|
|
Index | What's New | Links | Introduction | Bibliography
 PDF
version of Section I.
I.4 How could an anarchist economy function?
This is an important question facing all opponents of a given system -- what
will you replace it with? We can say, of course, that it is pointless
to make blueprints of how a future anarchist society will work as
the future will be created by everyone, not just the few anarchists
and libertarian socialists who write books and FAQs. This is very
true, we cannot predict what a free society will actually be like
or develop and we have no intention to do so here. However, this reply
(whatever its other merits) ignores a key point, people need to have
some idea of what anarchism aims for before they decide to spend their
lives trying to create it.
So, how would an anarchist system function? That depends on the
economic ideas people have. A mutualist economy will function differently
than a communist one, for example, but they will have similar features.
As Rudolf Rocker put it:
"Common to all Anarchists is the desire to free society of all
political and social coercive institutions which stand in the
way of the development of a free humanity. In this sense,
Mutualism, Collectivism, and Communism are not to be regarded
as closed systems permitting no further development, but merely
assumptions as to the means of safeguarding a free community. There
will even probably be in the society of the future different forms
of economic co-operation existing side-by-side, since any social
progress must be associated with that free experimentation and
practical testing-out for which in a society of free communities
there will be afforded every opportunity." [Anarcho-Syndicalism,
p. 16]
So, given the common aims of anarchists, its unsurprising that the
economic systems they suggest will have common features such as workers'
self-management, federation, free agreement and so on. For all anarchists,
the "economy" is seen as a "voluntary association that will organise
labour, and be the manufacturer and distributor of necessary commodities"
and this "is to make what is useful. The individual is to make
what is beautiful." [Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man Under
Socialism, p. 1183] For example, the machine "will supersede
hand-work in the manufacture of plain goods. But at the same time,
hand-work very probably will extend its domain in the artistic finishing
of many things which are made entirely in the factory." [Peter
Kropotkin, Fields, Factories and Workplaces Tomorrow, p. 152]
Murray Bookchin, decades later, argued for the same idea: "the
machine will remove the toil from the productive process, leaving
its artistic completion to man." [Post-Scarcity Anarchism,
p. 134]
This "organisation of labour touches only such labours as others
can do for us. . . the rest remain egoistic, because no one can in
your stead elaborate your musical compositions, carry out your projects
of painting, etc.; nobody can replace Raphael's labours. The latter
are labours of a unique person, which only he is competent to achieve."
[Max Stirner, The Ego and Its Own, p. 268] Stirner goes on
to ask "for whom is time to be gained [by association]? For what
does man require more time than is necessary to refresh his wearied
powers of labour? Here Communism is slient." He then answers his
own question by arguing it is gained for the individual "[t]o take
comfort in himself as unique, after he has done his part as man!"
[Op. Cit., p. 269] Which is exactly what Kropotkin also argued:
"He [sic!] will discharge his task in the field, the factory, and
so on, which he owes to society as his contribution to the general
production. And he will employ the second half of his day, his week,
or his year, to satisfy his artistic or scientific needs, or his
hobbies." [Conquest of Bread, p. 111]
Thus, while authoritarian Communism ignores the unique individual
(and that was the only kind of Communism existing when Stirner wrote
his classic book) libertarian communists agree with Stirner
and are not silent. Like him, they consider the whole point of organising
labour as the means of providing the individual the time and resources
required to express their individuality. In other words, to pursue
"labours of a unique person." Thus all anarchists base their
arguments for a free society on how it will benefit actual individuals,
rather than abstracts or amorphous collectives (such as "society").
Hence chapter 9 of The Conquest of Bread, "The Need for
Luxury" and, for that matter, chapter 10, "Agreeable Work."
Or, to bring this ideal up to day, as Chomsky put it, "[t]he
task for a modern industrial society is to achieve what is now technically
realisable, namely, a society which is really based on free voluntary
participation of people who produce and create, live their lives freely
within institutions they control, and with limited hierarchical structures,
possibly none at all." [quoted by Albert and Hahnel in Looking
Forward: Participatory Economics for the Twenty First Century,
p. 62]
In other words, anarchists desire to organise voluntary workers
associations which will try to ensure a minimisation of mindless labour
in order to maximise the time available for creative activity both
inside and outside "work." This is to be achieved by free co-operation
between equals, for while competition may be the "law of the jungle",
co-operation is the law of civilisation.
This co-operation is not based on "altruism," but
self-interest. As Proudhon argued, "[m]utuality, reciprocity exists
when all the workers in an industry instead of working for an entrepreneur
who pays them and keeps their products, work for one another and thus
collaborate in the making of a common product whose profits they share
amongst themselves. Extend the principle of reciprocity as uniting
the work of every group, to the Workers' Societies as units, and you
have created a form of civilisation which from all points of view
- political, economic and aesthetic - is radically different from
all earlier civilisations." [quoted by Martin Buber, Paths
in Utopia, pp. 29-30] In other words, solidarity and co-operation
allows us time to enjoy life and to gain the benefits of our labour
ourselves - Mutual Aid results in a better life than mutual struggle
and so "the association for struggle will be a much more
effective support for civilisation, progress, and evolution than is
the struggle for existence with its savage daily competitions."
[Luigi Geallani, The End of Anarchism, p. 26]
In the place of the rat race of capitalism, economic activity in
an anarchist society would be one of the means to humanise and individualise
ourselves and society, to move from surviving to living.
Productive activity should become a means of self-expression, of joy,
of art, rather than something we have to do to survive. Ultimately,
"work" should become more akin to play or a hobby than the
current alienated activity. The priorities of life should be towards
individual self-fulfilment and humanising society rather than "running
society as an adjunct to the market," to use Polanyi's expression,
and turning ourselves into commodities on the labour market. Thus
anarchists agree with John Stuart Mill when he wrote:
"I confess I am not charmed with an ideal of life held out by
those who think that the normal state of human beings is that of
struggling to get on; that the trampling, crushing, elbowing, and
treading on each other's heels, which form the existing type of
social life, are the most desirable lot of human kind, or anything
but the disagreeable symptoms of one of the phases of industrial
progress." [Collected Works, vol. III, p. 754]
The aim of anarchism is far more than the end of poverty. Hence
Proudhon's comment that socialism's "underlying dogma" is that
the "objective of socialism is the emancipation of the proletariat
and the eradication of poverty." This emancipation would be achieved
by ending "wage slavery" via "democratically organised workers'
associations." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 57 and
p.62] Or, in Kropotkin's words, "well-being for all" -- physical,
mental and moral! Indeed, by concentrating on just poverty and ignoring
the emancipation of the proletariat, the real aims of socialism are
obscured. As Kropotkin argued:
"The 'right to well-being' means the possibility of living like
human beings, and of bringing up children to be members of a
society better than ours, whilst the 'right to work' only means
the right to be a wage-slave, a drudge, ruled over and exploited
by the middle class of the future. The right to well-being is the
Social Revolution, the right to work means nothing but the
Treadmill of Commercialism. It is high time for the worker to
assert his right to the common inheritance, and to enter into
possession of it." [The Conquest of Bread, p. 44]
Combined with this desire for free co-operation is a desire to end
centralised systems. The opposition to centralisation is often framed
in a distinctly false manner. This can be seen when Alex Nove, a leading
market socialist, argues that "there are horizontal links (market),
there are vertical links (hierarchy). What other dimension is there?"
[Alex Nove, The Economics of Feasible Socialism, p. 226] In
other words, Nove states that to oppose central planning means to
embrace the market. This, however, is not true. Horizontal links need
not be market based any more than vertical links need be hierarchical.
But the core point in his argument is very true, an anarchist society
must be based essentially on horizontal links between individuals
and associations, freely co-operating together as they (not a central
body) sees fit. This co-operation will be source of any "vertical"
links in an anarchist economy. When a group of individuals or associations
meet together and discuss common interests and make common decisions
they will be bound by their own decisions. This is radically different
from a a central body giving out orders because those affected will
determine the content of these decisions. In other words, instead
of decisions being handed down from the top, they will be created
from the bottom up.
So, while refusing to define exactly how an anarchist system will
work, we will explore the implications of how the anarchist principles
and ideals outlined above could be put into practice. Bear in mind
that this is just a possible framework for a system which has few
historical examples to draw upon as evidence. This means that we can
only indicate the general outlines of what an anarchist society could
be like. Those seeking "recipes" and exactness should look
elsewhere. In all likelihood, the framework we present will be modified
and changed (even ignored) in light of the real experiences and problems
people will face when creating a new society.
Lastly we should point out that there may be a tendency for some
to compare this framework with the theory of capitalism (i.e.
perfectly functioning "free" markets or quasi-perfect ones)
as opposed to its reality. A perfectly working capitalist system only
exists in text books and in the heads of ideologues who take the theory
as reality. No system is perfect, particularly capitalism, and to
compare "perfect" capitalism with any system is a pointless
task. In addition, there will be those who seek to apply the "scientific"
principles of the neo-classical economics to our ideas. By so doing
they make what Proudhon called "the radical vice of political economy",
namely "affirming as a definitive state a transitory condition
-- namely, the division of society intto patricians and proletares."
[System of Economical Contradictions, p. 67] Thus any attempt
to apply the "laws" developed from theorising about capitalism
to anarchism will fail to capture the dynamics of a non-capitalist
system (given that neo-classical economics fails to understand the
dynamics of capitalism, what hope does it have of understanding non-capitalist
systems which reject the proprietary despotism and inequalities of
capitalism?).
John Crump stresses this point in his discussion of Japanese anarchism:
"When considering the feasibility of the social system
advocated by the pure anarchists, we need to be clear
about the criteria against which it should be measured.
It would, for example, be unreasonable to demand that
it be assessed against such yardsticks of a capitalist
economy as annual rate of growth, balance of trade
and so forth . . . evaluating anarchist communism by
means of the criteria which have been devised to
measure capitalism's performance does not make sense
. . . capitalism would be . . . baffled if it were
demanded that it assess its operations against the
performance indicators to which pure anarchists
attached most importance, such as personal liberty,
communal solidarity and the individual's unconditional
right to free consumption. Faced with such demands,
capitalism would either admit that these were not
yardsticks against which it could sensibly measure
itself or it would have to resort to the type of
grotesque ideological subterfuges which it often
employs, such as identifying human liberty with the
market and therefore with wag slavery. . . The pure
anarchists' confidence in the alternative society
they advocated derived not from an expectation that
it would quantitatively outperform capitalism in
terms of GNP, productivity or similar capitalist
criteria. On the contrary, their enthusiasm for
anarchist communism flowed from their understanding
that it would be qualitatively different from
capitalism. Of course, this is not to say that the
pure anarchists were indifferent to questions of
production and distribution . . . they certainly
believed that anarchist communism would provide
economic well-being for all. But neither were they
prepared to give priority to narrowly conceived
economic expansion, to neglect individual liberty
and communal solidarity, as capitalism regularly
does." [Hatta Shuzo and Pure Anarchism in Interwar
Japan, pp. 191-3]
As Kropotkin argued, "academic political economy has been only
an enumeration of what happens under the . . . conditions [of capitalism]
-- without distinctly stating the conditions themselves. And then,
having described the facts [academic neo-classical economics
usually does not even do that, we must stress, but Kropotkin had in
mind the likes of Adam Smith and Ricardo, not modern neo-classical
economics] which arise in our societies under these conditions, they
represent to use these facts as rigid, inevitable economic
laws." [Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 179]
So, by changing the conditions we change the "economic laws"
of a society and so capitalist economics is not applicable to post
(or pre) capitalist society (nor are its justifications for existing
inequalities in wealth and power).
The basic point of economic activity is an anarchist society is to ensure
that we produce what we desire to consume and that our consumption
is under our own control and not vice versa. The second point may
seem strange; how can consumption control us -- we consume what we
desire and no one forces us to do so! It may come as a surprise that
the idea that we consume only what we desire is not quite true under
a capitalist economy. Capitalism, in order to survive, must
expand, must create more and more profits. This leads to irrational
side effects, for example, the advertising industry. While it goes
without saying that producers need to let consumers know what is available
for consumption, capitalism ensures advertising goes beyond this by
creating needs that did not exist.
Therefore, the point of economic activity in an anarchist society
is to produce as and when required and not, as under capitalism, to
organise production for the sake of production. Production, to use
Kropotkin's words, is to become "the mere servant of consumption;
it must mould itself on the wants of the consumer, not dictate to
him [or her] conditions." [Act For Yourselves, p. 57] However,
while the basic aim of economic activity in an anarchist society is,
obviously, producing wealth -- i.e. of satisfying individual needs
-- without enriching capitalists or other parasites in the process,
it is far more than that. Yes, an anarchist society will aim to create
society in which everyone will have a standard of living suitable
for a fully human life. Yes, it will aim to eliminate poverty, inequality,
individual want and social waste and squalor, but it aims for far
more than that. It aims to create free individuals who express their
individuality within and without "work." After all, what is
the most important thing that comes out of a workplace? Pro-capitalists
may say profits, others the finished commodity or good. In fact, the
most important thing that comes out of a workplace is the worker.
What happens to them in the workplace will have an impact on all aspects
of their life and so cannot be ignored.
Therefore, for anarchists, "[r]eal wealth consists of things
of utility and beauty, in things that help create strong, beautiful
bodies and surroundings inspiring to live in." Anarchism's "goal
is the freest possible expression of all the latent powers of the
individual . . . [and this] is only possible in a state of society
where man [and woman] is free to choose the mode of work, the conditions
of work, and the freedom to work. One whom making a table, the building
of a house, or the tilling of the soil is what the painting is to
the artist and the discovery to the scientist -- the result of inspiration,
of intense longing, and deep interest in work as a creative force."
[Emma Goldman, Red Emma Speaks, p. 53 and p. 54]
To value "efficiency" above all else, as capitalism says
it does (it, in fact, values profits above all else and hinders
developments like workers' control which increase efficiency but harm
power and profits), is to deny our own humanity and individuality.
Without an appreciation for grace and beauty there is no pleasure
in creating things and no pleasure in having them. Our lives are made
drearier rather than richer by "progress." How can a person
take pride in their work when skill and care are considered luxuries
(if not harmful to "efficiency" and, under capitalism, the
profits and power of the capitalist and manager)? We are not machines.
We have a need for craftspersonship and anarchist recognises this
and takes it into account in its vision of a free society.
This means that, in an anarchist society, economic activity is the
process by which we produce what is both useful and beautiful
in a way that empowers the individual. As Oscar Wilde put it, individuals
will produce what is beautiful. Such production will be based upon
the "study of the needs of mankind, and the means of satisfying
them with the least possible waste of human energy." [Peter Kropotkin,
The Conquest of Bread, p. 175] This means that anarchist economic
ideas are the same as what Political Economy should be, not what it
actually is, namely the "essential basis of all Political Economy,
the study of the most favourable conditions for giving society the
greatest amount of useful products with the least waste of human energy"
(and, we must add today, the least disruption of nature). [Op.
Cit., p. 144]
The anarchists charge capitalism with wasting human energy and time
due to its irrational nature and workings, energy that could be spent
creating what is beautiful (both in terms of individualities and products
of labour). Under capitalism we are "toiling to live, that we may
live to toil." [William Morris, Useful Work Versus Useless
Toil, p. 37]
In addition, we must stress that the aim of economic activity within
an anarchist society is not to create equality of outcome --
i.e. everyone getting exactly the same goods. As we noted in section
A.2.5, such a "vision" of "equality" attributed
to socialists by pro-capitalists indicates more the poverty of imagination
and ethics of the critics of socialism than a true account of socialist
ideas. Anarchists, like other socialists, support equality in order
to maximise freedom, including the freedom to choose between options
to satisfy ones needs.
To treat people equally, as equals, means to respect their desires
and interests, to acknowledge their right to equal liberty. To make
people consume the same as everyone else does not respect the equality
of all to develop ones abilities as one sees fit. Thus it means equality
of opportunity to satisfy desires and interests, not the imposition
of an abstract minimum (or maximum) on unique individuals. To treat
unique individuals equally means to acknowledge that uniqueness, not
to deny it.
Thus the real aim of economic activity within an anarchy
is to ensure "that every human being should have the material and
moral means to develop his humanity." [Michael Bakunin, The
Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 295] And you cannot develop
your humanity if you cannot express yourself freely. Needless to say,
to treat unique people "equally" (i.e. identically) is simply
evil. You cannot, say, have a 70 year old woman do the same work in
order to receive the same income as a 20 year old man. No, anarchists
do not subscribe to such "equality," which is a product of
the "ethics of mathematics" of capitalism and not of
anarchist ideas. Such a scheme is alien to a free society. The equality
anarchists desire is a social equality, based on control over the
decisions that affect you. The aim of anarchist economic activity,
therefore, is provide the goods required for "equal freedom for
all, an equality of conditions such as to allow everyone to do as
they wish." [Errico Malatesta, Life and Ideas, p. 49] Thus
anarchists "demand not natural but social equality of individuals
as the condition for justice and the foundations of morality."
[Bakunin, Op. Cit., p. 249]
Under capitalism, instead of humans controlling production, production
controls them. Anarchists want to change this and desire to create
an economic network which will allow the maximisation of an individual's
free time in order for them to express and develop their individuality
(or to "create what is beautiful"). So instead of aiming just
to produce because the economy will collapse if we did not, anarchists
want to ensure that we produce what is useful in a manner which liberates
the individual and empowers them in all aspects of their lives. They
share this desire with (some of) the classical Liberals and agree
totally with Humbolt's statement that "the end of man . . . is
the highest and most harmonious development of his powers to a complete
and consistent whole." [quoted by J.S. Mill in On Liberty and
Other Essays, p. 64]
This desire means that anarchists reject the capitalist definition
of "efficiency." Anarchists would agree with Albert and Hahnel
when they argue that "since people are conscious agents whose characteristics
and therefore preferences develop over time, to access long-term efficiency
we must access the impact of economic institutions on people's development."
[The Political Economy of Participatory Economics, p. 9] Capitalism,
as we have explained before, is highly inefficient in this light due
to the effects of hierarchy and the resulting marginalisation and
disempowerment of the majority of society. As Albert and Hahnel go
on to note, "self-management, solidarity, and variety are all legitimate
valuative criteria for judging economic institutions . . . Asking
whether particular institutions help people attain self-management,
variety, and solidarity is sensible." [Ibid.]
In other words, anarchists think that any economic activity in a
free society is to do useful things in such a way that gives those
doing it as much pleasure as possible. The point of such activity
is to express the individuality of those doing it, and for that to
happen they must control the work process itself. Only by self-management
can work become a means of empowering the individual and developing
his or her powers.
In a nutshell, to use William Morris' expression, useful work will
replace useless toil in an anarchist society.
Anarchists desire to see humanity liberate itself from "work." This
may come as a shock for many people and will do much to "prove"
that anarchism is essentially utopian. However, we think that such
an abolition is not only necessary, it is possible. This is because
"work" is one of the major dangers to freedom we face.
If by freedom we mean self-government, then it is clear that being
subjected to hierarchy in the workplace subverts our abilities to
think and judge for ourselves. Like any skill, critical analysis and
independent thought have to be practised continually in order to remain
at their full potential. However, as well as hierarchy, the workplace
environment created by these power structures also helps to undermine
these abilities. This was recognised by Adam Smith:
"The understandings of the greater part of men are necessarily
formed by their ordinary employments." That being so, "the
man whose life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of
which the effects too are, perhaps, always the same, or nearly the
same, has no occasion to extend his understanding . . . and generally
becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature
to be . . . But in every improved and civilised society this is the
state into which the labouring poor, that is the great body of the
people, must necessarily fall, unless government takes pains to prevent
it." [Adam Smith, quoted by Noam Chomsky, Year 501, p.
18]
Smith's argument (usually ignored by those who claim to follow his
ideas) is backed up by extensive evidence. The different types of
authority structures and different technologies have different effects
on those who work within them. Carole Pateman (in Participation
and Democratic Theory) notes that the evidence suggests that "[o]nly
certain work situations were found to be conducive to the development
of the psychological characteristics [suitable for freedom, such as]
. . . the feelings of personal confidence and efficacy that underlay
the sense of political efficacy." [p. 51] She quotes one expert
(R. Blauner from his Freedom and Alienation) who argues that
within capitalist companies based upon highly rationalised work environment,
extensive division of labour and "no control over the pace or technique
of his [or her] work, no room to exercise skill or leadership"
[Op. Cit., p. 51] workers, according to a psychological study,
is "resigned to his lot . . . more dependent than independent .
. . he lacks confidence in himself . . . he is humble . . . the most
prevalent feeling states . . . seem to be fear and anxiety." [p.
52]
However, in workplaces where "the worker has a high degree of
personal control over his work . . . and a very large degree of freedom
from external control . . .[or has] collective responsibility of a
crew of employees . . .[who] had control over the pace and method
of getting the work done, and the work crews were largely internally
self-disciplining" [p. 52] a different social character is seen.
This was characterised by "a strong sense of individualism and
autonomy, and a solid acceptance of citizenship in the large society
. . .[and] a highly developed feeling of self-esteem and a sense of
self-worth and is therefore ready to participate in the social and
political institutions of the community." [p. 52] She notes that
R. Blauner states that the "nature of a man's work affects his
social character and personality" and that an "industrial environment
tends to breed a distinct social type." [cited by Pateman, Op.
Cit., p. 52]
As Bob Black argues:
"You are what you do. If you do boring, stupid, monotonous work, chances
are you'll end up boring, stupid, and monotonous. Work is a much better
explanation for the creeping cretinisation all around us than even such
significant moronising mechanisms as television and education. People who
are regimented all their lives, handed to work from school and bracketed by
the family in the beginning and the nursing home in the end, are habituated
to hierarchy and psychologically enslaved. Their aptitude for autonomy is so
atrophied that their fear of freedom is among their few rationally grounded
phobias. Their obedience training at work carries over into the families
they start, thus reproducing the system in more ways than one, and into
politics, culture and everything else. Once you drain the vitality from
people at work, they'll likely submit to hierarchy and expertise in
everything. They're used to it." [The Abolition of Work]
For this reason anarchists desire, to use Bob Black's phrase, "the
abolition of work." "Work," in this context, does not mean
any form of productive activity. Far from it. "Work" (in the
sense of doing necessary things) will always be with us. There is
no getting away from it; crops need to be grown, schools built, homes
fixed, and so on. No, "work" in this context means any form
of labour in which the worker does not control his or her own activity.
In other words, wage labour in all its many forms. As Kropotkin
put it, "the right to work" simply "means the right to be
always a wage-slave, a drudge, ruled over and exploited by the middle
class of the future" and he contrasted this to the "right to
well-being" which meant "the possibility of living like human
beings, and of bringing up children to be members of a society better
than ours." [The Conquest of Bread, p. 44]
A society based upon wage labour (i.e. a capitalist society) will
result in a society within which the typical worker uses few of their
abilities, exercise little or no control over their work because they
are governed by a boss during working hours. This has been proved
to lower the individual's self-esteem and feelings of self-worth,
as would be expected in any social relationship that denied self-government
to workers. Capitalism is marked by an extreme division of labour,
particularly between mental labour and physical labour. It reduces
the worker to a mere machine operator, following the orders of his
or her boss. Therefore, a libertarian that does not support economic
liberty (i.e. self-management) is no libertarian at all.
