6804

of how the desirability of productive activity could be indicated

6805

in an anarchist society). The logic behind this is simple, a

6806

resource which people *like* to produce will be a better use

6807

of the scare resource of an individual's time than one people

6808

hate producing.

6809

6810

So, for example, steel may take 3 person hours to produce one

6811

ton, produce 200 cubic metres of waste gas, 2000 kilo-joules

6812

of energy, and has excellent working conditions. Concrete,

6813

on the other hand, may take 4 person hours to produce one ton,

6814

produce 300 cubic metres of waste gas, uses 1000 kilo-joules

6815

of energy and has dangerous working conditions due to dust.

6816

What would be the best method? Assuming that each factor is

6817

weighted the same, then obviously Method A is the better

6818

method as it produces the least ecological impact and has the

6819

safest working environment -- the higher energy cost is offset

6820

by the other, more important, factors.

6821

6822

What factors to take into account and how to weigh them

6823

in the decision making process will be evaluated constantly

6824

and reviewed so to ensure that it reflects real costs and

6825

social concerns. Moreover, simply accounting tools can be

6826

created (as a spreadsheet or computer programme) that

6827

takes the decided factors as inputs and returns a cost

6828

benefit analysis of the choices available.

6829

6830

Therefore, the claim that communism cannot evaluate different

6831

production methods due to lack of prices is inaccurate. Indeed,

6832

a look at the actual capitalist market -- marked as it is by

6833

differences in bargaining and market power, externalities

6834

and wage labour -- soon shows that the claims that prices

6835

accurately reflect costs is simply not accurate.

6836

6837

One final point on this subject. As social anarchists consider it important

6838

to encourage all to participate in the decisions that affect their lives,

6839

it would be the role of communal confederations to determine the relative

6840

points value of given inputs and outputs. In this way, *all* individuals in a

6841

community determine how their society develops, so ensuring that economic

6842

activity is responsible to social needs and takes into account the desires of

6843

everyone affected by production. In this way the problems associated with

6844

the "Isolation Paradox" (see section B.6) can be over come and so consumption

6845

and production can be harmonised with the needs of individuals as members

6846

of society and the environment they live in.

6847

6848

I.4.5 What about "supply and demand"?

6849

6850

Anarchists do not ignore the facts of life, namely that at a given moment

6851

there is so much a certain good produced and so much of is desired to be

6852

consumed or used. Neither do we deny that different individuals have different

6853

interests and tastes. However, this is not what is usually meant by "supply

6854

and demand." Often in general economic debate, this formula is given a

6855

certain mythical quality which ignores the underlying realities which it

6856

reflects as well as some unwholesome implications of the theory. So, before

6857

discussing "supply and demand" in an anarchist society, it is worthwhile to

6858

make a few points about the "law of supply and demand" in general.

6859

6860

Firstly, as E.P. Thompson argues, "supply and demand" promotes "the notion

6861

that high prices were a (painful) remedy for dearth, in drawing supplies to

6862

the afflicted region of scarcity. But what draws supply are not high prices

6863

but sufficient money in their purses to pay high prices. A characteristic

6864

phenomenon in times of dearth is that it generates unemployment and empty

6865

pursues; in purchasing necessities at inflated prices people cease to be

6866

able to buy inessentials [causing unemployment] . . . Hence the number of

6867

those able to pay the inflated prices declines in the afflicted regions,

6868

and food may be exported to neighbouring, less afflicted, regions where

6869

employment is holding up and consumers still have money with which to pay.

6870

In this sequence, high prices can actually withdraw supply from the most

6871

afflicted area." [_Customs in Common_, pp. 283-4]

6872

6873

Therefore "the law of supply and demand" may not be the "most efficient"

6874

means of distribution in a society based on inequality. This is clearly

6875

reflected in the "rationing" by purse which this system is based on. While

6876

in the economics books, price is the means by which scare resources are

6877

"rationed" in reality this creates many errors. Adam Smith argued that

6878

high prices discourage consumption, putting "everybody more or less, but

6879

particularly the inferior ranks of people, upon thrift and good management."

6880

[cited by Thompson, Op. Cit., p. 284] However, as Thompson notes, "[h]owever

6881

persuasive the metaphor, there is an elision of the real relationships

6882

assigned by price, which suggests. . .ideological sleight-of-mind. Rationing

6883

by price does not allocate resources equally among those in need; it

6884

reserves the supply to those who can pay the price and excludes those

6885

who can't. . .The raising of prices during dearth could 'ration' them

6886

[the poor] out of the market altogether." [Op. Cit., p. 285]

6887

6888

In other words, the market cannot be isolated and abstracted from the network

6889

of political, social and legal relations within which it is situated. This

6890

means that all that "supply and demand" tells us is that those with money

6891

can demand more, and be supplied with more, than those without. Whether this

6892

is the "most efficient" result for society cannot be determined (unless, of

6893

course, you assume that rich people are more valuable than working class

6894

ones *because* they are rich). This has an obvious effect on production,

6895

with "effective demand" twisting economic activity. As Chomsky notes,

6896

"[t]hose who have more money tend to consume more, for obvious reasons. So

6897

consumption is skewed towards luxuries for the rich, rather than necessities

6898

for the poor." George Barrett brings home of the evil of such a "skewed"

6899

form of production:

6900

6901

"To-day the scramble is to compete for the greatest profits. If there is

6902

more profit to be made in satisfying my lady's passing whim than there is

6903

in feeding hungry children, then competition brings us in feverish haste

6904

to supply the former, whilst cold charity or the poor law can supply the

6905

latter, or leave it unsupplied, just as it feels disposed. That is how it

6906

works out." [_Objections to Anarchism_]

6907

6908

Therefore, as far as "supply and demand" is concerned, anarchists are

6909

well aware of the need to create and distribute necessary goods to those

6910

who require them. This, however, cannot be achieved under capitalism. In

6911

effect, supply and demand under capitalism results in those with most money

6912

determining what is an "efficient" allocation of resources for if financial

6913

profit is the sole consideration for resource allocation, then the wealthy

6914

can outbid the poor and ensure the highest returns. The less wealthy can

6915

do without.

6916

6917

However, the question remains of how, in an anarchist society, do you know

6918

that valuable labour and materials might be better employed elsewhere? How

6919

do workers judge which tools are most appropriate? How do they decide

6920

among different materials if they all meet the technical specifications?

6921

How important are some goods than others? How important is cellophane

6922

compared to vacuum-cleaner bags?

6923

6924

It is answers like this that the supporters of the market claim that their

6925

system answers. However, as indicated, it does answer them in irrational and

6926

dehumanising ways under capitalism but the question is: can anarchism answer

6927

them? Yes, although the manner in which this is done varies between anarchist

6928

threads. In a mutualist economy, based on independent and co-operative labour,

6929

differences in wealth would be vastly reduced, so ensuring that irrational

6930

aspects of the market that exist within capitalism would be minimised.

6931

The workings of supply and demand would provide a more just result than

6932

under the current system.

6933

6934

However, collectivist, syndicalist and communist anarchists reject the

6935

market. This rejection often implies, to some, central planning. As the

6936

market socialist David Schweickart puts it, "[i]f profit considerations do

6937

not dictate resource usage and production techniques, then central direction

6938

must do so. If profit is not the goal of a productive organisation, then

6939

physical output (use values) must be." [_Against Capitalism_, p. 86]

6940

6941

However, Schweickart is wrong. Horizontal links need not be market

6942

based and co-operation between individuals and groups need not be

6943

hierarchical. What is implied in this comment is that there is just

6944

two ways to relate to others -- namely, by bribery or by authority.

6945

In other words, either by prostitution (purely by cash) or by

6946

hierarchy (the way of the state, the army or capitalist workplace).

6947

But people relate to each other in other ways, such as friendship,

6948

love, solidarity, mutual aid and so on. Thus you can help or

6949

associate with others without having to be ordered to do so or

6950

by being paid cash to do so -- we do so all the time. You can

6951

work together because by so doing you benefit yourself and

6952

the other person. This is the *real* communist way, that of

6953

mutual aid and free agreement.

6954

6955

So Schweickart is ignoring the vast majority of relations in any

6956

society. For example, love/attraction is a horizontal link between

6957

two autonomous individuals and profit considerations do not enter

6958

into the relationship. Thus anarchists argue that Schweickart's

6959

argument is flawed as it fails to recognise that resource usage

6960

and production techniques can be organised in terms of human need

6961

and free agreement between economic actors, without profits or

6962

central command. This system does not mean that we all have to

6963

love each other (an impossible wish). Rather, it means that we

6964

recognise that by voluntarily co-operating as equals we ensure

6965

that we remain free individuals and that we can gain the

6966

advantages of sharing resources and work (for example, a reduced

6967

working day and week, self-managed work in safe and hygienic

6968

working conditions and a free selection of the product of

6969

a whole society). In other words, a self-interest which exceeds

6970

the narrow and impoverished "egotism" of capitalist society.

6971

In the words of John O'Neil:

6972

6973

"[F]or it is the institutions themselves that define what

6974

counts as one's interests. In particular, the market

6975

encourages egoism, not primarily because it encourages

6976

an individual to be 'self-interested' -- it would be

6977

unrealistic not to expect individuals to act for the

6978

greater part in a 'self-interested' manner -- but rather

6979

because it defines an individual's interests in a

6980

particularly narrow fashion, most notably in terms of

6981

possession of certain material goods. In consequence,

6982

where market mechanism enter a particular sphere of

6983

life, the pursuit of goods outside this narrow range

6984

of market goods is institutionally defined as an act

6985

of altruism." [_The Market_, p. 158]

6986

6987

Thus free agreement and horizontal links are not limited

6988

to market transactions -- they develop for numerous reasons

6989

and anarchists recognise this. As George Barret argues:

6990

6991

"Let us imagine now that the great revolt of the workers has taken

6992

place, that their direct action has made them masters of the

6993

situation. It is not easy to see that some man in a street that

6994

grew hungry would soon draw a list of the loaves that were needed,

6995

and take it to the bakery where the strikers were in possession?

6996

Is there any difficulty in supposing that the necessary amount

6997

would then be baked according to this list? By this time the

6998

bakers would know what carts and delivery vans were needed to

6999

send the bread out to the people, and if they let the carters

7000

and vanmen know of this, would these not do their utmost to

7001

supply the vehicles. . . If . . . [the bakers needed] more

7002

benches [to make bread] . . . the carpenters would supply

7003

them [and so on] . . . So the endless continuity goes on

7004

*need* is the motive force behind it all. . . In the same way

7005

that each free individual has associated with his brothers

7006

[and sisters] to produce bread, machinery, and all that is

7007

necessary for life, driven by no other force than his desire

7008

for the full enjoyment of life, so each institution is free

7009

and self-contained, and co-operates and enters into agreements

7010

with other because by so doing it extends its own possibilities.

7011

There is no centralised State exploiting or dictating, but the

7012

complete structure is supported because each part is dependent

7013

on the whole . . . It will be a society responsive to the wants

7014

of the people; it will supply their everyday needs as quickly

7015

as it will respond to their highest aspirations. Its changing

7016

forms will be the passing expressions of humanity." [_The

7017

Anarchist Revolution_, pp. 17-19]

7018

7019

To make productive decisions we need to know what others need and

7020

information in order to evaluate the alternative options available

7021

to us to satisfy that need. Therefore, it is a question of distributing

7022

information between producers and consumers, information which the market

7023

often hides (or actively blocks) or distorts due to inequalities in

7024

resources (i.e. need does not count in the market, "effective demand"

7025

does and this skews the market in favour of the wealthy). This information

7026

network has partly been discussed in the last section where a method of

7027

comparison between different materials, techniques and resources based

7028

upon use value was discussed. However, the need to indicate the current

7029

fluctuations in production and consumption needs to be indicated which

7030

complements that method.

7031

7032

In a non-Mutualist anarchist system it is assumed that confederations of

7033

syndicates will wish to adjust their capacity if they are aware of the need

7034

to do so. Hence, price changes in response to changes in demand would not

7035

be necessary to provide the information that such changes are required. This

7036

is because a "change in demand first becomes apparent as a change in the

7037

quantity being sold at existing prices [or being consumed in a moneyless

7038

system] and is therefore reflected in changes in stocks or orders. Such

7039

changes are perfectly good indicators or signals that an imbalance between

7040

demand and current output has developed. If a change in demand for its

7041

products proved to be permanent, a production unit would find its stocks

7042

being run down and its order book lengthening, or its stocks increasing and

7043

orders falling . . . Price changes in response to changes in demand are

7044

therefore not necessary for the purpose of providing information about the

7045

need to adjust capacity." [Pat Devine, _Democracy and Economic Planning_,

7046

p. 242]

7047

7048

To indicate the relative changes in scarcity of a given good it

7049

will be necessary to calculate a "scarcity index." This would inform

7050

potential users of this good whether its demand is outstripping its

7051

supply so that they may effectively adjust their decisions in light

7052

of the decisions of others. This index could be, for example, a

7053

percentage figure which indicates the relation of orders placed

7054

for a commodity to the amount actually produced. For example, a good

7055

which has a demand higher than its supply would have an index value

7056

of 101% or higher. This value would inform potential users to start

7057

looking for substitutes for it or to economise on its use. Such a

7058

scarcity figure would exist for each collective as well as (possibly)

7059

a generalised figure for the industry as a whole on a regional,

7060

"national," etc. level.

7061

7062

In this way, a specific good could be seen to be in high demand and

7063

so only those producers who *really* required it would place orders

7064

for it (so ensuring effective use of resources). Needless to say,

7065

stock levels and other basic book-keeping techniques would be

7066

utilised in order to ensure a suitable buffer level of a specific

7067

good existed. This may result in some excess supply of goods being

7068

produced and used as stock to buffer out unexpected changes in the

7069

aggregate demand for a good.

7070

7071

Such a buffer system would work on an individual workplace level and at

7072

a communal level. Syndicates would obviously have their inventories,

7073

stores of raw materials and finished goods "on the shelf," which can be

7074

used to meet excesses in demand. Communal stores, hospitals and so on

7075

would have their stores of supplies in case of unexpected disruptions

7076

in supply. This is a common practice even in capitalism, although it

7077

would (perhaps) be extended in a free society to ensure changes in

7078

supply and demand do not have disruptive effects.

7079

7080

Communes and confederations of communes may also create buffer stocks

7081

of goods to handle unforeseen changes in demand and supply. This

7082

sort of inventory has been used by capitalist countries like the

7083

USA to prevent changes in market conditions for agricultural products

7084

and other strategic raw materials producing wild spot-price

7085

movements and inflation. Post-Keynesian economist Paul Davidson

7086

argued that the stability of commodity prices this produced "was

7087

an essential aspect of the unprecedented prosperous economic

7088

growth of the world's economy" between 1945 and 1972. US President

7089

Nixon dismantled these buffer zone programmes, resulting in

7090

"violent commodity price fluctuations" which had serious economic

7091

effects. [_Controversies in Post-Keynesian Economics_, p. 114

7092

and p. 115]

7093

7094

Again, an anarchist society is likely to utilise this sort of buffer

7095

system to iron out short-term changes in supply and demand. By reducing

7096

short-term fluctuations of the supply of commodities, bad investment

7097

decisions would be reduced as syndicates would not be mislead, as is

7098

the case under capitalism, by market prices being too high or too low

7099

at the time when the decisions where being made. Indeed, if market

7100

prices are not at their equilibrium level then they do not (and

7101

cannot) provide adequate knowledge for rational calculation. The

7102

misinformation conveyed by dis-equilibrium prices can cause very

7103

substantial macroeconomic distortions as profit-maximising

7104

capitalists response to unsustainable prices for, say, tin, and

7105

over-invest in a given branch of industry. Such mal-invest could

7106

spread through the economy, causing chaos and recession.

7107

7108

This, combined with cost-benefit analysis described in section I.4.4,

7109

would allow information about changes within the "economy" to rapidly

7110

spread throughout the whole system and influence all decision makers

7111

without the great majority knowing anything about the original causes

7112

of these changes (which rest in the decisions of those directly affected).

7113

The relevant information is communicated to all involved, without having

7114

to be order by an "all-knowing" central body as in a Leninist centrally

7115

planned economy. As argued in section I.1.2, anarchists have long realised

7116

that no centralised body could possibly be able to possess all the

7117

information dispersed throughout the economy and if such a body attempted

7118

to do so, the resulting bureaucracy would effectively reduce the amount of

7119

information available to society and so cause shortages and inefficiencies.

7120

7121

To get an idea how this system could work, let use take the example

7122

of a change in the copper industry. Let use assume that a source of

7123

copper unexpectedly dries up or, what amounts to the same thing, that

7124

the demand for copper increases. What would happen?

7125

7126

First, the initial difference would be a diminishing of stocks of

7127

copper which each syndicate maintains to take into account

7128

unexpected changes in requests for copper. This would help "buffer

7129

out" expected, and short lived, changes in supply or requests.

7130

Second, naturally, there is an increase in demand for copper

7131

for those syndicates which are producing it. This immediately

7132

increases the "scarcity index" of those firms, and so the

7133

"scarcity index" for the copper they produce and for the

7134

industry as a whole. For example, the index may rise from

7135

95% (indicating a slight over-production in respect to current

7136

demand) to 115% (indicating that the demand for copper has

7137

risen in respect to the current level of production).

7138

7139

This change in the "scarcity index" (combined with difficulties in

7140

finding copper producing syndicates which can supply their orders)

7141

enters into the decision making algorithms of other syndicates.

7142

This, in turn, results in changes in their plans (for example,

7143

substitutes for copper may be used as they have become a more

7144

efficient resource to use).

7145

7146

This would aid a syndicate when it determined which method of

7147

production to use when creating a consumer good. The

7148

cost-benefit analysis out-lined in the last section would

7149

allow a syndicate to determine the costs involved between

7150

competing productive techniques (i.e. to ascertain which

7151

used up least resources and therefore left the most over

7152

for other uses). Producers would already have an idea of

7153

the absolute costs involved in any good they are planning to

7154

use, so relative changes between them would be a deciding factor.

7155

7156

In this way, requests for copper products fall and soon only reflects

7157

those requests that need copper and do not have realistic substitutes

7158

available for it. This would result in the demand falling with

7159

respect to the current supply (as indicated by requests from other

7160

syndicates and to maintain buffer stock levels). Thus a general

7161

message has been sent across the "economy" that copper has become

7162

(relatively) scare and syndicates plans have changed in light of

7163

this information. No central planner made these decisions nor was money

7164

required to facilitate them. We have a decentralised, non-market

7165

system based on the free exchange of products between self-governing

7166

associations.

7167

7168

Looking at the wider picture, the question of how to response

7169

to this change in supply/requests for copper presents itself.

7170

The copper syndicate federation and cross-industry syndicate

7171

federations have regular meetings and the question of the

7172

changes in the copper situation present themselves. The

7173

copper syndicates, and their federation, must consider how

7174

to response to these changes. Part of this is to determine

7175

whether this change is likely to be short term or long term.

7176

A short term change (say caused by a mine accident, for example)

7177

would not need new investments to be planned. However, long

7178

term changes (say the new requests are due to a new product

7179

being created by another syndicate or an existing mine becoming

7180

exhausted) may need co-ordinated investment (we can expect

7181

syndicates to make their own plans in light of changes, for

7182

example, by investing in new machinery to produce copper

7183

more efficiently or to increase efficiency). If the expected

7184

changes of these plans approximately equal the predicted

7185

long term changes, then the federation need not act. However,

7186

if they do then investment in new copper mines or large scale

7187

new investment across the industry may be required. The

7188

federation would propose such plans.

7189

7190

Needless to say, the future can be guessed, it cannot be

7191

accurately predicted. Thus there may be over-investment in

7192

certain industries as expected changes do not materialise.

7193

However, unlike capitalism, this would not result in an

7194

economic crisis as production would continue (with over

7195

investment within capitalism, workplaces close due to lack

7196

of profits, regardless of social need). All that would happen

7197

is that the syndicates would rationalise production, close

7198

down relatively inefficient plant and concentrate production

7199

in the more efficient ones. The sweeping economic crises

7200

of capitalism would be a thing of the past.

7201

7202

Therefore, each syndicate receives its own orders and supplies and sends

7203

its own produce out. Similarly, communal distribution centres would order

7204

required goods from syndicates it determines. In this way consumers can

7205

change to syndicates which respond to their needs and so production units

7206

are aware of what it is socially useful for them to produce as well as the

7207

social cost of the resources they need to produce it. In this way a network

7208

of horizontal relations spread across society, with co-ordination achieved

7209

by equality of association and not the hierarchy of the corporate structure.

7210

This system ensures a co-operative response to changes in supply and

7211

demand and so reduces the communication problems associated with the

7212

market which help causes periods of unemployment and economic downturn

7213

(see section C.7.2).

7214

7215

While anarchists are aware of the "isolation paradox" (see section B.6)

7216

this does not mean that they think the commune should make decisions *for*

7217

people on what they were to consume. This would be a prison. No, all

7218

anarchists agree that is up to the individual to determine their own needs

7219

and for the collectives they join to determine social requirements like parks,

7220

infrastructure improvements and so on. However, social anarchists think that

7221

it would be beneficial to discuss the framework around which these decisions

7222

would be made. This would mean, for example, that communes would agree to

7223

produce eco-friendly products, reduce waste and generally make decisions

7224

enriched by social interaction. Individuals would still decide which sort

7225

goods they desire, based on what the collectives produce but these goods

7226

would be based on a socially agreed agenda. In this way waste, pollution

7227

and other "externalities" of atomised consumption could be reduced. For

7228

example, while it is rational for individuals to drive a car to work,

7229

collectively this results in massive *irrationality* (for example, traffic

7230

jams, pollution, illness, unpleasant social infrastructures). A sane society

7231

would discuss the problems associated with car use and would agree to

7232

produce a fully integrated public transport network which would reduce

7233

pollution, stress, illness, and so on.

7234

7235

Therefore, while anarchists recognise individual tastes and desires,

7236

they are also aware of the social impact of them and so try to create

7237

a social environment where individuals can enrich their personal

7238

decisions with the input of other people's ideas.

7239

7240

On a related subject, it is obvious that different collectives would

7241

produce slightly different goods, so ensuring that people have a choice.

7242

It is doubtful that the current waste implied in multiple products from

7243

different companies (sometimes the same company) all doing the same job

7244

would be continued in an anarchist society. However, production will be

7245

"variations on a theme" in order to ensure consumer choice and to allow

7246

the producers to know what features consumers prefer. It would be

7247

impossible to sit down beforehand and make a list of what features a

7248

good should have -- that assumes perfect knowledge and that technology

7249

is fairly constant. Both these assumptions are of limited use in real life.

7250

Therefore, co-operatives would produce goods with different features and

7251

production would change to meet the demand these differences suggest (for

7252

example, factory A produces a new CD player, and consumption patterns

7253

indicate that this is popular and so the rest of the factories convert).

7254

This is in addition to R&D experiments and test populations. In this way

7255

consumer choice would be maintained, and enhanced as consumers would be

7256

able to influence the decisions of the syndicates as producers (in some

7257

cases) and through syndicate/commune dialogue.

7258

7259

Therefore, anarchists do not ignore "supply and demand." Instead, they

7260

recognise the limitations of the capitalist version of this truism and

7261

point out that capitalism is based on *effective* demand which has no

7262

necessary basis with efficient use of resources. Instead of the market,

7263

social anarchists advocate a system based on horizontal links between

7264

producers which effectively communicates information across society about

7265

the relative changes in supply and demand which reflect actual needs of

7266

society and not bank balances. The response to changes in supply and

7267

demand will be discussed in section I.4.8 (What about investment

7268

decisions?) and section I.4.13 ( Who will do the dirty or unpleasant

7269

work?) will discuss the allocation of work tasks.

7270

7271

I.4.6 Surely anarchist-communism would just lead to demand exceeding supply?

7272

7273

Its a common objection that communism would lead to people wasting

7274

resources by taking more than they need. Kropotkin stated that "free

7275

communism . . . places the product reaped or manufactured at the

7276

disposal of all, leaving to each the liberty to consume them as he

7277

pleases in his own home." [_The Place of Anarchism in the Evolution

7278

of Socialist Thought_, p. 7]

7279

7280

But, some argue, what if an individual says they "need" a luxury house or

7281

a personal yacht? Simply put, workers may not "need" to produce for that

7282

need. As Tom Brown puts it, "such things are the product of social labour. . .

7283

Under syndicalism. . .it is improbable that any greedy, selfish person would

7284

be able to kid a shipyard full of workers to build him a ship all for his

7285

own hoggish self. There would be steam luxury yachts, but they would be

7286

enjoyed in common" [_Syndicalism_, p. 51]

7287

7288

Therefore, communist-anarchists are not blind to the fact that free access

7289

to products is based upon the actual work of real individuals -- "society"

7290

provides nothing, individuals working together do. This is reflected in

7291

the classic statement of communism -- "From each according to their ability,

7292

to each according to their needs." Therefore, the needs of both consumer

7293

*and* producer are taken into account. This means that if no syndicate or

7294

individual desires to produce a specific order an order then this order can

7295

be classed as an "unreasonable" demand - "unreasonable" in this context

7296

meaning that no one freely agrees to produce it. Of course, individuals

7297

may agree to barter services in order to get what they want produced if

7298

they *really* want something but such acts in no way undermines a

7299

communist society.

7300

7301

Communist-anarchists recognise that production, like consumption, must

7302

be based on freedom. However, it has been argued that free access would

7303

lead to waste as people take more than they would under capitalism. This

7304

objection is not as serious as it first appears. There are plenty of examples

7305

within current society to indicate that free access will not lead to abuses.

7306

Let us take three examples, public libraries, water and pavements. In public

7307

libraries people are free to sit and read books all day. However, few if any

7308

actually do so. Neither do people always take the maximum number of books

7309

out at a time. No, they use the library as they need to and feel no need to

7310

maximise their use of the institution. Some people never use the library,

7311

although it is free. In the case of water supplies, its clear that people

7312

do not leave taps on all day because water is often supplied freely or for

7313

a fixed charge. Similarly with pavements, people do not walk everywhere

7314

because to do so is free. In such cases individuals use the resource as

7315

and when they need to.

7316

7317

We can expect a similar results as other resources become freely available.

7318

In effect, this argument makes as much sense as arguing that individuals will

7319

travel to stops *beyond* their destination if public transport is based on

7320

a fixed charge! And only an idiot would travel further than required in

7321

order to get "value for money." However, for many the world seems to be

7322

made up of such idiots. Perhaps it would be advisable for such critics to

7323

hand out political leaflets in the street. Even though the leaflets are

7324

free, crowds rarely form around the person handing them out demanding

7325

as many copies of the leaflet as possible. Rather, those interested in

7326

what the leaflets have to say take them, the rest ignore them. If free

7327

access automatically resulted in people taking more than they need then

7328

critics of free communism would be puzzled by the lack of demand for what

7329

they were handing out!

7330

7331

Part of the problem is that capitalist economics have invented a

7332

fictional type of person, *Homo Economicus,* whose wants are limitless:

7333

an individual who always wants more and more of everything and so

7334

whose needs could only satisfied if resources were limitless too.

7335

Needless to say, such an individual has never existed. In reality,

7336

wants are not limitless -- people have diverse tastes and rarely

7337

want everything available nor want more of a good than that which

7338

satisfies their need.

7339

7340

Communist Anarchists also argue that we cannot judge people's

7341

buying habits under capitalism with their actions in a free

7342

society. After all, advertising does not exist to meet people's

7343

needs but rather to create needs by making people insecure

7344

about themselves. Simply put, advertising does not amplify

7345

existing needs or sell the goods and services that people

7346

already wanted. Advertising would not need to stoop to the

7347

level of manipulative ads that create false personalities for

7348

products and provide solutions for problems that the advertisers

7349

themselves create if this was the case.

7350

7351

Crude it may be, but advertising is based on the creation of insecurities,

7352

preying on fears and obscuring rational thought. In an alienated society

7353

in which people are subject to hierarchical controls, feelings of

7354

insecurity and lack of control and influence would be natural. It is

7355

these fears that advertising multiples -- if you cannot have real

7356

freedom, then at least you can buy something new. Advertising is the

7357

key means of making people unhappy with what they have (and who they are).

7358

It is naive to claim that advertising has no effect on the psyche of the

7359

receiver or that the market merely responds to the populace and makes no

7360

attempt to shape their thoughts. Advertising creates insecurities about

7361

such matter-of-course things and so generates irrational urges to buy

7362

which would not exist in a libertarian communist society.

7363

7364

However, there is a deeper point to be made here about consumerism.

7365

Capitalism is based on hierarchy and not liberty. This leads to a

7366

weakening of individuality and a lose of self-identity and sense of

7367

community. Both these senses are a deep human need and consumerism

7368

is often a means by which people overcome their alienation from their

7369

selves and others (religion, ideology and drugs are other means of escape).

7370

Therefore the consumption within capitalism reflects *its* values, not

7371

some abstract "human nature." As Bob Black argues:

7372

7373

"what we want, what we are capable of wanting is relative to the

7374

forms of social organisation. People 'want' fast food because they

7375

have to hurry back to work, because processed supermarket food

7376

doesn't taste much better anyway, because the nuclear family (for

7377

the dwindling minority who have even that to go home to) is too small

7378

and too stressed to sustain much festivity in cooking and eating

7379

who resign themselves to want more of what they can get. Since

7380

we cannot be friends and lovers, we wail for more candy."

7381

[_Smokestack Lightning_]

7382

7383

Therefore, most anarchists think that consumerism is a product of a

7384

hierarchical society within which people are alienated from themselves

7385

and the means by which they can make themselves *really* happy (i.e.

7386

meaningful relationships, liberty, work, and experiences). Consumerism

7387

is a means of filling the spiritual hole capitalism creates within us by

7388

denying our freedom.

7389

7390

This means that capitalism produces individuals who define themselves by

7391

what they have, not who they are. This leads to consumption for the sake

7392

of consumption, as people try to make themselves happy by consuming more

7393

commodities. But, as Erich Fromm points out, this cannot work for and only

7394

leads to even more insecurity (and so even more consumption):

7395

7396

"*If I am what I have and if what I have is lost, who then am I?*

7397

Nobody but a defeated, deflated, pathetic testimony to a wrong way

7398

of living. Because I *can* lose what I have, I am necessarily

7399

constantly worried that I *shall* lose what I have." [_To Have

7400

Or To Be_, p. 111]

7401

7402

Such insecurity easily makes consumerism seem a "natural" way of life

7403

and so make communism seem impossible. However, rampant consumerism is

7404

far more a product of lack of meaningful freedom within an alienated

7405

society than a "natural law" of human existence. In a society that

7406

encouraged and protected individuality by non-hierarchical social

7407

relationships and organisations, individuals would have a strong

7408

sense of self and so be less inclined to mindlessly consume. As

7409

Fromm puts it: "If *I am what I am* and not what I have, nobody

7410

can deprive me of or threaten my security and my sense of identity.

7411

My centre is within myself." [Op. Cit., p. 112] Such self-centred

7412

individuals do not have to consume endlessly to build a sense of

7413

security or happiness within themselves (a sense which can never

7414

actually be created by those means).

7415

7416

In other words, the well-developed individuality that an anarchist society

7417

would develop would have less need to consume than the average person in a

7418

capitalist one. This is not to suggest that life will be bare and without

7419

luxuries in an anarchist society, far from it. A society based on the

7420

free expression of individuality could be nothing but rich in wealth and

7421

diverse in goods and experiences. What we are arguing here is that an

7422

anarchist-communist society would not have to fear rampant consumerism

7423

making demand outstrip supply constantly and always precisely because

7424

freedom will result in a non-alienated society of well developed

7425

individuals.

7426

7427

Of course, this may sound totally utopian. Possibly it is. However, as

7428

Oscar Wilde said, a map of the world without Utopia on it is not worth

7429

having. One thing is sure, if the developments we have outlined above fail

7430

to appear and attempts at communism fail due to waste and demand exceeding

7431

supply then a free society would make the necessary decisions and introduce

7432

some means of limiting supply (such as, for example, labour notes, equal

7433

wages, and so on). Whether or not full communism *can* be introduced instantly

7434

is a moot point amongst anarchists, although most would like to see society

7435

develop towards a communist goal eventually.

7436

7437

I.4.7 What will stop producers ignoring consumers?

7438

7439

It is often claimed that with a market producers would ignore the needs

7440

of consumers. Without the threat (and fear) of unemployment and destitution

7441

and the promise of higher profits, producers would turn out shoddy goods.

7442

The holders of this argument point to the example of the Soviet Union

7443

which was notorious for terrible goods and a lack of consumer goods.

7444

7445

Capitalism, in comparison to the old Soviet block, does, to some

7446

degree make the producers accountable to the consumers. If the

7447

producer ignores the desires of the producer then they will loose

7448

business to those who do not and be forced, perhaps, out of

7449

business (large companies, of course, due to their resources can

7450

hold out far longer than smaller ones). Thus we have the carrot

7451

(profits) and the stick (fear of poverty) -- although, of course,

7452

the carrot can be used as a stick against the consumer (no profit,

7453

no sale, no matter how much the consumer may need it). Ignoring the

7454

obvious objection to this analogy (namely we are human beings, *not*

7455

donkeys!) it does have contain an important point. What will ensure

7456

that consumer needs are meet in an anarchist society?

7457

7458

In an Individualist-Mutualist anarchist system, as it is based on

7459

a market, producers would be subject to market forces and so have

7460

to meet consumers needs. Of course, there are three problems with

7461

this system. Firstly, those without money have no access to the goods

7462

produced and so the ill, the handicapped, the old and the young may go

7463

without. Secondly, inequalities may become more pronounced as successful

7464

producers drive others out of business. Such inequality would skew

7465

consumption as it does in capitalism, so ensuring that a minority

7466

get all the good things in life (Individualist anarchists would claim

7467

that this is unlikely, as non-labour income would be impossible).

7468

Lastly, there is the danger that the system would revert back to

7469

capitalism. This is because unsuccessful co-operatives may fail and

7470

cast their members into unemployment. This creates a pool of unemployed

7471

workers, which (in turn) creates a danger of wage-labour being re-created

7472

as successful firms hire the unemployed but do not allow them to join the

7473

co-operative. This would effectively end self-management and anarchy.

7474

Moreover, the successful could hire "protection agencies" (i.e. thugs)

7475

to enforce capitalist ideas of property rights.

7476

7477

This problem was recognised by Proudhon, who argued for an agro-industrial

7478

federation to protect self-management from the effects of market forces,

7479

as well as the collectivist-anarchists. In both these schemes, self-management

7480

would be protected by agreements between co-operative workplaces to share

7481

their resources with others in the confederation, so ensuring that new

7482

workers would gain access to the means of life on the same terms as those

7483

who already use it. In this way wage-labour would be abolished. In addition,

7484

the confederation of workplaces would practice mutual aid and provide

7485

resources and credit at cost to their members, so protecting firms from

7486

failure while they adjust their production to meet consumer needs.

7487

7488

In both these systems producers would be accountable to consumers by the

7489

process of buying and selling between co-operatives. As James Guillaume

7490

put it, the workers' associations would "deposit their unconsumed commodities

7491

in the facilities provided by the [communal] Bank of Exchange . . . The Bank

7492

of Exchange would remit to the producers negotiable *vouchers* representing

7493

the value of their products" (this value "having been established in

7494

advance by a contractual agreement between the regional co-operative

7495

federations and the various communes"). [_Bakunin on Anarchism_, pp. 366]

7496

If the goods are not in demand then the producer associations would not

7497

be able to sell the product of their labour to the Bank of Exchange and

7498

so they would adjust their output accordingly. Overtime Guillaume hopes

7499

that this system would evolve into free communism as production develops

7500

and continually meets demand [Op. Cit., p. 368].

7501

7502

While mutualist and collectivist anarchists can argue that producers

7503

would respond to consumer needs otherwise they would not get an

7504

income, communist-anarchists (as they seek a moneyless society)

7505

cannot argue their system would reward producers in this way. So

7506

what mechanism exists to ensure that "the wants of all" are, in

7507

fact, met? How does anarcho-communism ensure that production

7508

becomes "the mere servant of consumption" and "mould itself on

7509

the wants of the consumer, not dictate to him conditions"? [Peter

7510

Kropotkin, _Act for Yourselves_, p. 57]

7511

7512

Libertarian communists argue that in a *free* communist society

7513

consumers' needs would be meet. This is because of the decentralised

7514

and federal nature of a communist-anarchist society.

7515

7516

So what is the mechanism which makes producers accountable to consumers

7517

in a libertarian communist society? Firstly, communes would practice

7518

their power of "exit" in the distributive network. If a syndicate was

7519

producing sub-standard goods or refusing to change their output in

7520

the face of changing consumer needs, then the communal stores would

7521

turn to those syndicates which *were* producing the goods desired. The

7522

original syndicates would then be producing for their own stocks, a

7523

pointless task and one few, if any, would do. After all, people generally

7524

desire their work to have meaning, to be useful. To just work, producing

7525

something no-one wanted would be such a demoralising task that few, if

7526

any, sane people would do it (under capitalism people put up with spirit

7527

destroying work as some income is better than none, such an "incentive"

7528

would not exist in a free society).

7529

7530

As can be seen, "exit" would still exit in libertarian communism.

7531

However, it could be argued that unresponsive or inefficient

7532

syndicates would still exist, exploiting the rest of society by

7533

producing rubbish (or goods which are of less than average

7534

quality) and consuming the products of other people's labour,

7535

confident that without the fear of poverty and unemployment

7536

they can continue to do this indefinitely. Without the market,

7537

it is argued, some form of bureaucracy would be required (or

7538

develop) which would have the power to punish such syndicates.

7539

Thus the state would continue in "libertarian" communism, with

7540

the "higher" bodies using coercion against the lower ones to

7541

ensure they meet consumer needs or produced enough.

7542

7543

While, at first glance, this appears to be a possible problem on closer

7544

inspection it is flawed. This is because anarchism is based not only

7545

on "exit" but also "voice." Unlike capitalism, libertarian communism

7546

is based on association and communication. Each syndicate and commune

7547

is in free agreement and confederation with all the others. Thus, is

7548

a specific syndicate was producing bad goods or not pulling its

7549

weight, then those in contact with them would soon realise this.

7550

First, those unhappy with a syndicate's work would appeal to them

7551

directly to get their act together. If this did not work, then

7552

they would notify their disapproval by refusing to "contract" with

7553

them in the future (i.e. they would use their power of "exit" as

7554

well as refusing to provide the syndicate with any goods *it*

7555

requires). They would also let society as a whole know (via the

7556

media) as well as contacting consumer groups and co-operatives

7557

and the relevant producer and communal confederations which

7558

they and the other syndicate are members of, who would, in turn,

7559

inform their members of the problems (the relevant confederations

7560

could include local and regional communal confederations, the

7561

general cross-industry confederation, its own industrial/communal

7562

confederation and the confederation of the syndicate not pulling

7563

its weight). In today's society, a similar process of "word of

7564

mouth" warnings and recommendations goes on, along with consumer

7565

groups and programmes. Our suggestions here are an extension of this

7566

common practice (that this process exists suggests that the price

7567

mechanism does not, in fact, provide consumers with all the

7568

relevant information they need to make decisions, but this is an

7569

aside).

7570

7571

If the syndicate in question, after a certain number of complaints

7572

had been lodged against it, still did not change its ways, then

7573

it would suffer non-violent direct action. This would involve

7574

the boycotting of the syndicate and (perhaps) its local commune

7575

with products and investment, so resulting in the syndicate being

7576

excluded from the benefits of association. The syndicate would

7577

face the fact that no one else wanted to associate with it and

7578

suffer a drop in the goods coming its way, including consumption

7579

products for its members. In effect, a similar process would occur

7580

to that of a firm under capitalism that looses its customers and

7581

so its income. However, we doubt that a free society would subject

7582

any person to the evils of destitution or starvation (as capitalism

7583

does). Rather, it would provide a bare minimum of goods required

7584

for survival would still be available.

7585

7586

In the unlikely event this general boycott did not result in a change

7587

of heart, then two options are left available. These are either the

7588

break-up of the syndicate and the finding of its members new work

7589

places or the giving/selling of the syndicate to its current users

7590

(i.e. to exclude them from the society they obviously do not want

7591

to be part off). The decision of which option to go for would depend

7592

on the importance of the workplace in question and the desires of the

7593

syndicates' members. If the syndicate refused to disband, then option

7594

two would be the most logical choice (unless the syndicate controlled

7595

a scare resource). The second option would, perhaps, be best as this

7596

would drive home the benefits of association as the expelled syndicate

7597

would have to survive on its own, subject to survival by selling the

7598

product of its labour and would soon return to the fold.

7599

7600

Kropotkin argued in these terms over 100 years ago. It is worthwhile

7601

to quote him at length:

7602

7603

"First of all, is it not evident that if a society, founded on

7604

the principle of free work, were really menaced by loafers, it

7605

could protect itself without the authoritarian organisation

7606

we have nowadays, and without having recourse to wagedom

7607

[or payment by results]?

7608

7609

"Let us take a group of volunteers, combining for some particular

7610

enterprise. Having its success at heart, they all work with a will,

7611

save one of the associates, who is frequently absent from his post.

7612

. . . some day the comrade who imperils their enterprise will be

7613

told: 'Friend, we should like to work with you; but as you are

7614

often absent from your post, and you do your work negligently,

7615

we must part. Go and find other comrades who will put up with

7616

your indifference!'

7617

7618

"This is so natural that it is practised everywhere, even nowadays,

7619

in all industries . . . [I]f [a worker] does his work badly, if he

7620

hinders his comrades by his laziness or other defects, if he is

7621

quarrelsome, there is an end of it; he is compelled to leave the

7622

workshop.

7623

7624

"Authoritarian pretend that it is the almighty employer and his

7625

overseers who maintain regularity and quality of work in factories.

7626

In reality . . . it is the factory itself, the workmen [and women]

7627

who see to the good quality of the work . . .

7628

7629

"Not only in industrial workshops do things go in this way; it happens

7630

everywhere, every day, on a scale that only bookworms have as yet no

7631

notion of. When a railway company, federated with other companies,

7632

fails to fulfil its engagements, when its trains are late and goods

7633

lie neglected at the stations, the other companies threaten to cancel

7634

the contract, and that threat usually suffices.

7635

7636

"It is generally believed . . . that commerce only keeps to its

7637

engagements from fear of lawsuits. Nothing of the sort; nine times

7638

in ten the trader who has not kept his word will not appear before

7639

a judge. . . the sole fact of having driven a creditor to bring a

7640

lawsuit suffices for the vast majority of merchants to refuse for

7641

good to have any dealings with a man who has compelled one of them

7642

to go to law.

7643

7644

"This being so, why should means that are used today among workers

7645

in the workshop, traders in the trade, and railway companies in the

7646

organisation of transport, not be made use of in a society based on

7647

voluntary work?" [_The Conquest of Bread_, pp. 152-3]

7648

7649

Thus, to ensure producer accountability of production to consumption,

7650

no bureaucratic body is required in libertarian communism (or any other

7651

form of anarchism). Rather, communication and direct action by those

7652

affected by unresponsive producers would be an effective and efficient

7653

means of ensuring the accountability of production to consumption.

7654

7655

I.4.8 What about investment decisions?

7656

7657

Obviously, a given society needs to take into account changes in

7658

consumption and so invest in new means of production. An anarchist

7659

society is no different. As G.D.H Cole points out, "it is essential

7660

at all times, and in accordance with considerations which vary from

7661

time to time, for a community to preserve a balance between production

7662

for ultimate use and production for use in further production. And

7663

this balance is a matter which ought to be determined by and on

7664

behalf of the whole community." [_Guild Socialism Restated_, p. 144]

7665

7666

How this balance is determined varies according to the school of

7667

anarchist thought considered. All agree, however, that such an

7668

important task should be under effective community control.

7669

7670

The mutualists see the solution to the problems of investment as

7671

creating a system of mutual banks, which reduce interest rates to

7672

zero. This would be achieved "[b]y the organisation of credit, on

7673

the principle of reciprocity or mutualism. . .In such an organisation

7674

credit is raised to the dignity of a social function, managed by

7675

the community; and, as society never speculates upon its members,

7676

it will lend its credit . . . at the actual cost of transaction."

7677

[Charles A. Dana, _Proudhon and his "Bank of the People"_, p. 36]

7678

This would allow money to be made available to those who needed

7679

it and so break the back of the capitalist business cycle (i.e.

7680

credit would be available as required, not when it was profitable

7681

for bankers to supply it) as well as capitalist property relations.

7682

7683

So under a mutualist regime, credit for investment would be

7684

available from two sources. Firstly, an individual's or

7685

co-operative's own saved funds and, secondly, as zero interest

7686

loans from mutual banks, credit unions and other forms of credit

7687

associations. Loans would be allocated to projects which the mutual

7688

banks considered likely to succeed and repay the original loan.

7689

7690

Collectivist and communist anarchists recognise that credit is

7691

based on human activity, which is represented as money. As the

7692

Guild Socialist G.D.H. Cole pointed out, the "understanding of

7693

this point [on investment] depends on a clear appreciation of

7694

the fact that all real additions to capital take the form of

7695

directing a part of the productive power of labour and using

7696

certain materials not for the manufacture of products and the

7697

rendering of services incidental to such manufacture for purposes

7698

of purposes of further production." [_Guild Socialism Restated_,

7699

p. 143] So collectivist and communist anarchists agree with

7700

their Mutualist cousins when they state that "[a]ll credit

7701

presupposes labour, and, if labour were to cease, credit

7702

would be impossible" and that the "legitimate source of

7703

credit" was "the labouring classes" who "ought to control

7704

it" and "whose benefit [it should] be used" [Charles A.

7705

Dana, Op. Cit., p. 35]

7706

7707

Therefore, in collectivism, investment funds would exist for

7708

syndicates, communes and their in community ("People's")

7709

"banks." These would be used to store depreciation funds and

7710

as well as other funds agreed to by the collectives for

7711

investment projects (for example, collectives may agree

7712

to allocate a certain percentage of their labour notes to

7713

a common account in order to have the necessary funds available

7714

for major investment projects). Similarly, individual syndicates

7715

and communes would also create a store of funds for their own

7716

investment projects. In this, collectivist anarchism is like

7717

mutualism, with communal credit banks being used to facilitate

7718

investment by organising credit and savings on a

7719

non-exploitative basis (i.e. issuing credit at zero

7720

interest).

7721

7722

However, the confederations of syndicates to which these

7723

"People's Banks" would be linked would have a defined

7724

planning function as well -- i.e. taking a role in investment

7725

decisions to ensure that production meets demand (see below).

7726

This would be one factor in deciding which investment plans

7727

should be given funding (this, we stress, is hardly "central

7728

planning" as capitalist firms also plan future investments to

7729

meet expected demand).

7730

7731

In a communist-anarchist society, things would be slightly different

7732

as this would not have the labour notes used in mutualism and

7733

collectivism. This means that the collectives would agree that

7734

a certain part of their output and activity will be directed to

7735

investment projects. In effect, each collective is able to

7736

draw upon the sums approved of by the Commune in the form of

7737

an agreed claim on the labour power of all the collectives

7738

(investment "is essentially an allocation of material and

7739

labour, and fundamentally, an allocation of human productive

7740

power." [Cole, Op. Cit., pp. 144-5]). In this way, mutual aid

7741

ensures a suitable pool of resources for the future from which

7742

all benefit.

7743

7744

How would this work? Obviously investment decisions have

7745

implications for society as a whole. The implementation of

7746

these decisions require the use of *existing* capacity and

7747

so must be the responsibility of the appropriate level of

7748

the confederation in question. Investment decisions taken

7749

at levels above the production unit become effective in the

7750

form of demand for the current output of the syndicates which

7751

have the capacity to produce the goods required. This would

7752

require each syndicate to "prepare a budget, showing

7753

its estimate of requirements both of goods or services

7754

for immediate use, and of extensions and improvements."

7755

[Cole, Op. Cit., p. 145] These budgets and investment

7756

projects would be discussed at the appropriate level

7757

of the confederation (in this, communist-anarchism would

7758

be similar to collectivist anarchism).

7759

7760

The confederation of syndicates/communes would be the ideal

7761

forum to discuss (communicate) the various investment

7762

plans required -- and to allocate scarce resources between

7763

competing ends. This would involve, possibly, dividing

7764

investment into two groups -- necessary and optional --

7765

and using statistical techniques to consider the impact

7766

of an investment decision (for example, the use of

7767

input-output tables could be used to see if a given

7768

investment decision in, say, the steel industry would

7769

require investment in energy production). In this way

7770

social needs *and* social costs would be taken into

7771

account and ensure that investment decisions are not

7772

taken in isolation from one another, so causing

7773

bottle-necks and insufficient production due to lack

7774

of inputs from other industries.

7775

7776

Necessary investments are those which have been agreed upon

7777

by the appropriate confederation. It means that resources

7778

and productive capacity are prioritised towards them, as

7779

indicated in the agreed investment project. It will not be

7780

required to determine precisely *who* will provide the

7781

necessary goods for a given investment project, just

7782

that it has priority over other requests. When a bank

7783

gives a company credit, it rarely asks exactly where that

7784

money will be built. Rather, it gives the company the power

7785

to command the labour of other workers by supplying them

7786

with credit. Similarly in an anarcho-communist society,

7787

except that the other workers have agreed to supply their

7788

labour for the project in question by designating it a

7789

"necessary investment." This means when a request arrives

7790

at a syndicate for a "necessary investment" a syndicate

7791

must try and meet it (i.e. it must place the request

7792

into its production schedule before "optional" requests,

7793

assuming that it has the capacity to meet it). A list of

7794

necessary investment projects, including what they require

7795

and if they have been ordered, will be available to all

7796

syndicates to ensure such a request is a real one.

7797

7798

Optional investment is simply investment projects which

7799

have not been agreed to by a confederation. This means

7800

that when a syndicate or commune places orders with a

7801

syndicate they may not be meet or take longer to arrive.

7802

The project may go ahead, but it depends on whether the

7803

syndicate or commune can find workers willing to do that

7804

work. This would be applicable for small scale investment

7805

decisions or those which other communes/syndicates do not

7806

think of as essential.

7807

7808

This we have two inter-related investment strategies. A

7809

communist-anarchist society would prioritise certain forms

7810

of investment by the use of "necessary" and "optional"

7811

investment projects. This socialisation of investment

7812

will allow a free society to ensure that social needs

7813

are meet while maintaining a decentralised and dynamic

7814

"economy." Major projects to meet social needs will be

7815

organised effectively, but with diversity for minor

7816

projects. In addition, it will also allow such a society

7817

to keep track of what actual percentage of resources

7818

are being used for investment, so ensuring that current

7819

needs are not sacrificed for future ones and vice-versa.

7820

7821

As for when investment is needed, it is clear that this will be

7822

based on the changes in demand for goods in both collectivist

7823

and communist anarchism. As Guilliame puts it, "[b]y means

7824

of statistics gathered from all the communes in a region,

7825

it will be possible to scientifically balance production and

7826

consumption. In line with these statistics, it will also be

7827

possible to add more help in industries where production is

7828

insufficient and reduce the number of men where there is a

7829

surplus of production." [_Bakunin on Anarchism_, p. 370]

7830

Obviously, investment in branches of production with a high

7831

demand would be essential and this would be easily seen from

7832

the statistics generated by the collectives and communes. Tom

7833

Brown states this obvious point:

7834

7835

"Goods, as now, will be produced in greater variety, for workers

7836

like producing different kinds, and new models, of goods. Now if

7837

some goods are unpopular, they will be left on the shelves. . .

7838

Of other goods more popular, the shops will be emptied. Surely

7839

it is obvious that the assistant will decrease his order of the

7840

unpopular line and increase his order of the popular."

7841

[_Syndicalism_, p. 55]

7842

7843

As a rule of thumb, syndicates that produce investment goods would

7844

be inclined to supply other syndicates who are experiencing excess

7845

demand before others, all other things being equal. Because of such

7846

guidelines and communication between producers, investment would

7847

go to those industries that actually required them. In other words,

7848

customer choice (as indicated by individuals choosing between

7849

the output of different syndicates) would generate information

7850

that is relevant to investment decisions.

7851

7852

As production would be decentralised as far as it is sensible and

7853

rationale to do so, each locality/region would be able to understand

7854

its own requirements and apply them as it sees fit. This means that

7855

large-scale planning would not be conducted (assuming that it

7856

could work in practice, of course) simply because it would not

7857

be needed.

7858

7859

This, combined with an extensive communications network, would

7860

ensure that investment not only did not duplicate unused plant

7861

within the economy but that investments take into account the

7862

specific problems and opportunities each locality has. Of course,

7863

collectives would experiment with new lines and technology as well

7864

as existing lines and so invest in new technologies and products.

7865

As occurs under capitalism, extensive consumer testing would

7866

occur before dedicating major investment decisions to new products.

7867

7868

In addition, investment decisions would also require information

7869

which showed the different outcomes of different options. By this

7870

we simply mean an analysis of how different investment projects

7871

relate to each other in terms of inputs and outputs, compared to

7872

the existing techniques. This would be in the form of cost-benefit

7873

analysis (as outlined in section I.4.4) and would show when it

7874

would make economic, social and ecological sense to switch

7875

industrial techniques to more efficient and/or more empowering

7876

and/or more ecologically sound methods. Such an evaluation would

7877

indicate levels of inputs and compare them to the likely

7878

outputs. For example, if a new production technique reduced

7879

the number of hours worked in total (comparing the hours

7880

worked to produce the machinery with that reduced in using

7881

it) as well as reducing waste products for a similar output,

7882

then such a technique would be implemented.

7883

7884

Similarly with communities. A commune will obviously have to

7885

decide upon and plan civic investment (e.g. new parks, housing

7886

and so forth). They will also have the deciding say in industrial

7887

developments in their area as it would be unfair for syndicate to

7888

just decide to build a cement factory next to a housing co-operative

7889

if they did not want it. There is a case for arguing that the local

7890

commune will decide on investment decisions for syndicates in its

7891

area (for example, a syndicate may produce X plans which will be

7892

discussed in the local commune and 1 plan finalised from the

7893

debate). For regional decisions (for example, a new hospital)

7894

would be decided at the appropriate level, with information

7895

fed from the health syndicate and consumer co-operatives. The

7896

actual location for investment decisions will be worked out by

7897

those involved. However, local syndicates must be the focal

7898

point for developing new products and investment plans in

7899

order to encourage innovation.

7900

7901

Therefore, under social anarchism no capital market is required

7902

to determine whether investment is required and what form it

7903

would take. The work that apologists for capitalism claim

7904

currently is done by the stock market can be replaced by

7905

co-operation and communication between workplaces in a

7906

decentralised, confederated network. The relative needs of

7907

different consumers of a product can be evaluated by the

7908

producers and an informed decision reached on where it

7909

would best be used.

7910

7911

Without a capital market, housing, workplaces and so on will no

7912

longer be cramped into the smallest space possible. Instead, housing,

7913

schools, hospitals, workplaces and so on will be built within a "green"

7914

environment. This means that human constructions will be placed within

7915

a natural setting and no longer stand apart from nature. In this way

7916

human life can be enriched and the evils of cramping as many humans

7917

and things into a small a space as is "economical" can be overcome.

7918

7919

In addition, the stock market is hardly the means by which capital

7920

is actually raised within capitalism. As Engler points out,

7921

"[s]upporters of the system . . . claim that stock exchanges

7922

mobilise funds for business. Do they? When people buy and sell

7923

shares, 'no investment goes into company treasuries . . . Shares

7924

simply change hands for cash in endless repetition.' Company

7925

treasuries get funds only from new equity issues. These accounted

7926

for an average of a mere 0.5 per cent of shares trading in the US

7927

during the 1980s." [_Apostles of Greed_, pp. 157-158] Indeed,

7928

Doug Henwood argues that "the signals emitted by the stock market

7929

are either irrelevant or harmful to real economic activity, and

7930

that the stock market itself counts little or nothing as a source

7931

of finance. Shareholders . . . have no useful role." [_Wall Street_,

7932

p. 292]

7933

7934

Moreover, the existence of a stock market has serious (negative)

7935

effects on investment. As Henwood notes, there "are serious

7936

communication problems between managers and shareholders." This

7937

is because "[e]ven if participants are aware of an upward bias

7938

to earnings estimates [of companies], and even if they correct

7939

for it, managers would still have an incentive to try to fool

7940

the market. If you tell the truth, your accurate estimate

7941

will be marked down by a sceptical market. So, it's entirely

7942

rational for managers to boost profits in the short term, either

7943

through accounting gimmickry or by making only investments with

7944

quick paybacks." So, managers "facing a market [the stock market]

7945

that is famous for its preference for quick profits today rather

7946

than patient long-term growth have little choice but to do its

7947

bidding. Otherwise, their stock will be marked down, and the

7948

firm ripe for takeover." While "[f]irms and economies can't

7949

get richer by starving themselves" stock market investors "can

7950

get richer when the companies they own go hungry -- at least

7951

in the short term. As for the long term, well, that's someone

7952

else's problem the week after next." [Op. Cit., p. 171]

7953

7954

Ironically, this situation has a parallel with Stalinist central

7955

planning. Under that system manager of State workplaces had an

7956

incentive to lie about their capacity to the planning bureaucracy.

7957

The planner would, in turn, assume higher capacity, so harming

7958

honest managers and encouraging them to lie. This, of course,

7959

had a seriously bad impact on the economy. Unsurprisingly, the

7960

similar effects caused by capital markets on economies subject

7961

to them as just as bad, downplaying long term issues and investment.

7962

7963

And it hardly needs to be repeated that capitalism results in

7964

production being skewed away from the working class and that the

7965

"efficiency" of market allocation is highly suspect.

7966

7967

Only by taking investment decisions away from "experts" and placing

7968

it in the hands of ordinary people will current generations be able

7969

to invest according to their, and future generations', self-interest.

7970

It is hardly in our interest to have a institution whose aim is to

7971

make the wealthy even wealthier and on whose whims are dependent

7972

the lives of millions of people.

7973

7974

I.4.9 Should technological advance be seen as anti-anarchistic?

7975

7976

Not necessarily. This is because technology can allow us to "do more

7977

with less," technological progress can improve standards of living for

7978

all people, and technologies can be used to increase personal freedom:

7979

medical technology, for instance, can free people from the scourges

7980

of pain, illness, and a "naturally" short life span; technology

7981

can be used to free labour from mundane chores associated with

7982

production; advanced communications technology can enhance our

7983

ability to freely associate. The list goes on and on. Therefore,

7984

most anarchists agree with Kropotkin when he pointed out that the

7985

"development of [the industrial] technique at last gives man [sic!]

7986

the opportunity to free himself from slavish toil." [_Ethics_, p. 2]

7987

7988

For example, increased productivity under capitalism usually

7989

leads to further exploitation and domination, displaced workers,

7990

economic crisis, etc. But it does not have to in an anarchist

7991

world. By way of example, consider a commune in which all

7992

resources are distributed equally amongst the members. Let

7993

us say that this commune has 5 people who desire to be bakers

7994

(or 5 people are needed to work the communal bakery) and, for

7995

the sake of argument, 20 hours of production per person, per

7996

week is spent on baking bread for the local commune. Now, what

7997

happens if the introduction of automation, *as desired, planned

7998

and organised by the workers themselves*, reduces the amount

7999

of labour required for bread production to 15 person-hours

8000

per week, including the labour cost spent in creating and

8001

maintaining the new machinery? Clearly, no one stands to lose

8002

continue to receive the same resource income as before --

8003

and they might even gain. This last is due to the fact that

8004

5 person-hours have been freed up from the task of bread

8005

production, and those person-hours may now be used elsewhere

8006

or converted to leisure, either way increasing each person's

8007

standard of living.

8008

8009

Obviously, this happy outcome derives not only from the technology

8010

used, but also (and critically) from its use in an equitable

8011

economic and social system. Certainly, a wide variety of outcomes

8012

would be possible under alternative social systems. Yet, we have

8013

managed to prove our point: in the end, there is no reason why

8014

the use of technology cannot be used to empower people and

8015

increase their freedom!

8016

8017

Of course technology can be used for oppressive ends. Human knowledge,

8018

like all things, can be used to increase freedom or to decrease it,

8019

to promote inequality or reduce it, to aid the worker or to subjugate

8020

them, and so on. Technology, as we argued in section D.10, cannot be

8021

considered in isolation from the society it is created and used in.

8022

In a hierarchical society, technology will be introduced that

8023

serves the interests of the powerful and helps marginalise and

8024

disempower the majority ("technology is political," to use David

8025

Noble's expression), it does not evolve in isolation from human

8026

beings and the social relationships and power structures between

8027

them. "Capitalism has created," Cornelius Castoriadais correctly

8028

argued, "a capitalist technology, for its *own* ends, which are by

8029

no means neutral. The real essence of capitalist technology is not

8030

to develop production for production's sake: it is to subordinate

8031

and dominate the producers." This means that in an anarchist society,

8032

technology would have to be transformed and/or developed which

8033

empowered those who used it, so reducing any oppressive aspects

8034

of it. In the words of Cornelius Castoriadais, the "conscious

8035

transformation of technology will . . . be a central task of a

8036

society of free workers." [_Workers' Councils and the Economics

8037

of a Self-Managed Society_, p. 13]

8038

8039

However, as Kropotkin argued, we are (potentially) in a good position,

8040

because "[f]or the first time in the history of civilisation, mankind

8041

has reached a point where the means of satisfying its needs are in excess

8042

of the needs themselves. To impose, therefore, as hitherto been done,

8043

the curse of misery and degradation upon vast divisions of mankind,

8044

in order to secure well-being and further development for the few,

8045

is needed no more: well-being can be secured for all, without

8046

placing on anyone the burden of oppressive, degrading toil and

8047

humanity can at last build its entire social life on the basis

8048

of justice." [_Ethics_, p. 2] The question is, for most anarchists,

8049

how can we humanise and modify this technology and make it socially

8050

and individually liberatory, rather than destroying it (where

8051

applicable, of course, certain forms of technology will probably

8052

be eliminated due to their inherently destructive nature).

8053

8054

For Kropotkin, like most anarchists, the way to humanise technology

8055

and industry was for "the workers [to] lay hands on factories,

8056

houses and banks" and so "present production would be completely

8057

revolutionised by this simple fact." This would be the start

8058

of a process which would *integrate* industry and agriculture,

8059

as it was "essential that work-shops, foundries and factories

8060

develop within the reach of the fields." [_The Conquest of Bread_,

8061

p. 190] Such a process would obviously involve the transformation

8062

of both the structure and technology of capitalism rather than

8063

its simple and unthinking application.

8064

8065

There is another reason for anarchists seeking to transform

8066

rather then eliminate current technology. As Bakunin pointed

8067

out, "to destroy. . . all the instruments of labour [i.e.

8068

technology and industry] . . . would be to condemn all humanity --

8069

which is infinity too numerous today to exist. . . on the simple

8070

gifts of nature . . . -- to . . . death by starvation." His solution

8071

to the question of technology was, like Kropotkin's, to place it

8072

at the service of those who use it, to create "the intimate and

8073

complete union of capital and labour" so that it would "not . . .

8074

remain concentrated in the hands of a separate, exploiting class."

8075

Only this could "smash the tyranny of capital." [_The Basic Bakunin_,

8076

pp. 90-1]

8077

8078

Thus, most anarchists seek to transform technology and industry

8079

rather than get rid of it totally.

8080

8081

Most anarchists are aware that "Capital invested in machines that would

8082

re-enforce the system of domination [within the capitalist workplace],

8083

and this decision to invest, which might in the long run render the

8084

chosen technology economical, was not itself an economical decision but

8085

a political one, with cultural sanction." [David Noble, _Progress Without

8086

People_, p. 6] But this does not change the fact that we need to be in

8087

possession of the means of production before we can decide what to keep,

8088

what to change and what to throw away as inhuman. In other words, it is

8089

not enough to get rid of the boss, although this is a necessary first step!

8090

8091

It is for these reasons that anarchists have held a wide range of

8092

opinions concerning the relationship between human knowledge and

8093

anarchism. Some, such as Peter Kropotkin, were themselves scientists

8094

and saw great potential for the use of advanced technology to expand

8095

human freedom. Others have held technology at arm's length, concerned

8096

about its oppressive uses, and a few have rejected science and technology

8097

completely. All of these are, of course, possible anarchist positions.

8098

But most anarchists support Kropotkin's viewpoint, but with a healthy

8099

dose of practical Luddism when viewing how technology is (ab)used in

8100

capitalism ("The worker will only respect machinery *in the day* when

8101

it becomes his friend, shortening his work, rather than as *today,*

8102

his enemy, taking away jobs, killing workers." [Emile Pouget quoted

8103

by David Noble, Op. Cit., p. 15]).

8104

8105

Anarchists of all types recognise the importance of critically

8106

evaluating technology, industry and so on. The first step of any

8107

revolution will be the seizing of the means of production. The

8108

second *immediate* step will be the start of their radical

8109

transformation by those who use them and are affected by them

8110

(i.e. communities, those who use the products they produce and

8111

so on). Few, if any, anarchists seek to maintain the current

8112

industrial set-up or apply, unchanged, capitalist technology.

8113

We doubt that many of the workers who use that technology and

8114

work in industry will leave either unchanged. Rather, they will

8115

seek to liberate the technology they use from the influences of

8116

capitalism, just as they liberated themselves. In Kropotkin's

8117

words "if most of the workshops we know are foul and unhealthy,

8118

it is because the workers are of no account in the organisation

8119

of factories" and "[s]laves can submit to them, but free

8120

men will create new conditions, and their will be pleasant

8121

and infinitely more productive." [_The Conquest of Bread_,

8122

p. 121 and p. 123]

8123

8124

This will, of course, involve the shutting down (perhaps

8125

instantly or over a period of time) of many branches of

8126

industry and the abandonment of such technology which

8127

cannot be transformed into something more suitable for

8128

use by free individuals. And, of course, many workplaces

8129

will be transformed to produce new goods required to meet

8130

the needs of the revolutionary people or close due to

8131

necessity as a social revolution will disrupt the market

8132

for their goods -- such as producers of luxury export goods

8133

or suppliers of repressive equipment for state security

8134

forces. Altogether, a social revolution implies the

8135

transformation of technology and industry, just as it

8136

implies the transformation of society.

8137

8138

This process of transforming work can be seen from the Spanish

8139

Revolution. Immediately after taking over the means of production,

8140

the Spanish workers started to transform it. They eliminated

8141

unsafe and unhygienic working conditions and workplaces and

8142

created new workplaces based on safe and hygienic working

8143

conditions. Working practices were transformed as those

8144

who did the work (and so understood it) managed it. Many

8145

workplaces were transformed to create products required by

8146

the war effort (such as weapons, ammunition, tanks and so on)

8147

and to produce consumer goods to meet the needs of the local

8148

population as the normal sources of such goods, as Kropotkin

8149

predicted, were unavailable due to economic disruption and

8150

isolation. Needless to say, these were only the beginnings

8151

of the process but they clearly point the way any libertarian

8152

social revolution would progress, namely the total transformation

8153

of work, industry and technology. Technological change would

8154

develop along new lines, ones which will take into account

8155

human and ecological needs rather the power and profits of

8156

a minority.

8157

8158

Explicit in anarchism is the believe that capitalist and

8159

statist methods cannot be used for socialist and libertarian

8160

ends. In our struggle for workers' and community self-management

8161

is the awareness that workplaces are not merely sites of

8162

production -- they are also sites of *re*production, the

8163

reproduction of certain social relationships based on

8164

specific relations of authority between those who give

8165

orders and those who take them. The battle to democratise

8166

the workplace, to place the collective initiative of the

8167

direct producers at the centre of any productive activity,

8168

is clearly a battle to transform the workplace, the nature

8169

of work and, by necessity, technology as well.

