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 making blue-prints 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, "[c]ommon 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 cooperation 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. For all anarchists, a "voluntary association that will organise labour, and be the manufacturer and distributor of necessary commodities... is to make what is useful. The individual is to make what is beautiful." [Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man Under Socialism, page 25] 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 realizable, 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."
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 cooperation between equals, for while competition may be the "law" of the jungle, cooperation is the law of civilisation.
This cooperation is not based on "altruism," but self-interest As Proudhon argued, "Mutuality, 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, page 29-30] In other words, solidarity and cooperation 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]
Combined with this desire for free cooperation, 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 cooperating together as they (not a central body) sees fit. This cooperation 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. Bare 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.
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 for we consume what we desire and no one
forces us to do so. However, this 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 does 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. For anarchists, "Real wealth
consists of things of utility and beauty, in things that help create strong,
beautiful bodies and surroundings inspiring to live in." [Emma Goldman,
Red Emma Speaks, p. 53]
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, 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, [is]
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 may
add today, the least disruption of nature then capitalism is condemned. [The
Conquest of Bread, p. 144] The anarchists charge capitalism with wasting
human energy due to its irrational nature and workings, energy that could be
spent creating what is beautiful.
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 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." [cited by J.S. Mill in On Liberty, chapter III]
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 Hehnel 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." [Op. Cit., p.9]
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, 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 its 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 practiced 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 conductive 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] 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 (in Alienation and Freedom) 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, 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 cretinization all around us than even such
significant moronizing 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 grow, schools built, houses 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.
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
sg]hows 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 labor of its deadening, dulling aspect, of its gloom
and compulsion. It aims to make work an instrument of joy, of strength, of
color, of real harmony, so that the poorest sort of a man should find in
work both recreation and hope."
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 generalized 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 craving of wood. The problem is to make all time a time
of liberty and to allow concrete freedom to find expression in creative
activity." [Workers' Councils and the Economics of a Self-Managed Society,
p. 14] Essentially, "the problem is to put poetry into work." [Op. Cit.,
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-realization and not a form of self-negation.
In other words, anarchists want to abolish work because "Life, 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 do 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. This
"division of work" is common 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 encouraged
in an anarchist society. The difference is that individuals will manage
all aspects of the "work" required (for example, engineers will also take
part in self-managing their workplaces) and the strict division of labour
of capitalism will be abolished (see section I.4.3). In other words,
anarchists want to replace the division of labour by the division 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 OASK 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" [Peter
Kropotkin, The Conquest of Bread, p. 148] both inside and outside "work."
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.4.14 - What will the workplace of tomorrow be like?). This will
obviously apply to work conducted in the home as well, otherwise the "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]
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 characterized 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 "free
markets" 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 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 remember 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].
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 labor and a planned administration of
things in the interest of the community." [Ibib.]
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 false simply
because anarchism aims "to reconstruct the economic life of the peoples
from the ground up and build it up in the spirit of Socialism." [Ibib.]
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 emphasizes 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. 94]
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 response to
changes in the production and distribution of products by increasing or
decreasing the required means of production in a cooperative (i.e. "planned")
fashion. No "central planning" or "central planners" governing the economy,
just workers cooperating together as equals.
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]
In response to consumption patterns, syndicates will have to expand or
reduce production and will have to attract volunteers to go 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 minimalised 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 cooperative ventures succeed. In other words, members of
a cooperative commonwealth would have to make and keep to their agreements
between themselves. This means that syndicates 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 cooperation and agreement. Therefore, 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
worktimes, flexi-time, job rotation and so on determined by each syndicate
(for example, one syndicate may work 8 hours a day, another 4, 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 organize 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."
[The Conquest of Bread, p. 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, 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 defense 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 (ie 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 cooperation to reduce
labour is "authoritarian" while agreements between individuals on the
market are not seems illogical to social anarchists. They cannot see
how its 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 the wages system 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 labor checks, or equal salaries,
or any other method" [Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 166]
while considering a given solution best in their opinion. Free experiment
is a key aspect of anarchism.
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 is system of market based distribution around a network of cooperatives
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 collectivized 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 the those involved.
As Guillaume puts it "...the value of the commodities having been established
in advance by a contractual agreement between the regional cooperative
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 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.4.7) 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
cooperatives 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 has 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 centers ("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 simple 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. Of course, as well as absolute scarcity, prices
also reflect relative scarcity (while in the long term, market prices
tend towards their production price, in the short term prices can change
as a result of changes in supply and demand under capitalism). 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 cooperating 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 cooperation 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 coordination 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
coordinated. 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 coordinate their plans - see section
C.7.1).