Capitalism bases its rationale for itself on consumption. However,
this results in a viewpoint which minimises the importance of the
time we spend in productive activity. Anarchists consider that it
is essential for individual's to use and develop their unique attributes
and capacities in all walks of life, to maximise their powers. Therefore,
the idea that "work" should be ignored in favour of consumption
is totally mad. Productive activity is an important way of developing
our inner-powers and express ourselves; in other words, be creative.
Capitalism's emphasis on consumption shows the poverty of that system.
As Alexander Berkman argues:
"We do not live by bread alone. True, existence is not possible without
opportunity to satisfy our physical needs. But the gratification of these
by no means constitutes all of life. Our present system of disinheriting
millions, made the belly the centre of the universe, so to speak. But in
a sensible society . . . [t]he feelings of human sympathy, of justice and
right would have a chance to develop, to be satisfied, to broaden and grow."
[ABC of Anarchism, p. 15]
Therefore, capitalism is based on a constant process of alienated
consumption, as workers try to find the happiness associated within
productive, creative, self-managed activity in a place it does not
exist -- on the shop shelves. This can partly explain the rise of
both mindless consumerism and of religions, as individuals try to
find meaning for their lives and happiness, a meaning and happiness
frustrated in wage labour and hierarchy.
Capitalism's impoverishment of the individual's spirit is hardly
surprising. As William Godwin argued, "[t]he spirit of oppression,
the spirit of servility, and the spirit of fraud, these are the immediate
growth of the established administration of property. They are alike
hostile to intellectual and moral improvement." [The Anarchist
Reader, p. 131] In other words, any system based in wage labour
or hierarchical relationships in the workplace will result in a deadening
of the individual and the creation of a "servile" character.
This crushing of individuality springs directly from what Godwin
called "the third degree of property" namely "a system.
. . by which one man enters into the faculty of disposing of the produce
of another man's industry" in other words, capitalism. [Op.
Cit., p. 129]
Anarchists desire to change this and create a society based upon
freedom in all aspects of life. Hence anarchists desire to abolish
work, simply because it restricts the liberty and distorts the individuality
of those who have to do it. To quote Emma Goldman:
"Anarchism aims to strip labour of its deadening, dulling aspect, of its gloom
and compulsion. It aims to make work an instrument of joy, of strength, of
colour, of real harmony, so that the poorest sort of a man should find in
work both recreation and hope." [Anarchism and Other Essays, p. 61]
Anarchists do not think that by getting rid of work we will not
have to produce necessary goods and so on. Far from it, an anarchist
society "doesn't mean we have to stop doing things. It does mean
creating a new way of life based on play; in other words, a ludic
revolution . . . a collective adventure in generalised joy and freely
interdependent exuberance. Play isn't passive." [Bob Black, Op.
Cit.]
This means that in an anarchist society every effort would be made
to reduce boring, unpleasant activity to a minimum and ensure that
whatever productive activity is required to be done is as pleasant
as possible and based upon voluntary labour. However, it is important
to remember Cornelius Castoriadis point that a "Socialist society
will be able to reduce the length of the working day, and will have
to do so, but this will not be the fundamental preoccupation. Its
first task will be to . . .transform the very nature of work. The
problem is not to leave more and more 'free' time to individuals -
which might well be empty time - so that they may fill it at will
with 'poetry' or the carving of wood. The problem is to make all time
a time of liberty and to allow concrete freedom to find expression
in creative activity." Essentially, "the problem is to put
poetry into work." [Workers' Councils and the Economics of
a Self-Managed Society, p. 14 and p. 15]
This is why anarchists desire to abolish "work" (i.e. wage
labour), to ensure that whatever "work" (i.e. economic activity)
is required to be done is under the direct control of those who do
it. In this way it can be liberated and so become a means of self-realisation
and not a form of self-negation. In other words, anarchists want to
abolish work because "[l]ife, the art of living, has become a dull
formula, flat and inert." [A. Berkman, Op. Cit., p. 27]
Anarchists want to bring the spontaneity and joy of life back into
productive activity and save humanity from the dead hand of capital.
All this does not imply that anarchists think that individuals will
not seek to "specialise" in one form of productive activity
rather than another. Far from it, people in a free society will pick
activities which interest them as the main focal point of their means
of self-expression. "It is evident," noted Kropotkin, "that
all men and women cannot equally enjoy the pursuit of scientific work.
The variety of inclinations is such that some will find more pleasure
in science, some others in art, and other again in some of the numberless
branches of the production of wealth." This "division of work"
is commonplace in humanity and can be seen under capitalism -- most
children and teenagers pick a specific line of work because they are
interested, or at least desire to do a specific kind of work. This
natural desire to do what interests you and what you are good at will
be encouraged in an anarchist society. As Kropotkin argued, anarchists
"fully recognise the necessity of specialisation of knowledge,
but we maintain that specialisation must follow general education,
and that general education must be given in science and handicraft
alike. To the division of society into brain workers and manual workers
we oppose the combination of both kinds of activities . . . we advocate
the education integrale [integral education], or complete education,
which means the disappearance of that pernicious division." He
was aware, however, that both individuals and society would benefit
from a diversity of activities and a strong general knowledge. In
his words, "[b]ut whatever the occupations preferred by everyone,
everyone will be the more useful in his [or her] branch is he [or
she] is in possession of a serious scientific knowledge. And, whosoever
he [or she] might be . . . he would be the gainer if he spent a part
of his life in the workshop or the farm (the workshop and the
farm), if he were in contact with humanity in its daily work, and
had the satisfaction of knowing that he himself discharges his duties
as an unprivileged producer of wealth." [Fields, Factories
and Workshops Tomorrow, p. 186, p. 172 and p. 186]
However, while specialisation would continue, the permanent division
of individuals into manual or brain workers would be eliminated. Individuals
will manage all aspects of the "work" required (for example,
engineers will also take part in self-managing their workplaces),
a variety of activities would be encouraged and the strict division
of labour of capitalism will be abolished.
In other words, anarchists want to replace the division of labour
by the division of work. We must stress that we are not playing with
words here. John Crump presents a good summary of the ideas of the
Japanese anarchist Hatta Shuzo on this difference:
"[W]e must recognise the distinction which Hatta made between
the 'division of labour' . . . and the 'division of work' . . .
he did not see anything sinister in the division of work . . .
On the contrary, Hatta believed that the division of work
was a benign and unavoidable feature of any productive
process: 'it goes without saying that within society,
whatever the kind of production, there has to be a
division of work.'" [Hatta Shuzo and Pure Anarchism in
Interwar Japan, pp. 146-7]
As Kropotin argued:
"while a temporary division of functions remains the surest
guarantee of success in each separate undertaking, the permanent
division is doomed to disappear, and to be substituted by a variety
of pursuits -- intellectual, industrial, and agricultural --
corresponding to the different capacities of the individual, as
well as to the variety of capacities within every human aggregate."
[Fields, Factories and Workshops Tomorrow, p. 26]
As an aside, supporters of capitalism argue that integrated
labour must be more inefficient than divided labour as capitalist
firms have not introduced it. This is false for numerous reasons.
Firstly, we have to put out the inhuman logic of the assertion.
After all, few would argue in favour of slavery if it were, in fact,
more productive than wage labour but such is the logical conclusion
of this argument. If someone did argue that the only reason slavery
was not the dominant mode of labour simply because it was inefficient
we would consider them as less than human. Simply put, it is a sick
ideology which happily sacrifices individuals for the sake of slightly
more products. Sadly, that is what many defenders of capitalism do,
ultimately, argue for.
Secondly, capitalist firms are not neutral structures but rather
a system of hierarchies, with entrenched interests and needs. Managers
will only introduce a work technique that maintains their power (and
so their profits). As we argue in section
J.5.12, while workers' participation generally see a rise in efficiency
managers generally stop the project simply because it undercuts their
power by empowering workers who then can fight for a greater slice
of the value they produce. So the lack of integrated labour under
capitalism simply means that it does not empower management, not that
it is less efficient.
Thirdly, the attempts by managers and bosses to introduce "flexibility"
by eliminating trade unions suggests that integration is more
efficient. After all, one of the major complains directed towards
trade union contracts were that they explicitly documented what workers
could and could not do. For example, union members would refuse to
do work which was outside their agreed job descriptions. This is usually
classed as an example of the evil of regulations.
However, if we look at it from the viewpoint of contract, it exposes
the inefficiency and inflexibility of contract as a means of co-operation.
After all, what is this refusal actually mean? It means that the worker
refuses to do what is not specified in his or her contract! Their
job description indicates what they have been contracted to do and
anything else has not been agreed upon in advance. It specifies the
division of labour in a workplace by means of a contract between worker
and boss.
While being a wonderful example of a well-designed contract, managers
discovered that they could not operate their workplaces because of
them. Rather, they needed a general "do what you are told"
contract (which of course is hardly an example of contract reducing
authority) and such a contract integrates numerous work tasks
into one. The managers diatribe against union contracts suggests that
production needs some form of integrated labour to actually work (as
well as showing the hypocrisy of the labour contract under capitalism
as labour "flexibility" simply means labour "commodification"
-- a machine does not question what its used for, the ideal for labour
under capitalism is a similar unquestioning nature for labour). The
union job description indicates that not only is the contract not
applicable to the capitalist workplace but that production needs the
integration of labour while demanding a division of work. As Cornelius
Caastoriadis argued:
"Modern production has destroyed many traditional professional
qualifications. It has created automatic or semi-automatic
machines. It has thereby itself demolished its own traditional
framework for the industrial division of labour. It has given
birth to a universal worker who is capable, after a relatively
short apprenticeship, of using most machines. Once one gets
beyond its class aspects, the 'posting' of workers to
particular jobs in a big modern factory corresponds less and
less to a genuine division of labour and more and more
to a simple division of tasks. Workers are not allocated to
given areas of the productive process and then riveted to
them because their 'occupational skills' invariably
correspond to the 'skills required' by management. They
are placed there . . . just because a particular vacancy
happened to exist." [Political and Social Writings,
vol. 2, p. 117]
Of course, the other option is to get rid of capitalism by self-management.
If workers managed their own time and labour, they would have no reason
to say "that is not my job" as they have no contract with someone
who tells them what to do. Similarly, the process of labour integration
forced upon the worker would be freely accepted and a task freely
accepted always produces superior results than one imposed by coercion
(or its threat). This means that "[u]nder socialism, factories
would have no reason to accept the artificially rigid division of
labour now prevailing. There will be every reason to encourage a rotation
of workers between shops and departments and between production
and office areas." The "residues of capitalism's division of
labour gradually will have to be eliminated" as "socialist
society cannot survive unless it demolishes this division." [Ibid.]
Division of tasks (or work) will replace division of labour in a
free society. "The main subject of social economy," argued
Kropotkin, is "the economy of energy required for the satisfaction
of human needs." These needs obviously expressed both the
needs of the producers for empowering and interesting work and their
need for a healthy and balanced environment. Thus Kropotkin discussed
the "advantages" which could be "derive[d] from a combination
of industrial pursuits with intensive agriculture, and of brain work
with manual work." The "greatest sum total of well-being can
be obtained when a variety of agricultural, industrial and intellectual
pursuits are combined in each community; and that man [and woman]
shows his best when he is in a position to apply his usually-varied
capacities to several pursuits in the farm, the workshop, the factory,
the study or the studio, instead of being riveted for life to one
of these pursuits only." [Fields, Factories and Workshops Tomorrow,
pp. 17-8]
By replacing the division of labour with the division of work, productive
activity can be transformed into an enjoyable task (or series of tasks).
By integrating labour, all the capacities of the producer can be expressed
so eliminating a major source of alienation and unhappiness in society.
One last point on the abolition of work. May 1st -- International
Workers' Day -- which, as we discussed in section
A.5.2, was created to commemorate the Chicago Anarchist Martyrs.
Anarchists then, as now, think that it should be celebrated by strike
action and mass demonstrations. In other words, for anarchists, International
Workers' Day should be a non-work day! That sums up the anarchist
position to work nicely -- that the celebration of workers' day should
be based on the rejection of work.
Basically by workers' self-management of production and community control
of the means of production. It is hardly in the interests of those
who do the actual "work" to have bad working conditions, boring,
repetitive labour, and so on. Therefore, a key aspect of the liberation
from work is to create a self-managed society, "a society in which
everyone has equal means to develop and that all are or can be at
the time intellectual and manual workers, and the only differences
remaining between men [and women] are those which stem from the natural
diversity of aptitudes, and that all jobs, all functions, give an
equal right to the enjoyment of social possibilities." [Errico
Malatesta, Anarchy, p. 40]
Essential to this task is decentralisation and the use of appropriate
technology. Decentralisation is important to ensure that those who
do work can determine how to liberate it. A decentralised system will
ensure that ordinary people can identify areas for technological innovation,
and so understand the need to get rid of certain kinds of work. Unless
ordinary people understand and control the introduction of technology,
then they will never be fully aware of the benefits of technology
and resist advances which may be in their best interests to introduce.
This is the full meaning of appropriate technology, namely the use
of technology which those most affected feel to be best in a given
situation. Such technology may or may not be technologically "advanced"
but it will be of the kind which ordinary people can understand and,
most importantly, control.
The potential for rational use of technology can be seen from capitalism.
Under capitalism, technology is used to increase profits, to expand
the economy, not to liberate all individuals from useless toil
(it does, of course, liberate a few from such "activity").
As Ted Trainer argues:
"Two figures drive the point home. In the long term, productivity (i.e.
output per hour of work) increases at about 2 percent per annum, meaning
that each 35 years we could cut the work week by half while producing as
much as we were at the beginning. A number of OECD . . . countries could
actually have cut from a five-day work week to around a one-day work
week in the last 25 years while maintaining their output at the same
level. In this economy we must therefore double the annual amount we
consume per person every 35 years just to prevent unemployment from
rising and to avoid reduction in outlets available to soak up
investable capital.
"Second, according to the US Bureau for Mines, the amount of capital per person
available for investment in the United States will increase at 3.6
percent per annum (i.e. will double in 20-year intervals). This
indicates that unless Americans double the volume of goods and services
they consume every 20 years, their economy will be in serious difficulties
"Hence the ceaseless and increasing pressure to find more business
opportunities" ["What is Development", p 57-90, Society
and Nature, Issue No. 7, p. 49]
And, remember, these figures include production in many areas of
the economy that would not exist in a free society - state and capitalist
bureaucracy, weapons production, and so on. In addition, it does not
take into account the labour of those who do not actually produce
anything useful and so the level of production for useful goods would
be higher than Trainer indicates. In addition, goods will be built
to last and so much production will become sensible and not governed
by an insane desire to maximise profits at the expense of everything
else.
The decentralisation of power will ensure that self-management becomes
universal. This will see the end of division of labour as mental and
physical work becomes unified and those who do the work also manage
it. This will allow "the free exercise of all the faculties
of man" both inside and outside "work." [Peter Kropotkin, The
Conquest of Bread, p. 148] The aim of such a development would
be to turn productive activity, as far as possible, into an enjoyable
experience. In the words of Murray Bookchin it is the quality
and nature of the work process that counts:
"If workers' councils and workers' management of production
do not transform the work into a joyful activity, free time
into a marvellous experience, and the workplace into a
community, then they remain merely formal structures, in
fact, class structures. They perpetuate the limitations
of the proletariat as a product of bourgeois social conditions.
Indeed, no movement that raises the demand for workers'
councils can be regarded as revolutionary unless it tries to
promote sweeping transformations in the environment of the
work place." [Post-Scarcity Anarchism, p. 146]
Work will become, primarily, the expression of a person's pleasure
in what they are doing and become like an art - an expression of their
creativity and individuality. Work as an art will become expressed
in the workplace as well as the work process, with workplaces transformed
and integrated into the local community and environment (see section
I.4.15 -- "What will the workplace
of tomorrow be like?"). This will obviously apply to work
conducted in the home as well, otherwise the "revolution, intoxicated
with the beautiful words, Liberty, Equality, Solidarity, would not
be a revolution if it maintained slavery at home. Half [of] humanity
subjected to the slavery of the hearth would still have to rebel against
the other half." [Peter Kropotkin, The Conquest of Bread,
p. 128]
In other words, anarchists desire "to combine the best part (in
fact, the only good part) of work -- the production of use-values
-- with the best of play . . . its freedom and its fun, its voluntariness
and its intrinsic gratification" -- the transformation of what
economists call production into productive play. [Bob Black, Smokestack
Lightning]
In addition, a decentralised system will build up a sense of community
and trust between individuals and ensure the creation of an ethical
economy, one based on interactions between individuals and not commodities
caught in the flux of market forces. This ideal of a "moral
economy" can be seen in both social anarchists desire for
the end of the market system and the individualists insistence that
"cost be the limit of price." Anarchists recognise that the
"traditional local market . . . is essentially different from the
market as it developed in modern capitalism. Bartering on a local
market offered an opportunity to meet for the purpose of exchanging
commodities. Producers and customers became acquainted; they were
relatively small groups . . . The modern market is no longer a meeting
place but a mechanism characterised by abstract and impersonal demand.
One produces for this market, not for a known circle of customers;
its verdict is based on laws of supply and demand." [Man for
Himself, pp. 67-68]
Anarchists reject the capitalist notion that economic activity should
be based on maximising profit as the be all and end all of such work
(buying and selling on the "impersonal market"). As markets
only work through people, individuals, who buy and sell (but, in the
end, control them -- in the "free market" only the market is
free) this means that for the market to be "impersonal" as
it is in capitalism it implies that those involved have to be unconcerned
about personalities, including their own. Profit, not ethics, is what
counts. The "impersonal" market suggests individuals who act
in an impersonal, and so unethical, manner. The morality of what they
produce, why they produce it and how they produce it is irrelevant,
as long as profits are produced.
Instead, anarchists consider economic activity as an expression
of the human spirit, an expression of the innate human need to express
ourselves and to create. Capitalism distorts these needs and makes
economic activity a deadening experience by the division of labour
and hierarchy. Anarchists think that "industry is not an end in
itself, but should only be a means to ensure to man his material subsistence
and to make accessible to him the blessings of a higher intellectual
culture. Where industry is everything and man is nothing begins the
realm of a ruthless economic despotism whose workings are no less
disastrous than those of any political despotism. The two mutually
augment one another, and they are fed from the same source." [Rudolph
Rocker, Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 11]
Anarchists think that a decentralised social system will allow "work"
to be abolished and economic activity humanised and made a means to
an end (namely producing useful things and liberated individuals).
This would be achieved by, as Rudolf Rocker puts it, the "alliance
of free groups of men and women based on co-operative labour and a
planned administration of things in the interest of the community."
[Op. Cit., p. 62]
However, as things are produced by people, it could be suggested
that a "planned administration of things" implies a "planned
administration of people" (although few who suggest this danger
apply it to capitalist firms which are like mini-centrally planned
states). This objection is false simply because anarchism aims "to
reconstruct the economic life of the peoples from the ground up and
build it up anew in the spirit of Socialism" and, moreover, "only
the producers themselves are fitted for this task, since they are
the only value-creating element in society out of which a new future
can arise." Such a reconstructed economic life would be based
on anarchist principles, that is "based on the principles of federalism,
a free combination from below upwards, putting the right of self-determination
of every member above everything else and recognising only the organic
agreement of all on the basis of like interests and common convictions."
[Op. Cit., p. 61 and p. 53]
In other words, those who produce also administer and so govern
themselves in free association (and it should be pointed out that
any group of individuals in association will make "plans" and
"plan," the important question is who does the planning and
who does the work. Only in anarchy are both functions united into
the same people). Rocker emphasises this point when he writes that:
"Anarcho-syndicalists are convinced that a Socialist economic
order cannot be created by the decrees and statutes of a
government, but only by the solidaric collaboration of the
workers with hand and brain in each special branch of production;
that is, through the taking over of the management of all plants
by the producers themselves under such form that the separate
groups, plants, and branches of industry are independent members
of the general economic organism and systematically carry on
production and the distribution of the products in the interest
of the community on the basis of free mutual agreements."
[Op. Cit., p. 55]
In other words, the "planned administration of things" would
be done by the producers themselves, in independent groupings.
This would likely take the form (as we indicated in section
I.3) of confederations of syndicates who communicate information
between themselves and respond to changes in the production and distribution
of products by increasing or decreasing the required means of production
in a co-operative (i.e. "planned") fashion. No "central
planning" or "central planners" governing the economy,
just workers co-operating together as equals (as Kropotkin argued,
free socialism "must result from thousands of separate local actions,
all directed towards the same aim. It cannot be dictated by a central
body: it must result from the numberless local needs and wants."
[Act for Yourselves, p. 54]).
Therefore, an anarchist society would abolish work by ensuring that
those who do the work actually control it. They would do so in a network
of self-managed associations, a society "composed of a number of
societies banded together for everything that demands a common effort:
federations of producers for all kinds of production, of societies
for consumption . . . All these groups will unite their efforts through
mutual agreement . . . Personal initiative will be encouraged and
every tendency to uniformity and centralisation combated." [Peter
Kropotkin, quoted by Buber in Paths in Utopia, p. 42]
In response to consumption patterns, syndicates will have to expand
or reduce production and will have to attract volunteers to do the
necessary work. The very basis of free association will ensure the
abolition of work, as individuals will apply for "work" they
enjoy doing and so would be interested in reducing "work" they
did not want to do to a minimum. Such a decentralisation of power
would unleash a wealth of innovation and ensure that unpleasant work
be minimised and fairly shared (see section
I.4.13).
Now, any form of association requires agreement. Therefore, even
a society based on the communist-anarchist maxim "from each according
to their ability, to each according to their need" will need to
make agreements in order to ensure co-operative ventures succeed.
In other words, members of a co-operative commonwealth would have
to make and keep to their agreements between themselves. This means
that the members of a syndicate would agree joint starting and finishing
times, require notice if individuals want to change "jobs" and so
on within and between syndicates. Any joint effort requires some degree
of co-operation and agreement. Moreover, between syndicates, an agreement
would be reached (in all likelihood) that determined the minimum working
hours required by all members of society able to work. How that minimum
was actually organised would vary between workplace and commune, with
work times, flexi-time, job rotation and so on determined by each
syndicate (for example, one syndicate may work 8 hours a day for 2
days, another 4 hours a day for 4 days, one may use flexi-time, another
more rigid starting and stopping times).
As Kropotkin argued, an anarchist-communist society would be based
upon the following kind of "contract" between its members:
"We undertake to give you the use of our houses, stores, streets,
means of transport, schools, museums, etc., on condition that, from
twenty to forty-five or fifty years of age, you consecrate four or
five hours a day to some work recognised as necessary to existence.
Choose yourself the producing group which you wish to join, or organise
a new group, provided that it will undertake to produce necessaries. And
as for the remainder of your time, combine together with whomsoever you
like, for recreation, art, or science, according to the bent of your
taste . . . Twelve or fifteen hundred hours of work a year . . . is
all we ask of you. For that amount of work we guarantee to you the
free use of all that these groups produce, or will produce." [The
Conquest of Bread, pp. 153-4]
With such work "necessary to existence" being recognised
by individuals and expressed by demand for labour from productive
syndicates. It is, of course, up to the individual to decide which
work he or she desires to perform from the positions available in
the various associations in existence. A union card would be the means
by which work hours would be recorded and access to the common wealth
of society ensured. And, of course, individuals and groups are free
to work alone and exchange the produce of their labour with others,
including the confederated syndicates, if they so desired. An anarchist
society will be as flexible as possible.