8170

8171

As Kropotkin argued, a "revolution is more than a mere

8172

change of the prevailing political system. It implies

8173

the awakening of human intelligence, the increasing of

8174

the inventive spirit tenfold, a hundredfold; it is the

8175

dawn of a new science . . . It is a revolution in the

8176

minds of men, as deep, and deeper still, than in their

8177

institutions . . . the sole fact of having laid hands

8178

on middle-class property will imply the necessity of

8179

completely re-organising the whole of economic life

8180

in the workplaces, the dockyards, the factories."

8181

[_The Conquest of Bread_, p. 192] And some think that

8182

industry and technology will remain unchanged by such

8183

a process and that workers will continue doing the

8184

same sort of work, in the same way, using the same

8185

methods!

8186

8187

For Kropotkin "all production has taken a wrong direction, as

8188

it is not carried on with a view to securing well-being for all"

8189

under capitalism. [Op. Cit., p. 101] Well-being for all obviously

8190

includes those who do the producing and so covers the structure

8191

of industry and the technological processes used. Similarly,

8192

well-being also includes a person's environment and surroundings

8193

and so technology and industry must be evaluated on an

8194

ecological basis. Thus Kropotkin supported the integration of

8195

agriculture and industry, with "the factory and workshop at the

8196

gates of your fields and gardens." These factories would be

8197

"airy and hygienic, and consequently economical, factories in

8198

which human life is of more account than machinery and the making

8199

of extra profits." [_Fields, Factories and Workshops Tomorrow_,

8200

p. 197]

8201

8202

Technological progress in an anarchist society, needless to say,

8203

will have to take into account these factors as well as others

8204

people think are relevant, otherwise the ideal of "well-being for

8205

all" is rejected.

8206

8207

Capitalism has developed many technologies, some of them harmful or

8208

dangerous, but those technologies do not develop by themselves.

8209

The technology of cheap solar power, for example, has scarcely

8210

moved at all because the capitalists have not chosen to invest in

8211

it. Chainsaws do not cut down rain forests, people do; and they do

8212

so because they have irresistible economic incentives to do so

8213

(whether they be capitalists who stand to make profits or workers

8214

who have no other way to survive). Until the economic system is

8215

abolished, these incentives will continue to drive technological

8216

progress and change.

8217

8218

So, technology always partakes of and expresses the basic values of

8219

the social system in which it is embedded. If you have a system

8220

(capitalism) that alienates everything, it will naturally produce

8221

alienated forms of technology and it will orient those technologies

8222

so as to reinforce itself. As we argued in section D.10, capitalists

8223

will select technology which re-enforces their power and profits and

8224

skew technological change in that direction rather than in those

8225

which empower individuals and make the workplace more egalitarian.

8226

8227

This does not mean that we have to reject all technology and industry

8228

because it has been shaped by, or developed within, class society.

8229

Certain technologies are, of course, so insanely dangerous that they

8230

will no doubt be brought to a prompt halt in any sane society. Similarly,

8231

certain forms of technology and industrial process will be impossible

8232

to transform as they are inherently designed for oppressive ends.

8233

Many other industries which produce absurd, obsolete or superfluous

8234

commodities will, of course, cease automatically with the disappearance

8235

of their commercial or social rationales. But many technologies, however

8236

they may presently be misused, have few if any inherent drawbacks. They

8237

could be easily adapted to other uses. When people free themselves from

8238

domination, they will have no trouble rejecting those technologies that

8239

are harmful while adapting others to beneficial uses.

8240

8241

So if it is true that technology reflects the society which creates it,

8242

then technology cannot be inherently bad. A liberated, non-exploitative

8243

society will naturally create liberating, non-exploitative technologies,

8244

just as the present alienated social system naturally produces alienated

8245

forms (or uses) of technology.

8246

8247

Does this argument mean that most anarchists are against the "abolition

8248

of work"? No, unless you confuse all kinds of productive activity with

8249

work. It always takes some "work" to create a product (even only if it

8250

is food) but that work does not necessarily have to be wage labour or

8251

otherwise alienated or subject to domination and hierarchy. A life

8252

without dead time does not mean a life where you never have to move a

8253

muscle or use your head.

8254

8255

And, of course, different communities and different regions would

8256

choose different priorities and different lifestyles. As the CNT's

8257

Zaragoza resolution on libertarian communism made clear, "those

8258

communes which reject industrialisation . . . may agree upon a

8259

different model of co-existence." Using the example of "naturists

8260

and nudists," it argues that they "will be entitled to an autonomous

8261

administration released from the general commitments" agreed by the

8262

communes and their federations and "their delegates to congresses of

8263

the . . . Confederation of Autonomous Libertarian Communes will be

8264

empowered to enter into economic contacts with other agricultural

8265

and industrial Communes." [quoted by Jose Peirats, _The CNT in the

8266

Spanish Revolution_, vol. 1, p. 106]

8267

8268

(See Ken Knabb's _The Poverty of Primitivism_ for more details

8269

excellent text).

8270

8271

All this means, of course, that technological progress is not neutral

8272

but dependent on who makes the decisions. As David Noble argues,

8273

"[t]echnological determinism, the view that machines make history

8274

rather than people, is not correct . . . If social changes now

8275

upon us seem necessary, it is because they follow not from any

8276

disembodied technological logic, but form a social logic."

8277

Technology conforms to "the interests of power" but as

8278

"technological process is a social process" then "it is,

8279

like all social processes, marked by conflict and struggle,

8280

and the outcome, therefore, is always ultimately indeterminate."

8281

Viewing technological development "as a social process rather

8282

than as an autonomous, transcendent, and deterministic force

8283

can be liberating . . . because it opens up a realm of

8284

freedom too long denied. It restores people once again to

8285

their proper role as subjects of the story, rather than mere

8286

pawns of technology . . . And technological development itself,

8287

now seen as a social construct, becomes a new variable rather

8288

than a first cause, consisting of a range of possibilities and

8289

promising a multiplicity of futures." [_Forces of Production_,

8290

pp. 324-5]

8291

8292

Change society and the technology introduced and utilised will

8293

likewise change. By viewing technological progress as a new

8294

variable, dependent on those who make the decisions and the

8295

type of society they live in, allows us to see that technological

8296

development is not inherently anti-anarchist. A non-oppressive,

8297

non-exploitative, ecological society will develop non-oppressive,

8298

non-exploitative, ecological technology just as capitalism has

8299

developed technology which facilitates exploitation, oppression

8300

and environmental destruction. Thus an anarchist questions

8301

technology: The best technology? Best for whom? Best for what?

8302

Best according to what criteria, what visions, according to

8303

whose criteria and whose visions?

8304

8305

For most anarchists, technological advancement is important

8306

in a free society in order to maximise the free time available

8307

for everyone and replace mindless toil with meaningful work. The

8308

means of doing so is the use of *appropriate* technology (and

8309

*not* the worship of technology as such). Only by critically

8310

evaluating technology and introducing such forms which empower,

8311

are understandable and are controllable by individuals and

8312

communities as well as minimising ecological distribution (in

8313

other words, what is termed appropriate technology) can this

8314

be achieved. Only this critical approach to technology can do

8315

justice to the power of the human mind and reflect the creative

8316

powers which developed the technology in the first place.

8317

Unquestioning acceptance of technological progress is just

8318

as bad as being unquestioningly anti-technology.

8319

8320

Whether technological advance is a good thing or sustainable depends on

8321

the choices we make, and on the social, political, and economic systems we

8322

use. We live in a universe that contains effectively infinite resources

8323

of matter and energy, yet at the moment we are stuck on a planet whose

8324

resources can only be stretched so far. Anarchists (and others) differ as

8325

to their assessments of how much development the earth can take, and of the

8326

best course for future development, but there's no reason to believe that

8327

advanced technological societies per se cannot be sustained into the

8328

foreseeable future if they are structured and used properly.

8329

8330

I.4.10 What would be the advantage of a wide basis of surplus distribution?

8331

8332

We noted earlier that competition between syndicates can lead to

8333

"petty-bourgeois co-operativism," and that to eliminate this

8334

problem, the basis of collectivisation needs to be widened so that

8335

surpluses are distributed industry-wide or even society-wide. We also

8336

pointed out another advantage of a wide surplus distribution: that it

8337

allows for the consolidation of enterprises that would otherwise compete,

8338

leading to a more efficient allocation of resources and technical

8339

improvements. Here we will back up this claim with illustrations

8340

from the Spanish Revolution.

8341

8342

Collectivisation in Catalonia embraced not only major industries like

8343

municipal transportation and utilities, but smaller establishments as

8344

well: small factories, artisan workshops, service and repair shops, etc.

8345

Augustin Souchy describes the process as follows:

8346

8347

"The artisans and small workshop owners, together with their employees

8348

and apprentices, often joined the union of their trade. By consolidating

8349

their efforts and pooling their resources on a fraternal basis, the shops

8350

were able to undertake very big projects and provide services on a much

8351

wider scale . . . The collectivisation of the hairdressing shops provides

8352

an excellent example of how the transition of a small-scale manufacturing

8353

and service industry from capitalism to socialism was achieved."

8354

8355

"Before July 19th, 1936 [the date of the Revolution], there were 1,100

8356

hairdressing parlours in Barcelona, most of them owned by poor wretches

8357

living from hand to mouth. The shops were often dirty and ill-maintained.

8358

The 5,000 hairdressing assistants were among the most poorly paid

8359

workers. . . Both owners and assistants therefore voluntarily decided

8360

to socialise all their shops.

8361

8362

"How was this done? All the shops simply joined the union. At a general

8363

meeting they decided to shut down all the unprofitable shops. The 1,100

8364

shops were reduced to 235 establishments, a saving of 135,000 pesetas

8365

per month in rent, lighting, and taxes. The remaining 235 shops were

8366

modernised and elegantly outfitted. From the money saved, wages were

8367

increased by 40%. Everyone having the right to work and everyone

8368

received the same wages. The former owners were not adversely affected

8369

by socialisation. They were employed at a steady income. All worked

8370

together under equal conditions and equal pay. The distinction

8371

between employers and employees was obliterated and they were

8372

transformed into a working community of equals -- socialism from

8373

the bottom up." ["Collectivisations in Catalonia," in Sam Dolgoff,

8374

_The Anarchist Collectives_, pp. 93-94]

8375

8376

Therefore, co-operation ensures that resources are efficiently allocated

8377

and waste is minimised by cutting down needless competition. As consumers

8378

have choices in which syndicate to consume from as well as having direct

8379

communication between consumer co-operatives and productive units, there

8380

is little danger that rationalisation in production will hurt the interests

8381

of the consumer.

8382

8383

Another way in which wide distribution of surplus can be advantageous

8384

is in investment and research and development. By creating a fund for

8385

research and development which is independent of the fortunes of

8386

individual syndicates, society as a whole can be improved by access

8387

to useful new technologies and processes.

8388

8389

Therefore, in a libertarian-socialist society, people (both within the

8390

workplace and in communities) are likely to decide to allocate significant

8391

amounts of resources for basic research from the available social output.

8392

This is because the results of this research would be freely available to

8393

all enterprises and so would aid everyone in the long term. In addition,

8394

because workers directly control their workplace and the local community

8395

effectively "owns" it, all affected would have an interest in exploring

8396

research which would reduce labour, pollution, raw materials and so on

8397

or increase output with little or no social impact.

8398

8399

This means that research and innovation would be in the direct interests of

8400

everyone involved. Under capitalism, this is not the case. Most research

8401

is conducted in order to get an edge in the market by increasing productivity

8402

or expanding production into new (previously unwanted) areas. Any increased

8403

productivity often leads to unemployment, deskilling and other negative

8404

effects for those involved. Libertarian socialism will not face this problem.

8405

8406

It should also be mentioned here that research would be pursued more and

8407

more as people take an increased interest in both their own work and

8408

education. As people become liberated from the grind of everyday life,

8409

they will explore possibilities as their interests take them and so

8410

research will take place on many levels within society - in the workplace,

8411

in the community, in education and so on.

8412

8413

In addition, it should be noted that basic research is not something which

8414

capitalism does well. The rise of the Pentagon system in the USA indicates

8415

that basic research often needs state support in order to be successful.

8416

As Kenneth Arrow noted over thirty years ago that market forces are

8417

insufficient to promote basic research:

8418

8419

"Thus basic research, the output of which is only used as an informational

8420

input into other inventive activities, is especially unlikely to be

8421

rewarded. In fact, it is likely to be of commercial value to the firm

8422

undertaking it only if other firms are prevented from using the

8423

information. But such restriction reduces the efficiency of inventive

8424

activity in general, and will therefore reduce its quantity also."

8425

["Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Inventiveness,"

8426

in National Bureau of Economic Research, _The Rate and Direction of

8427

Inventive Activity_, p. 618]

8428

8429

Would modern society have produced so many innovations if it had

8430

not been for the Pentagon system, the space race and so on? Take

8431

the Internet, for example -- it is unlikely that this would have

8432

got off the ground if it had not been for the state. Needless to

8433

say, of course, much of this technology has been developed for

8434

evil reasons and purposes and would be in need of drastic change

8435

(and, in many cases, abolition) before it could be used in a

8436

libertarian society. However, the fact remains that it is unlikely

8437

that a pure market based system could have generated most of the

8438

technology we take for granted. As Noam Chomsky argues:

8439

8440

"[Alan] Greenspan [head of the US Federal Reserve] gave a talk

8441

to newspaper editors in the US. He spoke passionately about the

8442

miracles of the market, the wonders brought by consumer choice,

8443

and so on. He also gave examples: the Internet, computers,

8444

information processing, lasers, satellites, transistors. It's

8445

an interesting list: these are textbook examples of creativity

8446

and production in the public sector. In the case of the Internet,

8447

for 30 years it was designed, developed and funded primarily

8448

in the public sector, mostly the Pentagon, then the National

8449

Science Foundation -- that's most of the hardware, the software,

8450

new ideas, technology, and so on. In just the last couple of

8451

years it has been handed over to people like Bill Gates . . .

8452

In the case of the Internet, consumer choice was close to

8453

zero, and during the crucial development stages that same was

8454

true of computers, information processing, and all the rest . . .

8455

8456

"In fact, of all the examples that Greenspan gives, the only

8457

one that maybe rises above the level of a joke is transistors,

8458

and they are an interesting case. Transistors, in fact, were

8459

developed in a private laboratory -- Bell Telephone Laboratories

8460

of AT&T -- which also made major contributions to solar cells,

8461

radio astronomy, information theory, and lots of other

8462

important things. But what is the role of markets and

8463

consumer choice in that? Well, again, it turns out, zero.

8464

AT&T was a government supported monopoly, so there was no

8465

consumer choice, and as a monopoly they could charge high

8466

prices: in effect a tax on the public which they could use

8467

for institutions like Bell Laboratories . . . So again, it's

8468

publicly subsidised. As if to demonstrate the point, as

8469

soon as the industry was deregulated, Bell Labs went out of

8470

existence, because the public wasn't paying for it any more

8471

. . . But that's only the beginning of the story. True,

8472

Bell invented transistors, but they used wartime technology,

8473

which, again, was publicly subsidised and state-initiated.

8474

Furthermore, there was nobody to but transistors at that

8475

time, because they were very expensive to produce. So, for

8476

ten years the government was the major procurer . . .

8477

Government procurement provided entrepreneurial initiatives

8478

and guided the development of the technology, which could

8479

then be disseminated to industry." [_Rogue States_,

8480

pp. 192-3]

8481

8482

As well as technological developments, a wide basis of surplus

8483

generation would help improve the skills and knowledge of the

8484

members of a community. As Keynesian economist Michael Stewart

8485

points out, "[t]here are both theoretical and empirical reasons

8486

to suppose that market forces under-provide research and development

8487

expenditures, as well as both education and training." [_Keynes

8488

in the 1990s_, p. 77]

8489

8490

If we look at vocational training and education, a wide basis

8491

of surplus distribution would aid this no end. Under free market

8492

capitalism, vocational training suffers due to the nature of

8493

the market. The argument is simple. Under free market capitalism,

8494

if companies stood to gain, in terms of higher profits, from

8495

training more workers, they would train them. If they did not,

8496

that just proves that training was not required. Unfortunately,

8497

this piece of reasoning overlooks the fact that profit

8498

maximising firms will not incur costs that will be enjoyed

8499

by others. This means that firms will be reluctant to spend

8500

money on training if they fear that the trained workers

8501

will soon be poached by other firms which can offer more money

8502

because they had not incurred the cost of providing training.

8503

This means that few firms will provide the required training

8504

as they could not be sure that the trained workers will not

8505

leave for their competitors (and, of course, a trained work

8506

force also, due to their skill, have more workplace power and

8507

are less replaceable).

8508

8509

By socialising training via confederations of workplaces,

8510

syndicates could increase productivity via increasing the

8511

skill levels of their members. Higher skill levels will

8512

also tend to increase innovation and enjoyment at "work"

8513

when combined with workers' self-management. This is because

8514

an educated workforce in control of their own time will be

8515

unlikely to tolerate mundane, boring, machine-like work

8516

and seek ways to eliminate it, improve the working environment

8517

and increase productivity to give them more free time.

8518

8519

The free market can also have a negative impact on innovation.

8520

This is because, in order to please shareholders with higher

8521

share prices, companies may reduce funds available for real

8522

investment and R&D, which would also depress growth and

8523

employment in the long term. What shareholders might condemn

8524

as "uneconomic" (investment projects and R&D) can, and does,

8525

make society as a whole better off. However, these gains are

8526

over the long term and, within capitalism, it is short-term

8527

gains which count. Higher share prices in the here and now

8528

are essential in order to survive and so see the long-run.

8529

8530

In a more socialised economy, wide-scale collectivisation

8531

could aid in allocating resources for Research and Development,

8532

long term investment, innovation and so on. Via the use of

8533

mutual banks or confederations of syndicates and communes,

8534

resources could be allocated which take into account the

8535

importance of long-term priorities, as well as social costs,

8536

which are not taken into account (indeed, are beneficial to

8537

ignore) under capitalism. Rather than penalise long term investment

8538

and research and development, a socialised economy would ensure

8539

that adequate funds are available, something which would benefit

8540

everyone in society in some way.

8541

8542

In addition to work conducted by syndicates, education establishments,

8543

communes and so on, it would be essential to provide resources

8544

for individuals and small groups to pursue "pet projects." Of

8545

course, syndicates and confederations will have their own research

8546

institutions but the innovatory role of the interested "amateur"

8547

cannot be over-rated. As Kropotkin argued:

8548

8549

"What is needed to promote the spirit of innovation is . . . the

8550

awakening of thought, the boldness of conception, which our

8551

entire education causes to languish; it is the spreading of a

8552

scientific education, which would increase the numbers of

8553

inquirers a hundred-fold; it is faith that humanity is going to

8554

take a step forward, because it is enthusiasm, the hope of doing

8555

good, that has inspired all the great inventors. The Social

8556

Revolution alone can give this impulse to thought, this boldness,

8557

this knowledge, this conviction of working for all.

8558

8559

"Then we shall have vast institutes . . . immense industrial

8560

laboratories open to all inquirers, where men will be able to

8561

work out their dreams, after having acquitted themselves of

8562

their duty towards society; . . . where they will make their

8563

experiments; where they will find other comrades, experts in

8564

other branches of industry, likewise coming to study some

8565

difficult problem, and therefore able to help and enlighten

8566

each other -- the encounter of their ideas and experiences

8567

causing the longed-for solution to be found." [_The Conquest

8568

of Bread_, p. 117]

8569

8570

In addition, unlike under capitalism, where inventors often

8571

"carefully hide their inventions from each other, as they

8572

are hampered by patents and Capitalism -- that bane of present

8573

society, that stumbling-block in the path of intellectual

8574

and moral progress," inventors within a free society will be

8575

able to build upon the knowledge of everyone and past generations.

8576

Rather than hide knowledge from others, in case they get a

8577

competitive advantage, knowledge would be shared, enriching all

8578

involved as well as the rest of society [Ibid.]. As John O'Neil

8579

argues:

8580

8581

"There is, in a competitive market economy, a disincentive to

8582

communicate information. The market encourages secrecy, which

8583

is inimical to openness in science. It presupposes a view of

8584

property in which the owner has rights to exclude others. In

8585

the sphere of science, such rights of exclusion place limits

8586

on the communication of information and theories which are

8587

incompatible with the growth of knowledge . . . science tends

8588

to grow when communication is open. . . [In addition a] necessary

8589

condition for the acceptability of a theory or experimental

8590

result is that it pass the public, critical scrutiny of

8591

competent scientific judges. A private theory or result

8592

is one that is shielded from the criteria of scientific

8593

acceptability." [_The Market_, p. 153]

8594

8595

Thus socialisation would aid innovation and scientific development.

8596

This is two fold, by providing the necessary resources for such

8597

work and by providing the community spirit required to push the

8598

boundaries of science forward.

8599

8600

Lastly, there is the issue of those who cannot work and general

8601

provision of public goods. With a wide distribution to surplus,

8602

communal hospitals, schools, universities and so on can be

8603

created. This simple fact is that any society has members who

8604

cannot (indeed, should not) work. For example, the young, the

8605

old and the sick. In a mutualist society, particularly an

8606

Individualist Anarchists mutualist society, there is no real

8607

provision for these individuals unless someone (a family member

8608

or friend) provides them with the money required for hospital

8609

fees and so on. However, with a communal basis for distribution

8610

every member of the commune can receive an education, health

8611

care and so on as a right -- and so live a fully human life

8612

as a right, rather than a privilege. Moreover, the experience

8613

of capitalist countries suggests that socialising, say, health

8614

care, leads to a service with lower costs than one which is

8615

predominately privatised. For example, the administrative costs

8616

of the British National Health Service are a fraction of the U.S.

8617

or Chilean systems (where a sizeable percentage of income ends

8618

up as profit rather than as health care).

8619

8620

This tendency for the use of surplus for communal services

8621

(such as hospitals and education) can be seen from the

8622

Spanish Revolution. Many collectives funded new hospitals

8623

and colleges for their members, providing hundreds of

8624

thousands with services they could never have afforded by

8625

their own labour. This is a classic example of co-operation

8626

helping the co-operators achieve far more than they could

8627

by their own isolated activities.

8628

8629

I.4.11 If libertarian socialism eliminates the profit motive, won't

8630

creativity and performance suffer?

8631

8632

Firstly, just to be totally clear, by the profit motive we mean

8633

money profit. As anarchists consider co-operation to be in our

8634

self-interest -- i.e. we will "profit" from it in the widest

8635

sense possible -- we are *not* dismissing the fact people usually

8636

act to improve their situation. However, money profit is a *very*

8637

narrow form of "self-interest," indeed so narrow as to be positively

8638

harmful to the individual in many ways (in terms of personal

8639

development, interpersonal relationships, economic and social

8640

well-being, and so on). In other words, do not take our discussion

8641

in this section of the FAQ on the "profit motive" to imply a denial

8642

of self-interest, quite the reverse. Anarchists simply reject the

8643

"narrow concept of life which consist[s] in thinking that *profits*

8644

are the only leading motive of human society." [Peter Kropotkin,

8645

_Fields, Factories and Workshops Tomorrow_, p. 25]

8646

8647

Secondly, we cannot hope to deal fully with the harmful effects

8648

of competition and the profit motive. For more information, we

8649

recommend Aflie Kohn's _No Contest: The Case Against Competition_

8650

and _Punished by Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive

8651

Plans, A's, Praise and Other Bribes_. He documents the extensive

8652

evidence accumulated that disproves the "common sense" of

8653

capitalism that competition and profits are the best way to

8654

organise a society.

8655

8656

According to Alfie Kohn, a growing body of psychological research

8657

suggests that rewards can lower performance levels, especially

8658

when the performance involves creativity. ["Studies Find Reward

8659

Often No Motivator," _Boston Globe_, Monday 19 January 1987]

8660

Kohn notes that "a related series of studies shows that intrinsic

8661

interest in a task -- the sense that something is worth doing for

8662

its own sake -- typically declines when someone is rewarded for

8663

doing it."

8664

8665

Much of the research on creativity and motivation has been

8666

performed by Theresa Amabile, associate professor of psychology

8667

at Brandeis University. One of her recent experiments involved

8668

asking elementary school and college students to make "silly"

8669

collages. The young children were also asked to invent stories.

8670

Teachers who rated the projects found that those students who

8671

had contracted for rewards did the least creative work. "It

8672

may be that commissioned work will, in general, be less

8673

creative than work that is done out of pure interest,"

8674

Amabile says. In 1985, she asked 72 creative writers at

8675

Brandeis and at Boston University to write poetry.

8676

8677

"Some students then were given a list of extrinsic (external)

8678

reasons for writing, such as impressing teachers, making money

8679

and getting into graduate school, and were asked to think about

8680

their own writing with respect to these reasons. Others were given

8681

a list of intrinsic reasons: the enjoyment of playing with words,

8682

satisfaction from self-expression, and so forth. A third group was

8683

not given any list. All were then asked to do more writing.

8684

8685

"The results were clear. Students given the extrinsic reasons not

8686

only wrote less creatively than the others, as judged by 12 independent

8687

poets, but the quality of their work dropped significantly. Rewards,

8688

Amabile says, have this destructive effect primarily with creative

8689

tasks, including higher-level problem-solving. 'The more complex the

8690

activity, the more it's hurt by extrinsic reward, she said.'" [Ibid.]

8691

8692

In another study, by James Gabarino of Chicago's Erikson Institute for

8693

Advanced Studies in Child Development, it was found that girls in the

8694

fifth and sixth grades tutored younger children much less effectively if

8695

they were promised free movie tickets for teaching well. "The study,

8696

showed that tutors working for the reward took longer to communicate

8697

ideas, got frustrated more easily, and did a poorer job in the end than

8698

those who were not rewarded" [Ibid.]

8699

8700

Such studies cast doubt on the claim that financial reward is the only

8701

effective way -- or even the best way -- to motivate people. As Kohn

8702

notes, "[t]hey also challenge the behaviourist assumption that any activity

8703

is more likely to occur if it is rewarded." Amabile concludes that her

8704

research "definitely refutes the notion that creativity can be operantly

8705

conditioned."

8706

8707

These findings re-enforce the findings of other scientific fields.

8708

Biology, social psychology, ethnology and anthropology all present

8709

evidence that support co-operation as the natural basis for human

8710

interaction. For example, ethnological studies indicate that

8711

virtually all indigenous cultures operate on the basis of

8712

highly co-operative relationships and anthropologists have

8713

presented evidence to show that the predominant force driving

8714

early human evolution was co-operative social interaction, leading

8715

to the capacity of hominids to develop culture. This is even

8716

sinking into capitalism, with industrial psychology now promoting

8717

"worker participation" and team functioning because it is decisively

8718

more productive than hierarchical management. More importantly, the

8719

evidence shows that co-operative workplaces are more productive

8720

than those organised on other principles. All other things equal,

8721

producers' co-operatives will be more efficient than capitalist

8722

or state enterprises, on average. Co-operatives can often achieve

8723

higher productivity even when their equipment and conditions are

8724

worse. Furthermore, the better the organisation approximates the

8725

co-operative ideal, the better the productivity.

8726

8727

All this is unsurprising to social anarchists (and it should make

8728

individualist anarchists reconsider their position). Peter Kropotkin

8729

argued that, "[i]f we . . . ask Nature: 'Who are the fittest: those

8730

who are continually at war with each other, or those who support one

8731

another?' we at once see that those animals which acquire habits of

8732

mutual aid are undoubtedly the fittest. They have more chances to

8733

survive, and they attain, in their respective classes, the highest

8734

development of intelligence and bodily organisation." [_Mutual Aid_,

8735

p. 24] From his observation that mutual aid gives evolutionary

8736

advantage to those who practice it, he derived his political

8737

philosophy -- a philosophy which stressed community and

8738

co-operative endeavour.

8739

8740

Modern research has reinforced his argument. For example, as noted,

8741

Alfie Kohn is also the author of _No Contest: The Case Against

8742

Competition_ and he spent seven years reviewing more than 400

8743

research studies dealing with competition and co-operation. Prior

8744

to his investigation, he believed that "competition can be natural

8745

and appropriate and healthy." After reviewing research findings,

8746

he radically revised this opinion, concluding that, the "ideal

8747

amount of competition . . . in any environment, the classroom,

8748

the workplace, the family, the playing field, is none . . .

8749

[Competition] is always destructive." [_Noetic Sciences Review_,

8750

Spring 1990]

8751

8752

Here we present a very short summary of his findings. According to

8753

Kohn, there are three principle consequences of competition:

8754

8755

Firstly, it has a negative effect on productivity and excellence.

8756

This is due to increased anxiety, inefficiency (as compared to

8757

co-operative sharing of resources and knowledge), and the

8758

undermining of inner motivation. Competition shifts the focus

8759

to victory over others, and away from intrinsic motivators

8760

such as curiosity, interest, excellence, and social interaction.

8761

Studies show that co-operative behaviour, by contrast, consistently

8762

predicts good performance--a finding which holds true under a wide

8763

range of subject variables. Interestingly, the positive benefits

8764

of co-operation become more significant as tasks become more

8765

complex, or where greater creativity and problem-solving

8766

ability is required (as indicated above).

8767

8768

Secondly, competition lowers self-esteem and hampers the

8769

development of sound, self-directed individuals. A strong

8770

sense of self is difficult to attain when self-evaluation

8771

is dependent on seeing how we measure up to others. On the

8772

other hand, those whose identity is formed in relation to

8773

how they contribute to group efforts generally possess greater

8774

self-confidence and higher self-esteem.

8775

8776

Finally, competition undermines human relationships. Humans are

8777

social beings; we best express our humanness in interaction with

8778

others. By creating winners and losers, competition is destructive

8779

to human unity and prevents close social feeling.

8780

8781

Social Anarchists have long argued these points. In the competitive

8782

mode, people work at cross purposes, or purely for (material)

8783

personal gain. This leads to an impoverishment of society and

8784

hierarchy, with a lack of communal relations that result in an

8785

impoverishment of all the individuals involved (mentally,

8786

spiritually, ethically and, ultimately, materially). This not

8787

only leads to a weakening of individuality and social disruption,

8788

but also to economic inefficiency as energy is wasted in class

8789

conflict and invested in building bigger and better cages to

8790

protect the haves from the have-nots. Instead of creating useful

8791

things, human activity is spent in useless toil reproducing an

8792

injustice and authoritarian system.

8793

8794

All in all, the results of competition (as documented by a host of

8795

scientific disciplines) shows its poverty as well as indicating that

8796

co-operation is the means by which the fittest survive.

8797

8798

Moreover, as Kohn discusses in _Punished by Rewards_, the

8799

notion that material rewards result in better work is

8800

simply not true. Basing itself on simple behavourist

8801

psychology, such arguments fail to meet the test of long-term

8802

success (and, indeed, can be counter-productive). Indeed, it

8803

means treating human beings as little better that pets or

8804

other animals (he argues that it is "not an accident that

8805

the theory behind 'Do this and you'll get that' derives

8806

from work with other species, or that behaviour management

8807

is frequently described in words better suited to animals.")

8808

In other words, it "is by its very nature dehumanising."

8809

[_Punished by Rewards_, p. 24 and p. 25]

8810

8811

Rather than simply being motivated by outside stimuli like

8812

mindless robots, people are not passive. We are "beings

8813

who possess natural curiosity about ourselves and our

8814

environment, who search for and overcome challenges, who

8815

try and master skills and attain competence, and who seek

8816

new levels of complexity in what we learn and do . . .

8817

in general we act on the environment as much as we are

8818

acted on by it, and we do not do so simply in order to

8819

receive a reward." [Op. Cit., p. 25]

8820

8821

Kohn presents extensive evidence to back upon his case that

8822

rewards harm activity and individuals. We cannot do justice

8823

to it here. We will present a few examples. One study with

8824

college students showed that those paid to work on a puzzle

8825

"spent less time on it than those who hadn't been paid" when

8826

they were given a choice of whether to work on it or not.

8827

"It appeared that working for a reward made people less

8828

interested in the task." Another study with children

8829

showed that "extrinsic rewards reduce intrinsic motivation."

8830

Scores of other studies confirmed this. This is because

8831

a reward is effectively saying that a given activity is

8832

not worth doing for its own sake -- and why would anyone

8833

wish to do something they have to be bribed to do?

8834

[Op. Cit., p. 70 and p. 71]

8835

8836

In the workplace, a similar process goes on. Kohn presents

8837

extensive evidence to show that extrinsic motivation also

8838

does not work in the workplace. Indeed, he argues that

8839

"economists have it wrong if they think of work as a

8840

'disutility' -- something unpleasant we must do in order

8841

to be able to buy what we need, merely a means to an

8842

end." Kohn stresses that "to assume that money is what drives

8843

people is to adopt an impoverished understanding of human

8844

motivation. Moreover, "the risk of *any* incentive or

8845

pay-for-performance system is that it will make people

8846

less interested in their work and therefore less likely

8847

to approach it with enthusiasm and a commitment to

8848

excellence. Furthermore, *the more closely we tie

8849

compensation (or other rewards) to performance, the

8850

most damage we do.*" [Op. Cit., p. 131, p. 134 and

8851

p. 140]

8852

8853

Kohn argues that the idea that human's will only work for profit

8854

or rewards "can be fairly described as dehumanising" if

8855

"the capacity for responsible action, the natural love of

8856

learning, and the desire to do good work are already part

8857

of who we are." Also, it is "a way of trying to control

8858

people" and so to "anyone who is troubled by a model of

8859

human relationships founded principally on the idea of

8860

one person controlling another must ponder whether rewards

8861

are as innocuous as they are sometimes made out to be."

8862

He uses the example of a workplace, where "there is no

8863

getting around the fact that 'the basic purpose of merit

8864

pay is manipulative.' One observer more bluntly characterises

8865

incentives as 'demeaning' since the message they really

8866

convey is, 'Please big daddy boss and you will receive the

8867

rewards that the boss deems appropriate.'" [Op. Cit., p. 26]

8868

8869

Given that much work is controlled by others and can

8870

be a hateful experience under capitalism does not mean

8871

that it has to be that way. Clearly, even under wage

8872

slavery most workers can and do find work interesting

8873

and seek to do it well -- not because of possible rewards

8874

or punishment but because we seek meaning in our activities

8875

and try and do them well. Given that research shows that

8876

reward orientated work structures harm productivity and

8877

excellence, social anarchists have more than just hope

8878

to base their ideas. Such research confirms Kropotkin's

8879

comments:

8880

8881

"Wage-work is serf-work; it cannot, it must not, produce

8882

all it could produce. And it is high time to disbelieve

8883

the legend which presents wagedom as the best incentive

8884

to productive work. If industry nowadays brings in a

8885

hundred times more than it did in the days of our

8886

grandfathers, it is due to the sudden awakening of

8887

physical and chemical sciences towards the end of the

8888

[18th] century; not to the capitalist organisation of

8889

wagedom, but *in spite* of that organisation." [_The

8890

Conquest of Bread_, p. 150]

8891

8892

For these reasons, social anarchists are confident that the

8893

elimination of the profit motive within the context of

8894

self-management will not harm productivity and creativity,

8895

but rather *enhance* them (within an authoritarian system

8896

in which workers enhance the power and income of bureaucrats,

8897

we can expect different results). With the control of their

8898

own work and workplaces ensured, all working people can

8899

express their abilities to the full. This will see an

8900

explosion of creativity and initiative, not a reduction.

8901

8902

I.4.12 Won't there be a tendency for capitalist enterprise to reappear

8903

in any socialist society?

8904

8905

This is a common right-libertarian objection. Robert Nozick, for

8906

example, imagines the following scenario:

8907

8908

"[S]mall factories would spring up in a socialist society, unless

8909

forbidden. I melt some of my personal possessions and build a machine

8910

out of the material. I offer you and others a philosophy lecture once

8911

a week in exchange for yet other things, and so on . . . some persons

8912

might even want to leave their jobs in socialist industry and work

8913

full time in this private sector. . . [This is] how private property

8914

even in means of production would occur in a socialist society."

8915

8916

Hence Nozick claims that "the socialist society will have to forbid

8917

capitalist acts between consenting adults." [_Anarchy, State and Utopia_,

8918

pp. 162-3]

8919

8920

As Jeff Stein points out, however, "the only reason workers want to be

8921

employed by capitalists is because they have no other means for making

8922

a living, no access to the means of production other than by selling

8923

themselves. For a capitalist sector to exist there must be some form

8924

of private ownership of productive resources, and a scarcity of

8925

alternatives. The workers must be in a condition of economic desperation

8926

for them to be willing to give up an equal voice in the management of

8927

their daily affairs and accept a boss." ["Market Anarchism? Caveat

8928

Emptor!", a review of _A Structured Anarchism : An Overview of

8929

Libertarian Theory and Practice_ by John Griffin, _Libertarian

8930

Labour Review_ #13, Winter 1992-93, pp. 33-39]

8931

8932

In an anarchist society, there is no need for anyone to "forbid"

8933

capitalist acts. All people have to do is *refrain* from helping

8934

would-be capitalists set up monopolies of productive assets.

8935

This is because, as we have noted in section B.3.2, capitalism

8936

cannot exist without some form of state to protect such monopolies.

8937

In a libertarian-socialist society, of course, there would be no

8938

state to begin with, and so there would be no question of it

8939

"refraining" from doing anything, including protecting would-be

8940

capitalists' monopolies of the means of production. In other

8941

words, would-be capitalists would face stiff competition for

8942

workers in an anarchist society. This is because self-managed

8943

workplaces would be able to offer workers more benefits (such

8944

as self-government, better working conditions, etc.) than the

8945

would-be capitalist ones. The would-be capitalists would have

8946

to offer not only excellent wages and conditions but also, in

8947

all likelihood, workers' control and hire-purchase on capital

8948

used. The chances of making a profit once the various monopolies

8949

associated with capitalism are abolished are slim.

8950

8951

It should be noted that Nozick makes a serious error in his case.

8952

He assumes that the "use rights" associated with an anarchist (i.e.

8953

socialist) society are identical to the "property rights" of a

8954

capitalist one. This is *not* the case, and so his argument is

8955

weakened and loses its force. Simply put, there is no such thing

8956

as an absolute or "natural" law of property. As John Stuart Mill

8957

pointed out, "powers of exclusive use and control are very various,

8958

and differ greatly in different countries and in different states of

8959

society." ["Chapters on Socialism," _Principles of Political Economy_,

8960

p. 432] Therefore, Nozick slips an ideological ringer into his example

8961

by erroneously interpreting socialism (or any other society for that

8962

matter) as specifying a distribution of private property rights (like

8963

those he, and other supporters of capitalism, believes in) along with

8964

the wealth. As Mill argued, "[o]ne of the mistakes oftenest committed,

8965

and which are the sources of the greatest practical errors in human

8966

affairs, is that of supposing that the same name always stands for

8967

the same aggregation of ideas. No word has been subject of more of

8968

this kind of misunderstanding that the word property." [Ibid.]

8969

Unfortunately, this errors seems particularly common with right-wing

8970

libertarians, who assume any use of the word "property" means what

8971

they mean by the word (this error reaches ridiculous levels when it

8972

comes to their co-option of the Individualist Anarchists based on

8973

this error!).

8974

8975

In other words, Nozick assumes that in *all* societies property rights

8976

must replace use rights in both consumption *and* production (an

8977

assumption that is ahistorical in the extreme). As Cheyney C. Ryan

8978

comments, "[d]ifferent conceptions of justice differ not only in how

8979

they would apportion society's holdings but in what rights individuals

8980

have over their holdings once they have been apportioned." ["Property

8981

Rights and Individual Liberty", in _Reading Nozick_, p. 331]

8982

8983

In effect, what possessions someone holds within a libertarian

8984

socialist society will not be his or her property (in the capitalist

8985

sense) any more than a company car is the property of the employee under

8986

capitalism. This means that as long as an individual remained a member of

8987

a commune and abided by the rules they helped create in that commune

8988

then they would have full use of the resources of that commune and

8989

could use their possessions as they saw fit (even "melt them down"

8990

to create a new machine, or whatever). Such lack of *absolute*

8991

"ownership" does not reduce liberty any more than the employee and the

8992

company car he or she uses (bar destruction and selling it, the employee

8993

can use it as they see fit).

8994

8995

This point highlights another flaw in Nozick's argument. If his argument

8996

is true, then it applies equally to capitalist society. For 40 hours plus a

8997

week, workers are employed by a boss. In that time they are given resources

8998

to use, under instructions of their boss. They are most definitely *not*

8999

allowed to melt down these resources to create a machine or use the resources

9000

they have been given access to further their own plans. In other words,

9001

"capitalist society will have to forbid capitalist acts between consenting

9002

adults." This can apply equally to rented accommodation as well, for example

9003

when landlords ban working from home or selling off the furniture that is

9004

provided. Thus, ironically, capitalism forbids capitalist acts between

9005

consenting adults all the time.

9006

9007

Of course, Nozick's reply to this point would be that the individual's involved

9008

have "consented" to these rules when they signed their contract. But the same

9009

can be said of an anarchist society -- it is freely joined and freely left.

9010

To join a communist-anarchist society it would simply be a case of agreeing

9011

to "exchange" the product of ones labour freely with the other members of

9012

that society. Thus you could smelt down personal possessions and create a

9013

machine, exchange your time with others and so on. However, if wage labour

9014

becomes involved then the individuals involved have ceased being members of

9015

"the socialist society" by their actions. They have violated their agreements

9016

with their fellows and so it is not a case of "forbidding" certain acts.

9017

Rather it is a case of individuals meeting their self-created obligations.

9018

If this is "authoritarian" then so is capitalism -- and we must stress that

9019

at least anarchist associations are based on self-management and so the

9020

individuals involved have an equal say in the obligations they live under.

9021

9022

Notice also that Nozick confuses exchange with capitalism ("I offer you a

9023

lecture once a week in exchange for other things"). This is a telling

9024

mistake by someone who claims to be an expert on capitalism, because the

9025

defining feature of capitalism is not exchange (which obviously took place

9026

long before capitalism existed) but labour contracts involving capitalist

9027

middlemen who appropriate a portion of the value produced by workers -- in

9028

other words, wage labour. Nozick's example is merely a direct labour contract

9029

between the producer and the consumer. It does not involve any capitalist

9030

intermediary taking a percentage of the value created by the producer. Nor

9031

does it involve exploitative wage labour, what makes capitalism capitalism.

9032

It is only this latter type of transaction that libertarian socialism

9033

prevents -- and not by "forbidding" it but simply by refusing to maintain

9034

the conditions necessary for it to occur, i.e. protection of capitalist

9035

property.

9036

9037

In addition, we must note that Nozick also confuses "private property in

9038

the means of production" with capitalism. Liberation socialism can be

9039

easily compatible with "private property in the means of production"

9040

when that "private property" is based on *possession* rather than

9041

capitalistic property. This can be seen from Kropotkin's arguments

9042

that peasant and artisan workers, those who "exploit nobody," would

9043

*not* be expropriated in an anarchist revolution. [_Act for Yourselves_,

9044

pp. 104-5] Nozick, in other words, confuses private property with

9045

possession and confuses pre-capitalist forms of production with

9046

capitalist ones. Thus possession of the means of production by people

9047

outside of the free commune is perfectly acceptable to social anarchists

9048

(see also section I.6.2).

9049

9050

Lastly, we must also note that Nozick also ignores the fact that acquisition

9051

*must* come before transfer, meaning that before "consenting" capitalist acts

9052

occur, individual ones must precede it. As argued above, for this to happen

9053

the would-be capitalist must steal communally owned resources by barring

9054

others from using them. This obviously would restrict the liberty of those

9055

who currently used them and so be hotly opposed by members of a community.

9056

If an individual did desire to use resources to employ wage labour then they

9057

would have effectively removed themselves from "socialist society" and so

9058

that society would bar them from using *its* resources (i.e. they would

9059

have to buy access to all the resources they currently took for granted).

9060

9061

Thus an anarchist society would have a flexible approach to Nozick's

9062

(flawed) argument. Individuals, in their free time, could "exchange"

9063

their time and possessions as they saw fit. These, however, are not

9064

"capitalist acts" regardless of Nozick's claims. However, the moment

9065

an individual employs wage labour then, by this act, they have broken

9066

their agreements with their fellows and, therefore, no longer part

9067

of "socialist society." This would involve them no longer having

9068

access to the benefits of communal life and to communal possessions.

9069

They have, in effect, placed themselves outside of their community

9070

and must fair for themselves. After all, if they desire to create

9071

"private property" (in the capitalist sense) then they have no right

9072

of access to communal possessions without paying for that right.

9073

For those who become wage slaves, a socialist society would,

9074

probably, be less strict. As Bakunin argued:

9075

9076

"Since the freedom of every individual is inalienable, society shall

9077

never allow any individual whatsoever legally to alienate his [or

9078

her] freedom or engage upon any contract with another on any footing

9079

but the utmost equality and reciprocity. It shall not, however, have

9080

the power to disbar a man or woman so devoid of any sense of personal

9081

dignity as to contract a relationship of voluntary servitude with

9082

another individual, but it will consider them as living off private

9083

charity and therefore unfit to enjoy political rights *throughout the

9084

duration of that servitude.*" [_Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings_,

9085

pp. 68-9]

9086

9087

It should also be noted here that Nozick's theory does not provide any

9088

support for such appropriation of commonly held resources, meaning that

9089

his (right) libertarianism is totally without foundations (see section

9090

B.3.4 for details). His argument in favour of such appropriations

9091

recognises that certain liberties are very definitely restricted by

9092

private property (and it should be keep in mind that the destruction

9093

of commonly held resources, such as village commons, were enforced by

9094

the state -- see section F.8.3). As Cheyney C. Ryan points out, Nozick

9095

"invoke[s] personal liberty as the decisive ground for rejecting patterned

9096

principles of justice [such as socialism] and restrictions on the ownership

9097

of capital. . .[b]ut where the rights of private property admittedly restrict

9098

the liberties of the average person, he seems perfectly happy to *trade off*

9099

such liberties against material gain for society as a whole." ["Property

9100

Rights and Individual Liberty", in _Reading Nozack_, p. 339]

9101

9102

Again, as pointed out in section F.2 (What do "anarcho"-capitalists mean

9103

by "freedom?") right-libertarians would better be termed "Propertarians."

9104

Why is liberty according a primary importance when arguing against socialism

9105

but not when private property restricts liberty? Obviously, Nozick considers

9106

the liberties associated with private property as more important than

9107

liberty *in general.* Likewise, capitalism must forbid corresponding

9108

socialist acts by individuals (for example, squatting unused property or

9109

trespassing on private property) and often socialist acts between consenting

9110

individuals (for example, the formation of unions against the wishes of the

9111

property owner who is, of course, sovereign over their property and those

9112

who use it, or the use of workplace resources to meet the needs of the

9113

producer rather than the owner).

9114

9115

So, to conclude, this question involves some strange logic (and many

9116

question begging assumptions) and ultimately fails in its attempt to prove

9117

libertarian socialism must "ban" "capitalistic acts between individuals."

9118

In addition, the objection undermines capitalism because it cannot support

9119

the creation of private property out of communal property in the first

9120

place.

9121

9122

I.4.13 Who will do the "dirty" or unpleasant work?

9123

9124

This problem affects every society, including capitalism of course.

9125

Under capitalism, this problem is "solved" by ensuring that such

9126

jobs are done by those at the bottom of the social pile. In other

9127

words, it does not really solve the problem at all -- it just

9128

ensures that some people are subject to this work the bulk of

9129

their working lives. However, most anarchists reject this flawed

9130

solution in favour of something better, one that shares the good

9131

with the bad and so ensure everyone's life is better.

9132

9133

How this would be done depends on the kind of libertarian community

9134

you are a member of. Obviously, few would argue against the idea that

9135

individuals will voluntarily work at things they enjoyed doing. However

9136

there are some jobs that few, if any, would enjoy (for example,

9137

collecting rubbish, processing sewage, dangerous work, etc.). So

9138

how would an anarchist society deal with it?

9139

9140

It will be clear what is considered unpleasant work in any society --

9141

few people (if any) will volunteer to do it. As in any advanced society,

9142

communities and syndicates who required extra help would inform others

9143

of their need by the various form of media that existed. In addition, it

9144

would be likely that each community would have a "division of activity"

9145

syndicate whose work would be to distribute information about these

9146

posts and to which members of a community would go to discover what

9147

placements existed for the line of "work" they were interested in.

9148

So we have a means by which syndicates and communes can ask for new

9149

hands and the means by which individuals can discover these placements.

9150

Obviously, some work will still require qualifications and that will

9151

be taken into account when syndicates and communes "advertise" for

9152

help.

9153

9154

For "work" placements in which supply exceeded demand, it would be easy

9155

to arrange a work share scheme to ensure that most people get a chance to do

9156

that kind of work (see below for a discussion of what could happen if the

9157

numbers applying for a certain form of work were too high for this to work).

9158

When such placements are marked by an excess of demand by supply, its obvious

9159

that the activity in question is not viewed as pleasant or desirable. Until

9160

such time as it can be automated away, a free society will have to encourage

9161

people to volunteer for "work" placements they do not particularly want to do.

9162

9163

So, it is obvious that not all "jobs" are equal in interest or enjoyment.

9164

It is sometimes argued that people would start to join or form syndicates

9165

which are involved in more fun activities. By this process excess workers

9166

would be found in the more enjoyable "jobs" while the boring and dangerous

9167

ones would suffer from a scarcity of willing workers. Hence, so the argument

9168

goes, a socialist society would have to force people to do certain jobs

9169

and so that requires a state. Obviously, this argument ignores the fact that

9170

under capitalism usually it is the boring, dangerous work which is the least

9171

well paid with the worse working conditions. In addition, this argument

9172

ignores the fact that under workers self-management boring, dangerous work

9173

would be minimised and transformed as much as possible. Only under capitalist

9174

hierarchy are people in no position to improve the quality of their work and

9175

working environment. As George Barrett argues:

9176

9177

"Now things are so strangely organised at present that it is just the

9178

dirty and disagreeable work that men will do cheaply, and consequently

9179

there is no great rush to invent machines to take their place. In a free

9180

society, on the other hand, it is clear that the disagreeable work will be

9181

one of the first things that machinery will be called upon to eliminate. It

9182

is quite fair to argue, therefore, that the disagreeable work will, to a

9183

large extent, disappear in a state of anarchism." [_Objections to Anarchism_]

9184

9185

Moreover, most anarchists would think that the argument that there would

9186

be a flood of workers taking up "easy" work placements is abstract and

9187

ignores the dynamics of a real society. While many individuals would

9188

try to create new productive syndicates in order to express themselves

9189

in innovative work outwith the existing research and development going

9190

on within existing syndicates, the idea that the majority of individuals

9191

would leave their current work at a drop of a hat is crazy. A workplace

9192

is a community and part of a community and people would value the links

9193

they have with their fellow workers. As such they would be aware of the

9194

impacts of their decisions on both themselves and society as a whole. So,

9195

while we would expect a turnover of workers between syndicates, the mass

9196

transfers claimed in this argument are unlikely. Most workers who did want

9197

to try their hand at new work would apply for work places at syndicates

9198

that required new people, not create their own ones. Because of this, work

9199

transfers would be moderate and easily handled.

9200

9201

However, the possibility of mass desertions does exist and so must be

9202

addressed. So how would a libertarian socialist society deal with a

9203

majority of its workers deciding to all do interesting work, leaving

9204

the boring and/or dangerous work undone? It, of course, depends on the

9205

type of anarchism in question and is directly related to the question

9206

of who will do the "dirty work" in an anarchist society. So, how will

9207

an anarchist society ensure that individual preferences for certain

9208

types of work matches the requirements of social demand for labour?

9209

9210

Under mutualism, those who desired a certain form of work done would

9211

reach an agreement with a workers or a co-operative and pay them to do

9212

the work in question. Individuals would form co-operatives with each

9213

co-operative would have to find its place on the market and so this

9214

would ensure that work was spread across society as required. Individuals

9215

desiring to form a new co-operative would either provide their own start

9216

up credit or arrange a interest free loan from a mutual bank. However, this

9217

could lead to some people doing unpleasant work all the time and so is hardly

9218

a solution. As in capitalism, we may see some people doing terrible work

9219

because it is better than no work at all. This is a solution few anarchists

9220

would support.

9221

9222

In a collectivist or communist anarchist society, such an outcome would

9223

be avoided by sharing such tasks as fairly as possible between a community's

9224

members. For example, by allocating a few days a month to all fit members

9225

of a community to do work which no one volunteers to do, it would soon be

9226

done. In this way, every one shares in the unpleasant as well as pleasant

9227

tasks (and, of course, minimises the time any one individual has to

9228

spend on it). Or, for tasks which very popular, individuals would also

9229

have to do unpleasant tasks as well. In this way, popular and unpopular

9230

tasks would balance each other out.

9231

9232

Another possible solution could be to follow the ideas of Josiah

9233

Warren and take into account the undesirability of the work when

9234

considering the level of labour notes received or communal hours worked.

9235

In other words, in a collectivist society the individuals who do unpleasant

9236

work may be "rewarded" (along with social esteem) with a slightly higher

9237

pay -- the number of labour notes, for example, for such work would be

9238

a multiple of the standard amount, the actual figure being related to

9239

how much supply exceeds demand (in a communist society, a similar solution

9240

could be possible, with the number of necessary hours required by an individual

9241

being reduced by an amount that corresponds to the undesirability of the

9242

work involved). The actual levels of "reward" would be determined by

9243

agreements between the syndicates.

9244

9245

To be more precise, in a collectivist society, individuals would either

9246

use their own savings and/or arrange loans of community labour banks

9247

for credit in order to start up a new syndicate. This will obviously

9248

restrict the number of new syndicates being formed. In the case of individuals

9249

joining existing syndicates, the labour value of the work done would be

9250

related to the number of people interested in doing that work. For example,

9251

if a given type of work has 50% more people wanting to do it than actually

9252

required, then the labour value for one hours work in this industry would

9253

correspondingly be less than one hour. If fewer people applied than

9254

required, then the labour value would increase, as would holiday time,

9255

etc.

9256

9257

In this way, "supply and demand" for workers would soon approximate each

9258

other. In addition, a collectivist society would be better placed than the

9259

current system to ensure work-sharing and other methods to spread unpleasant

9260

and pleasant tasks equally around society due to its organs of self-management

9261

and the rising social awareness via participation and debate within those

9262

organs.

9263

9264

A communist-anarchist society's solution would be similar to the collectivist

9265

one. There would still be basic agreements between its members for work done

9266

and so for work placements with excess supply of workers the amount of hours

9267

necessary to meet the confederations agreed minimum would correspondingly

9268

increase. For example, an industry with 100% excess supply of volunteers

9269

would see its minimum requirement increase from (say) 20 hours a week to 30

9270

hours. An industry with less applicants than required would see the number

9271

of required hours of "work" decrease, plus increases in holiday time and

9272

so on. As G.D.H. Cole argues in respect of this point:

9273

9274

"Let us first by the fullest application of machinery and scientific

9275

methods eliminate or reduce . . . 'dirty work' that admit to such

9276

treatment. This has never been tried. . . under capitalism. . . It is

9277

cheaper to exploit and ruin human beings. . . Secondly, let us see what

9278

forms of 'dirty work' we can do without . . . [and] if any form of work

9279

is not only unpleasant but degrading, we will do without it, whatever

9280

the cost. No human being ought to be allowed or compelled to do work

9281

that degrades. Thirdly, for what dull or unpleasant work remains, let

9282

us offer whatever special conditions are required to attract the necessary

9283

workers, not in higher pay, but in shorter hours, holidays extending over

9284

six months in the year, conditions attractive enough to men who have

9285

other uses for their time or attention to being the requisite number

9286

to undertake it voluntarily." [_Guild Socialism Restated_, p. 76]

9287

9288

By these methods a balance between industrial sectors would be achieved

9289

as individuals would balance their desire for interesting work with their

9290

desires for free time. Over time, by using the power of appropriate

9291

technology, even such time keeping would be minimised or even got

9292

eliminated as society developed freely.

9293

9294

And it is important to remember that the means of production required by

9295

new syndicates do not fall from the sky. Other members of society will

9296

have to work to produce the required goods. Therefore it is likely that

9297

the syndicates and communes would agree that only a certain (maximum)

9298

percentage of production would be allocated to start-up syndicates (as

9299

opposed to increasing the resources of existing confederations). Such a

9300

figure would obviously be revised periodically in order to take into

9301

account changing circumstances. Members of the community who decide to

9302

form syndicates for new productive tasks or syndicates which do the same

9303

work but are independent of existing confederations would have to get the

9304

agreement of other workers to supply them with the necessary means of

9305

production (just as today they have to get the agreement of a bank to

9306

receive the necessary credit to start a new business). By budgeting the

9307

amounts available, a free society can ensure that individual desires for

9308

specific kinds of work can be matched with the requirements of society for

9309

useful production.

9310

9311

And we must point out (just to make sure we are not misunderstood)

9312

that there will be no group of "planners" deciding which applications

9313

for resources get accepted. Instead, individuals and associations would

9314

apply to different production units for resources, whose workers in

9315

turn decide whether to produce the goods requested. If it is within the

9316

syndicate's agreed budget then it is likely that they will produce the

9317

required materials. In this way, a communist-anarchist society will ensure

9318

the maximum amount of economic freedom to start new syndicates and join

9319

existing ones plus ensure that social production does not suffer in the

9320

process.

9321

9322

Of course, no system is perfect -- we are sure that not everyone will be

9323

able to do the work they enjoy the most (this is also the case under

9324

capitalism, we may add). In an anarchist society every method of ensuring

9325

that individuals pursue the work they are interested in would be

9326

investigated. If a possible solution can be found, we are sure that it will.

9327

What a free society would make sure of was that neither the capitalist

9328

market redeveloped (which ensures that the majority are marginalised into

9329

wage slavery) or a state socialist "labour army" type allocation process

9330

developed (which would ensure that free socialism did not remain free or

9331

socialist for long).

9332

9333

In this manner, anarchism will be able to ensure the principle of

9334

voluntary labour and free association as well as making sure that

9335

unpleasant and unwanted "work" is done. Moreover, most anarchists are

9336

sure that in a free society such requirements to encourage people to

9337

volunteer for unpleasant work will disappear over time as feelings

9338

of mutual aid and solidarity become more and more common place. Indeed,

9339

it is likely that people will gain respect for doing jobs that others

9340

might find unpleasant and so it might become "glamorous" to do such

9341

activity. Showing off to friends can be a powerful stimulus in doing

9342

any activity. So anarchists would agree with Albert and Hahnel when

9343

they say that:

9344

9345

"In a society that makes every effort to depreciate the esteem that derives

9346

from anything other than conspicuous consumption, it is not surprising that

9347

great income differentials are seen as necessary to induce effort. But to

9348

assume that only conspicuous consumption can motivate people because under

9349

capitalism we have strained to make it so is unwarranted. There is plenty

9350

of evidence that people can be moved to great sacrifices for reasons other

9351

than a desire for personal wealth...there is good reason to believe that for

9352

nonpathological people wealth is generally coveted only as a *means* of

9353

attaining other ends such as economic security, comfort, social esteem,

9354

respect, status, or power." [_The Political Economy of Participatory

9355

Economics_, p. 52]

9356

9357

We should note here that the education syndicates would obviously take

9358

into account the trends in "work" placement requirements when deciding

9359

upon the structure of their classes. In this way, education would

9360

respond to the needs of society as well as the needs of the individual

9361

(as would any productive syndicate).

9362

9363

I.4.14 What about the person who will not work?

9364

9365

Anarchism is based on voluntary labour. If people do not desire to work

9366

then they cannot (must not) be forced to. The question arises of what

9367

to do with those (a small minority, to be sure) who refuse to work.

9368

9369

On this question there is some disagreement. Some anarchists, particularly

9370

communist-anarchists, argue that the lazy should not be deprived of

9371

the means of life. Social pressure, they argue, would force those

9372

who take, but do not contribute to the community, to listen to their

9373

conscience and start producing for the community that supports them.

9374

Other anarchists are less optimistic and agree with Camillo Berneri when

9375

he argues that anarchism should be based upon "no compulsion to work,

9376

but no duty towards those who do not want to work." ["The Problem of Work",

9377

in _Why Work?_, Vernon Richards (ed.), p. 74] This means that an anarchist

9378

society will not continue to feed, clothe, house someone who can produce

9379

but refuses to. Most anarchists have had enough of the wealthy under

9380

capitalism consuming but not producing and do not see why they should

9381

support a new group of parasites after the revolution.

9382

9383

Obviously, there is a difference between not wanting to work and being

9384

unable to work. The sick, children, the old, pregnant women and so on

9385

will be looked after by their friends and family (or by the commune,

9386

as desired by those involved). As child rearing would be considered

9387

"work" along with other more obviously economic tasks, mothers and

9388

fathers will not have to leave their children unattended and work to

9389

make ends meet. Instead, consideration will be given to the needs of

9390

both parents and children as well as the creation of community

9391

nurseries and child care centres.

9392

9393

We have to stress here that an anarchist society will not deny anyone

9394

the means of life. This would violate the voluntary labour which is at

9395

the heart of all schools of anarchism. Unlike capitalism, the means of

9396

life will not be monopolised by any group -- including the commune. This

9397

means that someone who does not wish to join a commune or who does not

9398

pull their weight within a commune and are expelled will have access to

9399

the means of making a living outside the commune.

9400

9401

We stated that we stress this fact as many supporters of capitalism

9402

seem to be unable to understand this point (or prefer to ignore it and

9403

so misrepresent the anarchist position). In an anarchist society, no

9404

one will be forced to join a commune simply because they do not have

9405

access to the means of production and/or land required to work alone.

9406

Unlike capitalism, where access to these essentials of life is dependent

9407

on buying access to them from the capitalist class (and so, effectively,

9408

denied to the vast majority), an anarchist society will ensure that all

9409

have access and have a real choice between living in a commune and

9410

working independently. This access is based on the fundamental difference

9411

between possession and property -- the commune possesses as much land

9412

as it needs, as do non-members. The resources used by them are subject

9413

to the usual possession rationale -- they possess it only as long as

9414

they use it and cannot bar others using it if they do not (i.e., it is

9415

not property).

9416

9417

Thus an anarchist commune remains a voluntary association and ensures

9418

the end of all forms of wage slavery (see also section I.1.4). The

9419

member of the commune has the choice of working as part of a community,

9420

giving according to their abilities and taking according to their

9421

needs (or some other means of organising production and consumption

9422

such as equal income or receiving labour notes, and so on), or

9423

working independently and so free of communal benefits as well as

9424

any commitments (bar those associated with using communal resources

9425

such as roads and so on).

9426

9427

So, in most, if not all, anarchist communities, individuals have two

9428

options, either they can join a commune and work together as equals, or

9429

they can work as an individual or independent co-operative and exchange

9430

the product of their labour with others. If an individual joins a commune

9431

and does not carry their weight, even after their fellow workers ask them

9432

to, then that person will possibly be expelled and given enough land, tools

9433

or means of production to work alone. Of course, if a person is depressed,

9434

run down or otherwise finding it hard to join in communal responsibilities

9435

then their friends and fellow workers would do everything in their power

9436

to help and be flexible in their approach to the problem.

9437

9438

Some anarchist communities may introduce what Lewis Mumford termed

9439

"basic communism." This means that everyone would get a basic amount

9440

of "purchasing power," regardless of productive activity. If some

9441

people were happy with this minimum of resources then they need not

9442

work. If they want access to the full benefits of the commune, then

9443

they could take part in the communal labour process. This could be

9444

a means of eliminating all forces, even communal ones, which drive

9445

a person to work and so ensure that all labour is fully voluntary

9446

(i.e. not even forced by circumstances). What method a community

9447

would use would depend on what people in that community thought

9448

was best.

9449

9450

It seems likely, however, that in most anarchist communities people

9451

will have to work, but how they do so will be voluntary. If people

9452

did not work then some would live off the labour of those who do work

9453

and would be a reversion to capitalism. However, most social anarchists

9454

think that the problem of people trying not to work would be a very minor

9455

one in an anarchist society. This is because work is part of human life

9456

and an essential way to express oneself. With work being voluntary and

9457

self-managed, it will become like current day hobbies and many people

9458

work harder at their hobbies than they do at "real" work (this FAQ

9459

can be considered as an example of this!). It is the nature of

9460

employment under capitalism that makes it "work" instead of

9461

pleasure. Work need not be a part of the day that we wish would

9462

end. As Kropotkin argued (and has been subsequently supported by

9463

empirical evidence), it is *not* work that people hate. Rather

9464

it is overwork, in unpleasant circumstances and under the control

9465

of others that people hate. Reduce the hours of labour, improve

9466

the working conditions and place the work under self-management

9467

and work will stop being a hated thing. In his own words:

9468

9469

"Repugnant tasks will disappear, because it is evident that

9470

these unhealthy conditions are harmful to society as a whole.

9471

Slaves can submit to them, but free men create new conditions,

9472

and their work will be pleasant and infinitely more productive.

9473

The exceptions of today will be the rule of tomorrow." [_The

9474

Conquest of Bread_, p. 123]

9475

9476

This, combined with the workday being shortened, will help ensure

9477

that only an idiot would desire to work alone. As Malatesta argued,

9478

the "individual who wished to supply his own material needs by working

9479

alone would be the slave of his labours." [_The Anarchist Revolution_,

9480

p. 15]

9481

9482

So, enlightened self-interest would secure the voluntary labour and

9483

egalitarian distribution anarchists favour in the vast majority of the

9484

population. The parasitism associated with capitalism would be a thing

9485

of the past. Thus the problem of the "lazy" person fails to understand

9486

the nature of humanity nor the revolutionising effects of freedom and

9487

a free society on the nature and content of work.

9488

9489

I.4.15 What will the workplace of tomorrow look like?

9490

9491

Given the anarchist desire to liberate the artist in all of us, we can

9492

easily imagine that a free society would transform totally the working

9493

environment. No longer would workers be indifferent to their workplaces,

9494

but they would express themselves in transforming them into pleasant

9495

places, integrated into both the life of the local community and into

9496

the local environment. After all, "no movement that raises the demand

9497

for workers' councils can be regarded as revolutionary unless it

9498

tries to promote sweeping transformations in the environment of the

9499

work place." [Murray Bookchin, _Post-Scarcity Anarchism_, p. 146]

9500

9501

A glimpse of the future workplace can been seen from the actual class

9502

struggle. In the 40 day sit-down strike at Fisher Body plant #1 in Flint,

9503

Michigan in 1936, "there was a community of two thousand strikers . . .

9504

Committees organised recreation, information, classes, a postal service,

9505

sanitation . . . There were classes in parliamentary procedure, public

9506

speaking, history of the labour movement. Graduate students at the

9507

University of Michigan gave courses in journalism and creative writing.

9508

[Howard Zinn, _A People's History of the United States_, p. 391] In

9509

the same year, during the Spanish Revolution, collectivised workplaces

9510

also created libraries and education facilities as well as funding

9511

schools, health care and other social necessities (a practice, we

9512

must note, that had started before the revolution when C.N.T. unions

9513

had funded schools, social centres, libraries and so on).

