text:
Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.
A lot. Markets soon result in what are termed "market forces," impersonal forces which ensure that thepeople in the economy do what is required of them in order for the economy to function. The market system, incapitalist apologetics, is presented to appear as a regime of freedom where no one forces anyone to do anything,where we "freely" exchange with others as we see fit. However, the facts of the matter are somewhat different,since the market often ensures that people act in ways opposite to what they desire or forces them to accept"free agreements" which they may not actually desire. Wage labour is the most obvious example of this, for, as weindicated in section B.4, most people have little option but to agree to work for others.We must stress here that not all anarchists are opposed to the market. Individualist anarchists favour itwhile Proudhon wanted to modify it while retaining competition. For many, the market equals capitalism but this isnot the case as it ignores the fundamental issue of (economic) class, namely who owns the means of production.Capitalism is unique in that it is based on wage labour, i.e. a market for labour as workers do not own their ownmeans of production and have to sell themselves to those who do. Thus it is entirely possible for a market to existwithin a society and for that society not to be capitalist. For example, a society of independent artisans andpeasants selling their product on the market would not be capitalist as workers would own and control their meansof production. Similarly, Proudhon's competitive system of self-managed co-operatives and mutual banks would benon-capitalist (and socialist) for the same reason. Anarchists object to capitalism due to the quality of the socialrelationships it generates between people (i.e. it generates authoritarian ones). If these relationships areeliminated then the kinds of ownership which do so are anarchistic. Thus the issue of ownership matters only inso-far it generates relationships of the desired kind (i.e. those based on liberty, equality and solidarity). Toconcentrate purely on "markets" or "property" means to ignore social relationships and the key aspect ofcapitalism, namely wage labour. That right-wingers do this is understandable (to hide the authoritarian core ofcapitalism) but why (libertarian or other) socialists should do so is less clear.In this section of the FAQ we discuss anarchist objections to the market as such rather than the capitalistmarket. The workings of the market do have problems with them which are independent of, or made worse by, theexistence of wage-labour. It is these problems which make most anarchists hostile to the market and so desire a(libertarian) communist society. So, even if we assume a mutualist (a libertarian market-socialist) system ofcompeting self-managed workplaces, then communist anarchists would argue that market forces would soon resultin many irrationalities occurring.Most obviously, operating in a market means submitting to the profit criterion. This means that howevermuch workers might want to employ social criteria in their decision making, they cannot. To ignore profitabilitywould cause their firm to go bankrupt. Markets, therefore, create conditions that compel producers to decidethings which are not be in their, or others, interest, such as introducing deskilling or polluting technology, workinglonger hours, and so on, in order to survive on the market. For example, a self-managed workplace will be morelikely to invest in safe equipment and working practices, this would still be dependent on finding the money to doso and may still increase the price of their finished product. So we could point to the numerous industrial deathsand accidents which are due to market forces making it unprofitable to introduce adequate safety equipment orworking conditions, (conservative estimates for industrial deaths in the USA are between 14,000 and 25,000 peryear plus over 2 million disabled), or to increased pollution and stress levels which shorten life spans.This tendency for self-managed firms to adjust to market forces by increasing hours, working moreintensely, allocating resources to accumulating equipment rather than leisure time or consumption can be seen inco-operatives under capitalism. While lacking bosses may reduce this tendency in a post-capitalist economy, it willnot eliminate it. This is why many socialists, including anarchists, call the way markets force unwilling members ofco-operatives to make such unpleasant decisions a form of "self-exploitation" (although this is somewhatmisleading, as there no exploitation in the capitalist sense of owners appropriating unpaid labour). For communistanarchists, a market system of co-operatives "has serious limitations" as "a collective enterprise is not necessarilya commune -- nor is it necessarily communistic in its outlook." This is because it can end up "competing with likeconcerns for resources, customers, privileges, and even profits" as they "become a particularisticinterest" and "are subjected to the same social pressures by the market in which they must function." This "tendsincreasingly to encroach on their higher ethical goals -- generally, in the name of 'efficiency', and the need to'grow' if they are to survive, and the overwhelming temptation to acquire larger earnings." [MurrayBookchin, Remaking Society, pp. 193-4]Similarly, a market of self-managed firms would still suffer from booms and slumps as the co-operativesresponse to changes in prices would still result in over-production (see section C.7.2 ) and over-investment(see section C.7.3). While the lack of non-labour income would help reduce the severity of the business cycle, itseems unlikely to eliminate it totally. Equally, many of the problems of market-increased uncertainty and thedestabilising aspects of price signals discussed in section I.1.5 are just as applicable to all markets, including postcapitalist ones.
This is related to the issue of the "tyranny of small decisions" we highlighted in section B.6. This suggeststhat the aggregate effect of individual decisions produces social circumstances which are irrational and against theinterests of those subject to them. This is the case with markets, where competition results in economic pressureswhich force its participants to act in certain ways, ways they would prefer not to do but, as isolated individuals orworkplaces, end up doing due to market forces. In markets, it is rational for people try to buy cheap and sell dear.Each tries to maximise their income by either minimising their costs or maximising their prices, not because theyparticularly want to but because they need to as taking into account other priorities is difficult as there is no meansof finding them out and deeply inadvisable as it is competitively suicidal as it places burdens on firms which theircompetitors need not face.As we noted in section E.3, markets tend to reward those who act in anti-social ways and externalise costs(in terms of pollution and so on). In a market economy, it is impossible to determine whether a low cost reflectsactual efficiency or a willingness to externalise, i.e., impose costs on others. Markets rarely internalise externalcosts. Two economic agents who strike a market-rational bargain between themselves need not consider theconsequences of their bargain for other people outside their bargain, nor the consequences for the earth. Inreality, then, market exchanges are never bilateral agreements as their effects impact on the wider society (interms of, say, pollution, inequality and so on). This awkward fact is ignored in the market. As the left-wingeconomist Joan Robinson put it: "In what industry, in what line of business, are the true social costs of the activityregistered in its accounts? Where is the pricing system that offers the consumer a fair choice between air to breathand motor cars to drive about in?" [Contribution to Modern Economics, p. 10]While, to be fair, there will be a reduced likelihood for a workplace of self-employed workers to pollute theirown neighbourhoods in a free society, the competitive pressures and rewards would still be there and it seemsunlikely that they will be ignored, particularly if survival on the market is at stake so communist-anarchists fearthat while not having bosses, capitalists and landlords would mitigate some of the irrationalities associated withmarkets under capitalism, it will not totally remove them. While the market may be free, people would not be.Even if we assume that self-managed firms resist the temptations and pressures of the market, any marketsystem is also marked by a continuing need to expand production and consumption. In terms of environmentalimpact, a self-managed firm must still make profits in order to survive and so the economy must grow. As such,every market system will tend to expand into an environment which is of fixed size. As well as placing pressure onthe planet's ecology, this need to grow impacts on human activity as it also means that market forces ensure thatwork continually has to expand. Competition means that we can never take it easy, for as Max Stirnerargued, "[r]estless acquisition does not let us take breath, take a calm enjoyment. We do not get the comfort ofour possessions . . . Hence it is at any rate helpful that we come to an agreement about human labours that theymay not, as under competition, claim all our time and toil."[The Ego and Its Own, p. 268] Value needs to becreated, and that can only be done by labour and so even a non-capitalist market system will see work dominatepeople's lives. Thus the need to survive on the market can impact on broader (non-monetary) measures ofwelfare, with quality of life falling as a higher GDP is created as the result of longer working hours with fewerholidays. Such a regime may, perhaps, be good for material wealth but it is not great for people.The market can also block the efficient use of resources. For example, for a long time energy efficient lightbulbs were much more expensive than normal ones. Over the long period, however, they used far less energy thannormal ones, meaning less need to produce more energy (and so burn coal and oil, for example). However, thehigh initial price ensured that most people continued to use the less efficient bulbs and so waste resources. Muchthe same can be said of alternative forms of energy, with investment in (say) wind energy ignored in favour ofone-use and polluting energy sources. A purely market system would not allow decisions which benefit the longterm interests of people to be made (for example, by distributing energy-efficient light-bulbs freely or at a reducedcost) as these would harm the profits of those co-operatives which tried to do so.Also, markets do not reflect the values of things we do not put a price upon (as we argued in section B.5).It cannot protect wilderness, for example, simply because it requires people to turn it into property and sell it as acommodity. If you cannot afford to visit the new commodity, the market turns it into something else, no matterhow much you value it. The market also ignores the needs of future generations as they always discount the valueof the long term future. A payment to be made 1,000 years from now (a mere speck in geological time) has amarket value of virtually zero according to any commonly used discount rate. Even 50 years in the future cannotbe adequately considered as competitive pressures force a short term perspective on people harmful to presentand future generations, plus the ecology of the planet.Then there are corrosive effects of the market on human personalities. As we have argued elsewhere(see section B.1.3 ), competition in a free market creates numerous problems -- for example, the creation ofan "ethics of mathematics" and the strange inversion of values in which things (property/money) become moreimportant than people. This can have a de-humanising effect, with people becoming cold-hearted calculators whoput profits before people. This can be seen in capitalism, where economic decisions are far more important thanethical ones -- particularly as such an inhuman mentality can be rewarded on the market. Merit does notnecessarily breed success, and the successful do not necessarily have merit. The truth is that, in the words of
Noam Chomsky, "wealth and power tend to accrue to those who are ruthless, cunning, avaricious, self-seeking,lacking in sympathy and compassion, subservient to authority and willing to abandon principle for material gain,and so on . . . Such qualities might be just the valuable ones for a war of all against all." [For Reasons of State,pp. 139-140]Needless to be said, if the market does reward such people with success it can hardly be considered asa good thing. A system which elevates making money to the position of the most important individual activity willobviously result in the degrading of human values and an increase in neurotic and psychotic behaviour. Littlewonder, as Alfie Kohn has argued, competition can have serious negative effects on us outside of work, with itdamaging both our personal psychology and our interpersonal relationships. Thus competition "itself is responsiblefor the development of a lower moral standard" which places winning at any cost above fairness and justice. Kohnquotes Nathan Ackerman, the father of family therapy, who noted that the "strife of competition reduces empathicsympathy, distorts communication, impairs the mutuality of support and sharing, and decreases the satisfaction ofpersonal need." [No Contest, p. 163 and pp. 142-3] Thus, the market can impoverish us as individuals,sabotaging self-esteem, promoting conformity, ruining relationships and making us less than what we could be.This is a problem of markets as such, not only capitalist ones and so non-capitalist markets could make us lesshuman and more a robot.All market decisions are crucially conditioned by the purchasing power of those income groups that canback their demands with money. Not everyone can work (the sick, the very old, children and so forth) and forthose who can, personal circumstances may impact on their income. Moreover, production has become sointerwoven that it "is utterly impossible to draw a distinction between the work of each" and so we should "putthe needs above the works, and first of all to recognise the right to live, and later on the right to wellbeing for all those who took their share in production."This is particularly the case as "the needs of the individual,do not always correspond to his works" -- for example, "a man of forty, father of three children, has other needsthan a young man of twenty" and "the woman who suckles her infant and spends sleepless nights at its bedside,cannot do as much work as the man who has slept peacefully." [Kropotkin,Conquest of Bread, p. 170 and p.171] This was why communist-anarchists like Kropotkin stressed the need not only to abolish wage-labour but alsomoney, the wages system.So it goes without saying that purchasing power (demand) and need are not related, with people oftensuffering simply because they do not have the money required to purchase, say, health care, housing or food forthemselves or their families. While economic distress may be less in a non-capitalist market system, it still wouldexist as would the fear of it. The market is a continuous bidding for goods, resources, and services, with those whohave the most purchasing power the winners. This means that the market system is the worst one for allocatingresources when purchasing power is unequally distributed (this is why orthodox economists make the convenientassumption of a"given distribution of income" when they try to show that a capitalist allocation of resources is thebest one via "Pareto optimality"). While a mutualist system should reduce inequality drastically, it cannot beassumed that inequalities will not increase over time. This is because inequalities in resources leads to inequalitiesof power on the market and, assuming self-interest, any trade or contract will benefit the powerful more than thepowerless, so re-enforcing and potentially increasing the inequalities and power between the parties. Similarly,while an anarchist society would be created with people driven by a sense of solidarity and desire for equality,markets tend to erode those feelings and syndicates or communes which, thanks to the resources they control(such as rare raw materials or simply the size of their investments reducing competitive pressures) have anadvantage on the market may be tempted to use their monopoly power vis--vis other groups in society to accruemore income for themselves at the expense of less fortunate syndicates and communes. This could degenerateback into capitalism as any inequalities that exist between co-operatives would be increased by competition,forcing weaker co-operatives to fail and so creating a pool of workers with nothing to sell but their labour. Thesuccessful co-operatives could then hire those workers and so re-introduce wage labour. So these possibilitiescould, over time, return a post-capitalist market system to capitalism if the inequalities become so great that thenew rich become so alienated from the rest of society they recreate wage-labour and, by necessity, a state toenforce a desire for property in land and the means of production against public opinion.All this ensures that the market cannot really provide the information necessary for rational-decisionmaking in terms of ecological impact as well as human activity and so resources are inefficiently allocated. We allsuffer from the consequences of that, with market forces impoverishing our environment and quality of life. Thusare plenty of reasons for concluding that efficiency and the market not only do not necessarily coincide, but,indeed, necessarily do not coincide. Indeed, rather than respond to individual needs, the market responds tomoney (more correctly, profit), which by its very nature provides a distorted indication of individual preferences(and does not take into account values which are enjoyed collectively, such as clean air, or potentially enjoyed,such as the wilderness a person may never visit but desires to see exist and protected).This does not mean that social anarchists propose to "ban" the market -- far from it. This would beimpossible. What we do propose is to convince people that a profit-based market system has distinctly bad effectson individuals, society and the planet's ecology, and that we can organise our common activity to replace it with