Therefore, we can imagine a social anarchist society being based
on two basic arrangements -- firstly, an agreed minimum working week
of, say, 20 hours, in a syndicate of your choice, plus any amount
of hours doing "work" which you feel like doing -- for example,
art, experimentation, DIY, playing music, composing, gardening and
so on. The aim of technological progress would be to reduce the basic
working week more and more until the very concept of necessary "work"
and free time enjoyments is abolished. In addition, in work considered
dangerous or unwanted, then volunteers could trade doing a few hours
of such activity for more free time (see section
I.4.13 for more on this).
It can be said that this sort of agreement is a restriction of liberty
because it is "man-made" (as opposed to the "natural law"
of "supply and demand"). This is a common defence of the free
market by individualist anarchists against anarcho-communism, for
example. However, while in theory individualist-anarchists can claim
that in their vision of society, they don't care when, where, or how
a person earns a living, as long as they are not invasive about it
the fact is that any economy is based on interactions between individuals.
The law of "supply and demand" easily, and often, makes a mockery
of the ideas that individuals can work as long as they like - usually
they end up working as long as required by market forces (i.e. the
actions of other individuals, but turned into a force outwith their
control, see section I.1.3). This
means that individuals do not work as long as they like, but as long
as they have to in order to survive. Knowing that "market forces"
is the cause of long hours of work hardly makes them any nicer.
And it seems strange to the communist-anarchist that certain free
agreements made between equals can be considered authoritarian while
others are not. The individualist-anarchist argument that social co-operation
to reduce labour is "authoritarian" while agreements between
individuals on the market are not seems illogical to social anarchists.
They cannot see how it is better for individuals to be pressured into
working longer than they desire by "invisible hands" than to
come to an arrangement with others to manage their own affairs to
maximise their free time.
Therefore, free agreement between free and equal individuals is
considered the key to abolishing work, based upon decentralisation
of power and the use of appropriate technology.
Firstly, it should be noted that anarchists do not have any set idea about
the answer to this question. Most anarchists are communists, desiring
to see the end of money, but that does not mean they want to impose
communism onto people. Far from it, communism can only be truly libertarian
if it is organised from the bottom up. So, anarchists would agree
with Kropotkin that it is a case of not "determining in advance
what form of distribution the producers should accept in their different
groups -- whether the communist solution, or labour checks, or equal
salaries, or any other method" while considering a given solution
best in their opinion. [Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets,
p. 166] Free experiment is a key aspect of anarchism.
While certain anarchists have certain preferences on the social
system they want to live in and so argue for that, they are aware
that objective circumstances and social desires will determine what
is introduced during a revolution (for example, while Kropotkin was
a communist-anarchist and considered it essential that a revolution
proceed towards communism as quickly as possible, he was aware that
it was unlikely it would be introduced immediately -- see section
I.2.2 for details).
However, we will outline some possible means of economic decision
making criteria as this question is an important one (it is the crux
of the "libertarian socialism is impossible" argument, for
example). Therefore, we will indicate what possible solutions exist
in different forms of anarchism.
In a mutualist or collectivist system, the answer is easy. Prices
will exist and be used as a means of making decisions. Mutualism will
be more market orientated than collectivism, with collectivism being
based on confederations of collectives to respond to changes in demand
(i.e. to determine investment decisions and ensure that supply is
kept in line with demand). Mutualism, with its system of market based
distribution around a network of co-operatives and mutual banks, does
not really need a further discussion as its basic operations are the
same as in any non-capitalist market system. Collectivism and communism
will have to be discussed in more detail. However, all systems are
based on workers' self-management and so the individuals directly
affected make the decisions concerning what to produce, when to do
it, and how to do it. In this way workers retain control of the product
of their labour. It is the social context of these decisions and what
criteria workers use to make their decisions that differ between anarchist
schools of thought.
Although collectivism promotes the greatest autonomy for worker
associations, it should not be confused with a market economy as advocated
by supporters of mutualism (particularly in its Individualist form).
The goods produced by the collectivised factories and workshops are
exchanged not according to highest price that can be wrung from consumers,
but according to their actual production costs. The determination
of these honest prices is to be by a "Bank of Exchange" in
each community (obviously an idea borrowed from Proudhon). These "Banks"
would represent the various producer confederations and consumer/citizen
groups in the community and would seek to negotiate these "honest"
prices (which would, in all likelihood, include "hidden" costs
like pollution). These agreements would be subject to ratification
by the assemblies of those involved.
As Guillaume puts it "the value of the commodities having been
established in advance by a contractual agreement between the regional
co-operative federations [i.e. confederations of syndicates] and the
various communes, who will also furnish statistics to the Banks of
Exchange. The Bank of Exchange will remit to the producers negotiable
vouchers representing the value of their products; these vouchers
will be accepted throughout the territory included in the federation
of communes." [Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 366] These vouchers
would be related to hours worked, for example, and when used as a
guide for investment decisions could be supplemented with cost-benefit
analysis of the kind possibly used in a communist-anarchist society
(see below).
Although this scheme bears a strong resemblance to Proudhonian "People's
Banks," it should be noted that the Banks of Exchange, along with
a "Communal Statistical Commission," are intended to have a
"planning" function as well to ensure that supply meets demand.
This does not imply a "command" economy, but simple book keeping
for "each Bank of Exchange makes sure in advance that these products
are in demand [in order to risk] nothing by immediately issuing payment
vouchers to the producers." [Op. Cit., p. 367] The workers
syndicates would still determine what orders to produce and each commune
would be free to choose its suppliers.
As will be discussed in more depth later (see section
I.4.8) information about consumption patterns will be recorded
and used by workers to inform their production and investment decisions.
In addition, we can imagine that production syndicates would encourage
communes as well as consumer groups and co-operatives to participate
in making these decisions. This would ensure that produced goods reflect
consumer needs. Moreover, as conditions permit, the exchange functions
of the communal "banks" would (in all likelihood) be gradually
replaced by the distribution of goods "in accordance with the needs
of the consumers." In other words, most supporters of collectivist
anarchism see it as a temporary measure before anarcho-communism could
develop.
Communist anarchism would be similar to collectivism, i.e. a system
of confederations of collectives, communes and distribution centres
("Communal stores"). However, in an anarcho-communist system,
prices are not used. How will economic decision making be done? One
possible solution is as follows:
"As to decisions involving choices of a general nature, such as what
forms of energy to use, which of two or more materials to employ to
produce a particular good, whether to build a new factory, there is
a . . . technique . . . that could be [used] . . . 'cost-benefit
analysis' . . . in socialism a points scheme for attributing relative
importance to the various relevant considerations could be used . . .
The points attributed to these considerations would be subjective,
in the sense that this would depend on a deliberate social decision
rather than some objective standard, but this is the case even under
capitalism when a monetary value has to be attributed to some such
'cost' or 'benefit' . . . In the sense that one of the aims of socialism
is precisely to rescue humankind from the capitalist fixation with
production time/money, cost-benefit analyses, as a means of taking into
account other factors, could therefore be said to be more appropriate for
use in socialism than under capitalism. Using points systems to attribute
relative importance in this way would not be to recreate some universal
unit of evaluation and calculation, but simply to employ a technique to
facilitate decision-making in particular concrete cases." [Adam Buick and
John Crump, State Capitalism: The Wages System Under New Management,
pp. 138-139]
This points system would be the means by which producers and consumers
would be able to determine whether the use of a particular good is
efficient or not. Unlike prices, this cost-benefit analysis system
would ensure that production and consumption reflects social and ecological
costs, awareness and priorities. Moreover, this analysis would be
a guide to decision making and not a replacement of human decision
making and evaluation. As Lewis Mumford argues:
"it is plan that in the decision as to whether to build a bridge
or a tunnel there is a human question that should outweigh the
question of cheapness or mechanical feasibility: namely the number
of lives that will be lost in the actual building or the advisability
of condemning a certain number of men [and women] to spend their
entire working days underground supervising tunnel traffic. As soon
as our thought ceases to be automatically conditioned by the mine,
such questions become important. Similarly the social choice
between silk and rayon is not one that can be made simply on
the different costs of production, or the difference in quality
between the fibres themselves: there also remains, to be integrated
in the decision, the question as to difference in working-pleasure
between tending silkworms and assisting in rayon production. What
the product contributes to the labourer is just as important as what
the worker contributes to the product. A well-managed society might
alter the process of motor car assemblage, at some loss of speed
and cheapness, in order to produce a more interesting routine for
the worker: similarly, it would either go to the expense of
equipping dry-process cement making plants with dust removers --
or replace the product itself with a less noxious substitute. When
none of these alternatives was available, it would drastically
reduce the demand itself to the lowest possible level." [The
Future of Technics and Civilisation, pp. 160-1]
Obviously, today, we would include ecological issues as well as
human ones. However Mumford's argument is correct. Any decision making
process which disregards the quality of work or the effect on the
human and natural environment is a deranged process. However, this
is how capitalism operates, with the market rewarding capitalists
and managers who introduce de-humanising and ecologically harmful
practices. Indeed, so biased against labour and the environment is
capitalism that economists and pro-capitalists argue that reducing
"efficiency" by such social concerns is actually harmful
to an economy, which is a total reversal of common sense and human
feelings (after all, surely the economy should satisfy human needs
and not sacrifice those needs to the economy?). The argument is that
consumption would suffer as resources (human and material) would be
diverted from more "efficient" productive activities and so
reduce, over all, our economic well-being. What this argument ignores
is that consumption does not exist in isolation from the rest of the
economy. What we what to consume is conditioned, in part, by the sort
of person we are and that is influenced by the kind of work we do,
the kinds of social relationships we have, whether we are happy with
our work and life, and so on. If our work is alienating and of low
quality, then so will our consumption decisions. If our work is subject
to hierarchical control and servile in nature then we cannot expect
our consumption decisions of totally rational -- indeed they may become
an attempt to find happiness via shopping, a self-defeating activity
as consumption cannot solve a problem created in production. Thus
rampant consumerism may be the result of capitalist "efficiency"
and so the objection against socially aware production is question
begging.
Of course, as well as absolute scarcity, prices under capitalism
also reflect relative scarcity (while in the long term, market prices
tend towards their production price plus a mark-up based on the degree
of monopoly in a market, in the short term prices can change as a
result of changes in supply and demand). How a communist society could
take into account such short term changes and communicate them through
out the economy is discussed in section I.4.5 ( "What
about 'supply and demand'?"). Needless to say, production
and investment decisions based upon such cost-benefit analysis would
take into account the current production situation and so the relative
scarcity of specific goods.
Therefore, a communist-anarchist society would be based around a
network of syndicates who communicate information between each other.
Instead of the "price" being communicated between workplaces
as in capitalism, actual physical data will be sent. This data is
a summary of the use values of the good (for example labour time and
energy used to produce it, pollution details, relative scarcity and
so forth). With this information a cost-benefit analysis will be conducted
to determine which good will be best to use in a given situation based
upon mutually agreed common values. The data for a given workplace
could be compared to the industry as a whole (as confederations of
syndicates would gather and produce such information -- see section
I.3.5) in order to determine whether a specific workplace will
efficiently produce the required goods (this system has the additional
advantage of indicating which workplaces require investment to bring
them in line, or improve upon, the industrial average in terms of
working conditions, hours worked and so on). In addition, common rules
of thumb would possibly be agreed, such as agreements not to use scarce
materials unless there is no alternative (either ones that use a lot
of labour, energy and time to produce or those whose demand is currently
exceeding supply capacity).
Similarly, when ordering goods, the syndicate, commune or individual
involved will have to inform the syndicate why it is required in order
to allow the syndicate to determine if they desire to produce the
good and to enable them to prioritise the orders they receive. In
this way, resource use can be guided by social considerations and
"unreasonable" requests ignored (for example, if an individual
"needs" a ship-builders syndicate to build a ship for his personal
use, the ship-builders may not "need" to build it and instead
builds ships for the transportation of freight). However, in almost
all cases of individual consumption, no such information will be needed
as communal stores would order consumer goods in bulk as they do now.
Hence the economy would be a vast network of co-operating individuals
and workplaces and the dispersed knowledge which exists within any
society can be put to good effect (better effect than under
capitalism because it does not hide social and ecological costs in
the way market prices do and co-operation will eliminate the business
cycle and its resulting social problems).
Therefore, production units in a social anarchist society, by virtue
of their autonomy within association, are aware of what is socially
useful for them to produce and, by virtue of their links with communes,
also aware of the social (human and ecological) cost of the resources
they need to produce it. They can combine this knowledge, reflecting
overall social priorities, with their local knowledge of the detailed
circumstances of their workplaces and communities to decide how they
can best use their productive capacity. In this way the division of
knowledge within society can be used by the syndicates effectively
as well as overcoming the restrictions within knowledge communication
imposed by the price mechanism.
Moreover, production units, by their association within confederations
(or Guilds) ensure that there is effective communication between them.
This results in a process of negotiated co-ordination between equals
(i.e. horizontal links and agreements) for major investment decisions,
thus bringing together supply and demand and allowing the plans of
the various units to be co-ordinated. By this process of co-operation,
production units can reduce duplicating effort and so reduce the waste
associated with over-investment (and so the irrationalities of booms
and slumps associated with the price mechanism, which does not provide
sufficient information to allow workplaces to efficiently co-ordinate
their plans - see section C.7.2).
Needless to say, this issue is related to the "socialist calculation"
issue we discussed in section I.1.2.
To clarify our ideas, we shall present an example.
Consider two production processes. Method A requires 70 tons of
steel and 60 tons of concrete while Method B requires 60 tons of steel
and 70 tons of concrete. Which method should be preferred? One of
the methods will be more economical in terms of leaving more resources
available for other uses than the other but in order to establish
which we need to compare the relevant quantities.
Supporters of capitalism argue that only prices can supply the necessary
information as they are heterogeneous quantities. Both steel and concrete
have a price (say $10 per ton for steel and $5 per ton for concrete).
The method to choose is clearly B as it has a lower price that A ($950
for B compared to $1000 for A). However, this does not actually tell
us whether B is the more economical method of production in terms
of minimising waste and resource use, it just tells us which costs
less in terms of money.
Why is this? Simply because, as we argued in section
I.1.2, prices do not totally reflect social, economic and ecological
costs. They are influenced by market power, for example, and produce
externalities, environmental and health costs which are not reflected
in the price. Indeed, passing on costs in the form of externalities
and inhuman working conditions actually are rewarded in the market
as it allows the company so doing to cut their prices. As far as market
power goes, this has a massive influence on prices, directly in terms
of prices charged and indirectly in terms of wages and conditions
of workers. Due to natural barriers to entry (see section
C.4), prices are maintained artificially high by the market power
of big business. For example, steel could, in fact cost $5 per ton
to produce but market power allows the company to charge $10 per ton,
Wage costs are, again, determined by the bargaining power of labour
and so do not reflect the real costs in terms of health, personality
and alienation the workers experience. They may be working in unhealthy
conditions simply to get by, with unemployment or job insecurity hindering
their attempts to improve their conditions or find a new job. Nor
are the social and individual costs of hierarchy and alienation factored
into the price, quite the reverse. It seems ironic that an economy
which it defenders claim meets human needs (as expressed by money,
of course) totally ignores individuals in the workplace, the place
they spend most of their waking hours in adult life.
So the relative costs of each production method have to be evaluated
but price does not, indeed cannot, provide an real indication of whether
a method is economical in the sense of actually minimising resource
use. Prices do reflect some of these costs, of course, but filtered
through the effects of market power, hierarchy and externalities they
become less and less accurate. Unless you take the term "economical"
to simply mean "has the least cost in price" rather than the
sensible "has the least cost in resource use, ecological impact
and human pain" you have to accept that the price mechanism is
not a great indicator of economic use.
What is the alternative? Obviously the exact details will be worked
out in practice by the members of a free society, but we can suggest
a few ideas based on our comments above.
When evaluating production methods we need to take into account
as many social and ecological costs as possible and these have to
be evaluated. Which costs will be taken into account, of course, be
decided by those involved, as will how important they are relative
to each other (i.e. how they are weighted). Moreover, it is likely
that they will factor in the desirability of the work performed to
indicate the potential waste in human time involved in production
(see section I.4.13 for a discussion
of how the desirability of productive activity could be indicated
in an anarchist society). The logic behind this is simple, a resource
which people like to produce will be a better use of the scare
resource of an individual's time than one people hate producing.
So, for example, steel may take 3 person hours to produce one ton,
produce 200 cubic metres of waste gas, 2000 kilo-joules of energy,
and has excellent working conditions. Concrete, on the other hand,
may take 4 person hours to produce one ton, produce 300 cubic metres
of waste gas, uses 1000 kilo-joules of energy and has dangerous working
conditions due to dust. What would be the best method? Assuming that
each factor is weighted the same, then obviously Method A is the better
method as it produces the least ecological impact and has the safest
working environment -- the higher energy cost is offset by the other,
more important, factors.
What factors to take into account and how to weigh them in the decision
making process will be evaluated constantly and reviewed so to ensure
that it reflects real costs and social concerns. Moreover, simply
accounting tools can be created (as a spreadsheet or computer programme)
that takes the decided factors as inputs and returns a cost benefit
analysis of the choices available.
Therefore, the claim that communism cannot evaluate different production
methods due to lack of prices is inaccurate. Indeed, a look at the
actual capitalist market -- marked as it is by differences in bargaining
and market power, externalities and wage labour -- soon shows that
the claims that prices accurately reflect costs is simply not accurate.
One final point on this subject. As social anarchists consider it
important to encourage all to participate in the decisions that affect
their lives, it would be the role of communal confederations to determine
the relative points value of given inputs and outputs. In this way,
all individuals in a community determine how their society
develops, so ensuring that economic activity is responsible to social
needs and takes into account the desires of everyone affected by production.
In this way the problems associated with the "Isolation Paradox"
(see section B.6) can be over come and so
consumption and production can be harmonised with the needs of individuals
as members of society and the environment they live in.
Anarchists do not ignore the facts of life, namely that at a given moment
there is so much a certain good produced and so much of is desired
to be consumed or used. Neither do we deny that different individuals
have different interests and tastes. However, this is not what is
usually meant by "supply and demand." Often in general economic
debate, this formula is given a certain mythical quality which ignores
the underlying realities which it reflects as well as some unwholesome
implications of the theory. So, before discussing "supply and demand"
in an anarchist society, it is worthwhile to make a few points about
the "law of supply and demand" in general.
Firstly, as E.P. Thompson argues, "supply and demand" promotes
"the notion that high prices were a (painful) remedy for dearth,
in drawing supplies to the afflicted region of scarcity. But what
draws supply are not high prices but sufficient money in their purses
to pay high prices. A characteristic phenomenon in times of dearth
is that it generates unemployment and empty pursues; in purchasing
necessities at inflated prices people cease to be able to buy inessentials
[causing unemployment] . . . Hence the number of those able to pay
the inflated prices declines in the afflicted regions, and food may
be exported to neighbouring, less afflicted, regions where employment
is holding up and consumers still have money with which to pay. In
this sequence, high prices can actually withdraw supply from the most
afflicted area." [Customs in Common, pp. 283-4]
Therefore "the law of supply and demand" may not be the "most
efficient" means of distribution in a society based on inequality.
This is clearly reflected in the "rationing" by purse which
this system is based on. While in the economics books, price is the
means by which scare resources are "rationed" in reality this
creates many errors. Adam Smith argued that high prices discourage
consumption, putting "everybody more or less, but particularly
the inferior ranks of people, upon thrift and good management."
[cited by Thompson, Op. Cit., p. 284] However, as Thompson
notes, "[h]owever persuasive the metaphor, there is an elision
of the real relationships assigned by price, which suggests. . .ideological
sleight-of-mind. Rationing by price does not allocate resources equally
among those in need; it reserves the supply to those who can pay the
price and excludes those who can't. . .The raising of prices during
dearth could 'ration' them [the poor] out of the market altogether."
[Op. Cit., p. 285]
In other words, the market cannot be isolated and abstracted from
the network of political, social and legal relations within which
it is situated. This means that all that "supply and demand"
tells us is that those with money can demand more, and be supplied
with more, than those without. Whether this is the "most efficient"
result for society cannot be determined (unless, of course, you assume
that rich people are more valuable than working class ones because
they are rich). This has an obvious effect on production, with "effective
demand" twisting economic activity. As Chomsky notes, "[t]hose
who have more money tend to consume more, for obvious reasons. So
consumption is skewed towards luxuries for the rich, rather than necessities
for the poor." George Barrett brings home of the evil of such
a "skewed" form of production:
"To-day the scramble is to compete for the greatest profits. If there is
more profit to be made in satisfying my lady's passing whim than there is
in feeding hungry children, then competition brings us in feverish haste
to supply the former, whilst cold charity or the poor law can supply the
latter, or leave it unsupplied, just as it feels disposed. That is how it
works out." [Objections to Anarchism]
Therefore, as far as "supply and demand" is concerned, anarchists
are well aware of the need to create and distribute necessary goods
to those who require them. This, however, cannot be achieved under
capitalism. In effect, supply and demand under capitalism results
in those with most money determining what is an "efficient"
allocation of resources for if financial profit is the sole consideration
for resource allocation, then the wealthy can outbid the poor and
ensure the highest returns. The less wealthy can do without.
However, the question remains of how, in an anarchist society, do
you know that valuable labour and materials might be better employed
elsewhere? How do workers judge which tools are most appropriate?
How do they decide among different materials if they all meet the
technical specifications? How important are some goods than others?
How important is cellophane compared to vacuum-cleaner bags?
It is answers like this that the supporters of the market claim
that their system answers. However, as indicated, it does answer them
in irrational and dehumanising ways under capitalism but the question
is: can anarchism answer them? Yes, although the manner in which this
is done varies between anarchist threads. In a mutualist economy,
based on independent and co-operative labour, differences in wealth
would be vastly reduced, so ensuring that irrational aspects of the
market that exist within capitalism would be minimised. The workings
of supply and demand would provide a more just result than under the
current system.
However, collectivist, syndicalist and communist anarchists reject
the market. This rejection often implies, to some, central planning.
As the market socialist David Schweickart puts it, "[i]f profit
considerations do not dictate resource usage and production techniques,
then central direction must do so. If profit is not the goal of a
productive organisation, then physical output (use values) must be."
[Against Capitalism, p. 86]
However, Schweickart is wrong. Horizontal links need not be market
based and co-operation between individuals and groups need not be
hierarchical. What is implied in this comment is that there is just
two ways to relate to others -- namely, by bribery or by authority.
In other words, either by prostitution (purely by cash) or by hierarchy
(the way of the state, the army or capitalist workplace). But people
relate to each other in other ways, such as friendship, love, solidarity,
mutual aid and so on. Thus you can help or associate with others without
having to be ordered to do so or by being paid cash to do so -- we
do so all the time. You can work together because by so doing you
benefit yourself and the other person. This is the real communist
way, that of mutual aid and free agreement.