9514

9515

Therefore the workplace would be expanded to include education and

9516

classes in individual development (and so following Proudhon's comment

9517

that we should "[o]rganise association, and by the same token, every

9518

workshop becoming a school, every worker becomes a master, every

9519

student an apprentice." [_No Gods, No Masters_, vol. 1, pp. 62-3]).

9520

This would allow work to become part of a wider community, drawing in

9521

people from different areas to share their knowledge and learn new

9522

insights and ideas. In addition, children would have part of their

9523

school studies with workplaces, getting them aware of the practicalities

9524

of many different forms of work and so allowing them to make informed

9525

decisions in what sort of activity they would be interested in pursuing

9526

when they were older.

9527

9528

Obviously, a workplace managed by its workers would also take care to make

9529

the working environment as pleasant as possible. No more "sick building

9530

syndrome" or unhealthy and stressful work areas. Buildings would be

9531

designed to maximise space and allow individual expression within them.

9532

Outside the workplace, we can imagine it surrounded by gardens and allotments

9533

which were tended by workers themselves, giving a pleasant surrounding

9534

to the workplace. There would, in effect, be a break down of the city/rural

9535

divide -- workplaces would be placed next to fields and integrated into

9536

the surroundings:

9537

9538

"Have the factory and the workshop at the gates of your fields and

9539

gardens, and work in them. Not those large establishments, of course,

9540

in which huge masses of metals have to be dealt with and which are

9541

better placed at certain spots indicated by Nature, but the countless

9542

variety of workshops and factories which are required to satisfy

9543

the infinite diversity of tastes among civilised men [and women] . . .

9544

factories and workshops which men, women and children will not be

9545

driven by hunger, but will be attracted by the desire of finding an

9546

activity suited to their tastes, and where, aided by the motor and

9547

the machine, they will choose the branch of activity which best

9548

suits their inclinations." [Peter Kropotkin, _Fields, Factories

9549

and Workshops Tomorrow_, p. 197]

9550

9551

This vision of rural and urban integration is just part of the

9552

future anarchists see for the workplace. As Kropotkin argued,

9553

"[w]e proclaim *integration*. . . a society of integrated,

9554

combined labour. A society where each individual is a producer

9555

of both manual and intellectual work; where each able-bodied

9556

human being is a worker, and where each worker works both in

9557

the field and the industrial workshop; where every aggregation

9558

of individuals, large enough to dispose of a certain variety of

9559

natural resources -- it may be a nation, or rather a region --

9560

produces and itself consumes most of its own agricultural and

9561

manufactured produce." [Op. Cit., p. 26]

9562

9563

The future workplace would be an expression of the desires of

9564

those who worked there. It would be based around a pleasant working

9565

environment, within gardens and with extensive library, resources

9566

for education classes and other leisure activities. All this, and

9567

more, will be possible in a society based upon self-realisation and

9568

self-expression and one in which individuality is not crushed by

9569

authority and capitalism. To re-quote Kropotkin, "if most of the

9570

workshops we know are foul and unhealthy, it is because the workers

9571

are of no account in the organisation of factories" and "[s]laves

9572

can submit to them, but free men will create new conditions, and

9573

their will be pleasant and infinitely more productive." [_The

9574

Conquest of Bread_, p. 121 and p. 123]

9575

9576

"So in brief," argued William Morris, "our buildings will be beautiful

9577

with their own beauty of simplicity as workshops . . . [and] besides

9578

the mere workshops, our factory will have other buildings which may

9579

carry ornament further than that, for it will need dinning-hall,

9580

library, school, places for study of different kinds, and other such

9581

structures." Such a vision is possible and is only held back by

9582

capitalism which denounces such visions of freedom as "uneconomic."

9583

However, as William Morris points out:

9584

9585

"Impossible I hear an anti-Socialist say. My friend, please to remember

9586

that most factories sustain today large and handsome gardens, and not

9587

seldom parks . . .*only* the said gardens, etc. are twenty miles away from

9588

the factory, *out of the smoke,* and are kept up for *one member of the

9589

factory only,* the sleeping partner to wit" [_A Factory as It Might Be_,

9590

p. 9 and pp. 7-8]

9591

9592

Pleasant working conditions based upon the self-management of work can

9593

produce a workplace within which economic "efficiency" can be achieved

9594

without disrupting and destroying individuality and the environment

9595

(also see section I.4.9 for a fuller discussion of anarchism and

9596

technology).

9597

9598

I.4.16 Won't a libertarian communist society be inefficient?

9599

9600

It is often argued that anarcho-communism and other forms of

9601

non-market libertarian-socialism would promote inefficiency and

9602

unproductive work. The basis of this argument is that without market

9603

forces to discipline workers and the profit motive to reward them,

9604

workers would have no incentive to work in a way which minimises

9605

time or resources. The net effect of this would be inefficient

9606

use of recourses, particularly individual's time.

9607

9608

This is a valid point in some ways; for example, a society can

9609

(potentially) benefit from increasing productivity as the less

9610

time it takes to produce a certain good, the more time it gains

9611

for other activities (although, of course, in a class society

9612

the benefits of increased productivity generally accrue to,

9613

first and foremost, to those at the top). Indeed, for an

9614

individual, a decent society depends on people having time

9615

available for them to do what they want, to develop themselves

9616

in whatever way they want, to enjoy themselves. In addition,

9617

doing more with less can have a positive environment impact as

9618

well. And it is for these reasons that an anarchist society

9619

would be interested in promoting efficiency and productiveness

9620

during production.

9621

9622

While capitalism has turned improvements in productivity as

9623

a means of increasing work, enriching the few and generally

9624

proletarianising the working class, a free society would take

9625

a different approach to the problem. As argued in section I.4.3,

9626

a communist-anarchist society would be based upon this principle:

9627

9628

"for some much per day (in money today, in labour tomorrow)

9629

you are entitled to satisfy -- luxury excepted -- this or

9630

the other of your wants." [Peter Kropotkin, _Small Communal

9631

Experiments and why the fail_, p. 8]

9632

9633

Building upon this, we can imagine a situation where the

9634

average output for a given industry in a given amount of

9635

time is used to encourage efficiency and productivity. If

9636

a given syndicate can produce this average output with at

9637

least average quality in less time than the agreed

9638

average/minimum (and without causing ecological or social

9639

externalities, of course) then the members of that

9640

syndicate can and should have that time off.

9641

9642

This would be a powerful incentive to innovate, improve

9643

productivity, introduce new machinery and processes as

9644

well as work efficiently without reintroducing the profit

9645

motive and material inequality. With the possibility of

9646

having more time available for themselves and their own

9647

projects, people involved in productive activities would

9648

have a strong interest in being efficient. Of course, if

9649

the work in question is something they enjoy then any

9650

increases in efficiency would *enhance* what makes their

9651

work enjoyable and not eliminate it.

9652

9653

Rewarding efficiency with free time would also be an

9654

important means to ensure efficient use of resources

9655

as well as a means of reducing time spent in productive

9656

activity which was considered as boring or otherwise

9657

undesirable. The incentive of getting unpleasant tasks

9658

over with as quickly as possible would ensure that the

9659

tasks were done efficiently and that innovation was

9660

directed towards them.

9661

9662

Moreover, when it came to major investment decisions, a

9663

syndicate would be more likely to get others to agree to

9664

its plans if the syndicate had a reputation of excellence.

9665

This, again, would encourage efficiency as people would know

9666

that they could gain resources for their communities and

9667

workplaces (i.e. themselves) more easily if their work

9668

is efficient and reliable. This would be a key means of

9669

encouraging efficient and effective use of resources.

9670

9671

Similarly, an inefficient or wasteful syndicate would

9672

have negative reactions from their fellow workers. As we

9673

argued in section I.4.7 ("What will stop producers

9674

ignoring consumers?"), a libertarian communist economy

9675

would be based on free association. If a syndicate or

9676

community got a reputation for being inefficient with

9677

resources then others would not associate with them (i.e.

9678

they would not supply them with materials, or place them

9679

at the end of the queue when deciding which production

9680

requests to supply, and so on). As with a syndicate which

9681

produced shoddy goods, the inefficient syndicate would also

9682

face the judgement of its peers. This will produce an

9683

environment which will encourage efficient use of resources

9684

and time.

9685

9686

All these factors, the possibility of increased free time,

9687

the respect and resources gained for an efficient and excellent

9688

work and the possibility of a lack of co-operation with others

9689

for inefficient use of resources, would ensure that an

9690

anarchist-communist or anarchist-collectivist society would

9691

have no need to fear inefficiency. Indeed, by placing the benefits

9692

of increased efficiency into the hands of those who do the work,

9693

efficiency will no doubt increase.

9694

9695

With self-management, we can soon see human time being used

9696

efficiently and productively simply because those doing the

9697

work would have a direct and real interest in it. Rather than

9698

alienate their liberty, as under capitalism, they would apply

9699

their creativity and minds to transforming their productive

9700

activity in such a way as to make it enjoyable and not

9701

a waste of their time.

9702

9703

Little wonder Kropotkin argued, modern knowledge could be

9704

applied to a society in which people, "with the work of

9705

their own hands and intelligence, and by the aid of the

9706

machinery already invented and to be invented, should

9707

themselves create all imaginable riches. Technics and

9708

science will not be lagging behind if production takes

9709

such a direction. Guided by observation, analysis and

9710

experiment, they will answer all possible demands. They

9711

will reduce the time required for producing wealth to any

9712

desired amount, so as to leave to everyone as much

9713

leisure as he or she may ask for. . . they guarantee

9714

. . . the happiness that can be found in the full and

9715

varied exercise of the different capacities of the

9716

human being, in work that need not be overwork."

9717

[_Fields, Factories and Workshops Tomorrow_,

9718

pp. 198-9]

9719

9720

One last point. A free society will undoubtedly create

9721

new criteria for what counts as an efficient use of

9722

resources and time. What passes for "efficient" use

9723

capitalism often means what is efficient in increasing

9724

the power and profits of the few, without regard to the

9725

wasteful use of individual time, energy and potential

9726

as well as environmental and social costs. Such a narrow

9727

criteria for decision making or evaluating efficient production

9728

will not exist in an anarchist society (see our discussion

9729

of the irrational nature of the price mechanism in section

9730

I.1.2, for example). While we use the term efficiency we mean

9731

the dictionary definition of efficiency (i.e. reducing waste,

9732

maximising use of resources) rather than what the capitalist

9733

market distorts this into (i.e. what creates most profits for

9734

the boss).

9735

9736

I.5 What could the social structure of anarchy look like?

9737

9738

The social and political structure of anarchy is similar to

9739

that of the economic structure, i.e., it is based on a voluntary

9740

federation of decentralised, directly democratic policy-making

9741

bodies. These are the neighbourhood and community assemblies and

9742

their confederations. In these grassroots political units, the

9743

concept of "self-management" becomes that of "self-government", a

9744

form of municipal organisation in which people take back control

9745

of their living places from the bureaucratic state and the capitalist

9746

class whose interests it serves.

9747

9748

"A new economic phase demands a new political phase," argued

9749

Kropotkin, "A revolution as profound as that dreamed of by

9750

the [libertarian] socialists cannot accept the mould of an

9751

out-dated political life. A new society based on equality of

9752

condition, on the collective possession of the instruments of

9753

work, cannot tolerate for a week . . . the representative

9754

system . . . if we want the social revolution, we must seek

9755

a form of political organisation that will correspond to the

9756

new method of economic organisation. . . . The future belongs

9757

to the free groupings of interests and not to governmental

9758

centralisation; it belongs to freedom and not to authority."

9759

[_Words of a Rebel_, pp. 143-4]

9760

9761

Thus the social structure of an anarchist society will be the opposite

9762

of the current system. Instead of being centralised and top-down as

9763

in the state, it will be decentralised and organised from the bottom

9764

up. As Kropotkin argued, "socialism must become *more popular*, more

9765

communalistic, and less dependent upon indirect government through

9766

elected representatives. It must become more *self-governing.*"

9767

[_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_, p. 185] While anarchists

9768

have various different conceptions of how this communal system

9769

would be constituted (as we will see), they is total agreement

9770

on these basic visions and principles.

9771

9772

This empowerment of ordinary citizens through decentralisation and

9773

direct democracy will eliminate the alienation and apathy that are

9774

now rampant in the modern city and town, and (as always happens when

9775

people are free) unleash a flood of innovation in dealing with the

9776

social breakdown now afflicting our urban wastelands. The gigantic

9777

metropolis with its hierarchical and impersonal administration, its

9778

atomised and isolated "residents," will be transformed into a network

9779

of humanly scaled participatory communities (usually called "communes"),

9780

each with its own unique character and forms of self-government, which

9781

will be co-operatively linked through federation with other communities

9782

at several levels, from the municipal through the bioregional to the

9783

global.

9784

9785

Of course, it can (and has) been argued that people are just not

9786

interested in "politics." Further, some claim that this disinterest

9787

is why governments exist -- people delegate their responsibilities and

9788

power to others because they have better things to do. Such an

9789

argument, however, is flawed on empirical grounds. As we indicated

9790

in section B.2.6, centralisation of power in both the French and

9791

American revolutions occurred *because* working people were taking

9792

*too much* interest in politics and social issues, not the reverse

9793

("To attack the central power, to strip it of its prerogatives,

9794

to decentralise, to dissolve authority, would have been to abandon

9795

to the people the control of its affairs, to run the risk of a

9796

truly popular revolution. That is why the bourgeoisie sought to

9797

reinforce the central government even more. . ." [Kropotkin,

9798

_Words of a Rebel_, p. 143]).

9799

9800

Simply put, the state is centralised to facilitate *minority rule*

9801

by excluding the mass of people from taking part in the decision

9802

making processes within society. This is to be expected as social

9803

structures do not evolve by chance -- rather they develop to meet

9804

specific needs and requirements. The specific need of the ruling

9805

class is to rule and that means marginalising the bulk of the

9806

population. Its requirement is for minority power and this is

9807

transformed into the structure of the state (and the capitalist

9808

company).

9809

9810

Even if we ignore the historical evidence on this issue, anarchists

9811

do not draw this conclusion from the current apathy that surrounds

9812

us. In fact, we argue that this apathy is not the cause of

9813

government but its result. Government is an inherently hierarchical

9814

system in which ordinary people are deliberately marginalised. The

9815

powerlessness people feel due to the workings of the system ensure

9816

that they are apathetic about it, thus guaranteeing that wealthy

9817

and powerful elites govern society without hindrance from the

9818

oppressed and exploited majority.

9819

9820

Moreover, government usually sticks its nose into areas that

9821

most people have no real interest in. Some things, as in the

9822

regulation of industry or workers' safety and rights, a free

9823

society could leave to those affected to make their own

9824

decisions (we doubt that workers would subject themselves to

9825

unsafe working conditions, for example). In others, such as

9826

the question of personal morality and acts, a free people

9827

would have no interest in (unless it harmed others, of course).

9828

This, again, would reduce the number of issues that would

9829

be discussed in a free commune.

9830

9831

Also, via decentralisation, a free people would be mainly

9832

discussing local issues, so reducing the complexity of many

9833

questions and solutions. Wider issues would, of course, be

9834

discussed but these would be on specific issues and so

9835

more focused in their nature than those raised in the

9836

legislative bodies of the state. So, a combination of

9837

centralisation and an irrational desire to discuss every

9838

and all questions also helps make "politics" seem boring

9839

and irrelevant.

9840

9841

As noted above, this result is not an accident and the

9842

marginalisation of "ordinary" people is actually celebrated

9843

in bourgeois "democratic" theory. As Noam Chomsky notes:

9844

9845

"Twentieth century democratic theorists advise that 'The public

9846

mmust be put in its place,' so that the 'responsible men' may

9847

'live free of the trampling and roar of a bewildered herd,'

9848

'ignorant and meddlesome outsiders' whose 'function' is to be

9849

'interested spectators of action,' not participants, lending

9850

their weight periodically to one or another of the leadership

9851

class (elections), then returning to their private concerns.

9852

(Walter Lippman). The great mass of the population, 'ignorant

9853

and mentally deficient,' must be kept in their place for the

9854

common good, fed with 'necessary illusion' and 'emotionally

9855

potent oversimplifications' (Wilson's Secretary of State

9856

Robert Lansing, Reinhold Niebuhr). Their 'conservative'

9857

counterparts are only more extreme in their adulation of the

9858

Wise Men who are the rightful rulers -- in the service of the

9859

rich and powerful, a minor footnote regularly forgotten."

9860

[_Year 501_, p. 18]

9861

9862

As discussed in Section B.2.6 ("Who benefits from centralisation?")

9863

this marginalisation of the public from political life ensures that

9864

the wealthy can be "left alone" to use their power as they see fit.

9865

In other words, such marginalisation is a necessary part of a fully

9866

functioning capitalist society. Hence, under capitalism, libertarian

9867

social structures have to be discouraged. Or as Chomsky puts it, the

9868

"rabble must be instructed in the values of subordination and a

9869

narrow quest for personal gain within the parameters set by the

9870

institutions of the masters; meaningful democracy, with popular

9871

association and action, is a threat to be overcome." [Op. Cit.,

9872

p. 18] This philosophy can be seen in the statement of a US Banker

9873

in Venezuela under the murderous Jimenez dictatorship:

9874

9875

"You have the freedom here to do whatever you want to do with your

9876

money, and to me, that is worth all the political freedom in the

9877

world." [quoted by Chomsky, Op. Cit., p. 99]

9878

9879

Deterring libertarian alternatives to statism is a common feature of our

9880

current system. By marginalising and disempowering people, the ability of

9881

individuals to manage their own social activities is undermined and

9882

weakened. They develop a "fear of freedom" and embrace authoritarian

9883

institutions and "strong leaders," which in turn reinforces their

9884

marginalisation.

9885

9886

This consequence is hardly surprising. Anarchists maintain that the

9887

desire to participate and the ability to participate are in a symbiotic

9888

relationship: participation feeds on itself. By creating the social

9889

structures that allow participation, participation will increase. As

9890

people increasingly take control of their lives, so their ability to

9891

do so also increases. The challenge of having to take responsibility

9892

for decisions that make a difference is at the same time an opportunity

9893

for personal development. To begin to feel power, having previously felt

9894

powerless, to win access to the resources required for effective

9895

participation and learn how to use them, is a liberating experience.

9896

Once people become active subjects, making things happen in one aspect

9897

of their lives, they are less likely to remain passive objects, allowing

9898

things to happen to them, in other aspects. All in all, "politics" is far

9899

too important an subject to leave to politicians, the wealthy and

9900

bureaucrats. After all, it is what affects, your friends, community,

9901

and, ultimately, the planet you live on. Such issues cannot be left

9902

to anyone but you.

9903

9904

Hence a meaningful communal life based on self-empowered individuals is

9905

a distinct possibility (indeed, it has repeatedly appeared throughout

9906

history). It is the hierarchical structures in statism and capitalism,

9907

marginalising and disempowering the majority, which is at the root of

9908

the current wide scale apathy in the face of increasing social and

9909

ecological disruption. Libertarian socialists therefore call for a

9910

radically new form of political system to replace the centralised

9911

nation-state, a form that would be based around confederations of

9912

self-governing communities. In other words, in anarchism "*[s]ociety

9913

is a society of societies; a league of leagues of leagues; a

9914

commonwealth of commonwealths of commonwealths; a republic of

9915

republics of republics.* Only there is freedom and order, only

9916

there is spirit, a spirit which is self-sufficiency and community,

9917

unity and independence." [Gustav Landauer, _For Socialism_,

9918

pp. 125-126]

9919

9920

To create such a system would require dismantling the nation-state

9921

and reconstituting relations between communities on the basis of

9922

self-determination and free and equal confederation from below. In the

9923

following subsections we will examine in more detail why this new system

9924

is needed and what it might look like. As we stressed in the introduction,

9925

these are just suggestions of possible anarchist solutions to social

9926

organisation. Most anarchists recognise that anarchist communities

9927

will co-exist with non-anarchist ones after the destruction of the

9928

existing state. As we are anarchists we are discussing anarchist visions.

9929

We will leave it up to non-anarchists to paint their own pictures of

9930

a possible future.

9931

9932

I.5.1 What are participatory communities?

9933

9934

As Murray Bookchin argues in _The Rise of Urbanisation and the

9935

Decline of Citizenship_ (reprinted as _From Urbanisation to

9936

Cities_), the modern city is a virtual appendage of the capitalist

9937

workplace, being an outgrowth and essential counterpart of the

9938

factory (where "factory" means any enterprise in which surplus

9939

value is extracted from employees). As such, cities are structured

9940

and administered primarily to serve the needs of the capitalist

9941

elite -- employers -- rather than the needs of the many -- their

9942

employees and their families. From this standpoint, the city must

9943

be seen as (1) a transportation hub for importing raw materials

9944

and exporting finished products; and (2) a huge dormitory for

9945

wage slaves, conveniently locating them near the enterprises

9946

where their labour is to exploited, providing them with

9947

entertainment, clothing, medical facilities, etc. as well

9948

as coercive mechanisms for controlling their behaviour.

9949

9950

The attitude behind the management of these "civic" functions

9951

by the bureaucratic servants of the capitalist ruling class is

9952

purely instrumental: worker-citizens are to be treated merely

9953

aas means to corporate ends, not as ends in themselves. This

9954

attitude is reflected in the overwhelmingly alienating features

9955

of the modern city: its inhuman scale; the chilling impersonality

9956

of its institutions and functionaries; its sacrifice of health,

9957

comfort, pleasure, and aesthetic considerations to bottom-line

9958

requirements of efficiency and "cost effectiveness"; the lack

9959

of any real communal interaction among residents other than

9960

collective consumption of commodities and amusements; their

9961

consequent social isolation and tendency to escape into

9962

television, alcohol, drugs, gangs, etc. Such features make

9963

the modern metropolis the very antithesis of the genuine

9964

community for which most of its residents hunger. This

9965

contradiction at the heart of the system contains the

9966

possibility of radical social and political change.

9967

9968

The key to that change, from the anarchist standpoint, is the

9969

creation of a network of participatory communities based on

9970

self-government through direct, face-to-face democracy in

9971

grassroots neighbourhood and community assemblies. As we

9972

argued in section I.2.3 such assemblies will be born in

9973

social struggle and so reflect the needs of the struggle

9974

and those within it so our comments here must be considered

9975

as generalisations of the salient features of such communities

9976

and *not* blue-prints.

9977

9978

Traditionally, these participatory communities were called

9979

*communes* in anarchist theory ("The basic social and economic

9980

cell of the anarchist society is the free, independent commune"

9981

[A. Grachev, quoted by Paul Avrich, _The Anarchists in the

9982

Russian Revolution_, p. 64]). Within anarchist thought,

9983

there are two main conceptions of the free commune. One

9984

vision is based on workplace delegates, the other on

9985

neighbourhood assemblies. We will sketch each in turn.

9986

9987

Bakunin argued that the "future social organisation must

9988

be made solely from the bottom upwards, by the free

9989

association or federation of workers, firstly in their

9990

unions, then in communes, regions, nations and finally

9991

in a great federation, international and universal."

9992

In other words, "the federative Alliance of all working

9993

men's associations . . . will constitute the commune."

9994

[_Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings_, p. 206 and p. 170]

9995

9996

This vision of the commune was created during many

9997

later revolutions (such as in Russia in 1905 and 1917

9998

and Hungary in 1956). Being based on workplaces, this

9999

form of commune has the advantage of being based on

10000

groups of people who are naturally associated during

10001

most of the day (Bakunin considered workplace bodies

10002

as "the natural organisation of the masses" as they

10003

were "based on the various types of work" which

10004

"define their actual day-to-day life" [_The Basic

10005

Bakunin_, p. 139]). This would facilitate the

10006

organisation of assemblies, discussion on social,

10007

economic and political issues and the mandating and

10008

recalling of delegates. Moreover, it combines political

10009

and economic power in one organisation, so ensuring

10010

that the working class actually manages society.

10011

10012

This vision was stressed by later anarchist thinkers.

10013

For example, Spanish anarchist Issac Puente thought

10014

that in towns and cities "the part of the free

10015

municipality is played by local federation. . .

10016

Ultimate sovereignty in the local federation

10017

of industrial unions lies with the general assembly

10018

of all local producers." [_Libertarian Communism_,

10019

p. 27] The Russian anarchist G. P. Maximoff saw

10020

the "communal confederation" as being "constituted

10021

by thousands of freely acting labour organisations."

10022

[_The Program of Anarcho-Syndicalism_, p. 43]

10023

10024

Other anarchists counterpoise neighbourhood assemblies to

10025

workers' councils. These assemblies will be general meetings

10026

open to all citizens in every neighbourhood, town, and village,

10027

and will be the source of and final "authority" over public

10028

policy for all levels of confederal co-ordination. Such "town

10029

meetings" will bring ordinary people directly into the political

10030

process and give them an equal voice in the decisions that affect

10031

their lives. Such anarchists point to the experience of the

10032

French Revolution of 1789 and the "sections" of the Paris

10033

Commune as the key example of "a people governing itself

10034

directly -- when possible -- without intermediaries, without

10035

masters." It is argued, based on this experience, that "the

10036

principles of anarchism . . . dated from 1789, and that they

10037

had their origin, not in theoretical speculations, but in the

10038

*deeds* of the Great French Revolution." [Peter Kropotkin,

10039

_The Great French Revolution_, vol. 1, p. 210 and p. 204]

10040

10041

Critics of workers' councils point out that not all working

10042

class people work in factories or workplaces. Many are

10043

parents who look after children, for example. By basing

10044

the commune around the workplace, such people are

10045

automatically excluded. Moreover, in most modern cities

10046

many people do not live near where they work. It would

10047

mean that local affairs could not be effectively discussed

10048

in a system of workers' councils as many who take part

10049

in the debate are unaffected by the decisions reached

10050

(this is something which the supporters of workers'

10051

councils *have* noticed and argue for councils which

10052

are delegates from both the inhabitants *and* the

10053

enterprises of an area).

10054

10055

In addition, anarchists like Murray Bookchin argue that

10056

workplace based systems automatically generate "special

10057

interests" and so exclude community issues. Only community

10058

assemblies can "transcend the traditional special interests

10059

of work, workplace, status, and property relations, and

10060

create a *general* interest based on shared community

10061

problems." [Murray Bookchin, _From Urbanisation to Cities_,

10062

p. 254]

10063

10064

However, such communities assemblies can only be valid if

10065

they can be organised rapidly in order to make decisions

10066

and to mandate and recall delegates. In the capitalist city,

10067

many people work far from where they live and so such

10068

meetings have to be called for after work or at weekends.

10069

Thus the key need is to reduce the working day/week and

10070

to communalise industry. For this reason, many anarchists

10071

continue to support the workers' council vision of the

10072

commune, complemented by community assemblies for those

10073

who live in an area but do not work in a traditional

10074

workplace (e.g. parents bring up small children, the

10075

old, the sick and so on).

10076

10077

These positions are not hard and fast divisions, far from it.

10078

Puente, for example, thought that in the countryside the

10079

dominant commune would be "all the residents of a village

10080

or hamlet meeting in an assembly (council) with full

10081

powers to administer local affairs." [Op. Cit., p. 25]

10082

Kropotkin supported the soviets of the Russian Revolution,

10083

arguing that the "idea of soviets . . . of councils of

10084

workers and peasants . . . controlling the economic and

10085

political life of the country is a great idea. All the

10086

more so, since it necessarily follows that these councils

10087

should be composed of all who take part in the production

10088

of natural wealth by their own efforts." [_Kropotkin's

10089

Revolutionary Pamphlets_, p. 254]

10090

10091

Which method, workers' councils or community assemblies, will

10092

be used in a given community will depend on local conditions,

10093

needs and aspirations and it is useless to draw hard and

10094

fast rules. It is likely that some sort of combination of

10095

the two approaches will be used, with workers' councils being

10096

complemented by community assemblies until such time as

10097

a reduced working week and decentralisation of urban centres

10098

will make purely community assemblies the more realistic

10099

option. It is likely that in a fully libertarian society,

10100

community assemblies will be the dominant communal organisation

10101

but in the period immediately after a revolution this may

10102

not be immediately possible. Objective conditions, rather

10103

than predictions, will be the deciding factor. Under

10104

capitalism, anarchists pursue both forms of organisation,

10105

arguing for community *and* industrial unionism in the

10106

class struggle (see sections J.5.1 and J.5.2).

10107

10108

Regardless of the exact make up of the commune, they would

10109

share identical features. They would be free associations,

10110

based upon the self-assumed obligation of those who join them.

10111

In free association, participation is essential simply because

10112

it is the *only* means by which individuals can collectively

10113

govern themselves (and unless they govern themselves, someone

10114

else will). "As a unique individual," Stirner argues, "you can

10115

assert yourself alone in association, because the association

10116

does not own you, because you are one who owns it or who turns

10117

it to your own advantage." The rules governing the association

10118

aare determined by the associated and can be changed by them

10119

(and so a vast improvement over "love it or leave") as are

10120

the policies the association follows. Thus, the association

10121

"does not impose itself as a spiritual power superior to my

10122

spirit. I have no wish to become a slave to my maxims, but

10123

would rather subject them to my ongoing criticism." [Max

10124

Stirner, _No Gods, No Masters_, vol. 1, p. 17]

10125

10126

Thus participatory communities are freely joined and self-managed

10127

by their members. No more division between order givers and order

10128

takers as exist within the state or capitalist workplaces. Rather

10129

the associated govern themselves and while the assembled people

10130

collectively decide the rules governing their association, and

10131

are bound by them as individuals, they are also superior to them

10132

in the sense that these rules can always be modified or repealed

10133

(see section A.2.11 -- "Why are most anarchists in favour of direct

10134

democracy?" -- for more details). As can be seen, a participatory

10135

commune is new form of social life, radically different from the

10136

state as it is decentralised, self-governing and based upon

10137

individual autonomy and free agreement. Thus Kropotkin:

10138

10139

"The representative system was organised by the bourgeoisie to

10140

ensure their domination, and it will disappear with them. For

10141

the new economic phase that is about to begin we must seek a

10142

new form of political organisation, based on a principle quite

10143

different from that of representation. The logic of events

10144

imposes it." [_Words of a Rebel_, p. 125]

10145

10146

This "new form of political organisation has to be worked out

10147

the moment that socialistic principles shall enter our life.

10148

And it is self-evident that this new form will have to be

10149

*more popular, more decentralised, and nearer to the folk-mote

10150

self-government* than representative government can ever be."

10151

[Kropotkin, _Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_, p. 184] He,

10152

like all anarchists, considered the idea that socialism could

10153

be created by taking over the current state or creating a new

10154

one as doomed to failure. Instead, he recognised that socialism

10155

would only be built using new organisations that reflect the

10156

spirit of socialism (such as freedom, self-government and so

10157

on). Kropotkin, like Proudhon and Bakunin before him, therefore

10158

argued that "*[t]his was the form that the social revolution

10159

must take* -- the independent commune. . . [whose] inhabitants

10160

have decided that they *will* communalise the consumption of

10161

commodities, their exchange and their production." [Op. Cit.,

10162

p. 163]

10163

10164

In a nutshell, a participatory community is a free association,

10165

based upon the mass assembly of people who live in a common area,

10166

the means by which they make the decisions that affect them,

10167

their communities, bio-regions and the planet. Their essential

10168

task is to provide a forum for raising public issues and deciding

10169

them. Moreover, these assemblies will be a key way of generating

10170

a community (and community spirit) and building and enriching

10171

social relationships between individuals and, equally important,

10172

of developing and enriching individuals by the very process of

10173

participation in communal affairs. By discussing, thinking and

10174

listening to others, individuals develop their own abilities and

10175

powers while at the same time managing their own affairs, so

10176

ensuring that no one else does (i.e. they govern themselves

10177

and are no longer governed from above by others). As Kropotkin

10178

argued, self-management has an educational effect on those who

10179

practice it:

10180

10181

"The 'permanence' of the general assemblies of the sections

10182

whenever it was wanted by the members of the section and of

10183

discussing everything in the general assembly. . . will educate

10184

every citizen politically. . . The section in permanence

10185

assure an honest and intelligent administration." [_The

10186

Great French Revolution_, vol. 1, pp. 210-1]

10187

10188

As well as integrating the social life of a community and

10189

encouraging the political and social development of its

10190

members, these free communes will also be integrated into

10191

the local ecology. Humanity would life in harmony with nature

10192

as well as with itself:

10193

10194

"We can envision that their squares will be interlaced by

10195

streams, their places of assembly surrounded by groves, their

10196

physical contours respected and tastefully landscaped, their

10197

soils nurtured carefully to foster plant variety for ourselves,

10198

our domestic animals, and wherever possible the wildlife they

10199

may support on their fringes." [Murray Bookchin, _The Ecology

10200

of Freedom_, p. 344]

10201

10202

The commune itself would aim for a balanced mix of agriculture

10203

and industry, as described by Peter Kropotkin in his classic work

10204

_Fields, Factories and Workshops_. Thus a free commune would aim to

10205

integrate the individual into social and communal life, rural and

10206

urban life into a balanced whole and human life into the wider

10207

ecology. In this way the free commune would make human habitation

10208

fully ecological, ending the sharp and needless (and dehumanising

10209

and de-individualising) division of human life from the rest of

10210

the planet. The commune will be a key means of the expressing

10211

diversity within humanity and the planet as well as improving

10212

the quality of life in society:

10213

10214

"The Commune . . . will be entirely devoted to improving the communal

10215

life of the locality. Making their requests to the appropriate

10216

Syndicates, Builders', Public Health, Transport or Power, the

10217

inhabitants of each Commune will be able to gain all reasonable

10218

living amenities, town planning, parks, play-grounds, trees in

10219

the street, clinics, museums and art galleries. Giving, like the

10220

medieval city assembly, an opportunity for any interested person

10221

to take part in, and influence, his town's affairs and appearance,

10222

the Commune will be a very different body from the borough council. . .

10223

10224

"In ancient and medieval times cities and villages expressed the

10225

different characters of different localities and their inhabitants.

10226

In redstone, Portland or granite, in plaster or brick, in pitch of

10227

roof, arrangements of related buildings or patterns of slate and

10228

thatch each locality added to the interests of travellers . . .

10229

each expressed itself in castle, home or cathedral.

10230

10231

"How different is the dull, drab, or flashy ostentatious monotony

10232

of modern England. Each town is the same. The same Woolworth's,

10233

Odeon Cinemas, and multiple shops, the same 'council houses' or

10234

'semi-detached villas' . . . North, South, East or West, what's

10235

the difference, where is the change?

10236

10237

"With the Commune the ugliness and monotony of present town and

10238

country life will be swept away, and each locality and region,

10239

each person will be able to express the joy of living, by living

10240

together." [Tom Brown, _Syndicalism_, p. 59]

10241

10242

The size of the neighbourhood assemblies will vary, but it will probably

10243

fluctuate around some ideal size, discoverable in practice, that will

10244

provide a viable scale of face-to-face interaction and allow for both

10245

a variety of personal contacts and the opportunity to know and form a

10246

personal estimation of everyone in the neighbourhood. Some anarchists

10247

have suggested that the ideal size for a neighbourhood assembly might

10248

be under one thousand adults. This, of course, suggests that any town

10249

or city would itself be a confederation of assemblies -- as was, of

10250

course, practised very effectively in Paris during the Great French

10251

Revolution.

10252

10253

Such assemblies would meet regularly, at the very least monthly

10254

(probably more often, particularly during periods which require

10255

fast and often decision making, like a revolution), and deal with

10256

a variety of issues. In the words of the CNT's resolution on

10257

libertarian communism:

10258

10259

"the foundation of this administration will be the commune.

10260

These communes are to be autonomous and will be federated at

10261

regional and national levels to achieve their general goals.

10262

The right to autonomy does not preclude the duty to implement

10263

agreements regarding collective benefits.

10264

10265

"[The] commune . . . without any voluntary restrictions will

10266

undertake to adhere to whatever general norms may be agreed by

10267

majority vote after free debate. In return, those communities

10268

which industrialisation . . . may agree upon a different model

10269

of co-existence and will be entitled to an autonomous

10270

administration released from the general commitments . . .

10271

10272

". . . the commune is to be autonomous and confederated with the

10273

other communes . . . the commune will have the duty to concern

10274

itself with whatever may be of interest to the individual.

10275

10276

"It will have to oversee organising, running and beautification of

10277

the settlement. It will see that its inhabitants; are housed and

10278

that items and products be made available to them by the producers'

10279

unions or associations.

10280

10281

"Similarly, it is concern itself with hygiene, the keeping of

10282

communal statistics and with collective requirements such as

10283

education, health services and with the maintenance and

10284

improvement of local means of communication.

10285

10286

"It will orchestrate relations with other communes and will

10287

take care to stimulate all artistic and cultural pursuits.

10288

10289

"So that this mission may be properly fulfilled, a communal

10290

council is to be appointed . . . None of these posts will

10291

carry any executive or bureaucratic powers . . . [its members]

10292

will perform their role as producers coming together in session

10293

at the close of the day's work to discuss the detailed items

10294

which may not require the endorsement of communal assemblies.

10295

10296

"Assemblies are to be summoned as often as required by

10297

communal interests, upon the request of the communal council

10298

or according to the wishes of the inhabitants of each

10299

commune . . .

10300

10301

"The inhabitants of a commune are to debate among themselves

10302

their internal problems . . . Federations are to deliberate

10303

over major problems affecting a country or province and all

10304

communes are to be represented at their reunions and assemblies,

10305

thereby enabling their delegates to convey the democratic

10306

viewpoint of their respective communes . . . every commune

10307

which is implicated will have its right to have its say . . .

10308

On matters of a regional nature, it is the duty of the regional

10309

federation to implement agreements . . . So the starting point

10310

is the individual, moving on through the commune, to the

10311

federation and right on up finally to the confederation."

10312

[quoted by Jose Peirats, _The CNT in the Spanish Revolution_,

10313

vol. 1, pp. 106-7]

10314

10315

Thus the communal assembly discusses that which affects the

10316

community and those within it. As these local community

10317

associations, will be members of larger communal bodies,

10318

the communal assembly will also discuss issues which affect

10319

wider areas, as indicated, and mandate their delegates to

10320

discuss them at confederation assemblies (see next section).

10321

This system, we must note, was applied with great success

10322

during the Spanish revolution (see section I.8) and so

10323

cannot be dismissed as wishful thinking.

10324

10325

However, of course, the actual framework of a free society will

10326

be worked out in practice. As Bakunin correctly argued, society

10327

"can, and must, organise itself in a different fashion [than what

10328

came before], but not from top to bottom and according to an ideal

10329

plan." [_Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings_, p. 205] What does

10330

seem likely is that confederations of communes will be required.

10331

We turn to this in the next section.

10332

10333

I.5.2 Why are confederations of participatory communities needed?

10334

10335

Since not all issues are local, the neighbourhood and community

10336

assemblies will also elect mandated and recallable delegates to

10337

the larger-scale units of self-government in order to address

10338

issues affecting larger areas, such as urban districts, the city

10339

or town as a whole, the county, the bio-region, and ultimately

10340

the entire planet. Thus the assemblies will confederate at

10341

several levels in order to develop and co-ordinate common

10342

policies to deal with common problems.

10343

10344

In the words of the CNT's resolution on libertarian communism:

10345

10346

"The inhabitants of a commune are to debate among themselves their

10347

internal problems . . . Federations are to deliberate over major

10348

problems affecting a country or province and all communes are to be

10349

represented at their reunions and assemblies, thereby enabling

10350

their delegates to convey the democratic viewpoint of their

10351

respective communes.

10352

10353

"If, say, roads have to be built to link villages of a county

10354

or any matter arises to do with transportation and exchange

10355

of produce between agricultural and industrial counties, then

10356

naturally every commune which is implicated will have its right

10357

to have its say.

10358

10359

"On matters of a regional nature, it is the duty of the regional

10360

federation to implement agreements which will represent the

10361

sovereign will of all the region's inhabitants. So the starting

10362

point is the individual, moving on through the commune, to the

10363

federation and right on up finally to the confederation.

10364

10365

"Similarly, discussion of all problems of a national nature

10366

shall flow a like pattern . . . " [quoted by Jose Peirats,

10367

_The CNT in the Spanish Revolution_, p. 107]

10368

10369

In other words, the commune "cannot any longer acknowledge

10370

any superior: that, above it, there cannot be anything, save the

10371

interests of the Federation, freely embraced by itself in concert

10372

with other Communes." [Kropotkin, _No Gods, No Masters_, vol. 1,

10373

p. 259]

10374

10375

Federalism is applicable at all levels of society. As Kropotkin

10376

pointed out, anarchists "understand that if no central government

10377

was needed to rule the independent communes, if national

10378

government is thrown overboard and national unity is obtained by

10379

free federation, then a central *municipal* government becomes

10380

equally useless and noxious. The same federative principle would

10381

do within the commune." [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_,

10382

pp. 163-164] Thus the whole of society would be a free federation,

10383

from the local community right up to the global level. And this

10384

free federation would be based squarely on the autonomy and

10385

self-government of local groups. With federalism, co-operation

10386

replaces coercion.

10387

10388

This need for co-operation does not imply a centralised body.

10389

To exercise your autonomy by joining self-managing organisations

10390

and, therefore, agreeing to abide by the decisions you help make

10391

is not a denial of that autonomy (unlike joining a hierarchical

10392

structure, where you forsake autonomy *within* the organisation).

10393

In a *centralised* system, we must stress, *power* rests at the

10394

top and the role of those below is simply to obey (it matters not

10395

if those with the power are elected or not, the principle is the

10396

same). In a *federal* system, power is *not* delegated into the

10397

hands of a few (obviously a "federal" government or state is a

10398

centralised system). Decisions in a federal system are made at

10399

the base of the organisation and flow upwards so ensuring that

10400

power remains decentralised in the hands of all. Working together

10401

to solve common problems and organise common efforts to reach

10402

common goals is not centralisation and those who confuse the

10403

two make a serious error -- they fail to understand the

10404

different relations of authority each generates and confuse

10405

obedience with co-operation.

10406

10407

As in the economic federation of collectives, the lower levels will

10408

control the higher, thus eliminating the current pre-emptive powers

10409

of centralised government hierarchies. Delegates to higher-level

10410

co-ordinating councils or conferences will be instructed, at every

10411

level of confederation, by the assemblies they represent, on how to

10412

deal with any issue. These instructions will be binding, committing

10413

delegates to a framework of policies within which they must act and

10414

providing for their recall and the nullification of their decisions

10415

if they fail to carry out their mandates. Delegates may be selected

10416

by election and/or sortition (i.e. random selection by lot, as for

10417

jury duty currently).

10418

10419

Most anarchists recognise that there will be a need for "public

10420

officials" with specific tasks within the social confederation.

10421

We stress the word "tasks" as "powers" would not be the best word

10422

to describe their activities simply because their work is

10423

essentially administrative in nature. For example, an individual

10424

or a group of individuals may be elected to look into alternative

10425

power supplies for a community and report back on what they discover.

10426

They cannot impose their decision *onto* the community as they

10427

do not have the power to do so. They simply present their findings

10428

to the body which had mandated them. These findings are *not* a

10429

law which the electors are required to follow, but a series of

10430

suggestions and information from which the electors chose what

10431

they think is best. Or, to use another example, someone may be

10432

elected to overlook the installation of a selected power supply

10433

but the decision on what power supply to use and which specific

10434

project to implement has been decided upon by the whole community.

10435

Similarly with any delegate elected to a confederal council.

10436

Such a delegate will have their decisions mandated by their

10437

electors and are subject to recall by those electors. If such

10438

a delegate starts to abuse their position or even vote in ways

10439

opposed to by the communal assembly then they would quickly

10440

be recalled and replaced.

10441

10442

As such a person is an elected delegate of the community, they are

10443

a "public official" in the broadest sense of the word but that

10444

does not mean that they have power or authority. Essentially they

10445

are an agent of the local community who is controlled by, and

10446

accountable to, that community. Clearly, such "officials" are

10447

unlike politicians. They do not, and cannot, make policy

10448

decisions on behalf of those who elected them, and so they

10449

do not have governmental power over those who elected them.

10450

By this method the "officials" remain the servants of the

10451

public and are not given power to make decisions for people.

10452

In addition, these "officials" will be rotated frequently to

10453

prevent a professionalisation of politics and the problem of

10454

politicians being largely on their own once elected. And, of

10455

course, they will continue to work and live with those who

10456

elected them and receive no special privileges due to their

10457

election (in terms of more income, better housing, and so on).

10458

10459

Therefore, such "public officials" would be under the strict control of

10460

the organisations that elected them to administration posts. But, as

10461

Kropotkin argued, the general assembly of the community "in permanence -

10462

the forum always open -- is the only way . . .to assure an honest and

10463

intelligent administration . . . [and is based upon] *distrust of all

10464

executive powers.*" [_The Great French Revolution_ Vol. 1, p. 211]

10465

10466

As Murray Bookchin argues, a "confederalist view involves a clear

10467

distinction between policy making and the co-ordination and execution

10468

of adopted policies. Policy making is exclusively the right of popular

10469

community assemblies based on the practices of participatory democracy.

10470

Administration and co-ordination are the responsibility of confederal

10471

councils, which become the means for interlinking villages, towns,

10472

neighbourhoods, and cities into confederal networks. Power flows from

10473

the bottom up instead of from the top down, and in confederations,

10474

the flow of power from the bottom up diminishes with the scope of

10475

the federal council ranging territorially from localities to

10476

regions and from regions to ever-broader territorial areas."

10477

[_From Urbanisation to Cities_, p. 253]

10478

10479

Thus the people will have the final word on policy, which is the

10480

essence of self-government, and each citizen will have his or her

10481

turn to participate in the co-ordination of public affairs. In

10482

other words, the "legislative branch" of self-government will be

10483

the people themselves organised in their community assemblies and

10484

their confederal co-ordinating councils, with the "executive

10485

branch" (public officials) limited to implementing policy

10486

formulated by the legislative branch, that is, by the people.

10487

10488

Besides rotation of public officials, means to ensure the

10489

accountability of such officials to the people will include

10490

a wider use of elections and sortitions, open access to

10491

proceedings and records of "executive" activities by

10492

computer or direct inspection, the right of citizen

10493

assemblies to mandate delegates to higher-level confederal

10494

meetings, recall their officials, and revoke their decisions,

10495

and the creation of accountability boards, elected or selected

10496

by lot (as for jury duty), for each important administrative

10497

branch, from local to national.

10498

10499

Thus confederations of communes are required to co-ordinate joint

10500

activity and discuss common issues and interests. Confederation is

10501

also required to protect individual, community and social freedom.

10502

The current means of co-ordinating wide scale activity -- centralism

10503

via the state -- is a threat to freedom as, to quote Proudhon, "the

10504

citizen divests himself of sovereignty, the town and the Department

10505

and province above it, absorbed by central authority, are no longer

10506

anything but agencies under direct ministerial control." He continues:

10507

10508

"The Consequences soon make themselves felt: the citizen and the

10509

town are deprived of all dignity, the state's depredations multiply,

10510

and the burden on the taxpayer increases in proportion. It is no

10511

longer the government that is made for the people; it is the people

10512

who are made for the government. Power invades everything, dominates

10513

everything, absorbs everything. . ." [_The Principle of Federation_,

10514

p. 59]

10515

10516

Moreover, "[t]he principle of political centralism is openly

10517

opposed to all laws of social progress and of natural evolution.

10518

It lies in the nature of things that every cultural advance is

10519

first achieved within a small group and only gradually finds

10520

adoption by society as a whole. Therefore, political decentralisation

10521

is the best guaranty for the unrestricted possibilities of new

10522

experiments. For such an environment each community is given the

10523

opportunity to carry through the things which it is capable of

10524

accomplishing itself without imposing them on others. Practical

10525

experimentation is the parent of ever development in society. So

10526

long as each distinct is capable of effecting the changes within

10527

its own sphere which its citizens deem necessary, the example of

10528

each becomes a fructifying influence on the other parts of the

10529

community since they will have the chance to weigh the advantages

10530

accruing from them without being forced to adopt them if they are

10531

not convinced of their usefulness. The result is that progressive

10532

communities serve the others as models, a result justified by

10533

the natural evolution of things." [Rudolf Rocker, _Pioneers

10534

of American Freedom_, pp. 16-7]

10535

10536

The contrast with centralisation of the state could not be more

10537

clear. As Rocker argues, "[i]n a strongly centralised state, the

10538

situation is entirely reversed and the best system of representation

10539

can do nothing to change that. The representatives of a certain

10540

district may have the overwhelming majority of a certain district

10541

on his [or her] side, but in the legislative assembly of the central

10542

state, he [or she] will remain in the minority, for it lies in the

10543

nature of things that in such a body not the intellectually most

10544

active but the most backward districts represent the majority. Since

10545

the individual district has indeed the right to give expression of

10546

its opinion, but can effect no changes without the consent of

10547

the central government, the most progressive districts will be

10548

condemned to stagnate while the most backward districts will

10549

set the norm." [Op. Cit., p. 17]

10550

10551

Little wonder anarchists have always stressed what Kropotkin termed

10552

"local action" and considered the libertarian social revolution as

10553

"proceed[ing] by proclaiming independent Communes which Communes

10554

will endeavour to accomplish the economic transformation within

10555

. . . their respective surroundings." [Peter Kropotkin, _Act For

10556

Yourselves_, p. 43] Thus the advanced communities will inspire

10557

the rest to follow them by showing them a practical example of

10558

what is possible. Only decentralisation and confederation can

10559

promote the freedom and resulting social experimentation which

10560

will ensure social progress and make society a good place to live.

10561

10562

Moreover, confederation is required to maximise self-management.

10563

As Rocker explains, "[i]n a smaller community, it is far easier

10564

for individuals to observe the political scene and become

10565

acquainted with the issues which have to be resolved. This is

10566

quite impossible for a representative in a centralised government.

10567

Neither the single citizen nor his [or her] representative

10568

is completely or even approximately to supervise the huge

10569

clockwork of the central state machine. The deputy is forced

10570

daily to make decisions about things of which he [or she] has

10571

no personal knowledge and for the appraisal of which he must

10572

therefore depend on others [i.e. bureaucrats and lobbyists].

10573

That such a system necessarily leads to serious errors and

10574

mistakes is self-evident. And since the citizen for the same

10575

reason is not able to inspect and criticise the conduct of

10576

his representative, the class of professional politicians

10577

is given added opportunity to fish in troubled waters."

10578

[Op. Cit., p. 17-18]

10579

10580

In other words, confederations are required to protect society

10581

and the individual against the dangers of centralisation. As

10582

Bakunin stressed, there are two ways of organising society,

10583

"as it is today, from high to low and from the centre to

10584

circumference by means of enforced unity and concentration"

10585

and the way of the future, by federalism "starting with the

10586

free individual, the free association and the autonomous

10587

commune, from low to high and from circumference to centre,

10588

by means of free federation." [_Michael Bakunin: Selected

10589

Writings_, p. 88] In other words, "the organisation of

10590

society from the bottom up." [_The Basic Bakunin_, p. 131]

10591

10592

Thus confederations of participatory communities are required

10593

to co-ordinate joint activities, allow social experimentation and

10594

protect the distinctiveness, dignity, freedom and self-management

10595

of communities and so society as a whole. This is why "socialism

10596

is federalist" and "true federalism, the political organisation of

10597

socialism, will be attained only when these popular grass-roots

10598

institutions [namely, "communes, industrial and agricultural

10599

associations"] are organised in progressive stages from the bottom

10600

up." [_Bakunin on Anarchism_, p. 402]

10601

10602

I.5.3 What will be the scales and levels of confederation?

10603

10604

This can only be worked out in practice. In general, it would

10605

be save to say that confederations would be needed on a wide

10606

scale, including in towns and cities. No village, town or city

10607

could be self-sufficient nor would desire to be -- communication

10608

and links with other places are part and parcel of live and

10609

anarchists have no desire to retreat back into an isolated

10610

form of localism:

10611

10612

"No community can hope to achieve economic autarchy, nor

10613

should it try to do so. Economically, the wide range of

10614

resources that are needed to make many of our widely used

10615

goods preclude self-enclosed insularity and parochialism.

10616

Far from being a liability, this interdependence among

10617

communities and regions can well be regarded as an asset

10618

of the cultural cross-fertilisation that is often a

10619

product of economic intercourse, the municipality tends

10620

to shrink into itself and disappear into its own civic

10621

privatism. Shared needs and resources imply the existence

10622

of sharing and, with sharing, communication, rejuvenation

10623

by new ideas, and a wider social horizon that yields a

10624

wider sensibility to new experiences." [Murray Bookchin,

10625

_From Urbanisation to Cities_, p. 237]

10626

10627

This means that the scale and level of the confederations

10628

created by the communes will be varied and extensive. It

10629

would be hard to generalise about them, particularly as

10630

different confederations will exist for different tasks

10631

and interests. Moreover, any system of communes would start

10632

off based on the existing villages, towns and cities of

10633

capitalism. That is unavoidable and will, of course, help

10634

determine the initial scale and level of confederations.

10635

10636

It seems likely that the scale of the confederation will

10637

be dependent on the inhabited area in question. A village,

10638

for example, would be based on one assembly and (minimally)

10639

be part of a local confederation covering all the villages

10640

nearby. In turn, this local confederation would be part

10641

of a district confederation, and so on up to (ultimately)

10642

a continental and world scale. Needless to say, the higher

10643

the confederation the less often it would meet and the

10644

less it would have to consider in terms of issues to

10645

decide. On such a level, only the most general issues and

10646

decisions could be reached (in effect, only guidelines

10647

which the member confederations would apply as they saw

10648

fit).

10649

10650

In urban areas, the town or city would have to be broken

10651

down into confederations and these confederations would

10652

constitute the town or city assembly of delegates. Given

10653

a huge city like London, New York or Mexico City it would

10654

be impossible to organise in any other way. Smaller towns

10655

would probably be able to have simpler confederations. We

10656

must stress hear that few, if any, anarchists consider it

10657

desirable to have huge cities in a free society and one of

10658

the major tasks of social transformation will be to break

10659

the metropolis into smaller units, integrated with the

10660

local environment. However, a social revolution will take

10661

place in these vast metropolises and so we have to take

10662

them into account in our discussion.

10663

10664

Thus the issue of size would determine when a new level of

10665

confederation would be needed. A town or village of several

10666

thousand people could be organised around the basic level of

10667

the commune and it may be that a libertarian socialist society

10668

would probably form another level of confederation once this

10669

level has been reached. Such units of confederation would, as

10670

noted above, include urban districts within today's large cities,

10671

small cities, and rural districts composed of several nearby

10672

towns. The next level of confederation would, we can imagine,

10673

be dependent on the number of delegates required. After a

10674

certain number, the confederation assembly may became difficult

10675

to manage, so implying that another level of confederation

10676

is required. This would, undoubtedly, be the base for

10677

determining the scale and level of confederation, ensuring

10678

that any confederal assembly can actually manage its activities

10679

and remain under the control of lower levels.

10680

10681

Combined with this consideration, we must also raise the issue

10682

of economies of scale. A given level of confederation may be

10683

required to make certain social and economic services efficient

10684

(we are thinking of economies of scale for such social needs

10685

as universities, hospitals, and cultural institutions). While

10686

every commune may have a doctor, nursery, local communal stores

10687

and small-scale workplaces, not all can have a university,

10688

hospital, factories and so forth. These would be organised on

10689

a wider level, so necessitating the appropriate confederation

10690

to exist to manage them.

10691

10692

However, face-to-face meetings of the whole population are

10693

impractical at this size. Therefore, the decision making body

10694

at this level would be the *confederal council,* which would

10695

consist of mandated, recallable, and rotating delegates from

10696

the neighbourhood assemblies. These delegates would co-ordinate

10697

policies which have been discussed and voted on by the

10698

neighbourhood assemblies, with the votes being summed across

10699

the district to determine district policy by majority rule.

10700

The issues to be discussed by these confederal meetings/assemblies

10701

would be proposed by local communes, the confederal council would

10702

collate these proposals and submit them to the other communes in

10703

the confederation for discussion. Thus the flow of decision making

10704

would be from the bottom up, with the "lowest" bodies having the

10705

most power, particularly the power to formulate, suggest, correct

10706

and, if need be, reject decisions made at "higher" levels in the

10707

confederation.

10708

10709

Ties between bioregions or larger territories based on the

10710

distribution of such things as geographically concentrated

10711

mineral deposits, climate dependent crops, and production

10712

facilities that are most efficient when concentrated in one

10713

area will unite communities confederally on the basis of common

10714

material needs as well as values. At the bioregional and higher

10715

levels of confederation, councils of mandated, recallable, and

10716

rotating delegates will co-ordinate policies at those levels,

10717

but such policies will still be subject to approval by the

10718

neighbourhood and community assemblies through their right

10719

to recall their delegates and revoke their decisions.

10720

10721

In the final analysis, libertarian socialism cannot function

10722

optimally -- and indeed may be fatally undermined -- unless the

10723

present system of competing nation-states is replaced by a

10724

co-operative system of decentralised bioregions of self-governing

10725

communities confederated on a global scale. For, if a libertarian

10726

socialist nation is forced to compete in the global market for

10727

scarce raw materials and hard cash with which to buy them, the

10728

problems of "petty-bourgeois co-operativism," previously noted,

10729

will have merely been displaced to a higher level of organisation.

10730

That is, instead of individual co-operatives acting as collective

10731

capitalists and competing against each other in the national

10732

market for profits, raw materials, etc., the nation or community

10733

*as a whole* will become the "collective capitalist" and compete

10734

against other nations in the global capitalist market -- a situation

10735

that is bound to reintroduce many problems, e.g. militarism,

10736

imperialism, and alienating/disempowering measures in the

10737

workplace, justified in the name of "efficiency" and "global

10738

competitiveness."

10739

10740

To some extent such problems can be reduced in the revolutionary

10741

period by achieving self-sufficiency within bioregions as

10742

Kropotkin argued (see section I.3.8) This should be easier to

10743

achieve in a libertarian socialist economy as artificial needs

10744

are not manufactured by massive advertising campaigns of giant

10745

profit-seeking corporations. As a social revolution would, as

10746

Kropotkin predicted, suffer (initially) from isolation and

10747

disrupted trade patterns such a policy would have to be

10748

applied anyway and so interbioregional trade would be

10749

naturally be limited to other members of the libertarian

10750

socialist federation to a large degree. However, to eliminate

10751

the problem completely, anarchists envision a global council

10752

of bioregional delegates to co-ordinate global co-operation

10753

based on policies formulated and approved at the grassroots

10754

by the confederal principles outlined above. As noted above,

10755

most anarchists think that the "higher" the confederation,

10756

the more its decisions will be guidelines rather than

10757

anything else.

10758

10759

In summary, the size and scale of confederations will depend

10760

on practical considerations, based on what people found were

10761

optimal sizes for their neighbourhood assemblies and the needs

10762

of co-operation between them, towns, cities, regions and so on.

10763

We cannot, and have no wish, to predict the development of a

10764

free society. Therefore the scale and levels of confederation

10765

will be decided by those actually creating an anarchist world.

10766

All we can do is make a few suggestions of what seems likely.

10767

10768

I.5.4 How will anything ever be decided by all these meetings?

10769

10770

Anarchists have little doubt that the confederal structure

10771

will be an efficient means of decision making and will not

10772

be bogged down in endless meetings. We have various reasons

10773

for thinking this.

10774

10775

Firstly, we doubt that a free society will spend all its time

10776

in assemblies or organising confederal conferences. Certain

10777

questions are more important than others and few anarchists

10778

desire to spend all their time in meetings. The aim of a free

10779

society is to allow individuals to express their desires and

10780

wants freely -- they cannot do that if they are continually

10781

at meetings (or preparing for them). So while communal and

10782

confederal assemblies will play an important role in a free

10783

society, do not think that they will be occurring all the

10784

time or that anarchists desire to make meetings the focal

10785

point of individual life. Far from it!

10786

10787

Thus communal assemblies may occur, say, once a week, or

10788

fortnightly or monthly in order to discuss truly important

10789

issues. There would be no real desire to meet continuously

10790

to discuss every issue under the sun and few people would

10791

tolerate this occurring. This would mean that such meetings

10792

would current regularly and when important issues needed to

10793

be discussed, *not* continuously (although, if required,

10794

continuous assembly or daily meetings may have to be

10795

organised in emergency situations but this would be rare).

10796

10797

Secondly, it is extremely doubtful that a free people would

10798

desire waste vast amounts of time at such meetings. While

10799

important and essential, communal and confederal meetings

10800

would be functional in the extreme and not forums for hot

10801

air. It would be the case that those involved in such meetings

10802

would quickly make their feelings known to time wasters and

10803

those who like the sound of their own voices. Thus Cornelius

10804

Castoriadis:

10805

10806

"It might be claimed that the problem of numbers remains

10807

and that people never would be able to express themselves

10808

in a reasonable amount of time. This is not a valid

10809

argument. There would rarely be an assembly over twenty

10810

people where everyone would want to speak, for the very

10811

good reason that when there is something to be decided

10812

upon there are not an infinite number of options or an

10813

infinite number of arguments. In unhampered rank-and-file

10814

workers' gatherings (convened, for instance, to decide

10815

on a strike) there have never been 'too many' speeches.

10816

The two or three fundamental opinions having been

10817

voiced, and various arguments exchanged, a decision

10818

is soon reached.

10819

10820

"The length of speeches, moreover, often varies inversely

10821

with the weight of their content. Russian leaders sometimes

10822

talk on for four hours at Party Congresses without saying

10823

anything . . . For an account of the laconicism of

10824

revolutionary assemblies, see Trotsky's account of the

10825

Petrograd soviet of 1905 -- or accounts of the meetings

10826

of factory representatives in Budapest in 1956." [_Political

10827

and Social Writings_, vol. 2, pp. 144-5]

10828

10829

As we shall see below, this was definitely the case during

10830

the Spanish Revolution as well.

10831

10832

Thirdly, as these assemblies and congresses are concerned

10833

purely with joint activity and co-ordination, it is likely

10834

that they will not be called very often. Different associations,

10835

syndicates and co-operatives have a functional need for co-operation

10836

and so would meet more regularly and take action on practical

10837

activity which affects a specific section of a community or

10838

group of communities. Not every issue that a member of a

10839

community is interested in is necessarily best discussed at

10840

a meeting of all members of a community or at a confederal

10841

conference.

10842

10843

In other words, communal assemblies and conferences will

10844

have specific, well defined agendas, and so there is little

10845

danger of "politics" taking up everyone's time. Hence, far

10846

from discussing abstract laws and pointless motions which

10847

no one actually knows much about, the issues discussed in

10848

these conferences will be on specific issues which are

10849

important to those involved. In addition, the standard

10850

procedure may be to elect a sub-group to investigate an

10851

issue and report back at a later stage with recommendations.

10852

The conference can change, accept, or reject any proposals.

10853

10854

As Kropotkin argued, anarchy would be based on "free agreement,

10855

by exchange of letters and proposals, and by congresses at

10856

which delegates met to discuss well specified points, and

10857

to come to an agreement about them, but not to make laws.

10858

After the congress was over, the delegates [would return]

10859

. . . not with a law, but with the draft of a contract to

10860

be accepted or rejected." [_Conquest of Bread_, p. 131]

10861

10862

By reducing conferences to functional bodies based on concrete

10863

issues, the problems of endless discussions can be reduced, if

10864

not totally eliminated. In addition, as functional groups would

10865

exist outside of these communal confederations (for example,

10866

industrial collectives would organise conferences about their

10867

industry with invited participants from consumer groups),

10868

there would be a limited agenda in most communal get-togethers.

10869

10870

The most important issues would be to agree on the guidelines for

10871

industrial activity, communal investment (e.g. houses, hospitals,

10872

etc.) and overall co-ordination of large scale communal activities.

10873

In this way everyone would be part of the commonwealth, deciding

10874

on how resources would be used to maximise human well-being and

10875

ecological survival. The problems associated with "the tyranny

10876

of small decisions" would be overcome without undermining

10877

individual freedom. (In fact, a healthy community would enrich

10878

and develop individuality by encouraging independent and critical

10879

thought, social interaction, and empowering social institutions

10880

based on self-management).

10881

10882

Is such a system fantasy? Given that such a system has existed

10883

and worked at various times, we can safely argue that it is

10884

not. Obviously we cannot cover *every* example, so we point to

10885

just two -- revolutionary Paris and Spain.

10886

10887

As Murray Bookchin points out, Paris "in the late eighteenth

10888

century was, by the standards of that time, one of the largest

10889

and economically most complex cities in Europe: its population

10890

approximated a million people . . . Yet in 1793, at the height

10891

of the French Revolution, the city was managed *institutionally*

10892

almost entirely by [48] citizen assemblies. . . and its affairs

10893

were co-ordinated by the *Commune* .. . and often, in fact, by

10894

the assemblies themselves, or sections as they were called, which

10895

established their own interconnections without recourse to the

10896

*Commune.*" [_Society and Nature_, no. 5, p. 96]

10897

10898

Here is his account of how communal self-government worked in

10899

practice:

10900

10901

"What, then, were these little-know forty-eight sections of

10902

Paris . . .How were they organised? And how did they function?

10903

10904

"Ideologically, the *sectionnaires* (as their members were called)

10905

believed primarily in sovereignty of the people. This concept

10906

of popular sovereignty, as Albert Soboul observes, was for them

10907

'not an abstraction, but the concrete reality of the people

10908

united in sectional assemblies and exercising all their rights.'

10909

It was in their eyes an inalienable right, or, as the section

10910

de la Cite declared in November 1792, 'every man who assumes

10911

to have sovereignty [over others] will be regarded as a

10912

tyrant, usurper of public liberty and worthy of death.'

10913

10914

"Sovereignty, in effect, was to be enjoyed by *all* citizens,

10915

not pre-empted by 'representatives' . . . The radical

10916

democrats of 1793 thus assumed that every adult was, to one

10917

degree or another, competent to participate in management

10918

public affairs. Thus, each section . . . was structured

10919

around a *face-to-face democracy*: basically a general

10920

assembly of the people that formed the most important

10921

deliberative body of a section, and served as the incarnation

10922

of popular power in a given part of the city . . . each

10923

elected six deputies to the Commune, presumably for the

10924

pursue merely of co-ordinating all the sections in the

10925

city of Paris.

10926

10927

"Each section also had its own various administrative

10928

committees, whose members were also recruited from the

10929

general assembly." [_The Third Revolution_, vol. 1,

10930

p. 319]

10931

10932

Little wonder Kropotkin argued that these "sections" showed

10933

"the principles of anarchism, expressed some years later in

10934

England by W. Godwin, . . . had their origin, not in

10935

theoretical speculations, but in the *deeds* of the Great

10936

French Revolution" [_The Great French Revolution_,

10937

vol. 1, p. 204]

10938

10939

Communal self-government was also practised, and on a far

10940

wider scale, in revolutionary Spain. All across Republican

10941

Spain, workers and peasants formed communes and federations

10942

of communes (see section I.8 for fuller details). As Gaston

10943

Leval summarises the experience:

10944

10945

"There was, in the organisation set in motion by the Spanish

10946

Revolution and by the libertarian movement, which was its

10947

mainspring, a structuring from the bottom to the top, which

10948

corresponds to a real federation and true democracy . . . the

10949

controlling and co-ordinating Comites, clearly indispensable, do

10950

not go outside the organisation that has chosen them, they remain

10951

in their midst, always controllable by and accessible to the

10952

members. If any individuals contradict by their actions their

10953

mandates, it is possible to call them to order, to reprimand

10954

them, to replace them. It is only by and in such a system that

10955

the 'majority lays down the law.'