libertarian communism. As Max Stirner argued, competition "has a continued existence" because "all do not attendto their affair and come to anunderstanding with each other about it . . . . Abolishing competition is notequivalent to favouring the guild. The difference is this: In the guild baking, etc., is the affair of the guildbrothers; in competition, the affair of chance competitors; in theunion, of those who require baked goods, andtherefore my affair, yours, the affair of neither guildic nor the concessionary baker, but the affair ofthe united." [Op. Cit., p. 275]Therefore, social anarchists do not appeal purely to altruism in their struggle against the de-humanisingeffects of the market, but also to egoism: the simple fact that co-operation and mutual aid is in our best interestsas individuals. By co-operating and controlling "the affairs of the united," we can ensure a free society which isworth living in, one in which the individual is not crushed by market forces and has time to fully develop his or herindividuality and uniqueness:"Solidarity is therefore the state of being in which Man attains the greatest degree of security andwellbeing; and therefore egoism itself, that is the exclusive consideration of one's own interests, impels Man andhuman society towards solidarity." [Errico Malatesta, Anarchy, p. 30]In conclusion then, communist-anarchists argue that even non-capitalist markets would result in everyonebeing so busy competing to further their "self-interest" that they would loose sight of what makes life worth livingand so harm their actual interests. Ultimately, what counts as self-interest is shaped by the surrounding socialsystem. The pressures of competing may easily result in short-term and narrow interests taking precedence overricher, deeper needs and aspirations which a communal system could allow to flourish by providing the socialinstitutions by which individuals can discuss their joint interests, formulate them and act to achieve them. That is,even non-capitalist markets would result in people simply working long and hard to survive on the market ratherthan living. If one paradox of authoritarian socialism is that it makes everyone miserable by forcing them toaltruistically look out for the happiness of others, market-based libertarian socialism could produce the potentialparadox of making everyone miserable by the market forcing them to pursue a limited notion of self-interest whichensures that they do not have the time or opportunity to really be happy and at one with themselves and others.In other words, bosses act as they do under capitalism in part because markets force them to. Getting ridof bosses need not eliminate all the economic pressures which influence the bosses' decisions and, in turn, couldforce groups of workers to act in similar ways. Thus a competitive system would undermine many of the benefitswhich people sought when they ended capitalism. This is why some socialists inaccurately call socialist schemes ofcompeting co-operatives "self-managed capitalism" or "self-exploitation" -- they are simply drawing attention tothe negative aspects of markets which getting rid of the boss cannot solve. Significantly, Proudhon was well awareof the negative aspect of market forces and suggested various institutional structures, such as the agriculturalindustrial federation, to combat them (so while in favour of competition he was, unlike the individualist anarchists,against the free market). Communist anarchists, unsurprisingly, argue that individualist anarchists tend to stressthe positive aspects of competition while ignoring or downplaying its negative sides. While, undoubtedly, capitalismmakes the negative side of competition worse than it could be it does not automatically follow that a non-capitalistmarket would not have similar, if smaller, negative aspects to it.
Yet this is not a valid inference to make. Opposition to capitalism can imply both socialism (distributionaccording to deed, or selling the product of ones labour) and communism (distribution according to need, or amoneyless economy). The theory is a critique of capitalism, based on an analysis of that system as being rooted inthe exploitation of labour (as we discussed in section C.2), i.e., it is marked by workers not being paid the fullvalue of the goods they create. This analysis, however, is not necessarily the basis of a socialist economy althoughit can be considered this as well. As noted, Proudhon used his critique of capitalism as an exploitative system asthe foundation of his proposals for mutual banking and co-operatives. Marx, on the other hand, used a similaranalysis as Proudhon's purely as a critique of capitalism while hoping for communism. Robert Owen used it as thebasis of his system of labour notes while Kropotkin argued that such a system was just the wages-system underanother form and a free society "having taken possession of all social wealth, having boldly proclaimed the right ofall to this wealth . . . will be compelled to abandon any system of wages, whether in currency or labournotes." [The Conquest of Bread, p. 167]In other words, though a system of co-operative selling on the market (what is mistakenly termed "selfmanaged" capitalism by some) or exchanging labour-time values would not be communism, it is not capitalism.This is because the workers are not separated from the means of production. Therefore, the attempts bypropertarians to claim that it is capitalism are false, an example of misinformed insistence thatvirtually every economic system, bar state socialism and feudalism, is capitalist. However, it could be argued thatcommunism (based on free access and communal ownership of all resources including the product of labour) wouldmean that workers are exploited by non-workers (the young, the sick, the elderly and so on). As communismabolishes the link between performance and payment, it could be argued that the workers under communismwould be just as exploited as under capitalism, although (of course) not by a class of capitalists and landlords butby the community. As Proudhon put it, while the "members of a community, it is true, have no privateproperty" the community itself "is proprietor" and so communism "is inequality, but not as property is. Property isthe exploitation of the weak by the strong. Communism is the exploitation of the strong by the weak." [What isProperty?, p. 250]Needless to say, subsequent anarchists rejected Proudhon's blanket opposition to all forms of communism,rejecting this position as only applicable to authoritarian, not libertarian, communism. Which, it must beremembered, was the only kind around when this was written in 1840 (as we noted in section H.1 , what wasknown as communism in Proudhon's time was authoritarian). Suffice to say, Proudhon's opposition to communismshares little with that of the Propertarian-right, which reflects the sad lack of personal empathy (and so ethics) ofthe typical defender of capitalism. However, the notion that communism (distribution according to need) ratherthan socialism (distribution according to deed) is exploitative misses the point as far as communist anarchismgoes. This is because of two reasons.Firstly, "Anarchist Communism . . . means voluntary Communism, Communism from freechoice." [Alexander Berkman,What is Anarchism, p. 148] This means it is not imposed on anyone but is createdand practised only by those who believe in it.Therefore it would be up to the communities and syndicates to decide how they wish to distribute theproducts of their labour and individuals to join, or create, those that meet their ideas of right and wrong. Somemay decide on equal pay, others on payment in terms of labour time, yet others on communistic associations. Theimportant thing to realise is that individuals and the co-operatives they join will decide what to do with theiroutput, whether to exchange it or to distribute it freely. Hence, because it is based on free agreement, communistanarchism cannot be exploitative. Members of a commune or co-operative which is communistic are free to leave,after all. Needless to say, the co-operatives will usually distribute their product to others within their confederationand exchange with the non-communist ones in a different manner. We say "usually" for in the case of emergencieslike earthquakes and so forth the situation would call for, and produce, mutual aid just as it does today to a largedegree, even under capitalism.The reason why capitalism is exploitative is that workers have to agree to give the product of their labourto another (the boss, the landlord) in order to be employed in the first place (see section B.4 ). While they canchoose who to be exploited by (and, to varying degrees, pick the best of the limited options available to them)they cannot avoid selling their liberty to property owners (a handful do become self-employed and some manageto join the exploiting class, but not enough to make either a meaningful option for the bulk of the working class).In libertarian communism, by contrast, the workers themselves agree to distribute part of their product to others(i.e. society as a whole, their neighbours, friends, and so forth). It is based on free agreement, while capitalism ismarked by power, authority, and the firm (invisible) hand of market forces (supplemented, as necessary, by thevisible fist of the state). As resources are held in common under anarchism, people always have the option ofworking alone if they so desire (see section I.3.7).Secondly, unlike under capitalism, there is no separate class which is appropriating the goods produced.The so-called "non-workers" in a libertarian communist society have been, or will be, workers. As the notedSpanish anarchist De Santillan pointed out, "[n]aturally, children, the aged and the sick are not consideredparasites. The children will be productive when they grow up. The aged have already made their contribution to
social wealth and the sick are only temporarily unproductive." [After the Revolution, p. 20] In other words, overtheir life time, everyone contributes to society and so using the "account book" mentality of capitalism misses thepoint. As Kropotkin put it:"Services rendered to society, be they work in factory or field, or mental services, cannot be valued inmoney. There can be no exact measure of value (of what has been wrongly-termed exchange value), nor of usevalue, with regard to production. If two individuals work for the community five hours a day, year in year out, atdifferent work which is equally agreeable to them, we may say that on the whole their labour is equivalent. But wecannot divide their work, and say that the result of any particular day, hour, or minute of work of the one is worththe result of a minute or hour of the other." [Conquest of Bread, p. 168]So it is difficult to evaluate how much an individual worker or group of workers actually contribute tosociety. This can be seen whenever workers strike, particularly so-called "key" areas like transport. Then the mediais full of accounts of how much the strike is costing "the economy" and it is always far more than that of the wageslost in strike action. Yet, according to capitalist economics, the wages of a worker are equal to their contribution toproduction -- no more, no less. Striking workers, in other words, should only harm the economy to the value oftheir wages yet, of course, this is obviously not the case. This is because of the interconnected nature of anyadvanced economy, where contributions of individuals are so bound together.Needless to say, this does not imply that a free people would tolerate the able-bodied simply taking withoutcontributing towards the mass of products and services society. As we discuss in section I.4.14 , such people willbe asked to leave the community and be in the same situation as those who do not wish to be communists.Ultimately, the focus on calculating exact amounts and on the evaluation of contributions down to the lastpenny is exactly the kind of narrow-minded account-book mentality which makes most people socialists in the firstplace. It would be ironic if, in the name of non-exploitation, a similar accounting mentality to that which recordshow much surplus value is extracted from workers under capitalism is continued into a free society. It makes lifeeasier not to have to worry whether you can afford to visit the doctors or dentists, not to have to pay for use ofroads and bridges, know that you can visit a public library for a book and so forth. For those who wish to spendtheir time calculating such activities and seeking to pay the community for them simply because they hate the ideaof being "exploited" by the "less" productive, the ill, the young or the old then we are sure that a libertariancommunist society will accommodate them (although we are sure that emergencies will be an exception and theywill be given free access to communal hospitals, fire services and so forth).Thus the notion that communism would be exploitative like capitalism misses the point. While all socialistsaccuse capitalism for failing to live up to its own standards, of not paying workers the full product of their labour,most do not think that a socialist society should seek to make that full payment a reality. Life, for libertariancommunists, is just too complex and fleeting to waste time and energy calculating exactly the contribution of eachto society. As Malatesta put it:"I say that the worker has the right to the entire product of his work: but I recognise that this rightis only a formula of abstract justice; and means, in practice, that there should be no exploitation, that everyonemust work and enjoy the fruits of their labour, according to the custom agreed among them."Workers are not isolated beings that live for themselves and for themselves, but social beings . . .Moreover, it is impossible, the more so with modern production methods, to determine the exact labour that eachworker contributed, just as it is impossible to determine the differences in productivity of each worker or eachgroup of workers, how much is due to the fertility of the soil, the quality of the implements used, the advantagesor difficulties flowing from the geographical situation or the social environment. Hence, the solution cannot befound in respect to the strict rights of each person, but must be sought in fraternal agreement, in solidarity."[Atthe Caf, pp. 56-7]All in all, most anarchists reject the notion that people sharing the world (which is all communism reallymeans) equates to them being exploited by others. Rather than waste time trying to record the minutiae of whocontributed exactly what to society, most anarchists are happy if people contribute to society roughly equalamounts of time and energy and take what they need in return. To consider such a situation of free co-operationas exploitative is simply ridiculous (just as well consider the family as the exploitation of its working members bytheir non-working partners and children). Those who do are free to leave such an association and pay their ownway in everything (a task which would soon drive home the simplicity and utility of communism, most anarchistswould suggest).