So Schweickart is ignoring the vast majority of relations in any
society. For example, love/attraction is a horizontal link between
two autonomous individuals and profit considerations do not enter
into the relationship. Thus anarchists argue that Schweickart's argument
is flawed as it fails to recognise that resource usage and production
techniques can be organised in terms of human need and free agreement
between economic actors, without profits or central command. This
system does not mean that we all have to love each other (an impossible
wish). Rather, it means that we recognise that by voluntarily co-operating
as equals we ensure that we remain free individuals and that we can
gain the advantages of sharing resources and work (for example, a
reduced working day and week, self-managed work in safe and hygienic
working conditions and a free selection of the product of a whole
society). In other words, a self-interest which exceeds the narrow
and impoverished "egotism" of capitalist society. In the words
of John O'Neil:
"[F]or it is the institutions themselves that define what
counts as one's interests. In particular, the market
encourages egoism, not primarily because it encourages
an individual to be 'self-interested' -- it would be
unrealistic not to expect individuals to act for the
greater part in a 'self-interested' manner -- but rather
because it defines an individual's interests in a
particularly narrow fashion, most notably in terms of
possession of certain material goods. In consequence,
where market mechanism enter a particular sphere of
life, the pursuit of goods outside this narrow range
of market goods is institutionally defined as an act
of altruism." [The Market, p. 158]
Thus free agreement and horizontal links are not limited to market
transactions -- they develop for numerous reasons and anarchists recognise
this. As George Barret argues:
"Let us imagine now that the great revolt of the workers has taken
place, that their direct action has made them masters of the
situation. It is not easy to see that some man in a street that
grew hungry would soon draw a list of the loaves that were needed,
and take it to the bakery where the strikers were in possession?
Is there any difficulty in supposing that the necessary amount
would then be baked according to this list? By this time the
bakers would know what carts and delivery vans were needed to
send the bread out to the people, and if they let the carters
and vanmen know of this, would these not do their utmost to
supply the vehicles. . . If . . . [the bakers needed] more
benches [to make bread] . . . the carpenters would supply
them [and so on] . . . So the endless continuity goes on
-- a well-balanced interdependence of parts guaranteed, because
need is the motive force behind it all. . . In the same way
that each free individual has associated with his brothers
[and sisters] to produce bread, machinery, and all that is
necessary for life, driven by no other force than his desire
for the full enjoyment of life, so each institution is free
and self-contained, and co-operates and enters into agreements
with other because by so doing it extends its own possibilities.
There is no centralised State exploiting or dictating, but the
complete structure is supported because each part is dependent
on the whole . . . It will be a society responsive to the wants
of the people; it will supply their everyday needs as quickly
as it will respond to their highest aspirations. Its changing
forms will be the passing expressions of humanity." [The
Anarchist Revolution, pp. 17-19]
To make productive decisions we need to know what others need and
information in order to evaluate the alternative options available
to us to satisfy that need. Therefore, it is a question of distributing
information between producers and consumers, information which the
market often hides (or actively blocks) or distorts due to inequalities
in resources (i.e. need does not count in the market, "effective
demand" does and this skews the market in favour of the wealthy).
This information network has partly been discussed in the last
section where a method of comparison between different materials,
techniques and resources based upon use value was discussed. However,
the need to indicate the current fluctuations in production and consumption
needs to be indicated which complements that method.
In a non-Mutualist anarchist system it is assumed that confederations
of syndicates will wish to adjust their capacity if they are aware
of the need to do so. Hence, price changes in response to changes
in demand would not be necessary to provide the information that such
changes are required. This is because a "change in demand first
becomes apparent as a change in the quantity being sold at existing
prices [or being consumed in a moneyless system] and is therefore
reflected in changes in stocks or orders. Such changes are perfectly
good indicators or signals that an imbalance between demand and current
output has developed. If a change in demand for its products proved
to be permanent, a production unit would find its stocks being run
down and its order book lengthening, or its stocks increasing and
orders falling . . . Price changes in response to changes in demand
are therefore not necessary for the purpose of providing information
about the need to adjust capacity." [Pat Devine, Democracy
and Economic Planning, p. 242]
To indicate the relative changes in scarcity of a given good it
will be necessary to calculate a "scarcity index." This would
inform potential users of this good whether its demand is outstripping
its supply so that they may effectively adjust their decisions in
light of the decisions of others. This index could be, for example,
a percentage figure which indicates the relation of orders placed
for a commodity to the amount actually produced. For example, a good
which has a demand higher than its supply would have an index value
of 101% or higher. This value would inform potential users to start
looking for substitutes for it or to economise on its use. Such a
scarcity figure would exist for each collective as well as (possibly)
a generalised figure for the industry as a whole on a regional, "national,"
etc. level.
In this way, a specific good could be seen to be in high demand
and so only those producers who really required it would place
orders for it (so ensuring effective use of resources). Needless to
say, stock levels and other basic book-keeping techniques would be
utilised in order to ensure a suitable buffer level of a specific
good existed. This may result in some excess supply of goods being
produced and used as stock to buffer out unexpected changes in the
aggregate demand for a good.
Such a buffer system would work on an individual workplace level
and at a communal level. Syndicates would obviously have their inventories,
stores of raw materials and finished goods "on the shelf,"
which can be used to meet excesses in demand. Communal stores, hospitals
and so on would have their stores of supplies in case of unexpected
disruptions in supply. This is a common practice even in capitalism,
although it would (perhaps) be extended in a free society to ensure
changes in supply and demand do not have disruptive effects.
Communes and confederations of communes may also create buffer stocks
of goods to handle unforeseen changes in demand and supply. This sort
of inventory has been used by capitalist countries like the USA to
prevent changes in market conditions for agricultural products and
other strategic raw materials producing wild spot-price movements
and inflation. Post-Keynesian economist Paul Davidson argued that
the stability of commodity prices this produced "was an essential
aspect of the unprecedented prosperous economic growth of the world's
economy" between 1945 and 1972. US President Nixon dismantled
these buffer zone programmes, resulting in "violent commodity price
fluctuations" which had serious economic effects. [Controversies
in Post-Keynesian Economics, p. 114 and p. 115]
Again, an anarchist society is likely to utilise this sort of buffer
system to iron out short-term changes in supply and demand. By reducing
short-term fluctuations of the supply of commodities, bad investment
decisions would be reduced as syndicates would not be mislead, as
is the case under capitalism, by market prices being too high or too
low at the time when the decisions where being made. Indeed, if market
prices are not at their equilibrium level then they do not (and cannot)
provide adequate knowledge for rational calculation. The misinformation
conveyed by dis-equilibrium prices can cause very substantial macroeconomic
distortions as profit-maximising capitalists response to unsustainable
prices for, say, tin, and over-invest in a given branch of industry.
Such mal-invest could spread through the economy, causing chaos and
recession.
This, combined with cost-benefit analysis described in section
I.4.4, would allow information about changes within the "economy"
to rapidly spread throughout the whole system and influence all decision
makers without the great majority knowing anything about the original
causes of these changes (which rest in the decisions of those directly
affected). The relevant information is communicated to all involved,
without having to be order by an "all-knowing" central body
as in a Leninist centrally planned economy. As argued in section
I.1.2, anarchists have long realised that no centralised body
could possibly be able to possess all the information dispersed throughout
the economy and if such a body attempted to do so, the resulting bureaucracy
would effectively reduce the amount of information available to society
and so cause shortages and inefficiencies.
To get an idea how this system could work, let use take the example
of a change in the copper industry. Let use assume that a source of
copper unexpectedly dries up or, what amounts to the same thing, that
the demand for copper increases. What would happen?
First, the initial difference would be a diminishing of stocks of
copper which each syndicate maintains to take into account unexpected
changes in requests for copper. This would help "buffer out"
expected, and short lived, changes in supply or requests. Second,
naturally, there is an increase in demand for copper for those syndicates
which are producing it. This immediately increases the "scarcity
index" of those firms, and so the "scarcity index" for
the copper they produce and for the industry as a whole. For example,
the index may rise from 95% (indicating a slight over-production in
respect to current demand) to 115% (indicating that the demand for
copper has risen in respect to the current level of production).
This change in the "scarcity index" (combined with difficulties
in finding copper producing syndicates which can supply their orders)
enters into the decision making algorithms of other syndicates. This,
in turn, results in changes in their plans (for example, substitutes
for copper may be used as they have become a more efficient resource
to use).
This would aid a syndicate when it determined which method of production
to use when creating a consumer good. The cost-benefit analysis out-lined
in the last section would allow a
syndicate to determine the costs involved between competing productive
techniques (i.e. to ascertain which used up least resources and therefore
left the most over for other uses). Producers would already have an
idea of the absolute costs involved in any good they are planning
to use, so relative changes between them would be a deciding factor.
In this way, requests for copper products fall and soon only reflects
those requests that need copper and do not have realistic substitutes
available for it. This would result in the demand falling with respect
to the current supply (as indicated by requests from other syndicates
and to maintain buffer stock levels). Thus a general message has been
sent across the "economy" that copper has become (relatively)
scare and syndicates plans have changed in light of this information.
No central planner made these decisions nor was money required to
facilitate them. We have a decentralised, non-market system based
on the free exchange of products between self-governing associations.
Looking at the wider picture, the question of how to response to
this change in supply/requests for copper presents itself. The copper
syndicate federation and cross-industry syndicate federations have
regular meetings and the question of the changes in the copper situation
present themselves. The copper syndicates, and their federation, must
consider how to response to these changes. Part of this is to determine
whether this change is likely to be short term or long term. A short
term change (say caused by a mine accident, for example) would not
need new investments to be planned. However, long term changes (say
the new requests are due to a new product being created by another
syndicate or an existing mine becoming exhausted) may need co-ordinated
investment (we can expect syndicates to make their own plans in light
of changes, for example, by investing in new machinery to produce
copper more efficiently or to increase efficiency). If the expected
changes of these plans approximately equal the predicted long term
changes, then the federation need not act. However, if they do then
investment in new copper mines or large scale new investment across
the industry may be required. The federation would propose such plans.
Needless to say, the future can be guessed, it cannot be accurately
predicted. Thus there may be over-investment in certain industries
as expected changes do not materialise. However, unlike capitalism,
this would not result in an economic crisis as production would continue
(with over investment within capitalism, workplaces close due to lack
of profits, regardless of social need). All that would happen is that
the syndicates would rationalise production, close down relatively
inefficient plant and concentrate production in the more efficient
ones. The sweeping economic crises of capitalism would be a thing
of the past.
Therefore, each syndicate receives its own orders and supplies and
sends its own produce out. Similarly, communal distribution centres
would order required goods from syndicates it determines. In this
way consumers can change to syndicates which respond to their needs
and so production units are aware of what it is socially useful for
them to produce as well as the social cost of the resources they need
to produce it. In this way a network of horizontal relations spread
across society, with co-ordination achieved by equality of association
and not the hierarchy of the corporate structure. This system ensures
a co-operative response to changes in supply and demand and so reduces
the communication problems associated with the market which help causes
periods of unemployment and economic downturn (see section
C.7.2).
While anarchists are aware of the "isolation paradox" (see
section B.6) this does not mean that they
think the commune should make decisions for people on what
they were to consume. This would be a prison. No, all anarchists agree
that is up to the individual to determine their own needs and for
the collectives they join to determine social requirements like parks,
infrastructure improvements and so on. However, social anarchists
think that it would be beneficial to discuss the framework around
which these decisions would be made. This would mean, for example,
that communes would agree to produce eco-friendly products, reduce
waste and generally make decisions enriched by social interaction.
Individuals would still decide which sort goods they desire, based
on what the collectives produce but these goods would be based on
a socially agreed agenda. In this way waste, pollution and other "externalities"
of atomised consumption could be reduced. For example, while it is
rational for individuals to drive a car to work, collectively this
results in massive irrationality (for example, traffic jams,
pollution, illness, unpleasant social infrastructures). A sane society
would discuss the problems associated with car use and would agree
to produce a fully integrated public transport network which would
reduce pollution, stress, illness, and so on.
Therefore, while anarchists recognise individual tastes and desires,
they are also aware of the social impact of them and so try to create
a social environment where individuals can enrich their personal decisions
with the input of other people's ideas.
On a related subject, it is obvious that different collectives would
produce slightly different goods, so ensuring that people have a choice.
It is doubtful that the current waste implied in multiple products
from different companies (sometimes the same company) all doing the
same job would be continued in an anarchist society. However, production
will be "variations on a theme" in order to ensure consumer
choice and to allow the producers to know what features consumers
prefer. It would be impossible to sit down beforehand and make a list
of what features a good should have -- that assumes perfect knowledge
and that technology is fairly constant. Both these assumptions are
of limited use in real life. Therefore, co-operatives would produce
goods with different features and production would change to meet
the demand these differences suggest (for example, factory A produces
a new CD player, and consumption patterns indicate that this is popular
and so the rest of the factories convert). This is in addition to
R&D experiments and test populations. In this way consumer choice
would be maintained, and enhanced as consumers would be able to influence
the decisions of the syndicates as producers (in some cases) and through
syndicate/commune dialogue.
Therefore, anarchists do not ignore "supply and demand."
Instead, they recognise the limitations of the capitalist version
of this truism and point out that capitalism is based on effective
demand which has no necessary basis with efficient use of resources.
Instead of the market, social anarchists advocate a system based on
horizontal links between producers which effectively communicates
information across society about the relative changes in supply and
demand which reflect actual needs of society and not bank balances.
The response to changes in supply and demand will be discussed in
section I.4.8 (What about investment
decisions?") and section I.4.13 ("Who
will do the dirty or unpleasant work?") will discuss the allocation
of work tasks.
Its a common objection that communism would lead to people wasting resources
by taking more than they need. Kropotkin stated that "free communism
. . . places the product reaped or manufactured at the disposal of
all, leaving to each the liberty to consume them as he pleases in
his own home." [The Place of Anarchism in the Evolution of
Socialist Thought, p. 7]
But, some argue, what if an individual says they "need" a
luxury house or a personal yacht? Simply put, workers may not "need"
to produce for that need. As Tom Brown puts it, "such things are
the product of social labour. . . Under syndicalism. . .it is improbable
that any greedy, selfish person would be able to kid a shipyard full
of workers to build him a ship all for his own hoggish self. There
would be steam luxury yachts, but they would be enjoyed in common"
[Syndicalism, p. 51]
Therefore, communist-anarchists are not blind to the fact that free
access to products is based upon the actual work of real individuals
-- "society" provides nothing, individuals working together
do. This is reflected in the classic statement of communism -- "From
each according to their ability, to each according to their needs."
Therefore, the needs of both consumer and producer are taken
into account. This means that if no syndicate or individual desires
to produce a specific order an order then this order can be classed
as an "unreasonable" demand - "unreasonable" in this
context meaning that no one freely agrees to produce it. Of course,
individuals may agree to barter services in order to get what they
want produced if they really want something but such acts in
no way undermines a communist society.
Communist-anarchists recognise that production, like consumption,
must be based on freedom. However, it has been argued that free access
would lead to waste as people take more than they would under capitalism.
This objection is not as serious as it first appears. There are plenty
of examples within current society to indicate that free access will
not lead to abuses. Let us take three examples, public libraries,
water and pavements. In public libraries people are free to sit and
read books all day. However, few if any actually do so. Neither do
people always take the maximum number of books out at a time. No,
they use the library as they need to and feel no need to maximise
their use of the institution. Some people never use the library, although
it is free. In the case of water supplies, its clear that people do
not leave taps on all day because water is often supplied freely or
for a fixed charge. Similarly with pavements, people do not walk everywhere
because to do so is free. In such cases individuals use the resource
as and when they need to.
We can expect a similar results as other resources become freely
available. In effect, this argument makes as much sense as arguing
that individuals will travel to stops beyond their destination
if public transport is based on a fixed charge! And only an idiot
would travel further than required in order to get "value for money."
However, for many the world seems to be made up of such idiots. Perhaps
it would be advisable for such critics to hand out political leaflets
in the street. Even though the leaflets are free, crowds rarely form
around the person handing them out demanding as many copies of the
leaflet as possible. Rather, those interested in what the leaflets
have to say take them, the rest ignore them. If free access automatically
resulted in people taking more than they need then critics of free
communism would be puzzled by the lack of demand for what they were
handing out!
Part of the problem is that capitalist economics have invented a
fictional type of person, Homo Economicus, whose wants are
limitless: an individual who always wants more and more of everything
and so whose needs could only satisfied if resources were limitless
too. Needless to say, such an individual has never existed. In reality,
wants are not limitless -- people have diverse tastes and rarely want
everything available nor want more of a good than that which satisfies
their need.
Communist Anarchists also argue that we cannot judge people's buying
habits under capitalism with their actions in a free society. After
all, advertising does not exist to meet people's needs but rather
to create needs by making people insecure about themselves. Simply
put, advertising does not amplify existing needs or sell the goods
and services that people already wanted. Advertising would not need
to stoop to the level of manipulative ads that create false personalities
for products and provide solutions for problems that the advertisers
themselves create if this was the case.
Crude it may be, but advertising is based on the creation of insecurities,
preying on fears and obscuring rational thought. In an alienated society
in which people are subject to hierarchical controls, feelings of
insecurity and lack of control and influence would be natural. It
is these fears that advertising multiples -- if you cannot have real
freedom, then at least you can buy something new. Advertising is the
key means of making people unhappy with what they have (and who they
are). It is naive to claim that advertising has no effect on the psyche
of the receiver or that the market merely responds to the populace
and makes no attempt to shape their thoughts. Advertising creates
insecurities about such matter-of-course things and so generates irrational
urges to buy which would not exist in a libertarian communist society.
However, there is a deeper point to be made here about consumerism.
Capitalism is based on hierarchy and not liberty. This leads to a
weakening of individuality and a lose of self-identity and sense of
community. Both these senses are a deep human need and consumerism
is often a means by which people overcome their alienation from their
selves and others (religion, ideology and drugs are other means of
escape). Therefore the consumption within capitalism reflects its
values, not some abstract "human nature." As Bob Black argues:
"what we want, what we are capable of wanting is relative to the
forms of social organisation. People 'want' fast food because they
have to hurry back to work, because processed supermarket food
doesn't taste much better anyway, because the nuclear family (for
the dwindling minority who have even that to go home to) is too small
and too stressed to sustain much festivity in cooking and eating
-- and so forth. It is only people who can't get what they want
who resign themselves to want more of what they can get. Since
we cannot be friends and lovers, we wail for more candy."
[Smokestack Lightning]
Therefore, most anarchists think that consumerism is a product of
a hierarchical society within which people are alienated from themselves
and the means by which they can make themselves really happy
(i.e. meaningful relationships, liberty, work, and experiences). Consumerism
is a means of filling the spiritual hole capitalism creates within
us by denying our freedom.
This means that capitalism produces individuals who define themselves
by what they have, not who they are. This leads to consumption for
the sake of consumption, as people try to make themselves happy by
consuming more commodities. But, as Erich Fromm points out, this cannot
work for and only leads to even more insecurity (and so even more
consumption):
"If I am what I have and if what I have is lost, who then am I?
Nobody but a defeated, deflated, pathetic testimony to a wrong way
of living. Because I can lose what I have, I am necessarily
constantly worried that I shall lose what I have." [To Have
Or To Be, p. 111]
Such insecurity easily makes consumerism seem a "natural"
way of life and so make communism seem impossible. However, rampant
consumerism is far more a product of lack of meaningful freedom within
an alienated society than a "natural law" of human existence.
In a society that encouraged and protected individuality by non-hierarchical
social relationships and organisations, individuals would have a strong
sense of self and so be less inclined to mindlessly consume. As Fromm
puts it: "If I am what I am and not what I have, nobody
can deprive me of or threaten my security and my sense of identity.
My centre is within myself." [Op. Cit., p. 112] Such self-centred
individuals do not have to consume endlessly to build a sense of security
or happiness within themselves (a sense which can never actually be
created by those means).
In other words, the well-developed individuality that an anarchist
society would develop would have less need to consume than the average
person in a capitalist one. This is not to suggest that life will
be bare and without luxuries in an anarchist society, far from it.
A society based on the free expression of individuality could be nothing
but rich in wealth and diverse in goods and experiences. What we are
arguing here is that an anarchist-communist society would not have
to fear rampant consumerism making demand outstrip supply constantly
and always precisely because freedom will result in a non-alienated
society of well developed individuals.
Of course, this may sound totally utopian. Possibly it is. However,
as Oscar Wilde said, a map of the world without Utopia on it is not
worth having. One thing is sure, if the developments we have outlined
above fail to appear and attempts at communism fail due to waste and
demand exceeding supply then a free society would make the necessary
decisions and introduce some means of limiting supply (such as, for
example, labour notes, equal wages, and so on). Whether or not full
communism can be introduced instantly is a moot point amongst
anarchists, although most would like to see society develop towards
a communist goal eventually.
It is often claimed that with a market producers would ignore the needs of
consumers. Without the threat (and fear) of unemployment and destitution
and the promise of higher profits, producers would turn out shoddy
goods. The holders of this argument point to the example of the Soviet
Union which was notorious for terrible goods and a lack of consumer
goods.
Capitalism, in comparison to the old Soviet block, does, to some
degree make the producers accountable to the consumers. If the producer
ignores the desires of the producer then they will loose business
to those who do not and be forced, perhaps, out of business (large
companies, of course, due to their resources can hold out far longer
than smaller ones). Thus we have the carrot (profits) and the stick
(fear of poverty) -- although, of course, the carrot can be used as
a stick against the consumer (no profit, no sale, no matter how much
the consumer may need it). Ignoring the obvious objection to this
analogy (namely we are human beings, not donkeys!) it does
have contain an important point. What will ensure that consumer needs
are meet in an anarchist society?
In an Individualist-Mutualist anarchist system, as it is based on
a market, producers would be subject to market forces and so have
to meet consumers needs. Of course, there are three problems with
this system. Firstly, those without money have no access to the goods
produced and so the ill, the handicapped, the old and the young may
go without. Secondly, inequalities may become more pronounced as successful
producers drive others out of business. Such inequality would skew
consumption as it does in capitalism, so ensuring that a minority
get all the good things in life (Individualist anarchists would claim
that this is unlikely, as non-labour income would be impossible).
Lastly, there is the danger that the system would revert back to capitalism.
This is because unsuccessful co-operatives may fail and cast their
members into unemployment. This creates a pool of unemployed workers,
which (in turn) creates a danger of wage-labour being re-created as
successful firms hire the unemployed but do not allow them to join
the co-operative. This would effectively end self-management and anarchy.
Moreover, the successful could hire "protection agencies" (i.e.
thugs) to enforce capitalist ideas of property rights.
This problem was recognised by Proudhon, who argued for an agro-industrial
federation to protect self-management from the effects of market forces,
as well as the collectivist-anarchists. In both these schemes, self-management
would be protected by agreements between co-operative workplaces to
share their resources with others in the confederation, so ensuring
that new workers would gain access to the means of life on the same
terms as those who already use it. In this way wage-labour would be
abolished. In addition, the confederation of workplaces would practice
mutual aid and provide resources and credit at cost to their members,
so protecting firms from failure while they adjust their production
to meet consumer needs.
In both these systems producers would be accountable to consumers
by the process of buying and selling between co-operatives. As James
Guillaume put it, the workers' associations would "deposit their
unconsumed commodities in the facilities provided by the [communal]
Bank of Exchange . . . The Bank of Exchange would remit to the producers
negotiable vouchers representing the value of their products"
(this value "having been established in advance by a contractual
agreement between the regional co-operative federations and the various
communes"). [Bakunin on Anarchism, pp. 366] If the goods
are not in demand then the producer associations would not be able
to sell the product of their labour to the Bank of Exchange and so
they would adjust their output accordingly. Overtime Guillaume hopes
that this system would evolve into free communism as production develops
and continually meets demand [Op. Cit., p. 368].