10956

10957

"The syndical assemblies were the expression and the practice

10958

of libertarian democracy, a democracy having nothing in common

10959

with the democracy of Athens where the citizens discussed and

10960

disputed for days on end on the Agora; where factions, clan

10961

rivalries, ambitions, personalities conflicted, where, in view

10962

of the social inequalities precious time was lost in

10963

interminable wrangles. Here a modern Aristophenes would

10964

have had no reason to write the equivalent of _The Clouds_.

10965

10966

"Normally those periodic meetings would not last more than a

10967

few hours. They dealt with concrete, precise subjects concretely

10968

and precisely. And all who had something to say could express

10969

themselves. The Comite presented the new problems that had

10970

arisen since the previous assembly, the results obtained by

10971

the application of such and such a resolution . . relations

10972

with other syndicates, production returns from the various

10973

workshops or factories. All this was the subject of reports

10974

and discussion. Then the assembly would nominate the commissions,

10975

the members of these commissions discussed between themselves

10976

what solutions to adopt, if there was disagreement, a majority

10977

report and a minority report would be prepared.

10978

10979

"This took place in *all* the syndicates *throughout Spain*,

10980

in *all* trades and *all* industries, in assemblies which, in

10981

Barcelona, from the very beginnings of our movement brought

10982

together hundreds or thousands of workers depending on the

10983

strength of the organisations. So much so that the awareness

10984

of the duties, responsibilities of each spread all the time

10985

to a determining and decisive degree. . .

10986

10987

"The practice of this democracy also extended to the agricultural

10988

regions . . . the decision to nominate a local management Comite

10989

for the villages was taken by general meetings of the inhabitants

10990

of villages, how the delegates in the different essential tasks

10991

which demanded an indispensable co-ordination of activities were

10992

proposed and elected by the whole assembled population. But it is

10993

worth adding and underlining that in all the collectivised villages

10994

and all the partially collectivised villages, in the 400 Collectives

10995

in Aragon, in the 900 in the Levante region, in the 300 in the

10996

Castilian region, to mention only the large groupings . . . the

10997

population was called together weekly, fortnightly or monthly and

10998

kept fully informed of everything concerning the commonweal.

10999

11000

"This writer was present at a number of these assemblies in

11001

Aragon, where the reports on the various questions making up

11002

the agenda allowed the inhabitants to know, to so understand,

11003

and to feel so mentally integrated in society, to so participate

11004

in the management of public affairs, in the responsibilities,

11005

that the recriminations, the tensions which always occur when

11006

the power of decision is entrusted to a few individuals, be

11007

they democratically elected without the possibility of

11008

objecting, did not happen there. The assemblies were public,

11009

the objections, the proposals publicly discussed, everybody

11010

being free, as in the syndical assemblies, to participate

11011

in the discussions, to criticise, propose, etc. Democracy

11012

extended to the whole of social life." [_Collectives in

11013

the Spanish Revolution_, pp. 205-7]

11014

11015

These collectives organised federations embracing thousands

11016

of communes and workplaces, whole branches of industry,

11017

hundreds of thousands of people and whole regions of Spain.

11018

11019

In other words, it *is* possible. It *has* worked. With the

11020

massive improvements in communication technology it is even

11021

more viable than before. Whether or not we reach such a

11022

self-managed society depends on whether we desire to be

11023

free or not.

11024

11025

I.5.5 Aren't participatory communities and confederations just new states?

11026

11027

No. As we have seen in section B.2, a state can be defined both by its

11028

structure and its function. As far as structure is concerned, a state

11029

involves the politico-military and economic domination of a certain

11030

geographical territory by a ruling elite, based on the delegation of

11031

power into the hands of the few, resulting in hierarchy (centralised

11032

authority). As Kropotkin argued, "the word 'State' . . . should be

11033

reserved for those societies with the hierarchical system and

11034

centralisation." [_Ethics_, p. 317f]

11035

11036

In a system of federated participatory communities, however, there

11037

is no ruling elite, and thus no hierarchy, because power is retained

11038

by the lowest-level units of confederation through their use of

11039

direct democracy and mandated, rotating, and recallable delegates

11040

to meetings of higher-level confederal bodies. This eliminates the

11041

problem in "representative" democratic systems of the delegation

11042

of power leading to the elected officials becoming isolated from

11043

and beyond the control of the mass of people who elected them. As

11044

Kropotkin pointed out, an anarchist society would make decisions

11045

by "means of congresses, composed of delegates, who discuss among

11046

themselves, and submit *proposals*, not *laws*, to their constituents",

11047

and so is based on *self*-government, *not* representative government

11048

(i.e. statism). [_The Conquest of Bread_, p. 135]

11049

11050

In addition, in representative democracy, elected officials who must

11051

make decisions on a wide range of issues inevitably gather an unelected

11052

bureaucracy around them to aid in their decision making, and because of

11053

its control of information and its permanency, this bureaucracy soon has

11054

more power than the elected officials (who themselves have more power

11055

than the people). In the system we have sketched, policy proposals

11056

formulated by higher-level confederal bodies would often be presented

11057

to the grassroots political units for discussion and voting (though

11058

the grassroots units could also formulate policy proposals directly),

11059

and these higher-level bodies would often need to consult experts in

11060

formulating such proposals. But these experts would not be retained as

11061

a permanent bureaucracy, and all information provided by them would be

11062

available to the lower-level units to aid in their decision making, thus

11063

eliminating the control of information on which bureaucratic power is

11064

based.

11065

11066

Perhaps it will be objected that communal decision making is just a form

11067

of "statism" based on direct, as opposed to representative, democracy --

11068

"statist" because the individual is still be subject to the rules of the

11069

majority and so is not free. This objection, however, confuses statism

11070

with free agreement (i.e. co-operation). Since participatory communities,

11071

like productive syndicates, are voluntary associations, the decisions they

11072

make are based on self-assumed obligations (see section A.2.11 -- "Why are

11073

most anarchists in favour of direct democracy?"), and dissenters can leave

11074

the association if they so desire. Thus communes are no more "statist"

11075

than the act of promising and keeping ones word.

11076

11077

In addition, in a free society, dissent and direct action can be

11078

used by minorities to press their case (or defend their freedom)

11079

as well as debate. As Carole Pateman argues, "[p]olitical disobedience

11080

is merely one possible expression of the active citizenship on which a

11081

self-managing democracy is based." [_The Problem of Political Obligation_,

11082

p. 162] In this way, individual liberty can be protected in a communal

11083

system and society enriched by opposition, confrontation and dissent.

11084

11085

Without self-management and minority dissent, society would become

11086

an ideological cemetery which would stifle ideas and individuals

11087

as these thrives on discussion ("those who will be able to create

11088

in their mutual relations a movement and a life based on the

11089

principles of free understanding . . . will understand that

11090

*variety, conflict even, is life and that uniformity is death*"

11091

[Kropotkin, _Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_, p. 143]).

11092

Therefore it is likely that a society based on voluntary

11093

agreements and self-management would, out of interpersonal

11094

empathy and self-interest, create a society that encouraged

11095

individuality and respect for minorities.

11096

11097

Therefore, a commune's participatory nature is the opposite of

11098

statism. April Carter, in _Authority and Democracy_ agrees. She

11099

states that "commitment to direct democracy or anarchy in the

11100

socio-political sphere is incompatible with political authority"

11101

and that the "only authority that can exist in a direct democracy

11102

is the collective 'authority' vested in the body politic . . . it

11103

is doubtful if authority can be created by a group of equals who

11104

reach decisions be a process of mutual persuasion." [p. 69 and

11105

p. 380] Which echoes, we must note, Proudhon's comment that "the

11106

true meaning of the word 'democracy'" was the "dismissal of

11107

government." [_No Gods, No Masters_, vol. 1, p. 42] Bakunin

11108

argued that when the "whole people govern" then "there will

11109

be no one to be governed. It means that there will be no

11110

government, no State." [_The Political Philosophy of Bakunin_,

11111

p. 287] Malatesta, decades later, made the same point --

11112

"government by everybody is no longer government in the

11113

authoritarian, historical and practical sense of the word."

11114

[_No Gods, No Masters_, vol. 2, p. 38] And, of course,

11115

Kropotkin argued that by means of the directly democratic

11116

sections of the French Revolution the masses "practic[ed]

11117

what was to be described later as Direct Self-Government"

11118

and expressed "the principles of anarchism." [_The Great

11119

French Revolution_, vol. 1, p. 200 and p. 204]

11120

11121

Anarchists assert that individuals and the institutions they

11122

create cannot be considered in isolation. Authoritarian

11123

institutions will create individuals who have a servile

11124

nature, who cannot govern themselves. Anarchists, therefore,

11125

consider it common sense that individuals, in order to be free,

11126

*must* have take part in determining the general agreements they

11127

make with their neighbours which give form to their communities.

11128

Otherwise, a free society could not exist and individuals would

11129

be subject to rules others make *for* them (following orders is

11130

hardly libertarian). Therefore, anarchists recognise the social

11131

nature of humanity and the fact any society based on contracts

11132

(like capitalism) will be marked by authority, injustice and

11133

inequality, *not* freedom. As Bookchin points out, "[t]o speak of

11134

'The Individual' apart from its social roots is as meaningless

11135

as to speak of a society that contains no people or institutions."

11136

["Communalism: The Democratic Dimension of Anarchism",

11137

_Society and Nature_ no. 8, p. 15]

11138

11139

Society cannot be avoided and "[u]nless everyone is to be psychologically

11140

homogeneous and society's interests so uniform in character that dissent

11141

is simply meaningless, there must be room for conflicting proposals,

11142

discussion, rational explication and majority decisions - in short,

11143

democracy." [Bookchin, Op. Cit., pp. 15-16] Those who reject democracy

11144

in the name of liberty (such as many supporters of capitalism claim

11145

to do) usually also see the need for laws and hierarchical authority

11146

(particularly in the workplace). This is unsurprising, as such

11147

authority is the only means left by which collective activity

11148

can be co-ordinated if "democracy" (i.e. self-management) is

11149

rejected (usually as "statist", which is ironic as the resulting

11150

institutions, such as a capitalist company, are far more statist

11151

than self-managed ones).

11152

11153

However, it should be noted that communities can expel individuals or

11154

groups of individuals who constantly hinder community decisions. As

11155

Malatesta argued, "for if it is unjust that the majority should

11156

oppress the minority, the contrary would be quite as unjust; and if the

11157

minority has a right to rebel, the majority has a right to defend itself

11158

. . . it is true that this solution is not completely satisfactory. The

11159

individuals put out of the association would be deprived of many social

11160

advantages, which an isolated person or group must do without, because

11161

they can only be procured by the co-operation of a great number of human

11162

beings. But what would you have? These malcontents cannot fairly demand

11163

that the wishes of many others should be sacrificed for their sakes."

11164

[_A Talk about Anarchist-Communism_, p. 29]

11165

11166

Nevertheless, such occurrences would be rare (for reasons discussed in

11167

section I.5.6), and their possibility merely indicates that free

11168

association also means the freedom *not* to associate. This a very

11169

important freedom for both the majority and the minority, and must be

11170

defended. However, as an isolated life is impossible, the need for

11171

communal associations is essential. It is only by living together in a

11172

supportive community can individuality be encouraged and developed along

11173

with individual freedom. However, anarchists are aware that not everyone

11174

is a social animal and that there are times that people like to withdraw

11175

into their own personal space. Thus our support for free association

11176

and federalism along with solidarity, community and self-management.

11177

11178

Lastly, that these communities and confederations are not just states

11179

with new names in indicated by two more considerations. Firstly, in regard

11180

to the activities of the confederal conferences, it is clear that they

11181

would *not* be passing laws on personal behaviour or ethics, i.e. not

11182

legislating to restrict the liberty of those who live in these communities

11183

they represent. For example, a community is unlikely to pass laws

11184

outlawing homosexuality or censoring the press, for reasons discussed in

11185

the next section. Hence they would not be "law-making bodies" in the modern

11186

sense of the term, and thus not statist. Secondly, these confederations

11187

have no means to enforce their decisions. In other words, if a confederal

11188

congress makes a decision, it has no means to force people to act or not

11189

act in a certain way. We can imagine that there will be ethical reasons

11190

why participants will not act in ways to oppose joint activity -- as they

11191

took part in the decision making process they would be considered childish

11192

if they reject the final decision because it did not go in their favour.

11193

Moreover, they would also have to face the reaction of those who also

11194

took part in the decision making process. It would be likely that those

11195

who ignored such decisions (or actively hindered them) would soon face

11196

non-violent direct action in the form of non-co-operation, shunning,

11197

boycotting and so on.

11198

11199

So, far from being new states by which one section of a community imposes

11200

its ethical standards on another, the anarchist commune is just a public

11201

forum. In this forum, issues of community interest (for example,

11202

management of the commons, control of communalised economic activity, and

11203

so forth) are discussed and policy agreed upon. In addition, interests

11204

beyond a local area are also discussed and delegates for confederal

11205

conferences are mandated with the wishes of the community. Hence,

11206

administration of things replaces government of people, with the community

11207

of communities existing to ensure that the interests of all are managed by

11208

all and that liberty, justice and equality are more than just ideals.

11209

11210

For these reasons, a libertarian-socialist society would not create a new

11211

state as far as structure goes. But what about in the area of function?

11212

11213

As noted in section B.2.1, the function of the state is to enable the

11214

ruling elite to exploit subordinate social strata, i.e. to derive an

11215

economic surplus from them, which it does by protecting certain economic

11216

monopolies from which the elite derives its wealth, and so its power. But

11217

this function is completely eliminated by the economic structure of

11218

anarchist society, which, by abolishing private property, makes it

11219

impossible for a privileged elite to form, let alone exploit "subordinate

11220

strata" (which will not exist, as no one is subordinate in power to anyone

11221

else). In other words, by placing the control of productive resources in

11222

the hands of the workers councils and community assemblies, every worker

11223

is given free access to the means of production that he or she needs to

11224

earn a living. Hence no one will be forced to pay usury (i.e. a use-fee)

11225

in the form of appropriated surplus value (profits) to an elite class that

11226

monopolises the means of production. In short, without private property,

11227

the state loses its reason for existence.

11228

11229

I.5.6 Won't there be a danger of a "tyranny of the majority" under

11230

libertarian socialism?

11231

11232

While the "tyranny of the majority" objection does contain an

11233

important point, it is often raised for self-serving reasons.

11234

This is because those who raised the issue (for example, creators

11235

of the 1789 US constitution like Hamilton and Madison) saw the

11236

"minority" to be protected as the rich. In other words, the

11237

objection is not opposed to majority tyranny as such (they

11238

have no objections when the majority support their right to

11239

their riches) but rather attempts of the majority to change

11240

their society to a fairer one. However, as noted, the objection

11241

to majority rule *does* contain a valid point and one which

11242

anarchists have addressed -- namely, what about minority freedom

11243

within a self-managed society.

11244

11245

There is, of course, this danger in *any* society, be its

11246

decision making structure direct (anarchy) or indirect (by some

11247

form of government). Anarchists are at the forefront in expressing

11248

concern about it (see, for example, Emma Goldman's classic essay

11249

"Minorities versus Majorities" in _Anarchism and Other Essays_).

11250

We are well aware that the mass, as long as the individuals

11251

within it do not free themselves, can be a dead-weight on

11252

others, resisting change and enforcing conformity. As Goldman

11253

argued, "even more than constituted authority, it is social

11254

uniformity and sameness that harass the individual the most."

11255

[_Red Emma Speaks_, p. 93] Hence Malatesta's comment that

11256

anarchists "have the special mission of being vigilant custodians

11257

of freedom, against all aspirants to power and against the possible

11258

tyranny of the majority." [_Life and Ideas_, p. 161]

11259

11260

However, rather than draw elitist conclusions from this fact of life

11261

under capitalism and urge forms of government and organisation which

11262

restrict popular participation (and promote rule, and tyranny, by the

11263

few) -- as classical liberals do -- libertarians argue that only a

11264

process of self-liberation through struggle and participation can

11265

break up the mass into free, self-managing individuals. Moreover,

11266

we also argue that participation and self-management is the only

11267

way that majorities can come to see the point of minority ideas

11268

and for seeing the importance of protecting minority freedoms.

11269

This means that any attempt to restrict participation in the

11270

name of minority rights actually enforces the herd mentality,

11271

undermining minority and individual freedom rather than protecting

11272

it. As Carole Pateman argues:

11273

11274

"the evidence supports the arguments . . . that we do learn

11275

to participate by participating and that feelings of political

11276

efficacy are more likely to be developed in a participatory

11277

environment. Furthermore, the evidence indicates that

11278

experience of a participatory authority structure might also

11279

be effective in diminishing tendencies towards non-democratic

11280

attitudes in the individual." [_Participation and Democratic

11281

Theory_, p. 105]

11282

11283

However, while there is cause for concern (and anarchists are

11284

at the forefront in expressing it), the "tyranny of the majority"

11285

objection fails to take note of the vast difference between direct

11286

and "representative" forms of democracy.

11287

11288

In the current system, as we pointed out in section B.5, voters are

11289

mere passive spectators of occasional, staged, and highly rehearsed

11290

debates among candidates pre-selected by the corporate elite, who

11291

pay for campaign expenses. More often the public is expected to

11292

choose simply on the basis of political ads and news sound bites.

11293

Once the choice is made, cumbersome and ineffective recall procedures

11294

insure that elected representatives can act more or less as they

11295

(or rather, their wealthy sponsors) please. The function, then,

11296

of the electorate in bourgeois "representative government" is

11297

ratification of "choices" that have been *already made for them!*

11298

11299

By contrast, in a direct, libertarian democracy, decisions are made

11300

following public discussion in community assemblies open to all. After

11301

decisions have been reached, outvoted minorities -- even minorities of

11302

one -- still have ample opportunity to present reasoned and persuasive

11303

counter-arguments to try to change the decision. This process of debate,

11304

disagreement, challenge, and counter-challenge, which goes on even after

11305

the defeated minority has temporarily acquiesced in the decision of the

11306

majority, is virtually absent in the representative system, where "tyranny

11307

of the majority" is truly a problem. In addition, minorities can secede

11308

from an association if the decision reached by it are truly offensive to

11309

them.

11310

11311

And let us not forget that in all likelihood, issues of personal conduct

11312

or activity will not be discussed in the neighbourhood assemblies. Why?

11313

Because we are talking about a society in which most people consider

11314

themselves to be unique, free individuals, who would thus recognise and

11315

act to protect the uniqueness and freedom of others. Unless people are

11316

indoctrinated by religion or some other form of ideology, they can be

11317

tolerant of others and their individuality. If this is not the case

11318

now, then it has more to do with the existence of authoritarian social

11319

relationships -- relationships that will be dismantled under

11320

libertarian socialism -- and the type of person they create rather

11321

than some innate human flaw.

11322

11323

Thus there will be vast areas of life in a libertarian socialist

11324

community which are none of other people's business. Anarchists

11325

have always stressed the importance of personal space and "private"

11326

areas. Indeed, for Kropotkin, the failure of many "utopian"

11327

communities directly flowed from a lack personal space. One of

11328

the mistakes made by such "utopian" communities within capitalism

11329

was "the desire to manage the community after the model of a

11330

family, to make it 'the great family.' They lived all in the

11331

same house and were thus forced to continuously meet the same

11332

'brethren and sisters.' It is already difficult often for two

11333

real brothers to live together in the same house, and family

11334

life is not always harmonious; so it was a fundamental error to

11335

impose on all the 'great family' instead of trying, on the

11336

contrary, to guarantee as much freedom and home life to each

11337

individual." [_Small Communal Experiments and Why they Fail_,

11338

pp. 8-9]

11339

11340

Thus in an anarchist society, continual agreement on all issues

11341

is not desired. The members of a free society "need only

11342

agree as to some advantageous method of common work, and are

11343

free otherwise to live in their own way." [Op. Cit., p. 22]

11344

11345

Which brings us to another key point. When anarchists talk of

11346

democratising or communalising the household or any other

11347

association, we do not mean that it should be stripped of its

11348

private status and become open to the "tyranny of the majority"

11349

or regulation by general voting in a single, universal public

11350

sphere. Rather, we mean that households and other relationships

11351

should take in libertarian characteristics and be consistent

11352

with the liberty of all its members. Thus a society based

11353

on self-management does not imply the destruction of private

11354

spheres of activity -- it implies the extension of anarchist

11355

principles into all spheres of life, both private and public.

11356

It does not mean the subordination of the private by the public,

11357

or vice versa.

11358

11359

So, in other words, it is highly unlikely that the "tyranny of

11360

the majority" will exert itself where most rightly fear it --

11361

in their homes, how they act with friends, their personal space,

11362

how they act, and do on. As long as individual freedom and

11363

rights are protected, it is of little concern what people get up

11364

to (included the rights of children, who are also individuals

11365

and *not* the property of their parents). Direct democracy in

11366

anarchist theory is purely concerned with common resources and

11367

their use and management. It is highly unlikely that a free society

11368

would debate issues of personal behaviour or morality and instead

11369

would leave them to those directly affected by them -- as it should

11370

be, as we all need personal space and experimentation to find the

11371

way of life that best suits us.

11372

11373

Today an authoritarian worldview, characterised by an inability to

11374

think beyond the categories of domination and submission, is imparted

11375

by conditioning in the family, schools, religious institutions, clubs,

11376

fraternities, the army, etc., and produces a type of personality that

11377

is intolerant of any individual or group perceived as threatening to the

11378

perpetuation of that worldview and its corresponding institutions and

11379

values. Thus, as Bakunin argues, "public opinion" is potentially intolerant

11380

"simply because hitherto this power has not been humanised itself; it

11381

has not been humanised because the social life of which it is ever the

11382

faithful expression is based . . . in the worship of divinity, not on

11383

respect for humanity; in authority, not on liberty; on privilege, not on

11384

equality; in the exploitation, not on the brotherhood, of men; on iniquity

11385

and falsehood, not on justice and truth. Consequently its real action,

11386

always in contradiction of the humanitarian theories which it professes,

11387

has constantly exercised a disastrous and depraving influence." [_God and

11388

the State_, p. 43f] In other words, "if society is ever to become free,

11389

it will be so through liberated individuals, whose free efforts make

11390

society." [Emma Goldman, _Anarchism and Other Essays_, p. 44]

11391

11392

In an anarchist society, however, a conscious effort will be

11393

made to dissolve the institutional and traditional sources of the

11394

authoritarian/submissive type of personality, and thus to free "public

11395

opinion" of its current potential for intolerance. In addition, it should

11396

be noted that as anarchists recognise that the practice of self-assumed

11397

political obligation implied in free association also implies the right to

11398

practice dissent and disobedience as well. As Carole Pateman notes, "[e]ven

11399

if it is impossible to be unjust to myself, I do not vote for myself alone,

11400

but alone with everyone else. Questions about injustice are always

11401

appropriate in political life, for there is no guarantee that participatory

11402

voting will actually result in decisions in accord with the principles

11403

of political morality." [_The Problem of Political Obligation_, p. 160]

11404

11405

If an individual or group of individuals feel that a specific decision

11406

threatens their freedom (which is the basic principle of political

11407

morality in an anarchist society) they can (and must) act to defend

11408

that freedom. "The political practice of participatory voting rests

11409

in a collective self-consciousness about the meaning and implication of

11410

citizenship. The members of the political association understand that to

11411

vote is simultaneously to commit oneself, to commit one's fellow citizens,

11412

and also to commit oneself to them in a mutual undertaking . . . a refusal

11413

to vote on a particular occasion indicates that the refusers believe . . .

11414

[that] the proposal . . . infringes the principle of political morality

11415

on which the political association is based . . A refusal to vote [or the

11416

use of direct action] could be seen as an appeal to the 'sense of justice'

11417

of their fellow citizens." [Carole Pateman, Op. Cit., p. 161]

11418

11419

As they no longer "consent" to the decisions made by their community they

11420

can appeal to the "sense of justice" of their fellow citizens by direct

11421

action and indicate that a given decision may have impacts which the

11422

majority were not aware. Hence direct action and dissent is a key aspect

11423

of an anarchist society and help ensure against the tyranny of the majority.

11424

Anarchism rejects the "love it or leave it" attitude that marks classical

11425

liberalism as well as Rousseau (this aspect of his work being inconsistent

11426

with its foundations in participation).

11427

11428

This vision of self-assumed obligation, with its basis in individual

11429

liberty, indicates the basic flaw of Joseph Schumpeter's argument

11430

against democracy as anything bar a political *method* of arriving

11431

at decisions (in his case who will be the leaders of a society).

11432

Schumpeter proposed the "mental experiment" of imagining a country

11433

which, democratically, persecuted Jews, witches and Christians

11434

(see his famous work _Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy_). He

11435

argues that we should not approve of these practices just because

11436

they have been decided upon by the democratic method and, therefore,

11437

democracy cannot be an end in itself.

11438

11439

However, such systematic persecution would conflict with the

11440

rules of procedure required if a country's or community's

11441

political method is to be called "democratic." This is

11442

because, in order to be democratic, the minority must be in a

11443

position for its ideas to become the majority's via argument

11444

and convincing the majority (and that requires freedom of

11445

discussion and association). A country or community in which

11446

the majority persecutes or represses a minority automatically

11447

ensures that the minority can never be in a position to

11448

become the majority (as the minority is barred by force from

11449

becoming so) or convince the majority of the errors of its way

11450

(even if it cannot become the majority physically, it can become

11451

so morally by convincing the majority to change its position).

11452

Schumpeter's example utterly violates democratic principles

11453

and so cannot be squared with the rules of democratic procedure.

11454

Thus majority tyranny is an outrage against both democratic

11455

theory *and* individual liberty (unsurprisingly, as the former

11456

has its roots in the latter).

11457

11458

This argument applies with even more force to a self-managed

11459

community too and so any system in which the majority tyrannises over

11460

a minority is, by definition, *not* self-managed as one part of the

11461

community is excluded from convincing the other ("the enslavement of

11462

part of a nation denies the federal principal itself." [P-J Proudhon,

11463

_The Principle of Federation_, p. 42f]). Thus individual freedom and

11464

minority rights are essential to direct democracy/self-management.

11465

11466

It should be stressed, however, that most anarchists do not think that

11467

the way to guard against possible tyranny by the majority is to resort to

11468

decision-making by consensus (where no action can be taken until every

11469

person in the group agrees) or a property system (based in contracts).

11470

Both consensus (see section A.2.12 -- "Is consensus an alternative to

11471

direct democracy?") and contracts (see section A.2.14 -- "Why is

11472

voluntarism not enough?") soon result in authoritarian social

11473

relationships developing in the name of "liberty."

11474

11475

For example, decision making by consensus tends to eliminate the

11476

creative role of dissent and mutate into a system that pressures

11477

people into psychic and intellectual conformity -- hardly a

11478

libertarian ideal. In the case of property and contract based systems,

11479

those with property have more power than those without, and so they soon

11480

determine what can and cannot be done -- in other words, the "tyranny of

11481

the minority" and hierarchical authority. Both alternatives are deeply

11482

flawed.

11483

11484

Hence most anarchists have recognised that majority decision making,

11485

though not perfect, is the best way to reach decisions in a political

11486

system based on maximising individual (and so social) freedom. Direct

11487

democracy in grassroots confederal assemblies and workers' councils

11488

ensures that decision making is "horizontal" in nature (i.e. between

11489

*equals*) and not hierarchical (i.e. governmental, between order giver

11490

and order taker). In other words, it ensures liberty.

11491

11492

I.5.7 What if I don't want to join a commune?

11493

11494

As would be expected, no one would be *forced* to join a commune nor

11495

take part in its assemblies. To suggest otherwise would be contrary

11496

to anarchist principles. We have already indicated (in the last two

11497

sections) why the communes would not be likely to restrict individuals

11498

with new "laws." Thus a commune would be a free society, in which

11499

individual liberty would be respected and encouraged.

11500

11501

However, what about individuals who live within the boundaries of a

11502

commune but decide not to join? For example, a local neighbourhood

11503

may include households that desire to associate and a few that do

11504

not (this is actually happened during the Spanish Revolution). What

11505

happens to the minority of dissenters?

11506

11507

Obviously individuals can leave to find communities more in line

11508

with their own concepts of right and wrong if they cannot convince

11509

their neighbours of the validity of their ideas. And, equally

11510

obviously, not everyone will want to leave an area they like. So

11511

we must discuss those who decide to not to find a more suitable

11512

community. Are the communal decisions binding on non-members?

11513

Obviously not. If an individual or family desire *not* to join

11514

a commune (for whatever reason), their freedoms must be respected.

11515

However, this also means that they cannot benefit from communal

11516

activity and resources (such a free housing, hospitals, and so

11517

forth) and, possibly, have to pay for their use. As long as they

11518

do not exploit or oppress others, an anarchist community would

11519

respect their decision. After all, as Malatesta argued, "free

11520

and voluntary communism is ironical if one has not the right

11521

and the possibility to live in a different regime, collectivist,

11522

mutualist, individualist -- as one wishes, always on condition

11523

that there is no oppression or exploitation of others."

11524

[_Life and Ideas_, p. 103]

11525

11526

Many who oppose anarchist self-management in the name of freedom

11527

often do so because they desire to oppress and exploit others. In other

11528

words, they oppose participatory communities because they (rightly) fear

11529

that this would restrict their ability to oppress, exploit and grow rich

11530

off the labour of others. This type of opposition can be seen from history,

11531

when rich elites, in the name of liberty, have replaced democratic forms

11532

of social decision making with representative or authoritarian ones

11533

(see section B.2.6). Regardless of what defenders of capitalism claim,

11534

"voluntary bilateral exchanges" affect third parties and can harm others

11535

indirectly. This can easily be seen from examples like concentrations

11536

of wealth which have effects across society, or crime in the local

11537

community, or the ecological impacts of consumption and production.

11538

This means that an anarchist society would be aware that inequality

11539

and so statism could develop again and take precautions against it.

11540

As Malatesta put it, some "seem almost to believe that after having

11541

brought down government and private property we would allow both

11542

to be quietly built up again, because of respect for the *freedom*

11543

of those who might feel the need to be rulers and property owners.

11544

A truly curious way of interpreting our ideas." [_Anarchy_, p. 41]

11545

11546

So, it goes without saying that the minority, as in any society,

11547

will exist within the ethical norms of the surrounding society and

11548

they will be "forced to adhere" to them in the same sense that they

11549

are "forced to adhere" to not murdering people. Few people would

11550

say that forcing people not to commit murder is a restriction of

11551

their liberty. Therefore, while allowing the maximum of individual

11552

freedom of dissent, an anarchist community would still have to apply

11553

its ethical standards to those beyond that community. Individuals

11554

would not be allowed to murder, harm or enslave others and claim that

11555

they are allowed to do so because they are not part of the local

11556

community (see section I.5.8 on crime in an anarchist society).

11557

11558

Similarly, individuals would not be allowed to develop private property

11559

(as opposed to possession) simply because they wanted to. Such a "ban"

11560

on private property would not be a restriction on liberty simply because

11561

stopping the development of authority hardly counts as an authoritarian

11562

act (for an analogy, supporters of capitalism do not think that banning

11563

theft is a restriction of liberty and because this view is -- currently --

11564

accepted by the majority, it is enforced on the minority). Even the word

11565

"ban" is wrong, as it is the would-be capitalist who is trying to ban

11566

freedom for others on their "property." Members of a free society would

11567

simply refuse to recognise the claims of private property -- they would

11568

simply ignore the would-be capitalist's pretensions and "keep out" signs.

11569

Without a state, or hired thugs, to back up their claims, they would

11570

just end up looking silly. "Occupancy and use" (to use Tucker's term)

11571

would be the limits of possession -- and so property would become "that

11572

control of a thing by a person which will receive either social sanction,

11573

or else unanimous individual sanction, when the laws of social expediency

11574

shall have been fully discovered." [B. Tucker, _Instead of a Book_, p. 131]

11575

11576

Tucker explains this system further:

11577

11578

"Suppose that all the municipalities have adopted the voluntary

11579

principle, and that compulsory taxation has been abolished. Now

11580

after this let us suppose that the Anarchistic view that occupancy

11581

and use should condition and limit landholding becomes the prevailing

11582

view. Evidently then these municipalities will proceed to formulate

11583

and enforce this view. What the formula will be no one can foresee.

11584

But continuing with our suppositions, we will say that they decide

11585

to protect no one in the possession of more than ten acres. In

11586

execution of this decision, they . . . notify all holders of more

11587

than ten acres within their limits that . . . they will cease to

11588

protect them in the possession of more than ten acres . . ." [_The

11589

Individualist Anarchists_, pp. 159-60]

11590

11591

A similar process would occur for housing, with tenants "would not

11592

be forced to pay [the landlord] rent, nor would [the landlord] be

11593

allowed to seize their property. The Anarchistic associations would

11594

look upon . . . tenants very much as they would look upon . . .

11595

guests." [Op. Cit., p. 162]

11596

11597

Therefore anarchists support the maximum of experiments while ensuring

11598

that the social conditions that allow this experimentation are protected

11599

against concentrations of wealth and power. As Malatesta put it, "Anarchism

11600

involves all and only those forms of life that respect liberty and recognise

11601

that every person has an equal right to enjoy the good things of nature and

11602

the products of their own activity." [_The Anarchist Revolution_, p. 14]

11603

11604

This means that Anarchists do not support the liberty of being a boss

11605

(anarchists will happily work *with* someone but not *for* someone). Of

11606

course, those who desire to create private property against the wishes of

11607

others expect those others to respect their wishes. So, when the would-be

11608

propertarians happily fence off their "property" and exclude others from it,

11609

could not these others remember these words from Woody Guthrie's _This Land

11610

is Your Land_, and act accordingly?

11611

11612

"As I went rumbling that dusty highway

11613

I saw a sign that said private property

11614

But on the other side it didn't say nothing

11615

This land was made for you and me"

11616

11617

While happy to exclude others from "their" property, such owners seem more

11618

than happy to use the resources held in common by others. They are the

11619

ultimate "free riders," desiring the benefits of society but rejecting the

11620

responsibilities that go with it. In the end, such "individualists" usually

11621

end up supporting the state (an institution they claim to hate) precisely

11622

because it is the only means by which private property and their "freedom"

11623

to exercise authority can be defended.

11624

11625

So, as a way to eliminate the problem of minorities seeking power and

11626

property for themselves, an anarchist revolution places social wealth

11627

(starting with the land) in the hands of all and promises to protect

11628

only those uses of it which are considered just by society as a whole.

11629

In other words, by recognising that "property" is a product of society,

11630

an anarchist society will ensure than an individual's "property" is

11631

protected by his or her fellows when it is based purely upon actual

11632

occupancy and use. Thus attempts to transform minority dissent into,

11633

say, property rights would be fought by simply ignoring the "keep

11634

out" signs of property owned, but not used, by an individual or

11635

group.

11636

11637

Therefore, individuals are free not to associate, but their claims of

11638

"ownership" will be based around *use* rights, not property rights.

11639

Individuals will be protected by their fellows only in so far as what

11640

they claim to "own" is related to their ability to personally use said

11641

"property." As Kropotkin argued, "when we see a peasant who is in

11642

possession of just the amount of land he can cultivate, we do not

11643

think it reasonable to turn him off his little farm. He exploits

11644

nobody, and nobody would have the right to interfere with his work.

11645

But if he possesses under the capitalist law more than be can cultivate

11646

himself, we consider that we must not give him the right of keeping

11647

that soil for himself, leaving it uncultivated when it might be

11648

cultivated by others, or of making other cultivate it for his

11649

benefit." [_Act for Yourselves_, p. 104] Without a state to back

11650

up and protect property "rights," we see that all rights are, in

11651

the end, what society considers to be fair (the difference between

11652

law and social custom is discussed in section I.7.3). What the state

11653

does is to impose "rights" which do not have such a basis (i.e. those

11654

that protect the property of the elite) or "rights" which have been

11655

corrupted by wealth and would have been changed because of this

11656

corruption had society been free to manage its own affairs.

11657

11658

In summary, individuals will be free not to join a participatory

11659

community, and hence free to place themselves outside its decisions

11660

and activities on most issues that do not apply to the fundamental

11661

ethical standards of a society. Hence individuals who desire to

11662

live outside of anarchist communities would be free to live as

11663

they see fit but would not be able to commit murder, rape, create

11664

private property or other activities that harmed individuals. It

11665

should be noted, moreover, that this does not mean that their

11666

possessions will be taken from them by "society" or that "society"

11667

will tell them what to do with their possessions. Freedom, in a

11668

complex world, means that such individuals will not be in a position

11669

to turn their possessions into *property* and thus recreate capitalism

11670

(for the distinction between "property" and "possessions," see

11671

section B.3.1). This will not be done by "anarchist police" or

11672

by "banning" voluntary agreements, but purely by recognising that

11673

"property" is a social creation and by creating a social system

11674

that will encourage individuals to stand up for their rights and

11675

co-operate with each other.

11676

11677

I.5.8 What about crime?

11678

11679

For anarchists, "crime" can best be described as anti-social acts, or

11680

behaviour which harms someone else or which invades their personal space.

11681

Anarchists argue that the root cause for crime is not some perversity of

11682

human nature or "original sin," but is due to the type of society by which

11683

people are moulded. For example, anarchists point out that by eliminating

11684

private property, crime could be reduced by about 90 percent, since about

11685

90 percent of crime is currently motivated by evils stemming from private

11686

property such as poverty, homelessness, unemployment, and alienation.

11687

Moreover, by adopting anarchist methods of non-authoritarian child rearing

11688

and education, most of the remaining crimes could also be eliminated,

11689

because they are largely due to the anti-social, perverse, and cruel

11690

"secondary drives" that develop because of authoritarian, pleasure-negative

11691

child-rearing practices (See section J.6 -- "What methods of child rearing

11692

do anarchists advocate?")

11693

11694

"Crime", therefore, cannot be divorced from the society within which it

11695

occurs. Society, in Emma Goldman's words, gets the criminals it deserves.

11696

For example, anarchists do not think it unusual nor unexpected that

11697

crime exploded under the pro-free market capitalist regimes of Thatcher

11698

and Reagan. Crime, the most obvious symptom of social crisis, took

11699

30 years to double in Britain (from 1 million incidents in 1950 to

11700

2.2 million in 1979). However, between 1979 and 1992 the crime rate

11701

more than doubled, exceeding the 5 million mark in 1992. These 13

11702

years were marked by a government firmly committed to the "free

11703

market" and "individual responsibility." It was entirely predictable

11704

that the social disruption, atomisation of individuals, and increased

11705

poverty caused by freeing capitalism from social controls would

11706

rip society apart and increase criminal activity. Also

11707

unsurprisingly (from an anarchist viewpoint), under these pro-market

11708

governments we also saw a reduction in civil liberties, increased state

11709

centralisation, and the destruction of local government. As Malatesta put

11710

it, the classical liberalism which these governments represented could

11711

have had no other effect, for "the government's powers of repression must

11712

perforce increase as free competition results in more discord and

11713

inequality." [_Anarchy_, p. 46]

11714

11715

Hence the paradox of governments committed to "individual rights," the

11716

"free market" and "getting the state off our backs" increasing state power

11717

and reducing rights while holding office during a crime explosion is no

11718

paradox at all. "The conjuncture of the rhetoric of individual freedom and

11719

a vast increase in state power," argues Carole Pateman, "is not unexpected

11720

at a time when the influence of contract doctrine is extending into the

11721

last, most intimate nooks and crannies of social life. Taken to a conclusion,

11722

contract undermines the conditions of its own existence. Hobbes showed

11723

long ago that contract -- all the way down -- requires absolutism and the

11724

sword to keep war at bay." [_The Sexual Contract_, p. 232]

11725

11726

Capitalism, and the contract theory on which it is built, will inevitably

11727

rip apart society. Capitalism is based upon a vision of humanity as isolated

11728

individuals with no connection other than that of money and contract. Such

11729

a vision cannot help but institutionalise anti-social acts. As Kropotkin

11730

argued "it is not love and not even sympathy upon which Society is based

11731

in mankind. It is the conscience -- be it only at the stage of an instinct

11732

that is borrowed by each man [and woman] from the practice of mutual aid;

11733

of the close dependency of every one's happiness upon the happiness of all;

11734

and of the sense of justice, or equity, which brings the individual to

11735

consider the rights of every other individual as equal to his [or her]

11736

own." [_Mutual Aid_, p. 16]

11737

11738

The social atomisation required and created by capitalism destroys the basic

11739

bonds of society - namely human solidarity - and hierarchy crushes the

11740

individuality required to understand that we share a common humanity with

11741

others and so understand *why* we must be ethical and respect others rights.

11742

11743

We should also point out that prisons have numerous negative affects on

11744

society as well as often re-enforcing criminal (i.e. anti-social) behaviour.

11745

Kropotkin originated the accurate description of prisons as "Universities

11746

of Crime" wherein the first-time criminal learns new techniques and have

11747

adapt to the prevailing ethical standards within them. Hence, prisons would

11748

have the effect of increasing the criminal tendencies of those sent there

11749

and so prove to be counter-productive. In addition, prisons do not affect

11750

the social conditions which promote many forms of crime.

11751

11752

We are not saying, however, that anarchists reject the concept of individual

11753

responsibility. While recognising that rape, for example, is the result of

11754

a social system which represses sexuality and is based on patriarchy (i.e.

11755

rape has more to do with power than sex), anarchists do not "sit back" and

11756

say "it's society's fault." Individuals have to take responsibility for

11757

their own actions and recognise that consequences of those actions. Part

11758

of the current problem with "law codes" is that individuals have been

11759

deprived of the responsibility for developing their own ethical code, and so

11760

are less likely to develop "civilised" social standards (see section I.7.3).

11761

11762

Therefore, while anarchists reject the ideas of law and a specialised

11763

justice system, they are not blind to the fact that anti-social action may

11764

not totally disappear in a free society. Therefore, some sort of "court"

11765

system would still be necessary to deal with the remaining crimes and to

11766

adjudicate disputes between citizens.

11767

11768

These courts would function in one of two ways. One possibility

11769

is that the parties involved agree to hand their case to a third

11770

party. Then the "court" in question would be the arrangements

11771

made by those parties. The second possibility is when the parties

11772

cannot not agree (or if the victim was dead). Then the issue could

11773

be raised at a communal assembly and a "court" appointed to look

11774

into the issue. These "courts" would be independent from the commune,

11775

their independence strengthened by popular election instead of executive

11776

appointment of judges, by protecting the jury system of selection of

11777

random citizens by lot, and by informing jurors of their right to judge

11778

the law itself, according to their conscience, as well as the facts of a

11779

case. As Malatesta pointed out, "when differences were to arise between

11780

men [sic!], would not arbitration voluntarily accepted, or pressure

11781

of public opinion, be perhaps more likely to establish where the right

11782

lies than through an irresponsible magistrate which has the right to

11783

adjudicate on everything and everybody and is inevitably incompetent

11784

and therefore unjust?" [_Anarchy_, p. 43]

11785

11786

In the case of a "police force," this would not exist either as a

11787

public or private specialised body or company. If a local community

11788

did consider that public safety required a body of people who could

11789

be called upon for help, we imagine that a new system would be created.

11790

Such a system would "not be entrusted to, as it is today, to a special,

11791

official body: all able-bodied inhabitants [of a commune] will be called

11792

upon to take turns in the security measures instituted by the commune."

11793

[James Guillaume, _Bakunin on Anarchism_, p. 371] This system would be

11794

based around a voluntary militia system, in which all members of the

11795

community could serve if they so desired. Those who served would not

11796

constitute a professional body; instead the service would be made

11797

up of local people who would join for short periods of time and be

11798

replaced if they abused their position. Hence the likelihood that

11799

a communal militia would become corrupted by power, like the current

11800

police force or a private security firm exercising a policing

11801

function, would be vastly reduced. Moreover, by accustoming a

11802

population to intervene in anti-social as part of the militia,

11803

they would be empowered to do so when not an active part of it,

11804

so reducing the need for its services even more.

11805

11806

Such a body would not have a monopoly on protecting others, but

11807

would simply be on call if others required it. It would no more

11808

be a monopoly of defence (i.e. a "police force") than the current

11809

fire service is a monopoly. Individuals are not banned from putting

11810

out fires today because the fire service exists, similarly individuals

11811

will be free to help stop anti-social crime by themselves, or in

11812

association with others, in an anarchist society.

11813

11814

Of course there are anti-social acts which occur without witnesses and

11815

so the "guilty" party cannot be readily identified. If such acts did

11816

occur we can imagine an anarchist community taking two courses of

11817

action. The injured party may look into the facts themselves or appoint

11818

an agent to do so or, more likely, an ad hoc group would be elected at

11819

a community assembly to investigate specific crimes of this sort. Such

11820

a group would be given the necessary "authority" to investigate the crime

11821

and be subject to recall by the community if they start trying to abuse

11822

whatever authority they had. Once the investigating body thought it had

11823

enough evidence it would inform the community as well as the affected parties

11824

and then organise a court. Of course, a free society will produce different

11825

solutions to such problems, solutions no-one has considered yet and so

11826

these suggestions are just that, suggestions.

11827

11828

As is often stated, prevention is better than cure. This is as true of

11829

crime as of disease. In other words, crime is best fought by rooting out

11830

its *causes* as opposed to punishing those who act in response to these

11831

causes. For example, it is hardly surprising that a culture that promotes

11832

individual profit and consumerism would produce individuals who do not

11833

respect other people (or themselves) and see them as purely means to

11834

an end (usually increased consumption). And, like everything else in

11835

a capitalist system, such as honour and pride, conscience is also

11836

available at the right price -- hardly an environment which encourages

11837

consideration for others, or even for oneself.

11838

11839

In addition, a society based on hierarchical authority will also

11840

tend to produce anti-social activity because the free development

11841

and expression it suppresses. Thus, irrational authority (which is

11842

often claimed to be the only cure for crime) actually helps produce

11843

it. As Emma Goldman argued, crime "is naught but misdirected energy.

11844

So long as every institution of today, economic, political, social,

11845

moral conspires to misdirect human energy into wrong channels; so

11846

long as most people are out of place doing things they hate to do,

11847

living a life they loathe to live, crime will be inevitable, and

11848

all the laws on the statues can only increase, but never do away

11849

with, crime" [_Red Emma Speaks_, p. 57]

11850

11851

Eric Fromm, decades latter, makes the same point:

11852

11853

"It would seem that the amount of destructiveness to be found in

11854

individuals is proportionate to the amount to which expansiveness

11855

of life is curtailed. By this we do not refer to individual

11856

frustrations of this or that instinctive desire but to the

11857

thwarting of the whole of life, the blockage of spontaneity

11858

of the growth and expression of man's sensuous, emotional, and

11859

intellectual capacities. Life has an inner dynamism of its

11860

own; it tends to grow, to be expressed, to be lived . . . the

11861

drive for life and the drive for destruction are not mutually

11862

interdependent factors but are in a reversed interdependence.

11863

The more the drive towards life is thwarted, the stronger is

11864

the drive towards destruction; the more life is realised, the

11865

less is the strength of destructiveness. *Destructiveness is the

11866

outcome of unlived life.* Those individual and social conditions

11867

that make for suppression of life produce the passion for

11868

destruction that forms, so to speak, the reservoir from which

11869

particular hostile tendencies -- either against others or against

11870

oneself -- are nourished" [_The Fear of Freedom_, p. 158]

11871

11872

Therefore, by reorganising society so that it empowers everyone and

11873

actively encourages the use of all our intellectual, emotional and

11874

sensuous abilities, crime would soon cease to be the huge problem that

11875

it is now. As for the anti-social behaviour or clashes between individuals

11876

that might still exist in such a society, it would be dealt with in a

11877

system based on respect for the individual and a recognition of the

11878

social roots of the problem. Restraint would be kept to a minimum.

11879

11880

Anarchists think that public opinion and social pressure would be the

11881

main means of preventing anti-social acts in an anarchist society, with

11882

such actions as boycotting and ostracising used as powerful sanctions to

11883

convince those attempting them of the errors of their way. Extensive

11884

non-co-operation by neighbours, friends and work mates would be the best

11885

means of stopping acts which harmed others.

11886

11887

An anarchist system of justice, we should note, would have a lot to

11888

learn from aboriginal societies simply because they are examples of

11889

social order without the state. Indeed many of the ideas we consider

11890

as essential to justice today can be found in such societies. As

11891

Kropotkin argued, "when we imagine that we have made great advances

11892

in introducing, for instance, the jury, all we have done is to return

11893

to the institutions of the so-called 'barbarians' after having changed

11894

it to the advantage of the ruling classes." [_The State: Its Historic

11895

Role_, p. 18]

11896

11897

Like aboriginal justice (as documented by Rupert Ross in _Returning

11898

to the Teachings: Exploring Aboriginal Justice_) anarchists contend

11899

that offenders should not be punished but justice achieved by the

11900

teaching and healing of all involved. Public condemnation of the

11901

wrongdoing would be a key aspect of this process, but the wrong doer

11902

would remain part of the community and so see the effects of their

11903

actions on others in terms of grief and pain caused. It would be

11904

likely that wrong doers would be expected to try to make amends

11905

for their act by community service or helping victims and their

11906

families.

11907

11908

So, from a practical viewpoint, almost all anarchists oppose prisons

11909

on both practical grounds (they do not work) and ethical grounds

11910

("We know what prisons mean -- they mean broken down body and spirit,

11911

degradation, consumption, insanity" Voltairine de Cleyre, quoted by

11912

Paul Avrich in _An American Anarchist_, p. 146]). The Makhnovists

11913

took the usual anarchist position on prisons:

11914

11915

"Prisons are the symbol of the servitude of the people, they are always

11916

built only to subjugate the people, the workers and peasants. . . Free

11917

people have no use for prisons. Wherever prisons exist, the people are

11918

not free. . . In keeping with this attitude, they [the Makhnovists]

11919

demolished prisons wherever they went." [Peter Arshinov, _The History

11920

of the Makhnovist Movement_, p. 153]

11921

11922

With the exception of Benjamin Tucker, no major anarchist writer supported

11923

the institution. Few anarchists think that private prisons (like private

11924

policemen) are compatible with their notions of freedom. However, all

11925

anarchists are against the current "justice" system which seems to them

11926

to be organised around *revenge* and punishing effects and not fixing

11927

causes.

11928

11929

However, there are psychopaths and other people in any society who are

11930

too dangerous to be allowed to walk freely. Restraint in this case would

11931

be the only option and such people may have to be isolated from others

11932

for their own, and others, safety. Perhaps mental hospitals would be

11933

used, or an area quarantined for their use created (perhaps an

11934

island, for example). However, such cases (we hope) would be rare.

11935

11936

So instead of prisons and a legal code based on the concept of

11937

punishment and revenge, anarchists support the use of pubic opinion

11938

and pressure to stop anti-social acts and the need to therapeutically

11939

rehabilitate those who commit anti-social acts. As Kropotkin argued,

11940

"liberty, equality, and practical human sympathy are the most effective

11941

barriers we can oppose to the anti-social instinct of certain among us"

11942

and *not* a parasitic legal system. [_The Anarchist Reader_, p. 117]

11943

11944

I.5.9 What about Freedom of Speech under Anarchism?

11945

11946

Many express the idea that *all* forms of socialism would endanger

11947

freedom of speech, press, and so forth. The usual formulation of this

11948

argument is in relation to state socialism and goes as follows: if the

11949

state (or "society") owned all the means of communication, then only the

11950

views which the government supported would get access to the media.

11951

11952

This is an important point and it needs to be addressed. However, before

11953

doing so, we should point out that under capitalism the major media are

11954

effectively controlled by the wealthy. As we argued in section D.3, the

11955

media are *not* the independent defenders of freedom that they like to

11956

portray themselves as. This is hardly surprising, since newspapers,

11957

television companies, and so forth are capitalist enterprises owned by the

11958

wealthy and with managing directors and editors who are also wealthy

11959

individuals with a vested interest in the status quo. Hence there are

11960

institutional factors which ensure that the "free press" reflects the

11961

interests of capitalist elites.

11962

11963

However, in democratic capitalist states there is little overt censorship.

11964

Radical and independent publishers can still print their papers and books

11965

without state intervention (although market forces ensure that this

11966

activity can be difficult and financially unrewarding). Under socialism,

11967

it is argued, because "society" owns the means of communication and

11968

production, this liberty will not exist. Instead, as can be seen from

11969

all examples of "actually existing socialism," such liberty is crushed

11970

in favour of the government's point of view.

11971

11972

As anarchism rejects the state, we can say that this danger does not

11973

exist under libertarian socialism. However, since social anarchists argue

11974

for the communalisation of production, could not restrictions on free

11975

speech still exist? We argue no, for three reasons.

11976

11977

Firstly, publishing houses, radio stations, and so on will be run

11978

by their workers directly. They will be supplied by other syndicates,

11979

with whom they will make agreements, and *not* by "central planning"

11980

officials, who would not exist. In other words, there is no bureaucracy

11981

of officials allocating (and so controlling) resources (and so the

11982

means of communication). Hence, anarchist self-management will ensure

11983

that there is a wide range of opinions in different magazines and

11984

papers. There would be community papers, radio stations, etc., and

11985

obviously they would play an increased role in a free society. But

11986

they would not be the only media. Associations, political parties,

11987

industrial syndicates, and so on would have their own media and/or

11988

would have access to the resources of communication workers' syndicates,

11989

so ensuring that a wide range of opinions can be expressed.

11990

11991

Secondly, the "ultimate" power in a free society will be the individuals

11992

of which it is composed. This power will be expressed in communal and

11993

workplace assemblies that can recall delegates and revoke their

11994

decisions. It is doubtful that these assemblies would tolerate a set of

11995

would-be bureaucrats determining what they can or cannot read, see, or

11996

hear.

11997

11998

Thirdly, individuals in a free society would be interested in hearing

11999

different viewpoints and discussing them. This is the natural

12000

side-effect of critical thought (which self-management would encourage),

12001

and so they would have a vested interest in defending the widest possible

12002

access to different forms of media for different views. Having no vested

12003

interests to defend, a free society would hardly encourage or tolerate

12004

the censorship associated with the capitalist media ("I listen to criticism

12005

because I am *greedy.* I listen to criticism because I am *selfish.* I

12006

would not deny myself another's insights" [For Ourselves, _The Right to

12007

be Greedy_, Thesis 113]).

12008

12009

Therefore, anarchism will *increase* freedom of speech in many important

12010

ways, particularly in the workplace (where it is currently denied under

12011

capitalism). This will be a natural result of a society based on maximising

12012

freedom and the desire to enjoy life.

12013

12014

We would also like to point out that during both the Spanish and Russian

12015

revolutions, freedom of speech was protected within anarchist areas.

12016

12017

For example, the Makhnovists in the Ukraine "fully applied the revolutionary

12018

principles of freedom of speech, of thought, of the Press, and of political

12019

association. In all the cities and towns occupied . . . Complete freedom

12020

of speech, Press, assembly, and association of any kind and for everyone

12021

was immediately proclaimed." [Peter Arshinov, _The History of the Makhnovist

12022

Movement_, p. 153] This is confirmed by Michael Malet who notes that "[o]ne

12023

of the most remarkable achievements of the Makhnovists was to preserve a

12024

freedom of speech more extensive than any of their opponents." [_Nestor

12025

Makhno in the Russian Civil War_, p. 175]

12026

12027

In revolutionary Spain republicans, liberals, communists, Trotskyites and

12028

many different anarchist groups all had freedom to express their views.

12029

Emma Goldman writes that "[o]n my first visit to Spain in September 1936,

12030

nothing surprised me so much as the amount of political freedom I found

12031

everywhere. True, it did not extend to Fascists . . . [but] everyone of

12032

the anti-Fascist front enjoyed political freedom which hardly existed

12033

in any of the so-called European democracies." [_Vision on Fire_, p.147]

12034

This is confirmed in a host of other eye-witnesses, including George

12035

Orwell in _Homage to Catalonia_ (in fact, it was the rise of the

12036

pro-capitalist republicans and communists that introduced censorship).

12037

12038

Both movements were fighting a life-and-death struggle against communist,

12039

fascist and pro-capitalist armies and so this defence of freedom of

12040

expression, given the circumstances, is particularly noteworthy.

12041

12042

Therefore, based upon both theory and practice, we can say that anarchism

12043

will not endanger freedom of expression. Indeed, by breaking up the

12044

capitalist oligopoly which currently exists and introducing workers'

12045

self-management of the press, a far wider range of opinions will become

12046

available in a free society. Rather than reflect the interests of a

12047

wealthy elite, the media would reflect the interests of society as

12048

a whole and the individuals and groups within it.

12049

12050

I.5.10 What about political parties?

12051

12052

Political parties and other interest groups will exist in an anarchist

12053

society as long as people feel the need to join them. They will not be

12054

"banned" in any way, and their members will have the same rights as

12055

everyone else. Individuals who are members of political parties or

12056

associations can take part in communal and other assemblies and try to

12057

convince others of the soundness of their ideas.

12058

12059

However, there is a key difference between such activity and politics

12060

under a capitalist democracy. This is because the elections to positions of

12061

responsibility in an anarchist society will not be based on party tickets

12062

nor will it involve the delegation of power. Emile Pouget's description

12063

of the difference between the syndicalist trade union and elections drives

12064

this difference home:

12065

12066

"The constituent part of the trade union is the individual. Except

12067

that the union member is spared the depressing phenomenon manifest

12068

in democratic circles where, thanks to the veneration of universal

12069

suffrage, the trend is towards the crushing and diminution of the

12070

human personality. In a democratic setting, the elector can avail

12071

of his [or her] will only in order to perform an act of abdication:

12072

his role is to 'award' his 'vote' to the candidate whom he [or she]

12073

wishes to have as his [or her] 'representative.'

12074

12075

"Affiliation to the trade union has no such implication . . . In joining

12076

the union, the worker merely enters into a contract -- which he may at

12077

any time abjure -- with comrades who are his equals in will and potential

12078

. . . In the union, say, should it come to the appointment of a trade

12079

union council to take charge of administrative matters, such 'selection'

12080

is not to be compared with 'election': the form of voting customarily

12081

employed in such circumstances is merely a means whereby the labour can

12082

be divided and is not accompanied by any delegation of authority. The

12083

strictly prescribed duties of the trade union council are merely

12084

administrative. The council performs the task entrusted to it, without

12085

ever overruling its principals, without supplanting them or acting

12086

in their place.

12087

12088

"The same might be said of all decisions reached in the union: all are

12089

restricted to a definite and specific act, whereas in democracy, election

12090

implies that the elected candidate has been issued by his [or her] elector

12091

with a carte blanche empowering him [or her] to decide and do as he [or

12092

she] pleases, in and on everything, without even the hindrance of the

12093

quite possibly contrary views of his [or her] principals, whose opposition,

12094

in any case, no matter how pronounced, is of no consequence until such

12095

time as the elected candidate's mandate has run its course.

12096

12097

"So there cannot be any possible parallels, let alone confusion, between

12098

trade unions activity and participation in the disappointing chores of

12099

politics." [_No Gods, No Masters_, vol. 2, pp. 67-68]

12100

12101

In other words, when individuals are elected to administrative posts they

12102

are elected to carry out their mandate, *not* to carry out their party's

12103

programme. Of course, if the individuals in question had convinced their

12104

fellow workers and citizens that their programme was correct, then this

12105

mandate and the programme would be identical. However this is unlikely in

12106

practice. We would imagine that the decisions of collectives and communes

12107

would reflect the complex social interactions and diverse political

12108

opinions their members and of the various groupings within the

12109

association.

12110

12111

Hence anarchism will likely contain many different political groupings and

12112

ideas. The relative influence of these within collectives and communes

12113

would reflect the strength of their arguments and the relevance of their

12114

ideas, as would be expected in a free society. As Bakunin argued, "[t]he

12115

abolition of this mutual influence would be death. And when we vindicate

12116

the freedom of the masses, we are by no means suggesting the abolition of

12117

any of the natural influences that individuals or groups of individuals

12118

exert on them. What we want is the abolition of influences which are

12119

artificial, privileged, legal, official." [quoted by Malatesta in

12120

_Anarchy_, p. 50]

12121

12122

It is only when representative government replaces self-management that

12123

political debate results in "elected dictatorship" and centralisation of

12124

power into the hands of one party which claims to speak for the whole of

12125

society, as if the latter had one mind.

12126

12127

I.5.11 What about interest groups and other associations?

12128

12129

Anarchists do not think that social life can be reduced to political

12130

and economic associations alone. Individuals have many different

12131

interests and desires which they must express in order to have a

12132

truly free and interesting life. Therefore an anarchist society

12133

will see the development of numerous voluntary associations and

12134

groups to express these interests. For example, there would be

12135

consumer groups, musical groups, scientific associations, art

12136

associations, clubs, housing co-operatives and associations,

12137

craft and hobby guilds, fan clubs, animal rights associations,

12138

groups based around sex, sexuality, creed and colour and so forth.

12139

Associations will be created for all human interests and activities.

12140

12141

As Kropotkin argued:

12142

12143

"He who wishes for a grand piano will enter the association of musical

12144

instrument makers. And by giving the association part of his half-days'

12145

leisure, he will soon possess the piano of his dreams. If he is fond of

12146

astronomical studies he will join the association of astronomers. . .

12147

and he will have the telescope he desires by taking his share of the

12148

associated work. . .In short, the five or seven hours a day which each

12149

will have at his disposal, after having consecrated several hours to the

12150

production of necessities, would amply suffice to satisfy all longings for

12151

luxury, however varied. Thousands of associations would undertake to

12152

supply them." [_The Conquest of Bread_, p. 120]

12153

12154

We can imagine, therefore, an anarchist society being based around

12155

associations and interest groups on every subject which fires the

12156

imagination of individuals and for which individuals want to meet in

12157

order to express and further their interests. Housing associations,

12158

for example, would exist to allow inhabitants to manage their local

12159

areas, design and maintain their homes and local parks and gardens.

12160

Animal rights and other interest groups would produce information on

12161

issues they consider important, trying to convince others of the

12162

errors of eating meat or whatever. Consumer groups would be in dialogue

12163

with syndicates about improving products and services, ensuring that

12164

syndicates produce what is required by consumers. Environment groups

12165

would exist to watch production and make sure that it is not creating

12166

damaging side effects and informing both syndicates and communes of

12167

their findings. Feminist, homosexual, bisexual and anti-racist groups

12168

would exist to put their ideas across, highlighting areas in which social

12169

hierarchies and prejudice still existed. All across society, people

12170

would be associating together to express themselves and convince others

12171

of their ideas on many different issues.

12172

12173

Hence in a anarchist society, free association would take on a stronger

12174

and more positive role than under capitalism. In this way, social life

12175

would take on many dimensions, and the individual would have the choice of

12176

thousands of societies to join to meet his or her interests or create new

12177

ones with other like-minded people. Anarchists would be the last to deny

12178

that there is more to life than work!

12179

12180

I.5.12 Would an anarchist society provide health care and other

12181

public services?

12182

12183

It depends on the type of anarchist society you are talking about.

12184

Different anarchists propose different solutions.

12185

12186

In an individualist-mutualist society, for example, health care

12187

and other public services would be provided by individuals or

12188

co-operatives on a pay-for-use basis. It would be likely that

12189

individuals or co-operatives/associations would subscribe to

12190

various insurance providers or enter into direct contracts

12191

with health care providers. Thus the system would be similar

12192

to privatised health care but without the profit margins as

12193

competition, it is hoped, would drive prices down to cost.

12194

12195

Other anarchists reject such a system. They are favour of

12196

socialising health care and other public services. They argue

12197

that a privatised system would only be able to meet the

12198

requirements of those who can afford to pay for it and so

12199

would be unjust and unfair. The need for medical attention is

12200

not dependent on income and so a civilised society would

12201

recognise this fact. Under capitalism, profit-maximising

12202

medical insurance sets premiums according to the risks of

12203

the insured getting ill or injured, with the riskiest may

12204

not being able to find insurance at any price. Private

12205

insurers shun entire industries, such as logging, as too

12206

dangerous for their profits due to the likelihood of accidents

12207

or illness. They review contracts regularly and drop people who

12208

get sick. Hardly a vision to inspire a free society or one

12209

compatible with equality and mutual respect.

12210

12211

Moreover, competition would lead to inefficiencies as prices

12212

would be inflated to pay for advertising, competition related

12213

administration costs, paying dividends to share-holders and so on.

12214

For example, in 1993, Canada's health plans devoted 0.9% of spending

12215

to overhead, compared to U.S. figures of 3.2% for Medicare and 12%

12216

for private insurers. In addition, when Canada adopted its publicly

12217

financed system in 1971, it and the U.S. both spent just over 7%

12218

of GDP on health care. By 1990, the U.S. was up to 12.3%, verses

12219

Canada's 9%.

12220

12221

As can be seen, social anarchists point to what happens under

12222

capitalism when discussing the benefits of a socialised system

12223

of health care in an anarchist society. Competition, they argue,

12224

harms health-care provision. According to Alfie Kohn:

12225

12226

"More hospitals and clinics are being run by for-profit

12227

corporations; many institutions, forced to battle for 'customers,'

12228

seem to value a skilled director of marketing more highly than a

12229

skilled caregiver. As in any other economic sector, the race for

12230

profits translates into pressure to reduce costs, and the easiest

12231

way to do it here is to cut back on services to unprofitable

12232

patients, that is, those who are more sick than rich . . ."

12233

12234

He concludes:

12235

12236

"The result: hospital costs are actually *higher* in areas

12237

where there is more competition for patients." [Alfie Kohn,

12238

_No Contest_, p. 240]

12239

12240

As Robert Kuttner notes:

12241

12242

"The American health-care system is a tangle of inequity and

12243

inefficiency -- and getting worse as private-market forces

12244

seek to rationalise it. A shift to a universal system

12245

of health coverage would cut this Gordian knot at a stroke.

12246

It would not only deliver the explicitly medical aspects

12247

of health more efficiently and fairly, but, by socialising

12248

costs of poor health, it would also create a powerful

12249

financial incentive for society as a whole to stress primary

12250

prevention. . . every nation with a universal system

12251

spends less of its GDP on health care than the United States

12252

. . . And nearly every other nation with a universal system

12253

has longer life spans from birth (though roughly equivalent

12254

life spans from adulthood) . . . most nations with universal

12255

systems also have greater patient satisfaction.

12256

12257

"The reasons . . . should be obvious. By their nature, universal

12258

systems spend less money on wasteful overhead, and more on

12259

primary prevention. Health-insurance overhead in the United

12260

States alone consumes about 1 percent of the GDP, compared

12261

to 0.1 percent in Canada. Though medical inflation is a

12262

problem everywhere, the universal systems have had far

12263

lower rates of cost inflation . . . In the years between

12264

1980 and 1987, total health costs in the United States

12265

increased by 2.4 times the rate of GDP growth. In nations

12266

with universal systems, they increased far more slowly.

12267

The figures for Sweden, France, West Germany, and Britain

12268

were 1.2, 1.6, 1.8, and 1.7 percent, respectively . . .

12269

12270

[. . . ]

12271

12272

"Remarkably enough, the United States spends most money

12273

on health care, but has the fewest beds per thousand in

12274

population, the lowest admission rate, and the lowest

12275

occupancy rate -- coupled with the highest daily cost,

12276

highest technology-intensiveness, and greatest number

12277

of employees per bed." [_Everything for Sale_, pp. 155-6]

12278

12279

In 1993, the US paid 13.4% of its GDP towards health care,

12280

compared to 10% for Canada, 8.6% for Sweden and Germany,

12281

6.6% for Britain and 6.8% for Japan. Only 40% of the US

12282

population was covered by public health care and over 35

12283

million people, 14% of the population, went without health

12284

insurance for all of 1991, and about twice that many were

12285

uninsured for some period during the year. In terms of

12286

health indicators, the US people are not getting value

12287

for money. Life expectancy is higher in Canada, Sweden,

12288

Germany, Japan and Britain. The USA has the highest levels

12289

of infant mortality and is last in basic health indicators

12290

as well as having fewer doctors per 1,000 people than the

12291

OECD average. All in all, the US system is miles begin the

12292

universal systems of other countries.