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." In 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 thus 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, that 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 Barret 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 this is done varies between anarchist threads.
In a mutualist economy, based on independent and cooperative labour,
differences in wealth would be vastly reduced, so ensuring that irrational
aspects of the market that exist within capitalism would be minimalised.
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 cooperation between individuals and groups need not be hierarchical.
Therefore, it is a question of distributing information between producers
and consumers, information which the market often hides or activity blocks.
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
collectives will wish to adjust they 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]
Therefore, 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 so that they may effectively adjust their
decisions in light of the decisions of others. This index could be, for
example, a percentage value 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 to take into account unexpected
changes in consumption. This may result in some excess supply of goods
being produced and used as used as stock to buffer out unexpected changes
in the aggregate demand for a good.
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.
Therefore, each syndicate receives its own orders and supplies and sends
its own produce out. Similarly, communal distribution centers 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 coordination achieved
by equality of association and not the hierarchy of the corporate structure.
This system ensures a cooperative 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.7.1).
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 infrastuctures). 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. 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 before hand
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, cooperatives 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.4.7 (What are the criteria for
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 free communism would lead to people wasting
resources by taking more than they need. This is because "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."
[Peter Kropotkin, The Place of Anarchism in the Evolution of Socialist Thought, p. 7] Without wages, it is claimed, resources would be wasted.
Indeed, 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]
So 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.
Therefore, communist-anarchist 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 both cases individuals use the resource as and
when they need to.
We can expect a similar effect 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, 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 organization. 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. An society based on the
free expression of individuality could be nothing but rich in wealth and
diverse in goods and experiences. What we 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.
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. Under a mutualist regime, credit for investment would
be available from two sources. Firstly, an individual's or cooperatives 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]
Collectivist and Communist anarchists agree with their Mutualist cousins
when they state that "[a]ll credit presupposes labor, and, if labor 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 in the confederations
of collectives, community "banks" and other such means by which depreciation
funds could be stored and as well as other funds agreed to by the collectives
(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 new investment). In a communist-anarchist society, the collectives would
agree that a certain part of their output and activity will be directed to
new means of production. 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. In this way, mutual aid ensures a suitable
pool of resources for the future from which all benefit.
As to when investment is needed, its clear that this will be based on the
changes in demand for goods. As Guilliame points 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. Such guidelines and
communication between producers, investment would go to those industries
that actually required them.
As production would be decentralised as far as possible, each locality would
be able to understand its own requirements and apply them as it sees fit.
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 the
case of new technology and plant, cost benefit analysis (as outlined in
section I.4.4) would be used to determine which technology would produce
the best results and whether changes should be made in plant stock.
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 cooperative 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 cooperatives. 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 cooperation 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
environment and no longer stand apart from it. 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, "Supporters 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] 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.
In a libertarian-socialist society, people are likely to "vote" 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, Princeton Univ. Press, 1962, 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? Taking the
Internet, for example, it is unlikely that this would have got off the
ground if it had not been for the state.
Not necessarily. Because technology allows 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 lifespan; agricultural technology can be used to free
labor from the mundane chore of food production; advanced communications
technology can enhance our ability to freely associate. The list goes on
and on. However, 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]
Of course technology be used for oppressive ends, as indicated in section
D.10. Human knowledge, like all things, can be used to increase freedom or
to decrease it. Technology is neither "good," nor "bad" per se, but may be
used for either. What can be said is that in a hierarchical society,
technology will be introduced by serves the interests of the powerful and
helps marginalise and disempower the majority. This means that in an
anarchist society, technology would be developed which empowered those who
used it, so reducing any oppressive aspects of it, and, 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]
For example, increased productivity under capitalism usually leads to
further exploitation, displaced workers, etc. But it doesn't have to in
an anarchist world. By way of example, consider a small, self-sufficient
group in which all resources are distributed equally amongst the members.
Let's say that this group has 5 people and, for the sake of argument, 20
man-hours of production per week is spent on baking bread for the group.
Now, what happens if the introduction of automation reduces the
amount of labor required for bread production to 5 man-hours per week?
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 15 man-hours have
been freed up from the task of bread production, and those man-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,
but from its use in an equitable economic system. Certainly, a wide variety
of outcomes would be possible under alternative allocations. Yet, we have
managed to prove our point: in the end, there's no reason why increases in
productivity need lead to a lower standard of living! Therefore, "[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 bases of justice" [Ethics, p. 2]
Its 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.