While mutualist and collectivist anarchists can argue that producers
would respond to consumer needs otherwise they would not get an income,
communist-anarchists (as they seek a moneyless society) cannot argue
their system would reward producers in this way. So what mechanism
exists to ensure that "the wants of all" are, in fact, met?
How does anarcho-communism ensure that production becomes "the
mere servant of consumption" and "mould itself on the wants
of the consumer, not dictate to him conditions"? [Peter Kropotkin,
Act for Yourselves, p. 57]
Libertarian communists argue that in a free communist society
consumers' needs would be meet. This is because of the decentralised
and federal nature of a communist-anarchist society.
So what is the mechanism which makes producers accountable to consumers
in a libertarian communist society? Firstly, communes would practice
their power of "exit" in the distributive network. If a syndicate
was producing sub-standard goods or refusing to change their output
in the face of changing consumer needs, then the communal stores would
turn to those syndicates which were producing the goods desired.
The original syndicates would then be producing for their own stocks,
a pointless task and one few, if any, would do. After all, people
generally desire their work to have meaning, to be useful. To just
work, producing something no-one wanted would be such a demoralising
task that few, if any, sane people would do it (under capitalism people
put up with spirit destroying work as some income is better than none,
such an "incentive" would not exist in a free society).
As can be seen, "exit" would still exit in libertarian communism.
However, it could be argued that unresponsive or inefficient syndicates
would still exist, exploiting the rest of society by producing rubbish
(or goods which are of less than average quality) and consuming the
products of other people's labour, confident that without the fear
of poverty and unemployment they can continue to do this indefinitely.
Without the market, it is argued, some form of bureaucracy would be
required (or develop) which would have the power to punish such syndicates.
Thus the state would continue in "libertarian" communism, with
the "higher" bodies using coercion against the lower ones to
ensure they meet consumer needs or produced enough.
While, at first glance, this appears to be a possible problem on
closer inspection it is flawed. This is because anarchism is based
not only on "exit" but also "voice." Unlike capitalism,
libertarian communism is based on association and communication. Each
syndicate and commune is in free agreement and confederation with
all the others. Thus, is a specific syndicate was producing bad goods
or not pulling its weight, then those in contact with them would soon
realise this. First, those unhappy with a syndicate's work would appeal
to them directly to get their act together. If this did not work,
then they would notify their disapproval by refusing to "contract"
with them in the future (i.e. they would use their power of "exit"
as well as refusing to provide the syndicate with any goods it
requires). They would also let society as a whole know (via the media)
as well as contacting consumer groups and co-operatives and the relevant
producer and communal confederations which they and the other syndicate
are members of, who would, in turn, inform their members of the problems
(the relevant confederations could include local and regional communal
confederations, the general cross-industry confederation, its own
industrial/communal confederation and the confederation of the syndicate
not pulling its weight). In today's society, a similar process of
"word of mouth" warnings and recommendations goes on, along
with consumer groups and programmes. Our suggestions here are an extension
of this common practice (that this process exists suggests that the
price mechanism does not, in fact, provide consumers with all the
relevant information they need to make decisions, but this is an aside).
If the syndicate in question, after a certain number of complaints
had been lodged against it, still did not change its ways, then it
would suffer non-violent direct action. This would involve the boycotting
of the syndicate and (perhaps) its local commune with products and
investment, so resulting in the syndicate being excluded from the
benefits of association. The syndicate would face the fact that no
one else wanted to associate with it and suffer a drop in the goods
coming its way, including consumption products for its members. In
effect, a similar process would occur to that of a firm under capitalism
that looses its customers and so its income. However, we doubt that
a free society would subject any person to the evils of destitution
or starvation (as capitalism does). Rather, it would provide a bare
minimum of goods required for survival would still be available.
In the unlikely event this general boycott did not result in a change
of heart, then two options are left available. These are either the
break-up of the syndicate and the finding of its members new work
places or the giving/selling of the syndicate to its current users
(i.e. to exclude them from the society they obviously do not want
to be part off). The decision of which option to go for would depend
on the importance of the workplace in question and the desires of
the syndicates' members. If the syndicate refused to disband, then
option two would be the most logical choice (unless the syndicate
controlled a scare resource). The second option would, perhaps, be
best as this would drive home the benefits of association as the expelled
syndicate would have to survive on its own, subject to survival by
selling the product of its labour and would soon return to the fold.
Kropotkin argued in these terms over 100 years ago. It is worthwhile
to quote him at length:
"First of all, is it not evident that if a society, founded on
the principle of free work, were really menaced by loafers, it
could protect itself without the authoritarian organisation
we have nowadays, and without having recourse to wagedom
[or payment by results]?
"Let us take a group of volunteers, combining for some particular enterprise.
Having its success at heart, they all work with a will, save one
of the associates, who is frequently absent from his post. . . .
some day the comrade who imperils their enterprise will be told:
'Friend, we should like to work with you; but as you are often absent
from your post, and you do your work negligently, we must part.
Go and find other comrades who will put up with your indifference!'
"This is so natural that it is practised everywhere, even nowadays,
in all industries . . . [I]f [a worker] does his work badly, if
he hinders his comrades by his laziness or other defects, if he
is quarrelsome, there is an end of it; he is compelled to leave
the workshop.
"Authoritarian pretend that it is the almighty employer and his
overseers who maintain regularity and quality of work in factories.
In reality . . . it is the factory itself, the workmen [and women]
who see to the good quality of the work . . .
"Not only in industrial workshops do things go in this way; it
happens everywhere, every day, on a scale that only bookworms have
as yet no notion of. When a railway company, federated with other
companies, fails to fulfil its engagements, when its trains are
late and goods lie neglected at the stations, the other companies
threaten to cancel the contract, and that threat usually suffices.
"It is generally believed . . . that commerce only keeps to its
engagements from fear of lawsuits. Nothing of the sort; nine times
in ten the trader who has not kept his word will not appear before
a judge. . . the sole fact of having driven a creditor to bring
a lawsuit suffices for the vast majority of merchants to refuse
for good to have any dealings with a man who has compelled one of
them to go to law.
"This being so, why should means that are used today among workers
in the workshop, traders in the trade, and railway companies in
the organisation of transport, not be made use of in a society based
on voluntary work?" [The Conquest of Bread, pp. 152-3]
Thus, to ensure producer accountability of production to consumption,
no bureaucratic body is required in libertarian communism (or any
other form of anarchism). Rather, communication and direct action
by those affected by unresponsive producers would be an effective
and efficient means of ensuring the accountability of production to
consumption.
Obviously, a given society needs to take into account changes in consumption
and so invest in new means of production. An anarchist society is
no different. As G.D.H Cole points out, "it is essential at all
times, and in accordance with considerations which vary from time
to time, for a community to preserve a balance between production
for ultimate use and production for use in further production. And
this balance is a matter which ought to be determined by and on behalf
of the whole community." [Guild Socialism Restated, p.
144]
How this balance is determined varies according to the school of
anarchist thought considered. All agree, however, that such an important
task should be under effective community control.
The mutualists see the solution to the problems of investment as
creating a system of mutual banks, which reduce interest rates to
zero. This would be achieved "[b]y the organisation of credit,
on the principle of reciprocity or mutualism. . .In such an organisation
credit is raised to the dignity of a social function, managed by the
community; and, as society never speculates upon its members, it will
lend its credit . . . at the actual cost of transaction." [Charles
A. Dana, Proudhon and his "Bank of the People", p. 36]
This would allow money to be made available to those who needed it
and so break the back of the capitalist business cycle (i.e. credit
would be available as required, not when it was profitable for bankers
to supply it) as well as capitalist property relations.
So under a mutualist regime, credit for investment would be available
from two sources. Firstly, an individual's or co-operative's own saved
funds and, secondly, as zero interest loans from mutual banks, credit
unions and other forms of credit associations. Loans would be allocated
to projects which the mutual banks considered likely to succeed and
repay the original loan.
Collectivist and communist anarchists recognise that credit is based
on human activity, which is represented as money. As the Guild Socialist
G.D.H. Cole pointed out, the "understanding of this point [on investment]
depends on a clear appreciation of the fact that all real additions
to capital take the form of directing a part of the productive power
of labour and using certain materials not for the manufacture of products
and the rendering of services incidental to such manufacture for purposes
of purposes of further production." [Guild Socialism Restated,
p. 143] So collectivist and communist anarchists agree with their
Mutualist cousins when they state that "[a]ll credit presupposes
labour, and, if labour were to cease, credit would be impossible"
and that the "legitimate source of credit" was "the labouring
classes" who "ought to control it" and "whose benefit
[it should] be used" [Charles A. Dana, Op. Cit., p. 35]
Therefore, in collectivism, investment funds would exist for syndicates,
communes and their in community ("People's") "banks."
These would be used to store depreciation funds and as well as other
funds agreed to by the collectives for investment projects (for example,
collectives may agree to allocate a certain percentage of their labour
notes to a common account in order to have the necessary funds available
for major investment projects). Similarly, individual syndicates and
communes would also create a store of funds for their own investment
projects. In this, collectivist anarchism is like mutualism, with
communal credit banks being used to facilitate investment by organising
credit and savings on a non-exploitative basis (i.e. issuing credit
at zero interest).
However, the confederations of syndicates to which these "People's
Banks" would be linked would have a defined planning function
as well -- i.e. taking a role in investment decisions to ensure that
production meets demand (see below). This would be one factor in deciding
which investment plans should be given funding (this, we stress, is
hardly "central planning" as capitalist firms also plan future
investments to meet expected demand).
In a communist-anarchist society, things would be slightly different
as this would not have the labour notes used in mutualism and collectivism.
This means that the collectives would agree that a certain part of
their output and activity will be directed to investment projects.
In effect, each collective is able to draw upon the sums approved
of by the Commune in the form of an agreed claim on the labour power
of all the collectives (investment "is essentially an allocation
of material and labour, and fundamentally, an allocation of human
productive power." [Cole, Op. Cit., pp. 144-5]). In this
way, mutual aid ensures a suitable pool of resources for the future
from which all benefit.
How would this work? Obviously investment decisions have implications
for society as a whole. The implementation of these decisions require
the use of existing capacity and so must be the responsibility
of the appropriate level of the confederation in question. Investment
decisions taken at levels above the production unit become effective
in the form of demand for the current output of the syndicates which
have the capacity to produce the goods required. This would require
each syndicate to "prepare a budget, showing its estimate of requirements
both of goods or services for immediate use, and of extensions and
improvements." [Cole, Op. Cit., p. 145] These budgets and
investment projects would be discussed at the appropriate level of
the confederation (in this, communist-anarchism would be similar to
collectivist anarchism).
The confederation of syndicates/communes would be the ideal forum
to discuss (communicate) the various investment plans required --
and to allocate scarce resources between competing ends. This would
involve, possibly, dividing investment into two groups -- necessary
and optional -- and using statistical techniques to consider the impact
of an investment decision (for example, the use of input-output tables
could be used to see if a given investment decision in, say, the steel
industry would require investment in energy production). In this way
social needs and social costs would be taken into account and
ensure that investment decisions are not taken in isolation from one
another, so causing bottle-necks and insufficient production due to
lack of inputs from other industries.
Necessary investments are those which have been agreed upon by the
appropriate confederation. It means that resources and productive
capacity are prioritised towards them, as indicated in the agreed
investment project. It will not be required to determine precisely
who will provide the necessary goods for a given investment
project, just that it has priority over other requests. When a bank
gives a company credit, it rarely asks exactly where that money will
be built. Rather, it gives the company the power to command the labour
of other workers by supplying them with credit. Similarly in an anarcho-communist
society, except that the other workers have agreed to supply their
labour for the project in question by designating it a "necessary
investment." This means when a request arrives at a syndicate
for a "necessary investment" a syndicate must try and meet
it (i.e. it must place the request into its production schedule before
"optional" requests, assuming that it has the capacity to meet
it). A list of necessary investment projects, including what they
require and if they have been ordered, will be available to all syndicates
to ensure such a request is a real one.
Optional investment is simply investment projects which have not
been agreed to by a confederation. This means that when a syndicate
or commune places orders with a syndicate they may not be meet or
take longer to arrive. The project may go ahead, but it depends on
whether the syndicate or commune can find workers willing to do that
work. This would be applicable for small scale investment decisions
or those which other communes/syndicates do not think of as essential.
This we have two inter-related investment strategies. A communist-anarchist
society would prioritise certain forms of investment by the use of
"necessary" and "optional" investment projects. This
socialisation of investment will allow a free society to ensure that
social needs are meet while maintaining a decentralised and dynamic
"economy." Major projects to meet social needs will be organised effectively,
but with diversity for minor projects. In addition, it will also allow
such a society to keep track of what actual percentage of resources
are being used for investment, so ensuring that current needs are
not sacrificed for future ones and vice-versa.
As for when investment is needed, it is clear that this will be
based on the changes in demand for goods in both collectivist and
communist anarchism. As Guilliame puts it, "[b]y means of statistics
gathered from all the communes in a region, it will be possible to
scientifically balance production and consumption. In line with these
statistics, it will also be possible to add more help in industries
where production is insufficient and reduce the number of men where
there is a surplus of production." [Bakunin on Anarchism,
p. 370] Obviously, investment in branches of production with a high
demand would be essential and this would be easily seen from the statistics
generated by the collectives and communes. Tom Brown states this obvious
point:
"Goods, as now, will be produced in greater variety, for workers
like producing different kinds, and new models, of goods. Now if
some goods are unpopular, they will be left on the shelves. . .
Of other goods more popular, the shops will be emptied. Surely
it is obvious that the assistant will decrease his order of the
unpopular line and increase his order of the popular."
[Syndicalism, p. 55]
As a rule of thumb, syndicates that produce investment goods would
be inclined to supply other syndicates who are experiencing excess
demand before others, all other things being equal. Because of such
guidelines and communication between producers, investment would go
to those industries that actually required them. In other words, customer
choice (as indicated by individuals choosing between the output of
different syndicates) would generate information that is relevant
to investment decisions.
As production would be decentralised as far as it is sensible and
rationale to do so, each locality/region would be able to understand
its own requirements and apply them as it sees fit. This means that
large-scale planning would not be conducted (assuming that it could
work in practice, of course) simply because it would not be needed.
This, combined with an extensive communications network, would ensure
that investment not only did not duplicate unused plant within the
economy but that investments take into account the specific problems
and opportunities each locality has. Of course, collectives would
experiment with new lines and technology as well as existing lines
and so invest in new technologies and products. As occurs under capitalism,
extensive consumer testing would occur before dedicating major investment
decisions to new products.
In addition, investment decisions would also require information
which showed the different outcomes of different options. By this
we simply mean an analysis of how different investment projects relate
to each other in terms of inputs and outputs, compared to the existing
techniques. This would be in the form of cost-benefit analysis (as
outlined in section I.4.4) and would
show when it would make economic, social and ecological sense to switch
industrial techniques to more efficient and/or more empowering and/or
more ecologically sound methods. Such an evaluation would indicate
levels of inputs and compare them to the likely outputs. For example,
if a new production technique reduced the number of hours worked in
total (comparing the hours worked to produce the machinery with that
reduced in using it) as well as reducing waste products for a similar
output, then such a technique would be implemented.
Similarly with communities. A commune will obviously have to decide
upon and plan civic investment (e.g. new parks, housing and so forth).
They will also have the deciding say in industrial developments in
their area as it would be unfair for syndicate to just decide to build
a cement factory next to a housing co-operative if they did not want
it. There is a case for arguing that the local commune will decide
on investment decisions for syndicates in its area (for example, a
syndicate may produce X plans which will be discussed in the local
commune and 1 plan finalised from the debate). For regional decisions
(for example, a new hospital) would be decided at the appropriate
level, with information fed from the health syndicate and consumer
co-operatives. The actual location for investment decisions will be
worked out by those involved. However, local syndicates must be the
focal point for developing new products and investment plans in order
to encourage innovation.
Therefore, under social anarchism no capital market is required
to determine whether investment is required and what form it would
take. The work that apologists for capitalism claim currently is done
by the stock market can be replaced by co-operation and communication
between workplaces in a decentralised, confederated network. The relative
needs of different consumers of a product can be evaluated by the
producers and an informed decision reached on where it would best
be used.
Without a capital market, housing, workplaces and so on will no
longer be cramped into the smallest space possible. Instead, housing,
schools, hospitals, workplaces and so on will be built within a "green"
environment. This means that human constructions will be placed within
a natural setting and no longer stand apart from nature. In this way
human life can be enriched and the evils of cramping as many humans
and things into a small a space as is "economical" can be overcome.
In addition, the stock market is hardly the means by which capital
is actually raised within capitalism. As Engler points out, "[s]upporters
of the system . . . claim that stock exchanges mobilise funds for
business. Do they? When people buy and sell shares, 'no investment
goes into company treasuries . . . Shares simply change hands for
cash in endless repetition.' Company treasuries get funds only from
new equity issues. These accounted for an average of a mere 0.5 per
cent of shares trading in the US during the 1980s." [Apostles
of Greed, pp. 157-158] Indeed, Doug Henwood argues that "the
signals emitted by the stock market are either irrelevant or harmful
to real economic activity, and that the stock market itself counts
little or nothing as a source of finance. Shareholders . . . have
no useful role." [Wall Street, p. 292]
Moreover, the existence of a stock market has serious (negative)
effects on investment. As Henwood notes, there "are serious communication
problems between managers and shareholders." This is because "[e]ven
if participants are aware of an upward bias to earnings estimates
[of companies], and even if they correct for it, managers would still
have an incentive to try to fool the market. If you tell the truth,
your accurate estimate will be marked down by a sceptical market.
So, it's entirely rational for managers to boost profits in the short
term, either through accounting gimmickry or by making only investments
with quick paybacks." So, managers "facing a market [the stock
market] that is famous for its preference for quick profits today
rather than patient long-term growth have little choice but to do
its bidding. Otherwise, their stock will be marked down, and the firm
ripe for takeover." While "[f]irms and economies can't get
richer by starving themselves" stock market investors "can
get richer when the companies they own go hungry -- at least in the
short term. As for the long term, well, that's someone else's problem
the week after next." [Op. Cit., p. 171]
Ironically, this situation has a parallel with Stalinist central
planning. Under that system manager of State workplaces had an incentive
to lie about their capacity to the planning bureaucracy. The planner
would, in turn, assume higher capacity, so harming honest managers
and encouraging them to lie. This, of course, had a seriously bad
impact on the economy. Unsurprisingly, the similar effects caused
by capital markets on economies subject to them as just as bad, downplaying
long term issues and investment.
And it hardly needs to be repeated that capitalism results in production
being skewed away from the working class and that the "efficiency"
of market allocation is highly suspect.
Only by taking investment decisions away from "experts" and
placing it in the hands of ordinary people will current generations
be able to invest according to their, and future generations', self-interest.
It is hardly in our interest to have a institution whose aim is to
make the wealthy even wealthier and on whose whims are dependent the
lives of millions of people.
Not necessarily. This is because technology can allow us to "do more with
less," technological progress can improve standards of living
for all people, and technologies can be used to increase personal
freedom: medical technology, for instance, can free people from the
scourges of pain, illness, and a "naturally" short life span;
technology can be used to free labour from mundane chores associated
with production; advanced communications technology can enhance our
ability to freely associate. The list goes on and on. Therefore, most
anarchists agree with Kropotkin when he pointed out that the "development
of [the industrial] technique at last gives man [sic!] the opportunity
to free himself from slavish toil." [Ethics, p. 2]
For example, increased productivity under capitalism usually leads
to further exploitation and domination, displaced workers, economic
crisis, etc. But it does not have to in an anarchist world. By way
of example, consider a commune in which all resources are distributed
equally amongst the members. Let us say that this commune has 5 people
who desire to be bakers (or 5 people are needed to work the communal
bakery) and, for the sake of argument, 20 hours of production per
person, per week is spent on baking bread for the local commune. Now,
what happens if the introduction of automation, as desired, planned
and organised by the workers themselves, reduces the amount of
labour required for bread production to 15 person-hours per week,
including the labour cost spent in creating and maintaining the new
machinery? Clearly, no one stands to lose -- even if someone's work
is "displaced", that person will continue to receive the same
resource income as before -- and they might even gain. This last is
due to the fact that 5 person-hours have been freed up from the task
of bread production, and those person-hours may now be used elsewhere
or converted to leisure, either way increasing each person's standard
of living.
Obviously, this happy outcome derives not only from the technology
used, but also (and critically) from its use in an equitable economic
and social system. Certainly, a wide variety of outcomes would be
possible under alternative social systems. Yet, we have managed to
prove our point: in the end, there is no reason why the use of technology
cannot be used to empower people and increase their freedom!
Of course technology can be used for oppressive ends. Human knowledge,
like all things, can be used to increase freedom or to decrease it,
to promote inequality or reduce it, to aid the worker or to subjugate
them, and so on. Technology, as we argued in section
D.10, cannot be considered in isolation from the society it is
created and used in. In a hierarchical society, technology will be
introduced that serves the interests of the powerful and helps marginalise
and disempower the majority ("technology is political," to
use David Noble's expression), it does not evolve in isolation from
human beings and the social relationships and power structures between
them. "Capitalism has created," Cornelius Castoriadais correctly
argued, "a capitalist technology, for its own ends, which
are by no means neutral. The real essence of capitalist technology
is not to develop production for production's sake: it is to subordinate
and dominate the producers." This means that in an anarchist society,
technology would have to be transformed and/or developed which empowered
those who used it, so reducing any oppressive aspects of it. In the
words of Cornelius Castoriadais, the "conscious transformation
of technology will . . . be a central task of a society of free workers."
[Workers' Councils and the Economics of a Self-Managed Society,
p. 13]
However, as Kropotkin argued, we are (potentially) in a good position,
because "[f]or the first time in the history of civilisation, mankind
has reached a point where the means of satisfying its needs are in
excess of the needs themselves. To impose, therefore, as hitherto
been done, the curse of misery and degradation upon vast divisions
of mankind, in order to secure well-being and further development
for the few, is needed no more: well-being can be secured for all,
without placing on anyone the burden of oppressive, degrading toil
and humanity can at last build its entire social life on the basis
of justice." [Ethics, p. 2] The question is, for most anarchists,
how can we humanise and modify this technology and make it socially
and individually liberatory, rather than destroying it (where applicable,
of course, certain forms of technology will probably be eliminated
due to their inherently destructive nature).
For Kropotkin, like most anarchists, the way to humanise technology
and industry was for "the workers [to] lay hands on factories,
houses and banks" and so "present production would be completely
revolutionised by this simple fact." This would be the start of
a process which would integrate industry and agriculture, as
it was "essential that work-shops, foundries and factories develop
within the reach of the fields." [The Conquest of Bread,
p. 190] Such a process would obviously involve the transformation
of both the structure and technology of capitalism rather than its
simple and unthinking application.
There is another reason for anarchists seeking to transform rather
then eliminate current technology. As Bakunin pointed out, "to
destroy. . . all the instruments of labour [i.e. technology and industry]
. . . would be to condemn all humanity -- which is infinity too numerous
today to exist. . . on the simple gifts of nature . . . -- to . .