12293

12294

Of course, it will be argued that the USA is not an anarchy and

12295

so comparisons are pointless. However, it seems strange that

12296

the more competitive system, the more privatised system, is

12297

less efficient and less fair than the universal systems. It

12298

also seems strange that defenders of competition happily

12299

use examples from "actually existing" capitalism to illustrate

12300

their politics but reject negative examples as being a product

12301

of an "impure" system. They want to have their cake and eat

12302

it to.

12303

12304

Therefore, most anarchists are in favour of a socialised and

12305

universal health-care system for both ethical and efficiency

12306

reasons. Needless to say, an anarchist system of socialised

12307

health care would differ in many ways to the current systems

12308

of universal health-care provided by the state.

12309

12310

Such a system of socialised health-care will be built from

12311

the bottom-up and based around the local commune. In a social

12312

anarchist society, "medical services . . . will be free of

12313

charge to all inhabitants of the commune. The doctors will

12314

not be like capitalists, trying to extract the greatest

12315

profit from their unfortunate patients. They will be employed

12316

by the commune and expected to treat all who need their

12317

services." Moreover, prevention will play an important

12318

part, as "medical treatment is only the *curative* side of

12319

the science of health care; it is not enough to treat the

12320

sick, it is also necessary to prevent disease. That is the

12321

true function of hygiene." [James Guillaume, _Bakunin on

12322

Anarchism_, p. 371]

12323

12324

How would an anarchist health service work? It would be based

12325

on self-management, of course, with close links to the local

12326

commune and federations of communes. Each hospital or health

12327

centre would be autonomous but linked in a federation with

12328

the others, allowing resources to be shared as and when required

12329

while allowing the health service to adjust to local needs and

12330

requirements as quickly as possible.

12331

12332

The Spanish Revolution indicates how an anarchist health service

12333

would operate. In rural areas local doctors would usually join the

12334

village collective and provided their services like any other

12335

worker. Where local doctors were not available, "arrangements

12336

were made by the collectives for treatment of their members by

12337

hospitals in nearby localities. In a few cases, collectives

12338

themselves build hospitals; in many they acquired equipment

12339

and other things needed by their local physicians." For example,

12340

the Monzon comercal (district) federation of collectives in Aragon

12341

established maintained a hospital in Binefar, the Casa de Salud

12342

Durruti. By April 1937 it had 40 beds, in sections which included

12343

general medicine, prophylaxis and gynaecology. It saw about 25

12344

outpatients a day and was open to anyone in the 32 villages of

12345

the comarca. [Robert Alexander, _The Anarchists in the Spanish

12346

Civil War_, vol. 1, p. 331 and pp. 366-7]

12347

12348

The socialisation of the health care took on a slightly different

12349

form in Catalonia but on the same libertarian principles. Gaston

12350

Leval provides us with an excellent summary:

12351

12352

"The socialisation of health services was one of the greatest

12353

achievements of the revolution. To appreciate the efforts of

12354

our comrades it must be borne in mind that the rehabilitated

12355

the health service in all of Catalonia in so short a time

12356

after July 19th. The revolution could count on the co-operation

12357

of a number of dedicated doctors whose ambition was not to

12358

accumulate wealth but to serve the afflicted and the

12359

underprivileged.

12360

12361

"The Health Workers' Union was founded in September, 1936. In

12362

line with the tendency to unite all the different classifications,

12363

trades, and services serving a given industry, *all* health

12364

workers, from porters to doctors and administrators, were

12365

organised into one big union of health workers

12366

12367

[. . .]

12368

12369

"Our comrades laid the foundations of a new health service . . .

12370

The new medical service embraced all of Catalonia. It constituted

12371

a great apparatus whose parts were distributed according to

12372

different needs, all in accord with an overall plan. Catalonia

12373

was divided into nine zones . . . In turn, all the surrounding

12374

villages and towns were served from these centres.

12375

12376

"Distributed throughout Catalonia were twenty-seven towns with

12377

a total of thirty-sex health centres conducting services so

12378

thoroughly that every village, every hamlet, every isolated

12379

peasant in the mountains, every woman, every child, anywhere,

12380

received adequate, up-to-date medical care. In each of the

12381

nine zones there was a central syndicate and a Control

12382

Committee located in Barcelona. Every department was

12383

autonomous within its own sphere. But this autonomy was not

12384

synonymous with isolation. The Central Committee in Barcelona,

12385

chosen by all the sections, met once a week with one delegate

12386

from each section to deal with common problems and to

12387

implement the general plan. . .

12388

12389

"The people immediately benefited from the projects of the

12390

health syndicate. The syndicate managed all hospitals and

12391

clinics. Six hospitals were opened in Barcelona. . . Eight

12392

new sanitariums were installed in converted luxurious homes

12393

ideally situated amidst mountains and pine forests. It was

12394

no easy task to convert these homes into efficient hospitals

12395

with all new facilities. . ." [quoted by Sam Dolgoff, _The

12396

Anarchist Collectives_, pp. 99-100]

12397

12398

People were no longer required to pay for medical services. Each

12399

collective, if it could afford it, would pay a contribution to

12400

its health centre. Building and facilities were improved and

12401

modern equipment introduced. Like other self-managed industries,

12402

the health service was run at all levels by general assemblies

12403

of workers who elected delegates and hospital administration.

12404

12405

In the Levante, the CNT built upon its existing Sociedad de

12406

Socorros Mutuos de Levante (a health service institution founded

12407

by the union as a kind of mutual benefit society which had numerous

12408

doctors and specialists). During the revolution, the Mutua had

12409

50 doctors and was available to all affiliated workers and

12410

their families.

12411

12412

Thus, all across Spain, the workers in the health service

12413

re-organised their industry in libertarian lines and in

12414

association with the local collective or commune and the

12415

unions of the CNT. As Gaston Leval summarises:

12416

12417

"Everywhere that we were able to study the towns and little

12418

cities transformed by the revolution, the hospitals, the

12419

clinics, the polyclincs and other health establishments

12420

have been municipalised, enlarged, modernised, put under

12421

the safekeeping of the collectivity. And where they didn't

12422

exist, they were improvised. The socialisation of medicine

12423

was a work for the benefit of all." [quoted by Robert

12424

Alexander, Op. Cit., p. 677]

12425

12426

We can expect a similar process to occur in the future

12427

anarchist society. Workers in the health industry will

12428

organise their workplaces, federate together to share

12429

resources and information, to formulate plans and improve

12430

the quality of service to the public. The communes and

12431

their federations, the syndicates and federations of syndicates

12432

will provide resources and effectively own the health system,

12433

ensuring access for all.

12434

12435

Similar systems would operate in other public services. For example,

12436

in education we expect the members of communes to organise a

12437

system of free schools. This can be seen from the Spanish revolution.

12438

Indeed, the Spanish anarchists organised Modern Schools before the

12439

outbreak of the revolution, with 50 to 100 schools in various parts

12440

funded by local anarchist groups and CNT unions. During the revolution

12441

everywhere across Spain, syndicates, collectives and federations

12442

of collectives formed and founded schools. Indeed, education "advanced

12443

at an unprecedented pace. Most of the partly or wholly socialised

12444

collectives and municipalities built at least one school. By 1938,

12445

for example, every collective in the Levant Federation had its own

12446

school." [Gaston Leval, quoted by Sam Dolgoff, _The Anarchist

12447

Collectives_, p. 168] These schools aimed, to quote the CNT's

12448

resolution on Libertarian Communism, to "help mould men with

12449

minds of their own -- and let it be clear that when we use the

12450

word 'men' we use it in the generic sense -- to which end it will

12451

be necessary for the teacher to cultivate every one of the child's

12452

faculties so that the child may develop every one of its capacities

12453

to the full." [quoted by Jose Periats, _The CNT in the Spanish

12454

Revolution_, p. 70] The principles of libertarian education, of

12455

encouraging freedom instead of authority in the school, was

12456

applied on vast scale (see section J.5.13 for more details on

12457

Modern Schools and libertarian education).

12458

12459

This educational revolution was not confined to collectives or

12460

children. For example, the Federacion Regional de Campesinos de

12461

Levante formed institutes in each of its five provinces. The

12462

first was set up in October 1937 in an old convent with 100

12463

students. The Federation also set up two "universities" in

12464

Valencia and Madrid which taught a wide variety of agricultural

12465

subjects and combined learning with practical experience in an

12466

experimental form attached to each university. The Aragon

12467

collectives formed a similar specialised school in Binefar. The

12468

CNT was heavily involved in transforming education in Catalonia.

12469

In addition, the local federation of the CNT in Barcelona

12470

established a school to train women workers to replace male

12471

ones being taken into the army. The school was run by the

12472

anarchist-feminist group the Mujeres Libres. [Robert Alexander,

12473

Op. Cit., p. 406, p. 670 and pp. 665-8 and p. 670]

12474

12475

Ultimately, the public services that exist in a social anarchist

12476

society will be dependent on what members of that society desire.

12477

If, for example, a commune or federation of communes desires a

12478

system of communal health-care or schools then they will allocate

12479

resources to implement it. They will allocate the task of creating

12480

such a system to, say, a special commission based on volunteers

12481

from the interested parties such as the relevant syndicates,

12482

professional associations, consumer groups and so on. For example,

12483

for communal education a commission or working group would include

12484

delegates from the teachers union, from parent associations, from

12485

student unions and so on. The running of such a system would be

12486

based, like any other industry, on those who work in it. Functional

12487

self-management would be the rule, with doctors managing their

12488

work, nurses theirs and so on, while the general running of, say,

12489

a hospital would be based on a general assembly of all workers

12490

there who would elect and mandate delegates, the administration

12491

staff and decide the policy the hospital would follow. Needless

12492

to say, other interested parties would have a say, including

12493

patients in the health system and students in the education

12494

system.

12495

12496

Thus, as would be expected, public services would be organised

12497

by the public, organised in their syndicates and communes. They

12498

would be based on workers' self-management of their daily work

12499

and of the system as a whole. Non-workers who took part in the

12500

system (patients, students) would not be ignored and would also

12501

place a role in providing essential feedback to assure quality

12502

control of services and to ensure that the service is responsive

12503

to users needs. The resources required to maintain and expand

12504

the system would be provided by the communes, syndicates and

12505

their federations. For the first time, public services would

12506

truly be public and not a statist system imposed upon the

12507

public from above.

12508

12509

Needless to say, any system of public services would not be imposed

12510

on those who did not desire it. They would be organised for and

12511

by members of the communes. Therefore, individuals who were

12512

not part of a local commune or syndicate would have to pay to

12513

gain access to the communal resources. However, it is unlikely

12514

that an anarchist society would be as barbaric as a capitalist

12515

one and refuse entry to cases who were ill and could not pay,

12516

nor turn away emergencies because they did not have enough money

12517

to pay. And just as other workers need not join a syndicate

12518

or commune, so doctors, teachers and so on could practice their

12519

trade outside the communal system as either individual artisans

12520

or as part of a co-operative. However, given the availability

12521

of free medical services it is doubtful they would grow rich

12522

doing so. Medicine, teaching and so on would revert back to what

12523

usually initially motivates people to take these up professions --

12524

the desire to help others and make a positive impact in peoples

12525

lives.

12526

12527

I.5.13 Won't an anarchist society be vulnerable to the power hungry?

12528

12529

A common objection to anarchism is that an anarchist society will

12530

be vulnerable to be taken over by thugs or those who seek power. A

12531

similar argument is that a group without a leadership structure

12532

becomes open to charismatic leaders so anarchy would just lead to

12533

tyranny.

12534

12535

For anarchists, such arguments are strange. Society already *is*

12536

run by thugs and/or the off-spring of thugs. Kings were originally

12537

just successful thugs who succeeded in imposing their domination

12538

over a given territorial area. The modern state has evolved from

12539

the structure created to impose this domination. Similarly with

12540

property, with most legal titles to land being traced back to

12541

its violent seizure by thugs who then passed it on to their

12542

children who then sold it or gave it to their offspring. The

12543

origins of the current system in violence can be seen by the

12544

continued use of violence by the state and capitalists to enforce

12545

and protect their domination over society. When push comes to

12546

shove, the dominant class will happily re-discover their thug

12547

past and employ extreme violence to maintain their privileges.

12548

The descent of large parts of Europe into Fascism during the

12549

1930s, or Pinochet's coup in Chile in 1973 indicates how far

12550

they will go. As Peter Arshinov argued (in a slightly different

12551

context):

12552

12553

"Statists fear free people. They claim that without authority

12554

people will lose the anchor of sociability, will dissipate

12555

themselves, and will return to savagery. This is obviously

12556

rubbish. It is taken seriously by idlers, lovers of authority

12557

and of the labour of others, or by blind thinkers of bourgeois

12558

society. The liberation of the people in reality leads to the

12559

degeneration and return to savagery, not of the people, but

12560

of those who, thanks to power and privilege, live from the

12561

labour of the people's arms and from the blood of the people's

12562

veins . . . The liberation of the people leads to the savagery

12563

of those who live from its enslavement." [_The History of the

12564

Makhnovist Movement_, p. 85]

12565

12566

Anarchists are not impressed with the argument that anarchy

12567

would be unable to stop thugs seizing power. It ignores the

12568

fact that we live in a society where the power-hungry already

12569

hold power. As an argument against anarchism it fails and is,

12570

in fact, an argument against capitalist and statist societies.

12571

12572

Moreover, it also ignores fact that people in an anarchist society

12573

would have gained their freedom by overthrowing every existing and

12574

would-be thug who had or desired power over others. They would have

12575

defended that freedom against those who desired to re-impose it.

12576

They would have organised themselves to manage their own affairs

12577

and, therefore, to abolish all hierarchical power. And we are to

12578

believe that these people, after struggling to become free, would

12579

quietly let a new set of thugs impose themselves? As Kropotkin

12580

argued:

12581

12582

"The only way in which a state of Anarchy can be obtained

12583

is for each man [or woman] who is oppressed to act as if

12584

he [or she] were at liberty, in defiance of all authority

12585

to the contrary . . . In practical fact, territorial

12586

extension is necessary to ensure permanency to any given

12587

individual revolution. In speaking of the Revolution, we

12588

signify the aggregate of so many successful individual

12589

and group revolts as will enable every person within the

12590

revolutionised territory to act in perfect freedom . . .

12591

without having to constantly dread the prevention or the

12592

vengeance of an opposing power upholding the former system

12593

. . . Under these circumstance it is obvious that any

12594

visible reprisal could and would be met by a resumption of

12595

the same revolutionary action on the part of the individuals

12596

or groups affected, and that the *maintenance* of a state

12597

of Anarchy in this manner would be far easier than the

12598

gaining of a state of Anarchy by the same methods and in

12599

the face of hitherto unshaken opposition . . . They have

12600

it in their power to apply a prompt check by boycotting

12601

such a person and refusing to help him with their labour

12602

or to willing supply him with any articles in their

12603

possession. They have it in their power to use force

12604

against him. They have these powers individually as well

12605

as collectively. Being either past rebels who have been

12606

inspired with the spirit of liberty, or else habituated to

12607

enjoy freedom from their infancy, they are hardly to rest

12608

passive in view of what they feel to be wrong." [Kropotkin,

12609

_Act for Yourselves_, pp. 87-8]

12610

12611

Thus a free society would use direct action to resist the

12612

would-be ruler just as it had used direct action to free

12613

itself from existing rulers. An anarchist society would be

12614

organised in a way which would facilitate this direct action

12615

as it would be based on networks of solidarity and mutual aid.

12616

An injury to one is an injury to all and a would-be ruler

12617

would face a whole liberated society acting against him or

12618

her. Faced with the direct action of the population (which

12619

would express itself in non-co-operation, strikes, demonstrations,

12620

occupations, insurrections and so on) a would be power seeker

12621

would find it difficult to impose themselves. Unlike those

12622

accustomed to rulership in existing society, an anarchist

12623

people would be a society of rebels and so difficult to

12624

dominate and conquer.

12625

12626

Anarchists point to the example of the rise of Fascism in

12627

Italy, Spain and Germany to prove their point. In areas

12628

with strong anarchist movements the fascists were

12629

resisted most strongly. While in Germany Hitler took

12630

power with little or no opposition, in Italy and

12631

Spain the fascists had to fight long and hard to

12632

gain power. The anarchist and anarcho-syndicalist

12633

organisations fought the fascists tooth and nail,

12634

with some success before betrayal by the Republicans

12635

and Marxists. From this historical experience anarchists

12636

argue that an anarchist society would quickly and

12637

easily defeat would-be thugs as people would be

12638

used to practising direct action and self-management

12639

and would have no desire to stop practising them.

12640

12641

As for self-management resulting in "charismatic" leaders, well

12642

the logic is astounding. As if hierarchical structures are *not*

12643

based on leadership structures and do not require a charismatic

12644

leader! Such an argument is inherently self-contradictory -- as

12645

well as ignoring the nature of modern society and its leadership

12646

structures. Rather than mass assemblies being dominated by

12647

leaders, it is the case that hierarchical structures are the

12648

natural breeding ground for dictators. All the great dictators

12649

the world have seen have come to the forefront in *hierarchical*

12650

organisations, *not* libertarian structured ones. Hitler, for

12651

example, did not come to power via a libertarian organisation.

12652

Rather he used a highly centralised and hierarchically organised

12653

party to take control of a centralised, hierarchical state. The

12654

very disempowerment of the population in capitalist society results

12655

in them looking to leaders to act for them and so "charismatic"

12656

leaders are a natural result. An anarchist society, by empowering

12657

all, would make it more difficult, not less, for a would-be

12658

leader to gain power -- few people, if any, would be willing

12659

to sacrifice and negate themselves for the benefit of another.

12660

12661

As would be expected, given our comments above, anarchists think

12662

an anarchist society must defend itself against attempts to

12663

re-introduce the state or private property. The question of

12664

defence of an anarchist society is discussed in the next section

12665

and so we will not do so here.

12666

12667

Our discussion on the power hungry obviously relates to the more general

12668

the question of whether ethical behaviour be rewarded in an anarchist

12669

society. In other words, could an anarchist society be stable or would

12670

the unethical take over?

12671

12672

It is one of the most disturbing aspects of living in a world where the

12673

rush to acquire wealth is the single most important aspect of living is

12674

what happens to people who follow an ethical path in life.

12675

12676

Under capitalism, the ethical generally do not succeed as well as those

12677

stab their fellows in the back, those who cut corners, indulge in sharp

12678

business practises, drive competitors into the ground and live their lives

12679

with an eye on the bottom line but they do survive. Loyalty to a firm or

12680

a group, bending over backwards to provide a service, giving a helping

12681

hand to somebody in need, placing friendship above money, count for

12682

nothing when the bills come in. People who act ethically in a capitalist

12683

society are usually punished and penalised for their ethical, moral and

12684

principled behaviour. Indeed, the capitalist market rewards unethical

12685

behaviour as it generally reduces costs and so gives those who do it

12686

a competitive edge.

12687

12688

It is different in a free society. Anarchism is based on two principles

12689

of association, equal access to power and wealth. Everybody in an anarchist

12690

society irrespective of what they do, or who they are or what type of work

12691

they perform is entitled to share in society's wealth. Whether a community

12692

survives or prospers depends on the combined efforts of the people in that

12693

community. Ethical behaviour would become the norm in an anarchist community;

12694

those people who act ethically would be rewarded by the standing they achieve

12695

in the community and by others being more than happy to work with and aid

12696

them. People who cut corners, try to exercise power over others, refuse

12697

to co-operate as equals or otherwise act in an unethical manner would

12698

lose their standing in an anarchist society. Their neighbours and work

12699

mates would refuse to co-operate with them (or reduce co-operation to

12700

a minimum) and take other forms of non-violent direct action to point

12701

out that certain forms of activity was inappropriate. They would discuss

12702

the issue with the unethical person and try to convince them of the errors

12703

of their way. In a society where the necessities are guaranteed,

12704

people would tend to act ethically because ethical behaviour raises an

12705

individuals profile and standing within such a community. Capitalism and

12706

ethical behaviour are mutually exclusive concepts; anarchism encourages and

12707

rewards ethical behaviour.

12708

12709

Therefore, as can be seen, anarchists argue that a free society would

12710

not have to fear would-be thugs, "charismatic" leaders or the unethical.

12711

An anarchist society would be based on the co-operation of free individuals.

12712

It is unlikely that they would tolerate such behaviour and would use

12713

their own direct action as well as social and economic organisations to

12714

combat it. Moreover, the nature of free co-operation would reward ethical

12715

behaviour as those who practice it would have it reciprocated by their

12716

fellows.

12717

12718

One last point. Some people seem to think that anarchism is about

12719

the powerful being appealed to *not* to oppress and dominate others.

12720

Far from it. Anarchism is about the oppressed and exploited refusing

12721

to let others dominate them. It is *not* an appeal to the "better

12722

side" of the boss or would-be boss; it is about the solidarity and

12723

direct action of those subject to a boss *getting rid of the boss* --

12724

whether the boss agrees to it or not! Once this is clearly understood

12725

the idea that an anarchist society is vulnerable to the power-hungry

12726

is clearly nonsense -- anarchy is based on resisting power and so

12727

is, by its very nature, more resistant to would-be rulers than

12728

a hierarchical one.

12729

12730

I.5.14 How could an anarchist society defend itself?

12731

12732

Anarchists are well aware that an anarchist society will have

12733

to defend itself from both inside and outside attempts to

12734

re-impose capitalism and the state. Indeed, every revolutionary

12735

anarchist has argued that a revolution will have to defend itself.

12736

12737

Unfortunately, Marxists have consistently misrepresented anarchist

12738

ideas on this subject. Lenin, for example, argued that the

12739

"proletariat needs the state only temporarily. We do not at all

12740

disagree with the anarchists on the question of the abolition

12741

of the state as an *aim.* We maintain that, to achieve this aim,

12742

we must temporarily make use of the instruments, resources and

12743

methods of state power *against* the exploiters, just as the

12744

dictatorship of the oppressed class is temporarily necessary

12745

for the abolition of classes. Marx chooses the sharpest and

12746

clearest way of stating his position against the anarchists:

12747

after overthrowing the yoke of the capitalists, should

12748

workers 'lay down their arms' or use them against the

12749

capitalists in order to crush their resistance? But what is

12750

the systematic use of arms by one class against the other,

12751

if not a 'transitory form' of state." ["The State and

12752

Revolution", _Essential Works of Lenin_, p. 316]

12753

12754

Fortunately, as Murray Bookchin points out, anarchists are "not

12755

so naive as to believe anarchism could be established overnight. In

12756

imputing this notion to Bakunin, Marx and Engels wilfully distorted

12757

the Russian anarchist's views. Nor did the anarchists . . . believe

12758

that the abolition of the state involved 'laying down arms'

12759

immediately after the revolution. . ." [_Post-Scarcity Anarchism_,

12760

p. 213] Even a basic familiarity with the work of anarchist thinkers

12761

would make the reader aware that Bookchin is right. As we shall

12762

see, anarchists have consistently argued that a revolution and

12763

an anarchist society needs to be defended against those who would

12764

try and re-introduce hierarchy, domination, oppression and

12765

exploitation (even, as with Leninists, they call themselves

12766

"socialists"). As Malatesta argued in 1891:

12767

12768

"Many suppose that . . . anarchists, in the name of their principles,

12769

would wish to see that strange liberty respected which violates and

12770

destroys the freedom and life of others. They seem almost to believe

12771

that after having brought down government and private property

12772

we would allow both to be quietly built up again, because of a

12773

respect for the *freedom* of those who might feel the need to

12774

be rulers and property owners. A truly curious way of interpreting

12775

our ideas!" [_Anarchy_, p. 41]

12776

12777

Anarchists reject the idea that defending a revolution, or even

12778

the act of revolution itself, represents or requires a "state." As

12779

Malatesta argued, the state "means the delegation of power, that

12780

is the abdication of initiative and sovereignty of all into the

12781

hands of a few." [Op. Cit., p. 40] Luigi Fabbri stresses this when

12782

he argued that, for anarchists, "the essence of the state . . .

12783

[is] centralised power *or to put it another way the coercive

12784

authority* of which the state enjoys the monopoly, in that

12785

organisation of violence know as 'government'; in the

12786

hierarchical despotism, juridical, police and military

12787

despotism that imposes laws on everyone." ["Anarchy and

12788

'Scientific' Communism", in _The Poverty of Statism_,

12789

pp. 13-49, Albert Meltzer (ed.), pp. 24-5] Therefore the

12790

state is the delegation of power, the centralisation of

12791

authority into the hands of a few at the top of society

12792

rather than a means of defending a revolution against the

12793

expropriated ruling class. To confuse the defence of a

12794

revolution and the state is, therefore, a great mistake

12795

as it introduces an inequality of power into a so-called

12796

socialist society. In the words of Voline:

12797

12798

"*All political power inevitably creates a privileged

12799

situation* for the men who exercise it. Thus is violates,

12800

from the beginning, the equalitarian principle and strikes

12801

at the heart of the Social Revolution . . . [and] becomes

12802

the source of other privileges . . . *power is compelled to

12803

create a bureaucratic and coercive apparatus* indispensable

12804

to all authority . . . *Thus it forms a new privileged

12805

caste,* at first politically and later economically. . .

12806

It sows everywhere the seed of inequality and soon infects

12807

the whole social organism . . . It *predisposes the masses

12808

to passivity,* and all sprite and initiative is stifled by

12809

the very existence of power, in the extent to which it is

12810

exercised." [_The Unknown Revolution_, p. 249]

12811

12812

Unsurprisingly, anarchists think a revolution should defend

12813

itself in the same way that it organises itself -- from the

12814

bottom up, in a self-managed way. The means to defend an

12815

anarchist society or revolution are based around the organs

12816

of self-management that revolution creates. In the words of

12817

Bakunin:

12818

12819

"[T]he federative Alliance of all working men's associations . . .

12820

constitute the Commune . . .. Commune will be organised by the

12821

standing federation of the Barricades and by the creation of

12822

a Revolutionary Communal Council composed of one or two

12823

delegates from each barricade . . . vested with plenary but

12824

accountable and removable mandates . . . all provinces, communes

12825

and associations . . . *reorganising* on revolutionary lines

12826

. . . [would] send . . . their representatives to an agreed

12827

meeting place . . . vested with similar mandates to constitute

12828

the federation of insurgent associations, communes and provinces

12829

. . . [which would] organise a revolutionary force capable of

12830

defeating reaction . . . it is the very fact of the expansion

12831

and organisation of the revolution for the purpose of self-defence

12832

among the insurgent areas that will bring about the triumph of

12833

the revolution. . .

12834

12835

"Since revolution everywhere must be created by the people, and

12836

supreme control must always belong to the people organised in

12837

a free federation of agricultural and industrial associations

12838

. . . organised from the bottom upwards by means of revolutionary

12839

delegation. . . " [_Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings_, pp. 170-2]

12840

12841

Thus we have a dual framework of revolution. On the one hand, the

12842

federation of workers' councils based on self-managed assemblies

12843

nominating mandated and accountable delegates. On the other, we

12844

have a federation of barricades, again based on self-management

12845

and mandated delegates, which actually defends the revolution

12846

against reaction. The success of the revolution depends on

12847

spreading it and organising joint self-defence. He stressed

12848

the importance of co-ordinating defence two years later, in

12849

1870:

12850

12851

"[L]et us suppose . . . it is Paris that starts [the revolution]

12852

. . . Paris will naturally make haste to organise itself as best

12853

it can, in revolutionary style, after the workers have joined into

12854

associations and made a clean sweep of all the instruments of

12855

labour, every kind of capital and building; armed and organised

12856

by streets and *quartiers*, they will form the revolutionary

12857

federation of all the *quartiers*, the federative commune. . .

12858

All the French and foreign revolutionary communes will then

12859

send representatives to organise the necessary common services

12860

. . . and to organise common defence against the enemies of

12861

the Revolution, together with propaganda, the weapon of

12862

revolution, and practical revolutionary solidarity with

12863

friends in all countries against enemies in all countries."

12864

[Op. Cit., p. 178-9]

12865

12866

As can be seen, the revolution not only abolishes the state by

12867

a free federation of workers associations, it also expropriates

12868

capital and ends wage labour. Thus the "political revolution

12869

is transformed into social revolution." [Op. Cit., p. 171]

12870

Which, we must add, destroys another Marxist myth that claims

12871

that anarchists think, to quote Engels, that "the state is

12872

the chief evil, [and] it is above all the state which must

12873

be done away with and then capitalism will go to blazes," in

12874

other words, the "abolition of the state" comes before the

12875

"social revolution." [Marx and Engels, _The Marx-Engels

12876

Reader_ p. 728] As can be clearly seen, anarchists consider

12877

the social revolution to be, *at the same time*, the abolition

12878

of the state *along with* the abolition of capitalism.

12879

12880

Therefore, Bakunin was well aware of the needs to defend a revolution

12881

after destroying the state and abolishing capitalism. It is clear

12882

that after a successful rising, the revolutionary population does

12883

*not* "lay down their arms" but rather organises itself in a federal

12884

to co-ordinate defence against reactionary areas which seek to

12885

destroy it.

12886

12887

Nor was Bakunin alone in this analysis. For example, we discover

12888

Errico Malatesta arguing that during a revolution we should "[a]rm

12889

all the population." The revolution would have "armed the people

12890

so that it can resist any armed attempt by reaction to re-establish

12891

itself." This revolution would involve "creation of a voluntary

12892

militia, without powers to interfere as militia in the life of the

12893

community, but only to deal with any armed attacks by the forces

12894

of reaction to re-establish themselves, or to resist outside

12895

intervention by countries as yet not in a state of revolution."

12896

Like Bakunin, Malatesta stresses the importance of co-ordinating

12897

activity via free federations of workers' associations -- "the

12898

development of the revolution would be the task of volunteers,

12899

by all kinds of committees, local, intercommunal, regional

12900

and national congresses which would attend to the co-ordination

12901

of social activity," the "[o]rganisation of social life

12902

by means of free association and federations of producers

12903

and consumers, created and modified according to the wishes

12904

of their members," and so be "under the direct control of the

12905

people." Again, like Bakunin, the revolution would abolish

12906

state and capital, and "the workers . . . [should] take possession

12907

of the factories . . . federate among themselves . . . the

12908

peasants should take over the land and the produce usurped

12909

by the landlords." Ultimately, the "most powerful means for

12910

defending the revolution remains always that of taking away

12911

from the bourgeois the economic means on which their power

12912

rests, and of arming everybody (until such time as one will

12913

have managed to persuade everybody to throw away their

12914

arms as useless and dangerous toys), and of interesting

12915

the mass of the population in the victory of the revolution."

12916

[_Life and Ideas_, p. 170, p. 165, p. 166, pp. 165-6, p. 184,

12917

p. 175, p. 165 and p. 173]

12918

12919

Malatesta stresses that a government is not required to

12920

defend a revolution:

12921

12922

"But, by all means, let us admit that the governments of the still

12923

unemancipated countries were to want to, and could, attempt to

12924

reduce free people to a state of slavery once again. Would this

12925

people require a government to defend itself? To wage war men

12926

are needed who have all the necessary geographical and mechanical

12927

knowledge, and above all large masses of the population willing

12928

to go and fight. A government can neither increase the abilities

12929

of the former nor the will and courage of the latter. And the

12930

experience of history teaches us that a people who really want to

12931

defend their own country are invincible: and in Italy everyone

12932

knows that before the corps of volunteers (anarchist formations)

12933

thrones topple, and regular armies composed of conscripts or

12934

mercenaries disappear." [_Anarchy_, pp. 40-1]

12935

12936

The Spanish anarchist D. A. Santillan argued that the "local

12937

Council of Economy will assume the mission of defence and raise

12938

voluntary corps for guard duty and if need be, for combat" in

12939

the "cases of emergency or danger of a counter-revolution."

12940

These Local Councils would be a federation of workplace

12941

councils and would be members of the Regional Council of

12942

the Economy which, like the Local Council, would be "constitute[d]

12943

by delegations or through assemblies. [_After the Revolution_, p. 80

12944

and pp. 82-83] Yet again we see the defence of the revolution

12945

based on the federation of workers' councils and so directly

12946

controlled by the revolutionary population.

12947

12948

Lastly, we turn to the Spanish CNT's 1936 resolution on Libertarian

12949

Communism. In this document is a section entitled "Defence of the

12950

Revolution" which argues:

12951

12952

"We acknowledge the necessity to defend the advances made

12953

through the revolution . . . So . . . the necessary steps will

12954

be taken to defend the new regime, whether against the perils of

12955

a foreign capitalist invasion . . . or against counter-revolution

12956

at home. It must be remembered that a standing army constitutes

12957

the greatest danger for the revolution, since its influence could

12958

lead to dictatorship, which would necessarily kill off the

12959

revolution. . .

12960

12961

"The people armed will be the best assurance against any

12962

attempt to restore the system destroyed from either within

12963

or without. . .

12964

12965

"Let each Commune have its weapons and means of defence

12966

. . . the people will mobilise rapidly to stand up to

12967

the enemy, returning to their workplaces as soon as they

12968

may have accomplished their mission of defence. . . .

12969

12970

"1. The disarming of capitalism implies the surrender of

12971

weaponry to the communes which be responsible for ensuring

12972

defensive means are effectively organised nationwide.

12973

12974

"2. In the international context, we shall have to

12975

mount an intensive propaganda drive among the proletariat

12976

of every country so that it may take an energetic protest,

12977

calling for sympathetic action against any attempted

12978

invasion by its respective government. At the same time,

12979

our Iberian Confederation of Autonomous Libertarian Communes

12980

will render material and moral assistance to all the world's

12981

exploited so that these may free themselves forever from the

12982

monstrous control of capitalism and the State." [quoted by

12983

Jose Peirats, _The CNT in the Spanish Revolution_, vol. 1,

12984

p. 110]

12985

12986

Therefore, an anarchist society defends itself in a non-statist

12987

fashion. Defence is organised in a libertarian manner, based on

12988

federations of free communes and workers' councils and incorporating

12989

self-managed workers' militias. This was exactly what the CNT-FAI

12990

did in 1936 to resist Franco's fascists. The militia bodies that

12991

were actually formed by the CNT in the revolution were internally

12992

self-governing, not hierarchical. Each militia column was

12993

administered by its own "war committee," made up of elected

12994

delegates, which in turn sent delegates to co-ordinate action

12995

on a specific front. Similarly, the Makhnovists during the Russian

12996

Revolution also organised in a democratic manner, subject to

12997

the decisions of the local workers' councils and their congresses.

12998

12999

Thus Anarchist theory and practice indicate that defence of a

13000

revolution need not involve a hierarchical system like the

13001

Bolshevik Red Army where the election of officers, soldiers'

13002

councils and self-governing assemblies were abolished by

13003

Trotsky in favour of officers appointed from above (see

13004

Trotsky's article _The Path of the Red Army_ in which he

13005

freely admits to abolishing the soldiers "organs of

13006

revolutionary self-government" the Soviets of Soldiers'

13007

Deputies as well as "the system of election" of commanders

13008

by the soldiers themselves in favour of a Red Army "built

13009

from above" with appointed commanders).

13010

13011

As can be seen, the only armed force for the defence of the

13012

an anarchist society would be the voluntary, self-managed militia

13013

bodies organised by the free communes and federations of workers'

13014

associations. The militias would be unified and co-ordinated

13015

by federations of communes while delegates from each militia

13016

unit would co-ordinate the actual fighting. In times of peace

13017

the militia members would be living and working among the rest

13018

of the populace, and, thus, they would tend to have the same

13019

outlook and interests as their fellow workers.

13020

13021

Instead of organising a new state, based on top-down command

13022

and hierarchical power, anarchists argue that a revolutionary

13023

people can build and co-ordinate a militia of their own and

13024

control the defence of their revolution directly and democratically,

13025

through their own organisations (such as unions, councils of

13026

delegates elected from the shop floor and community, and so on).

13027

Where they have had the chance, anarchists have done so, with

13028

remarkable success. Therefore, an anarchist society can be

13029

defended against attempts to re-impose hierarchy and bosses

13030

(old or new).

13031

13032

For more discussion of this issue, see section J.7.6 ("How

13033

could an anarchist revolution defend itself?")

13034

13035

I.6 What about the "Tragedy of the Commons"? Surely communal

13036

ownership will lead to overuse and environmental destruction?

13037

13038

It should first be noted that the paradox of the "Tragedy of the Commons"

13039

is actually an application of the "tragedy of the free-for-all" to the

13040

issue of the "commons" (communally owned land). Resources that are "free

13041

for all" have all the problems associated with what is called the "Tragedy

13042

of the Commons," namely the overuse and destruction of such resources; but

13043

unfortunately for the capitalists who refer to such examples, they do not

13044

involve true "commons."

13045

13046

The "free-for-all" land in such examples becomes depleted (the "tragedy")

13047

because hypothetical shepherds each pursue their maximum individual gain

13048

without regard for their peers or the land. What is individually rational

13049

(e.g., grazing the most sheep for profit), when multiplied by each

13050

shepherd acting in isolation, ends up grossly irrational (e.g., ending the

13051

livelihood of *every* shepherd). What works for one cannot work as well

13052

for everyone in a given area. But, as discussed below, because such land

13053

is not communally *managed* (as true commons are), the so-called Tragedy

13054

of the Commons is actually an indictment of what is, essentially,

13055

laissez-faire capitalist economic practices!

13056

13057

As Allan Engler points out, "[s]upporters of capitalism cite what they

13058

call the tragedy of the commons to explain the wanton plundering of

13059

forests, fish and waterways, but common property is not the problem. When

13060

property was held in common by tribes, clans and villages, people took no

13061

more than their share and respected the rights of others. They cared for

13062

common property and when necessary acted together to protect it against

13063

those who would damage it. Under capitalism, there is no common property.

13064

(Public property is a form of private property, property owned by the

13065

government as a corporate person.) Capitalism recognises only private

13066

property and free-for-all property. Nobody is responsible for free-for-all

13067

property until someone claims it as his own. He then has a right to do as

13068

he pleases with it, a right that is uniquely capitalist. Unlike common or

13069

personal property, capitalist property is not valued for itself or for its

13070

utility. It is valued for the revenue it produces for its owner. If the

13071

capitalist owner can maximise his revenue by liquidating it, he has the

13072

right to do that." [_Apostles of Greed_, pp. 58-59]

13073

13074

Therefore, as Colin Ward argues, "[l]ocal, popular, control is the

13075

surest way of avoiding the tragedy of the commons." [_Reflected in

13076

Water_, p. 20] Given that a social anarchist society is a communal,

13077

decentralised one, it will have little to fear from irrational

13078

overuse or abuse of communally owned and used resources.

13079

13080

So, the *real* problem is that a lot of economists and sociologists

13081

conflate this scenario, in which *unmanaged* resources are free for all,

13082

with the situation that prevailed in the use of "commons," which were

13083

communally *managed* resources in village and tribal communities. E.P.

13084

Thompson, for example, notes that Garret Hardin (who coined the phrase

13085

"Tragedy of the Commons") was "historically uninformed" when he assumed

13086

that commons were "pastures open to all. It is expected that each

13087

herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons."

13088

["Custom, Law and Common Right", _Customs in Common_, p. 108f] The

13089

commons, in fact, *were* managed by common agreements between those

13090

who used them. Similarly, those who argue that the experience of the

13091

Soviet Union and Eastern Block shows that "common" property leads to

13092

pollution and destruction of the resources also show a lack of awareness

13093

of what common property actually is (it is no co-incidence that libertarian

13094

capitalists use such an argument). This is because the resources in

13095

question were *not* owned or managed in common -- the fact that these

13096

countries were dictatorships excludes popular control of resources. Thus

13097

the Soviet Union does not, in fact, show the dangers of having "commons."

13098

Rather it shows the danger of not subjecting those who control a resource

13099

to public control (and it is no co-incidence that the USA is far more

13100

polluted than Western Europe -- in the USA, like in the USSR, the

13101

controllers of resources are not subject to popular control and so

13102

pass pollution on to the public). The Eastern block shows the danger

13103

of state owned resource use rather than commonly owned resource use,

13104

particularly when the state in question is not under even the limited

13105

control of its subjects implied in representative democracy.

13106

13107

This confusion has, of course, been used to justify the stealing of

13108

communal property by the rich and the state. The continued acceptance

13109

of this "confusion" in political debate is due to the utility of

13110

the theory for the rich and powerful, who have a vested interest in

13111

undermining pre-capitalist social forms and stealing communal resources.

13112

Therefore, most examples used to justify the "tragedy of the commons"

13113

are *false* examples, based on situations in which the underlying social

13114

context is radically different from that involved in using true commons.

13115

13116

In reality, the "tragedy of the commons" comes about only after wealth and

13117

private property, backed by the state, starts to eat into and destroy

13118

communal life. This is well indicated by the fact that commons existed for

13119

thousands of years and only disappeared after the rise of capitalism --

13120

and the powerful central state it requires -- had eroded communal values

13121

and traditions. Without the influence of wealth concentrations and the

13122

state, people get together and come to agreements over how to use communal

13123

resources, and have been doing so for millennia. That was how the commons

13124

were managed, so "the tragedy of the commons" would be better called the

13125

"tragedy of private property." Gerrard Winstanley, the Digger (and

13126

proto-anarchist), was only expressing a widespread popular sentiment

13127

when he complained that "in Parishes where Commons lie the rich Norman

13128

Freeholders, or the new (more covetous) Gentry overstock the Commons with

13129

sheep and cattle, so that the inferior Tenants and poor labourers can

13130

hardly keep a cow but half starve her." [quoted by Maurice Dobb, _Studies

13131

in the Development of Capitalism_, p. 173] Colin Ward points to a more

13132

recent example, that of Spain after the victory of Franco:

13133

13134

"The water history of Spain demonstrates that the tragedy of the commons

13135

is not the one identified by Garrett Hardin. Communal control developed

13136

an elaborate and sophisticated system of fair shares for all. The

13137

private property recommended by Hardin resulted in the selfish

13138

individualism that he thought was inevitable with common access,

13139

or in the lofty indifference of the big landowners." [Colin Ward,

13140

Op. Cit., p. 27]

13141

13142

As E.P. Thompson notes in an extensive investigation on this subject, the

13143

tragedy "argument [is] that since resources held in common are not owned

13144

and protected by anyone, there is an inexorable economic logic that dooms

13145

them to over-exploitation. . . . Despite its common sense air, what it

13146

overlooks is that commoners themselves were not without common sense. Over

13147

time and over space the users of commons have developed a rich variety of

13148

institutions and community sanctions which have effected restraints and

13149

stints upon use. . . . As the old . . . institutions lapsed, so they fed

13150

into a vacuum in which political influence, market forces, and popular

13151

assertion contested with each other without common rules." [Op. Cit.,

13152

p. 107]

13153

13154

In practice, of course, both political influence and market forces

13155

are dominated by wealth -- "There were two occasions that dictated

13156

absolute precision: a trial at law and a process of enclosure. And

13157

both occasions favoured those with power and purses against the

13158

little users." Popular assertion means little when the state enforces

13159

property rights in the interests of the wealthy. Ultimately, "Parliament

13160

and law imposed capitalist definitions to exclusive property in land."

13161

[E.P. Thompson, Op. Cit., p. 134 and p. 163]

13162

13163

The working class is only "left alone" to starve. In practice, the

13164

privatisation of communal land has led to massive ecological destruction,

13165

while the possibilities of free discussion and agreement are destroyed in

13166

the name of "absolute" property rights and the power and authority which

13167

goes with them.

13168

13169

For more on this subject, try _The Question of the Commons_, Bonnie M.

13170

McCoy and James M. Acheson (ed.), Tucson, 1987 and _The Evolution of

13171

Co-operation_ by Robert Axelrod, Basic Books, 1984.

13172

13173

I.6.1 How can anarchists explain how the use of property "owned by

13174

everyone in the world" will be decided?

13175

13176

First, we need to point out the fallacy normally lying behind this

13177

objection. It is assumed that because everyone owns something, that

13178

everyone has to be consulted in what it is used for. This, however,

13179

applies the logic of private property to non-capitalist social forms.

13180

While it is true that everyone owns collective "property" in an anarchist

13181

society, it does not mean that everyone *uses* it. Carlo Cafiero, one

13182

of the founders of communist-anarchism, states the obvious:

13183

13184

"The common wealth being scattered right across the planet, while

13185

belonging by right to the whole of humanity, those who happen to

13186

be within reach of that wealth and in a position to make use of it

13187

will utilise it in common. The folk from a given country will use

13188

the land, the machines, the workshops, the houses, etc., of that

13189

country and they will all make common use of them. As part of

13190

humanity, they will exercise here, in fact and directly, their

13191

rights over a portion of mankind's wealth. But should an inhabitant

13192

of Peking visit this country, he [or she] would enjoy the same

13193

rights as the rest: in common with the others, he would enjoy

13194

all the wealth of the country, just as he [or she] would have

13195

in Peking." [_No Gods, No Masters_, vol. 1, p. 250]

13196

13197

Anarchists, therefore, think that those who *use* a part of society's

13198

wealth have the most say in what happens to it (e.g. workers control

13199

the means of production they use and the work they do when using it).

13200

This does not mean that those using it can do what they like to it.

13201

Users would be subject to recall by local communities if they are

13202

abusing their position (for example, if a workplace was polluting the

13203

environment, then the local community could act to stop, or if need

13204

be, close down the workplace). Thus use rights (or usufruct) replace

13205

property rights in a free society, combined with a strong dose of

13206

"think globally, act locally."

13207

13208

It is no coincidence that societies that are stateless are also without

13209

private property. As Murray Bookchin points out "an individual appropriation

13210

of goods, a personal claim to tools, land, and other resources . . . is

13211

fairly common in organic [i.e. aboriginal] societies. . . By the same

13212

token, co-operative work and the sharing of resources on a scale that

13213

could be called communistic is also fairly common. . . But primary to

13214

both of these seemingly contrasting relationships is the practice of

13215

*usufruct.*" [_The Ecology of Freedom_, p. 50]

13216

13217

Such stateless societies are based upon "the principle of *usufruct*, the

13218

freedom of individuals in a community to appropriate resources merely by

13219

the virtue of the fact they are using them. . . Such resources belong to

13220

the user as long as they are being used. Function, in effect, replaces

13221

our hallowed concept of possession." [Bookchin, Op. Cit., p. 50] The

13222

future stateless society anarchists hope for would also be based upon

13223

such a principle. In effect, critics of social anarchism confuse

13224

property with possession and think that abolishing property

13225

automatically abolishes possession and use rights. However,

13226

as argued in section B.3, property and possession are distinctly

13227

different. In the words of Charlotte Wilson:

13228

13229

"*Property* is the *domination* of an individual, or a coalition of

13230

individuals, over things; it is not the claim of any person or persons

13231

to the use of things -- this is usufruct [or possession], a very

13232

different matter. Property means the monopoly of wealth, the right

13233

to prevent others using it, whether the owner needs it or not. Usufruct

13234

implies the claim to the use of such wealth as supplies the user's

13235

needs. If any individual shuts off a portion of it (which he is not

13236

using, and does not need for his own use) from his fellows, he is

13237

defrauding the whole community." [_Three Essays on Anarchism_, p. 17]

13238

13239

Thus an anarchist society has a simple and effective means of deciding

13240

how communally owned resources are used, one based on possession and

13241

usufruct.

13242

13243

As for deciding what a given area of commons is used for, that falls

13244

to the local communities who live next to them. If, for example, a

13245

local self-managed factory wants to expand and eat into the commons,

13246

then the local community who uses (and so controls) the local commons

13247

would discuss it and come to an agreement concerning it. If a minority

13248

*really* objects, they can use direct action to put their point across.

13249

But anarchists argue that rational debate among equals will not result

13250

in too much of that. Or suppose an individual wanted to set up an allotment

13251

in a given area, which had not been allocated as a park. Then he or she

13252

would notify the community assembly by appropriate means (e.g. on a notice

13253

board or newspaper), and if no one objected at the next assembly or in a

13254

set time-span, the allotment would go ahead, as no one else desired to use

13255

the resource in question.

13256

13257

Other communities would be confederated with this one, and joint activity

13258

would also be discussed by debate, with a community (like an individual)

13259

being free *not* to associate if they so desire. Other communities could

13260

and would object to ecologically and individually destructive practices.

13261

The interrelationships of both ecosystems and freedom is well known, and

13262

its doubtful that free individuals would sit back and let some amongst

13263

them destroy *their* planet.

13264

13265

Therefore, those who use something control it. This means that "users

13266

groups" would be created to manage resources used by more than one person.

13267

For workplaces this would (essentially) be those who worked there (with,

13268

possibly, the input of consumer groups and co-operatives). Housing

13269

associations made up of tenants would manage housing and repairs.

13270

Resources that are used by associations within society, such as communally

13271

owned schools, workshops, computer networks, and so forth, would be

13272

managed on a day-to-day basis by those who use them. User groups would

13273

decide access rules (for example, time-tables and booking rules) and how

13274

they are used, making repairs and improvements. Such groups would be

13275

accountable to their local community. Hence, if that community thought

13276

that any activities by a group within it was destroying communal

13277

resources or restricting access to them, the matter would be discussed

13278

at the relevant assembly. In this way, interested parties manage their

13279

own activities and the resources they use (and so would be very likely

13280

to have an interest in ensuring their proper and effective use), but

13281

without private property and its resulting hierarchies and restrictions

13282

on freedom.

13283

13284

Lastly, let us examine clashes of use rights, i.e. cases where two or

13285

more people or communities/collectives desire to use the same resource.

13286

In general, such problems can be resolved by discussion and decision

13287

making by those involved. This process would be roughly as follows: if

13288

the contesting parties are reasonable, they would probably mutually agree

13289

to allow their dispute to be settled by some mutual friend whose judgement

13290

they could trust, or they would place it in the hands of a jury, randomly

13291

selected from the community or communities in question. This would take

13292

place if they could not come to an agreement between themselves to share

13293

the resource in question.

13294

13295

On thing is certain, however, such disputes are much better settled without

13296

the interference of authority or the re-creation of private property. If

13297

those involved do not take the sane course described above and instead

13298

decide to set up a fixed authority, disaster will be the inevitable

13299

result. In the first place, this authority will have to be given power to

13300

enforce its judgement in such matters. If this happens, the new authority

13301

will undoubtedly keep for itself the best of what is disputed, and allot

13302

the rest to its friends! By re-introducing private property, such

13303

authoritarian bodies would develop sooner, rather than later, with two

13304

new classes of oppressors being created -- the property owners and the

13305

enforcers of "justice."

13306

13307

It is a strange fallacy to suppose that two people who meet on terms of

13308

equality and disagree could not be reasonable or just, or that a third

13309

party with power backed up by violence will be the incarnation of justice

13310

itself. Common sense should certainly warn us against such an illusion.

13311

Historical "counterexamples" to the claim that people meeting on terms of

13312

equality cannot be reasonable or just are suspect, since the history of

13313

disagreements with unjust or unreasonable outcomes (e.g. resulting in war)

13314

generally involve conflicts between groups with unequal power and within

13315

the context of private property and hierarchical institutions.

13316

13317

And, we should note, it is equally as fallacious, as Leninists claim,

13318

that only centralisation can ensure common access and common use.

13319

Centralisation, by removing control from the users into a body

13320

claiming to represent "society", replaces the dangers of abuse

13321

by a group of workers with the dangers of abuse by a bureaucracy

13322

invested with power and authority over *all* workers. If rank and

13323

file workers can abuse their position and restrict access for their

13324

own benefit, so can the individuals gathered round a centralised

13325

body (whether that body is, in theory, accountable by election or

13326

not). Indeed, it is far more likely to occur. Thus *decentralisation*

13327

is the key to common ownership and access, *not* centralisation.

13328

13329

Communal "property" needs communal structures in order to function. Use

13330

rights, and discussion among equals, replace property rights in a free

13331

society. Freedom cannot survive if it is caged behind laws enforced by

13332

public or private states.

13333

13334

I.6.2 Doesn't any form of communal ownership involve restricting

13335

individual liberty?

13336

13337

This point is expressed in many different forms. John Henry MacKay (an

13338

individualist anarchist) puts the point as follows:

13339

13340

"'Would you [the social anarchist], in the system of society which you

13341

call 'free Communism' prevent individuals from exchanging their labour

13342

among themselves by means of their own medium of exchange? And further:

13343

Would you prevent them from occupying land for the purpose of personal

13344

use?' . . . [The] question was not to be escaped. If he answered 'Yes!'

13345

he admitted that society had the right of control over the individual and

13346

threw overboard the autonomy of the individual which he had always zealously

13347

defended; if on the other hand he answered 'No!' he admitted the right

13348

of private property which he had just denied so emphatically." [_Patterns

13349

of Anarchy_, p. 31]

13350

13351

However, as is clearly explained above and in sections B.3 and I.5.7,

13352

anarchist theory has a simple and clear answer to this question. To

13353

see what this answer is it simply a case of remembering that use

13354

rights replace property rights in an anarchist society. In other words,

13355

individuals can exchange their labour as they see fit and occupy land

13356

for their own use. This in no way contradicts the abolition of private

13357

property, because occupancy and use is directly opposed to private

13358

property. Therefore, in a free communist society individuals can use

13359

land and such tools and equipment as they personally "use and occupancy"

13360

as they wish -- they do not have to join the free communist society.

13361

If they do not, however, they cannot place claims on the benefits

13362

others receive from co-operation and their communal life.

13363

13364

This can be seen from Charlotte Wilson's discussions on anarchism

13365

written a few years before MacKay published his "inescapable"

13366

question. Wilson argues that anarchism "proposes . . . [t]hat

13367

usufruct of instruments of production -- land included -- should

13368

be free to all workers, or groups of workers" and that "the

13369

necessary connections between the various industries . . .

13370

should be managed on the . . . voluntary principle." She

13371

asks the question: "Does Anarchism . . . then . . .

13372

acknowledge . . . no personal property?" She answers by

13373

noting that "every man [or woman] is free to take what he

13374

[or she] requires" and so "it is hardly conceivable that

13375

personal necessaries and conveniences will not be appropriated."

13376

For "[w]hen property is protected by no legal enactments,

13377

backed by armed force, and is unable to buy personal

13378

service, its resuscitation on such a scale as to be

13379

dangerous to society is little to be dreaded. The amount

13380

appropriated by each individual . . . must be left to

13381

his [or her] own conscience, and the pressure exercised

13382

upon him [or her] by the moral sense and distinct

13383

interests of his [or her] neighbours." This is because:

13384

13385

"*Property* is the *domination* of an individual, or a

13386

coalition of individuals, over things; it is not the claim

13387

of any person or persons to the use of things -- this is,

13388

usufruct, a very different matter. Property means

13389

the monopoly of wealth, the right to prevent others

13390

using it, whether the owner needs it or not. Usufruct

13391

implies the claim to the use of such wealth as supplies

13392

the users needs. If any individual shuts of a portion of

13393

it (which he is not using, and does not need for his

13394

own use) from his fellows, he is defrauding the whole

13395

community." [_Anarchist Essays_, pp. 22-23 and p. 40]

13396

13397

In other words, *possession* replaces private property in a

13398

free society. This applies to those who decide to join a free

13399

communist society and those who desire to remain outside. This

13400

is clear from Kropotkin's argument that an communist-anarchist

13401

revolution would leave self-employed artisans and peasants alone

13402

if they did not desire to join the free commune (see _Act for

13403

Yourselves_, pp. 104-5 and _The Conquest of Bread_, p. 61 and

13404

pp. 95-6). Thus the leading theorist of free communism did not

13405

think the occupying of land for personal use (or a house or the

13406

means of production) entailed the "right of private property."

13407

Obviously John Henry MacKay had not read his Proudhon!

13408

13409

This can be seen even clearer when Kropotkin argued that "[a]ll

13410

things belong to all, and provided that men and women contribute

13411

their share of labour for the production of necessary objects,

13412

they are entitled to their share of all that is produced by the

13413

community at large." [_The Place of Anarchism in Socialistic

13414

Evolution_, p. 6] He goes on to state that "free Communism . . .

13415

places the products reaped or manufactured in common at the

13416

disposal of all, leaving to each the liberty to consume them

13417

as he [or she] pleases in his [or her] own home." [Op. Cit.,

13418

p. 7] This obviously implies a situation of "occupancy and use"

13419

(with those who are actually using a resource controlling it).

13420

13421

This clearly means, as the biographers of Kropotkin noted,

13422

that an Individualist Anarchist like Tucker (or MacKay) "partly

13423

misinterprets" Kropotkin when he "suggests that [Kropotkin's]

13424

idea of communal organisation would *prevent* the individual

13425

from working on his [or her] own if he wished (a fact which

13426

Kropotkin always explicitly denied, since the basis of his

13427

theory was the voluntary principle)." [G. Woodcock and I.

13428

Avakumovic, _The Anarchist Prince_, p. 280]

13429

13430

Thus the case of the non-member of free communism is clear -- they

13431

would also consume what they have produced or exchanged with others

13432

in their own home (i.e. land used for their own "personal use"). The

13433

land and resources do *not,* however, become private property simply

13434

because they revert back into common ownership once they are no longer

13435

"occupied and used." In other words, *possession* replaces *property.*

13436

Thus communist-anarchists agree with Individualist Anarchist John

13437

Beverley Robinson when he wrote:

13438

13439

"There are two kinds of land ownership, proprietorship or property, by

13440

which the owner is absolute lord of the land to use it or hold it out

13441

of use, as it may please him; and possession, by which he is secure in

13442

the tenure of land which he uses and occupies, but has no claim on it

13443

at all if he ceases to use it. For the secure possession of his crops

13444

or buildings or other products, he needs nothing but the possession

13445

of the land he uses." [_Patterns of Anarchy_, p. 273]

13446

13447

This system, we must note, was used in the rural collectives during the

13448

Spanish Revolution, with people free to remain outside the collective

13449

working only as much land and equipment as they could "occupy and use"

13450

by their own labour. Similarly, the individuals within the collective

13451

worked in common and took what they needed from the communal stores.

13452

See Gaston Leval's _Collectives in the Spanish Revolution for details

13453

(and section I.8).

13454

13455

Mackay's comments raise another interesting point. Given that Individualist

13456

Anarchists oppose the current system of private property in land, *their*

13457

system entails that "society ha[s] the right of control over the individual."

13458

If we look at the "occupancy and use" land system favoured by the likes

13459

of Tucker, we discover that it is based on restricting property in land

13460

(and so the owners of land). Tucker argued that if "the Anarchistic view"

13461

of "occupancy and use" would prevail then any defence associations would

13462

not protect anyone in the possession of more than they could personally

13463

use, nor would they force tenants to pay rent to landlords of housing.

13464

[_The Individualist Anarchists_, pp. 159-62] Thus the "prevailing view",

13465

i.e. society, would limit the amount of land which individuals could

13466

acquire, controlling their actions and violating their autonomy. Which,

13467

we must say, is not surprising as individualism requires the supremacy

13468

of the rest of society over the individual in terms of rules relating

13469

to the ownership and use of possessions (or "property") -- as the

13470

Individualist Anarchists themselves implicitly acknowledge, as can

13471

be seen.

13472

13473

John Henry MacKay goes on to state that "every serious man must declare

13474

himself: for Socialism, and thereby for force and against liberty, or for

13475

Anarchism, and thereby for liberty and against force." [Op. Cit., p. 32]

13476

Which, we must note, is a strange statement, as individualist anarchists

13477

like Benjamin Tucker considered themselves socialists and opposed

13478

capitalist private property (while, confusingly, many of them calling

13479

their system of possession "property" -- see section G.2.2).

13480

13481

However, MacKay's statement begs the question, does private property

13482

support liberty? He does not address or even acknowledge the fact that

13483

private property will inevitably lead to the owners of such property

13484

gaining control over the individuals who use, but do not own, that

13485

property and so denying them liberty (see section B.4). As Proudhon

13486

argued:

13487

13488

"The purchaser draws boundaries, fences himself in, and says, 'This

13489

is mine; each one by himself, each one for himself.' Here, then, is

13490

a piece of land upon which, henceforth, no one has right to step,

13491

save the proprietor and his friends; which can benefit nobody, save

13492

the proprietor and his servants. Let these multiply, and soon the

13493

people . . . will have nowhere to rest, no place of shelter, no

13494

ground to till. They will die of hunger at the proprietor's door,

13495

on the edge of that property which was their birth-right; and the

13496

proprietor, watching them die, will exclaim, 'So perish idlers

13497

and vagrants.'" [_What is Property?_, p. 118]

13498

13499

Of course, the non-owner can gain access to the property by selling

13500

their liberty to the property-owner, by agreeing to submit to the owners

13501

authority. Little wonder that Proudhon argued that the "second effect

13502

of property is despotism." [Op. Cit., p. 259] Moreover, given that

13503

Tucker argued that the state was "the assumption of sole authority

13504

over a given area and all within it" we can see that MacKay's argument

13505

ignores the negative aspects of property and its similarity with the

13506

state [_The Individualist Anarchists_, p. 24]. After all, MacKay would

13507

be the first to argue that the property owner must be sovereign of

13508

their property (and not subject to any form of control). In other

13509

words, the property owner must assume sole authority over the given

13510

area they own and all within it. Little wonder Emile Pouget, echoing

13511

Proudhon, argued that:

13512

13513

"Property and authority are merely differing manifestations and

13514

expressions of one and the same 'principle' which boils down to

13515

the enforcement and enshrinement of the servitude of man.

13516

Consequently, the only difference between them is one of vantage

13517

point: viewed from one angle, slavery appears as a *property

13518

crime*, whereas, viewed from a different angle, it constitutes

13519

an *authority crime.*" [_No Gods, No Masters_, vol. 2, p. 66]

13520

13521

Neither does MacKay address the fact that private property requires

13522

extensive force (i.e. a state) to protect it against those who use it

13523

or could use it but do not own it.

13524

13525

In other words, MacKay ignores two important aspects of private property.

13526

Firstly, that private property is based upon force, which must be used

13527

to ensure the owner's right to exclude others (the main reason for the

13528

existence of the state). And secondly, he ignores the anti-libertarian

13529

nature of "property" when it creates wage labour -- the other side of

13530

"private property" -- in which the liberty of employees is obviously

13531

restricted by the owners whose property they are hired to use. Unlike

13532

in a free communist society, in which members of a commune have equal

13533

rights, power and say within a self-managed association, under "private

13534

property" the owner of the property governs those who use it. When the

13535

owner and the user is identical, this is not a problem (i.e. when

13536

possession replaces property) but once possession becomes property

13537

then despotism, as Proudhon noted, is created.

13538

13539

Therefore, it seems that in the name of "liberty" John MacKay and

13540

a host of other "individualists" end up supporting authority and

13541

(effectively) some kind of state. This is hardly surprising as

13542

private property is the opposite of personal possession, not its

13543

base.

13544

13545

Therefore, far from communal property restricting individual liberty

13546

(or even personal use of resources) it is in fact its only defence.

13547

13548

I.7 Won't Libertarian Socialism destroy individuality?

13549

13550

No. Libertarian socialism only suppresses individuality for those who are

13551

so shallow that they can't separate their identity from what they own.

13552

However, be that as it may, this is an important objection to any form

13553

of socialism and, given the example of "socialist" Russia, needs to be

13554

discussed more.

13555

13556

The basic assumption behind this question is that capitalism encourages

13557

individuality, but this assumption can be faulted on many levels. As

13558

Kropotkin noted, "individual freedom [has] remained, both in theory and

13559

in practice, more illusory than real" [_Ethics_, p. 27] and that "the want

13560

of development of the personality [leading to herd-psychology] and the lack

13561

of individual creative power and initiative are certainly one of the chief

13562

defects of our time." [Op. Cit., p. 28] In effect, modern capitalism has

13563

reduced individuality to a parody of what it could be (see section I.7.4).

13564

As Alfie Kohn points out, "our miserable individuality is screwed to the

13565

back of our cars in the form of personalised license plates." Little

13566

wonder Emma Goldman argued that:

13567

13568

"The oft repeated slogan of our time is . . . that ours is an era of

13569

individualism . . . Only those who do probe beneath the surface might

13570

be led to entertain this view. Have not the few accumulated the wealth

13571

of the world? Are they not the masters, the absolute kings of the

13572

situation? Their success, however, is due not to individualism, but

13573

the inertia, the cravenness, the utter submission of the mass. The

13574

latter wants but to be dominated, to be led, to be coerced. As to

13575

individualism, at no time in human history did it have less chance

13576

of expression, less opportunity to assert itself in a normal,

13577

healthy manner." [_Anarchism and Other Essays_, pp. 70-1]

13578

13579

So we see a system which is apparently based on "egoism" and "individualism"

13580

but whose members are free to expand as standardised individuals, who

13581

hardly express their individuality at all. Far from increasing individuality,

13582

capitalism standardises it and so restricts it -- that it survives at all

13583

is more an expression of the strength of humanity than any benefits of

13584

the capitalist system. This impoverishment of individuality is hardly

13585

surprising in a society based on hierarchical institutions which are

13586

designed to assure obedience and subordination.

13587

13588

So, can we say that libertarian socialism will *increase* individuality or

13589

is this conformity and lack of "individualism" a constant feature of the

13590

human race? In order to make some sort of statement on this, we have to

13591

look at non-hierarchical societies and organisations. We will discuss

13592

tribal cultures as an example of non-hierarchical societies in section

13593

I.7.1. Here, however, we indicate how anarchist organisations will protect

13594

and increase an individual's sense of self.

13595

13596

Anarchist organisations and tactics are designed to promote individuality.

13597

They are decentralised, participatory organisations and so they give those

13598

involved the "social space" required to express themselves and develop their

13599

abilities and potential in ways restricted under capitalism. As Gaston Leval

13600

notes in his book on the anarchist collectives during the Spanish Revolution,

13601

"so far as collective life is concerned, the freedom of each is the right

13602

to participate spontaneously with one's thought, one's will, one's initiative

13603

to the full extent of one's capacities. A negative liberty is not liberty;

13604

it is nothingness." [_Collectives in the Spanish Revolution_, p. 346]

13605

13606

By being able to take part in and manage the decision making processes which

13607

directly affect you, your ability to think for yourself is increased and

13608

so you are constantly developing your abilities and personality. The

13609

spontaneous activity described by Leval has important psychological impacts.

13610

As Eric Fromm notes, "[i]n all spontaneous activity, the individual embraces

13611

the world. Not only does his [sic] individual self remain intact; it becomes

13612

stronger and more solidified. *For the self is as strong as it is active.*"

13613

[_Escape from Freedom_, p. 225]

13614

13615

Therefore, individuality does not atrophy within an anarchist organisation

13616

and becomes stronger as it participates and acts within the social

13617

organisation. In other words, individuality requires community. As Max

13618

Horkheimer once observed, "individuality is impaired when each man decides

13619

to fend for himself. . . . The absolutely isolated individual has always been

13620

an illusion. The most esteemed personal qualities, such as independence,

13621

will to freedom, sympathy, and the sense of justice, are social as well as

13622

individual virtues. The fully developed individual is the consummation of a

13623

fully developed society." [_The Eclipse of Reason_, p. 135]

13624

13625

The sovereign, self-sufficient individual is as much a product of a healthy

13626

community as it is from individual self-realisation and the fulfilment of

13627

desire. Kropotkin, in _Mutual Aid_, documented the tendency for *community*

13628

to enrich and develop *individuality.* As he proved, this tendency is seen

13629

throughout human history, which suggests that the abstract individualism

13630

of capitalism is more the exception than the rule in social life. In other

13631

words, history indicates that by working together with others as equals

13632

individuality is strengthen far more than in the so-called "individualism"

13633

associated with capitalism.