the future will be created by everyone, not just the few anarchists and libertarian socialists who writebooks and FAQs. This is very true, we cannot predict what a free society will actually be like or developand we have no intention to do so here. However, this reply (whatever its other merits) ignores a keypoint, people need to have some idea of what anarchism aims for before they decide to spend their livestrying to create it.So, how would an anarchist system function? That depends on the economic ideas people have. Amutualist economy will function differently than a communist one, for example, but they will have similarfeatures. As Rudolf Rocker put it:"Common to all Anarchists is the desire to free society of all political and social coercive institutionswhich stand in the way of development of a free humanity. In this sense Mutualism, Collectivism andCommunism are not to be regarded as closed systems permitting no further development, but merely aseconomic assumptions as to the means of safeguarding a free community. There will even probably be insociety of the future different forms of economic co-operation operating side by side, since any socialprogress must be associated with that free experiment and practical testing out for which in a society offree communities there will be afforded every opportunity." [Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 9]So given the common ideals and aims of anarchists, it is unsurprising that the economic systems wesuggest have common features such as workers' self-management, federation, free agreement and so on(as discussed in last section). For all anarchists, the "task for a modern industrial society is to achievewhat is now technically realisable, namely, a society which is really based on free voluntary participationof people who produce and create, live their lives freely within institutions they control, and with limitedhierarchical structures, possibly none at all." [Noam Chomsky, quoted by Albert and Hahnel, LookingForward, p. 62]This achieved by means of "voluntary association that will organise labour, and be the manufacturer anddistributor of necessary commodities" and this "is to make what is useful. The individual is to makewhat is beautiful." [Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man Under Socialism, p. 1183] For example, themachine "will supersede hand-work in the manufacture of plain goods. But at the same time, hand-workvery probably will extend its domain in the artistic finishing of many things which are made entirely inthe factory." [Peter Kropotkin, Fields, Factories and Workplaces Tomorrow, p. 152] MurrayBookchin, decades later, argued for the same idea: "the machine will remove the toil from the productiveprocess, leaving its artistic completion to man." [Post-Scarcity Anarchism, p. 134]The aim would be to maximise the time available for individuals to express and development theirindividuality, including in production. As Stirner put it, the "organisation of labour touches only suchlabours as others can do for us. . . the rest remain egoistic, because no one can in your stead elaborateyour musical compositions, carry out your projects of painting, etc.; nobody can replace Raphael'slabours. The latter are labours of a unique person, which only he is competent to achieve." Criticising theauthoritarian socialists of his time, Stirner went on to ask "for whom is time to be gained [byassociation]? For what does man require more time than is necessary to refresh his wearied powers oflabour? Here Communism is silent." He then answers his own question by arguing it is gained for theindividual "[t]o take comfort in himself as unique, after he has done his part as man!" [The Ego and ItsOwn, p. 268 and p. 269] Which is exactly what libertarian communists argue:"[We] recognise that man [sic!] has other needs besides food, and as the strength of Anarchy liesprecisely in that it understands all human faculties and all passions, and ignores none, we shall . . .contrive to satisfy all his intellectual and artistic needs . . . the man [or woman] who will have done thefour or five hours of . . . work that are necessary for his existence, will have before him five or six hourswhich his will seek to employ according to tastes . . ."He will discharge his task in the field, the factory, and so on, which he owes to society as hiscontribution to the general production. And he will employ the second half of his day, his week, or hisyear, to satisfy his artistic or scientific needs, or his hobbies." [Kropotkin, Conquest of Bread, pp. 1101]
Thus, while authoritarian Communism ignores the unique individual (and that was the only kind ofCommunism existing when Stirner wrote his classic book) libertarian communists agree with Stirnerand are not silent. Like him, they consider the whole point of organising labour is to provide the means ofproviding the individual with the time and resources required to express their individuality. In otherwords, to pursue "labours of a unique person." Thus all anarchists base their arguments for a free societyon how it will benefit actual individuals, rather than abstracts or amorphous collectives (such as"society"). Hence chapter 9 of The Conquest of Bread, "The Need for Luxury" and, for that matter,chapter 10, "Agreeable Work."In other words, anarchists desire to organise voluntary workers associations which will try to ensure aminimisation of mindless labour in order to maximise the time available for creative activity both insideand outside "work." This is to be achieved by free co-operation between equals, which is seen as beingbased on self-interest. After all, while capitalist ideology may proclaim that competition is an expressionof self-interest it, in fact, results in the majority of people sacrificing themselves for the benefits of thefew who own and control society. The time you sell to a boss in return for them ordering you about andkeeping the product of your labour is time you never get back. Anarchists aim to end a system whichcrushes individuality and create one in which solidarity and co-operation allow us time to enjoy life and togain the benefits of our labour ourselves. Mutual Aid, in other words, results in a better life than mutualstruggle 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." [LuigiGeallani, The End of Anarchism, p. 26]In the place of the rat race of capitalism, economic activity in an anarchist society would be one of themeans to humanise and individualise ourselves and society, to movefrom surviving to living. Productive activity should become a means of self-expression, of joy, of art,rather than something we have to do to survive. Ultimately, "work" should become more akin to play or ahobby than the current alienated activity. The priorities of life should be towards individual self-fulfilmentand humanising society rather than "running society as an adjunct to the market," to use Polanyi'sexpression, and turning ourselves into commodities on the labour market. Thus anarchists agree withJohn Stuart Mill:"I confess I am not charmed with an ideal of life held out by those who think that the normal state ofhuman beings is that of struggling to get on; that the trampling, crushing, elbowing, and treading oneach other's heels, which form the existing type of social life, are the most desirable lot of human kind,or anything but the disagreeable symptoms of one of the phases of industrial progress." [CollectedWorks, vol. III, p. 754]The aim of anarchism is far more than the end of inequality. Hence Proudhon's comment thatsocialism's "underlying dogma" is that the "objective of socialism is the liberation of the proletariat andthe eradication of poverty." This emancipation would be achieved by ending "wagelabour" via "democratically organised workers' associations." [Property is Theft!, p. 372 and p. 377] Or,to use Kropotkin's expression, "well-being for all" -- physical, mental, emotional and ethical! Indeed, byconcentrating on just poverty and ignoring the emancipation of the proletariat, the real aims of socialismare obscured:"The 'right to well-being' means the possibility of living like human beings, and of bringing up children tobe members of a society better than ours, whilst the 'right to work' only means the right to be a wageslave, a drudge, ruled over and exploited by the middle class of the future. The right to well-being is theSocial Revolution, the right to work means nothing but the Treadmill of Commercialism. It is high timefor the worker to assert his right to the common inheritance, and to enter into possession ofit." [Kropotkin, Op. Cit., p. 44]So, while refusing to define exactly how an anarchist system will work, we will explore the implications ofhow the anarchist principles and ideals outlined above could be put into practice. Bear in mind that this isjust a possible framework for a system which has few historical examples to draw upon. This means thatwe can only indicate the general outlines of what an anarchist society could be like. Those seeking blue-
prints and exactness should look elsewhere. In all likelihood, the framework we present will be modifiedand changed (even ignored) in light of the real experiences and problems people will face when creatinga new society.We should point out that there may be a tendency for some to compare this framework withthe theory of capitalism (i.e. perfectly functioning "free" markets or quasi-perfect ones) as opposed toits reality. A perfectly working capitalist system only exists in text books and in the heads of ideologueswho take the theory as reality. No system is perfect, particularly capitalism, and to compare "perfect"text-book capitalism with any real system is a pointless task. As we discussed in depth in section C,capitalist economics does not even describe the reality of capitalism so why think it would enlightendiscussion of post-capitalist systems? What hope does it have of understanding post-capitalist systemswhich reject its proprietary despotism and inequalities? As anarchists aim for a qualitative change in oureconomic relationships, we can safely say that its economic dynamics will reflect the specific forms it willdevelop rather than those produced by a class-ridden hierarchical system like capitalism and the ahistoric individualistic abstractions invented to defend it!So any attempt to apply the notions developed from theorising about (or, more correctly, justifying andrationalising) capitalism to anarchism will fail to capture the dynamics of a non-capitalist system. JohnCrump stressed this point in his discussion of Japanese anarchism between the World Wars:"When considering the feasibility of the social system advocated by the pure anarchists, we need to beclear about the criteria against which it should be measured. It would, for example, be unreasonable todemand that it be assessed against such yardsticks of a capitalist economy as annual rate of growth,balance of trade and so forth . . . evaluating anarchist communism by means of the criteria which havebeen devised to measure capitalism's performance does not make sense . . . capitalism would be . . .baffled if it were demanded that it assess its operations against the performance indicators to which pureanarchists attached most importance, such as personal liberty, communal solidarity and the individual'sunconditional right to free consumption. Faced with such demands, capitalism would either admit thatthese were not yardsticks against which it could sensibly measure itself or it would have to resort to thetype of grotesque ideological subterfuges which it often employs, such as identifying human liberty withthe market and therefore with wage slavery . . . The pure anarchists' confidence in the alternativesociety they advocated derived not from an expectation that it wouldquantitatively outperformcapitalism in terms of GNP, productivity or similar capitalist criteria. On the contrary, their enthusiasmfor anarchist communism flowed from their understanding that it would bequalitatively different fromcapitalism. Of course, this is not to say that the pure anarchists were indifferent to questions ofproduction and distribution . . . they certainly believed that anarchist communism would provideeconomic well-being for all. But neither were they prepared to give priority to narrowly conceivedeconomic expansion, to neglect individual liberty and communal solidarity, as capitalism regularlydoes." [Hatta Shuzo and Pure Anarchism in Interwar Japan, pp. 191-3]Finally, anarchists are well aware that transforming how an economy works does not happen overnight.As discussed in section I.2.2, we have long rejected the idea of instantaneous social transformation andargued that revolution will take time to develop and change the legacy of centuries of class andhierarchical society. This transformation and the resulting changes in people and surroundings can onlybe achieved by the full participation of all in overcoming the (many) problems a free society will face andthe new ways of relating to each other liberation implies. A free people will find their own practicalsolutions to their problems, for "there will be all sorts of practical difficulties to overcome, but the[libertarian socialist] system is simplicity itself compared with the monster of centralised State control,which sets such an inhuman distance between the worker and the administrator that there is room for athousand difficulties to intervene."[Herbert Read, Anarchy and Order, p. 49] Thus, for anarchists,the "enthusiasm generated by the revolution, the energies liberated, and the inventiveness stimulated byit must be given full freedom and scope to find creative channels."[Alexander Berkman, What isAnarchism?, p. 223] As such, the ideas within this section of our FAQ are merely suggestions,possibilities.