So 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 so doing 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 unquestioning anti-technology.
So 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 which 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 (H.4) that competition between syndicates can lead to
"petty-bourgeois cooperativism," 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.
Collectivization 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 parlors 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
socialize 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
modernized and elegantly outfitted." From the money saved, income per
worker was increased by 40 percent, with everyone having the right to work
and all earning the same amount. "The former owners were not adversely
affected by socialization. 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"
["Collectivisation in Catalonia," in Dolgoff, The Anarchist Collectives,
pp. 93-94].
Therefore, cooperation 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 cooperatives and productive units, there
is little danger that rationalisation in production will hurt the interests
of the consumer.
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, Amabile 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'" [Ibib.].
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" [Ibib.]
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 behaviorist 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."
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 behaviorist 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-inforce the findings of other scientific fields. Biology, social psychology, ethnology and anthropology all present evidence that
support cooperation as the natural basis for human interaction. For
example, ethnological studies indicate that virtually all indigenous
cultures operate on the basis of highly cooperative relationships and
anthropologist's have presented evidence to show that the predominant
force driving early human evolution was cooperative 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 cooperative workplaces are more productive than those organized
on other principles. All other things equal, producers' cooperatives will
be more productive than capitalist or state enterprises, on average.
Cooperatives can often achieve higher productivity even when their equipment
and conditions are worse. Furthermore, the better the organization
approximates the cooperative ideal, the better the productivity.
All this is unsurprising to social anarchists (and it should make
individualist anarchists reconsider their position). Peter Kropotkin
(in Mutual Aid) asserted 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 organization." From his observation
that mutual aid gives evolutionary advantage to living beings, he derived
his political philosophy--a philosophy which stressed community and
cooperative endeavor.
Modern research has reinforced his argument. For example, 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 cooperation. 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 was 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 cooperative 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 cooperative behaviour, by contrast, consistantly
predicts good performance--a finding which holds true under a wide range of
subject variables. Interestingly, the positive benefits of cooperation
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.
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 unjustice 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
cooperation is the means by which the fittest survive.
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 Labor
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 B.3, 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) 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 J.S.
Mill points 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," John Stuart Mill on Politics and Society, p. 354]
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 (like those he, and other supporters
of capitalism, believes in) along with the wealth.
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, "Different
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 Nozack, 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 then they would have full use of the resources of that commune
and could use their possessions as they saw fit. Such lack of absolute
"ownership" not reduce liberty any more than the employee and the company
car he or she uses (bar destruction, the employee can use it as they see
fit).
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 labor 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 labor contract
between the producer and the consumer. It does not involve any capitalist
intermediary taking a percentage of the value created by the producer. 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.
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).
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. 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 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) and
often socialist acts between consenting individuals (i.e. the formation of
unions).
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.
That depends on the kind of 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 that 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 its 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 Barret 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" workplacements 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 turn over of workers between syndicates, the mass
transfers claimed in this argument are unlikely. Most workers who did want
to try their hand a 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 perferences 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 cooperative and pay them to do
the work in question. Individuals would form cooperatives with each
cooperative 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 cooperative 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 one day in a month to all fit members
of a community to do work which no one volunteers to do, it would soon be
done. This, however, may not prove to a possible in some "work" placements.
Possible solutions could be to 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, the number of
necessary hours required by an individual would be 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 it is in excess, 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.
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 workplacements 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 rid of
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 (and that is the case under
capitalism we may add). In an anarchist society ever 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 "glamourous" 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
response to the needs of society as well as the needs of the individual
(as would any productive syndicate).
I.4.1 What is the point of economic activity in anarchy?
I.4.2 Why do anarchists desire to abolish work?
I.4.3 How do anarchists intent to abolish work?
I.4.4 What economic decision making criteria could be used in anarchy?
I.4.5 What about "supply and demand"?
I.4.6 Surely anarchist-communism would just lead to demand exceeding supply?
I.4.7 What are the criteria for investment decisions?
I.4.8 What about funding for basic research?
I.4.9 Should technological advance be seen as anti-anarchistic?
I.4.10 What would be the advantage of a wide basis of surplus distribution?
I.4.11 If libertarian socialism eliminates the profit motive, won't creativity and performance suffer?
I.4.12 Won't there be a tendency for capitalist enterprise to reappear in any socialist society?
I.4.13 Who will do the dirty or unpleasant work?