13634

13635

This communal support for individuality is hardly surprising as

13636

individuality is a product of the interaction between *social* forces

13637

and individual attributes. The more an individual cuts themselves off

13638

from social life, the more likely their individuality will suffer. This

13639

can be seen from the 1980's when neo-liberal governments supporting the

13640

"radical" individualism associated with free market capitalism were

13641

elected in both Britain and the USA. The promotion of market forces

13642

lead to social atomisation, social disruption and a more centralised

13643

state. As "the law of the jungle" swept across society, the resulting

13644

disruption of social life ensured that many individuals became

13645

impoverished ethically and culturally as society became increasingly

13646

privatised.

13647

13648

In other words, many of the characteristics which we associate with a

13649

developed individuality (namely ability to think, to act, to hold ones

13650

own opinions and standards and so forth) are (essentially) *social* skills

13651

and are encouraged by a well developed community. Remove that social

13652

background and these valued aspects of individuality are undermined by

13653

fear, lack of social interaction and atomisation. Taking the case of

13654

workplaces, for example, surely it is an obvious truism that a hierarchical

13655

working environment will marginalise the individual and ensure that they

13656

cannot express their opinions, exercise their thinking capacities to the

13657

full or manage their own activity. This will have in impact in all aspects

13658

of an individual's life.

13659

13660

Hierarchy in all its forms produces oppression and a crushing of

13661

individuality (see section B.1). In such a system, the "business" side

13662

of group activities would be "properly carried out" but at the expense

13663

of the individuals involved. Anarchists agree with John Stuart Mill when

13664

he asks, under such "benevolent dictatorship," "what sort of human beings

13665

can be formed under such a regimen? What development can either their

13666

thinking or their active faculties attain under it? . . . Their moral

13667

capacities are equally stunted. Wherever the sphere of action of human

13668

beings is artificially circumscribed, their sentiments are narrowed and

13669

dwarfed." [_Representative Government_, pp. 203-4] Like anarchists, Mill

13670

tended his critique of political associations into all forms of associations

13671

and stated that if "mankind is to continue to improve" then in the end

13672

one form of association will predominate, "not that which can exist

13673

between a capitalist as chief, and workpeople without a voice in the

13674

management, but the association of labourers themselves on terms of

13675

equality, collectively owning the capital with which they carry on

13676

their operations, and working under managers elected and removable

13677

by themselves." [_The Principles of Political Economy_, p. 147]

13678

13679

Hence, anarchism will protect and develop individuality by creating the

13680

means by which all individuals can participate in the decisions that affect

13681

them, in all aspects of their lives. Anarchism is build upon the central

13682

assertion that individuals and their institutions cannot be considered in

13683

isolation from one another. Authoritarian organisations will create a

13684

servile personality, one that feels safest conforming to authority and

13685

what is considered normal. A libertarian organisation, one that is based

13686

upon participation and self-management will encourage a strong personality,

13687

one that knows his or her own mind, thinks for itself and feels confident in

13688

his or her own powers.

13689

13690

Therefore, as Bakunin argued, liberty "is not a fact springing from

13691

isolation but from reciprocal action, a fact not of exclusion, but,

13692

on the contrary, of social interaction -- for freedom of every

13693

individual is simply the reflection of his humanity or his human

13694

right in the consciousness of all free men, his brothers, his

13695

equals." Freedom "is something very positive, very complex, and

13696

above all eminently social, since it can be realised only by

13697

society and only under conditions of strict equality and solidarity."

13698

Hierarchical power, by necessity, kills individual freedom as

13699

it is "characteristic of privilege and of every privileged

13700

position to kill the minds and hearts of men" and "power and

13701

authority corrupt those who exercise them as much as those who

13702

are compelled to submit to them." [_The Political Philosophy of

13703

Bakunin_, p. 266, p. 268, p. 269 and p. 249]

13704

13705

A libertarian re-organisation of society will be based upon, and encourage,

13706

a self-empowerment and self-liberation of the individual and by participation

13707

within self-managed organisations, individuals will educate themselves for

13708

the responsibilities and joys of freedom. As Carole Pateman points out,

13709

"participation develops and fosters the very qualities necessary for it;

13710

the more individuals participate the better able they become to do so."

13711

[_Participation and Democratic Theory_, pp. 42-43]

13712

13713

Such a re-organisation (as we will see in section J) is based upon the

13714

tactic of *direct action.* This tactic also encourages individuality by

13715

encouraging the individual to fight directly, by their own self-activity,

13716

that which they consider to be wrong. As Voltairine de Cleyre puts it:

13717

13718

"Every person who ever thought he had a right to assert, and went boldly and

13719

asserted it, himself, or jointly with others that shared his convictions,

13720

was a direct actionist . . . Every person who ever had a plan to do anything,

13721

and went and did it, or who laid his plan before others, and won their

13722

co-operation to do it with him, without going to external authorities to

13723

please do the thing for them, was a direct actionist. All co-operative

13724

experiments are essentially direct action . . . [direct actions] are the

13725

spontaneous retorts of those who feel oppressed by a situation." [_Direct

13726

Action_]

13727

13728

Therefore, anarchist tactics base themselves upon self-assertion and

13729

this can only develop individuality. Self-activity can only occur when

13730

there is a independent, free-thinking self. As self-management is based

13731

upon the principle of direct action ("all co-operative experiments are

13732

essentially direct action") we can suggest that individuality will have

13733

little to fear from an anarchist society. Indeed, anarchists strongly

13734

stress the importance of individuality within a society:

13735

13736

"[T]o destroy individuality is to destroy society. For society is only

13737

realised and alive in the individual members. Society has no motive

13738

that does not issue from its individual members, no end that does not

13739

centre in them, no mind that is not there. 'Spirit of the age,' 'public

13740

opinion,' 'commonweal or good,' and like phrases have no meaning if

13741

they are thought of as features of something that hovers or floats

13742

between man and woman. They name what resides in and proceeds from

13743

individuals. Individuality and community, therefore, are equally

13744

constitutive of out idea of human life." [J. Burns-Gibson quoted

13745

by William R. McKercher, _Freedom and Authority_, p. 31]

13746

13747

Little wonder, then, that anarchism "recognises and values

13748

individuality which means character, conduct and the springs of

13749

conduct, free initiative, creativeness, spontaneity, autonomy."

13750

[J. Burns-Gibson, quoted by William R. McKercher, Op. Cit., p. 31f]

13751

As Kropotkin put it, anarchism "seeks the most complete development

13752

of individuality combined with the highest development of

13753

voluntary association in all its aspects . . . ever changing,

13754

ever modified. . ." [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_,

13755

p. 123]

13756

13757

For anarchists, like Mill, real liberty requires social equality. For "[i]f

13758

individuals are to exercise the maximum amount of control over their own

13759

lives and environment then authority structures in these areas most be

13760

so organised that they can participate in decision making." [Pateman,

13761

Op. Cit., p. 43] Hence individuality will be protected, encouraged and

13762

developed in an anarchist society far more than in a class ridden,

13763

hierarchical society like capitalism. As Kropotkin argued:

13764

13765

"[Anarchist] Communism is the best basis for individual development

13766

and freedom; not that individualism which drives men to the war

13767

of each against all . . . but that which represents the full

13768

expansion of man's [and woman's] faculties, the superior development

13769

of what is original in him [or her], the greatest fruitfulness

13770

of intelligence, feeling and will." [Op. Cit., p. 141]

13771

13772

It is because wonders are so enriching to life, and none is more wonderful

13773

than individuality, that anarchists oppose capitalism in the name of

13774

socialism -- libertarian socialism, the free association of free individuals.

13775

13776

I.7.1 Do tribal cultures indicate that communalism defends individuality?

13777

13778

Yes. In many tribal cultures (what some people call "primitive"), we

13779

find a strong respect for individuals. As Paul Radin points out,

13780

"[i]f I were to state . . . what are the outstanding features of

13781

aboriginal civilisation, I . . . would have no hesitation in

13782

answering that . . . respect for the individual, irrespective of

13783

age or sex" is the first one. [_The World of Primitive Man_, p. 11]

13784

13785

Murray Bookchin comments on Radin's statement as follows, "respect for

13786

the individual, which Radin lists first as an aboriginal attribute,

13787

deserves to be emphasised, today, in an era that rejects the collective

13788

as destructive of individuality on the one hand, and yet, in an orgy

13789

of pure egotism, has actually destroyed all the ego boundaries of

13790

free-floating, isolated, and atomised individuals on the other. A

13791

strong collectivity may be even more supportive of the individual

13792

as close studies of certain aboriginal societies reveal, than a

13793

'free market' society with its emphasis on an egoistic, but

13794

impoverished, self" [_Remaking Society_, p. 48]

13795

13796

This individualisation associated with tribal cultures was also

13797

noted by Howard Zinn. He quotes Gary Nash describing Iroquois culture

13798

(which appears typical of most Native American tribes):

13799

13800

"No laws and ordinances, sheriffs and constables, judges and juries,

13801

or courts or jails -- the apparatus of authority in European societies

13802

arrival. Yet boundaries of acceptable behaviour were firmly set. Though

13803

priding themselves on the autonomous individual, the Iroquois maintained

13804

a strict sense of right and wrong . . ." [quoted by Zinn in _A People's

13805

History of the United States_, p. 21]

13806

13807

This respect for individuality existed in a society based on communistic

13808

principles. As Zinn notes, in the Iroquois "land was owned in common

13809

and worked in common. Hunting was done together, and the catch was

13810

divided among the members of the village. Houses were considered

13811

common property and were shared by several families. The concept of

13812

private ownership of land and homes was foreign to the Iroquois."

13813

In this communal society women "were important and respected" and

13814

families were matrilineal. Power was shared between the sexes

13815

(unlike the European idea of male domination). Similarly, children

13816

"while taught the cultural heritage of their people and solidarity

13817

with the tribe, were also taught to be independent, not to submit

13818

to overbearing authority. They were taught equality of status and

13819

the sharing of possessions." [Zinn, Op. Cit., p. 20]

13820

13821

As Zinn stresses, Native American tribes "paid careful attention to

13822

the development of personality, intensity of will, independence and

13823

flexibility, passion and potency, to their partnership with one

13824

another and with nature." [Op. Cit., pp. 21-2]

13825

13826

Thus tribal societies indicate that community defends individuality,

13827

with communal living actually encouraging a strong sense of individuality.

13828

This is to be expected, as equality is the only condition in which

13829

individuals can be free and so in a position to develop their

13830

personality to its full. Furthermore, this communal living took

13831

place within an anarchist environment:

13832

13833

"The foundation principle of Indian government had always been

13834

the rejection of government. The freedom of the individual was

13835

regarded by practically all Indians north of Mexico as a canon

13836

infinitely more precious than the individual's duty to his [or

13837

her] community or nation. This anarchistic attitude ruled all

13838

behaviour, beginning with the smallest social unity, the family.

13839

The Indian parent was constitutionally reluctant to discipline

13840

his [or her] children. Their every exhibition of self-will was

13841

accepted as a favourable indication of the development of

13842

maturing character. . ." [Van Every, quoted by Zinn, Op. Cit.,

13843

p. 136]

13844

13845

In addition, Native American tribes also indicate that communal living

13846

and high standards of living can and do go together. The Cherokees, for

13847

example, in the 1870s, "land was held collectively and life was contented

13848

and prosperous" with the Department of the Interior recognising that it

13849

was "a miracle of progress, with successful production by people living

13850

in considerable comfort, a level of education 'equal to that furnished by

13851

an ordinary college in the States,' flourishing industry and commerce, an

13852

effective constitutional government, a high level of literacy, and a state

13853

of 'civilisation and enlightenment' comparable to anything known: 'What

13854

required five hundred years for the Britons to accomplish in this direction

13855

they have accomplished in one hundred years,' the Department declared in

13856

wonder." [Noam Chomsky, _Year 501_, p. 231]

13857

13858

Senator Henry Dawes of Massachusetts visited "Indian Territory" in 1883 and

13859

described what he found in glowing terms:

13860

13861

"There was not a pauper in that nation, and the nation did not owe a dollar.

13862

It built its own capitol, in which we had this examination, and it built its

13863

schools and its hospitals." No family lacked a home. [Cited by Chomsky,

13864

Op. Cit., p. 231]

13865

13866

(It must be mentioned that Dawes recommended that the society must be

13867

destroyed because "[t]hey have got as far as they can go, because they own

13868

their land in common. . .there is no enterprise to make your home any better

13869

than that of your neighbours. There is no selfishness, which is the bottom

13870

of civilisation. Till this people will consent to give up their lands, and

13871

divide them among their citizens so that each can own the land he cultivates,

13872

they will not make much more progress." The introduction of capitalism --

13873

as usual by state action -- resulted in poverty and destitution, again

13874

showing the link between capitalism and high living standards is not clear

13875

cut, regardless of claims otherwise).

13876

13877

Undoubtedly, having access to the means of production ensured that members

13878

of such cultures did not have to place themselves in situations which could

13879

produce a servile character structure. As they did not have to follow the

13880

orders of a boss they did not have to learn to obey others and so could

13881

develop their own abilities to govern themselves. This self-government

13882

allowed the development of a custom in such tribes called "the principle

13883

of non-interference" in anthropology. This is the principle of defending

13884

someone's right to express the opposing view and it is a pervasive

13885

principle in the tribal world, and it is so much so as to be safely

13886

called a "universal".

13887

13888

The principle of non-interference is a powerful principle that extends

13889

from the personal to the political, and into every facet of daily life.

13890

Most modern people are aghast when they realise the extent to which it is

13891

practised, but it has proven itself to be an integral part of living

13892

anarchy (as many of these communities can be termed, although they would

13893

be considered imperfect anarchist societies in some ways). It means that

13894

people simply do not limit the activities of others, period. This in effect

13895

makes absolute tolerance a custom, or as the modern would say, a law. But

13896

the difference between law and custom is important to point out. Law is

13897

dead, and Custom lives (see section I.7.3).

13898

13899

As modern people we have so much baggage that relates to "interfering" with

13900

the lives of others that merely visualising the situation that would

13901

eliminate this daily pastime for many is impossible. But think about it.

13902

First of all, in a society where people do not interfere with each other's

13903

behaviour, people tend to feel trusted and empowered by this simple social

13904

fact. Their self-esteem is already higher because they are trusted with

13905

the responsibility for making learned and aware choices. This is not

13906

fiction; individual responsibility is a key aspect of social responsibility.

13907

13908

Therefore, given the strength of individuality documented in tribes with

13909

little or no hierarchical structures within them, can we not conclude that

13910

anarchism will defend individuality and even develop it in ways blocked

13911

by capitalism? At the very least we can say "possibly," and that is enough

13912

to allow us to question that dogma that capitalism is the only system based

13913

on respect for the individual.

13914

13915

I.7.2 Is this not worshipping the past or the "noble savage"?

13916

13917

No. However, this is a common attack on socialists by supporters of

13918

capitalism and on anarchists by Marxists. Both claim that anarchism is

13919

"backward looking", opposed to "progress" and desire a society based on

13920

inappropriate ideas of freedom. In particular, ideological capitalists

13921

maintain that all forms of socialism base themselves on the ideal of the

13922

"noble savage" and ignore the need for laws and other authoritarian social

13923

institutions to keep people "in check" (see, for example, free market

13924

capitalist guru Frederick von Hayek's work, particularly his _Fatal

13925

Conceit: The Errors of Socialism_).

13926

13927

Anarchists are well aware of the limitations of the "primitive communist"

13928

societies they have used as example of anarchistic tendencies within

13929

history or society. They are also aware of the problems associated with

13930

using *any* historical period as an example of "anarchism in action."

13931

Take for example the "free cities" of Medieval Europe, which was used by

13932

Kropotkin as an example of the potential of decentralised, confederated

13933

communes. He was sometimes accused of being a "Medievalist" (as was

13934

William Morris) while all he was doing was indicating that capitalism

13935

need not equal progress and that alternative social systems have existed

13936

which have encouraged freedom in ways capitalism restricts.

13937

13938

In a similar way, Marxists often accuse Proudhon of being "petty-bourgeois"

13939

and looking backward to a pre-industrial society of artisans and peasants.

13940

Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. Proudhon came from a

13941

area of French which, like many other parts of that country at the time,

13942

was essentially pre-industrial and based on peasant and artisan production.

13943

He therefore based his socialist ideas on the needs of working people as

13944

they required them at the time. Unlike Marx, who argued that industrialisation

13945

(i.e. proletarianisation) was the pre-conditions of socialism, Proudhon

13946

wanted justice and freedom for working people in the here and now, not

13947

some (unspecified) time in the future after capitalism had fully developed.

13948

He was "petit-bourgeois" only in so far as the French working class at

13949

the time was "petit-bourgeois" and was "proletarian" in so far as his

13950

fellow working people were.

13951

13952

When Proudhon did look at large-scale production (such as railways,

13953

factories and so on) he proposed co-operative associations to run them.

13954

These associations would maintain the dignity of the worker by maintaining

13955

the essential feature of artisan and peasant live, namely the control of

13956

the work and product by the labourer. Thus he used the experience of the

13957

past (artisan production) to inform his analysis of current events

13958

(industrialisation) to create a solution to the social problem which

13959

built upon and extended a freedom crushed by capitalism (namely workers'

13960

self-management in production). Rather than being backward looking and

13961

worshipping a past which was disappearing, Proudhon analysed the present

13962

*and* past, drew any positive features he could from both and applied

13963

them to the present and the future (see also section H.2.1).

13964

13965

Again it is hardly surprising to find that many supporters of capitalism

13966

ignore the insights that can be gained by studying tribal cultures

13967

and the questions they raise about capitalism and freedom. Instead, they

13968

duck the issues raised by these insights and accuse socialists of idealising

13969

"the noble savage." As indicated, nothing could be further from the truth.

13970

Indeed, this claim has been directed towards Rousseau (often considered

13971

the father of socialist and anarchist "idealisation" of the "noble

13972

savage") even though Rousseau expressly rejected any "return to nature."

13973

He stated that "must societies be totally abolished? Must *meum* and

13974

*tuum* be annihilated, and must we return again to the forests to

13975

live among bears? This is a deduction in the manner of my adversaries,

13976

which I would as soon anticipate as let them have the shame of drawing."

13977

[_The Social Contract and Discourses_, p. 112] Sadly, Rousseau failed to

13978

understand that his adversaries, both then and now, seem to know no shame

13979

(similarly, Rousseau is often thought of idealising "natural man" but

13980

actually wrote that "men in a state of nature, having no moral relations

13981

or determinate obligations one with another, could not be either good or

13982

bad, virtuous or vicious" [Op. Cit., p. 64]). This also seems to be the

13983

case when anarchists look through history, draw libertarian currents from

13984

it and are denounced as backward looking utopians.

13985

13986

What libertarians socialists point out from this analysis of history

13987

is that the atomised individual associated with capitalist society is

13988

not "natural" and that capitalist social relationships help to weaken

13989

individuality. All the many attacks on libertarian socialist analysis

13990

of past societies is a product of capitalists attempts to deny history

13991

and state that "Progress" reaches its final resting place in capitalism.

13992

As David Watson argues:

13993

13994

"When we consider people living under some of the harshest, most

13995

commanding conditions on earth, who can nevertheless do what they

13996

like when the notion occurs to them, we should be able to witness

13997

the contemporary doubt about civilisation's superiority without

13998

growing indignant. Primitivism, after all, reflects not only a

13999

glimpse of life before the rise of the state, but also a legitimate

14000

response to real conditions of life under civilisation . . . Most

14001

people do not live in aboriginal societies, and most tribal peoples

14002

themselves now face wholly new contexts which will have to be

14003

confronted in new ways if they are to survive as peoples. But

14004

their lifeways, their histories, remind us that *other modes of

14005

being are possible.* Reaffirmation of our primal past offers insight

14006

into our history -- not the only possible insight, to be sure, but

14007

one important, legitimate entry point for a reasoned discussion

14008

about (and an impassioned reaction to) this world we must leave

14009

behind." [_Beyond Bookchin_, p. 240]

14010

14011

This essential investigation of history and modern society to see

14012

what other ways of living have and do exist is essential. It is

14013

too easy to forget that what exists under modern capitalism has

14014

not always existed (as neo-classical economics does, to a large

14015

degree). It is also useful to remember what many people now

14016

consider as "normal" was not always the case. As we discussed

14017

in section F.8.6, the first generation of industrial wage

14018

slaves *hated* the system, considering it both tyranny and

14019

unnatural. Studying history, previous cultures and the process

14020

of hierarchical society and the oppressed resistance to it can

14021

enrich our analysis and activity in the here and now and help

14022

us to envision an anarchist society, the problems it could

14023

face and possible solutions to them.

14024

14025

If the challenge for anarchists is to smash power-relations and

14026

domination, it would make sense to get to the root of the problem.

14027

Hierarchy, slavery, coercion, patriarchy, and so on far outdate

14028

capitalism and it is hardly enough to just analyse the economic

14029

system of capitalism, which is merely the current and most

14030

insidious form of hierarchical civilisation. Similarly, without

14031

looking to cultures and communities that functioned quite well

14032

before the rise of the state, hierarchies and classes, anarchists

14033

do not really have much solid ground to prove to people that

14034

anarchy is desirable or possible. For this reason, historical

14035

analysis and the celebration of the positive aspects of tribal

14036

and other societies is essential.

14037

14038

Moreover, as George Orwell points out, attacks that reject this critical

14039

analysis as worshipping the "noble savage" miss the point:

14040

14041

"In the first place he [the defender of modern life] will tell you that

14042

it is impossible to 'go back' . . . and will then accuse you of being a

14043

medievalist and begin to descant upon the horrors of the Middle Ages . . .

14044

As a matter of fact, most attacks upon the Middle Ages and the past

14045

generally by apologists of modernity are beside the point, because their

14046

essential trick is to project a modern man, with his squeamishness and his

14047

high standard of comfort, into an age when such things were unheard of. But

14048

notice that in any case this is not an answer. For dislike of the mechanised

14049

future does not imply the smallest reverence for any period of the past . . .

14050

When one pictures it merely as an objective; there is no need to pretend

14051

that it has ever existed in space and time." [_The Road to Wigan Pier_,

14052

p. 183]

14053

14054

We should also note that such attacks on anarchist investigations of past

14055

cultures assumes that these cultures have *no* good aspects at all and so

14056

indicates a sort of intellectual "all or nothing" approach to modern life.

14057

The idea that past (and current) civilisations may have got *some* things

14058

right and others wrong and should be investigated is rejected for a

14059

totally uncritical "love it or leave" approach to modern society. Of course,

14060

the well known "free market" capitalist love of 19th century capitalist

14061

life and values warrants no such claims of "past worship" by the supporters

14062

of the system.

14063

14064

Therefore attacks on anarchists as supporters of the "noble savage" ideal

14065

indicate more about the opponents of anarchism and their fear of looking

14066

at the implications of the system they support than about anarchist theory.

14067

14068

I.7.3 Is the law required to protect individual rights?

14069

14070

No, far from it. While it is obvious that, as Kropotkin put it, "[n]o

14071

society is possible without certain principles of morality generally

14072

recognised. If everyone grew accustomed to deceiving his fellow-men;

14073

if we never could rely on each other's promise and words; if everyone

14074

treated his fellow as an enemy, against whom every means of warfare

14075

is justified -- no society could exist." [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary

14076

Pamphlets_, p. 73] this does not mean that a legal system (with its

14077

resultant bureaucracy, vested interests and inhumanity) is the best

14078

way to protect individual rights within a society.

14079

14080

What anarchists propose instead of the current legal system (or an

14081

alternative law system based on religious or "natural" laws) is *custom*

14082

- namely the development of living "rules of thumb" which express what

14083

a society considers as right at any given moment.

14084

14085

However, the question arises, if a fixed set of principles are used to

14086

determine the just outcome, in what way would this differ from laws?

14087

14088

The difference is that the "order of custom" would prevail rather than

14089

the "rule of law". *Custom* is a body of living institutions that enjoys

14090

the support of the body politic, whereas *law* is a codified (read dead)

14091

body of institutions that separates social control from moral force.

14092

This, as anyone observing modern Western society can testify, alienates

14093

everyone. A *just outcome* is the predictable, but not necessarily the

14094

inevitable outcome of interpersonal conflict because in a traditional

14095

anarchistic society people are trusted to do it themselves. Anarchists

14096

think people have to grow up in a social environment free from the

14097

confusions generated by a fundamental discrepancy between morality, and

14098

social control, to fully appreciate the implications. However, the essential

14099

ingredient is the investment of trust, by the community, in people to come

14100

up with *functional solutions* to interpersonal conflict. This stands in

14101

sharp contrast with the present situation of people being infantilised by

14102

the state through a constant bombardment of fixed social structures removing

14103

all possibility of people developing their own unique solutions.

14104

14105

Therefore, anarchist recognise that social custom changes with society.

14106

What was once considered "normal" or "natural" may become to be seen as

14107

oppressive and hateful. This is because the "conception of good or evil

14108

varies according to the degree of intelligence or of knowledge acquired.

14109

There is nothing unchangeable about it." [Kropotkin, Op. Cit., p. 92]

14110

Only by removing the dead hand of the past can society's ethical base

14111

develop and grow with the individuals that make it up (see section A.2.19

14112

for a discussion of anarchist ethics).

14113

14114

We should also like to point out here that laws (or "The Law") also restrict

14115

the development of an individual's sense of ethics or morality. This is

14116

because it relieves them of the responsibility of determining if something

14117

is right or wrong. All they need to know is whether it is legal. The morality

14118

of the action is irrelevant. This "nationalisation" of ethics is very

14119

handy for the would be capitalist, governor or other exploiter. In addition,

14120

capitalism also restricts the development of an individual's ethics because

14121

it creates the environment where these ethics can be bought. To quote

14122

Shakespeare's _Richard III_:

14123

14124

"Second Murderer: Some certain dregs of conscience are yet within me.

14125

14126

First Murderer : Remember our reward, when the deed's done.

14127

14128

Second Murderer : Zounds! He dies. I had forgot the reward.

14129

14130

First Murderer : Where's thy conscience now?

14131

14132

Second Murderer : O, in the Duke of Gloucester's purse."

14133

14134

Therefore, as far as "The Law" defending individual rights, it creates the

14135

necessary conditions (such as the de-personalisation of ethics, the existence

14136

of concentrations wealth, and so on) for undermining individual ethical

14137

behaviour, and so respect for other individual's rights. As English

14138

libertarian socialist Edward Carpenter put it, "I think we may fairly

14139

make the following general statement, viz., that legal ownership is

14140

essentially a negative and anti-social thing, and that unless qualified

14141

or antidoted by human relationship, it is pretty certain to be positively

14142

*harmful.* In fact, when a man's chief plea is 'The law allows it,'

14143

you may be pretty sure he is up to some mischief!" [quoted by William

14144

R. McKercher, _Freedom and Authority_, p. 48]

14145

14146

The state forces an individual a relationship with a governing body.

14147

This means "taking away from the individual his [or her] direct interest

14148

in life and in his surroundings . . . blunting his [or her] moral sense

14149

. . . teaching that he [or she] must never reply on himself [or herself]

14150

. . . [but] upon a small part of men who are elected to do everything . . .

14151

[which] destroys to a large extent his [or her] perception of right and

14152

wrong." [J. B. Smith, quoted by McKercher, Op. Cit., p. 67f]

14153

14154

Individual rights, for anarchists, are best protected in a social environment

14155

based on the self-respect and sympathy. Custom, because it is based on the

14156

outcome of numerous individual actions and thought does not have this problem

14157

and reflects (and encourages the development of) individual ethical standards

14158

and so a generalised respect for others. Thus, "under anarchism all rules

14159

and laws will be little more than suggestions for the guidance of juries

14160

which will judge not only the facts but the law, the justice of the law,

14161

its applicability to the given circumstances, and the penalty or damage

14162

to be inflicted because if its infraction . . . under Anarchism the law

14163

will be so flexible that it will shape itself to every emergency and

14164

need no alteration. And it will be regarded as *just* in proportion to

14165

its flexibility, instead of as now in proportion to its rigidity."

14166

[Benjamin Tucker, _The Individualist Anarchists_, pp. 160-1] Tucker,

14167

like other individualist Anarchists, believed that the role of juries

14168

had been very substantial in the English common-law tradition and that

14169

they had been gradually emasculated by the state. This system of juries,

14170

based on common-law/custom could be the means of ensuring justice in a

14171

free society.

14172

14173

Tolerance of other individuals depends far more on the attitudes of the

14174

society in question that on its system of laws. In other words, even if

14175

the law does respect individual rights, if others in society disapprove

14176

of an action then they can and will act to stop it (or restrict individual

14177

rights). All that the law can do is try to prevent this occurring. Needless

14178

to say, governments can (and have) been at the forefront of ignoring

14179

individual rights when its suits them.

14180

14181

In addition, the state perverts social customs for its own, and the

14182

interests of the economically and socially powerful. As Kropotkin argued,

14183

"as society became more and more divided into two hostile classes, one

14184

seeking to establish its domination, the other struggling to escape,

14185

the strife began. Now the conqueror was in a hurry to secure the results

14186

of his actions in a permanent form, he tried to place them beyond

14187

question, to make them holy and venerable by every means in his power.

14188

Law made its appearance under the sanction of the priest, and the

14189

warriors club was placed at its service. Its office was to render

14190

immutable such customs as were to the advantage of the dominant

14191

minority . . . If law, however, presented nothing but a collection

14192

of prescriptions serviceable to rulers, it would find some difficulty

14193

in insuring acceptance and obedience. Well, the legislators confounded

14194

in one code the two currents of custom . . . , the maxims which

14195

represent principles of morality and social union wrought out as a

14196

result of life in common, and the mandates which are meant to ensure

14197

external existence to inequality. Customs, absolutely essential

14198

to the very being of society, are, in the code, cleverly intermingled

14199

with usages imposed by the ruling caste, and both claim equal respect

14200

from the crowd. . . . Such was the law; and it has maintained its

14201

two-fold character to this day." [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_,

14202

p. 205] In other words, "[t]he law has used Man's social feelings to get

14203

passed not only moral precepts which were acceptable to Man, but also

14204

orders which were useful only to the minority of exploiters against whom

14205

he would have rebelled." [Krotpotkin quoted by Malatesta in _Anarchy_,

14206

pp. 21-22]

14207

14208

Therefore anarchists argue that state institutions are not only unneeded

14209

to create a ethical society (i.e. one based on respecting individuality)

14210

but activity undermines such a society. That the economically and politically

14211

powerful state that a state is a necessary condition for a free society and

14212

individual space is hardly surprising. Malatesta put it as follows:

14213

14214

"A government cannot maintain itself for long without hiding its true nature

14215

behind a pretence of general usefulness . . . it cannot impose acceptances

14216

of the privileges of the few if it does not pretend to be the guardian of

14217

the rights of all." [_Anarchy_, p. 21]

14218

14219

Therefore, its important to remember why the state exists and so whatever

14220

actions and rights it promotes for the individual it exists to protect the

14221

powerful against the powerless. Any human rights recognised by the state

14222

are a product of social struggle and exist because of pass victories in

14223

the class war and not due to the kindness of ruling elites. In addition,

14224

capitalism itself undermines the ethical foundations of any society by

14225

encouraging people to grow "accustomed to deceiving his fellow-men" and

14226

women and treating "his fellow as an [economic] enemy, against whom every

14227

means of warfare is justified." Hence capitalism undermines the basic

14228

social context within which individuals develop and need to become fully

14229

human and free. Little wonder that a strong state has always been required

14230

to introduce a free market - firstly, to protect wealth from the increasingly

14231

dispossessed and secondly, to try to hold society together as capitalism

14232

destroys the social fabric which makes a society worth living in.

14233

14234

I.7.4 Does capitalism protect individuality?

14235

14236

Given that many people claim that *any* form of socialism will destroy

14237

liberty (and so individuality) it is worthwhile to consider whether

14238

capitalism actually does protect individuality. As noted briefly in

14239

section I.7 the answer must be no. Capitalism seems to help create a

14240

standardisation which helps to distort individuality and the fact that

14241

individuality does exist under capitalism says more about the human

14242

spirit than capitalist social relationships.

14243

14244

So, why does a system apparently based on the idea of individual profit

14245

result in such a deadening of the individual? There are four main reasons:

14246

14247

1) capitalism produces a hierarchical system which crushes self-government

14248

in many areas of life;

14249

14250

2) there is the lack of community which does not provide the necessary

14251

supports for the encouragement of individuality;

14252

14253

3) there is the psychological impact of "individual profit" when it becomes

14254

identified purely with monetary gain (as in capitalism);

14255

14256

4) the effects of competition in creating conformity and mindless obedience

14257

to authority.

14258

14259

We have discussed point one on many occasions (see sections B.1 and B.4).

14260

As Emma Goldman put it, under capitalism, the individual "must sell

14261

his [or her] labour" and so their "inclination and judgement are

14262

subordinated to the will of a master." This, naturally, represses

14263

individual initiative and the skills needed to know and express ones

14264

own mind (as she put it, this "condemns millions of people to be

14265

mere nonentities, living corpses without originality or power of

14266

initiative . . . who pile up mountains of wealth for others and

14267

pay for it with a grey, dull and wretched existence for themselves").

14268

"There can be no freedom in the large sense of the word," Goldman

14269

stressed, "so long as mercenary and commercial considerations

14270

play an important part in the determination of personal conduct."

14271

[_Red Emma Speaks_, p. 36]

14272

14273

Given the social relationships it is based on, capitalism cannot

14274

foster individuality but only harm it. As Kropotkin argued,

14275

"obedience towards individuals or metaphysical entities . . .

14276

lead to depression of initiative and servility of mind."

14277

[_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_, p. 285]

14278

14279

As far as point two goes, we have discussed it already in this

14280

section and will not repeat ourselves (see sections I.7 and

14281

I.7.1).

14282

14283

The last two points are worth discussing more thoroughly, and we will do

14284

so here.

14285

14286

Taking the third point first, when this kind of "greed" becomes the guiding

14287

aspect of an individual's life (and the society they live in) they usually

14288

end up sacrificing their own ego to it. Instead of the individual dominating

14289

their "greed," "greed" dominates them and so they end up being possessed by

14290

one aspect of themselves. This "selfishness" hides the poverty of the ego

14291

who practices it.

14292

14293

As Erich Fromm argues:

14294

14295

"Selfishness if not identical with self-love but with its very opposite.

14296

Selfishness is one kind of greediness. Like all greediness, it contains

14297

an insatiability, as a consequence of which there is never any real

14298

satisfaction. Greed is a bottomless pit which exhausts the person in an

14299

endless effort to satisfy the need without ever reaching satisfaction. . .

14300

this type of person is basically not fond of himself, but deeply dislikes

14301

himself.

14302

14303

"The puzzle in this seeming contradiction is easy to solve. Selfishness

14304

is rooted in this very lack of fondness for oneself. . . He does not

14305

have the inner security which can exist only on the basis of genuine

14306

fondness and affirmation." [_The Fear of Freedom_, pp. 99-100]

14307

14308

In other words, the "selfish" person allows their greed to dominate their

14309

ego and they sacrifice their personality feeding this new "God." This

14310

was clearly seen by Max Stirner who denounced this as a "one-sided, unopened,

14311

narrow egoism" which leads the ego being "ruled by a passion to which he

14312

brings the rest as sacrifices" (see section G.6). Like all "spooks,"

14313

capitalism results in the self-negation of the individual and so the

14314

impoverishment of individuality. Little wonder, then, that a system

14315

apparently based upon "egoism" and "individualism" ends up weakening

14316

individuality.

14317

14318

The effects of competition on individuality are equally as destructive.

14319

14320

Indeed, a "culture dedicated to creating standardised, specialised,

14321

predictable human components could find no better way of grinding them

14322

out than by making every possible aspect of life a matter of competition.

14323

'Winning out' in this respect does not make rugged individualists. It

14324

shapes conformist robots." [George Leonard, quoted by Alfie Kohn,

14325

_No Contest: The Case Against Competition_, p. 129]

14326

14327

Why is this?

14328

14329

Competition is based upon outdoing others and this can only occur if you

14330

are doing the same thing they are. However, individuality is the most

14331

unique thing there is and "unique characteristics by definition cannot

14332

be ranked and participating in the process of ranking demands essential

14333

conformity." [Alfie Kohn, Op. Cit., p. 130] According to Kohn in his

14334

extensive research into the effects of competition, the evidence

14335

suggests that it in fact "encourages rank conformity" as well as

14336

undermining the "substantial and authentic kind of individualism"

14337

associated by such free thinkers as Thoreau. [Op. Cit., p. 129]

14338

14339

As well as impoverishing individuality by encouraging conformity,

14340

competition also makes us less free thinking and rebellious:

14341

14342

"Attitude towards authorities and general conduct do count in the kinds of

14343

competitions that take place in the office or classroom. If I want to get

14344

the highest grades in class, I will not be likely to challenge the teacher's

14345

version of whatever topic is being covered. After a while, I may cease to

14346

think critically altogether. . . If people tend to 'go along to get along,'

14347

there is even more incentive to go along when the goal is to be number one.

14348

In the office or factory where co-workers are rivals, beating out the next

14349

person for a promotion means pleasing the boss. Competition acts to

14350

extinguish the Promethean fire of rebellion." [Op. Cit., p. 130]

14351

14352

In section I.4.11 ("If libertarian socialism eliminates the profit motive,

14353

won't creativity suffer?") we noted that when an artistic task is turned

14354

into a contest, children's work reveal significantly less spontaneity

14355

and creativity. In other words, competition reduces creativity and so

14356

individuality because creativity is "anti-conformist at its core: it is

14357

nothing if not a process of idiosyncratic thinking and risk-taking.

14358

Competition inhibits this process." [Op. Cit., p. 130]

14359

14360

Competition, therefore, will result in a narrowing of our lives, a failing

14361

to experience new challenges in favour of trying to win and be "successful."

14362

It turns "life into a series of contests [and] turns us into cautious,

14363

obedient people. We do not sparkle as individuals *or* embrace collective

14364

action when we are in a race." [Op. Cit., p. 131]

14365

14366

So, far from defending individuality, capitalism places a lot of barriers

14367

(both physical and mental) in the path of individuals who are trying to

14368

express their freedom. Anarchism exists precisely because capitalism has

14369

not created the free society it supporters claimed it would during its

14370

struggle against the absolutist state.

14371

14372

I.8 Does revolutionary Spain show that libertarian socialism can

14373

work in practice?

14374

14375

Yes. As Murray Bookchin puts it, "[i]n Spain, millions of people took

14376

large segments of the economy into their own hands, collectivised them,

14377

administered them, even abolished money and lived by communistic

14378

principles of work and distribution -- all of this in the midst of a

14379

terrible civil war, yet without producing the chaos or even the serious

14380

dislocations that were and still are predicted by authoritarian

14381

'radicals.' Indeed, in many collectivised areas, the efficiency with

14382

which an enterprise worked by far exceeded that of a comparable one in

14383

nationalised or private sectors. This 'green shoot' of revolutionary

14384

reality has more meaning for us than the most persuasive theoretical

14385

arguments to the contrary. On this score it is not the anarchists who are

14386

the 'unrealistic day-dreamers,' but their opponents who have turned their

14387

backs to the facts or have shamelessly concealed them." ["Introductory

14388

Essay," in _The Anarchist Collectives_, Sam Dolgoff (ed.), p. xxxix]

14389

14390

Sam Dolgoff's book is by far the best English source on the Spanish

14391

collectives and deserves to be quoted at length (as we do below). He

14392

quotes French Anarchist Gaston Leval comments that in those areas

14393

which defeated the fascist uprising on the 19th of July 1936 a

14394

profound social revolution took place based, mostly, on anarchist

14395

ideas:

14396

14397

"In Spain, during almost three years, despite a civil war that took

14398

a million lives, despite the opposition of the political parties . . .

14399

this idea of libertarian communism was put into effect. Very quickly

14400

more than 60% of the land was very quickly collectively cultivated by

14401

the peasants themselves, without landlords, without bosses, and without

14402

instituting capitalist competition to spur production. In almost all the

14403

industries, factories, mills, workshops, transportation services, public

14404

services, and utilities, the rank and file workers, their revolutionary

14405

committees, and their syndicates reorganised and administered production,

14406

distribution, and public services without capitalists, high-salaried

14407

managers, or the authority of the state.

14408

14409

"Even more: the various agrarian and industrial collectives immediately

14410

instituted economic equality in accordance with the essential principle

14411

of communism, 'From each according to his ability and to each according

14412

to his needs.' They co-ordinated their efforts through free association

14413

in whole regions, created new wealth, increased production (especially

14414

in agriculture), built more schools, and bettered public services. They

14415

instituted not bourgeois formal democracy but genuine grass roots

14416

functional libertarian democracy, where each individual participated

14417

directly in the revolutionary reorganisation of social life. They

14418

replaced the war between men, 'survival of the fittest,' by the

14419

universal practice of mutual aid, and replaced rivalry by the principle

14420

of solidarity . . .

14421

14422

"This experience, in which about eight million people directly or

14423

indirectly participated, opened a new way of life to those who

14424

sought an alternative to anti-social capitalism on the one hand,

14425

and totalitarian state bogus socialism on the other." [Op. Cit.,

14426

pp. 6-7]

14427

14428

Thus about eight million people directly or indirectly participated in

14429

the libertarian based new economy during the short time it was able to

14430

survive the military assaults of the fascists and the attacks and

14431

sabotage of the Communists. This in itself suggests that libertarian

14432

socialist ideas are of a practical nature.

14433

14434

Lest the reader think that Dolgoff and Bookchin are exaggerating the

14435

accomplishments and ignoring the failures of the Spanish collectives,

14436

in the following subsections we will present specific details and answer

14437

some objections often raised by misinformed critics. We will try to present

14438

an objective analysis of the revolution, its many successes, its strong

14439

points and weak points, the mistakes made and possible lessons to be

14440

drawn from the experience, both from the successes and the mistakes.

14441

14442

This libertarian influenced revolution has (generally) been ignored

14443

by historians, or its existence mentioned in passing. Some so-called

14444

historians and "objective investigators" have slandered it and lied

14445

about (when not ignoring) the role anarchists played in it. Communist

14446

histories are particularly unreliable (to use a polite word for their

14447

activities) but it seems that almost *every* political perspective

14448

has done this (including liberal, right-wing libertarian, Stalinist,

14449

Trotskyist, Marxist, and so on). Indeed, the myths generated by

14450

Marxists of various shades are quite extensive (see the appendix

14451

on "Marxists and Spanish Anarchism" for a reply to some of the

14452

more common ones).

14453

14454

Thus any attempt to investigate what actually occurred in Spain and

14455

the anarchists' role in it is subject to a great deal of difficulty.

14456

Moreover, the positive role that Anarchists played in the revolution

14457

and the positive results of our ideas when applied in practice are

14458

also downplayed, if not ignored. Indeed, the misrepresentations of

14459

the Spanish Anarchist movement are downright amazing (see Jerome R.

14460

Mintz's wonderful book _The Anarchists of Casa Viejas_ for a

14461

refutation of the historians claims, a refutation based on oral

14462

history, as well as J. Romero Maura's, "The Spanish case",

14463

contained in _Anarchism Today_, edited by J. Joll and D. Apter.

14464

Both are essential reading to understand the distortions of

14465

historians about the Spanish anarchist movement).

14466

14467

All we can do here is present a summary of the social revolution

14468

that took place and attempt to explode a few of the myths that

14469

have been created around the work of the C.N.T. and F.A.I. during

14470

those years.

14471

14472

In addition, we must stress that this section of the FAQ can

14473

be nothing but an introduction to the Spanish Revolution. We

14474

concentrate on the economic and political aspects of the

14475

revolution as we cannot cover the social transformations

14476

that occurred. All across non-fascist Spain traditional social

14477

relationships between men and women, adults and children,

14478

individual and individual were transformed, revolutionised,

14479

in a libertarian way. C.N.T. militant Abel Paz gives a good

14480

indication of this when he wrote:

14481

14482

"Industry is in the hands of the workers and all the production

14483

centres conspicuously fly the red and black flags as well as

14484

inscriptions announcing that they have really become collectives.

14485

The revolution seems to be universal. Changes are also evident

14486

in social relations. The former barriers which used to separate

14487

men and woman arbitrarily have been destroyed. In the cafes and

14488

other public places there is a mingling of the sexes which would

14489

have been completely unimaginable before. The revolution has

14490

introduced a fraternal character to social relations which has

14491

deepened with practice and show clearly that the old world is

14492

dead." [_Durruti: The People Armed_, p. 243]

14493

14494

The social transformation empowered individuals and these, in

14495

turn, transformed society. Anarchist militant Enriqueta Rovira

14496

presents a vivid picture of the self-liberation the revolution

14497

generated:

14498

14499

"The atmosphere then [during the revolution], the feelings were

14500

very special. It was beautiful. A feeling of -- how shall I say

14501

it -- of power, not in the sense of domination, but in the

14502

sense of things being under *our* control, of under anyone's.

14503

Of *possibility*. We *had* everything. We had Barcelona: It

14504

was ours. You'd walk out in the streets, and they were ours

14505

different. Full of possibility. A feeling that we could,

14506

together, really *do* something. That we could make things

14507

different." [quoted by Martha A. Ackelsberg and Myrna

14508

Margulies Breithart, "Terrains of Protest: Striking City

14509

Women", pp. 151-176, _Our Generation_, vol. 19, No. 1,

14510

pp. 164-5]

14511

14512

Moreover, the transformation of society that occurred during the

14513

revolution extended to all areas of life and work. For example,

14514

the revolution saw "the creation of a health workers' union,

14515

a true experiment in socialised medicine. They provided medical

14516

assistance and opened hospitals and clinics." [Juan Gomez Casas,

14517

_Anarchist Organisation: The History of the FAI_, p. 192] We

14518

discuss this example in some detail in section I.5.12 and so

14519

will not do so here. Therefore, we must stress that this section

14520

of the FAQ is just an introduction to what happened and does

14521

not (indeed, cannot) discuss all aspects of the revolution.

14522

We just present an overview, bringing out the libertarian

14523

aspects of the revolution, the ways workers' self-management

14524

was organised, how the collectives organised and what they did.

14525

14526

Needless to say, many mistakes were made during the revolution.

14527

We point out and discuss some of them in what follows. Moreover,

14528

much of what happened did not correspond exactly with what

14529

many people consider as the essential steps in a communist

14530

(libertarian or otherwise) revolution. Economically, for

14531

example, few collectives reached beyond a mutualist or

14532

collectivist state. Politically, the fear of a fascist

14533

victory made many anarchists accept collaboration with the

14534

state as a lessor evil. However, to dismiss the Spanish

14535

Revolution because it did not meet the ideas laid out by

14536

a handful of revolutionaries would be sectarian and elitist

14537

nonsense. No working class revolution is pure, no mass

14538

struggle is without its contradictions, no attempt to

14539

change society will be perfect. "It is only those who do

14540

nothing who make no mistakes," as Kropotkin so correctly

14541

pointed out. [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_,

14542

p. 143] The question is whether the revolution creates

14543

a system of institutions which will allow those involved

14544

to discuss the problems they face and correct the decisions

14545

they make. In this, the Spanish Revolution clearly

14546

succeeded, creating organisations based on the initiative,

14547

autonomy and power of working class people.

14548

14549

For more information about the social revolution, Sam Dolgoff's _The

14550

Anarchist Collectives_ is an excellent starting place. Gaston Leval's

14551

_Collectives in the Spanish Revolution_ is another essential text.

14552

Jose Pierat's _Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution_ and Vernon

14553

Richards' _Lessons of the Spanish Revolution_ are excellent critical

14554

anarchist works on the revolution and the role of the anarchists.

14555

Robert Alexander's _The Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War_ is a

14556

good general overview of the anarchist's role in the revolution

14557

and civil war, as is Burnett Bolloten's _The Spanish Civil War_.

14558

Noam Chomsky's excellent essay "Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship"

14559

indicates how liberal books on the Spanish Civil War can be

14560

misleading, unfair and essentially ideological in nature (this

14561

classic essay can be found in _The Chomsky Reader_ and _American

14562

Power and the New Mandarins_). George Orwell's _Homage to Catalonia_

14563

cannot be bettered as an introduction to the subject (Orwell was

14564

in the POUM militia at the Aragon Front and was in Barcelona during

14565

the May Days of 1937).

14566

14567

I.8.1 Wasn't the Spanish Revolution primarily a rural phenomenon and

14568

therefore inapplicable as a model for modern industrialised

14569

societies?

14570

14571

Quite the reverse. More urban workers took part in the revolution

14572

than in the countryside. So while it is true that collectivisation

14573

was extensive in rural areas, the revolution also made its mark in

14574

urban areas and in industry.

14575

14576

In total, the "regions most affected" by collectivisation

14577

"were Catalonia and Aragon, were about 70 per cent of the

14578

workforce was involved. The total for the whole of Republican

14579

territory was nearly 800,000 on the land and a little more

14580

than a million in industry. In Barcelona workers' committees

14581

took over all the services, the oil monopoly, the shipping

14582

companies, heavy engineering firms such as Volcano, the

14583

Ford motor company, chemical companies, the textile

14584

industry and a host of smaller enterprises. . . Services

14585

such as water, gas and electricity were working under

14586

new management within hours of the storming of the

14587

Atarazanas barracks . . .a conversion of appropriate

14588

factories to war production meant that metallurgical

14589

concerns had started to produce armed cars by 22 July

14590

. . . The industrial workers of Catalonia were the most

14591

skilled in Spain . . . One of the most impressive

14592

feats of those early days was the resurrection of

14593

the public transport system at a time when the streets

14594

were still littered and barricaded." Five days after

14595

the fighting had stopped, 700 tramcars rather than

14596

the usual 600, all painted in the colours of the

14597

CNT-FAI were operating in Barcelona. [Antony Beevor,

14598

_The Spanish Civil War_, pp. 91-2]

14599

14600

About 75% of Spanish industry was concentrated in Catalonia,

14601

the stronghold of the anarchist labour movement, and widespread

14602

collectivisation of factories took place there. However,

14603

collectivisation was not limited to Catalonia and took place

14604

all across urban as well as rural Republican Spain. As Sam Dolgoff

14605

rightly observes, "[t]his refutes decisively the allegation that

14606

anarchist organisational principles are not applicable to industrial

14607

areas, and if at all, only in primitive agrarian societies or in

14608

isolated experimental communities." [_The Anarchist Collectives_,

14609

pp. 7-8]

14610

14611

There had been a long tradition of peasant collectivism in the Iberian

14612

Peninsula, as there was among the Berbers and in the ancient Russian

14613

*mir.* The historians Costa and Reparaz maintain that a great many

14614

Iberian collectives can be traced to "a form of rural libertarian-communism

14615

[which] existed in the Iberian Peninsula before the Roman invasion. Not

14616

even five centuries of oppression by Catholic kings, the State and the

14617

Church have been able to eradicate the spontaneous tendency to establish

14618

libertarian communistic communities." [cited, Op. Cit., p. 20] So it

14619

is not surprising that there were collectives in the countryside.

14620

14621

According to Augustin Souchy, "[i]t is no simple matter to collectivise

14622

and place on firm foundations an industry employing almost a quarter of a

14623

million textile workers in scores of factories scattered in numerous

14624

cities. But the Barcelona syndicalist textile union accomplished this

14625

feat in a short time. It was a tremendously significant experiment. The

14626

dictatorship of the bosses was toppled, and wages, working conditions and

14627

production were determined by the workers and their elected delegates.

14628

All functionaries had to carry out the instructions of the membership and

14629

report back directly to the men on the job and union meetings. The

14630

collectivisation of the textile industry shatters once and for all the

14631

legend that the workers are incapable of administrating a great and

14632

complex corporation" [cited, Op. Cit., p. 94].

14633

14634

Moreover, Spain in the 1930s was not a "backward, peasant country,"

14635

as is sometimes supposed. Between 1910 and 1930, the industrial

14636

working class more than doubled to over 2,500,000. This represented

14637

just over 26% of the working population (compared to 16% twenty

14638

years previously). In 1930, 45 per cent of the working population

14639

were engaged in agriculture. [Ronald Fraser, _The Blood of Spain_,

14640

p. 38] In Catalonia alone, 200,000 workers were employed in the

14641

textile industry and 70,000 in metal-working and machinery

14642

manufacturing. This was very different than the situation in

14643

Russia at the end of World War I, where the urban working class

14644

made up only 10% of the population.

14645

14646

Capitalist social relations had also penetrated agriculture much

14647

more thoroughly than in "backward, underdeveloped" countries by

14648

the 1930s. In Russia at the end of World War I, for example,

14649

agriculture mostly consisted of small farms on which peasant

14650

families worked mainly for their own subsistence, bartering or

14651

selling their surplus. In Spain, however, agriculture was

14652

oriented to the world market and by the 1930s approximately

14653

90% of farm land was in the hands of the bourgeoisie. [Fraser,

14654

Op. Cit., p. 37] Spanish agribusiness also employed large

14655

numbers of labourers who did not own enough land to support

14656

themselves. The revolutionary labour movement in the Spanish

14657

countryside in the 1930s was precisely based on this large

14658

population of rural wage-earners (the socialist UGT land

14659

workers union had 451,000 members in 1933, 40% of its total

14660

membership, for example).

14661

14662

Therefore the Spanish Revolution cannot be dismissed as a product

14663

a of pre-industrial society. The urban collectivisations occurred

14664

predominately in the most heavily industrialised part of Spain

14665

and indicate that anarchist ideas are applicable to modern

14666

societies (indeed, the CNT organised most of the unionised

14667

urban working class). By 1936 agriculture itself was

14668

predominately capitalist (with 2% of the population owning

14669

67% of the land). The revolution in Spain was the work (mostly)

14670

of rural and urban wage labourers (joined with poor peasants)

14671

fighting a well developed capitalist system.

14672

14673

Therefore, the anarchist revolution in Spain has many lessons

14674

for revolutionaries in developed capitalist countries and cannot

14675

be dismissed as a product of industrial backwardness.

14676

14677

I.8.2 How were the anarchists able to obtain mass popular support in

14678

Spain?

14679

14680

Anarchism was introduced in Spain in 1868 by Giuseppi Fanelli, an

14681

associate of Michael Bakunin, and found fertile soil among both the

14682

workers and the peasants of Spain.

14683

14684

The peasants supported anarchism because of the rural tradition of

14685

Iberian collectivism mentioned in the last section. The urban workers

14686

supported it because its ideas of direct action, solidarity and free

14687

federation of unions corresponded to their needs in their struggle

14688

against capitalism and the state.

14689

14690

In addition, many Spanish workers were well aware of the dangers of

14691

centralisation and the republican tradition in Spain was very much

14692

influenced by federalist ideas (coming, in part, from Proudhon's work).

14693

The movement later spread back and forth between countryside and cities

14694

as union organisers and anarchist militants visited villages and as

14695

peasants came to industrial cities like Barcelona, looking for work.

14696

14697

Therefore, from the start anarchism in Spain was associated with the

14698

labour movement (as Bakunin desired) and so anarchists had a practical

14699

area to apply their ideas and spread the anarchist message. By applying

14700

their principles in everyday life, the anarchists in Spain ensured that

14701

anarchist ideas became commonplace and accepted in a large section of

14702

the population.

14703

14704

This acceptance of anarchism cannot be separated from the structure

14705

and tactics of the C.N.T. and its fore-runners. The practice of direct

14706

action and solidarity encouraged workers to rely on themselves to

14707

identify and solve their own problems. The decentralised structure

14708

of the anarchist unions had an educational effect of their members.

14709

By discussing issues, struggles, tactics, ideals and politics in

14710

their union assemblies, the members of the union educated themselves

14711

and, by the process of self-management in the struggle, prepared

14712

themselves for a free society. The very organisational structure of

14713

the C.N.T. ensured the dominance of anarchist ideas and the political

14714

evolution of the union membership. As one C.N.T. militant from Casas

14715

Viejas put it, new members "asked for too much, because they lacked

14716

education. They thought they could reach the sky without a ladder . . .

14717

they were beginning to learn . . . There was good faith but lack

14718

of education. For that reason we would submit ideas to the assembly,

14719

and the bad ideas would be thrown out." [quoted by J. Mintz, _The

14720

Anarchists of Casas Viejas_, p. 27]

14721

14722

It was by working in the union meetings that anarchists influenced

14723

their fellow workers. The idea that the anarchists, through the

14724

F.A.I, controlled the C.N.T is a myth. Not all anarchists in the

14725

C.N.T were members of the F.A.I, for example. Almost all F.A.I

14726

members were also rank-and-file members of the C.N.T. who took part

14727

in union meetings as equals. Anarchists were not members of the FAI

14728

indicate this. Jose Borras Casacarosa notes that "[o]ne has to

14729

recognise that the F.A.I. did not intervene in the C.N.T. from

14730

above or in an authoritarian manner as did other political

14731

parties in the unions. It did so from the base through militants

14732

. . . the decisions which determined the course taken by the

14733

C.N.T. were taken under constant pressure from these militants."

14734

Jose Campos notes that F.A.I. militants "tended to reject control

14735

of confederal committees and only accepted them on specific

14736

occassions . . . if someone proposed a motion in assembly, the

14737

other F.A.I. members would support it, usually successfully.

14738

It was the individual standing of the *faista* in open assembly."

14739

[quoted by Stuart Christie, _We, the Anarchists_, p. 62]

14740

14741

This explains the success of anarchism in the CNT. Anarchist

14742

ideas, principles and tactics, submitted to the union assemblies,

14743

proved to be good ideas and were not thrown out. The structure of

14744

the organisation, in other words, decisively influenced the *content*

14745

of the decisions reached as ideas, tactics, union policy and so

14746

on were discussed by the membership and those which best applied

14747

to the members lives were accepted and implemented. The C.N.T

14748

assemblies showed the validity of Bakunin's arguments for

14749

self-managed unions as a means of ensuring workers' control of

14750

their own destinies and organisations. As he put it, the union

14751

"sections could defend their rights and their autonomy [against

14752

union bureaucracy] in only one way: the workers called general

14753

membership meetings . . . In these great meetings of the sections,

14754

the items on the agenda were amply discussed and the most progressive

14755

opinion prevailed." [_Bakunin on Anarchism_, p. 247] The C.N.T

14756

was built on such "popular assemblies," with the same radicalising

14757

effect. It showed, in practice, that bosses (capitalist as well as

14758

union ones) were not needed -- workers can manage their own affairs

14759

directly. As a school for anarchism it could not be bettered as it

14760

showed that anarchist principles were not utopian. The C.N.T, by

14761

being based on workers' self-management of the class struggle,

14762

prepared its members for workers' self-management of the revolution

14763

and the new society.

14764

14765

The Spanish Revolution also shows the importance of anarchist

14766

education and media. In a country with a very high illiteracy

14767

rate, huge quantities of literature on social revolution were

14768

disseminated and read out loud at meetings by those who could

14769

read to those who could not. Anarchist ideas were widely

14770

discussed. "There were tens of thousands of books, pamphlets

14771

and tracts, vast and daring cultural and popular educational

14772

experiments (the Ferrer schools) that reached into almost

14773

every village and hamlet throughout Spain." [_The Anarchist

14774

Collectives_, p. 27] The discussion of political, economic and

14775

social ideas was continuous, and "the centro [local union hall]

14776

became the gathering place to discuss social issues and to

14777

dream and plan for the future. Those who aspired to learn to

14778

read and write would sit around . . . studying." [Jerome R. Mintz,

14779

_The Anarchists of Casas Viejas_, p. 160] One anarchist militant

14780

described it as follows:

14781

14782

"With what joy the orators were received whenever a meeting

14783

was held . . . We spoke that night about everything: of the

14784

ruling inequality of the regime and of how one had a right

14785

to a life without selfishness, hatred, without wars and

14786

suffering. We were called on another occasion and a crowd

14787

gathered larger than the first time. That's how the pueblo

14788

started to evolve, fighting the present regime to win

14789

something by which they could sustain themselves, and

14790

dreaming of the day when it would be possible to create

14791

that society some depict in books, others by word of mouth.

14792

Avid for learning, they read everything, debated, discussed,

14793

and chatted about the different modes of perfect social

14794

existence." [Perez Cordon, quoted by Jerome R. Mintz,

14795

Op. Cit., p. 158]

14796

14797

Newspapers and periodicals were extremely important. By 1919, more than

14798

50 towns in Andalusia had their own libertarian newspapers. By 1934 the

14799

C.N.T. (the anarcho-syndicalist labour union) had a membership of around

14800

one million and the anarchist press covered all of Spain. In Barcelona

14801

the C.N.T. published a daily, _Solidaridad Obrera_ (Worker Solidarity),

14802

with a circulation of 30,000. The FAI's magazine _Tierra y Libertad_

14803

(Land and Liberty) had a circulation of 20,000. In Gijon there was

14804

_Vida Obrera_ (Working Life), in Seville _El Productor_ (The Producer),

14805

and in Saragossa _Accion y Cultura_ (Action and Culture), each with a

14806

large circulation. There were many more.

14807

14808

As well as leading struggles, organising unions, and producing books,

14809

papers and periodicals, the anarchists also organised libertarian schools,

14810

cultural centres, co-operatives, anarchist groups (the F.A.I), youth groups

14811

(the Libertarian Youth) and women's organisations (the Free Women movement).

14812

They applied their ideas in all walks of life and so ensured that ordinary

14813

people saw that anarchism was practical and relevant to them.

14814

14815

This was the great strength of the Spanish Anarchist movement. It was a

14816

movement "that, in addition to possessing a revolutionary ideology [sic],

14817

was also capable of mobilising action around objectives firmly rooted in

14818

the life and conditions of the working class . . . It was this ability

14819

periodically to identify and express widely felt needs and feelings that,

14820

together with its presence at community level, formed the basis of the

14821

strength of radical anarchism, and enabled it to build a mass base of

14822

support." [Nick Rider, "The practice of direct action: the Barcelona

14823

rent strike of 1931", p. 99, from _For Anarchism_, pp. 79-105]

14824

14825

Historian Temma Kaplan stressed this in her work on the Andalusian

14826

anarchists. She argued that the anarchists were "rooted in" social

14827

life and created "a movement firmly based in working-class

14828

culture." They "formed trade unions, affinity groups such as

14829

housewives' sections, and broad cultural associations such

14830

as workers' circles, where the anarchist press was read and

14831

discussed." Their "great strength . . . lay in the merger of

14832

communal and militant trade union traditions. In towns where

14833

the vast majority of worked in agriculture, agricultural

14834

workers' unions came to be identified with the community as a

14835

whole . . . anarchism . . . show[ed] that the demands of

14836

agricultural workers and proletarians could be combined with

14837

community support to create an insurrectionary situation . . .

14838

It would be a mistake . . . to argue that 'village anarchism'

14839

in Andalusia was distinct from militant unionism, or that

14840

the movement was a surrogate religion." [_Anarchists of Andalusia:

14841

1868-1903_, p. 211, p. 207, pp. 204-5]

14842

14843

The Spanish anarchists, before and after the C.N.T was formed, fought

14844

in and out of the factory for economic, social and political issues.

14845

This refusal of the anarchists to ignore any aspect of life ensured

14846

that they found many willing to hear their message, a message based

14847

around the ideas of individual liberty. Such a message could do nothing

14848

but radicalise workers for "the demands of the C.N.T went much further

14849

than those of any social democrat: with its emphasis on true equality,

14850

*autogestion* [self-management] and working class dignity,

14851

anarchosyndicalism made demands the capitalist system could not

14852

possibly grant to the workers." [J. Romero Maura, "The Spanish case",

14853

p. 79, from _Anarchism Today_, edited by J. Joll and D. Apter]

14854

14855

Strikes, due to the lack of strike funds, depended on mutual aid

14856

to be won, which fostered a strong sense of solidarity and class

14857

consciousness in the CNT membership. Strikes did not just involve

14858

workers. For example, workers in Jerez responded to bosses importing

14859

workers from Malaga "with a weapon of their own -- a boycott of

14860

those using strikebreakers. The most notable boycotts were against

14861

landowners near Jerez who also had commercial establishments in

14862

the city. The workers and their wives refused to buy there, and

14863

the women stationed themselves nearby to discourage other shoppers."

14864

[Jerome R. Mintz, Op. Cit., p. 102]

14865

14866

The structure and tactics of the C.N.T encouraged the politicisation,

14867

initiative and organisational skills of its members. It was a federal,

14868

decentralised body, based on direct discussion and decision making from

14869

the bottom up. "The C.N.T tradition was to discuss and examine everything",

14870

as one militant put it. In addition, the C.N.T created a viable and

14871

practical example of an alternative method by which society could be

14872

organised. A method which was based on the ability of ordinary people to

14873

direct society themselves and which showed in practice that special ruling

14874

authorities are undesirable and unnecessary.

14875

14876

The very structure of the C.N.T and the practical experience it provided

14877

its members in self-management produced a revolutionary working class

14878

the likes of which the world has rarely seen. As Jose Peirats points

14879

out, "above the union level, the C.N.T was an eminently political

14880

organisation . . ., a social and revolutionary organisation for agitation

14881

and insurrection." [_Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution_, p. 239]

14882

14883

The C.N.T. was organised in such a way as to encourage solidarity and

14884

class consciousness. Its organisation was based on the *sindicato unico*

14885

(one union) which united all workers of the same workplace in the

14886

same union. Instead of organising by trade, and so dividing the workers

14887

into numerous different unions, the C.N.T united all workers in a

14888

workplace into the same organisation, all trades, skilled and unskilled,

14889

where in a single organisation and so solidarity was increased and

14890

encouraged as well as increasing their fighting power by eliminating

14891

divisions within the workforce. All the unions in an area were linked

14892

together into a local federation, the local federations into a regional

14893

federation and so on. As J. Romero Maura argues, the "territorial

14894

basis of organisation linkage brought all the workers from one area

14895

together and fomented working-class solidarity over and above

14896

corporate [industry or trade] solidarity." ["The Spanish case",

14897

p. 75, from _Anarchism Today_, edited by J. Joll and D. Apter]

14898

14899

Thus the structure of the C.N.T. encouraged class solidarity and

14900

consciousness. In addition, being based on direct action and

14901

self-management, the union ensured that working people became

14902

accustomed to managing their own struggles and acting for themselves,

14903

directly. This prepared them to manage their own personal and

14904

collective interests in a free society (as seen by the success

14905

of the self-managed collectives created in the revolution). Thus

14906

the process of self-managed struggle and direct action prepared

14907

people for the necessities of the social revolution and the an

14908

anarchist society -- it built, as Bakunin argued, the seeds of the

14909

future in the present.

14910

14911

In other words, "the route to radicalisation . . . came from

14912

direct involvement in struggle and in the design of alternative

14913

social institutions." Every strike and action empowered those

14914

involved and created a viable alternative to the existing

14915

system. For example, while the strikes and food protests in

14916

Barcelona at the end of the First World War "did not topple

14917

the government, patterns of organisation established then

14918

provided models for the anarchist movement for years to

14919

follow." [Martha A. Ackelsberg and Myrna Margulies Breithart,

14920

"Terrains of Protest: Striking City Women", pp. 151-176,

14921

_Our Generation_, vol. 19, No. 1, p. 164] The same could

14922

be said of every strike, which confirmed Bakunin's and

14923

Kropotkin's stress on the strike as not only creating class

14924

consciousness and confidence but also the structures necessary

14925

to not only fight capitalism, but to replace it.