. death by starvation." His solution to the question of technology
was, like Kropotkin's, to place it at the service of those who use
it, to create "the intimate and complete union of capital and labour"
so that it would "not . . . remain concentrated in the hands of
a separate, exploiting class." Only this could "smash the tyranny
of capital." [The Basic Bakunin, pp. 90-1]
Thus, most anarchists seek to transform technology and industry
rather than get rid of it totally.
Most anarchists are aware that "Capital invested in machines
that would re-enforce the system of domination [within the capitalist
workplace], and this decision to invest, which might in the long run
render the chosen technology economical, was not itself an economical
decision but a political one, with cultural sanction." [David
Noble, Progress Without People, p. 6] But this does not change
the fact that we need to be in possession of the means of production
before we can decide what to keep, what to change and what to throw
away as inhuman. In other words, it is not enough to get rid of the
boss, although this is a necessary first step!
It is for these reasons that anarchists have held a wide range of
opinions concerning the relationship between human knowledge and anarchism.
Some, such as Peter Kropotkin, were themselves scientists and saw
great potential for the use of advanced technology to expand human
freedom. Others have held technology at arm's length, concerned about
its oppressive uses, and a few have rejected science and technology
completely. All of these are, of course, possible anarchist positions.
But most anarchists support Kropotkin's viewpoint, but with a healthy
dose of practical Luddism when viewing how technology is (ab)used
in capitalism ("The worker will only respect machinery in the
day when it becomes his friend, shortening his work, rather than
as today, his enemy, taking away jobs, killing workers."
[Emile Pouget quoted by David Noble, Op. Cit., p. 15]).
Anarchists of all types recognise the importance of critically evaluating
technology, industry and so on. The first step of any revolution will
be the seizing of the means of production. The second immediate
step will be the start of their radical transformation by those who
use them and are affected by them (i.e. communities, those who use
the products they produce and so on). Few, if any, anarchists seek
to maintain the current industrial set-up or apply, unchanged, capitalist
technology. We doubt that many of the workers who use that technology
and work in industry will leave either unchanged. Rather, they will
seek to liberate the technology they use from the influences of capitalism,
just as they liberated themselves. In Kropotkin's words "if most
of the workshops we know are foul and unhealthy, it is because the
workers are of no account in the organisation of factories" and
"[s]laves can submit to them, but free men will create new conditions,
and their will be pleasant and infinitely more productive." [The
Conquest of Bread, p. 121 and p. 123]
This will, of course, involve the shutting down (perhaps instantly
or over a period of time) of many branches of industry and the abandonment
of such technology which cannot be transformed into something more
suitable for use by free individuals. And, of course, many workplaces
will be transformed to produce new goods required to meet the needs
of the revolutionary people or close due to necessity as a social
revolution will disrupt the market for their goods -- such as producers
of luxury export goods or suppliers of repressive equipment for state
security forces. Altogether, a social revolution implies the transformation
of technology and industry, just as it implies the transformation
of society.
This process of transforming work can be seen from the Spanish Revolution.
Immediately after taking over the means of production, the Spanish
workers started to transform it. They eliminated unsafe and unhygienic
working conditions and workplaces and created new workplaces based
on safe and hygienic working conditions. Working practices were transformed
as those who did the work (and so understood it) managed it. Many
workplaces were transformed to create products required by the war
effort (such as weapons, ammunition, tanks and so on) and to produce
consumer goods to meet the needs of the local population as the normal
sources of such goods, as Kropotkin predicted, were unavailable due
to economic disruption and isolation. Needless to say, these were
only the beginnings of the process but they clearly point the way
any libertarian social revolution would progress, namely the total
transformation of work, industry and technology. Technological change
would develop along new lines, ones which will take into account human
and ecological needs rather the power and profits of a minority.
Explicit in anarchism is the believe that capitalist and statist
methods cannot be used for socialist and libertarian ends. In our
struggle for workers' and community self-management is the awareness
that workplaces are not merely sites of production -- they are also
sites of reproduction, the reproduction of certain social relationships
based on specific relations of authority between those who give orders
and those who take them. The battle to democratise the workplace,
to place the collective initiative of the direct producers at the
centre of any productive activity, is clearly a battle to transform
the workplace, the nature of work and, by necessity, technology as
well.
As Kropotkin argued, a "revolution is more than a mere change
of the prevailing political system. It implies the awakening of human
intelligence, the increasing of the inventive spirit tenfold, a hundredfold;
it is the dawn of a new science . . . It is a revolution in the minds
of men, as deep, and deeper still, than in their institutions . .
. the sole fact of having laid hands on middle-class property will
imply the necessity of completely re-organising the whole of economic
life in the workplaces, the dockyards, the factories." [The
Conquest of Bread, p. 192] And some think that industry and technology
will remain unchanged by such a process and that workers will continue
doing the same sort of work, in the same way, using the same methods!
For Kropotkin "all production has taken a wrong direction, as
it is not carried on with a view to securing well-being for all"
under capitalism. [Op. Cit., p. 101] Well-being for all obviously
includes those who do the producing and so covers the structure of
industry and the technological processes used. Similarly, well-being
also includes a person's environment and surroundings and so technology
and industry must be evaluated on an ecological basis. Thus Kropotkin
supported the integration of agriculture and industry, with "the
factory and workshop at the gates of your fields and gardens."
These factories would be "airy and hygienic, and consequently economical,
factories in which human life is of more account than machinery and
the making of extra profits." [Fields, Factories and Workshops
Tomorrow, p. 197]
Technological progress in an anarchist society, needless to say,
will have to take into account these factors as well as others people
think are relevant, otherwise the ideal of "well-being for all"
is rejected.
Capitalism has developed many technologies, some of them harmful
or dangerous, but those technologies do not develop by themselves.
The technology of cheap solar power, for example, has scarcely moved
at all because the capitalists have not chosen to invest in it. Chainsaws
do not cut down rain forests, people do; and they do so because they
have irresistible economic incentives to do so (whether they be capitalists
who stand to make profits or workers who have no other way to survive).
Until the economic system is abolished, these incentives will continue
to drive technological progress and change.
So, technology always partakes of and expresses the basic values
of the social system in which it is embedded. If you have a system
(capitalism) that alienates everything, it will naturally produce
alienated forms of technology and it will orient those technologies
so as to reinforce itself. As we argued in section
D.10, capitalists will select technology which re-enforces their
power and profits and skew technological change in that direction
rather than in those which empower individuals and make the workplace
more egalitarian.
This does not mean that we have to reject all technology and industry
because it has been shaped by, or developed within, class society.
Certain technologies are, of course, so insanely dangerous that they
will no doubt be brought to a prompt halt in any sane society. Similarly,
certain forms of technology and industrial process will be impossible
to transform as they are inherently designed for oppressive ends.
Many other industries which produce absurd, obsolete or superfluous
commodities will, of course, cease automatically with the disappearance
of their commercial or social rationales. But many technologies, however
they may presently be misused, have few if any inherent drawbacks.
They could be easily adapted to other uses. When people free themselves
from domination, they will have no trouble rejecting those technologies
that are harmful while adapting others to beneficial uses.
So if it is true that technology reflects the society which creates
it, then technology cannot be inherently bad. A liberated, non-exploitative
society will naturally create liberating, non-exploitative technologies,
just as the present alienated social system naturally produces alienated
forms (or uses) of technology.
Does this argument mean that most anarchists are against the "abolition
of work"? No, unless you confuse all kinds of productive activity
with work. It always takes some "work" to create a product
(even only if it is food) but that work does not necessarily have
to be wage labour or otherwise alienated or subject to domination
and hierarchy. A life without dead time does not mean a life where
you never have to move a muscle or use your head.
And, of course, different communities and different regions would
choose different priorities and different lifestyles. As the CNT's
Zaragoza resolution on libertarian communism made clear, "those
communes which reject industrialisation . . . may agree upon a different
model of co-existence." Using the example of "naturists and
nudists," it argues that they "will be entitled to an autonomous
administration released from the general commitments" agreed by
the communes and their federations and "their delegates to congresses
of the . . . Confederation of Autonomous Libertarian Communes will
be empowered to enter into economic contacts with other agricultural
and industrial Communes." [quoted by Jose Peirats, The CNT
in the Spanish Revolution, vol. 1, p. 106]
(See Ken Knabb's The Poverty of Primitivism for more details
-- we have extracted some of the above arguments from this excellent
text).
All this means, of course, that technological progress is not neutral
but dependent on who makes the decisions. As David Noble argues, "[t]echnological
determinism, the view that machines make history rather than people,
is not correct . . . If social changes now upon us seem necessary,
it is because they follow not from any disembodied technological logic,
but form a social logic." Technology conforms to "the interests
of power" but as "technological process is a social process"
then "it is, like all social processes, marked by conflict and
struggle, and the outcome, therefore, is always ultimately indeterminate."
Viewing technological development "as a social process rather than
as an autonomous, transcendent, and deterministic force can be liberating
. . . because it opens up a realm of freedom too long denied. It restores
people once again to their proper role as subjects of the story, rather
than mere pawns of technology . . . And technological development
itself, now seen as a social construct, becomes a new variable rather
than a first cause, consisting of a range of possibilities and promising
a multiplicity of futures." [Forces of Production, pp.
324-5]
Change society and the technology introduced and utilised will likewise
change. By viewing technological progress as a new variable, dependent
on those who make the decisions and the type of society they live
in, allows us to see that technological development is not inherently
anti-anarchist. A non-oppressive, non-exploitative, ecological society
will develop non-oppressive, non-exploitative, ecological technology
just as capitalism has developed technology which facilitates exploitation,
oppression and environmental destruction. Thus an anarchist questions
technology: The best technology? Best for whom? Best for what? Best
according to what criteria, what visions, according to whose criteria
and whose visions?
For most anarchists, technological advancement is important in a
free society in order to maximise the free time available for everyone
and replace mindless toil with meaningful work. The means of doing
so is the use of appropriate technology (and not the
worship of technology as such). Only by critically evaluating technology
and introducing such forms which empower, are understandable and are
controllable by individuals and communities as well as minimising
ecological distribution (in other words, what is termed appropriate
technology) can this be achieved. Only this critical approach to technology
can do justice to the power of the human mind and reflect the creative
powers which developed the technology in the first place. Unquestioning
acceptance of technological progress is just as bad as being unquestioningly
anti-technology.
Whether technological advance is a good thing or sustainable depends
on the choices we make, and on the social, political, and economic
systems we use. We live in a universe that contains effectively infinite
resources of matter and energy, yet at the moment we are stuck on
a planet whose resources can only be stretched so far. Anarchists
(and others) differ as to their assessments of how much development
the earth can take, and of the best course for future development,
but there's no reason to believe that advanced technological societies
per se cannot be sustained into the foreseeable future if they are
structured and used properly.
We noted earlier that competition between syndicates can lead to "petty-bourgeois
co-operativism," and that to eliminate this problem, the basis
of collectivisation needs to be widened so that surpluses are distributed
industry-wide or even society-wide. We also pointed out another advantage
of a wide surplus distribution: that it allows for the consolidation
of enterprises that would otherwise compete, leading to a more efficient
allocation of resources and technical improvements. Here we will back
up this claim with illustrations from the Spanish Revolution.
Collectivisation in Catalonia embraced not only major industries
like municipal transportation and utilities, but smaller establishments
as well: small factories, artisan workshops, service and repair shops,
etc. Augustin Souchy describes the process as follows:
"The artisans and small workshop owners, together with their employees
and apprentices, often joined the union of their trade. By consolidating
their efforts and pooling their resources on a fraternal basis, the shops
were able to undertake very big projects and provide services on a much
wider scale . . . The collectivisation of the hairdressing shops provides
an excellent example of how the transition of a small-scale manufacturing
and service industry from capitalism to socialism was achieved."
"Before July 19th, 1936 [the date of the Revolution], there were 1,100
hairdressing parlours in Barcelona, most of them owned by poor wretches
living from hand to mouth. The shops were often dirty and ill-maintained.
The 5,000 hairdressing assistants were among the most poorly paid
workers. . . Both owners and assistants therefore voluntarily decided
to socialise all their shops.
"How was this done? All the shops simply joined the union. At a general
meeting they decided to shut down all the unprofitable shops. The
1,100 shops were reduced to 235 establishments, a saving of 135,000
pesetas per month in rent, lighting, and taxes. The remaining 235
shops were modernised and elegantly outfitted. From the money saved,
wages were increased by 40%. Everyone having the right to work and
everyone received the same wages. The former owners were not adversely
affected by socialisation. They were employed at a steady income.
All worked together under equal conditions and equal pay. The distinction
between employers and employees was obliterated and they were transformed
into a working community of equals -- socialism from the bottom
up." ["Collectivisations in Catalonia," in Sam Dolgoff,
The Anarchist Collectives, pp. 93-94]
Therefore, co-operation ensures that resources are efficiently allocated
and waste is minimised by cutting down needless competition. As consumers
have choices in which syndicate to consume from as well as having
direct communication between consumer co-operatives and productive
units, there is little danger that rationalisation in production will
hurt the interests of the consumer.
Another way in which wide distribution of surplus can be advantageous
is in investment and research and development. By creating a fund
for research and development which is independent of the fortunes
of individual syndicates, society as a whole can be improved by access
to useful new technologies and processes.
Therefore, in a libertarian-socialist society, people (both within
the workplace and in communities) are likely to decide to allocate
significant amounts of resources for basic research from the available
social output. This is because the results of this research would
be freely available to all enterprises and so would aid everyone in
the long term. In addition, because workers directly control their
workplace and the local community effectively "owns" it, all
affected would have an interest in exploring research which would
reduce labour, pollution, raw materials and so on or increase output
with little or no social impact.
This means that research and innovation would be in the direct interests
of everyone involved. Under capitalism, this is not the case. Most
research is conducted in order to get an edge in the market by increasing
productivity or expanding production into new (previously unwanted)
areas. Any increased productivity often leads to unemployment, deskilling
and other negative effects for those involved. Libertarian socialism
will not face this problem.
It should also be mentioned here that research would be pursued
more and more as people take an increased interest in both their own
work and education. As people become liberated from the grind of everyday
life, they will explore possibilities as their interests take them
and so research will take place on many levels within society - in
the workplace, in the community, in education and so on.
In addition, it should be noted that basic research is not something
which capitalism does well. The rise of the Pentagon system in the
USA indicates that basic research often needs state support in order
to be successful. As Kenneth Arrow noted over thirty years ago that
market forces are insufficient to promote basic research:
"Thus basic research, the output of which is only used as an informational
input into other inventive activities, is especially unlikely to be
rewarded. In fact, it is likely to be of commercial value to the firm
undertaking it only if other firms are prevented from using the
information. But such restriction reduces the efficiency of inventive
activity in general, and will therefore reduce its quantity also."
["Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Inventiveness,"
in National Bureau of Economic Research, The Rate and Direction of
Inventive Activity, p. 618]
Would modern society have produced so many innovations if it had
not been for the Pentagon system, the space race and so on? Take the
Internet, for example -- it is unlikely that this would have got off
the ground if it had not been for the state. Needless to say, of course,
much of this technology has been developed for evil reasons and purposes
and would be in need of drastic change (and, in many cases, abolition)
before it could be used in a libertarian society. However, the fact
remains that it is unlikely that a pure market based system could
have generated most of the technology we take for granted. As Noam
Chomsky argues:
"[Alan] Greenspan [head of the US Federal Reserve] gave a talk
to newspaper editors in the US. He spoke passionately about the
miracles of the market, the wonders brought by consumer choice,
and so on. He also gave examples: the Internet, computers,
information processing, lasers, satellites, transistors. It's
an interesting list: these are textbook examples of creativity
and production in the public sector. In the case of the Internet,
for 30 years it was designed, developed and funded primarily
in the public sector, mostly the Pentagon, then the National
Science Foundation -- that's most of the hardware, the software,
new ideas, technology, and so on. In just the last couple of
years it has been handed over to people like Bill Gates . . .
In the case of the Internet, consumer choice was close to
zero, and during the crucial development stages that same was
true of computers, information processing, and all the rest . . .
"In fact, of all the examples that Greenspan gives, the only one that maybe
rises above the level of a joke is transistors, and they are an
interesting case. Transistors, in fact, were developed in a private
laboratory -- Bell Telephone Laboratories of AT&T -- which also
made major contributions to solar cells, radio astronomy, information
theory, and lots of other important things. But what is the role
of markets and consumer choice in that? Well, again, it turns out,
zero. AT&T was a government supported monopoly, so there was no
consumer choice, and as a monopoly they could charge high prices:
in effect a tax on the public which they could use for institutions
like Bell Laboratories . . . So again, it's publicly subsidised.
As if to demonstrate the point, as soon as the industry was deregulated,
Bell Labs went out of existence, because the public wasn't paying
for it any more . . . But that's only the beginning of the story.
True, Bell invented transistors, but they used wartime technology,
which, again, was publicly subsidised and state-initiated. Furthermore,
there was nobody to but transistors at that time, because they were
very expensive to produce. So, for ten years the government was
the major procurer . . . Government procurement provided entrepreneurial
initiatives and guided the development of the technology, which
could then be disseminated to industry." [Rogue States,
pp. 192-3]
As well as technological developments, a wide basis of surplus generation
would help improve the skills and knowledge of the members of a community.
As Keynesian economist Michael Stewart points out, "[t]here are
both theoretical and empirical reasons to suppose that market forces
under-provide research and development expenditures, as well as both
education and training." [Keynes in the 1990s, p. 77]
If we look at vocational training and education, a wide basis of
surplus distribution would aid this no end. Under free market capitalism,
vocational training suffers due to the nature of the market. The argument
is simple. Under free market capitalism, if companies stood to gain,
in terms of higher profits, from training more workers, they would
train them. If they did not, that just proves that training was not
required. Unfortunately, this piece of reasoning overlooks the fact
that profit maximising firms will not incur costs that will be enjoyed
by others. This means that firms will be reluctant to spend money
on training if they fear that the trained workers will soon be poached
by other firms which can offer more money because they had not incurred
the cost of providing training. This means that few firms will provide
the required training as they could not be sure that the trained workers
will not leave for their competitors (and, of course, a trained work
force also, due to their skill, have more workplace power and are
less replaceable).
By socialising training via confederations of workplaces, syndicates
could increase productivity via increasing the skill levels of their
members. Higher skill levels will also tend to increase innovation
and enjoyment at "work" when combined with workers' self-management.
This is because an educated workforce in control of their own time
will be unlikely to tolerate mundane, boring, machine-like work and
seek ways to eliminate it, improve the working environment and increase
productivity to give them more free time.
The free market can also have a negative impact on innovation. This
is because, in order to please shareholders with higher share prices,
companies may reduce funds available for real investment and R&D,
which would also depress growth and employment in the long term. What
shareholders might condemn as "uneconomic" (investment projects
and R&D) can, and does, make society as a whole better off. However,
these gains are over the long term and, within capitalism, it is short-term
gains which count. Higher share prices in the here and now are essential
in order to survive and so see the long-run.
In a more socialised economy, wide-scale collectivisation could
aid in allocating resources for Research and Development, long term
investment, innovation and so on. Via the use of mutual banks or confederations
of syndicates and communes, resources could be allocated which take
into account the importance of long-term priorities, as well as social
costs, which are not taken into account (indeed, are beneficial to
ignore) under capitalism. Rather than penalise long term investment
and research and development, a socialised economy would ensure that
adequate funds are available, something which would benefit everyone
in society in some way.
In addition to work conducted by syndicates, education establishments,
communes and so on, it would be essential to provide resources for
individuals and small groups to pursue "pet projects." Of course,
syndicates and confederations will have their own research institutions
but the innovatory role of the interested "amateur" cannot
be over-rated. As Kropotkin argued:
"What is needed to promote the spirit of innovation is . . . the
awakening of thought, the boldness of conception, which our
entire education causes to languish; it is the spreading of a
scientific education, which would increase the numbers of
inquirers a hundred-fold; it is faith that humanity is going to
take a step forward, because it is enthusiasm, the hope of doing
good, that has inspired all the great inventors. The Social
Revolution alone can give this impulse to thought, this boldness,
this knowledge, this conviction of working for all.
"Then we shall have vast institutes . . . immense industrial laboratories
open to all inquirers, where men will be able to work out their
dreams, after having acquitted themselves of their duty towards
society; . . . where they will make their experiments; where they
will find other comrades, experts in other branches of industry,
likewise coming to study some difficult problem, and therefore able
to help and enlighten each other -- the encounter of their ideas
and experiences causing the longed-for solution to be found."
[The Conquest of Bread, p. 117]
In addition, unlike under capitalism, where inventors often "carefully
hide their inventions from each other, as they are hampered by patents
and Capitalism -- that bane of present society, that stumbling-block
in the path of intellectual and moral progress," inventors within
a free society will be able to build upon the knowledge of everyone
and past generations. Rather than hide knowledge from others, in case
they get a competitive advantage, knowledge would be shared, enriching
all involved as well as the rest of society [Ibid.]. As John
O'Neil argues:
"There is, in a competitive market economy, a disincentive to
communicate information. The market encourages secrecy, which
is inimical to openness in science. It presupposes a view of
property in which the owner has rights to exclude others. In
the sphere of science, such rights of exclusion place limits
on the communication of information and theories which are
incompatible with the growth of knowledge . . . science tends
to grow when communication is open. . . [In addition a] necessary
condition for the acceptability of a theory or experimental
result is that it pass the public, critical scrutiny of
competent scientific judges. A private theory or result
is one that is shielded from the criteria of scientific
acceptability." [The Market, p. 153]
Thus socialisation would aid innovation and scientific development.
This is two fold, by providing the necessary resources for such work
and by providing the community spirit required to push the boundaries
of science forward.
Lastly, there is the issue of those who cannot work and general
provision of public goods. With a wide distribution to surplus, communal
hospitals, schools, universities and so on can be created. This simple
fact is that any society has members who cannot (indeed, should not)
work. For example, the young, the old and the sick. In a mutualist
society, particularly an Individualist Anarchists mutualist society,
there is no real provision for these individuals unless someone (a
family member or friend) provides them with the money required for
hospital fees and so on. However, with a communal basis for distribution
every member of the commune can receive an education, health care
and so on as a right -- and so live a fully human life as a right,
rather than a privilege. Moreover, the experience of capitalist countries
suggests that socialising, say, health care, leads to a service with
lower costs than one which is predominately privatised. For example,
the administrative costs of the British National Health Service are
a fraction of the U.S. or Chilean systems (where a sizeable percentage
of income ends up as profit rather than as health care).
This tendency for the use of surplus for communal services (such
as hospitals and education) can be seen from the Spanish Revolution.
Many collectives funded new hospitals and colleges for their members,
providing hundreds of thousands with services they could never have
afforded by their own labour. This is a classic example of co-operation
helping the co-operators achieve far more than they could by their
own isolated activities.
Firstly, just to be totally clear, by the profit motive we mean money profit.