activity is the process by which we produce what is useful but, in addition, is also beautiful (to use OscarWilde's words) in a way that empowers the individual. We anarchists charge capitalism with wastinghuman energy and time due to its irrational nature and workings, energy that could be spent creatingwhat is beautiful (both in terms of individualities and products of labour). Under capitalism weare "toiling to live, that we may live to toil." [William Morris, Useful Work Versus Useless Toil, p. 37]In addition, we must stress that the aim of economic activity within an anarchist society is not to createequality of outcome -- i.e. everyone getting exactly the same goods. As we noted in section A.2.5, sucha "vision" of "equality" attributed to socialists by pro-capitalists indicates more the poverty of imaginationand ethics of the critics of socialism than a true account of socialist ideas. Anarchists, like other genuinesocialists, support social equality in order to maximise freedom, including the freedom to choosebetween options to satisfy ones needs. To treat people equally, as equals, means to respect their desiresand interests, to acknowledge their right to equal liberty. To make people consume the same as everyoneelse does not respect the equality of all to develop ones abilities as one sees fit. Socialism means equalityof opportunity to satisfy desires and interests, not the imposition of an abstract minimum (or maximum)on unique individuals. To treat unique individuals equally means to acknowledge that uniqueness, not todeny it.Thus the real aim of economic activity within an anarchy is to ensure "that every human being shouldhave the material and moral means to develop his humanity." [Michael Bakunin, The PoliticalPhilosophy of Bakunin, p. 295] And you cannot develop your humanity if you cannot express yourselffreely. Needless to say, to treat unique people "equally" (i.e. identically) is simply evil. You cannot, say,have a 70 year old woman do the same work in order to receive the same income as a 20 year old man.No, anarchists do not subscribe to such "equality," which is a product of the "ethics of mathematics" ofcapitalism and not of anarchist ideals. Such a scheme is alien to a free society. The equality anarchistsdesire is a social equality, based on control over the decisions that affect you. The aim of anarchisteconomic activity, therefore, is to provide the goods required for "equal freedom for all, an equality ofconditions such as to allow everyone to do as they wish." [Errico Malatesta, Errico Malatesta: His Lifeand Ideas, p. 49] Thus anarchists "demand not natural but social equality of individuals as the conditionfor justice and the foundations of morality." [Bakunin, Op. Cit., p. 249]Under capitalism, instead of humans controlling production, production controls them. Anarchists want tochange this and desire to create an economic network which will allow the maximisation of an individual'sfree time in order for them to express and develop their individuality (while creating what is beautiful).So instead of aiming just to produce because the economy will collapse if we did not, anarchists want toensure that we produce what is useful in a manner which liberates the individual and empowers them inall aspects of their lives.This desire means that anarchists reject the capitalist definition of "efficiency." Anarchists would agreewith Albert and Hahnel when they argue that "since people are conscious agents whose characteristicsand therefore preferences develop over time, to access long-term efficiency we must access the impactof economic institutions on people's development."Capitalism, as we have explained before, is highlyinefficient in this light due to the effects of hierarchy and the resulting marginalisation anddisempowerment of the majority of society. As they go on to note, "self-management, solidarity, andvariety are all legitimate valuative criteria for judging economic institutions . . . Asking whether particularinstitutions help people attain self-management, variety, and solidarity is sensible." [The PoliticalEconomy of Participatory Economics, p. 9]In other words, anarchists think that any economic activity in a free society is to do useful things in sucha way that gives those doing it as much pleasure as possible. The point of such activity is to express theindividuality of those doing it, and for that to happen they must control the work process itself. Only byself-management can work become a means of empowering the individual and developing his or herpowers.In a nutshell, to use the words of William Morris, useful work will replace useless toil in an anarchistsociety.
of labour in which the worker does not control his or her own activity. In other words, wage labour in allits many forms.A society based upon hierarchical relations in production will result in a society within which the typicalworker uses few of their abilities, exercise little or no control over their work because they are governedby a boss during working hours. This has been proved to lower the individual's self-esteem and feelingsof self-worth, as would be expected in any social relationship that denied self-government. Capitalism ismarked by an extreme division of labour, particularly between mental and physical labour. It reduces theworker to a mere machine operator, following the orders of his or her boss. Therefore, a libertarian thatdoes not support economic liberty (i.e. self-management) is no libertarian at all.Capitalism bases its rationale for itself on consumption and this results in a viewpoint which minimisesthe importance of the time we spend in productive activity. Anarchists consider that it is essential forindividuals to use and develop their unique attributes and capacities in all walks of life, to maximise theirpowers. 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 expressing ourselves; inother words, be creative. Capitalism's emphasis on consumption shows the poverty of that system. AsAlexander Berkman argued:"We do not live by bread alone. True, existence is not possible without opportunity to satisfy our physicalneeds. But the gratification of these by no means constitutes all of life. Our present system ofdisinheriting millions, made the belly the centre of the universe, so to speak. But in a sensiblesociety . . . [t]he feelings of human sympathy, of justice and right would have a chance to develop, to besatisfied, to broaden and grow."[What is Anarchism?, pp. 152-3]Therefore, capitalism is based on a constant process of alienated consumption, as workers try to find thehappiness associated within productive, creative, self-managed activity in a place it does not exist -- onthe shop shelves. This can partly explain the rise of both mindless consumerism and the continuation ofreligions, as individuals try to find meaning for their lives and happiness, a meaning and happinessfrustrated in wage labour and other hierarchies.Capitalism's impoverishment of the individual's spirit is hardly surprising. As William Godwinargued, "[t]he spirit of oppression, the spirit of servility, and the spirit of fraud, these are the immediategrowth of the established administration of property. They are alike hostile to intellectual and moralimprovement." [The Anarchist Reader, p. 131] Any system based on hierarchical relationships in workwill result in a deadening of the individual and in a willingness to defer to economic masters. Which iswhy 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 theindividuality of those who have to do it. To quote Emma Goldman:"Anarchism aims to strip labour of its deadening, dulling aspect, of its gloom and compulsion. It aims tomake work an instrument of joy, of strength, of colour, of real harmony, so that the poorest sort of aman should find in work both recreation and hope." [Anarchism and Other Essays, p. 61]Anarchists do not think that by getting rid of work we will not have to produce necessary goods. Far fromit. An anarchist society "doesn't mean we have to stop doing things. It does mean creating a new way oflife based on play; in other words, a ludic revolution . . . a collective adventure in generalised joy andfreely interdependent exuberance. Play isn't passive." The aim is "to abolish work and replace it, insofaras it serves useful purposes, with a multitude of new kinds of free activities. To abolish work requiresgoing at it from two directions, quantitative and qualitative." In terms of the first,"we need to cut downmassively the amount of working being done" (luckily, "most work is useless or worse and we shouldsimply get rid of it"). For the second, "we have to take what useful work remains and transform it into apleasing variety of game-like and craft-like pastimes, indistinguishable from other pleasurable pastimes,except that they happen to yield useful end-products." [Bob Black, Op. Cit., p. 17 and p. 28]This means that in an anarchist society every effort would be made to reduce boring, unpleasant activityto 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 Castoriadispoint: "Socialist society will be able to reduce the length of the working day, and will have to do so, butthis will not be the fundamental preoccupation. Its first task will be to . . . transform the very nature ofwork. The problem is not to leave more and more 'free' time to individuals -- which might wellbe empty time -- so that they may fill it at will with 'poetry' or the carving of wood. The problem is tomake all time a time of liberty and to allow concrete freedom to find expression in creativeactivity." Essentially, the "problem is to put poetry into work." [Political and Social Writings, vol. 2, p.107]This is why anarchists desire to abolish "work" (i.e., productive activity not under control of the peopledoing it), to ensure that whatever productive economic activity is required to be done is managed bythose who do it. In this way it can be liberated, transformed, and so become a means of self-realisationand not a form of self-negation. In other words, anarchists want to abolish work because "[l]ife, the artof living, has become a dull formula, flat and inert."[Berkman, Op. Cit., p. 166] Anarchists want to bringthe spontaneity and joy of life back into productive activity and save humanity from the dead hand ofcapital. Anarchists consider economic activity as an expression of the human spirit, an expression of theinnate human need to express ourselves and to create. Capitalism distorts these needs and makeseconomic activity a deadening experience by the division of labour and hierarchy. We think that "industryis not an end in itself, but should only be a means to ensure to man his material subsistence and tomake accessible to him the blessings of a higher intellectual culture. Where industry is everything andman is nothing begins the realm of a ruthless economic despotism whose workings are no less disastrousthan those of any political despotism. The two mutually augment one another, and they are fed from thesame source." [Rudolph Rocker, Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 2]One last point on the abolition of work. May 1st -- International Workers' Day -- was, as we discussedin section A.5.2, created to commemorate the Chicago Anarchist Martyrs. Anarchists then, as now,think that it should be celebrated by strike action and mass demonstrations. In other words, foranarchists, International Workers' Day should be a non-work day! That sums up the anarchist position towork nicely -- that the celebration of workers' day should be based on the rejection of work.The collection of articles in Why Work? Arguments for the Leisure Society (edited by VernonRichards) is a useful starting place for libertarian socialist perspectives on work.