14926

14927

It was the revolutionary nature of the C.N.T. that created a militant

14928

membership who were willing and able to use direct action to defend

14929

their liberty. Unlike the Marxist led German workers, organised in

14930

a centralised fashion and trained in the obedience required by

14931

hierarchy, who did nothing to stop Hitler, the Spanish working

14932

class (like their comrades in anarchist unions in Italy) took to

14933

the streets to stop fascism.

14934

14935

The revolution in Spain did not "just happen"; it was the result of

14936

nearly seventy years of persistent anarchist agitation and revolutionary

14937

struggle, including a long series of peasant uprisings, insurrections,

14938

industrial strikes, protests, sabotage and other forms of direct action

14939

that prepared the peasants and workers organise popular resistance to the

14940

attempted fascist coup in July 1937 and to take control of the economy when

14941

they had defeated it in the streets.

14942

14943

I.8.3 How were Spanish industrial collectives organised?

14944

14945

Marta A. Ackelsberg gives us an excellent short summary of how

14946

the industrial collectives where organised:

14947

14948

"In most collectivised industries, general assemblies of workers

14949

decided policy, while elected committees managed affairs on a

14950

day-to-day basis." [_Free Women of Spain_, p. 73]

14951

14952

The collectives were based on workers' democratic self-management

14953

of their workplaces, using productive assets that were under the

14954

custodianship of the entire working community and administered

14955

through federations of workers' associations. Augustin Souchy

14956

writes:

14957

14958

"The collectives organised during the Spanish Civil War were workers'

14959

economic associations without private property. The fact that collective

14960

plants were managed by those who worked in them did not mean that these

14961

establishments became their private property. The collective had no right to

14962

sell or rent all or any part of the collectivised factory or workshop, The

14963

rightful custodian was the C.N.T., the National Confederation of Workers

14964

Associations. But not even the C.N.T. had the right to do as it pleased.

14965

Everything had to be decided and ratified by the workers themselves through

14966

conferences and congresses." [cited in _The Anarchist Collectives_, p. 67]

14967

14968

According to Souchy, in Catalonia "every factory elected its administrative

14969

committee composed of its most capable workers. Depending on the size of

14970

the factory, the function of these committees included inner plant

14971

organisation, statistics, finance, correspondence, and relations with

14972

other factories and with the community. . . . Several months after

14973

collectivisation the textile industry of Barcelona was in far better shape

14974

than under capitalist management. Here was yet another example to show

14975

that grass roots socialism from below does not destroy initiative. Greed

14976

is not the only motivation in human relations." [Op. Cit., p 95]

14977

14978

Thus the individual collective was based on a mass assembly of those

14979

who worked there. This assembly nominated administrative staff who

14980

were mandated to implement the decisions of the assembly and who

14981

had to report back to, and were accountable to, that assembly. For

14982

example, in Castellon de la Plana "[e]very month the technical and

14983

administrative council presented the general assembly of the

14984

Syndicate with a report which was examined and discussed if

14985

necessary, and finally introduced when this majority thought it

14986

of use. Thus all the activities were known and controlled by all

14987

the workers. We find here a practical example of libertarian

14988

democracy." [_Collectives in the Spanish Revolution_, p. 303]

14989

14990

So, in general, the industrial collectives were organised from

14991

the bottom-up, with policy in the hands of workers' assemblies

14992

who elected the administration required, including workplace

14993

committees and managers. However, power rested the at base

14994

of the collective, with "all important decisions [being]

14995

taken by the general assemblies of the workers, . . .

14996

[which] were widely attended and regularly held. . . if

14997

an administrator did something which the general assembly

14998

had not authorised, he was likely to be deposed at the

14999

next meeting." An example of this process can be seen

15000

from the Casa Rivieria company. After the defeat of the

15001

army coup "a control committe (Comite de Control) was

15002

named by the Barcelona Metal Workers' Union to take

15003

over temporary control of the enterprises. . . A few

15004

weeks after July 19th, there was the first general

15005

assembly of the firm's workers . . . It elected an

15006

enterprise committee (Comite de Empresa) to take control

15007

of the firm on a more permanent basis. . . . Each

15008

of the four sections of the firm -- the three factories

15009

and the office staff -- held their own general assemblies

15010

at least once a week. There they discussed matters ranging

15011

from the most important affairs to the most trivial."

15012

[Robert Alexander, _The Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War_,

15013

vol. 1, p. 469 and p. 532]

15014

15015

A plenum of syndicates met in December of 1936 and formulated norms for

15016

socialisation in which the inefficiency of the capitalist industrial

15017

system was analysed. The report of the plenum stated:

15018

15019

"The major defect of most small manufacturing shops is fragmentation

15020

and lack of technical/commercial preparation. This prevents their

15021

modernisation and consolidation into better and more efficient units

15022

of production, with better facilities and co-ordination. . . . For us,

15023

socialisation must correct these deficiencies and systems of organisation

15024

in every industry. . . . To socialise an industry, we must consolidate

15025

the different units of each branch of industry in accordance with a

15026

general and organic plan which will avoid competition and other

15027

difficulties impeding the good and efficient organisation of

15028

production and distribution. . ." [cited by Souchy, _The Anarchist

15029

Collectives_, p. 83]

15030

15031

As Souchy points out, this document is very important in the evolution of

15032

collectivisation, because it indicates a realisation that "workers must

15033

take into account that partial collectivisation will in time degenerate

15034

into a kind of bourgeois co-operativism," [Op. Cit., p. 83] as discussed

15035

earlier. Thus many collectives did not compete with each other for

15036

profits, as surpluses were pooled and distributed on a wider basis

15037

than the individual collective -- in most cases industry-wide.

15038

15039

We have already noted some examples of the improvements in efficiency

15040

realised by collectivisation during the Spanish Revolution (section I.4.10).

15041

Another example was the baking industry. Souchy reports that, "[a]s in the

15042

rest of Spain, Barcelona's bread and cakes were baked mostly at night in

15043

hundreds of small bakeries. Most of them were in damp, gloomy cellars

15044

infested with roaches and rodents. All these bakeries were shut down.

15045

More and better bread and cake were baked in new bakeries equipped with

15046

new modern ovens and other equipment." [Op. Cit., p. 82]

15047

15048

Therefore, the collectives in Spain were marked by workplace democracy

15049

and a desire to co-operate within and across industries. This attempt

15050

at libertarian socialism, like all experiments, had its drawbacks as

15051

well as successes and these will be discussed in the next section as

15052

well as some of the conclusions drawn from the experience.

15053

15054

I.8.4 How were the Spanish industrial collectives co-ordinated?

15055

15056

The methods of co-operation tried by the collectives varied considerably.

15057

Initially, there were very few attempts to co-ordinate economic activities

15058

beyond the workplace. This is hardly surprising, given that the overwhelming

15059

need was to restart production, convert a civilian economy to a wartime one

15060

and to ensure that the civilian population and militias were supplied with

15061

necessary goods. This, unsurprisingly enough, lead to a situation of anarchist

15062

mutualism developing, with many collectives selling the product of their own

15063

labour on the market (in other words, a form of simple commodity production).

15064

15065

This lead to some economic problems as there existed no framework of

15066

institutions between collectives to ensure efficient co-ordination of

15067

activity and so lead to pointless competition between collectives (which

15068

lead to even more problems). As there were initially no confederations of

15069

collectives nor mutual/communal banks this lead to the inequalities that

15070

initially existed between collectives (due to the fact that the collectives

15071

took over rich and poor capitalist firms) and it made the many ad hoc

15072

attempts at mutual aid between collectives difficult and temporary.

15073

15074

Therefore, the collectives were (initially) a form of "self-management

15075

straddling capitalism and socialism, which we maintain would not have

15076

occurred had the Revolution been able to extend itself fully under the

15077

direction of our syndicates." [Gaston Leval, _Collectives in the Spanish

15078

Revolution_, pp. 227-8] As economic and political development are closely

15079

related, the fact that the C.N.T. did not carry out the *political* aspect

15080

of the revolution meant that the revolution in the economy was doomed to

15081

failure. As Leval stresses, in "the industrial collectives, especially in

15082

the large towns, matters proceeded differently as a consequence of

15083

contradictory factors and of opposition created by the co-existence

15084

of social currents emanating from different social classes." [Op. Cit.,

15085

p. 227]

15086

15087

Given that the C.N.T. program of libertarian communism recognised that a

15088

fully co-operative society must be based upon production for use, C.N.T.

15089

militants fought against this system of mutualism and for inter-workplace

15090

co-ordination. They managed to convince their fellow workers of the

15091

difficulties of mutualism by free debate and discussion within their

15092

unions and collectives.

15093

15094

Therefore, the degree of socialisation varied over time (as would be

15095

expected). Initially, after the initial defeat of Franco's forces,

15096

there was little formal co-ordination and organisation. The most

15097

important thing was to get production started again. However, the

15098

needs of co-ordination soon became obvious (as predicted in anarchist

15099

theory and the programme of the CNT). Gaston Leval gives the example

15100

of Hospitalet del Llobregat with regards to this process:

15101

15102

"Local industries went through stages almost universally adopted in

15103

that revolution . . . [I]n the first instance, *comites* nominated

15104

by the workers employed in them [were organised]. Production and

15105

sales continued in each one. But very soon it was clear that this

15106

situation gave rise to competition between the factories. . .

15107

creating rivalries which were incompatible with the socialist and

15108

libertarian outlook. So the CNT launched the watchword: 'All

15109

industries must be ramified in the Syndicates, completely socialised,

15110

and the regime of solidarity which we have always advocated be

15111

established once and for all.

15112

15113

"The idea won support immediately" [Op. Cit., pp. 291-2]

15114

15115

Another example was the woodworkers' union which a massive debate on

15116

socialisation and decided to do so (the shopworkers' union had a similar

15117

debate, but the majority of workers rejected socialisation). According

15118

to Ronald Fraser a "union delegate would go round the small shops,

15119

point out to the workers that the conditions were unhealthy and

15120

dangerous, that the revolution was changing all this, and secure

15121

their agreement to close down and move to the union-built Double-X

15122

and the 33 EU." [Ronald Fraser, _Blood of Spain_, p. 222]

15123

15124

This process went on in many different unions and collectives and,

15125

unsurprisingly, the forms of co-ordination agreed to lead to different

15126

forms of organisation in different areas and industries, as would be

15127

expected in a free society. However, the two most important forms can

15128

be termed syndicalisation and confederationalism (we will ignore the

15129

forms created by the collectivisation decree as these were not created

15130

by the workers themselves).

15131

15132

"Syndicalisation" (our term) meant that the C.N.T.'s industrial union ran

15133

the whole industry. This solution was tried by the woodworkers' union after

15134

extensive debate. One section of the union, "dominated by the F.A.I. [the

15135

anarchist federation], maintained that anarchist self-management meant that

15136

the workers should set up and operate autonomous centres of production so as

15137

to avoid the threat of bureaucratisation." [Ronald Fraser, _Blood of Spain_,

15138

p. 222] However, those in favour of syndicalisation won the day and

15139

production was organised in the hands of the union, with administration

15140

posts and delegate meetings elected by the rank and file.

15141

15142

However, the "major failure . . . (and which supported the original anarchist

15143

objection) was that the union became like a large firm . . . [and its]

15144

structure grew increasingly rigid." According to one militant, "From the

15145

outside it began to look like an American or German trust" and the workers

15146

found it difficult to secure any changes and "felt they weren't particularly

15147

involved in decision making."

15148

15149

In the end, the major difference between the union-run industry and a

15150

capitalist firm organisationally appeared to be that workers could vote for

15151

(and recall) the industry management at relatively regular General Assembly

15152

meetings. While a vast improvement on capitalism, it is hardly the best

15153

example of participatory self-management in action although the economic

15154

problems caused by the Civil War and Stalinist led counter-revolution

15155

obviously would have had an effect on the internal structure of any

15156

industry and so we cannot say that the form of organisation created was

15157

totally responsible for any marginalisation that took place.

15158

15159

The other important form of co-operation was what we will term

15160

"confederalisation." This form of co-operation was practised by the

15161

Badalona textile industry (and had been defeated in the woodworkers'

15162

union). It was based upon each workplace being run by its elected

15163

management, sold its own production, got its own orders and received

15164

the proceeds. However, everything each mill did was reported to the

15165

union which charted progress and kept statistics. If the union felt

15166

that a particular factory was not acting in the best interests of

15167

the industry as a whole, it was informed and asked to change course.

15168

According to one militant, the union "acted more as a socialist

15169

control of collectivised industry than as a direct hierarchised

15170

executive" [Op. Cit., p. 229]

15171

15172

This system ensured that the "dangers of the big 'union trust'

15173

as of the atomised collective were avoided" [Fraser, Op. Cit.,

15174

p. 229] as well as maximising decentralisation of power. Unlike

15175

the syndicalisation experiment in the woodworkers' industry, this

15176

scheme was based on horizontal links between workplaces (via the

15177

C.N.T. union) and allowed a maximum of self-management *and*

15178

mutual aid. The ideas of an anarchist economy sketched in

15179

section I.3 reflects in many ways the actual experiments in

15180

self-management which occurred during the Spanish Revolution.

15181

15182

Therefore, the industrial collectives co-ordinated their activity

15183

in many ways, with varying degrees of direct democracy and success.

15184

As would be expected, mistakes were made and different solutions

15185

found. When reading this section of the FAQ its important to remember

15186

that an anarchist society can hardly be produced "overnight" and so

15187

it is hardly surprising that the workers of the C.N.T. faced numerous

15188

problems and had to develop their self-management experiment as

15189

objective conditions allowed them to.

15190

15191

Unfortunately, thanks to fascist aggression and Communist Party

15192

back-stabbing, the experiment did not last long enough to fully

15193

answer all the questions we have about the viability of the

15194

solutions they tried. Given the time, however, we are sure they

15195

would have solved the problems they faced.

15196

15197

I.8.5 How were the Spanish agricultural co-operatives organised and

15198

co-ordinated?

15199

15200

Jose Peirats describes collectivisation among the peasantry as follows:

15201

15202

"The expropriated lands were turned over to the peasant syndicates, and it

15203

was these syndicates that organised the first collectives. Generally the

15204

holdings of small property owners were respected, always on the condition

15205

that only they or their families would work the land, without employing

15206

wage labour. In areas like Catalonia, where the tradition of petty peasant

15207

ownership prevailed, the land holdings were scattered. There were no

15208

great estates. Many of these peasants, together with the C.N.T., organised

15209

collectives, pooling their land, animals, tools, chickens, grain,

15210

fertiliser, and even their harvested crops.

15211

15212

"Privately owned farms located in the midst of collectives interfered with

15213

efficient cultivation by splitting up the collectives into disconnected

15214

parcels. To induce owners to move, they were given more or even better

15215

land located on the perimeter of the collective.

15216

15217

"The collectivist who had nothing to contribute to the collective was

15218

admitted with the same rights and the same duties as the others. In some

15219

collectives, those joining had to contribute their money (Girondella in

15220

Catalonia, Lagunarrotta in Aragon, and Cervera del Maestra in Valencia)."

15221

[cited _The Anarchist Collectives_, p. 112]

15222

15223

Peirats also notes that in conducting their internal affairs, all the

15224

collectives scrupulously and zealously observed democratic procedures.

15225

For example, "Hospitalet de Llobregat held regular general membership

15226

meetings every three months to review production and attend to new

15227

business. The administrative council, and all other committees, submitted

15228

full reports on all matters. The meeting approved, disapproved, made

15229

corrections, issued instructions, etc." [Ibid., p. 119]

15230

15231

Dolgoff observes that "supreme power was vested in, and actually

15232

exercised by, the membership in general assemblies, and all power derived

15233

from, and flowed back to, the grass roots organisations of the people"

15234

and quotes Gaston Leval:

15235

15236

"Regular general membership meetings were convoked weekly, bi-weekly,

15237

or monthly. . . and these meetings were completely free of the tensions

15238

and recriminations which inevitably emerge when the power of decisions

15239

is vested in a few individuals -- even if democratically elected. The

15240

Assemblies were open for everyone to participate in the proceedings.

15241

Democracy embraced all social life. In most cases, even the 'individualists'

15242

who were not members of the collective could participate in the discussions,

15243

and they were listened to by the collectivists." [Op. Cit., p 119f]

15244

15245

It was in these face-to-face assemblies that decisions upon the distribution

15246

of resources were decided both within and without the collective. Here, when

15247

considering the importance of mutual aid, appeals were made to an

15248

individual's sense of empathy. As one activist remembers:

15249

15250

"There were, of course, those who didn't want to share and who said that

15251

each collective should take care of itself. But they were usually convinced

15252

in the assemblies. We would try to speak to them in terms they understood.

15253

We'd ask, 'Did you think it was fair when the cacique [local boss] let people

15254

starve if there wasn't enough work?' and they said, 'Of course not.' They

15255

would eventually come around. Don't forget, there were three hundred

15256

thousand collectivists [in Aragon], but only ten thousand of us had been

15257

members of the C.N.T.. We had a lot of educating to do." [Felix Carrasquer,

15258

quoted by Martha A. Ackelsberg in _Free Women of Spain_, p. 79]

15259

15260

In addition, regional federations of collectives were formed in many

15261

areas of Spain (for example, in Aragon and the Levant). The federations

15262

were created at congresses to which the collectives in an area sent

15263

delegates. These congresses agreed a series of general rules about how

15264

the federation would operate and what commitments the affiliated collectives

15265

would have to each other. The congress elected an administration council,

15266

which took responsibility for implementing agreed policy.

15267

15268

These federations had many tasks. They ensured the distribution of surplus

15269

produce to the front line and to the cities, cutting out middlemen and

15270

ensuring the end of exploitation. They also arranged for exchanges between

15271

collectives to take place. In addition, the federations allowed the

15272

individual collectives to pool resources together in order to improve the

15273

infrastructure of the area (building roads, canals, hospitals and so on)

15274

and invest in means of production which no one collective could afford.

15275

15276

In this way individual collectives pooled their resources, increased

15277

and improved the means of production they had access to as well as

15278

improving the social infrastructure of their regions. All this, combined

15279

with an increase of consumption at the point of production and the

15280

feeding of militia men and women fighting the fascists at the front.

15281

15282

Rural collectivisations allowed the potential creative energy that

15283

existed among the rural workers and peasants to be unleashed, an energy

15284

that had been wasted under private property. The popular assemblies allowed

15285

community problems and improvements to be identified and solved directly,

15286

drawing upon the ideas and experiences of everyone and enriched by

15287

discussion and debate. This enabled rural Spain to be transformed from

15288

one marked by poverty and fear, into one of hope and experimentation (see

15289

the next section for a few examples of this experimentation).

15290

15291

Therefore self-management in collectives combined with co-operation in rural

15292

federations allowed an improvement in quality of rural life. From a

15293

purely economic viewpoint, production increased and as Benjamin Martin

15294

summarises, "[t]hough it is impossible to generalise about the rural

15295

land take-overs, there is little doubt that the quality of life for most

15296

peasants who participated in co-operatives and collectives notably improved."

15297

[_The Agony of Modernisation_, p. 394]

15298

15299

More importantly, however, this improvement in the quality of life included

15300

an increase in freedom as well as in consumption. To requote the member

15301

of the Beceite collective in Aragon we cited in section A.5.6, "it was

15302

marvellous. . . to live in a collective, a free society where one could

15303

say what one thought, where if the village committee seemed unsatisfactory

15304

one could say. The committee took no big decisions without calling the

15305

whole village together in a general assembly. All this was wonderful."

15306

[Ronald Fraser, _Blood of Spain_, p. 288]

15307

15308

I.8.6 What did the agricultural collectives accomplish?

15309

15310

Here are a few examples cited by Jose Peirats:

15311

15312

"In Montblanc the collective dug up the old useless vines and

15313

planted new vineyards. The land, improved by modern cultivation

15314

with tractors, yielded much bigger and better crops. . . . Many

15315

Aragon collectives built new roads and repaired old ones, installed

15316

modern flour mills, and processed agricultural and animal waste

15317

into useful industrial products. Many of these improvements were

15318

first initiated by the collectives. Some villages, like Calanda,

15319

built parks and baths. Almost all collectives established libraries,

15320

schools, and cultural centres." [cited _The Anarchist Collectives_,

15321

p. 116]

15322

15323

Gaston Leval points out that "the Peasant Federation of Levant . . .

15324

produced more than half of the total orange crop in Spain: almost four

15325

million kilos (1 kilo equals about 2 and one-fourth pounds). It then

15326

transported and sold through its own commercial organisation (no

15327

middlemen) more than 70% of the crop. (The Federations's commercial

15328

organisation included its own warehouses, trucks, and boats. Early in

15329

1938 the export section established its own agencies in France:

15330

Marseilles, Perpignan, bordeaux, Cherbourg, and Paris.) Out of a total

15331

of 47,000 hectares in all Spain devoted to rice production, the

15332

collective in the Province of Valencia cultivated 30,000 hectares."

15333

[cited in Ibid., p. 124]

15334

15335

To quote Peirats again:

15336

15337

"Preoccupation with cultural and pedagogical innovations was an event

15338

without precedent in rural Spain. The Amposta collectivists organised

15339

classes for semi-literates, kindergartens, and even a school of arts

15340

and professions. The Seros schools were free to all neighbours,

15341

collectivists or not. Grau installed a school named after its most

15342

illustrious citizen, Joaquin Costa. The Calanda collective (pop.

15343

only 4,500) schooled 1,233 children. The best students were sent to the

15344

Lyceum in Caspe, with all expenses paid by the collective. The Alcoriza

15345

(pop. 4,000) school was attended by 600 children. Many of the schools

15346

were installed in abandoned convents. In Granadella (pop. 2,000), classes

15347

were conducted in the abandoned barracks of the Civil Guards. Graus

15348

organised a print library and a school of arts and professions, attended

15349

by 60 pupils. The same building housed a school of fine arts and high

15350

grade museum. In some villages a cinema was installed for the first

15351

time. The Penalba cinema was installed in a church. Viladecana built an

15352

experimental agricultural laboratory.

15353

15354

"The collectives voluntarily contributed enormous stocks of provisions and

15355

other supplies to the fighting troops. Utiel sent 1,490 litres of oil and

15356

300 bushels of potatoes to the Madrid front (in addition to huge stocks of

15357

beans, rice, buckwheat, etc.). Porales de Tujana sent great quantities of

15358

bread, oil, flour, and potatoes to the front, and eggs, meat, and milk to

15359

the military hospital.

15360

15361

"The efforts of the collectives take on added significance when we take

15362

into account that their youngest and most vigorous workers were fighting

15363

in the trenches. 200 members of the little collective of Vilaboi were at

15364

the front; from Viledecans, 60; Amposta, 300; and Calande, 500." [Ibid.,

15365

pp. 116-120]

15366

15367

Peirats sums up the accomplishments of the agricultural collectives as

15368

follows:

15369

15370

"In distribution the collectives' co-operatives eliminated middlemen,

15371

small merchants, wholesalers, and profiteers, thus greatly reducing

15372

consumer prices. The collectives eliminated most of the parasitic

15373

elements from rural life, and would have wiped them out altogether

15374

if they were not protected by corrupt officials and by the political

15375

parties. Non-collectivised areas benefited indirectly from the

15376

lower prices as well as from free services often rendered by the

15377

collectives (laundries, cinemas, schools, barber and beauty parlours,

15378

etc.)." [Ibid., p114]

15379

15380

Leval emphasises the following achievements (among others):

15381

15382

"In the agrarian collectives solidarity was practised to the greatest

15383

degree. Not only was every person assured of the necessities, but the

15384

district federations increasingly adopted the principle of mutual aid

15385

on an inter-collective scale. For this purpose they created common

15386

reserves to help out villages less favoured by nature. In Castile

15387

special institutions for this purpose were created. In industry this

15388

practice seems to have begun in Hospitalet, on the Catalan railways,

15389

and was applied later in Alcoy. Had the political compromise not

15390

impeded open socialisation, the practices of mutual aid would have

15391

been much more generalised. . . A conquest of enormous importance

15392

was the right of women to livelihood, regardless of occupation or

15393

function. In about half of the agrarian collectives, the women

15394

received the same wages as men; in the rest the women received

15395

less, apparently on the principle that they rarely live alone. . .

15396

In all the agrarian collectives of Aragon, Catalonia, Levant, Castile,

15397

Andalusia, and Estremadura, the workers formed groups to divide the

15398

labour or the land; usually they were assigned to definite areas.

15399

Delegates elected by the work groups met with the collective's

15400

delegate for agriculture to plan out the work. This typical

15401

organisation arose quite spontaneously, by local initiative. . .

15402

In addition . . . the collective as a whole met in weekly, bi-weekly

15403

or monthly assembly . . . The assembly reviewed the activities of

15404

the councillors it named, and discussed special cases and unforeseen

15405

problems. All inhabitants -- men and women, producers and non-producers

15406

the most significant advances were: the rapidly increased use of

15407

machinery and irrigation; greater diversification; and forestation.

15408

In stock raising: the selection and multiplication of breeds; the

15409

adaptation of breeds to local conditions; and large-scale

15410

construction of collective stock barns." [Ibid., pp. 166-167]

15411

15412

Martha A. Ackelsberg sums up the experience well:

15413

15414

"The achievements of these collectives were extensive. In many

15415

areas they maintained, if not increased, agricultural production

15416

[not forgetting that many young men were at the front line],

15417

often introducing new patterns of cultivation and fertilisation. . .

15418

collectivists built chicken coups, barns, and other facilities

15419

for the care and feeding of the community's animals. Federations

15420

of collectives co-ordinated the construction of roads, schools,

15421

bridges, canals and dams. Some of these remain to this day as

15422

lasting contributions of the collectives to the infrastructure

15423

of rural Spain." [_The Free Women of Spain_, p. 79]

15424

15425

She also points to inter-collective solidarity, noting that the

15426

"collectivists also arranged for the transfer of surplus produce

15427

from wealthier collectives to those experiencing shortages." [Ibid.]

15428

15429

Therefore, as well as significant economic achievements, the

15430

collectives ensured social and political ones too. Solidarity

15431

was practised and previously marginalised people took direct

15432

and full management of the affairs of their communities,

15433

transforming them to meet their own needs and desires.

15434

15435

I.8.7 I've heard that the rural collectives were created by force.

15436

Is this true?

15437

15438

No, it is not. The myth that the rural collectives were created by

15439

"terror," organised and carried out by the anarchist militia, was

15440

started by the Stalinists of the Spanish Communist Party. More

15441

recently, some right-wing Libertarians have warmed up and repeated

15442

these Stalinist fabrications. Anarchists have been disproving these

15443

allegations since 1936 and it is worthwhile to do so again here.

15444

15445

As Vernon Richards notes, "[h]owever discredited Stalinism may appear

15446

to be today the fact remains that the Stalinist lies and interpretation

15447

of the Spanish Civil War still prevail, presumably because it suits the

15448

political prejudices of those historians who are currently interpreting

15449

it." [Introduction to Gaston Leval's _Collectives in the Spanish

15450

Revolution_, p. 11] Here we shall present evidence to refute claims

15451

that the rural collectives were created by force.

15452

15453

Firstly, we should point out that rural collectives were created in many

15454

different areas of Spain, such as the Levant (900 collectives), Castile (300)

15455

and Estremadera (30), where the anarchist militia did not exist. In Catalonia,

15456

for example, the C.N.T. militia passed through many villages on its way to

15457

Aragon and only around 40 collectives were created unlike the 450 in Aragon.

15458

In other words, the rural collectivisation process occurred independently of

15459

the existence of anarchist troops, with the majority of the 1,700 rural

15460

collectives created in areas without a predominance of anarchist troops.

15461

15462

One historian, Ronald Fraser, seems to imply that the Aragon Collectives were

15463

imposed upon the Aragon population. As he puts it the "collectivisation,

15464

carried out under the general cover, if not necessarily the direct agency,

15465

of C.N.T. militia columns, represented a revolutionary minority's attempt to

15466

control not only production but consumption for egalitarian purposes and

15467

the needs of the war." [_Blood of Spain_, p. 370] Notice that he does not

15468

suggest that the anarchist militia actually *imposed* the collectives, a

15469

claim for which there is little or no evidence. Moreover, Fraser presents

15470

a somewhat contradictory narrative to the facts he presents. On the one

15471

hand, he talks of a policy of "obligatory" collectivistion imposed on

15472

the peasants by the C.N.T., while on the other hand he presents extensive

15473

evidence that the collectives did not have a 100% membership rate. How

15474

can collectivisation be obligatory if people remain outside the collectives?

15475

Similarly, he talks of how *some* C.N.T. militia leaders justified forced

15476

collectivisation in terms of the war effort while acknowledging the

15477

official C.N.T. policy of opposing forced collectivisation, an opposition

15478

expressed in practice as only around 5% of the collectives were total

15479

(and expressed in his own book as collectivists interviewed continually

15480

note that people remained outside their collectives!).

15481

15482

Thus Fraser's attempts to paint the Aragon collectives as a form of "war

15483

communism" imposed upon the population by the C.N.T. and obligatory for

15484

all fails to co-incidence with the evidence he presents.

15485

15486

Earlier he states that "[t]here was no need to dragoon them [the peasants]

15487

at pistol point [into collectives]: the coercive climate, in which 'fascists'

15488

were being shot, was sufficient. 'Spontaneous' and 'forced' collectives

15489

existed, as did willing and unwilling collectivists within them." [Op. Cit.,

15490

p.349] Therefore, his suggestion that the Aragon collectives were imposed

15491

upon the rural population is based upon the insight that there was a "coercive

15492

climate" in Aragon at the time. Of course a civil war against fascism would

15493

produce a "coercive climate," particularly at the front line, and so the

15494

C.N.T. can hardly be blamed for that. In addition, in a life and death

15495

struggle against fascism, in which the fascists were systematically

15496

murdering vast numbers of anarchists, socialists and republicans in the

15497

areas under their control, it is hardly surprising that some anarchist troops

15498

took the law into their own hands and murdered some of those who supported

15499

and would help the fascists. Given what was going on in fascist Spain, and

15500

the experience of fascism in Germany and Italy, the C.N.T. militia knew

15501

exactly what would happen to them and their friends and family if they lost.

15502

15503

The question does arise, however, of whether the climate was made so coercive

15504

by the war and the nearness of the anarchist militia that individual choice

15505

was impossible.

15506

15507

The facts speak for themselves -- rural collectivisation in Aragon embraced

15508

more than 70% of the population in the area saved from fascism. Around

15509

30% of the population felt safe enough not to join a collective, a

15510

sizeable percentage.

15511

15512

If the collectives had been created by anarchist terror or force, we would

15513

expect a figure of 100% membership in the collectives. This was not the case,

15514

indicating the basically voluntary nature of the experiment (we should point

15515

out that other figures suggest a lower number of collectivists which makes

15516

the forced collectivisation argument even less likely). Historian Antony

15517

Beevor (while noting that there "had undoubtedly been pressure, and

15518

no doubt force was used on some occasions in the fervour after the

15519

rising") just stated the obvious when he wrote that "the very fact that

15520

every village was a mixture of collectivists and individualists shows

15521

that peasants had not been forced into communal farming at the point

15522

of a gun." [_The Spanish Civil War_, p. 206] In addition, if the

15523

C.N.T. militia had forced peasants into collectives we would expect the

15524

membership of the collectives to peak almost overnight, not grow slowly

15525

over time. However, this is what happened:

15526

15527

"At the regional congress of collectives, held at Caspe in mid-February 1937,

15528

nearly 80 000 collectivists were represented from 'almost all the villages

15529

of the region.' This, however, was but a beginning. By the end of April

15530

the number of collectivists had risen to 140 000; by the end of the first

15531

week of May to 180 000; and by the end of June to 300 000." [Graham Kelsey,

15532

"Anarchism in Aragon," pp. 60-82, _Spain in Conflict 1931-1939_,

15533

Martin Blinkhorn (ed.), p. 61]

15534

15535

If the collectives had been created by force, then their membership would

15536

have been 300 000 in February, 1937, not increasing steadily to reach that

15537

number four months later. Neither can it be claimed that the increase was

15538

due to new villages being collectivised, as almost all villages had sent

15539

delegates in February. This indicates that many peasants joined the

15540

collectives because of the advantages associated with common labour, the

15541

increased resources it placed at their hands and the fact that the surplus

15542

wealth which had in the previous system been monopolised by the few was

15543

used instead to raise the standard of living of the entire community.

15544

15545

The voluntary nature of the collectives is again emphasised by the number of

15546

collectives which allowed smallholders to remain outside. According to evidence

15547

Fraser presents (on page 366), an F.A.I. schoolteacher is quoted as saying that

15548

the forcing of smallholders into the collective "wasn't a widespread problem,

15549

because there weren't more than twenty or so villages where collectivisation

15550

was total and no one was allowed to remain outside..." Instead of forcing

15551

the minority in a village to agree with the wishes of the majority, the

15552

vast majority (95%) of Aragon collectives stuck to their libertarian

15553

principles and allowed those who did not wish to join to remain outside.

15554

15555

So, only around 20 were "total" collectives (out of 450) and around 30% of the

15556

population felt safe enough *not* to join. In other words, in the vast majority

15557

of collectives those joining could see that those who did not were safe.

15558

These figures should not be discounted, as they give an indication of the

15559

basically spontaneous and voluntary nature of the movement. As was the

15560

composition of the new municipal councils created after July 19th.

15561

As Graham Kesley notes, "[w]hat is immediately noticeable from the results

15562

is that although the region has often been branded as one controlled by

15563

anarchists to the total exclusion of all other forces, the C.N.T. was far

15564

from enjoying the degree of absolute domination often implied and inferred."

15565

[_Anarchosyndicalism, Libertarian Communism and the State_, p. 198]

15566

15567

In his account of the rural revolution, Burnett Bolloten notes that

15568

it "embraced more than 70 percent of the population" in liberated

15569

Aragon and that "many of the 450 collectives of the region were

15570

largely voluntary" although "it must be emphasised that this

15571

singular development was in some measure due to the presence of

15572

militiamen from the neighbouring region of Catalonia, the immense

15573

majority of whom were members of the C.N.T. and F.A.I." [_The

15574

Spanish Civil War_, p. 74]

15575

15576

As Gaston Leval points out, "it is true that the presence of these forces

15577

. . . favoured indirectly these constructive achievements by preventing

15578

active resistance by the supporters of the bourgeois republic and of

15579

fascism." [_Collectives in the Spanish Revolution_, p. 90]

15580

15581

In other words, the presence of the militia changed the balance of

15582

class forces in Aragon by destroying the capitalist state (i.e. the local

15583

bosses - caciques - could not get state aid to protect their property)

15584

and many landless workers took over the land. The presence of the militia

15585

ensured that land could be taken over by destroying the capitalist "monopoly

15586

of force" that existed before the revolution (the power of which will be

15587

highlighted below) and so the C.N.T. militia allowed the possibility of

15588

experimentation by the Aragonese population.

15589

15590

This class war in the countryside is reflected by Bolloten's statement that

15591

"[if] the individual farmer viewed with dismay the swift and widespread

15592

collectivisation of agriculture, the farm workers of the Anarchosyndicalist

15593

C.N.T. and the Socialist UGT saw it as the commencement of a new era."

15594

[_The Spanish Civil War_, p. 63] Both were mass organisations and

15595

supported collectivisation.

15596

15597

Therefore, anarchist militia allowed the rural working class to abolish the

15598

artificial scarcity of land created by private property (and enforced by the

15599

state). The rural bosses obviously viewed with horror the possibility that

15600

they could not exploit day workers' labour. As Bolloten points out "the

15601

collective system of agriculture threaten[ed] to drain the rural labour

15602

market of wage workers." [Op. Cit., p. 62] Little wonder the richer peasants

15603

and landowners hated the collectives.

15604

15605

Bolloten also quotes a report on the district of Valderrobes which indicates

15606

popular support for the collectives:

15607

15608

"Collectivisation was nevertheless opposed by opponents on the right and

15609

adversaries on the left. If the eternally idle who have been expropriated

15610

had been asked what they thought of collectivisation, some would have

15611

replied that it was robbery and others a dictatorship. But, for the

15612

elderly, the day workers, the tenant farmers and small proprietors who

15613

had always been under the thumb of the big landowners and heartless

15614

usurers, it appeared as salvation" [Op. Cit., p. 71]

15615

15616

However, most historians ignore the differences in class that existed in

15617

the countryside. They ignore it and explain the rise in collectives in

15618

Aragon (and ignore those elsewhere) as the result of the C.N.T. militia.

15619

Fraser, for example, states that "[v]ery rapidly collectives . . . began

15620

to spring up. It did not happen on instructions from the C.N.T. leadership --

15621

no more than had the [industrial] collectives in Barcelona. Here, as there,

15622

the initiative came from C.N.T. militants; here, as there, the 'climate'

15623

for social revolution in the rearguard was created by C.N.T. armed strength:

15624

the anarcho-syndicalists' domination of the streets of Barcelona was

15625

re-enacted in Aragon as the C.N.T. militia columns, manned mainly by

15626

Catalan anarcho-syndicalist workers, poured in. Where a nucleus of

15627

anarcho-syndicalists existed in a village, it seized the moment to carry

15628

out the long-awaited revolution and collectivised spontaneously. Where

15629

there was none, villagers could find themselves under considerable pressure

15630

from the militias to collectivise. . ." [Op. Cit., p. 347]

15631

15632

In other words, he implies that the revolution was mostly imported into Aragon

15633

from Catalonia. However, the majority of C.N.T. column leaders were opposed to

15634

the setting up of the Council of Aragon (a confederation for the collectives)

15635

[Fraser, Op. Cit., p. 350]. Hardly an example of Catalan C.N.T. imposed

15636

social revolution. The evidence we have suggests that the Aragon C.N.T. was

15637

a widespread and popular organisation, suggesting that the idea that the

15638

collectives were imported into Aragon by the Catalan C.N.T. is simply *false.*

15639

15640

Fraser states that in "some [of the Aragonese villages] there was a

15641

flourishing C.N.T., in others the UGT was strongest, and in only too many

15642

there was no unionisation at all." [_Blood of Spain_, p. 348] The question

15643

arises of how extensive was that strength. The evidence we have suggests

15644

that it was extensive, strong and growing, so indicating that rural Aragon

15645

was not without a C.N.T. base, a base that makes the suggestion of imposed

15646

collectives a false one.

15647

15648

Murray Bookchin summarises the strength of the C.N.T. in rural Aragon as

15649

follows:

15650

15651

"The authentic peasant base of the C.N.T. [by the 1930s] now lay in Aragon

15652

. . .[C.N.T. growth in Zaragoza] provided a springboard for a highly

15653

effective libertarian agitation in lower Aragon, particularly among

15654

the impoverished labourers and debt-ridden peasantry of the dry steppes

15655

region." [_The Spanish Anarchists_, p. 203]

15656

15657

Graham Kelsey, in his social history of the C.N.T. in Aragon between 1930

15658

and 1937, provides the necessary evidence to more than back Bookchin's

15659

claim of C.N.T. growth. Kesley points out that as well as the "spread of

15660

libertarian groups and the increasing consciousness among C.N.T. members

15661

of libertarian theories . . .contribu[ting] to the growth of the

15662

anarchosyndicalist movement in Aragon" the existence of "agrarian unrest"

15663

also played an important role in that growth [_Anarchosyndicalism, Libertarian

15664

Communism and the State_, pp. 80-81]. This all lead to the "revitalisation

15665

of the C.N.T. network in Aragon" [p. 82] and so by 1936, the C.N.T. had built

15666

upon the "foundations laid in 1933. . . [and] had finally succeeded in

15667

translating the very great strength of the urban trade-union organisation

15668

in Zaragoza into a regional network of considerable extent." [Op. Cit.,

15669

p. 134]

15670

15671

Kelsey and other historians note the long history of anarchism in Aragon,

15672

dating back to the late 1860s. However, before the 1910s there had been

15673

little gains in rural Aragon by the C.N.T. due to the power of local bosses

15674

(called *caciques*):

15675

15676

"Local landowners and small industrialists, the *caciques* of provincial

15677

Aragon, made every effort to enforce the closure of these first rural

15678

anarchosyndicalist cells [created after 1915]. By the time of the first

15679

rural congress of the Aragonese C.N.T. confederation in the summer of 1923,

15680

much of the progress achieved through the organisation's considerable

15681

propaganda efforts had been countered by repression elsewhere."

15682

[Graham Kelsey, "Anarchism in Aragon," p. 62]

15683

15684

A C.N.T. activist indicates the power of these bosses and how difficult

15685

it was to be a union member in Aragon:

15686

15687

"Repression is not the same in the large cities as it is in the villages

15688

where everyone knows everybody else and where the Civil Guards are

15689

immediately notified of a comrade's slightest movement. Neither friends

15690

nor relatives are spared. All those who do not serve the state's repressive

15691

forces unconditionally are pursued, persecuted and on occasions beaten

15692

up." [cited by Kelsey, Op. Cit., p. 74]

15693

15694

However, while there were some successes in organising rural unions,

15695

even in 1931 "propaganda campaigns which led to the establishment of scores

15696

of village trade-union cells, were followed by a counter-offensive from

15697

village *caciques* which forced them to close." [Ibid. p. 67] But even in

15698

the face of this repression the C.N.T. grew and "from the end of 1932. . .

15699

[there was] a successful expansion of the anarchosyndicalist movement into

15700

several parts of the region where previously it had never penetrated."

15701

[Kesley, _Anarchosyndicalism, Libertarian Communism and the State_, p. 185]

15702

15703

This growth was built upon in 1936, with increased rural activism which had

15704

slowly eroded the power of the *caciques* (which in part explains their support

15705

for the fascist coup). After the election of the Popular Front, years of

15706

anarchist propaganda and organisation paid off with a massive increase

15707

in rural membership in the C.N.T.:

15708

15709

"The dramatic growth in rural anarcho-syndicalist support in the six

15710

weeks since the general election was emphasised in the [Aragon C.N.T.'s

15711

April] congress's agenda. . . the congress directed its attention

15712

to rural problems . . . [and agreed a programme which was] exactly

15713

what was to happen four months later in liberated Aragon." [Kesley,

15714

"Anarchism in Aragon", p. 76]

15715

15716

In the aftermath of a regional congress, held in Zaragoza at the start

15717

of April, a series of intensive propaganda campaigns was organised

15718

through each of the provinces of the regional confederation. Many

15719

meetings were held in villages which had never before heard anarcho-

15720

syndicalist propaganda. This was very successful and by the beginning

15721

of June, 1936, the number of Aragon unions had topped 400, compared to

15722

only 278 one month earlier (an increase of over 40% in 4 weeks). [Ibid.,

15723

pp. 75-76]

15724

15725

This increase in union membership reflects increased social struggle

15726

by the Aragonese working population and their attempts to improve their

15727

standard of living, which was very low for most of the population. A

15728

journalist from the conservative-Catholic _Heraldo de Aragon_ visited

15729

lower Aragon in the summer of 1935 and noted "[t]he hunger in many homes,

15730

where the men are not working, is beginning to encourage the youth to

15731

subscribe to misleading teachings." [cited by Kesley, Ibid., p. 74]

15732

15733

Little wonder, then, the growth in C.N.T. membership and social struggle

15734

Kesley indicates:

15735

15736

"Evidence of a different kind was also available that militant trade

15737

unionism in Aragon was on the increase. In the five months between

15738

mid-February and mid-July 1936 the province of Zaragoza experienced

15739

over seventy strikes, more than had previously been recorded in any

15740

entire year, and things were clearly no different in the other two

15741

provinces . . . the great majority of these strikes were occurring in

15742

provincial towns and villages. Strikes racked the provinces and in at

15743

least three instances were actually transformed into general strikes."

15744

[Ibid., p. 76]

15745

15746

Therefore, in the spring and summer of 1936, we see a massive growth in

15747

C.N.T. membership which reflects growing militant struggle by the urban

15748

and rural population of Aragon. Years of C.N.T. propaganda and organising

15749

had ensured this growth in C.N.T. influence, a growth which is also

15750

reflected in the creation of collectives in liberated Aragon during the

15751

revolution. Therefore, the construction of a collectivised society was

15752

founded directly upon the emergence, during the five years of the Second

15753

Republic, of a mass trade-union movement infused by libertarian, anarchist

15754

principles. These collectives were constructed in accordance with the

15755

programme agreed at the Aragon C.N.T. conference of April 1936 which

15756

reflected the wishes of the rural membership of the unions within Aragon

15757

(and due to the rapid growth of the C.N.T. afterwards obviously reflected

15758

popular feelings in the area).

15759

15760

In the words of Graham Kesley, "libertarian dominance in post-insurrection

15761

Aragon itself reflected the predominance that anarchists had secured before

15762

the war; by the summer of 1936 the C.N.T. had succeeded in establishing

15763

throughout Aragon a mass trade-union movement of strictly libertarian

15764

orientation, upon which widespread and well-supported network the extensive

15765

collective experiment was to be founded." [Ibid., p. 61]

15766

15767

Additional evidence that supports a high level of C.N.T. support in

15768

rural Aragon can be provided by the fact that it was Aragon that was the

15769

centre of the December 1933 insurrection organised by the C.N.T. As Bookchin

15770

notes, "only Aragon rose on any significant scale, particularly Saragossa

15771

. . . many of the villages declared libertarian communism and perhaps the

15772

heaviest fighting took place between the vineyard workers in Rioja and the

15773

authorities" [M. Bookchin, Op. Cit., p. 238]

15774

15775

It is unlikely for the C.N.T. to organise an insurrection in an area within

15776

which it had little support or influence. According to Kesley's in-depth

15777

social history of Aragon, "it was precisely those areas which had most

15778

important in December 1933 . . . which were now [in 1936], in seeking to

15779

create a new pattern of economic and social organisation, to form the basis

15780

of libertarian Aragon." [G. Kesley, _Anarchosyndicalism, Libertarian Communism

15781

and the State_, p. 161] After the revolt, thousands of workers were jailed,

15782

with the authorities having to re-open closed prisons and turn at least

15783

one disused monastery into a jail due to the numbers arrested.

15784

15785

Therefore, it can be seen that the majority of collectives in Aragon

15786

were the product of C.N.T. (and UGT) influenced workers taking the opportunity

15787

to create a new form of social life, a form marked by its voluntary and

15788

directly democratic nature. For from being unknown in rural Aragon, the

15789

C.N.T. was well established and growing at a fast rate - "Spreading out from

15790

its urban base... the C.N.T., first in 1933 and then more extensively in 1936,

15791

succeeded in converting an essentially urban organisation into a truly

15792

regional confederation." [Ibid., p. 184]

15793

15794

Therefore the evidence suggests that historians like Fraser are wrong to

15795

imply that the Aragon collectives were created by the C.N.T. militia and

15796

enforced upon a unwilling population. The Aragon collectives were the natural

15797

result of years of anarchist activity within rural Aragon and directly

15798

related to the massive growth in the C.N.T. between 1930 and 1936. Thus

15799

Kesley is correct to state that:

15800

15801

"Libertarian communism and agrarian collectivisation were not economic

15802

terms or social principles enforced upon a hostile population by special

15803

teams of urban anarchosyndicalists . . ." [G. Kesley, Op. Cit., p. 161]

15804

15805

This is not to suggest that there were *no* examples of people joining

15806

collectives involuntarily because of the "coercive climate" of the front

15807

line. And, of course, there were villages which did not have a C.N.T. union

15808

within them before the war and so created a collective because of the

15809

existence of the C.N.T. militia. But these can be considered as exceptions

15810

to the rule.

15811

15812

Moreover, the way the C.N.T. handled such a situation is noteworthy. Fraser

15813

indicates such a situation in the village of Alloza. In the autumn of

15814

1936, representatives of the C.N.T. district committee had come to suggest

15815

that the villagers collectivise (we would like to stress here that the

15816

C.N.T. militia which had passed through the village had made no attempt

15817

to create a collective there).

15818

15819

A village assembly was called and the C.N.T. explained their ideas and

15820

suggested how to organise the collective. However, who would join and how

15821

the villagers would organise the collective was left totally up to them (the

15822

C.N.T. representatives "stressed that no one was to be maltreated"). Within

15823

the collective, self-management was the rule.

15824

15825

According to one member, "[o]nce the work groups were established on a

15826

friendly basis and worked their own lands, everyone got on well enough,"

15827

he recalled. "There was no need for coercion, no need for discipline and

15828

punishment. . . A collective wasn't a bad idea at all." [Op. Cit., p. 360]

15829

This collective, like the vast majority, was voluntary and democratic -

15830

"I couldn't oblige him to join; we weren't living under a dictatorship."

15831

[Op. Cit., p. 362] In other words, *no* force was used to create the

15832

collective and the collective was organised by local people directly.

15833

15834

Of course, as with any public good (to use economic jargon), all members of

15835

the community had to pay for the war effort and feed the militia. As Kesely

15836

notes, "[t]he military insurrection had come at a critical moment in the

15837

agricultural calendar. Throughout lower Aragon there were fields of grain

15838

ready for harvesting. . . At the assembly in Albalate de Cinca the opening

15839

clause of the agreed programme had required everyone in the district,

15840

independent farmers and collectivists alike, to contribute equally to

15841

the war effort, thereby emphasising one of the most important considerations

15842

in the period immediately following the rebellion."

15843

15844

In addition, the collectives controlled the price of crops in order to ensure

15845

that speculation and inflation were controlled. However, these policies

15846

as with the equal duties of individualists and collectivists in the war

15847

effort were enforced upon the collectives by the war.

15848

15849

Lastly, in support of the popular nature of the rural collectives, we

15850

will indicate the effects of the suppression of the collectives in August

15851

1937 by the Communists, namely the collapse of the rural economy. This

15852

sheds considerable light on the question of popular attitudes to the

15853

collectives.

15854

15855

In October, the Communist-controlled Regional Delegation of Agrarian

15856

Reform acknowledged that "in the majority of villages agricultural

15857

work was paralysed causing great harm to our agrarian economy."

15858

This is confirmed by Jose Silva, a Communist Party member and general

15859

secretary of the Institute of Agrarian Reform, who commented that

15860

after Lister had attacked Aragon, "labour in the fields was

15861

suspended almost entirely, and a quarter of the land had not

15862

been prepared at the time for sowing." At a meeting of the

15863

agrarian commission of the Aragonese Communist Party (October 9th,

15864

1937), Jose Silva emphasised "the little incentive to work of

15865

the entire peasant population" and that the situation brought

15866

about by the dissolution of the collectives was "grave and

15867

critical." [quoted by Bolloten, Op. Cit., p. 530]

15868

15869

Jose Peirats explains the reasons for this economic collapse as a result

15870

of popular boycott:

15871

15872

"When it came time to prepare for the next harvest, smallholders could

15873

not by themselves work the property on which they had been installed

15874

[by the communists]. Dispossessed peasants, intransigent collectivists,

15875

refused to work in a system of private property, and were even less

15876

willing to rent out their labour." [_Anarchists in the Spanish

15877

Revolution_, p. 258]

15878

15879

If the collectives were unpopular, created by anarchist force, then why did

15880

the economy collapse after the suppression? If Lister had overturned a

15881

totalitarian anarchist regime, why did the peasants not reap the benefit of

15882

their toil? Could it be because the collectives were essentially a

15883

spontaneous Aragonese development and supported by most of the population

15884

there? This analysis is backed up by Yaacov Oved's statement (from a paper

15885

submitted to the XII Congress of Sociology, Madrid, July 1990):

15886

15887

"Those who were responsible for this policy [of "freeing" the Aragon

15888

Collectivists], were convinced that the farmers would greet it joyfully

15889

because they had been coerced into joining the collectives. But they were

15890

proven wrong. Except for the rich estate owners who were glad to get their

15891

land back, most of the members of the agricultural collectives objected and

15892

lacking all motivation they were reluctant to resume the same effort of in the

15893

agricultural work. This phenomenon was so widespread that the authorities and

15894

the communist minister of agriculture were forced to retreat from their

15895

hostile policy." [Yaacov Oved, _Communismo Libertario and Communalism in

15896

the Spanish Collectivisations (1936-1939)_]

15897

15898

Even in the face of Communist repression, most of the collectives kept going.

15899

This, if nothing else, proves that the collectives were popular institutions.

15900

As Yaacov Oved argues in relation to the breaking up of the collectives:

15901

15902

"Through the widespread reluctance of collectivists to co-operate with the

15903

new policy it became evident that most members had voluntarily joined the

15904

collectives and as soon as the policy was changed a new wave of collectives

15905

was established. However, the wheel could not be turned back. An atmosphere

15906

of distrust prevailed between the collectives and the authorities and

15907

every initiative was curtailed" [Op. Cit.]

15908

15909

Jose Peirats sums up the situation after the communist attack on the

15910

collectives and the legalisation of the collectives as follows:

15911

15912

"It is very possible that this second phase of collectivisation better

15913

reflects the sincere convictions of the members. They had undergone a

15914

sever test and those who had withstood it were proven collectivists. Yet

15915

it would be facile to label as anti-collectivists those who abandoned

15916

the collectives in this second phase. Fear, official coercion and

15917

insecurity weighed heavily in the decisions of much of the Aragonese

15918

peasantry." [Op. Cit., p. 258]

15919

15920

While the collectives had existed, there was a 20% increase in production

15921

(and this is compared to the pre-war harvest which had been "a good crop."

15922

[Fraser, p. 370]); after the destruction of the collectives, the economy

15923

collapsed. Hardly the result that would be expected if the collectives were

15924

forced upon an unwilling peasantry. The forced collectivisation by Stalin

15925

in Russia resulted in a famine. Only the victory of fascism made it possible

15926

to restore the so-called "natural order" of capitalist property in the

15927

Spanish countryside. The same land-owners who welcomed the Communist

15928

repression of the collectives also, we are sure, welcomed the fascists

15929

who ensured a lasting victory of property over liberty.

15930

15931

So, overall, the evidence suggests that the Aragon collectives, like

15932

their counterparts in the Levante, Catalonia and so on, were *popular*

15933

organisations, created by and for the rural population and, essentially,

15934

an expression of a spontaneous and popular social revolution. Claims that

15935

the anarchist militia created them by force of arms are *false.* While acts

15936

of violence *did* occur and some acts of coercion *did* take place

15937

(against C.N.T. policy, we may add) these are the exceptions to the rule.

15938

Bolloten's summary best fits the facts:

15939

15940

"But in spite of the cleavages between doctrine and practice that plagued

15941

the Spanish Anarchists whenever they collided with the realities of power,

15942

it cannot be overemphasised that notwithstanding the many instances of

15943

coercion and violence, the revolution of July 1936 distinguished itself

15944

from all others by the generally spontaneous and far-reaching character of

15945

its collectivist movement and by its promise of moral and spiritual

15946

renewal. Nothing like this spontaneous movement had ever occurred before."

15947

[Op. Cit., p. 78]

15948

15949

I.8.8 But did the Spanish collectives innovate?

15950

15951

Yes. In contradiction to the old capitalist claim that no one will

15952

innovate unless private property exists, the workers and peasants exhibited

15953

much more incentive and creativity under libertarian socialism than they

15954

had under the private enterprise system. This is apparent from Gaston

15955

Leval's description of the results of collectivisation in Cargagente:

15956

15957

"Carcagente is situated in the southern part of the province of Valencia.

15958

The climate of the region is particularly suited for the cultivation of

15959

oranges. . . . All of the socialised land, without exception, is cultivated

15960

with infinite care. The orchards are thoroughly weeded. To assure that

15961

the trees will get all the nourishment needed, the peasants are

15962

incessantly cleaning the soil. 'Before,' they told me with pride, 'all

15963

this belonged to the rich and was worked by miserably paid labourers. The

15964

land was neglected and the owners had to buy immense quantities of

15965

chemical fertilisers, although they could have gotten much better yields

15966

by cleaning the soil. . . .' With pride, they showed me trees that had

15967

been grafted to produce better fruit.

15968

15969

"In many places I observed plants growing in the shade of the orange

15970

trees. 'What is this?,' I asked. I learned that the Levant peasants

15971

(famous for their ingenuity) have abundantly planted potatoes among the

15972

orange groves. The peasants demonstrate more intelligence than all the

15973

bureaucrats in the Ministry of Agriculture combined. They do more than

15974

just plant potatoes. Throughout the whole region of the Levant, wherever

15975

the soil is suitable, they grow crops. They take advantage of the four

15976

month [fallow period] in the rice fields. Had the Minister of Agriculture

15977

followed the example of these peasants throughout the Republican zone, the

15978

bread shortage problem would have been overcome in a few months." [cited in

15979

Dolgoff, _Anarchist Collectives_, p. 153]

15980

15981

This is just one from a multitude of examples presented in the accounts

15982

of both the industrial and rural collectives (for more see section C.2.3

15983

in which we present more examples to refute that charge that "workers'

15984

control would stifle innovation" and I.8.6). The available evidence proves

15985

that the membership of the collectives showed a keen awareness of the

15986

importance of investment and innovation in order to increase production

15987

and to make work both lighter and more interesting *and* that the

15988

collectives allowed that awareness to be expressed freely. The Spanish

15989

collectives indicate that, given the chance, everyone will take an interest

15990

in their own affairs and express a desire to use their minds to improve

15991

their surroundings. In fact, capitalism distorts what innovation exists

15992

under hierarchy by channelling it purely in how to save money and maximise

15993

investor profit, ignoring other, more important, issues.

15994

15995

As Gaston Leval argues, self-management encouraged innovation:

15996

15997

"The theoreticians and partisans of the liberal economy affirm that

15998

competition stimulates initiative and, consequently, the creative spirit

15999

and invention without which it remains dormant. Numerous observations made

16000

by the writer in the Collectives, factories and socialised workshops permit

16001

him to take quite the opposite view. For in a Collective, in a grouping

16002

where each individual is stimulated by the wish to be of service to his

16003

fellow beings research, the desire for technical perfection and so on

16004

are also stimulated. But they also have as a consequence that other

16005

individuals join those who were first to get together. Furthermore, when,

16006

in present society, an individualist inventor discovers something, it is

16007

used only by the capitalist or the individual employing him, whereas in

16008

the case of an inventor living in a community not only is his discovery

16009

taken up and developed by others, but is immediately applied for the

16010

common good. I am convinced that this superiority would very soon manifest

16011

itself in a socialised society." [_Collectives in the Spanish Revolution_,

16012

p. 247]

16013

16014

Therefore the actual experiences of self-management in Spain supports the

16015

points made in section I.4.11. Freed from hierarchy, individuals will

16016

creatively interact with the world to improve their circumstances. This

16017

is not due to "market forces" but because the human mind is an active

16018

agent and unless crushed by authority it can no more stop thinking and

16019

acting than the Earth stop revolving round the Sun. In addition, the

16020

Collectives indicate that self-management allows ideas to be enriched

16021

by discussion, as Bakunin argued:

16022

16023

"The greatest intelligence would not be equal to a comprehension of the

16024

whole. Thence results... the necessity of the division and association

16025

of labour. I receive and I give - such is human life. Each directs and

16026

is directed in his turn. Therefore there is no fixed and constant

16027

authority, but a continual exchange of mutual, temporary, and, above all,

16028

voluntary authority and subordination" [_God and the State_, p. 33]

16029

16030

The experience of self-management proved Bakunin's point that society is

16031

more intelligent than even the most intelligent individual simply because

16032

of the wealth of viewpoints, experience and thoughts contained there.

16033

Capitalism impoverishes individuals and society by its artificial boundaries

16034

and authority structures.

16035

16036

I.8.9 Why, if it was so good, did it not survive?

16037

16038

Just because something is good does not mean that it will survive.

16039

16040

For example, the Warsaw Ghetto uprising against the Nazis failed but that

16041

does not mean that the uprising was a bad cause or that the Nazi regime

16042

was correct, far from it. Similarly, while the experiments in workers'

16043

self-management and communal living undertaken across Republican Spain

16044

is one of the most important social experiments in a free society ever

16045

undertaken, this cannot change the fact that Franco's forces and the

16046

Communists had access to more and better weapons.

16047

16048

Faced with the aggression and terrorism of Franco, and behind him the

16049

military might of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, the treachery of the

16050

Communists, and the aloofness of the Western bourgeois "republics" (whose

16051

policy of "non-intervention" was strangely ignored when their citizens

16052

aided Franco) it is amazing the revolution lasted as long as it did.

16053

16054

This does not excuse the actions of the anarchists themselves. As is well

16055

known, the C.N.T. co-operated with the other anti-fascist parties and trade

16056

unions on the Republican side (see next section). This co-operation lead to

16057

the C.N.T. joining the anti-fascist government and "anarchists" becoming

16058

ministers of state. This co-operation, more than anything, helped ensure

16059

the defeat of the revolution. While much of the blame can be places at

16060

the door of the would-be "leaders," who like most leaders started to

16061

think themselves irreplaceable and spokespersons for the organisations

16062

there were members of, it must be stated that the rank-and-file of the

16063

movement did little to stop them. Most of the militant anarchists were

16064

at the front-line (and so excluded from union and collective meetings)

16065

and so could not influence their fellow workers (it is no surprise that

16066

the "Friends of Durruti" group were mostly ex-militia men). However, it

16067

seems that the mirage of anti-fascist unity proved too much for the

16068

majority of C.N.T. members (see section I.8.12).

16069

16070

Some anarchists still maintain that the Spanish anarchist movement

16071

had no choice and that collaboration (while having unfortunate

16072

eeffects) was the only choice available. This view was defended

16073

by Sam Dolgoff and finds some support in the writings of Gaston

16074

Leval, August Souchy and many other anarchists. However, most

16075

anarchists today oppose collaboration and think it was a terrible

16076

mistake (at the time, this position was held by the majority of

16077

non-Spanish anarchists plus a large minority of the Spanish

16078

movement, becoming a majority as the implications of

16079

collaboration became clear). This viewpoint finds its best

16080

expression in Vernon Richard's _Lessons of the Spanish Revolution_

16081

and, in part, in such works as _Anarchists in the Spanish

16082

Revolution_ by Jose Peirats and _Anarchist Organisation: The

16083

History of the F.A.I_ by Juan Gomaz Casas as well as in a host

16084

of pamphlets and articles written by anarchists ever since.

16085

16086

So, regardless of how good a social system is, objective facts will

16087

overcome that experiment. Saturnino Carod (a leader of a C.N.T. Militia

16088

column at the Aragon Front) sums up the successes of the revolution

16089

as well as its objective limitations:

16090

16091

"Always expecting to be stabbed in the back, always knowing that

16092

if we created problems, only the enemy across the lines would

16093

stand to gain. It was a tragedy for the anarcho-syndicalist

16094

movement; but it was a tragedy for something greater -- the

16095

Spanish people. For it can never be forgotten that it was the

16096

working class and peasantry which, by demonstrating their

16097

ability to run industry and agriculture collectively, allowed

16098

the republic to continue the struggle for thirty-two months.

16099

It was they who created a war industry, who kept agricultural

16100

production increasing, who formed militias and later joined

16101

the army. Without their creative endeavour, the republic

16102

could not have fought the war . . ." [quoted by Fraser,

16103

_Blood of Spain_, p. 394]

16104

16105

I.8.10 Why did the C.N.T. collaborate with the state?

16106

16107

As is well know, in September 1936 the C.N.T joined the

16108

Catalan government, followed by the central government

16109

in November. This followed on from the decision made on

16110

July the 21st to not speak of Libertarian Communism

16111

until after Franco had been defeated. In other words,

16112

to collaborate with other anti-fascist parties and

16113

unions in a common front against fascism.

16114

16115

This, initially, involved the C.N.T agreeing to join a

16116

"Central Committee of Anti-Fascist Militias" proposed

16117

by the leader of the Catalan government, Louis Companys.

16118

This committee was made up of representatives of various

16119

anti-fascist parties and groups. From this it was only

16120

a matter of time until the C.N.T joined an official

16121

government as no other means of co-ordinating activities

16122

existed (see section I.8.13).

16123

16124

The question must arise, *why* did the C.N.T decide to

16125

collaborate with the state, forsaking its principles and,

16126

in its own way, contribute to the counter-revolution and

16127

the loosing of the war. This is an important question.

16128

Indeed, it is one Marxists always throw up in arguments

16129

with anarchists or in anti-anarchist diatribes. Does the

16130

failure of the C.N.T to implement anarchism after

16131

July 19th mean that anarchist politics are flawed? Or,

16132

rather, does the experience of the C.N.T and F.A.I

16133

during the Spanish revolution indicate a failure of

16134

*anarchists* rather than of *anarchism,* a mistake

16135

made under difficult objective circumstances and one

16136

which anarchists have learnt from? Needless to say,

16137

anarchists argue that the latter answer is the

16138

correct one. In other words, as Vernon Richards

16139

argues, "the basis of [his] criticism is not that

16140

anarchist ideas were proved to be unworkable by the

16141

Spanish experience, but that the Spanish anarchists

16142

and syndicalists failed to put their theories to the

16143

test, adopting instead the tactics of the enemy."

16144

[_Lessons of the Spanish Revolution_, p. 14] The

16145

writers of this FAQ agree.

16146

16147

So, why *did* the CNT collaborate with the state

16148

during the Spanish Civil War? Simply put, rather than

16149

being the fault of anarchist theory (as Marxists like

16150

to claim), its roots can be discovered in the situation

16151

facing the Catalan anarchists on July 20th. The objective

16152

conditions facing the leading militants of the CNT and

16153

FAI influenced the decisions they took, decisions which

16154

they later justified by *mis*-using anarchist theory.

16155

16156

What was the situation facing the Catalan anarchists

16157

on July 20th? Simply put, it was an unknown situation.

16158

Jose Peirats quotes from the report made by the C.N.T

16159

to the _International Workers Association_ as follows:

16160

16161

"Levante was defenceless and uncertain . . . We were

16162

in a minority in Madrid. The situation in Andalusia

16163

was unknown . . . There was no information from the

16164

North, and we assumed the rest of Spain was in the

16165

hands of the fascists. The enemy was in Aragon, at

16166

the gates of Catalonia. The nervousness of foreign

16167

consular officials led to the presence of a great

16168

number of war ships around our ports." [quoted in

16169

_Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution_, p. 180]

16170

16171

He also notes that:

16172

16173

"According to the report, the CNT was in absolute

16174

control of Catalonia in July 19, 1936, but its

16175

strength was less in Levante and still less in

16176

central Spain where the central government and the

16177

traditional parties were dominant. In the north of

16178

Spain the situation was confused. The CNT could have

16179

mounted an insurrection on its own 'with probable

16180

success' but such a takeover would have led to a

16181

struggle on three fronts: against the fascists,

16182

the government and foreign capitalism. In view of

16183

the difficulty of such an undertaking, collaboration

16184

with other antifascist groups was the only alternative."

16185

[Op. Cit., p. 179]

16186

16187

In the words of the CNT report itself:

16188

16189

"The CNT showed a conscientious scrupulousness in the

16190

face of a difficult alternative: to destroy completely

16191

the State in Catalonia, to declare war against the Rebels

16192

[i.e. the fascists], the government, foreign capitalism,

16193

and thus assuming complete control of Catalan society;

16194

or collaborating in the responsibilities of government

16195

with the other antifascist fractions." [quoted by Robert

16196

Alexander, _The Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War_,

16197

vol. 2, p. 1156]

16198

16199

Moreover, as Gaston Leval later argued, given that the

16200

"general preoccupation [of the majority of the population

16201

was] to defeat the fascists . . . the anarchists would,

16202

if they came out against the state, provoke the antagonism

16203

. . . of the majority of the people, who would accuse them

16204

of collaborating with Franco." Implementing an anarchist

16205

revolution would, in all likelihood, also "result . . .