As anarchists consider co-operation to be in our self-interest --
i.e. we will "profit" from it in the widest sense possible
-- we are not dismissing the fact people usually act to improve
their situation. However, money profit is a very narrow form
of "self-interest," indeed so narrow as to be positively harmful
to the individual in many ways (in terms of personal development,
interpersonal relationships, economic and social well-being, and so
on). In other words, do not take our discussion in this section of
the FAQ on the "profit motive" to imply a denial of self-interest,
quite the reverse. Anarchists simply reject the "narrow concept
of life which consist[s] in thinking that profits are the only
leading motive of human society." [Peter Kropotkin, Fields,
Factories and Workshops Tomorrow, p. 25]
Secondly, we cannot hope to deal fully with the harmful effects
of competition and the profit motive. For more information, we recommend
Aflie Kohn's No Contest: The Case Against Competition and Punished
by Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A's, Praise
and Other Bribes. He documents the extensive evidence accumulated
that disproves the "common sense" of capitalism that competition
and profits are the best way to organise a society.
According to Alfie Kohn, a growing body of psychological research
suggests that rewards can lower performance levels, especially when
the performance involves creativity. ["Studies Find Reward Often
No Motivator," Boston Globe, Monday 19 January 1987] Kohn
notes that "a related series of studies shows that intrinsic interest
in a task -- the sense that something is worth doing for its own sake
-- typically declines when someone is rewarded for doing it."
Much of the research on creativity and motivation has been performed
by Theresa Amabile, associate professor of psychology at Brandeis
University. One of her recent experiments involved asking elementary
school and college students to make "silly" collages. The young
children were also asked to invent stories. Teachers who rated the
projects found that those students who had contracted for rewards
did the least creative work. "It may be that commissioned work
will, in general, be less creative than work that is done out of pure
interest," Amabile says. In 1985, she asked 72 creative writers
at Brandeis and at Boston University to write poetry:
"Some students then were given a list of
extrinsic (external) reasons for writing, such as impressing teachers,
making money and getting into graduate school, and were asked to think
about their own writing with respect to these reasons. Others were given
a list of intrinsic reasons: the enjoyment of playing with words,
satisfaction from self-expression, and so forth. A third group was not
given any list. All were then asked to do more writing.
"The results were clear. Students given the extrinsic reasons not only wrote
less creatively than the others, as judged by 12 independent poets,
but the quality of their work dropped significantly. Rewards, Amabile
says, have this destructive effect primarily with creative tasks,
including higher-level problem-solving. 'The more complex the activity,
the more it's hurt by extrinsic reward, she said.'" [Ibid.]
In another study, by James Gabarino of Chicago's Erikson Institute
for Advanced Studies in Child Development, it was found that girls
in the fifth and sixth grades tutored younger children much less effectively
if they were promised free movie tickets for teaching well. "The
study, showed that tutors working for the reward took longer to communicate
ideas, got frustrated more easily, and did a poorer job in the end
than those who were not rewarded" [Ibid.]
Such studies cast doubt on the claim that financial reward is the
only effective way -- or even the best way -- to motivate people.
As Kohn notes, "[t]hey also challenge the behaviourist assumption
that any activity is more likely to occur if it is rewarded."
Amabile concludes that her research "definitely refutes the notion
that creativity can be operantly conditioned."
These findings re-enforce the findings of other scientific fields.
Biology, social psychology, ethnology and anthropology all present
evidence that support co-operation as the natural basis for human
interaction. For example, ethnological studies indicate that virtually
all indigenous cultures operate on the basis of highly co-operative
relationships and anthropologists have presented evidence to show
that the predominant force driving early human evolution was co-operative
social interaction, leading to the capacity of hominids to develop
culture. This is even sinking into capitalism, with industrial psychology
now promoting "worker participation" and team functioning because
it is decisively more productive than hierarchical management. More
importantly, the evidence shows that co-operative workplaces are more
productive than those organised on other principles. All other things
equal, producers' co-operatives will be more efficient than capitalist
or state enterprises, on average. Co-operatives can often achieve
higher productivity even when their equipment and conditions are worse.
Furthermore, the better the organisation approximates the co-operative
ideal, the better the productivity.
All this is unsurprising to social anarchists (and it should make
individualist anarchists reconsider their position). Peter Kropotkin
argued that, "[i]f we . . . ask Nature: 'Who are the fittest: those
who are continually at war with each other, or those who support one
another?' we at once see that those animals which acquire habits of
mutual aid are undoubtedly the fittest. They have more chances to
survive, and they attain, in their respective classes, the highest
development of intelligence and bodily organisation." [Mutual
Aid, p. 24] From his observation that mutual aid gives evolutionary
advantage to those who practice it, he derived his political philosophy
-- a philosophy which stressed community and co-operative endeavour.
Modern research has reinforced his argument. For example, as noted,
Alfie Kohn is also the author of No Contest: The Case Against Competition
and he spent seven years reviewing more than 400 research studies
dealing with competition and co-operation. Prior to his investigation,
he believed that "competition can be natural and appropriate and
healthy." After reviewing research findings, he radically revised
this opinion, concluding that, the "ideal amount of competition
. . . in any environment, the classroom, the workplace, the family,
the playing field, is none . . . [Competition] is always destructive."
[Noetic Sciences Review, Spring 1990]
Here we present a very short summary of his findings. According
to Kohn, there are three principle consequences of competition:
Firstly, it has a negative effect on productivity and excellence.
This is due to increased anxiety, inefficiency (as compared to co-operative
sharing of resources and knowledge), and the undermining of inner
motivation. Competition shifts the focus to victory over others, and
away from intrinsic motivators such as curiosity, interest, excellence,
and social interaction. Studies show that co-operative behaviour,
by contrast, consistently predicts good performance--a finding which
holds true under a wide range of subject variables. Interestingly,
the positive benefits of co-operation become more significant as tasks
become more complex, or where greater creativity and problem-solving
ability is required (as indicated above).
Secondly, competition lowers self-esteem and hampers the development
of sound, self-directed individuals. A strong sense of self is difficult
to attain when self-evaluation is dependent on seeing how we measure
up to others. On the other hand, those whose identity is formed in
relation to how they contribute to group efforts generally possess
greater self-confidence and higher self-esteem.
Finally, competition undermines human relationships. Humans are
social beings; we best express our humanness in interaction with others.
By creating winners and losers, competition is destructive to human
unity and prevents close social feeling.
Social Anarchists have long argued these points. In the competitive
mode, people work at cross purposes, or purely for (material) personal
gain. This leads to an impoverishment of society and hierarchy, with
a lack of communal relations that result in an impoverishment of all
the individuals involved (mentally, spiritually, ethically and, ultimately,
materially). This not only leads to a weakening of individuality and
social disruption, but also to economic inefficiency as energy is
wasted in class conflict and invested in building bigger and better
cages to protect the haves from the have-nots. Instead of creating
useful things, human activity is spent in useless toil reproducing
an injustice and authoritarian system.
All in all, the results of competition (as documented by a host
of scientific disciplines) shows its poverty as well as indicating
that co-operation is the means by which the fittest survive.
Moreover, as Kohn discusses in Punished by Rewards, the notion
that material rewards result in better work is simply not true. Basing
itself on simple behavourist psychology, such arguments fail to meet
the test of long-term success (and, indeed, can be counter-productive).
Indeed, it means treating human beings as little better that pets
or other animals (he argues that it is "not an accident that the
theory behind 'Do this and you'll get that' derives from work with
other species, or that behaviour management is frequently described
in words better suited to animals.") In other words, it "is
by its very nature dehumanising." [Punished by Rewards,
p. 24 and p. 25]
Rather than simply being motivated by outside stimuli like mindless
robots, people are not passive. We are "beings who possess natural
curiosity about ourselves and our environment, who search for and
overcome challenges, who try and master skills and attain competence,
and who seek new levels of complexity in what we learn and do . .
. in general we act on the environment as much as we are acted on
by it, and we do not do so simply in order to receive a reward."
[Op. Cit., p. 25]
Kohn presents extensive evidence to back upon his case that rewards
harm activity and individuals. We cannot do justice to it here. We
will present a few examples. One study with college students showed
that those paid to work on a puzzle "spent less time on it than
those who hadn't been paid" when they were given a choice of whether
to work on it or not. "It appeared that working for a reward made
people less interested in the task." Another study with children
showed that "extrinsic rewards reduce intrinsic motivation."
Scores of other studies confirmed this. This is because a reward is
effectively saying that a given activity is not worth doing for its
own sake -- and why would anyone wish to do something they have to
be bribed to do? [Op. Cit., p. 70 and p. 71]
In the workplace, a similar process goes on. Kohn presents extensive
evidence to show that extrinsic motivation also does not work in the
workplace. Indeed, he argues that "economists have it wrong if
they think of work as a 'disutility' -- something unpleasant we must
do in order to be able to buy what we need, merely a means to an end."
Kohn stresses that "to assume that money is what drives people
is to adopt an impoverished understanding of human motivation."
Moreover, "the risk of any incentive or pay-for-performance
system is that it will make people less interested in their work and
therefore less likely to approach it with enthusiasm and a commitment
to excellence. Furthermore, the more closely we tie compensation
(or other rewards) to performance, the most damage we do."
[Op. Cit., p. 131, p. 134 and p. 140]
Kohn argues that the idea that human's will only work for profit
or rewards "can be fairly described as dehumanising" if "the
capacity for responsible action, the natural love of learning, and
the desire to do good work are already part of who we are." Also,
it is "a way of trying to control people" and so to "anyone
who is troubled by a model of human relationships founded principally
on the idea of one person controlling another must ponder whether
rewards are as innocuous as they are sometimes made out to be."
He uses the example of a workplace, where "there is no getting
around the fact that 'the basic purpose of merit pay is manipulative.'
One observer more bluntly characterises incentives as 'demeaning'
since the message they really convey is, 'Please big daddy boss and
you will receive the rewards that the boss deems appropriate.'"
[Op. Cit., p. 26]
Given that much work is controlled by others and can be a hateful
experience under capitalism does not mean that it has to be that way.
Clearly, even under wage slavery most workers can and do find work
interesting and seek to do it well -- not because of possible rewards
or punishment but because we seek meaning in our activities and try
and do them well. Given that research shows that reward orientated
work structures harm productivity and excellence, social anarchists
have more than just hope to base their ideas. Such research confirms
Kropotkin's comments:
"Wage-work is serf-work; it cannot, it must not, produce
all it could produce. And it is high time to disbelieve
the legend which presents wagedom as the best incentive
to productive work. If industry nowadays brings in a
hundred times more than it did in the days of our
grandfathers, it is due to the sudden awakening of
physical and chemical sciences towards the end of the
[18th] century; not to the capitalist organisation of
wagedom, but in spite of that organisation." [The
Conquest of Bread, p. 150]
For these reasons, social anarchists are confident that the elimination
of the profit motive within the context of self-management will not
harm productivity and creativity, but rather enhance them (within
an authoritarian system in which workers enhance the power and income
of bureaucrats, we can expect different results). With the control
of their own work and workplaces ensured, all working people can express
their abilities to the full. This will see an explosion of creativity
and initiative, not a reduction.
This is a common right-libertarian objection. Robert Nozick, for example,
imagines the following scenario:
"[S]mall factories would spring up in a socialist society, unless
forbidden. I melt some of my personal possessions and build a machine
out of the material. I offer you and others a philosophy lecture once
a week in exchange for yet other things, and so on . . . some persons
might even want to leave their jobs in socialist industry and work
full time in this private sector. . . [This is] how private property
even in means of production would occur in a socialist society."
Hence Nozick claims that "the socialist society will have to
forbid capitalist acts between consenting adults." [Anarchy,
State and Utopia, pp. 162-3]
As Jeff Stein points out, however, "the only reason workers want
to be employed by capitalists is because they have no other means
for making a living, no access to the means of production other than
by selling themselves. For a capitalist sector to exist there must
be some form of private ownership of productive resources, and a scarcity
of alternatives. The workers must be in a condition of economic desperation
for them to be willing to give up an equal voice in the management
of their daily affairs and accept a boss." ["Market Anarchism?
Caveat Emptor!", a review of A Structured Anarchism : An Overview
of Libertarian Theory and Practice by John Griffin, Libertarian
Labour Review #13, Winter 1992-93, pp. 33-39]
In an anarchist society, there is no need for anyone to "forbid"
capitalist acts. All people have to do is refrain from helping
would-be capitalists set up monopolies of productive assets. This
is because, as we have noted in section
B.3.2, capitalism cannot exist without some form of state to protect
such monopolies. In a libertarian-socialist society, of course, there
would be no state to begin with, and so there would be no question
of it "refraining" from doing anything, including protecting
would-be capitalists' monopolies of the means of production. In other
words, would-be capitalists would face stiff competition for workers
in an anarchist society. This is because self-managed workplaces would
be able to offer workers more benefits (such as self-government, better
working conditions, etc.) than the would-be capitalist ones. The would-be
capitalists would have to offer not only excellent wages and conditions
but also, in all likelihood, workers' control and hire-purchase on
capital used. The chances of making a profit once the various monopolies
associated with capitalism are abolished are slim.
It should be noted that Nozick makes a serious error in his case.
He assumes that the "use rights" associated with an anarchist
(i.e. socialist) society are identical to the "property rights"
of a capitalist one. This is not the case, and so his argument
is weakened and loses its force. Simply put, there is no such thing
as an absolute or "natural" law of property. As John Stuart
Mill pointed out, "powers of exclusive use and control are very
various, and differ greatly in different countries and in different
states of society." ["Chapters on Socialism," Principles
of Political Economy, p. 432] Therefore, Nozick slips an ideological
ringer into his example by erroneously interpreting socialism (or
any other society for that matter) as specifying a distribution of
private property rights (like those he, and other supporters of capitalism,
believes in) along with the wealth. As Mill argued, "[o]ne of the
mistakes oftenest committed, and which are the sources of the greatest
practical errors in human affairs, is that of supposing that the same
name always stands for the same aggregation of ideas. No word has
been subject of more of this kind of misunderstanding that the word
property." [Ibid.] Unfortunately, this errors seems particularly
common with right-wing libertarians, who assume any use of the word
"property" means what they mean by the word (this error reaches
ridiculous levels when it comes to their co-option of the Individualist
Anarchists based on this error!).
In other words, Nozick assumes that in all societies property
rights must replace use rights in both consumption and production
(an assumption that is ahistorical in the extreme). As Cheyney C.
Ryan comments, "[d]ifferent conceptions of justice differ not only
in how they would apportion society's holdings but in what rights
individuals have over their holdings once they have been apportioned."
["Property Rights and Individual Liberty", in Reading Nozick,
p. 331]
In effect, what possessions someone holds within a libertarian socialist
society will not be his or her property (in the capitalist sense)
any more than a company car is the property of the employee under
capitalism. This means that as long as an individual remained a member
of a commune and abided by the rules they helped create in that commune
then they would have full use of the resources of that commune and
could use their possessions as they saw fit (even "melt them down"
to create a new machine, or whatever). Such lack of absolute
"ownership" does not reduce liberty any more than the employee
and the company car he or she uses (bar destruction and selling it,
the employee can use it as they see fit).
This point highlights another flaw in Nozick's argument. If his
argument is true, then it applies equally to capitalist society. For
40 hours plus a week, workers are employed by a boss. In that time
they are given resources to use, under instructions of their boss.
They are most definitely not allowed to melt down these resources
to create a machine or use the resources they have been given access
to further their own plans. In other words, "capitalist society
will have to forbid capitalist acts between consenting adults."
This can apply equally to rented accommodation as well, for example
when landlords ban working from home or selling off the furniture
that is provided. Thus, ironically, capitalism forbids capitalist
acts between consenting adults all the time.
Of course, Nozick's reply to this point would be that the individual's
involved have "consented" to these rules when they signed their
contract. But the same can be said of an anarchist society -- it is
freely joined and freely left. To join a communist-anarchist society
it would simply be a case of agreeing to "exchange" the product
of ones labour freely with the other members of that society. Thus
you could smelt down personal possessions and create a machine, exchange
your time with others and so on. However, if wage labour becomes involved
then the individuals involved have ceased being members of "the
socialist society" by their actions. They have violated their
agreements with their fellows and so it is not a case of "forbidding"
certain acts. Rather it is a case of individuals meeting their self-created
obligations. If this is "authoritarian" then so is capitalism
-- and we must stress that at least anarchist associations are based
on self-management and so the individuals involved have an equal say
in the obligations they live under.
Notice also that Nozick confuses exchange with capitalism ("I
offer you a lecture once a week in exchange for other things").
This is a telling mistake by someone who claims to be an expert on
capitalism, because the defining feature of capitalism is not exchange
(which obviously took place long before capitalism existed) but labour
contracts involving capitalist middlemen who appropriate a portion
of the value produced by workers -- in other words, wage labour. Nozick's
example is merely a direct labour contract between the producer and
the consumer. It does not involve any capitalist intermediary taking
a percentage of the value created by the producer. Nor does it involve
exploitative wage labour, what makes capitalism capitalism. It is
only this latter type of transaction that libertarian socialism prevents
-- and not by "forbidding" it but simply by refusing to maintain
the conditions necessary for it to occur, i.e. protection of capitalist
property.
In addition, we must note that Nozick also confuses "private
property in the means of production" with capitalism. Liberation
socialism can be easily compatible with "private property in the
means of production" when that "private property" is based
on possession rather than capitalistic property. This can be
seen from Kropotkin's arguments that peasant and artisan workers,
those who "exploit nobody," would not be expropriated
in an anarchist revolution. [Act for Yourselves, pp. 104-5]
Nozick, in other words, confuses private property with possession
and confuses pre-capitalist forms of production with capitalist ones.
Thus possession of the means of production by people outside of the
free commune is perfectly acceptable to social anarchists (see also
section I.6.2).
Lastly, we must also note that Nozick also ignores the fact that
acquisition must come before transfer, meaning that before
"consenting" capitalist acts occur, individual ones must precede
it. As argued above, for this to happen the would-be capitalist must
steal communally owned resources by barring others from using them.
This obviously would restrict the liberty of those who currently used
them and so be hotly opposed by members of a community. If an individual
did desire to use resources to employ wage labour then they would
have effectively removed themselves from "socialist society"
and so that society would bar them from using its resources
(i.e. they would have to buy access to all the resources they currently
took for granted).
Thus an anarchist society would have a flexible approach to Nozick's
(flawed) argument. Individuals, in their free time, could "exchange"
their time and possessions as they saw fit. These, however, are not
"capitalist acts" regardless of Nozick's claims. However, the
moment an individual employs wage labour then, by this act, they have
broken their agreements with their fellows and, therefore, no longer
part of "socialist society." This would involve them no longer
having access to the benefits of communal life and to communal possessions.
They have, in effect, placed themselves outside of their community
and must fair for themselves. After all, if they desire to create
"private property" (in the capitalist sense) then they have
no right of access to communal possessions without paying for that
right. For those who become wage slaves, a socialist society would,
probably, be less strict. As Bakunin argued:
"Since the freedom of every individual is inalienable, society shall
never allow any individual whatsoever legally to alienate his [or
her] freedom or engage upon any contract with another on any footing
but the utmost equality and reciprocity. It shall not, however, have
the power to disbar a man or woman so devoid of any sense of personal
dignity as to contract a relationship of voluntary servitude with
another individual, but it will consider them as living off private
charity and therefore unfit to enjoy political rights throughout the
duration of that servitude." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings,
pp. 68-9]
It should also be noted here that Nozick's theory does not provide
any support for such appropriation of commonly held resources, meaning
that his (right) libertarianism is totally without foundations (see
section B.3.4 for details). His argument
in favour of such appropriations recognises that certain liberties
are very definitely restricted by private property (and it should
be keep in mind that the destruction of commonly held resources, such
as village commons, were enforced by the state -- see section
F.8.3). As Cheyney C. Ryan points out, Nozick "invoke[s] personal
liberty as the decisive ground for rejecting patterned principles
of justice [such as socialism] and restrictions on the ownership of
capital. . .[b]ut where the rights of private property admittedly
restrict the liberties of the average person, he seems perfectly happy
to trade off such liberties against material gain for society
as a whole." ["Property Rights and Individual Liberty",
in Reading Nozack, p. 339]
Again, as pointed out in section F.2 ("What
do 'anarcho'-capitalists mean by 'freedom?'") right-libertarians
would better be termed "Propertarians." Why is liberty according
a primary importance when arguing against socialism but not when private
property restricts liberty? Obviously, Nozick considers the liberties
associated with private property as more important than liberty in
general. Likewise, capitalism must forbid corresponding socialist
acts by individuals (for example, squatting unused property or trespassing
on private property) and often socialist acts between consenting individuals
(for example, the formation of unions against the wishes of the property
owner who is, of course, sovereign over their property and those who
use it, or the use of workplace resources to meet the needs of the
producer rather than the owner).
So, to conclude, this question involves some strange logic (and
many question begging assumptions) and ultimately fails in its attempt
to prove libertarian socialism must "ban" "capitalistic acts between
individuals." In addition, the objection undermines capitalism
because it cannot support the creation of private property out of
communal property in the first place.
This problem affects every society, including capitalism of course. Under
capitalism, this problem is "solved" by ensuring that such
jobs are done by those at the bottom of the social pile. In other
words, it does not really solve the problem at all -- it just ensures
that some people are subject to this work the bulk of their working
lives. However, most anarchists reject this flawed solution in favour
of something better, one that shares the good with the bad and so
ensure everyone's life is better.
How this would be done depends on the kind of libertarian community
you are a member of. Obviously, few would argue against the idea that
individuals will voluntarily work at things they enjoyed doing. However
there are some jobs that few, if any, would enjoy (for example, collecting
rubbish, processing sewage, dangerous work, etc.). So how would an
anarchist society deal with it?
It will be clear what is considered unpleasant work in any society
-- few people (if any) will volunteer to do it. As in any advanced
society, communities and syndicates who required extra help would
inform others of their need by the various form of media that existed.
In addition, it would be likely that each community would have a "division
of activity" syndicate whose work would be to distribute information
about these posts and to which members of a community would go to
discover what placements existed for the line of "work" they were
interested in. So we have a means by which syndicates and communes
can ask for new hands and the means by which individuals can discover
these placements. Obviously, some work will still require qualifications
and that will be taken into account when syndicates and communes "advertise"
for help.
For "work" placements in which supply exceeded demand, it would
be easy to arrange a work share scheme to ensure that most people
get a chance to do that kind of work (see below for a discussion of
what could happen if the numbers applying for a certain form of work
were too high for this to work). When such placements are marked by
an excess of demand by supply, its obvious that the activity in question
is not viewed as pleasant or desirable. Until such time as it can
be automated away, a free society will have to encourage people to
volunteer for "work" placements they do not particularly want to do.
So, it is obvious that not all "jobs" are equal in interest or enjoyment.
It is sometimes argued that people would start to join or form syndicates
which are involved in more fun activities. By this process excess
workers would be found in the more enjoyable "jobs" while the boring
and dangerous ones would suffer from a scarcity of willing workers.