of course, liberate a few from such "activity"). As economist Juliet B. Schor points out,productivity "measures the goods and services that result from each hour worked. When productivityrises, a worker can either produce the current output in less time, or remain at work the same number ofhours and produce more." With rising productivity, we are presented with the possibility of more freetime. For example, since 1948 the level of productivity of the American worker "has more than doubled.In other words, we could now produce our 1948 standard of living . . . . in less than half the time it tookthat year. We could actually have chosen the four-hour day. Or a working year of six months." [TheOverworked American, p. 2]And, remember, these figures include production in many areas of the economy that would not exist in afree society -- state and capitalist bureaucracy, weapons production for the military, property defence,the finance sector, and so on. As Alexander Berkman argued, millions are "engaged in trade, . . .advertisers, and various other middlemen of the present system" along with the armed forces and "thegreat numbers employed in unnecessary and harmful occupations, such as building warships, themanufacture of ammunition and other military equipment" would be "released for useful work by arevolution." [What is Anarchism, pp. 224-5] So the working week will be reduced simply because morepeople will be available for doing essential work. Moreover, goods will be built to last and so muchproduction will become sensible and not governed by an insane desire to maximise profits at the expenseof everything else. In addition, this is not taking into account the impact of a more just distribution ofconsumption in terms of living standards and production, meaning that a standard of living produced byworking half the time would be far higher than that implied by Schor's 1948 baseline (not to mention theadvances in technology since then either!). In short, do not take the 1948 date as implying a literalreturn to that period!Moreover, a lower working week would see productivity rising. "Thus," as one economistsummarises, "when the hours of labour were reduced, the better-rested workers were often able toproduce as much or more in the shorter hours than they had previously in longerhours." Yet "competition between employers would make it unlikely that a working day of optimal lengthwould be established" under capitalism. In addition, "more disposable time might better contribute topeople's well-being -- that is, to things such as trust, health, learning, family life, self-reliance andcitizenship". While this may reduce such conventional economic measures as GDP, the fact is that suchmeasures are flawed. After all, "an increase in GDP could represent a diminution of free timeaccompanied by an increased output of goods and services whose sole utility was either facilitatinglabour-market participation or repairing some of the social damage that resulted from the stress ofoverwork or neglect of non-market activity." [Tom Walker, "Why Economists dislike a Lump of Labor", pp.279-91,Review of Social Economy, vol. 65, No. 3, p. 286, pp. 287-8 and p. 288]All this suggests the level of production for useful goods with a four-hour working day would be muchhigher than the 1948 level or, of course, the working day could be made even shorter. As such, we caneasily combine a decent standard of living with a significant reduction of the necessary working timerequired to produce it. Once we realise that much work under capitalism exists to manage aspects of theprofit system or are produced as a result of that system and the damage it does, we can see how a selfmanaged society can give us more time for ourselves in addition to producing useful goods (rather thanworking long and hard to produce surplus value for the few).However, anarchists do not see it as simply a case of reducing the hours of work while keeping theremaining work as it is. That would be silly. We aim to transform what useful productive activity is left.When self-management becomes universal we will see the end of division of labour as mental andphysical work becomes unified and those who do the work also manage it. This will allow "the freeexercise of all the faculties of man" both inside and outside "work." [Peter Kropotkin, The Conquest ofBread, p. 148] The aim of such a development would be to turn productive activity, as far as possible,into an enjoyable experience. In the words of Murray Bookchin it is the quality and nature of the workprocess that counts:"If workers' councils and workers' management of production do not transform the work into a joyfulactivity, free time into a marvellous experience, and the workplace into a community, then they remain
merely formal structures, in fact, class structures. They perpetuate the limitations of the proletariat as aproduct of bourgeois social conditions. Indeed, no movement that raises the demand for workers'councils can be regarded as revolutionary unless it tries to promote sweeping transformations in theenvironment of the work place."[Post-Scarcity Anarchism, p. 88]Work will become, primarily, the expression of a person's pleasure in what they are doing and becomelike an art -- an expression of their creativity and individuality. Work as an art will become expressed inthe workplace as well as the work process, with workplaces transformed and integrated into the localcommunity and environment (see section I.4.15). This will obviously apply to work conducted in thehome as well, otherwise the "revolution, intoxicated with the beautiful words, Liberty, Equality,Solidarity, would not be a revolution if it maintained slavery at home. Half [of] humanity subjected to theslavery of the hearth would still have to rebel against the other half." [Kropotkin, Op. Cit., p. 128]In other words, anarchists desire "to combine the best part (in fact, the only good part) of work -- theproduction of use-values -- with the best of play . . . its freedom and its fun, its voluntariness and itsintrinsic gratification". In short, the transformation of production (creating "what seems needful"")into "productive play". [Bob Black, "Smokestack Lightning", Friendly Fire, p. 48 and p. 49]Workers' self-management of production (see section I.3.2) would be the means of achieving this. Onlythose subject to a specific mode of working can be in a position to transform it and their workplace intosomething fit for free individuals to create in. Only those who know a workplace which would only exist ina hierarchical system like capitalism can be in a position to decommission it safely and quickly. The verybasis of free association will ensure the abolition of work, as individuals will apply for "work" they enjoydoing and so would be interested in reducing "work" they did not want to do to a minimum. Therefore, ananarchist society would abolish work by ensuring that those who do it actually control it. "Personalinitiative will be encouraged and every tendency to uniformity and centralisation combated." [Kropotkin,quoted by Martin Buber, Paths in Utopia, p. 42]All this does not imply that anarchists think that individuals will not seek to "specialise" in one form ofproductive activity rather than another. Far from it, people in a free society will pick activities whichinterest them as the main focal point of their means of self-expression (after all, not everyone enjoys thesame games and pastimes so why expect the same of productive play?). "It is evident," notedKropotkin, "that all men and women cannot equally enjoy the pursuit of scientific work. The variety ofinclinations is such that some will find more pleasure in science, some others in art, and others again insome of the numberless branches of the production of wealth." This "division of work" is commonplace inhumanity this natural desire to do what interests you and what you are good at will be encouraged in ananarchist society. As Kropotkin argued, anarchists "fully recognise the necessity of specialisation ofknowledge, but we maintain that specialisation must follow general education, and that generaleducation must be given in science and handicraft alike. To the division of society into brain workers andmanual workers we oppose the combination of both kinds of activities . . . we advocate the educationintegrale [integral education], or complete education, which means the disappearance of that perniciousdivision." Anarchists are, needless to say, aware that training and study are required to qualify you to dosome tasks and a free society would ensure that individuals would achieve the necessary recognisedlevels before undertaking them (by means of, say, professional bodies who organise a certificationprocess). Kropotkin was aware, however, that both individuals and society would benefit from a diversityof activities and a strong general knowledge:"But whatever the occupations preferred by everyone,everyone will be the more useful in his [or her] branch if he [or she] is in possession of a seriousscientific knowledge. And, whosoever he might be . . . he would be the gainer if he spent a part of his lifein the workshop or the farm (the workshop and the farm), if he were in contact with humanity in itsdaily work, and had the satisfaction of knowing that he himself discharges his duties as an unprivilegedproducer of wealth." [Fields, Factories and Workshops Tomorrow, p. 186, p. 172 and p. 186]However, while specialisation would continue, the permanent division of individuals into manual or brainworkers would be eliminated. Individuals will manage all aspects of the "work" required (for example,engineers will also take part in self-managing their workplaces), a variety of activities would beencouraged and the strict division of labour of capitalism will be abolished. In other words, anarchists
want to replace the division of labour by the division of work. We must stress that we are not playingwith words here. John Crump presents a good summary of the ideas of the Japanese anarchist HattaShuzo on this difference:"[We must] recognise the distinction which Hatta made between the 'division of labour' . . . and the'division of work' . . . while Hatta believed that the division of labour . . . was the cause of class divisionsand exploitation, he did not see anything sinister in the division of work . . . On the contrary, Hattabelieved that the division of work was a benign and unavoidable feature of any productive process: 'itgoes without saying that within society, whatever the kind of production, there has to be a division ofwork.' . . . [For] the dangers [of division of labour] to which Hatta [like other anarchists like Proudhonand Kropotkin] drew attention did not arise from a situation where, at any one time, different peoplewere engaged in different productive activities . . . What did spell danger, however, was when, eitherindividually or collectively, people permanently divided along occupational lines . . . and gave rise to thedisastrous consequences . . . . [of] the degrading of labour to a mechanical function; the lack ofresponsibility for, understanding of, or interest in other branches of production; and the need for asuperior administrative organ to co-ordinate the various branches of production." [Hatta Shuzo andPure Anarchism in Interwar Japan, pp. 146-7]As Kropotkin argued:"while a temporary division of functions remains the surest guarantee of success in each separateundertaking, the permanent division is doomed to disappear, and to be substituted by a variety ofpursuits -- intellectual, industrial, and agricultural -- corresponding to the different capacities of theindividual, as well as to the variety of capacities within every human aggregate." [Op. Cit., p. 26]As an aside, supporters of capitalism argue that integrated labour must be more inefficientthan divided labour as capitalist firms have not introduced it. This is false for numerous reasons.Firstly, we have to point out the inhuman logic of the assertion. After all, few would argue in favour ofslavery if it were, in fact, more productive than wage labour but such is the logical conclusion of thisargument. If someone did argue that the only reason slavery was not the dominant mode of laboursimply because it was inefficient we would consider them as less than human. Simply put, it is a sickideology which happily sacrifices individuals for the sake of slightly more products. Sadly, that is whatmany defenders of capitalism do, ultimately, argue for.Secondly, capitalist firms are not neutral structures but rather a system of hierarchies, with entrenchedinterests and needs. Managers will only introduce a work technique that maintains their power (and sotheir profits). As we argue insection J.5.12, while experiments in workers' participation see a rise inefficiency and productivity, managers stop them simply because they recognise that workers' controlundercuts their power by empowering workers who then can fight for a greater slice of the value theyproduce (not to mention come to the conclusion that while the boss needs them to work, they don't needto boss to manage them!). So the lack of integrated labour under capitalism simply means that it doesnot empower management nor secure their profits and power, not that it is less efficient.Thirdly, the attempts by managers and bosses to introduce "flexibility" by eliminating unions suggeststhat integrationis more efficient. After all, one of the major complaints directed towards union contractsare that they explicitly documented what workers could and could not do (for example, union memberswould refuse to do work which was outside their agreed job descriptions). This is usually classed as anexample of the evil of regulations. However, if we look at it from the viewpoint of contract and division oflabour, it exposes the inefficiency and inflexibility of both as a means of co-operation. After all, what doesthis refusal actually mean? It means that the worker refuses to do work that is not specified in his or hercontract! Their job description indicates what they have been contracted to do and anything else has notbeen agreed upon in advance. The contract specifies a clear, specified and agreed division of labour in aworkplace between worker and boss.While being a wonderful example of a well-designed contract, managers discovered that they could notoperate their workplaces because of them. Rather, they needed a general "do what you are told" contract
in section I.3) of confederations of syndicates who communicate information between themselves andrespond to changes in the production and distribution of products by increasing or decreasing therequired means of production in a co-operative (i.e. "planned") fashion. No "central planning" or "centralplanners" governing the economy, just workers co-operating together as equals (as Kropotkin argued,free socialism"must result from thousands of separate local actions, all directed towards the same aim. Itcannot be dictated by a central body: it must result from the numberless local needs and wants." [Actfor Yourselves, p. 54]).Now, any form of association requires agreement. Therefore, even a society based on the communistanarchist maxim"from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" will need to makeagreements in order to ensure co-operative ventures succeed. In other words, members of a cooperative commonwealth would have to make and keep to their agreements between themselves. Thismeans that the members of a syndicate would agree joint starting and finishing times, require notice ifindividuals want to change "jobs" and so on within and between syndicates. Any joint effort requiressome degree of co-operation and agreement. Moreover, between syndicates, an agreement would bereached (in all likelihood) that determined the minimum working hours required by all members ofsociety able to work. As Kropotkin argued, a communist anarchist society would be based upon the sucha minimum-hour "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 aday to some work recognised as necessary to existence. Choose yourself the producing group which youwish to join, or organise a new group, provided that it will undertake to produce necessaries. And as forthe 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 askof you. For that amount of work we guarantee to you the free use of all that these groups produce, orwill produce." [The Conquest of Bread, pp. 153-4]With such work "necessary to existence" being recognised by individuals and expressed by demand forlabour from productive syndicates. It is, of course, up to the individual to decide which work he or shedesires to perform from the positions available in the various associations in existence. A union cardcould be the means by which work hours would be recorded and access to the common wealth of societyensured. And, of course, individuals and groups are free to work alone and exchange the produce of theirlabour with others, including the confederated syndicates, if they so desired. An anarchist society will beas flexible as possible.Therefore, we can imagine a social anarchist society being based on two basic arrangements -- firstly, anagreed minimum working week of, say, 16 hours, in a syndicate of your choice, plus any amount of hoursdoing "work" which you feel like doing -- for example, art, scientific experimentation, DIY, playing music,composing, gardening and so on. How that minimum working week was actually organised would varybetween workplace and commune, with work times, flexi-time, job rotation and so on determined byeach syndicate (for example, one syndicate may work 8 hours a day for 2 days, another 4 hours a dayfor 4 days, one may use flexi-time, another more rigid starting and stopping times). Needless to say, inresponse to consumption patterns, syndicates will have to expand or reduce production and will have toattract volunteers to do the necessary work as would syndicates whose work was considered dangerousor unwanted. In such circumstances, volunteers could arrange doing a few hours of such activity formore free time or it could be agreed that one hour of such unwanted positions equals more hours in amore desired one (see section I.4.13 for more on this). Needless to say, the aim of technologicalprogress would be to eliminate unpleasant and unwanted tasks and to reduce the basic working weekmore and more until the very concept of necessary "work" and free time enjoyments is abolished.Anarchists are convinced that the decentralisation of power within a free society would unleash a wealthof innovation and ensure that unpleasant tasks are minimised and fairly shared while required productiveactivity is made as pleasant and enjoyable as possible.It could be said that this sort of agreement is a restriction of liberty because it is "man-made" (asopposed to the "natural law" of "supply and demand"). This is a common defence of the non-capitalist
market by individualist anarchists against anarcho-communism, for example. However, while in theoryindividualist-anarchists can claim that in their vision of society, they don't care when, where, or how aperson earns a living, as long as they are not invasive about it the fact is that any economy is based oninteractions between individuals. The law of "supply and demand" easily, and often, makes a mockery ofthe ideas that individuals can work as long as they like - usually they end up working as long as requiredby market forces (i.e. the actions of other individuals, but turned into a force outwith their control,see section I.1.3). This means that individuals do not work as long as they like, but as long as theyhave to in order to survive. Knowing that "market forces" is the cause of long hours of work hardlymakes them any nicer.And it seems strange to the communist-anarchist that certain free agreements made between equals canbe 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 notseems illogical to social anarchists. They cannot see how it is better for individuals to be pressured intoworking longer than they desire by "invisible hands" than to come to an arrangement with others tomanage 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.