16206

[in] the instant closing of the frontier and the blockade

16207

by sea by both fascists and the democratic countries. The

16208

supply of arms would be completely cut off, and the

16209

anarchists would rightly be held responsible for the

16210

disastrous consequences." [quoted in _The Anarchist

16211

Collectives_, p. 52 and p. 53]

16212

16213

While the supporters of Lenin and Trotsky will constantly

16214

point out the objective circumstances in which their

16215

heroes made their decisions during the Russian Revolution,

16216

they rarely mention those facing the anarchists in Spain on

16217

the 20th of July, 1936. It seems hypocritical to point to the

16218

Russian Civil War as the explanation of all of Bolshevism's

16219

crimes against the working class (indeed, humanity) while

16220

remaining silent on the forces facing the C.N.T-F.A.I at

16221

the start of the Spanish Civil War. The fact that *if* the

16222

CNT had decided to implement libertarian communism in

16223

Catalonia they would have to face the fascists (commanding

16224

the bulk of the Spanish army), the Republican government

16225

(commanding the rest) *plus* those sections in Catalonia

16226

which supported it is rarely mentioned. Moreover, when

16227

the decision to collaborate was made it was *immediately

16228

after the defeat of the army uprising in Barcelona* -- the

16229

situation in the rest of the country was uncertain and

16230

when the social revolution was in its early days.

16231

16232

Stuart Christie indicates the dilemma facing the

16233

leadership of the CNT at the time:

16234

16235

"The higher committees of the CNT-FAI-FIJL in Catalonia

16236

saw themselves caught on the horns of a dilemma: social

16237

revolution, fascism or bourgeois democracy. Either they

16238

committed themselves to the solutions offered by social

16239

revolution, regardless of the difficulties involved in

16240

fighting both fascism and international capitalism, or,

16241

through fear of fascism (or of the people), they sacrificed

16242

their anarchist principles and revolutionary objectives to

16243

bolster, to become, part of the bourgeois state . . . Faced

16244

with an imperfect state of affairs and preferring defeat to

16245

a possibly Pyrrhic victory, the Catalan anarchist leadership

16246

renounced anarchism in the name of expediency and removed the

16247

social transformation of Spain from their agenda.

16248

16249

"But what the CNT-FAI leaders failed to grasp was that the

16250

decision whether or not to implement Libertarian Communism,

16251

was not theirs to make. Anarchism was not something which

16252

could be transformed from theory into practice by organisational

16253

decree . . . [the] spontaneous defensive movement of 19 July

16254

had developed a political direct of its own." [_We, the

16255

Anarchists!_, p. 99]

16256

16257

Given that the pro-fascist army still controlled a third

16258

or more of Spain (including Aragon) and that the CNT was

16259

not the dominant force in the centre and north of Spain,

16260

it was decided that a war on three fronts would only aid

16261

Franco. Moreover, it was a distinct possibility that by

16262

introducing libertarian communism in Catalonia, Aragon

16263

and elsewhere, the workers' militias and self-managed

16264

industries would have been starved of weapons, resources

16265

and credit. That isolation was a real problem can be seen

16266

from De Santillan's later comments on why the CNT joined

16267

the government:

16268

16269

"The Militias Committee guaranteed the supremacy of the

16270

people in arms . . . but we were told and it was repeated to

16271

us endlessly that as long as we persisted in retaining it,

16272

that is, as long as we persisted in propping up the power of

16273

tthe people, weapons would not come to Catalonia, now would

16274

we be granted the foreign currency to obtain them from abroad,

16275

nor would we be supplied with the raw materials for our industry.

16276

And since losing the war meant losing everything and returning

16277

to a state like that prevailed in the Spain of Ferdinand VII,

16278

and in the conviction that the drive given by us and our

16279

people could not vanish completely from the new economic life,

16280

we quit the Militias Committee to join the Generalidad government."

16281

[quoted by Stuart Christie, Op. Cit., p. 109]

16282

16283

It was decided to collaborate and reject the basic ideas

16284

of anarchism until the war was over. A terrible mistake,

16285

but one which can be understood given the circumstances

16286

in which it was made. This is not, we stress, to justify

16287

the decision but rather to explain it and place it in

16288

context. Ultimately, the *experience* of the Civil War

16289

saw a blockade of Republic by both "democratic" and

16290

fascist governments, the starving of the militias and

16291

self-managed collectives of resources and credit as well

16292

as a war on two fronts when the State felt strong enough

16293

to try and crush the CNT and the semi-revolution its members

16294

had started. Unfortunately, the anarchist movement did not

16295

have a crystal-ball with which to see the future. Ultimately,

16296

even faced with the danger of fascism, the liberals, the

16297

right-wing socialists and communists preferred to undermine

16298

the anti-fascist struggle by attacking the CNT. In this,

16299

history proved Durruti totally correct:

16300

16301

"For us it is a matter of crushing Fascism once and for all. Yes,

16302

and in spite of the Government.

16303

16304

"No government in the world fights Fascism to the death. When the

16305

bourgeoisie sees power slipping from its grasp, it has recourse to

16306

Fascism to maintain itself. The liberal government of Spain could

16307

have rendered the fascist elements powerless long ago. Instead it

16308

compromised and dallied. Even now at this moment, there are men in

16309

this Government who want to go easy on the rebels. You can never tell,

16310

you know-- he laughed -- the present Government might yet need these

16311

rebellious forces to crush the workers' movement . . .

16312

16313

"We know what we want. To us it means nothing that there is a Soviet

16314

Union somewhere in the world, for the sake of whose peace and

16315

tranquillity the workers of Germany and China were sacrificed to

16316

Fascist barbarians by Stalin. We want revolution here in Spain, right

16317

now, not maybe after the next European war. We are giving Hitler and

16318

Mussolini far more worry to-day with our revolution than the whole

16319

Red Army of Russia. We are setting an example to the German and

16320

Italian working class on how to deal with fascism.

16321

16322

"I do not expect any help for a libertarian revolution from any

16323

Government in the world. Maybe the conflicting interests of the

16324

various imperialisms might have some influence in our struggle.

16325

That is quite possible . . . But we expect no help, not even from

16326

our own Government, in the last analysis."

16327

16328

"You will be sitting on a pile of ruins if you are victorious,"

16329

said [the journalist] van Paasen.

16330

16331

Durruti answered: "We have always lived in slums and holes in the

16332

wall. We will know how to accommodate ourselves for a time. For,

16333

you must not forget, we can also build. It is we the workers who

16334

built these palaces and cities here in Spain and in America and

16335

everywhere. We, the workers, can build others to take their place.

16336

And better ones! We are not in the least afraid of ruins. We are

16337

going to inherit the earth; there is not the slightest doubt about

16338

that. The bourgeoisie might blast and ruin its own world before it

16339

leaves the stage of history. We carry a new world here, in our

16340

hearts. That world is growing this minute." [quoted by Vernon

16341

Richards, _Lessons of the Spanish Revolution_, pp. 193-4f]

16342

16343

Isolation, the uneven support for a libertarian revolution

16344

across Spain and the dangers of fascism were real problems,

16345

but they do not excuse the libertarian movement for its

16346

mistakes. As we discuss in sections I.8.11 and I.8.13, the

16347

biggest of these mistakes was forgetting basic anarchist

16348

ideas and an anarchist approach to the problems facing

16349

the Spanish people. If these ideas had been applied in

16350

Spain, the outcome of the Civil War and Revolution would

16351

have been different.

16352

16353

In summary, while the decision to collaborate is one

16354

that can be understood (due to the circumstances under which

16355

it was made), it cannot be justified in terms of anarchist

16356

theory. Indeed, as we argue in the next section, attempts

16357

by the CNT leadership to justify the decision in terms of

16358

anarchist principles are not convincing and cannot be done

16359

without making a mockery of anarchism.

16360

16361

I.8.11 Was the decision to collaborate a product of anarchist

16362

theory, so showing anarchism is flawed?

16363

16364

As we indicated in the last section, the decision to

16365

collaborate with the state was made by the CNT due to

16366

the fear of isolation. The possibility that by declaring

16367

libertarian communism, the CNT would have had to fight

16368

the Republican government and foreign interventions

16369

*as well as* the military coup influenced the decision

16370

reached by the militants of Catalan anarchism. They

16371

argued that such a situation would only aid Franco.

16372

16373

Rather than being the product of anarchist ideology,

16374

the decision was made in light of the immediate danger

16375

of fascism and the situation in other parts of the

16376

country. The fact is that the circumstances in which the

16377

decision to collaborate was made are rarely mentioned

16378

by Marxists, who prefer to quote CNT militant Garcia

16379

Oliver's comment from over a year later:

16380

16381

"The CNT and the FAI decided on collaboration and democracy,

16382

renouncing revolutionary totalitarianism which would lead to

16383

the strangulation of the revolution by the anarchist and

16384

Confederal dictatorship. We had to choose, between Libertarian

16385

Communism, which meant anarchist dictatorship, and democracy,

16386

which meant collaboration." [quoted by Vernon Richards,

16387

_Lessons of the Spanish Revolution_, p. 34]

16388

16389

It is this quote, and quotes like it, which is ritualistically

16390

trotted out by Marxists when attacking anarchist ideas. They

16391

argue that they expose the bankruptcy of anarchist theory. So

16392

convinced of this, they rarely bother discussing the problems

16393

facing the CNT after the defeat of the military coup we discussed

16394

in the last section nor do they compare these quotes to the

16395

anarchist theory they claim inspired them. There are good

16396

reasons for this. Firstly, if they presented the objective

16397

circumstances the CNT found itself it then their readers

16398

may see that the decision, while wrong, is understandable

16399

and had nothing to do with anarchist theory. Secondly, by

16400

comparing these quotes to anarchist theory they would

16401

soon see how at odds they are with it. Indeed, they invoke

16402

anarchism to justify conclusions the exact opposite of

16403

that theory.

16404

16405

So what can be made of Garcia Oliver's argument?

16406

16407

As Abel Paz notes, "[i]t is clear that the explanations

16408

given . . . were designed for their political effect, hiding

16409

the atmosphere in which these decisions were taken. These

16410

declarations were made a year later when the CNT were

16411

already far removed from their original positions It is also

16412

the period when they had become involved in the policy of

16413

collaboration which lead taking part in the Central

16414

Government. But in a certain way they shed light on the

16415

unknown factors which weighted so heavily on these who

16416

took part in the historic Plenum." [_Durruti: The People

16417

Armed_, p. 215]

16418

16419

For example, when the decision was made, the revolution

16420

had not started yet. The street fighting had just ended

16421

and the Plenum decided "not to speak about Libertarian

16422

Communism as long as part of Spain was in the hands of

16423

the fascists." [Mariano R. Vesquez, quoted by Paz, Op.

16424

Cit., p.214] The revolution took place *from below* in

16425

the days following the decision, independently of the

16426

wishes of the Plenum. In the words of Abel Paz:

16427

16428

"When the workers reached their workplaces . . . they

16429

found them deserted . . . The major centres of production

16430

had been abandoned by their owners . . . The CNT and

16431

its leaders had certainly not foreseen this situation;

16432

if they had, they had, they would have given appropriate

16433

guidance to the workers when they called off the General

16434

Strike and ordered a return to work. What happened next

16435

was the result of the workers' spontaneous decision to

16436

take matters into their own hands.

16437

16438

"Finding the factories deserted, and no instructions

16439

from their unions, they resolved to operate the

16440

machines themselves." [_The Spanish Civil War_,

16441

pp. 54-5]

16442

16443

The rank and file of the CNT, on their own initiative,

16444

took advantage of the collapse of state power to transform

16445

the economy and social life of Catalonia. Paz stresses

16446

that "no orders were given for expropriation or

16447

colectivisation -- which proved that the union, which

16448

represented the will of the their members until July 18th,

16449

had now been overtaken by events" and the "union leaders

16450

of the CNT committees were confronted with a revolution

16451

that they had not foreseen . . . the workers and peasants

16452

had bypassed their leaders and taken collective action."

16453

[Op. Cit., p. 40 and p. 56]

16454

16455

As the revolution had not yet begun and the CNT Plenum had

16456

decided *not* to call for its start, it is difficult to see

16457

how "libertarian communism" (i.e. the revolution) could

16458

"lead to the strangulation of the revolution" (i.e.

16459

libertarian communism). In other words, this particular

16460

rationale put forward by Garica Oliver could not reflect

16461

the real thoughts of those present at the CNT plenum and

16462

so, in fact, was a later justification for the CNT's actions.

16463

16464

Similarly, Libertarian Communism is based on self-management,

16465

by its nature opposed to dictatorship. According to the CNT's

16466

resolution at its congress in Zaragonza in May, 1936, "the

16467

foundation of this administration will be the commune" which

16468

is "autonomous" and "federated at regional and national levels."

16469

The commune "will undertake to adhere to whatever general norms

16470

[that] may be agreed by majority vote after free debate." It

16471

stressed the free nature of society aimed at by the CNT:

16472

16473

"The inhabitants of a commune are to debate among themselves

16474

their internal problems . . . Federations are to deliberate

16475

over major problems affecting a country or province and all

16476

communes are to be represented at their reunions and assemblies,

16477

thereby enabling their delegates to convey the democratic

16478

viewpoint of their respective communes . . . every commune

16479

which is implicated will have its right to have its say . . .

16480

On matters of a regional nature, it is the duty of the regional

16481

federation to implement agreements . . . So the starting point

16482

is the individual, moving on through the commune, to the

16483

federation and right on up finally to the confederation."

16484

[quoted by Jose Peirats, _The CNT in the Spanish Revolution_,

16485

vol. 1, pp. 106-7]

16486

16487

Hardly a picture of "anarchist dictatorship"! Indeed, it

16488

is far more "democratic" than the capitalist state Oliver

16489

describes as "democracy."

16490

16491

Clearly, these often quoted words of Garcia Oliver cannot be

16492

taken at face value. Made in 1937, they present an attempt to

16493

misuse anarchist ideals to defend the anti-anarchist activities

16494

of the CNT leadership rather than a meaningful explanation of

16495

the decisions made on the 20th of July, 1936.

16496

16497

Moreover, the decision made then clearly stated that Libertarian

16498

Communism would be back on the agenda once Franco was defeated.

16499

Oliver's comments were applicable *after* Franco was defeated

16500

just as much as when they were made. The real reasons for the

16501

decision to collaborate lies elsewhere, namely in the objective

16502

circumstances facing the CNT after the defeat of the army

16503

in Barcelona, July 20th, 1936, and *not* in anarchist theory.

16504

16505

This can clearly been seen from the report made by the CNT

16506

to the _International Workers Association_ to justify

16507

the decision to forget anarchist theory and collaborate

16508

with bourgeois parties and join the government. The

16509

report states that "the CNT, loyal to its ideals and

16510

its purely anarchist nature, did not attack the forms

16511

of the State, nor try publicly to penetrate or dominate

16512

it . . . none of the political or juridical institutions

16513

were abolished." [quoted by Robert Alexander, _The

16514

Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War_, vol. 2, p. 1156]

16515

16516

In other words, according to this report, "anarchist" ideals

16517

do not, in fact, mean the destruction of the state, but

16518

rather the *ignoring* of the state. That this is nonsense,

16519

concocted to justify the CNT leaderships' betrayal of its

16520

ideals, is clear. To do so we just need to look at Bakunin

16521

and Kropotkin and look at the activities of the CNT *before*

16522

the start of the war.

16523

16524

Bakunin had argued that "the revolution must set out

16525

from the first to radically and totally destroy the State"

16526

and that the "natural and necessary consequence of this

16527

destruction" will include the "dissolution of army, magistracy,

16528

bureaucracy, police and priesthood." Capital would be

16529

expropriated (i.e. the "confiscation of all productive capital

16530

and means of production on behalf of workers' associations,

16531

who are to put them to use") and the state replaced by "the

16532

federative Alliance of all working men's associations" which

16533

"will constitute the Commune." [_Michael Bakunin: Selected

16534

Writings_, p. 170] Similarly, Kropotkin had stressed that

16535

the "Commune . . . must break the State and replace it

16536

by the Federation." [_Words of a Rebel_, p. 83]

16537

16538

Thus anarchism has always been clear on what to do with

16539

the state, and it is obviously not what the CNT did to it!

16540

Nor had the CNT always taken this perspective. Before the

16541

start of the Civil War, the CNT had organised numerous

16542

insurrections against the state. For example, in the spontaneous

16543

revolt of CNT miners in January 1932, the workers "seized town

16544

halls, raised the black-and-red flags of the CNT, and declared

16545

*communismo liberatario.*" In Tarassa, the same year, the workers

16546

again "seiz[ed] town halls" and the town "swept by street

16547

fighting." The revolt in January 1933 began with "assaults by

16548

Anarchist action groups . . . on Barcelona's military barracks

16549

. . . Serious fighting occurred in working-class *barrios* and

16550

the outlying areas of Barcelona . . . Uprising occurred in

16551

Tarassa, Sardanola-Ripollet, Lerida, in several *pueblos*

16552

in Valencia province, and in Andalusia." In December 1933,

16553

the workers "reared barricades, attacked public buildings,

16554

and engaged in heavy street fighting . . . many villages

16555

declared libertarian communism." [Murray Bookchin, _The

16556

Spanish Anarchists_, p. 225, p. 226, p. 227 and p. 238]

16557

16558

It seems that the CNT leadership's loyalty to "its ideals

16559

and its purely anarchist nature" which necessitated "not

16560

attack[ing] the forms of the State" was a very recent

16561

development! That enemies of anarchism quote Garcia

16562

Oliver's words from 1937 or from this document and others

16563

like it in order to draw conclusions about anarchist theory

16564

says more about their politics than about anarchism!

16565

16566

As can be seen, the rationales later developed to justify

16567

the betrayal of anarchist ideas and the revolutionary

16568

workers of Spain have no real relationship to anarchist

16569

theory. They were created to justify a non-anarchist

16570

approach to the struggle against fascism, an approach

16571

based on ignoring struggle from below and instead forging

16572

alliances with parties and unions at the top (in the

16573

style of the UGT "Workers' Alliance" the CNT had

16574

correctly argued against before the war).

16575

16576

Rather than trying to cement a unity with other organisations

16577

at the top level, the leadership of the CNT should have

16578

applied their anarchist ideas by inciting the oppressed

16579

to enlarge and consolidate their gains (which they did

16580

anyway). This would have liberated all the potential

16581

energy within the country (and elsewhere), energy that

16582

clearly existed as can be seen from the spontaneous

16583

collectivisations that occurred after the fateful Plenum

16584

of July 20th and the creation of volunteer workers'

16585

militia columns sent to liberate those parts of Spain

16586

which had fallen to Franco.

16587

16588

The role of anarchists, therefore, was that of "inciting

16589

the people to abolish capitalistic property and the

16590

institutions through which it exercises its power for the

16591

exploitation of the majority by a minority" and "to

16592

support, to incite and encourage the development of the

16593

social revolution and to frustrate any attempts by the

16594

bourgeois capitalist state to reorganise itself, which

16595

it would seek to do." This would involve "seeking to

16596

destroy bourgeois institutions through the creation

16597

of revolutionary organisms." [Vernon Richards, Op. Cit.,

16598

p. 44, p. 46 and p. 193]

16599

16600

In other words, to encourage, what Bakunin called

16601

the "federation of the standing barricades," made

16602

up of "delegates . . . vested with binding mandates

16603

and accountable and revocable at all times") which could

16604

have been the initial framework for both defending and

16605

extending the revolution (to "defend the revolution"

16606

a "communal militia" would be organised, the revolution

16607

would "radiate . . . outwards" and communes would

16608

"federate . . . for common defence.") [Michael Bakunin,

16609

_No Gods, No Masters_, vol. 1, p. 155 and p. 142] The

16610

equivalent of the "Sections" of the French Revolution,

16611

what Kropotkin argued "laid the foundations of a new,

16612

free, social organisation" and expressed "the principles

16613

of anarchism." [_The Great French Revolution_, vol. 1,

16614

p. 206 and p. 204] Indeed, such an organisation already

16615

existing in embryo in the CNT's *barrios* defence committees

16616

which had led and co-ordinated the struggle against the

16617

military coup throughout the city.

16618

16619

Later, a delegate meeting from the various workplaces (CNT

16620

and UGT organised as well as unorganised ones) would have to

16621

had been arranged to organise, to again quote Bakunin, "the

16622

federal Alliance of workers associations" which would

16623

"constitute the Commune" and complement the "federation

16624

of the standing barricades." [Op. Cit., p. 155] In more

16625

modern terminology, a federation of workers' councils

16626

combined with a federation of workers' militias and

16627

community assemblies. Without this, the revolution was

16628

doomed as was the war against Franco's forces.

16629

16630

Such a development, applying the basic ideas of anarchism

16631

(and as expounded in the CNT's May resolution on Libertarian

16632

Communism), was not an impossibility. After all, the CNT-FAI

16633

organised something similar in Aragon. The fear that if

16634

libertarian communism was implemented then a civil war

16635

within the anti-fascist forces would occur (so aiding

16636

Franco) was a real one. Unfortunately, the conclusion draw

16637

from that fear, namely to win the war against Franco before

16638

talking about the revolution, was the wrong one. After all,

16639

a civil war within the Republican side *did* occur, when

16640

the state had recovered enough to do start it. Similarly,

16641

with the fear of a blockade by foreign governments. This

16642

happened away, confirming Durruti's comment that he "did

16643

not expect help for a libertarian revolution from any

16644

government in the world . . . not even from our own

16645

government in the last analysis." [quoted by Vernon

16646

Richards, Op. Cit., p. 194f] Organising a full and proper

16647

delegate meeting in the first days of the revolution would

16648

have allowed these ideas to be discussed by the whole membership

16649

of the CNT and, perhaps, a different decision may have been

16650

reached on the subject of collaboration.

16651

16652

By thinking they could postpone the revolution until after the

16653

war, the CNT leadership made two mistakes. Firstly, they should

16654

have known that their members would hardly miss this opportunity

16655

to implement their ideas so making their decision redundant

16656

(and a statist backlash inevitable). Secondly, they abandoned

16657

their anarchist ideas, failing to understand that the struggle

16658

against fascism would never be effective without the active

16659

participation of the working class. Such participation could

16660

never be achieved by placing the war before the revolution

16661

and by working in top-down, statist structures or within

16662

a state.

16663

16664

Indeed, the mistake made by the CNT, while understandable, cannot

16665

be justified given that their consequences had been predicted by

16666

numerous anarchists beforehand, including Kropotkin decades

16667

previously in an essay on the Paris Commune. In that essay he

16668

refutes the two assumptions of the CNT leadership -- first, of

16669

placing the war before the revolution and, second, that the

16670

struggle could be waged by authoritarian structures or a state.

16671

16672

Kropotkin had explicitly attacked the mentality and logic

16673

begin the official CNT line of not mentioning Libertarian

16674

Communism "until such time as we had captured that part of

16675

Spain that was in the hands of the rebels." Kropotkin had

16676

lambasted those who had argued "Let us first make sure of

16677

victory, and then see what can be done." His comments are

16678

worth quoting at length:

16679

16680

"Make sure of victory! As if there were any way of transforming

16681

society into a free commune without laying hands upon property!

16682

As if there were any way of defeating the enemy so long as the

16683

great mass of the people is not directly interested in the triumph

16684

of the revolution, in witnessing the arrival it of material, moral

16685

and intellectual well-being for all! They sought to consolidate

16686

the Commune first of all while postponing the social revolution

16687

for later on, while the only effective way of proceeding was

16688

*to consolidate the Commune by the social revolution!*

16689

16690

"It was the same with the governmental principle. In proclaiming

16691

the free Commune, the people of Paris proclaimed an essential

16692

anarchist principle . . . If we admit, in fact, that a central

16693

government is absolutely useless to regulate the relations of

16694

communes between each other, why do we grant its necessity to

16695

regulate the mutual relations of the groups that constitute

16696

the Commune? . . . A government within the Commune has no more

16697

right to exist than a government over the Commune." [_Words

16698

of a Rebel_, p. 97]

16699

16700

Kropotkin's argument was sound, as the CNT discovered. By waiting

16701

until victory in the war they were defeated. Kropotkin also

16702

indicated the inevitable effects of the CNT's actions in

16703

co-operating with the state and joining representative bodies.

16704

In his words:

16705

16706

"Paris . . . sent her devoted sons to the Hotel-de-Ville [the

16707

town hall]. Indeed, immobilised there by fetters of red tape,

16708

forced to discuss when action was needed, and losing the

16709

sensitivity that comes from continual contact with the masses,

16710

they saw themselves reduced to impotence. Paralysed by their

16711

distancing from the revolutionary centre -- the people --

16712

they themselves paralysed the popular initiative." [Op. Cit.,

16713

pp. 97-8]

16714

16715

Which, in a nutshell, was what happened to the leading militants of

16716

the CNT who collaborated with the state. Kropotkin was proved right,

16717

as was anarchist theory from Bakunin onwards. As Vernon Richards

16718

argues, "there can be no excuse" for the CNT's decision, as "they

16719

were not mistakes of judgement but the deliberate abandonment of

16720

the principles of the CNT." [_Lessons of the Spanish Revolution_,

16721

pp. 41-2] It seems difficult to blame anarchist theory for the

16722

decisions of the CNT when that theory argues the opposite position.

16723

16724

However, while the experience of Spain confirms anarchist theory

16725

*negatively*, it also confirms it *positively* by the Council of

16726

Aragon. The Council of Aragon was created by a meeting of

16727

delegates from CNT unions, village collectives and militia

16728

columns to protect the new society the people of Aragon were

16729

building. Its creation exposes as false the claim that anarchism

16730

failed in during the Spanish Civil War. In Aragon, the CNT *did*

16731

follow the ideas of anarchism, abolishing both the state and

16732

capitalism. If they had followed this example in Catalonia, the

16733

outcome of the Civil War may have been different.

16734

16735

In spite of opposition from the two Catalan militia leaders, the

16736

Aragonese delegates at the Bujaraloz assembly, encouraged by Durruti,

16737

supported the proposals and the Regional Defence Council of Arag�n

16738

was born with the specific objective of implementing libertarian

16739

communism. The meeting also decided to press for the setting up of

16740

a National Defence Committee which would link together a series of

16741

regional bodies that were organised on principles similar to the

16742

one now established in Aragon.

16743

16744

The formation of the Regional Defence Council was an affirmation

16745

of commitment to the principles of libertarian communism. This

16746

principled stand for revolutionary social and economic change

16747

stands at odds with the claims that the Spanish Civil War

16748

indicates the failure of anarchism. After all, in Aragon the

16749

CNT *did* act in accordance with anarchist theory and its own

16750

history and politics.

16751

16752

Therefore, the activities of the CNT during the Civil

16753

War cannot be used to discredit anarchism although it

16754

can be used to show that anarchists can and do make

16755

terrible decisions in difficult circumstances. That

16756

Marxists always point to this event in anarchist

16757

history is unsurprising, for it was a terrible mistake.

16758

16759

However, to use this to generalise about anarchism

16760

is false as it, firstly, requires a dismissal of

16761

the objective circumstances the decision was made in

16762

(see last section) and, secondly, it means ignoring

16763

anarchist theory and history. It also gives the impression

16764

that anarchism as a revolutionary theory must be evaluated

16765

purely from one event in its history. The experiences of

16766

the Makhnovists in the Ukraine, the U.S.I and U.A.I.

16767

in the factory occupations of 1920 and fighting fascism

16768

in Italy, the insurrections of the C.N.T. during the

16769

1930s, the Council of Aragon created by the CNT in the

16770

Spanish Revolution and so on, are all ignored when

16771

evaluating anarchism. Hardly convincing, although

16772

handy for Marxists. As is clear from, for example, the

16773

experiences of the Makhnovists and the Council of

16774

Aragon, that anarchism has been applied successfully

16775

on a large scale, both politically and economically,

16776

in revolutionary situations.

16777

16778

As Emma Goldman argued, the "contention that there is

16779

something wrong with Anarchism . . . because the leading

16780

comrades in Spain failed Anarchism seems to be very faulty

16781

reasoning . . . the failure of one or several individuals

16782

can never take away from the depth and truth of an ideal."

16783

[_Vision on Fire_, p. 299] This is even more the case when

16784

anarchists can point to anarchist theory and other examples

16785

of anarchism in action which fully followed anarchist ideas.

16786

That opponents of anarchism fail to mention these examples

16787

suggests their case against anarchism, based on the experience

16788

of the CNT in the Spanish Civil War, is deeply flawed.

16789

16790

Rather than show the failure of anarchism, the experience

16791

of the Spanish Revolution indicates the failure of anarchists

16792

to apply their ideas in practice. Faced with extremely

16793

difficult circumstances, they compromised their ideas in

16794

the name of anti-fascist unity. Sadly, their compromises

16795

*confirmed* (rather than refuted) anarchist theory as

16796

they led to the defeat of both the revolution *and* the

16797

civil war.

16798

16799

I.8.12 Was the decision to collaborate imposed on the CNT's

16800

membership?

16801

16802

A few words have to be said about the development of the

16803

CNT and FAI post 19th of July. It is clear that the CNT and

16804

FAI changed in nature and were the not same organisations as

16805

they were *before* July 1936. Both organisations became more

16806

centralised and bureaucratic, with the membership excluded

16807

from many major decisions. As Peirats argues:

16808

16809

"In the CNT and among militant anarchists there had been a

16810

tradition of the most scrupulous respect for the deliberations

16811

and decisions of the assemblies, the grassroots of the

16812

federalist organisation. Those who held administrative

16813

office had been merely the mandatories of those decisions.

16814

The regular motions adopted by the National congresses

16815

spelled out to the Confederation and its representative

16816

committees ineluctable obligations of a basic and general

16817

nature incumbent upon very affiliated member regardless of

16818

locality or region. And the forming of such general motions

16819

was the direct responsibility of all of the unions by means of

16820

motions adopted at their respective general assemblies. Similarly,

16821

the Regional or Local Congresses would establish the guidelines

16822

of requirement and problems that obtained only at regional or

16823

local levels. In both instances, sovereignty resided always

16824

with the assemblies of workers whether in their unions or

16825

in their groups.

16826

16827

"This sense of rigorous, everyday federalist procedure was abruptly

16828

amended from the very outset of the revolutionary phase. . . This

16829

amendment of the norms of the organisation was explained away by

16830

reference to the exceptional turn of events, which required a greater

16831

agility of decisions and resolutions, which is to say a necessary

16832

departure from the circuitous procedures of federalist practice

16833

which operated from the bottom upwards." [_The CNT in the Spanish

16834

Revolution_, vol. 1, p. 213]

16835

16836

In other words, the CNT had become increasingly hierarchical,

16837

with the higher committees becoming transformed into executive

16838

bodies rather than administrative ones ("it is safe to assert

16839

that the significant resolutions in the organisation were

16840

adopted by the committees, very rarely by the mass constituency.

16841

Certainly, circumstances required quick decisions from the

16842

organisation, and it was necessary to take precautions to

16843

prevent damaging leaks. These necessities tempted the committees

16844

to abandon the federalist procedures of the organisation."

16845

[Jose Peirats, _Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution_, p. 188]).

16846

16847

Ironically, rather than the "anarchist leaders" of the CNT

16848

failing to "seize power" as Trotsky and his followers lament,

16849

they did -- *in their own organisations.* Such a development

16850

proved to be a disaster and re-enforced the anarchist critique

16851

against hierarchical and centralised organisations. The CNT higher

16852

committees became isolated from the membership, pursued their

16853

own policies and compromised and paralysed the creative work

16854

being done by the rank and file -- as predicted in anarchist

16855

theory. However, be that as it may, as we will indicate below,

16856

it would be false to assert that these higher committees simply

16857

imposed the decision to collaborate on their memberships (as,

16858

for example, Vernon Richards seems to imply in his _Lessons

16859

of the Spanish Revolution_). While it *is* true that the

16860

committees presented many decisions as a *fait accompli*

16861

the rank-and-file of the C.N.T and F.A.I did not simply

16862

follow orders and ratify all decisions blindly.

16863

16864

In any revolutionary situation decisions have to be made fast

16865

and sometimes without consulting the base of the organisation.

16866

However, such decisions must be accountable to the membership

16867

who must discuss and ratify them (this was the policy within

16868

the CNT militias, for example). The experience of the CNT and

16869

FAI in countless strikes, insurrections and campaigns had proven

16870

the decentralised, federal structure was more than capable of

16871

pursuing the class war -- revolution is no exception as it is

16872

the class war in its most concentrated form. In other words, the

16873

organisational principles of the CNT and FAI were more than

16874

adequate for a revolutionary situation.

16875

16876

The centralising tendencies, therefore, cannot be blamed on

16877

the exception circumstances of the war. Rather, it is the

16878

policy of collaboration which explains them. Unlike the

16879

numerous strikes and revolts that occurred before July 19th,

16880

1936, the CNT higher committees had started to work within

16881

the state structure. This, by its very nature, must generate

16882

hierarchical and centralising tendencies as those involved

16883

must adapt to the states basic structure and form. The

16884

violations of CNT policy flowed from the initial decision

16885

to compromise in the name of "anti-fascist unity" and a

16886

viscous circle developed -- each compromise pushed the

16887

CNT leadership further into the arms of the state, which

16888

increased hierarchical tendencies, which in turn isolated

16889

these higher committees of the CNT from the masses, which

16890

in turn encouraged a conciliatory policy by those committees.

16891

16892

This centralising and hierarchical tendency did not mean that

16893

the higher committees of the CNT simply imposed their will on

16894

the rest of the organisation. It is very clear that the decision

16895

to collaborate had, initially, the passive support of the majority

16896

of the CNT and FAI (probably because they thought the war would

16897

be over after a few weeks or months). This can be seen from various

16898

facts. As visiting French anarchist Sebastian Faure noted, while

16899

"effective participation in central authority has had the

16900

approval of the majority within the unions and in the groups

16901

affiliated to the FAI, that decision has in many places encountered

16902

the opposition of a fairly substantial minority. Thus there has been

16903

no unanimity." [quoted by Jose Peirats, _The CNT in the Spanish

16904

Revolution_, vol. 1, p. 183]

16905

16906

In the words of Peirats:

16907

16908

"Were all of the militants of the same mind? . . . Excepting some

16909

vocal minorities which expressed their protests in their press

16910

organs and through committees, gatherings, plenums and assemblies,

16911

the dismal truth is that the bulk of the membership was in thrall

16912

to a certain fatalism which was itself a direct consequence of the

16913

tragic realities of the war." [Op. Cit., p. 181]

16914

16915

And:

16916

16917

"We have already seen how, on the economic plane, militant anarchism

16918

forged ahead, undaunted, with its work of transforming the economy.

16919

It is not to be doubted -- for to do so would have been to display

16920

ignorance of the psychology of libertarian rank and file of the

16921

CNT -- that a muffled contest, occasionally erupting at plenums and

16922

assemblies and manifest in some press organs broke out as soon as

16923

the backsliding began. In this connection, the body of opinion

16924

hostile to any possible deviation in tactics and principles was

16925

able to count throughout upon spirited champions." [Op. Cit.,

16926

p. 210]

16927

16928

Thus, within the libertarian movement, there was a substantial

16929

minority who opposed the policy of collaboration and made their

16930

opinions known in various publications and meetings. While many

16931

(if not most) revolutionary anarchists volunteered for the

16932

militias and so were not active in their unions as before, there

16933

were various groups (such as Catalan Libertarian Youth, the

16934

Friends of Durruti, other FAI groups, and so on) which were

16935

opposed to collaboration and argued their case openly in the

16936

streets, collectives, organisational meetings and so on. Moreover,

16937

outside the libertarian movement the two tiny Trotskyist groups

16938

also argued against collaboration, as did sections of the POUM.

16939

Therefore it is impossible to state that the CNT membership

16940

were unaware of the arguments against the dominant policy.

16941

Also the Catalan CNT's higher committees, for example, after

16942

the May Days of 1937 could not get union assemblies or plenums

16943

to expel the Friends of Durruti nor to get them to withhold

16944

financial support for the Libertarian Youth, who opposed

16945

collaboration vigorously in their publications, nor

16946

get them to call upon various groups of workers to stop

16947

distributing opposition publications in the public transit

16948

system or with the daily milk. [Abe Bluestein in Gomez Casas's

16949

_Anarchist Organisation: The History of the FAI_, p. 10]

16950

16951

This suggests that in spite of centralising tendencies, the higher

16952

committees of the CNT were still subject to some degree of popular

16953

influence and control and should not be seen as having dictatorial

16954

powers over the organisation. While many decisions *were* presented

16955

as *fait accompli* to the union plenums (often called by the

16956

committees at short notice), in violation of past CNT procedures,

16957

the plenums could not be railroaded into any ratifying any

16958

decision the committees wanted. The objective circumstances

16959

associated with the war against Franco and fascism convinced most

16960

C.N.T. members and libertarian activists that working with other

16961

parties and unions within the state was the only feasible

16962

option. To do otherwise was to weaken the war effort by provoking

16963

another Civil War in the anti-Franco camp. While such a policy

16964

did not work (when it was strong enough the Republican state did

16965

start a civil war against the C.N.T. which gutted the struggle

16966

against fascism) it cannot be argued that it was imposed upon

16967

the membership nor that they did not hear opposing positions.

16968

Sadly, the call for anti-fascist unity dominated the minds of

16969

the libertarian movement.

16970

16971

In the early stages, the majority of rank-and-file militants believed

16972

that the war would be over in a matter of weeks. After all, a few days

16973

had been sufficient to rout the army in Barcelona and other industrial

16974

centres. This inclined them to, firstly, tolerate (indeed, support)

16975

the collaboration of the CNT with the "Central Committee of Anti-Fascist

16976

Militias" and, secondly, to start expropriating capitalism in the

16977

belief that the revolution would soon be back on track (the

16978

opportunity to start introducing anarchist ideas was simply

16979

too good to waste, regardless of the wishes of the CNT Plenum).

16980

They believed that the revolution and libertarian communism, as

16981

debated and adopted by the CNT's Zaragoza Congress of May that

16982

year, was an inseparable aspect of the struggle against economic

16983

and social oppression and proceeded appropriately. The

16984

ignoring of the state, rather than its destruction, was seen as

16985

a short-term compromise, soon to be corrected. Sadly, there were

16986

wrong -- collaboration had a logic all its own, one which got

16987

worse as the war dragged on (and soon it was too late).

16988

16989

Which, we must note indicates the superficial nature of most Marxist

16990

attacks on anarchism using the CNT as the key evidence. After all, it

16991

was the anarchists and anarchist influenced members of the CNT who

16992

organised the collectives, militias and started the transformation

16993

of Spanish society. They did so inspired by anarchism and in an

16994

anarchist way. To praise their actions, while attacking "anarchism",

16995

shows a lack of logic -- it was anarchism which inspired these

16996

actions. Indeed, these actions have more in common with anarchist

16997

ideas than the actions and rationales of the CNT leadership. Thus,

16998

to attack "anarchism" by pointing to the anti-anarchist actions

16999

of a few leaders while ignoring the anarchist actions of the majority

17000

is flawed.

17001

17002

Therefore, to summarise, it is clear that while the internal structure

17003

of the CNT was undermined and authoritarian tendencies increased by

17004

its collaboration with the state, the CNT was not transformed into

17005

a mere appendage to the higher committees of the organisation.

17006

The union plenums could and did reject the calls made by the

17007

leadership of the CNT. Support for "anti-fascist unity" was

17008

widespread among the CNT membership (in spite of the activities

17009

and arguments of large minority of anarchists) and was reflected

17010

in the policy of collaboration pursued by the organisation. While

17011

the CNT higher committees were transformed into a bureaucratic

17012

leadership, increasingly isolated from the rank and file, it

17013

cannot be argued that their power was absolute nor totally at

17014

odds with the wishes of the membership. Ironically, but

17015

unsurprisingly, the divergences from the C.N.T's previous

17016

libertarian organisational principles confirmed anarchist

17017

theory and became a drag on the revolution and a factor in

17018

its defeat.

17019

17020

As we argued in section I.8.11, the initial compromise with the

17021

state, the initial betrayal of anarchist theory and CNT policy,

17022

contained all the rest. Moreover, rather than refute anarchism,

17023

the experience of the CNT after it had rejected anarchist theory

17024

confirmed the principles of anarchism -- centralised, hierarchical

17025

organisations hindered and ultimately destroyed the revolution.

17026

17027

The experience of the C.N.T and F.A.I suggests that those,

17028

like Leninists, who argue for *more* centralisation and for

17029

"democratic" hierarchical structures have refused to understand,

17030

let alone learn from, history. The increased centralisation

17031

within the C.N.T aided and empowered the leadership (a minority)

17032

and disempowered the membership (the majority). Rather than

17033

federalism hindering the revolution, it, as always, was

17034

centralism which did so.

17035

17036

Therefore, in spite of a sizeable minority of anarchists *within*

17037

the C.N.T and F.A.I arguing against the dominate policy of

17038

"anti-fascist unity" and political collaboration, this policy

17039

was basically agreed to by the C.N.T membership and was not

17040

imposed upon them. The membership of the C.N.T could, and did,

17041

reject suggestions of the leadership and so, in spite of the

17042

centralisation of power that occurred in the C.N.T due to the

17043

policy of collaboration, it cannot be argued that this policy

17044

was alien to the wishes of the rank-and-file.

17045

17046

I.8.13 What political lessons were learned from the revolution?

17047

17048

The most important political lesson learned from the Spanish Revolution

17049

is that a revolution cannot compromise with existing power structures.

17050

In this, it just confirmed anarchist theory.

17051

17052

The Spanish Revolution is a clear example of the old maxim, "those

17053

who only make half a revolution dig their own graves." Essentially,

17054

the most important political lesson of the Spanish Revolution is

17055

that a social revolution will only succeed if it follows an

17056

anarchist path and does not seek to compromise in the name of

17057

fighting a "greater evil." As Kropotin put it, a "revolution

17058

that stops half-way is sure to be soon defeated." [_The Great

17059

French Revolution_, vol. 2, p. 553]

17060

17061

On the 20th of July, after the fascist coup had been defeated in

17062

Barcelona, the C.N.T. sent a delegation of its members to meet the

17063

leader of the Catalan Government. A plenum of C.N.T union shop

17064

stewards, in the light of the fascist coup, agreed that libertarian

17065

communism would be "put off" until Franco had been defeated (the

17066

rank and file ignored them and collectivised their workplaces).

17067

They organised a delegation to visit the Catalan president

17068

to discuss the situation:

17069

17070

"The delegation. . . was intransigent . . . Either Companys

17071

[the Catalan president] must accept the creation of a

17072

Central Committee [of Anti-Fascist Militias] as the ruling

17073

organisation or the C.N.T. would *consult the rank and file

17074

and expose the real situation to the workers.* Companys

17075

backed down." [Abel Paz, _Durruti: the people Armed_, p. 216,

17076

our emphasis]

17077

17078

The C.N.T committee members used their new-found influence in the

17079

eyes of Spain to unite with the leaders of other organisations/parties

17080

but not the rank and file. This process lead to the creation of the

17081

"Central Committee of Anti-Fascist Militias", in which political

17082

parties as well as labour unions were represented. This committee

17083

was not made up of mandated delegates from workplaces, communities

17084

or barricades, but of representatives of existing organisations,

17085

nominated by committees. Instead of a genuine confederal body (made

17086

up of mandated delegates from workplace, militia and neighbourhood

17087

assemblies) the C.N.T. created a body which was not accountable to,

17088

nor could reflect the ideas of, ordinary working class people

17089

expressed in their assemblies. The state and government was not

17090

abolished by self-management, only ignored.

17091

17092

This first betrayal of anarchist principles led to all the rest,

17093

and so to the defeat of the revolution and the civil war. As Emma

17094

Goldman argued, the Spanish anarchists had "come to realise that

17095

once they went into the so-called united-front, they could do

17096

nothing else but go further. In other words, the one mistake,

17097

the one wrong step inevitably led to others as it always does.

17098

I am more than ever convinced that if the comrades had remained

17099

firm on their own grounds they would have remained stronger than

17100

they are now. But I repeat, once they had made common cause for

17101

the period of the anti-Fascist war, they were driven by the

17102

logic of events to go further." [_Vision on Fire_, pp. 100-1]

17103

17104

The most obvious problem, of course, was that collaboration with

17105

the state ensured that a federation of workers' associations

17106

could not be created to co-ordinate the struggle against fascism

17107

and the social revolution. As Stuart Christie argues, "[b]y

17108

imposing their leadership from above, these partisan committees

17109

suffocated the mushrooming popular autonomous revolutionary

17110

centres -- the grass-roots factory and local revolutionary

17111

committees -- and prevented them from proving themselves

17112

as an efficient and viable means of co-ordinating communications,

17113

defence and provisioning. They also prevented the Local

17114

Revolutionary committees from integrating with each other to

17115

form a regional, provincial and national federal network which

17116

would facilitate the revolutionary task of social and economic

17117

reconstruction." [_We, the Anarchists!_, pp. 99-100] Without

17118

such a federation, it was only a matter of time before the C.N.T

17119

joined the bourgeois government.

17120

17121

Rather than being an example of "dual power" as many

17122

Trotskyists maintain, the "Central Committee of Anti-Fascist

17123

Militias" created on July 20th, 1936, was, in fact, an organ

17124

of class collaboration and a handicap to the revolution. Stuart

17125

Christie was correct to call it an "artificial and hybrid

17126

creation," a "compromise, an artificial political solution,

17127

an officially sanctioned appendage of the Generalidad

17128

government" which "drew the CNT-FAI leadership inexorably

17129

into the State apparatus, until then its principal enemy."

17130

[Op. Cit., p. 105] Only a true federation of delegates from

17131

the fields, factories and workplaces could have been the

17132

framework of a true organisation of (to use Bakunin's

17133

expression) "the social (and, by consequence, anti-political)

17134

power of the working masses." [_Michael Bakunin: Selected

17135

Writings_, pp. 197-8]

17136

17137

Therefore, the C.N.T forgot a basic principle of anarchism,

17138

namely "the destruction . . . of the States." Instead, like

17139

the Paris Commune, the C.N.T thought that "in order to combat

17140

. . . reaction, they had to organise themselves in reactionary

17141

Jacobin fashion, forgetting or sacrificing what they themselves

17142

knew were the first conditions of revolutionary socialism." The

17143

real basis of the revolution, the basic principle of anarchism,

17144

was that the "future social organisation must be made solely

17145

from the bottom upwards, by the free association or federation

17146

of workers, firstly in their unions, then in communes, regions,

17147

nations and finally in a great federation, international and

17148

universal." [Bakunin, Op. Cit., p. 198, p. 202 and p. 204] By

17149

not doing this, by working in a top-down compromise body rather

17150

than creating a federation of workers' councils, the C.N.T

17151

leadership could not help eventually sacrificing the revolution

17152

in favour of the war.

17153

17154

Of course, if a full plenum of CNT unions and *barrios*

17155

defence committees, with delegates invited from UGT and

17156

unorganised workplaces, had taken place there is no

17157

guarantee that the decision reached would have been in

17158

line with anarchist theory. The feelings for antifascist

17159

unity were strong. However, the decision would have been

17160

fully discussed by the rank and file of the union, under

17161

the influence of the revolutionary anarchists who were

17162

later to join the militias and leave for the front. It

17163

is likely, given the wave of colllectivisation and what

17164

happened in Aragon, that the decision would have been

17165

different and the first step would have made to turn

17166

this plenum into the basis of a free federation of

17167

workers associations -- i.e. the framework of an

17168

anarchist and self-managed society -- which could have

17169

smashed the state and ensured no other appeared to

17170

take its place.

17171

17172

The basic idea of anarchism, the need to create a federation of

17173

workers councils, was ignored. In the name of "antifascist" unity,

17174

the C.N.T worked with parties and classes which hated both them

17175

and the revolution. In the words of Sam Dolgoff "both before and

17176

after July 19th, an unwavering determination to crush the

17177

revolutionary movement was the leitmotif behind the policies

17178

of the Republican government; irrespective of the party in

17179

power." [_The Anarchist Collectives_, p. 40] Without creating

17180

a means to organise the "social power" of the working class,

17181

the CNT was defenceless against these parties once the state

17182

had re-organised itself.

17183

17184

To justify their collaboration, the leaders of the C.N.T-F.A.I argued

17185

that not collaborating would have lead to a civil war within the civil

17186

war, so allowing Franco easy victory. In practice, while paying lip

17187

service to the revolution, the Communists and republicans attacked

17188

the collectives, murdered anarchists, cut supplies to collectivised

17189

industries (even *war* industries) and disbanded the anarchist militias

17190

after refusing to give them weapons and ammunition (preferring to arm

17191

the Civil Guard in the rearguard in order to crush the C.N.T. and so the

17192

revolution). By collaborating, a civil war was not avoided. One occurred

17193

anyway, with the working class as its victims, as soon as the state felt

17194

strong enough.

17195

17196

Garcia Oliver (the first ever, and hopefully last, "anarchist" minister

17197

of justice) stated in 1937 that collaboration was necessary and that the

17198

C.N.T. had "renounc[ed] revolutionary totalitarianism, which would lead to

17199

the strangulation of the revolution by anarchist and Confederal [C.N.T.]

17200

dictatorship. We had confidence in the word and in the person of a Catalan

17201

democrat" Companys (who had in the past jailed anarchists). Which means that

17202

only by working with the state, politicians and capitalists can an anarchist

17203

revolution be truly libertarian! Furthermore, in the words of Vernon Richards:

17204

17205

"This argument contains . . . two fundamental mistakes, which many

17206

of the leaders of the CNT-FAI have since recognised, but for which

17207

there can be no excuse, since they were not mistakes of judgement

17208

but the deliberate abandonment of the principles of the CNT. Firstly,

17209

that an armed struggle against fascism or any other form of reaction

17210

could be waged more successfully within the framework of the State

17211

and subordinating all else, including the transformation of the

17212

economic and social structure of the country, to winning the war.

17213

Secondly, that it was essential, and possible, to collaborate with

17214

political parties -- that is politicians -- honestly and sincerely,

17215

and at a time when power was in the hands of the two workers

17216

organisations. . .

17217

17218

"All the initiative . . . was in the hands of the workers. The

17219

politicians were like generals without armies floundering in a

17220

desert of futility. Collaboration with them could not, by any

17221

stretch of the imagination, strengthen resistance to Franco.

17222

On the contrary, it was clear that collaboration with political

17223

parties meant the recreation of governmental institutions and the

17224

transferring of initiative from the armed workers to a central

17225

body with executive powers. By removing the initiative from the

17226

workers, the responsibility for the conduct of the struggle and

17227

its objectives were also transferred to a governing hierarchy,

17228

and this could not have other than an adverse effect on the morale

17229

of the revolutionary fighters." [_Lessons of the Spanish Revolution_,

17230

p. 42]

17231

17232

The dilemma of "anarchist dictatorship" or "collaboration" raised

17233

in 1937 was fundamentally wrong. It was never a case of banning

17234

parties, and other organisations under an anarchist system, far

17235

from it. Full rights of free speech, organisation and so on should

17236

have existed for all but the parties would only have as much

17237

influence as they exerted in union, workplace, community and

17238

militia assemblies, as should be the case! "Collaboration" yes,

17239

but within the rank and file and within organisations organised

17240

in an anarchist manner. Anarchism does not respect the "freedom"

17241

to be a boss or politician.

17242

17243

In his history of the F.A.I., Juan Gomaz Casas (an active F.A.I.

17244

member in 1936) makes this clear:

17245

17246

"How else could libertarian communism be brought about? It would

17247

always signify dissolution of the old parties dedicated to the idea

17248

of power, or at least make it impossible for them to pursue their

17249

politics aimed at seizure of power. There will always be pockets of

17250

opposition to new experiences and therefore resistance to joining

17251

'the spontaneity of the unanimous masses.' In addition, the masses

17252

would have complete freedom of expression in the unions and in the

17253

economic organisations of the revolution as well as their political

17254

organisations in the district and communities." [_Anarchist

17255

Organisation: the History of the F.A.I._, p. 188f]

17256

17257

Instead of this "collaboration" from the bottom up, by means

17258

of a federation of workers' associations, community assemblies

17259

and militia columns as argued for by anarchists from Bakunin

17260

onwards, the C.N.T. and F.A.I. committees favoured "collaboration"

17261

from the top down. The leaders ignored the state and co-operated

17262

with other trade unions officials as well as political parties in

17263

the _Central Committee of Anti-Fascist Militias_. In other words,

17264

they ignored their political ideas in favour of a united front

17265

against what they considered the greater evil, namely fascism.

17266

This inevitably lead the way to counter-revolution, the destruction

17267

of the militias and collectives, as they was no means by which

17268

these groups could co-ordinate their activities independently

17269

of the state.

17270

17271

In particular, the continued existence of the state ensured that

17272

economic confederalism between collectives (i.e. extending the

17273

revolution under the direction of the syndicates) could not

17274

develop naturally nor be developed far enough in all places.

17275

Due to the political compromises of the C.N.T. the tendencies

17276

to co-ordination and mutual aid could not develop freely

17277

(see next section).

17278

17279

It is clear that the defeat in Spain was due to a failure not of

17280

anarchist theory and tactics but a failure of anarchists to *apply*

17281

their theory and tactics. Instead of destroying the state, the

17282

C.N.T.-F.A.I. ignored it. For a revolution to be successful it

17283

needs to create organisations which can effectively replace the

17284

state and the market; that is, to create a widespread libertarian

17285

organisation for social and economic decision-making through

17286

which working class people can start to set their own agendas.

17287

Only by going this route can the state and capitalism be

17288

effectively smashed.

17289

17290

In building the new world we must destroy the old one. Revolutions

17291

are authoritarian by their very nature, but only in respect to

17292

structures and social relations which promote injustice, hierarchy

17293

and inequality. It is not "authoritarian" to destroy authority and

17294

not tyrannical to dethrone tyrants! Revolutions, above all else,

17295

must be libertarian in respect to the oppressed. That is, they

17296

must develop structures that involve the great majority of the

17297

population, who have previously been excluded from decision-making

17298

about social and economic issues. As such, a revolution is the

17299

most *libertarian* thing ever.

17300

17301

As the _Friends of Durruti_ argued a "revolution requires the absolute

17302

domination of the workers' organisations." ["The Friends of Durruti

17303

accuse", from _Class War on the Home Front_, p. 34] Only this, the

17304

creation of viable anarchist social organisations, can ensure that

17305

the state and capitalism can be destroyed and replaced with a just

17306

system based on liberty, equality and solidarity. Just as Bakunin,

17307

Kropotkin and a host of other anarchist thinkers had argued decades

17308

previously.

17309

17310

Thus the most important lesson gained from the Spanish Revolution

17311

is simply the correctness of anarchist theory on the need to

17312

organise the "social power" of the working class by a free

17313

federation of workers associations to destroy the state. Without

17314

this, no revolution can be lasting. As Gomez Casas correctly

17315

argues, "if instead of condemning that experience [of collaboration],

17316

the movement continues to look for excuses for it, the same

17317

course will be repeated in the future . . . exceptional

17318

circumstances will again put . . . anarchism on [its] knees

17319

before the State." [Op. Cit., p. 251]

17320

17321

The second important lesson is on the nature of anti-fascism. The

17322

C.N.T. leadership, along with many (if not most) of the rank-and-file,

17323

were totally blinded by the question of anti-fascist unity, leading

17324

them to support a "democratic" state against a "fascist" one. While

17325

the basis of a new world was being created around them by the working

17326

class, inspiring the fight against fascism, the C.N.T. leaders

17327

collaborated with the system that spawns fascism. Indeed, while

17328

the anti-fascist feelings of the CNT leadership were sincere, the

17329

same cannot be said of their "allies" (who seemed happier attacking

17330

the gains of the semi-revolution than fighting fascism). As the

17331

Friends of Durruti make clear, "Democracy defeated the Spanish

17332

people, not Fascism." [_Class War on the Home Front_, p. 30]

17333

17334

To be opposed to fascism is not enough, you also have to be

17335

anti-capitalist. As Durruti stressed, "[n]o government in the

17336

world fights fascism to the death. When the bourgeoisie sees

17337

power slipping from its grasp, it has recourse to fascism

17338

to maintain itself." [quoted Vernon Richards, Op. Cit.,

17339

p. 193f]

17340

17341

In Spain, anti-fascism destroyed the revolution, not fascism. As

17342

the Scottish Anarchist Ethal McDonald argued at the time, "Fascism

17343

is not something new, some new force of evil opposed to society, but

17344

is only the old enemy, Capitalism, under a new and fearful sounding

17345

name . . . Anti-Fascism is the new slogan by which the working class

17346

is being betrayed." [_Workers Free Press_, Oct 1937]

17347

17348

Thirdly, the argument of the CNT that Libertarian Communism

17349

can wait until after the war was a false one. Fascism can only

17350

be defeated by ending the system that spawned it (i.e. capitalism).

17351

In addition, in terms of morale and inspiration, the struggle

17352

against fascism could only be effective if it was also a struggle

17353

*for* something better -- namely a free society. To fight fascism

17354

for a capitalist democracy which had repressed the working class

17355

would hardly inspire those at the front. Similarly, the only hope

17356

for workers' self-management was to push the revolution as far

17357

as possible, i.e. to introduce libertarian communism while

17358

fighting fascism. The idea of waiting for libertarian communism

17359

ultimately meant sacrificing it for the war effort.

17360

17361

Fourthly, the role of anarchists in a social revolution is to

17362

always encourage organisation "from below" (to use one of

17363

Bakunin's favourite expressions), revolutionary organisations

17364

which can effectively smash the state. Bakunin himself argued

17365

(as noted above) in favour of workers' councils, complemented

17366

by community assemblies (the federation of the barricades) and

17367

a self-managed militia. This model is still applicable today

17368

and was successfully applied in Aragon by the CNT.

17369

17370

Therefore, the political lessons gained from the experience of the

17371

C.N.T come as no surprise. They, in general, confirm anarchist theory.

17372

As Bakunin argued, no revolution is possible unless the state is smashed,

17373

capital expropriated and a free federation of workers' associations

17374

created as the framework of libertarian socialism. Rather than

17375

refuting anarchism, the experience of the Spanish Revolution confirms

17376

it.

17377

17378

I.8.14 What economic lessons were learned from the revolution?

17379

17380

The most important lesson from the revolution is the fact that ordinary

17381

people took over the management of industry and did an amazing job of

17382

keeping (and improving!) production in the face of the direst circumstances.

17383

Not only did workers create a war industry from almost nothing in Catalonia,

17384

they also improved working conditions and innovated with new techniques and

17385

processes. The Spanish Revolution shows that self-management is possible

17386

and that the constructive powers of ordinary people inspired by an

17387

ideal can transform society.

17388

17389

From the point of view of individual freedom, its clear that self-management

17390

allowed previously marginalised people to take an active part in the decisions

17391

that affected them. Egalitarian organisations provided the framework for a

17392

massive increase in participation and individual self-government, which

17393

expressed itself in the extensive innovations carried out by the Collectives.

17394

The Collectives indicate, in Stirner's words, that "[o]nly in the union can

17395

you assert yourself as unique, because the union does not possess you, but

17396

you possess it or make it of use to you." [_The Ego and Its Own_, p. 312]

17397

A fact Emma Goldman confirmed from her visits to collectives and

17398

discussions with their members:

17399

17400

"I was especially impressed with the relies to my questions as to

17401

what actually had the workers gained by the collectivisation . . .

17402

the answer always was, first, greater freedom. And only secondly,

17403

more wages and less time of work. In two years in Russia [1920-21]

17404

I never heard any workers express this idea of greater freedom."

17405

[_Vision on Fire_, p. 62]

17406

17407

As predicted in anarchist theory, and borne out by actual experience, there

17408

exists large untapped reserves of energy and initiative in the ordinary

17409

person which self-management can call forth. The collectives proved

17410

Kropotkin's argument that co-operative work is more productive and that if

17411

the economists wish to prove "their thesis in favour of *private property*

17412

against all other forms of *possession*, should not the economists demonstrate

17413

that under the form of communal property land never produces such rich

17414

harvests as when the possession is private. But this they could not prove;

17415

in fact, it is the contrary that has been observed." [_The Conquest of Bread_,

17416

p. 146]

17417

17418

Therefore, five important lessons from the actual experience of a libertarian

17419

socialist economy can be derived:

17420

17421

Firstly, that an anarchist society cannot be created overnight, but is a

17422

product of many different influences as well as the objective conditions.

17423

In this the anarchist collectives confirmed the ideas of anarchist

17424

thinkers like Bakunin and Kropotkin (see section I.2).

17425

17426

The lesson from every revolution is that the mistakes made in the process

17427

of liberation by people themselves are always minor compared to the results

17428

of creating institutions *for* people. The Spanish Revolution is a clear

17429

example of this, with the "collectivisation decree" causing more harm than

17430

good. Luckily, the Spanish anarchists recognised the importance of having

17431

the freedom to make mistakes, as can be seen by the many different forms

17432

of collectives and federations tried.

17433

17434

The actual process in Spain towards industrial co-ordination and so

17435

socialisation was dependent on the wishes of the workers involved --

17436

as would be expected in a true social revolution. As Bakunin argued,

17437

the "revolution should not only be made for the people's sake; it

17438

should also be made by the people." [_No Gods, No Masters_, vol. 1,

17439

p. 141] The problems faced by a social revolution will be solved

17440

in the interests of the working class only if working class people

17441

solve them themselves. For this to happen it requires working class

17442

people to manage their own affairs directly -- and this implies

17443

anarchism, not centralisation or state control/ownership. The

17444

experience of the collectives in Spain supports this basic idea

17445

of anarchism.

17446

17447

Secondly, that self-management allowed a massive increase in innovation

17448

and new ideas.

17449

17450

The Spanish Revolution is clear proof of the anarchist case against

17451

hierarchy and validates Isaac Puente words that in "a free collective

17452

each benefits from accumulated knowledge and specialised experiences of

17453

all, and vice versa. There is a reciprocal relationship wherein information

17454

is in continuous circulation." [cited in _The Anarchist Collectives_, p. 32]

17455

17456

Thirdly, the importance of decentralisation of management.

17457

17458

The woodworkers' union experience indicates that when an industry becomes

17459

centralised, the administration of industry becomes constantly merged in fewer

17460

hands which leads to ordinary workers being marginalised. This can happen even

17461

in democratically run industries and soon result in apathy developing within

17462

it. This was predicted by Kropotkin and other anarchist theorists (and by

17463

many F.A.I. members in Spain at the time). While undoubtedly better than

17464

capitalist hierarchy, such democratically run industries are only close

17465

approximations to anarchist ideas of self-management. Importantly, however,

17466

the collectivisation experiments also indicate that co-operation need not

17467

imply centralisation (as can be seen from the Badelona collectives).

17468

17469

Fourthly, the importance of building links of solidarity between workplaces

17470

as soon as possible.

17471

17472

While the importance of starting production after the fascist uprising

17473

made attempts at co-ordination seem of secondary importance to the

17474

collectives, the competition that initially occurred between workplaces

17475

helped the state to undermine self-management. Because there was no

17476

People's Bank or other communistic body to co-ordinate credit and

17477

production, state control of credit and the gold reserves made it

17478

easier for the Republican state (through its monopoly of credit) to

17479

undermine the revolution and control the collectives and (effectively)

17480

nationalise them in time (Durruti and a few others planned to seize the

17481

gold reserves but were advised not to by De Santillan).

17482

17483

This attack on the revolution started when the Catalan State issued a decree

17484

legalising (and so controlling) the collectives in October 1936 (the famous

17485

"Collectivisation Decree"). The counter-revolution also withheld funds for

17486

collectivised industries, even war industries, until they agreed to come

17487

under state control. The industrial organisation created by this decree

17488

was a compromise between anarchist ideas and those of other parties

17489

(particularly the communists) and in the words of Gaston Leval, "the

17490

decree had the baneful effect of preventing the workers' syndicates

17491

from extending their gains. It set back the revolution in industry."

17492

[_The Anarchist Collectives_, p. 54]

17493

17494

And lastly, that an economic revolution can only succeed if the existing

17495

state is destroyed. As Kropotkin argued, "a new form of economic organisation

17496

will necessarily require a new form of political structure" -- capitalism

17497

needs the state, socialism needs anarchy. [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary

17498

Pamphlets_, p. 181] Without the new political structure, the new economic

17499

organisation cannot develop to its full potential.

17500

17501

Due to the failure to consolidate the revolution *politically,* it was

17502

lost *economically.* The decree "legalising collectivisation" "distorted

17503

everything right from the start" [_Collectives in the Spanish Revolution_,

17504

p. 227] and helped undermine the revolution by ensuring that the mutualism

17505

of the collectives did not develop freely into libertarian communism ("The

17506

collectives lost the economic freedom they had won at the beginning" due

17507

to the decree, as one participant put it. [Ronald Fraser, _Blood of Spain_,

17508

p. 230]).

17509

17510

As Fraser notes, it "was doubtful that the C.N.T. had seriously

17511

envisaged collectivisation of industry. . .before this time."

17512

[Op. Cit., p. 212] C.N.T. policy was opposed to the collectivisation

17513

decree. As an eyewitness pointed out, the C.N.T.'s "policy was thus

17514

not the same as that pursued by the decree." [Op. Cit., p. 213]

17515

Indeed, leading anarchists like Abad de Santillan opposed it and

17516

urged people to ignore it:

17517

17518

"I was an enemy of the decree because I considered it premature . . .

17519

when I became councillor, I had no intention of taking into account or

17520

carrying out the decree: I intended to allow our great people to carry

17521

on the task as they best saw fit, according to their own inspiration."

17522

[Op. Cit., p. 212]

17523

17524

However, with the revolution lost politically, the C.N.T. was soon forced

17525

to compromise and support the decree (the C.N.T. did propose more libertarian

17526

forms of co-ordination between workplaces but these were undermined by

17527

the state). A lack of effective mutual aid organisations allowed the

17528

state to gain power over the collectives and so undermine and destroy

17529

self-management. Working class control over the economy (important as it

17530

is) does not automatically destroy the state. In other words, the economic

17531

aspects of the revolution cannot be considered in isolation from its

17532

political ones.

17533

17534

However, these points do not diminish the successes of the Spanish

17535

revolution. As Gaston Leval argued, "in spite of these shortcomings

17536

[caused lack of complete socialisation] . . . the important fact

17537

is that the factories went on working, the workshops and works

17538

produced without the owners, capitalists, shareholders and

17539

without high management executives." [_Collectives in the Spanish

17540

Revolution_, p. 228]

17541

17542

Beyond doubt, these months of economic liberty in Spain show not

17543

only that libertarian socialism *works* and that working class

17544

people can manage and run society ourselves but that it can

17545

improve the quality of life and increase freedom. Given the

17546

time and breathing space, the experiment would undoubtedly have

17547

ironed out its problems. Even in the very difficult environment

17548

of a civil war (and with resistance of almost all other parties

17549

and unions) the workers and peasants of Spain showed that a

17550

better society is possible. They gave a concrete example of

17551

what was previously just a vision, a world which was more

17552

humane, more free, more equitable and more civilised than

17553

that run by capitalists, managers, politicians and bureaucrats.