Hence, so the argument goes, a socialist society would have to force
people to do certain jobs and so that requires a state. Obviously,
this argument ignores the fact that under capitalism usually it is
the boring, dangerous work which is the least well paid with the worse
working conditions. In addition, this argument ignores the fact that
under workers self-management boring, dangerous work would be minimised
and transformed as much as possible. Only under capitalist hierarchy
are people in no position to improve the quality of their work and
working environment. As George Barrett argues:
"Now things are so strangely organised at present that it is just the
dirty and disagreeable work that men will do cheaply, and consequently
there is no great rush to invent machines to take their place. In a free
society, on the other hand, it is clear that the disagreeable work will be
one of the first things that machinery will be called upon to eliminate. It
is quite fair to argue, therefore, that the disagreeable work will, to a
large extent, disappear in a state of anarchism." [Objections to Anarchism]
Moreover, most anarchists would think that the argument that there
would be a flood of workers taking up "easy" work placements
is abstract and ignores the dynamics of a real society. While many
individuals would try to create new productive syndicates in order
to express themselves in innovative work outwith the existing research
and development going on within existing syndicates, the idea that
the majority of individuals would leave their current work at a drop
of a hat is crazy. A workplace is a community and part of a community
and people would value the links they have with their fellow workers.
As such they would be aware of the impacts of their decisions on both
themselves and society as a whole. So, while we would expect a turnover
of workers between syndicates, the mass transfers claimed in this
argument are unlikely. Most workers who did want to try their hand
at new work would apply for work places at syndicates that required
new people, not create their own ones. Because of this, work transfers
would be moderate and easily handled.
However, the possibility of mass desertions does exist and so must
be addressed. So how would a libertarian socialist society deal with
a majority of its workers deciding to all do interesting work, leaving
the boring and/or dangerous work undone? It, of course, depends on
the type of anarchism in question and is directly related to the question
of who will do the "dirty work" in an anarchist society. So,
how will an anarchist society ensure that individual preferences for
certain types of work matches the requirements of social demand for
labour?
Under mutualism, those who desired a certain form of work done would
reach an agreement with a workers or a co-operative and pay them to
do the work in question. Individuals would form co-operatives with
each co-operative would have to find its place on the market and so
this would ensure that work was spread across society as required.
Individuals desiring to form a new co-operative would either provide
their own start up credit or arrange a interest free loan from a mutual
bank. However, this could lead to some people doing unpleasant work
all the time and so is hardly a solution. As in capitalism, we may
see some people doing terrible work because it is better than no work
at all. This is a solution few anarchists would support.
In a collectivist or communist anarchist society, such an outcome
would be avoided by sharing such tasks as fairly as possible between
a community's members. For example, by allocating a few days a month
to all fit members of a community to do work which no one volunteers
to do, it would soon be done. In this way, every one shares in the
unpleasant as well as pleasant tasks (and, of course, minimises the
time any one individual has to spend on it). Or, for tasks which are
very popular, individuals would also have to do unpleasant tasks as
well. In this way, popular and unpopular tasks would balance each
other out.
Another possible solution could be to follow the ideas of Josiah
Warren and take into account the undesirability of the work when considering
the level of labour notes received or communal hours worked. In other
words, in a collectivist society the individuals who do unpleasant
work may be "rewarded" (along with social esteem) with a slightly
higher pay -- the number of labour notes, for example, for such work
would be a multiple of the standard amount, the actual figure being
related to how much supply exceeds demand (in a communist society,
a similar solution could be possible, with the number of necessary
hours required by an individual being reduced by an amount that corresponds
to the undesirability of the work involved). The actual levels of
"reward" would be determined by agreements between the syndicates.
To be more precise, in a collectivist society, individuals would
either use their own savings and/or arrange loans of community labour
banks for credit in order to start up a new syndicate. This will obviously
restrict the number of new syndicates being formed. In the case of
individuals joining existing syndicates, the labour value of the work
done would be related to the number of people interested in doing
that work. For example, if a given type of work has 50% more people
wanting to do it than actually required, then the labour value for
one hours work in this industry would correspondingly be less than
one hour. If fewer people applied than required, then the labour value
would increase, as would holiday time, etc.
In this way, "supply and demand" for workers would soon approximate
each other. In addition, a collectivist society would be better placed
than the current system to ensure work-sharing and other methods to
spread unpleasant and pleasant tasks equally around society due to
its organs of self-management and the rising social awareness via
participation and debate within those organs.
A communist-anarchist society's solution would be similar to the
collectivist one. There would still be basic agreements between its
members for work done and so for work placements with excess supply
of workers the amount of hours necessary to meet the confederations
agreed minimum would correspondingly increase. For example, an industry
with 100% excess supply of volunteers would see its minimum requirement
increase from (say) 20 hours a week to 30 hours. An industry with
less applicants than required would see the number of required hours
of "work" decrease, plus increases in holiday time and so on.
As G.D.H. Cole argues in respect of this point:
"Let us first by the fullest application of machinery and scientific
methods eliminate or reduce . . . 'dirty work' that admit to such
treatment. This has never been tried. . . under capitalism. . . It is
cheaper to exploit and ruin human beings. . . Secondly, let us see what
forms of 'dirty work' we can do without . . . [and] if any form of work
is not only unpleasant but degrading, we will do without it, whatever
the cost. No human being ought to be allowed or compelled to do work
that degrades. Thirdly, for what dull or unpleasant work remains, let
us offer whatever special conditions are required to attract the necessary
workers, not in higher pay, but in shorter hours, holidays extending over
six months in the year, conditions attractive enough to men who have
other uses for their time or attention to being the requisite number
to undertake it voluntarily." [Guild Socialism Restated, p. 76]
By these methods a balance between industrial sectors would be achieved
as individuals would balance their desire for interesting work with
their desires for free time. Over time, by using the power of appropriate
technology, even such time keeping would be minimised or even got
eliminated as society developed freely.
And it is important to remember that the means of production required
by new syndicates do not fall from the sky. Other members of society
will have to work to produce the required goods. Therefore it is likely
that the syndicates and communes would agree that only a certain (maximum)
percentage of production would be allocated to start-up syndicates
(as opposed to increasing the resources of existing confederations).
Such a figure would obviously be revised periodically in order to
take into account changing circumstances. Members of the community
who decide to form syndicates for new productive tasks or syndicates
which do the same work but are independent of existing confederations
would have to get the agreement of other workers to supply them with
the necessary means of production (just as today they have to get
the agreement of a bank to receive the necessary credit to start a
new business). By budgeting the amounts available, a free society
can ensure that individual desires for specific kinds of work can
be matched with the requirements of society for useful production.
And we must point out (just to make sure we are not misunderstood)
that there will be no group of "planners" deciding which applications
for resources get accepted. Instead, individuals and associations
would apply to different production units for resources, whose workers
in turn decide whether to produce the goods requested. If it is within
the syndicate's agreed budget then it is likely that they will produce
the required materials. In this way, a communist-anarchist society
will ensure the maximum amount of economic freedom to start new syndicates
and join existing ones plus ensure that social production does not
suffer in the process.
Of course, no system is perfect -- we are sure that not everyone
will be able to do the work they enjoy the most (this is also the
case under capitalism, we may add). In an anarchist society every
method of ensuring that individuals pursue the work they are interested
in would be investigated. If a possible solution can be found, we
are sure that it will. What a free society would make sure of was
that neither the capitalist market redeveloped (which ensures that
the majority are marginalised into wage slavery) or a state socialist
"labour army" type allocation process developed (which would
ensure that free socialism did not remain free or socialist for long).
In this manner, anarchism will be able to ensure the principle of
voluntary labour and free association as well as making sure that
unpleasant and unwanted "work" is done. Moreover, most anarchists
are sure that in a free society such requirements to encourage people
to volunteer for unpleasant work will disappear over time as feelings
of mutual aid and solidarity become more and more common place. Indeed,
it is likely that people will gain respect for doing jobs that others
might find unpleasant and so it might become "glamorous" to
do such activity. Showing off to friends can be a powerful stimulus
in doing any activity. So anarchists would agree with Albert and Hahnel
when they say that:
"In a society that makes every effort to depreciate the esteem that derives
from anything other than conspicuous consumption, it is not surprising that
great income differentials are seen as necessary to induce effort. But to
assume that only conspicuous consumption can motivate people because under
capitalism we have strained to make it so is unwarranted. There is plenty
of evidence that people can be moved to great sacrifices for reasons other
than a desire for personal wealth...there is good reason to believe that for
nonpathological people wealth is generally coveted only as a means of
attaining other ends such as economic security, comfort, social esteem,
respect, status, or power." [The Political Economy of Participatory
Economics, p. 52]
We should note here that the education syndicates would obviously
take into account the trends in "work" placement requirements
when deciding upon the structure of their classes. In this way, education
would respond to the needs of society as well as the needs of the
individual (as would any productive syndicate).
Anarchism is based on voluntary labour. If people do not desire to work then
they cannot (must not) be forced to. The question arises of what to
do with those (a small minority, to be sure) who refuse to work.
On this question there is some disagreement. Some anarchists, particularly
communist-anarchists, argue that the lazy should not be deprived of
the means of life. Social pressure, they argue, would force those
who take, but do not contribute to the community, to listen to their
conscience and start producing for the community that supports them.
Other anarchists are less optimistic and agree with Camillo Berneri
when he argues that anarchism should be based upon "no compulsion
to work, but no duty towards those who do not want to work." ["The
Problem of Work", in Why Work?, Vernon Richards (ed.),
p. 74] This means that an anarchist society will not continue to feed,
clothe, house someone who can produce but refuses to. Most anarchists
have had enough of the wealthy under capitalism consuming but not
producing and do not see why they should support a new group of parasites
after the revolution.
Obviously, there is a difference between not wanting to work and
being unable to work. The sick, children, the old, pregnant women
and so on will be looked after by their friends and family (or by
the commune, as desired by those involved). As child rearing would
be considered "work" along with other more obviously economic
tasks, mothers and fathers will not have to leave their children unattended
and work to make ends meet. Instead, consideration will be given to
the needs of both parents and children as well as the creation of
community nurseries and child care centres.
We have to stress here that an anarchist society will not deny anyone
the means of life. This would violate the voluntary labour which is
at the heart of all schools of anarchism. Unlike capitalism, the means
of life will not be monopolised by any group -- including the commune.
This means that someone who does not wish to join a commune or who
does not pull their weight within a commune and are expelled will
have access to the means of making a living outside the commune.
We stated that we stress this fact as many supporters of capitalism
seem to be unable to understand this point (or prefer to ignore it
and so misrepresent the anarchist position). In an anarchist society,
no one will be forced to join a commune simply because they do not
have access to the means of production and/or land required to work
alone. Unlike capitalism, where access to these essentials of life
is dependent on buying access to them from the capitalist class (and
so, effectively, denied to the vast majority), an anarchist society
will ensure that all have access and have a real choice between living
in a commune and working independently. This access is based on the
fundamental difference between possession and property -- the commune
possesses as much land as it needs, as do non-members. The resources
used by them are subject to the usual possession rationale -- they
possess it only as long as they use it and cannot bar others using
it if they do not (i.e., it is not property).
Thus an anarchist commune remains a voluntary association and ensures
the end of all forms of wage slavery (see also section
I.1.4). The member of the commune has the choice of working as
part of a community, giving according to their abilities and taking
according to their needs (or some other means of organising production
and consumption such as equal income or receiving labour notes, and
so on), or working independently and so free of communal benefits
as well as any commitments (bar those associated with using communal
resources such as roads and so on).
So, in most, if not all, anarchist communities, individuals have
two options, either they can join a commune and work together as equals,
or they can work as an individual or independent co-operative and
exchange the product of their labour with others. If an individual
joins a commune and does not carry their weight, even after their
fellow workers ask them to, then that person will possibly be expelled
and given enough land, tools or means of production to work alone.
Of course, if a person is depressed, run down or otherwise finding
it hard to join in communal responsibilities then their friends and
fellow workers would do everything in their power to help and be flexible
in their approach to the problem.
Some anarchist communities may introduce what Lewis Mumford termed
"basic communism." This means that everyone would get a basic
amount of "purchasing power," regardless of productive activity.
If some people were happy with this minimum of resources then they
need not work. If they want access to the full benefits of the commune,
then they could take part in the communal labour process. This could
be a means of eliminating all forces, even communal ones, which drive
a person to work and so ensure that all labour is fully voluntary
(i.e. not even forced by circumstances). What method a community would
use would depend on what people in that community thought was best.
It seems likely, however, that in most anarchist communities people
will have to work, but how they do so will be voluntary. If people
did not work then some would live off the labour of those who do work
and would be a reversion to capitalism. However, most social anarchists
think that the problem of people trying not to work would be a very
minor one in an anarchist society. This is because work is part of
human life and an essential way to express oneself. With work being
voluntary and self-managed, it will become like current day hobbies
and many people work harder at their hobbies than they do at "real"
work (this FAQ can be considered as an example of this!). It is the
nature of employment under capitalism that makes it "work"
instead of pleasure. Work need not be a part of the day that we wish
would end. As Kropotkin argued (and has been subsequently supported
by empirical evidence), it is not work that people hate. Rather
it is overwork, in unpleasant circumstances and under the control
of others that people hate. Reduce the hours of labour, improve the
working conditions and place the work under self-management and work
will stop being a hated thing. In his own words:
"Repugnant tasks will disappear, because it is evident that
these unhealthy conditions are harmful to society as a whole.
Slaves can submit to them, but free men create new conditions,
and their work will be pleasant and infinitely more productive.
The exceptions of today will be the rule of tomorrow." [The
Conquest of Bread, p. 123]
This, combined with the workday being shortened, will help ensure
that only an idiot would desire to work alone. As Malatesta argued,
the "individual who wished to supply his own material needs by
working alone would be the slave of his labours." [The Anarchist
Revolution, p. 15]
So, enlightened self-interest would secure the voluntary labour
and egalitarian distribution anarchists favour in the vast majority
of the population. The parasitism associated with capitalism would
be a thing of the past. Thus the problem of the "lazy" person
fails to understand the nature of humanity nor the revolutionising
effects of freedom and a free society on the nature and content of
work.
Given the anarchist desire to liberate the artist in all of us, we can easily
imagine that a free society would transform totally the working environment.
No longer would workers be indifferent to their workplaces, but they
would express themselves in transforming them into pleasant places,
integrated into both the life of the local community and into the
local environment. After all, "no movement that raises the demand
for workers' councils can be regarded as revolutionary unless it tries
to promote sweeping transformations in the environment of the work
place." [Murray Bookchin, Post-Scarcity Anarchism, p. 146]
A glimpse of the future workplace can been seen from the actual
class struggle. In the 40 day sit-down strike at Fisher Body plant
#1 in Flint, Michigan in 1936, "there was a community of two thousand
strikers . . . Committees organised recreation, information, classes,
a postal service, sanitation . . . There were classes in parliamentary
procedure, public speaking, history of the labour movement. Graduate
students at the University of Michigan gave courses in journalism
and creative writing." [Howard Zinn, A People's History of
the United States, p. 391] In the same year, during the Spanish
Revolution, collectivised workplaces also created libraries and education
facilities as well as funding schools, health care and other social
necessities (a practice, we must note, that had started before the
revolution when C.N.T. unions had funded schools, social centres,
libraries and so on).
Therefore the workplace would be expanded to include education and
classes in individual development (and so following Proudhon's comment
that we should "[o]rganise association, and by the same token,
every workshop becoming a school, every worker becomes a master, every
student an apprentice." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, pp.
62-3]). This would allow work to become part of a wider community,
drawing in people from different areas to share their knowledge and
learn new insights and ideas. In addition, children would have part
of their school studies with workplaces, getting them aware of the
practicalities of many different forms of work and so allowing them
to make informed decisions in what sort of activity they would be
interested in pursuing when they were older.
Obviously, a workplace managed by its workers would also take care
to make the working environment as pleasant as possible. No more "sick
building syndrome" or unhealthy and stressful work areas. Buildings
would be designed to maximise space and allow individual expression
within them. Outside the workplace, we can imagine it surrounded by
gardens and allotments which were tended by workers themselves, giving
a pleasant surrounding to the workplace. There would, in effect, be
a break down of the city/rural divide -- workplaces would be placed
next to fields and integrated into the surroundings:
"Have the factory and the workshop at the gates of your fields and
gardens, and work in them. Not those large establishments, of course,
in which huge masses of metals have to be dealt with and which are
better placed at certain spots indicated by Nature, but the countless
variety of workshops and factories which are required to satisfy
the infinite diversity of tastes among civilised men [and women] . . .
factories and workshops which men, women and children will not be
driven by hunger, but will be attracted by the desire of finding an
activity suited to their tastes, and where, aided by the motor and
the machine, they will choose the branch of activity which best
suits their inclinations." [Peter Kropotkin, Fields, Factories
and Workshops Tomorrow, p. 197]
This vision of rural and urban integration is just part of the future
anarchists see for the workplace. As Kropotkin argued, "[w]e proclaim
integration. . . a society of integrated, combined labour.
A society where each individual is a producer of both manual and intellectual
work; where each able-bodied human being is a worker, and where each
worker works both in the field and the industrial workshop; where
every aggregation of individuals, large enough to dispose of a certain
variety of natural resources -- it may be a nation, or rather a region
-- produces and itself consumes most of its own agricultural and manufactured
produce." [Op. Cit., p. 26]
The future workplace would be an expression of the desires of those
who worked there. It would be based around a pleasant working environment,
within gardens and with extensive library, resources for education
classes and other leisure activities. All this, and more, will be
possible in a society based upon self-realisation and self-expression
and one in which individuality is not crushed by authority and capitalism.
To re-quote Kropotkin, "if most of the workshops we know are foul
and unhealthy, it is because the workers are of no account in the
organisation of factories" and "[s]laves can submit to them,
but free men will create new conditions, and their will be pleasant
and infinitely more productive." [The Conquest of Bread,
p. 121 and p. 123]
"So in brief," argued William Morris, "our buildings will
be beautiful with their own beauty of simplicity as workshops . .
. [and] besides the mere workshops, our factory will have other buildings
which may carry ornament further than that, for it will need dinning-hall,
library, school, places for study of different kinds, and other such
structures." Such a vision is possible and is only held back by
capitalism which denounces such visions of freedom as "uneconomic."
However, as William Morris points out:
"Impossible I hear an anti-Socialist say. My friend, please to remember
that most factories sustain today large and handsome gardens, and not
seldom parks . . .only the said gardens, etc. are twenty miles away from
the factory, out of the smoke, and are kept up for one member of the
factory only, the sleeping partner to wit" [A Factory as It Might Be,
p. 9 and pp. 7-8]
Pleasant working conditions based upon the self-management of work
can produce a workplace within which economic "efficiency"
can be achieved without disrupting and destroying individuality and
the environment (also see section I.4.9
for a fuller discussion of anarchism and technology).
It is often argued that anarcho-communism and other forms of non-market libertarian-socialism
would promote inefficiency and unproductive work. The basis of this
argument is that without market forces to discipline workers and the
profit motive to reward them, workers would have no incentive to work
in a way which minimises time or resources. The net effect of this
would be inefficient use of recourses, particularly individual's time.
This is a valid point in some ways; for example, a society can (potentially)
benefit from increasing productivity as the less time it takes to
produce a certain good, the more time it gains for other activities
(although, of course, in a class society the benefits of increased
productivity generally accrue to, first and foremost, to those at
the top). Indeed, for an individual, a decent society depends on people
having time available for them to do what they want, to develop themselves
in whatever way they want, to enjoy themselves. In addition, doing
more with less can have a positive environment impact as well. And
it is for these reasons that an anarchist society would be interested
in promoting efficiency and productiveness during production.
While capitalism has turned improvements in productivity as a means
of increasing work, enriching the few and generally proletarianising
the working class, a free society would take a different approach
to the problem. As argued in section I.4.3,
a communist-anarchist society would be based upon this principle:
"for some much per day (in money today, in labour tomorrow)
you are entitled to satisfy -- luxury excepted -- this or
the other of your wants." [Peter Kropotkin, Small Communal
Experiments and why the fail, p. 8]
Building upon this, we can imagine a situation where the average
output for a given industry in a given amount of time is used to encourage
efficiency and productivity. If a given syndicate can produce this
average output with at least average quality in less time than the
agreed average/minimum (and without causing ecological or social externalities,
of course) then the members of that syndicate can and should have
that time off.
This would be a powerful incentive to innovate, improve productivity,
introduce new machinery and processes as well as work efficiently
without reintroducing the profit motive and material inequality. With
the possibility of having more time available for themselves and their
own projects, people involved in productive activities would have
a strong interest in being efficient. Of course, if the work in question
is something they enjoy then any increases in efficiency would enhance
what makes their work enjoyable and not eliminate it.
Rewarding efficiency with free time would also be an important means
to ensure efficient use of resources as well as a means of reducing
time spent in productive activity which was considered as boring or
otherwise undesirable. The incentive of getting unpleasant tasks over
with as quickly as possible would ensure that the tasks were done
efficiently and that innovation was directed towards them.
Moreover, when it came to major investment decisions, a syndicate
would be more likely to get others to agree to its plans if the syndicate
had a reputation of excellence. This, again, would encourage efficiency
as people would know that they could gain resources for their communities
and workplaces (i.e. themselves) more easily if their work is efficient
and reliable. This would be a key means of encouraging efficient and
effective use of resources.
Similarly, an inefficient or wasteful syndicate would have negative
reactions from their fellow workers. As we argued in section I.4.7
("What will stop producers ignoring
consumers?"), a libertarian communist economy would be based
on free association. If a syndicate or community got a reputation
for being inefficient with resources then others would not associate
with them (i.e. they would not supply them with materials, or place
them at the end of the queue when deciding which production requests
to supply, and so on). As with a syndicate which produced shoddy goods,
the inefficient syndicate would also face the judgement of its peers.
This will produce an environment which will encourage efficient use
of resources and time.
All these factors, the possibility of increased free time, the respect
and resources gained for an efficient and excellent work and the possibility
of a lack of co-operation with others for inefficient use of resources,
would ensure that an anarchist-communist or anarchist-collectivist
society would have no need to fear inefficiency. Indeed, by placing
the benefits of increased efficiency into the hands of those who do
the work, efficiency will no doubt increase.
With self-management, we can soon see human time being used efficiently
and productively simply because those doing the work would have a
direct and real interest in it. Rather than alienate their liberty,
as under capitalism, they would apply their creativity and minds to
transforming their productive activity in such a way as to make it
enjoyable and not a waste of their time.
Little wonder Kropotkin argued, modern knowledge could be applied
to a society in which people, "with the work of their own hands
and intelligence, and by the aid of the machinery already invented
and to be invented, should themselves create all imaginable riches.
Technics and science will not be lagging behind if production takes
such a direction. Guided by observation, analysis and experiment,
they will answer all possible demands. They will reduce the time required
for producing wealth to any desired amount, so as to leave to everyone
as much leisure as he or she may ask for. . . they guarantee . . .
the happiness that can be found in the full and varied exercise of
the different capacities of the human being, in work that need not
be overwork." [Fields, Factories and Workshops Tomorrow,
pp. 198-9]
One last point. A free society will undoubtedly create new criteria
for what counts as an efficient use of resources and time. What passes
for "efficient" use capitalism often means what is efficient
in increasing the power and profits of the few, without regard to
the wasteful use of individual time, energy and potential as well
as environmental and social costs. Such a narrow criteria for decision
making or evaluating efficient production will not exist in an anarchist
society (see our discussion of the irrational nature of the price
mechanism in section I.1.2, for example).
While we use the term efficiency we mean the dictionary definition
of efficiency (i.e. reducing waste, maximising use of resources) rather
than what the capitalist market distorts this into (i.e. what creates
most profits for the boss).
|