Although collectivism promotes the greatest autonomy for worker associations, it should not be confusedwith a market economy as advocated by supporters of mutualism or Individualist anarchism. The goodsproduced by the collectivised factories and workshops are exchanged not according to highest price thatcan be wrung from consumers, but according to their actual production costs. The determination of thesehonest prices would be made by a "Bank of Exchange" in each community (obviously an idea borrowedfrom Proudhon). These Banks would represent the various producer confederations and consumer/citizengroups in the community and would seek to negotiate these "honest" prices (which would, in alllikelihood, include "hidden" costs like pollution). These agreements would be subject to ratification by theassemblies of those involved.As James Guillaume put it "the value of the commodities having been established in advance by acontractual agreement between the regional co-operative federations and the various communes, whowill also furnish statistics to the Banks of Exchange. The Bank of Exchange will remit to the producersnegotiable vouchers representing the value of their products; these vouchers will be accepted throughoutthe territory included in the federation of communes." These vouchers would be related to hours worked,for example, and when used as a guide for investment decisions could be supplemented with cost-benefitanalysis of the kind possibly used in a communist-anarchist society (see below). Although this schemebears a strong resemblance to Proudhonian "People's Banks," it should be noted that the Banks ofExchange, along with a "Communal Statistical Commission," are intended to have a planning function aswell to ensure that supply meets demand. This does not imply a Stalinist-like command economy, butsimple book keeping for "each Bank of Exchange makes sure in advance that these products are indemand [in order to risk] nothing by immediately issuing payment vouchers to the producers." ["OnBuilding the New Social Order", pp. 356-79, Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 366 and p. 367] The workerssyndicates would still determine what orders to produce and each commune would be free to choose itssuppliers.As will be discussed in more depth later (see section I.4.8) information about consumption patterns willbe recorded and used by workers to inform their production and investment decisions. In addition, wecan 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 reflectconsumer 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 theconsumers. In other words, most supporters of collectivist anarchism see it as a temporary measurebefore anarcho-communism could develop.Communist anarchism would be similar to collectivism, i.e. a system of confederations of collectives,communes and distribution centres (Communal stores). However, in an anarcho-communist system,prices are not used. How will economic decision making be done? One possible solution is as follows:"As to decisions involving choices of a general nature, such as what forms of energy to use, which of twoor 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' . . . [I]n socialism a points scheme forattributing relative importance to the various relevant considerations could be used . . . The pointsattributed to these considerations would be subjective, in the sense that this would depend on adeliberate social decision rather than some objective standard, but this is the case even under capitalismwhen a monetary value has to be attributed to some such 'cost' or 'benefit' . . . In the sense that one ofthe aims of socialism is precisely to rescue humankind from the capitalist fixation with productiontime/money, cost-benefit analyses, as a means of taking into account other factors, could therefore besaid to be more appropriate for use in socialism than under capitalism. Using points systems to attributerelative importance in this way . . . [is] simply to employ a technique to facilitate decision-making inparticular concrete cases." [Adam Buick and John Crump, State Capitalism: The Wages SystemUnder New Management, pp. 138-139]This points system would be the means by which producers and consumers would be able to determinewhether the use of a particular good is efficient or not. Unlike prices, this cost-benefit analysis systemwould ensure that production and consumption reflects social and ecological costs, awareness and
priorities. Moreover, this analysis would be aguide to decision making and not a replacement of humandecision making and evaluation. As Lewis Mumford argued:"it is plain that in the decision as to whether to build a bridge or a tunnel there is a human question thatshould outweigh the question of cheapness or mechanical feasibility: namely the number of lives that willbe lost in the actual building or the advisability of condemning a certain number of men [and women] tospend their entire working days underground supervising tunnel traffic . . . Similarly the social choicebetween silk and rayon is not one that can be made simply on the different costs of production, or thedifference in quality between the fibres themselves: there also remains, to be integrated in the decision,the question as to difference in working-pleasure between tending silkworms and assisting in rayonproduction. What the product contributes to the labourer is just as important as what the workercontributes to the product. A well-managed society might alter the process of motor car assemblage, atsome loss of speed and cheapness, in order to produce a more interesting routine for the worker:similarly, it would either go to the expense of equipping dry-process cement making plants with dustremovers -- or replace the product itself with a less noxious substitute. When none of these alternativeswas available, it would drastically reduce the demand itself to the lowest possible level." [The Future ofTechnics and Civilisation, pp. 160-1]Obviously, today, we would include ecological issues as well as human ones. Any decision making processwhich disregards the quality of work or the effect on the human and natural environment is a derangedone. However, this is how capitalism operates, with the market rewarding capitalists and managers whointroduce de-humanising and ecologically harmful practices. Indeed, so biased against labour and theenvironment is capitalism that many economists and pro-capitalists argue that reducing "efficiency" bysuch social concerns (as expressed by the passing laws related to labour rights and environmentalprotection) is actually harmful to an economy, which is a total reversal of common sense and humanfeelings (after all, surely the economy should satisfy human needs and not sacrifice those needs to theeconomy?). The argument is that consumption would suffer as resources (human and material) would bediverted from more "efficient" productive activities and so reduce, over all, our economic well-being.What this argument ignores is that consumption does not exist in isolation from the rest of the economy.What we want to consume is conditioned, in part, by the sort of person we are and that is influenced bythe kind of work we do, the kinds of social relationships we have, whether we are happy with our workand life, and so on. If our work is alienating and of low quality, then so will our consumption decisions. Ifour work is subject to hierarchical control and servile in nature then we cannot expect our consumptiondecisions to be totally rational -- indeed they may become an attempt to find happiness via shopping, aself-defeating activity as consumption cannot solve a problem created in production. Thus rampantconsumerism may be the result of capitalist "efficiency" and so the objection against socially awareproduction is question begging.Of course, as well as absolute scarcity, prices under capitalism also reflect relative scarcity (while in thelong term, market prices tend towards their production price plus a mark-up based on the degree ofmonopoly in a market, in the short term prices can change as a result of changes in supply and demand).How a communist society could take into account such short term changes and communicate themthrough out the economy is discussed in section I.4.5. Moreover, it is likely that they will factor in thedesirability of the work performed to indicate the potential waste in human time involved in production(see section I.4.13 for a discussion of how this could be done). The logic behind this is simple, aresource which people like to produce will be a better use of the scare resource of an individual's timethan one people hate producing. Another key factor in making sensible decisions would be the relativescarcity of a good. After all, it would make little sense when making a decision to use a good which is inshort supply over one which is much more abundant. Thus, while the cost-benefit points system wouldshow absolute costs (number of hours work required, energy use, pollution, etc.) this would becomplemented by information about how scare a specific good is and the desirability of the work requiredto produce it.Therefore, a communist-anarchist society would be based around a network of syndicates whocommunicate information between each other. Instead of the price being communicated betweenworkplaces as in capitalism, actual physical data will be sent (the cost). This data is a summary of these
(negative) use values of the good (for example resources, labour time and energy used to produce it,pollution details) as well as relative scarcity. With this information a cost-benefit analysis will beconducted to determine which good will be best to use in a given situation based upon mutually agreedcommon values. These will be used to inform the decision on which goods to use, with how well goodsmeet the requirements of production (the positive use-value) being compared to their impact in terms oflabour, resource use, pollution and so forth (the negative use-values) along with their relative availability.The data for a given workplace could be compared to the industry as a whole (as confederations ofsyndicates would gather and produce such information -- see section I.3.5) in order to determinewhether a specific workplace will efficiently produce the required goods (this system has the additionaladvantage of indicating which workplaces require investment to bring them in line, or improve upon, theindustrial average in terms of working conditions, hours worked and so on). In addition, common rules ofthumb would possibly be agreed, such as agreements not to use scarce materials unless there is noalternative (either ones that use a lot of labour, energy and time to produce or those whose demand iscurrently exceeding supply capacity).Similarly, when ordering goods, the syndicate, commune or individual involved will have to inform thesyndicate why it is required in order to allow the syndicate to determine if they desire to produce thegood and to enable them to prioritise the orders they receive. In this way, resource use can be guided bysocial considerations and "unreasonable" requests ignored (for example, if an individual states they"need" a ship-builders syndicate to build a ship for their personal use, the ship-builders may not "need"to build it and instead build ships for communal use, freely available for all to use in turn -- see sectionI.4.6). However, in almost all cases of individual consumption, no such information will be needed ascommunal stores would order consumer goods in bulk as they do now. Hence the economy would be avast network of co-operating individuals and workplaces and the dispersed knowledge which exists withinany society can be put to good effect (better effect than under capitalism because it does not hide socialand ecological costs in the way market prices do and co-operation will eliminate the business cycle andits 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, alsoaware of the social (human and ecological) cost of the resources they need to produce it. They cancombine this knowledge, reflecting overall social priorities, with their local knowledge of the detailedcircumstances of their workplaces and communities to decide how they can best use their productivecapacity. In this way the division of knowledge within society can be used by the syndicates effectively aswell as overcoming the restrictions within knowledge communication imposed by the price mechanism(see section I.1.2) and workplaces hierarchies within capitalism (see section I.1.1).Moreover, production units, by their association within confederations ensure that there is effectivecommunication between them. This results in a process of negotiated co-ordination between equals (i.e.horizontal links and agreements) for major investment decisions, thus bringing together supply anddemand and allowing the plans of the various units to be co-ordinated. By this process of co-operation,production units can reduce duplicating effort and so reduce the waste associated with over-investment(and so the irrationalities of booms and slumps associated with the price mechanism, which does notprovide sufficient information to allow workplaces to efficiently co-ordinate their plans).When evaluating production methods we need to take into account as many social and ecological costs aspossible and these have to be evaluated. Which costs will be taken into account, of course, be decided bythose involved, as will how important they are relative to each other (i.e. how they are weighted). Whatfactors to take into account and how to weigh them in the decision making process will be evaluated andreviewed regularly so to ensure that it reflects real costs and social concerns. As communist-anarchistsconsider it important to encourage all to participate in the decisions that affect their lives, it would be therole of communal confederations to determine the relative points value of given inputs and outputs. Inthis way, all individuals in a community determine how their society develops, so ensuring that economicactivity is responsible to social needs and takes into account the desires of everyone affected byproduction. In this way consumption and production can be harmonised with the needs of individuals as
members of society and the environment they live in. The industrial confederations would seek to ensurethat this information is recorded and communicated and (perhaps) formulating industry-wide averages toaid decision-making by allowing syndicates and communes to compare specific goods points to thetypical value.So which factors are to be used to inform decision-making would be agreed and the informationcommunicated between workplaces and communes so that consumers of goods can evaluate their costsin terms of ecological impact, use of resources and human labour. Any agreed values for the Cost-Benefitanalysis for inputs can be incorporated in the information associated with the outputs. As such, acommunist society would seek to base decisions on more than one criteria, whether it is profits or (say)labour. The reasons for this should be obvious, as one criteria rarely allows sensible decisions. Of course,to some degree people already do this under capitalism but market forces and inequality limit this ability(people will tend to buy cheaper products if they need to make ends meet) while both the pricemechanism and the self-interest of companies ensure information about costs are hidden (for example,few companies publically acknowledge their externalities and most spend vast sums on advertising togreenwash their products).In order to process the information on costs communicated in a libertarian communist economyaccounting tools can be created (such as a spreadsheet or computer programme). These could take thedecided factors as inputs and returns a cost benefit analysis of the choices available. So while thesealgorithmic procedures and guidelines can, and indeed should be, able to be calculated by hand, it islikely that computers will be extensively used to take input data and process it into a suitable format.Indeed, many capitalist companies have software which records raw material inputs and finished productinto databases and spreadsheets. Such software could be the basis of a libertarian communist decisionmaking algorithm. Of course, currently such data is submerged beneath money and does not take intoaccount externalities and the nature of the work involved (as would be the case in an anarchist society).However, this does not limit their potential or deny that communist use of such software can be used toinform decisions.Therefore, the claim that communism cannot evaluate different production methods due to lack of pricesis inaccurate. Indeed, a look at the actual capitalist market -- marked as it is by differences in bargainingand market power, externalities and wage labour -- soon shows that the claims that prices accuratelyreflect costs is simply not accurate. However, it may be such that objective circumstances preclude theimmediate introduction of libertarian communism (as discussed in section I.2.2, many communistanarchists consider this likely). As such, there could be a transitional period in which elements ofmutualism, collectivism and communism co-exist within a specific economy. It can easily be seen how amutualist economy (the usual initial product of a social revolution) could evolve into a collectivist andthen communist one. The market generated prices could initially be complemented by the non-marketinformation decided upon (for objective costs and the scarcity index) and, overtime, replaced by this dataas the main decision making criteria by syndicates and communes.One final point on this subject. What methods are used, which criteria picked, which information iscommunicated and how it is processed, will be the decision of a free people. This section was merely asuggestion of one possibility of how a libertarian communist economy could make informed decisionsabout production. It is not meant as a blue-print nor is it set-in-stone.
where there is demand for it). At the very least, the "the law of supply and demand" is not the "mostefficient" means of distribution in an unequal society as decisions are skewed in favour of the rich.As far as "supply and demand" in terms of allocating scare resources is concerned, anarchists are wellaware of the need to create and distribute necessary goods to those who require them. The question is,in an anarchist society, how do you know that valuable labour and materials are not being wasted? Howdo people judge which tools are most appropriate? How do they decide among different materials if theyall meet the technical specifications? How important are some goods than others? How important iscellophane compared to vacuum-cleaner bags and so which one should be produced?It is answers like this that the supporters of the market claim that their system answers. For individualistand mutualist anarchists, their non-capitalist market would indicate such information by differencesbetween market price and cost price and individuals and co-operatives would react accordingly. Forcommunist and collectivist anarchists, who reject even non-capitalist markets, the answer is less simple.As discussed in section I.1.3, these anarchists argue that although the market does answer suchquestions it does so in irrational and dehumanising ways (while this is particularly the case undercapitalism, it cannot be assumed this will disappear in a post-capitalist market). The question is: cancollectivist and communist anarchism answer such questions? Yes, they reply.So collectivist and communist anarchists reject the market. This rejection often implies, to some, centralplanning. As the market socialist David Schweickart puts it, "[i]f profit considerations do not dictateresource usage and production techniques, then central direction must do so. If profit is not the goal of aproductive organisation, then physical output (use values) must be." [Against Capitalism, p. 86]However, Schweickart is wrong. Horizontal links need not be market based and co-operation betweenindividuals and groups need not be hierarchical. What is implied in this comment is that there is just twoways to relate to others -- either by prostitution (purely by cash) or by hierarchy (the way of the state,the army or capitalist workplace). But people relate to each other in other ways, such as friendship, love,solidarity, mutual aid and so on. Thus you can help or associate with others without having to be orderedto do so or by being paid cash to do so -- we do so all the time. You can work together because by sodoing you benefit yourself and the other person. This is the real communist way, that of mutual aid andfree agreement.So Schweickart is ignoring the vast majority of relations in any society. For example, love/attraction is ahorizontal link between two autonomous individuals and profit considerations do not enter into therelationship. Thus anarchists argue that Schweickart's argument is flawed as it fails to recognise thatresource usage and production techniques can be organised in terms of human need and free agreementbetween economic actors, without profits or central command. This system does not mean that we allhave to love each other (an impossible wish). Rather, it means that we recognise that by voluntarily cooperating as equals we ensure that we remain free individuals and that we can gain the advantages ofsharing resources and work (for example, a reduced working day and week, self-managed work in safeand hygienic working conditions and a free selection of the product of a whole society). In other words, aself-interest which exceeds the narrow and impoverished egotism of capitalist society.Thus free agreement and horizontal links are not limited to market transactions -- they develop fornumerous reasons and anarchists recognise this. As George Barrett argued:"Let us imagine now that the great revolt of the workers has taken place, that their direct action hasmade them masters of the situation. It is not easy to see that some man in a street that grew hungrywould soon draw a list of the loaves that were needed, and take it to the bakery where the strikers werein possession? Is there any difficulty in supposing that the necessary amount would then be bakedaccording to this list? By this time the bakers would know what carts and delivery vans were needed tosend the bread out to the people, and if they let the carters and vanmen know of this, would these notdo their utmost to supply the vehicles . . . If . . . [the bakers needed] more benches [to make bread] . . .the carpenters would supply them [and so on] . . . So the endless continuity goes on -- a well-balancedinterdependence of parts guaranteed, because need is the motive force behind it all . . . In the sameway that each free individual has associated with his brothers [and sisters] to produce bread, machinery,
and all that is necessary for life, driven by no other force than his desire for the full enjoyment of life, soeach institution is free and self-contained, and co-operates and enters into agreements with otherbecause by so doing it extends its own possibilities. There is no centralised State exploiting or dictating,but the complete structure is supported because each part is dependent on the whole . . . It will be asociety responsive to the wants of the people; it will supply their everyday needs as quickly as it willrespond to their highest aspirations. Its changing forms will be the passing expressions ofhumanity." [The Anarchist Revolution, pp. 17-19]To make productive decisions we need to know what others need and information in order to evaluate thealternative options available to us to satisfy that need. Therefore, it is a question of distributinginformation between producers and consumers, information which the market often hides (or activelyblocks) or distorts due to inequalities in resources (i.e. need does not count in the market, "effectivedemand" does and this skews the market in favour of the wealthy). This information network has partlybeen discussed in the last section where a method of comparison between different materials,techniques and resources based upon use value was discussed. In addition, the need to indicate thecurrent fluctuations in stocks, production and consumption has also to be factored in when makingdecisions.To indicate the relative changes in scarcity of a given good it will be necessary to calculate what could betermed its"scarcity index." This would inform potential users of this good whether its demand isoutstripping its supply so that they may effectively adjust their decisions in light of the decisions ofothers. This index could be, for example, a percentage figure which indicates the relation of orders placedfor a good to the amount actually produced. For example, a good which has a demand higher than itssupply would have an index value of 101% or higher. This value would inform potential users to startlooking for substitutes for it or to economise on its use. Such a scarcity figure would exist for eachsyndicate 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 producerswho 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 suitablebuffer level of a specific good existed. This may result in some excess supply of goods being producedand used as stock to handle unexpected changes in the aggregate demand for a good. Such a buffersystem would work on an individual workplace level and at a communal level. Syndicates would obviouslyhave their inventories, stores of raw materials and finished goods "on the shelf" which can be used tomeet unexpected increases in demand. Communal stores, hospitals and so on would have their stores ofsupplies in case of unexpected disruptions in supply.This is a common practice even in capitalism, with differences between actual demand and expecteddemand being absorbed by unintended stock changes. Firms today also have spare capacity in order tomeet such upsurges in demand. Such policies of maintaining stocks and spare capacity will continue tothe case under anarchism. It is assumed that syndicates and their confederations will wish to adjustcapacity if they are aware of the need to do so. Hence, price changes in response to changes in demandwould not be necessary to provide the information that such adjustments are required. This is becausea "change in demand first becomes apparent as a change in the quantity being sold at existing prices [orbeing consumed in a moneyless system] and is therefore reflected in changes in stocks or orders. Suchchanges are perfectly good indicators or signals that an imbalance between demand and current outputhas developed. If a change in demand for its products proved to be permanent, a production unit wouldfind 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 ofproviding information about the need to adjust capacity." [Pat Devine,Democracy and EconomicPlanning, p. 242]So syndicates, communes and their confederations will create buffer stocks of goods to handleunforeseen changes in demand and supply. This sort of inventory has also been used by capitalistcountries like the USA to prevent changes in market conditions for agricultural products and other
strategic raw materials producing wild spot-price movements and inflation. Post-Keynesian economistPaul Davidson argued that the stability of commodity prices this produced"was an essential aspect of theunprecedented prosperous economic growth of the world's economy" between 1945 and 1972. USPresident Nixon dismantled these buffer zone programmes, resulting in "violent commodity pricefluctuations"which had serious negative economic effects. [Controversies in Post-KeynesianEconomics, p. 114 and p. 115] Again, an anarchist society is likely to utilise this sort of buffer system toiron out short-term changes in supply and demand. By reducing short-term fluctuations of the supply ofcommodities, bad investment decisions would be reduced as syndicates would not be mislead, as is thecase under capitalism, by market prices being too high or too low at the time when the decisions wherebeing made (as discussed in section I.1.5 such disequilibrium prices convey misinformation whichcauses very substantial economic distortions).This, combined with cost-benefit analysis described in section I.4.4, would allow information aboutchanges within a moneyless economy to rapidly spread throughout the whole system and influence alldecision makers without the great majority knowing anything about the original causes of these changes.This would allow a syndicate to ascertain which good used up least resources and therefore left the mostover for other uses (i.e., relative costs or scarcity) as well as giving them information on what resourceswere used to create it (i.e., the absolute costs involved) The relevant information is communicated to allinvolved, without having to be ordered by an "all-knowing" central body as in a Leninist centrally plannedeconomy. As argued in section I.1.2, anarchists have long realised that no centralised body couldpossibly be able to possess all the information dispersed throughout the economy to organise productionand if such a body attempted to do so, the resulting bureaucracy would effectively reduce and impoverishthe amount of information available to decision makers and so cause shortages and inefficiencies.To get an idea how this system could work, let us take the example of a change in the copper industry.Let us assume that a source of copper unexpectedly fails or that the demand for copper increases. Whatwould happen?First, the initial difference would be a diminishing of stocks of copper which each syndicate maintains totake into account unexpected changes in requests. This would help buffer out short lived, changes insupply or requests. Second, naturally, there is an increase in demand for copper for those syndicateswhich are producing it. This immediately increases the scarcity index of those firms and their product.For example, the index may rise from 95% (indicating a slight over-production in respect to currentdemand) to 115% (indicating that the demand for copper has risen in respect to the current level ofproduction). This change in the scarcity index (combined with difficulties in finding copper producingsyndicates which will accept their orders) enters into the decision making algorithms of other syndicates.This, in turn, results in changes in their plans. For example, the syndicates can seek out other supplierswho have a lower scarcity index or substitutes for copper may be used as they have become a moreefficient resource to use.In this way, requests for copper products fall and soon only reflect those requests that really need copper(i.e., do not have realistic substitutes available for it). This would result in the demand falling withrespect to the current supply (as indicated by requests from other syndicates and to maintain bufferstock levels). Thus a general message has been sent across the economy that copper has become(relatively) scarce and syndicate plans have changed in light of this information. No central planner madethese decisions nor was money required to facilitate them. We have a decentralised, non-market systembased on the free distribution of products between self-governing associations.Looking at the wider picture, the question of how to respond to this change in supply/requests for copperpresents itself. The copper syndicate federation and cross-industry syndicate federations have regularmeetings and the question of the changes in the copper situation present themselves and they mustconsider how to response to these changes. Part of this is to determine whether this change is likely tobe short term or long term. A short term change (say caused by a mine accident, for example) would notneed new investments to be planned. However, long term changes (say the new requests are due to anew product being created by another syndicate or an existing mine becoming exhausted) may need coordinated investment (we can expect syndicates to make their own plans in light of changes, for
example, by investing in new machinery to produce copper more efficiently or to increase production). Ifthe expected changes of these plans approximately equal the predicted long term changes, then thefederation need not act. However, if they do then investment in new copper mines or large scale newinvestment across the industry may be required. The federation would propose such plans.Needless to say, the future can be guessed, it cannot be accurately predicted. Thus there may be overinvestment in certain industries as expected changes do not materialise. However, unlike capitalism, thiswould not result in an economic crisis (with over-investment within capitalism, workplaces close due tolack of profits, regardless of social need). All that would happen is that some of the goods producedwould not be used, some labour and resources would be wasted and the syndicates would rationaliseproduction, close down relatively inefficient plant and concentrate production in the more efficient ones.The sweeping economic crises of capitalism would be a thing of the past.In summary, each syndicate receives its own orders and supplies and sends its own produce out tospecific consumers. Similarly, communal distribution centres would order required goods from syndicatesit determines. In this way consumers can change to syndicates which respond to their needs and soproduction units are aware of what it is socially useful for them to produce as well as the social cost ofthe resources they need to produce it. In this way a network of horizontal relations spread across society,with co-ordination achieved by equality of association and not the hierarchy of the corporate structure.While anarchists are aware of the "isolation paradox" (see section B.6) this does not mean that we thinkthe commune should make decisions for people on what they are to consume. That would be a prison.No, all anarchists agree that is up to the individual to determine their own needs and for the collectivesthey 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 decisionswould be made. This would mean, for example, that communes would agree to produce eco-friendlyproducts, reduce waste and generally make decisions enriched by social interaction. Individuals wouldstill decide which sort goods they desire, based on what the collectives produce but these goods would bebased on a socially agreed agenda. In this way waste, pollution and other "externalities" of atomisedconsumption 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, unpleasantsocial infrastructures). A sane society would discuss the problems associated with car use and wouldagree 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 socialimpact of them and so try to create a social environment where individuals can enrich their personaldecisions with the input of other people's ideas.On a related subject, it is obvious that different syndicates would produce slightly different goods, soensuring that people have a choice. It is doubtful that the current waste implied in multiple products fromdifferent companies (sometimes the same multi-national corporation!) all doing the same job would becontinued in an anarchist society. However, production will be "variations on a theme" in order to ensureconsumer choice and to allow the producers to know what features consumers prefer. It would beimpossible to sit down beforehand and make a list of what features a good should have -- that assumesperfect knowledge and that technology is fairly constant. Both these assumptions are of limited use inreal life. Therefore, co-operatives would produce goods with different features and production wouldchange 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 inaddition to R&D experiments and test populations. In this way consumer choice would be maintained,and enhanced as people would be able to influence the decisions of the syndicates as producers (in somecases) and through syndicate/commune dialogue.Finally, it would be churlish, but essential, to note that capitalism only equates supply and demand in thefantasy world of neo-classical economics. Any real capitalist economy, as we discussed in sectionI.1.5 is marked by uncertainty and a tendency to over-produce in the response to the higher profits
caused by previously under-producing goods, with resulting periods of crisis in which falling effectivedemand sees a corresponding fall in supply. Not to mention the awkward fact that real needs (demand)are not met simply because people are too poor to pay for the goods (i.e., no effective demand). Assuch, to suggest that only non-market systems have a problem ensuring demand and supply meet ismistaken.To conclude, anarchists do not ignore "supply and demand." Instead, they recognise the limitations of thecapitalist version of this truism and point out that capitalism is based on effective demand which has nonecessary basis with efficient use of resources. Instead of the market, social anarchists advocate asystem based on horizontal links between producers which effectively communicates information acrosssociety about the relative changes in supply and demand which reflect actual needs of society and notbank balances. The investment response to changes in supply and demand will be discussed in sectionI.4.8 while section I.4.13 will discuss the allocation of work tasks.
few individuals, should undertake work, out of proportion to the utility being produced . . . What wewould like is for everybody to live in the best possible way: so that everybody with a minimum amountof effort will obtain maximum satisfaction."[At the Caf, pp. 60-1]Communist-anarchists recognise that production, like consumption, must be based on freedom. However,it has been argued that free access would lead to waste as people take more than they would if they hadto pay for it. This objection is not as serious as it first appears. There are plenty of examples withincurrent society to indicate that free access will not lead to abuses. Let us take a few examples. In publiclibraries people are free to sit and read books all day but few, if any, actually do so. Neither do peoplealways take the maximum number of books out at a time. No, they use the library as they need to andfeel no need to maximise their use of the institution. Some people never use the library, although it isfree. In the case of water supplies, it is clear that people do not leave taps on all day because water isoften supplied freely or for a fixed charge. Similarly with pavements, people do not walk everywherebecause to do so is free. In such cases individuals use the resource as and when they need to. Equally,vegetarians do not start eating meat when they visit their friend's parties just because the buffet is free.We can expect similar results as other resources become freely available. In effect, this argument makesas much sense as arguing that individuals will travel to stops beyond their destination if public transportis based on a fixed charge! Obviously only an idiot would travel further than required in order to get"value for money." However, for many the world seems to be made up of such fools. Perhaps it would beadvisable for such critics to hand out political leaflets in the street. Even though the leaflets are free,crowds rarely form around the person handing them out demanding as many copies of the leaflet aspossible. Rather, those interested in what the leaflets have to say take them, the rest ignore them. If freeaccess automatically resulted in people taking more than they need then critics of free communism wouldbe puzzled by the lack of demand for what they were handing out!Part of the problem is that capitalist economics has invented a fictional type of person, HomoEconomicus, whose wants are limitless: an individual who always wants more and so whose needs couldonly satisfied if resources were limitless too. Needless to say, such an individual has never existed. Inreality, wants are not limitless -- people have diverse tastes and rarely want everything available norwant more of a good than that which satisfies their need.Communist Anarchists also argue that we cannot judge people's buying habits under capitalism with theiractions in a free society. After all, advertising does not exist to meet people's needs but rather to createneeds by making people insecure about themselves. Simply put, advertising does not amplify existingneeds or sell the goods and services that people already want. Advertising would not need to stoop to thelevel of manipulative adverts that create false personalities for products and provide solutions forproblems that the advertisers themselves create if this were the case. Crude it may be, but advertising isbased on the creation of insecurities, preying on fears and obscuring rational thought. In an alienatedsociety in which people are subject to hierarchical controls, feelings of insecurity and lack of control andinfluence would be natural. It is these fears that advertising multiplies -- if you cannot have real freedom,then at least you can buy something new. Advertising is the key means of making people unhappy withwhat they have and who they are. It is naive to claim that advertising has no effect on the psyche of thereceiver or that the market merely responds to the populace and makes no attempt to shape theirthoughts. If advertising did not work, firms would not spend so much money on it! Advertising createsinsecurities about such matter-of-course things and so generates irrational urges to buy which would notexist in a libertarian communist society.However, there is a deeper point to be made here about consumerism. Capitalism is based on hierarchy,not liberty. This leads to a weakening of individuality as well as a loss of self-identity and sense ofcommunity. Both these senses are a deep human need and consumerism is often a means by whichpeople overcome their alienation from their selves and others (religion, ideology and drugs are othermeans of escape). Therefore the consumption within capitalism reflects its values, not some abstract"human nature." As such, because a firm or industry is making a profit satisfying "needs" withincapitalism, it does not follow that people in a free society would have similar wants (i.e., "demand" oftendoes not exist independently of the surrounding society). As Bob Black argues:
"what we want, what we are capable of wanting is relative to the forms of social organisation. People'want' fast food because they have to hurry back to work, because processed supermarket food doesn'ttaste much better anyway, because the nuclear family (for the dwindling minority who have even that togo 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 canget. Since we cannot be friends and lovers, we wail for more candy." [Friendly Fire, p. 57]Therefore, most anarchists think that consumerism is a product of a hierarchical society within whichpeople are alienated from themselves and the means by which they can make themselves really happy(i.e. meaningful relationships, liberty, self-managed productive activity, and so on). Consumerism is ameans of filling the spiritual hole capitalism creates within us by denying our freedom and violatingequality. This means that capitalism produces individuals who define themselves by what they have, notwho they are. This leads to consumption for the sake of consumption, as people try to make themselveshappy by consuming more commodities. But, as Erich Fromm pointed out, this cannot work for long andonly 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 constantlyworried 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 seemimpossible. However, rampant consumerism is far more a product of lack of meaningful freedom withinan alienated society than a "natural law" of human existence. In a society that encouraged and protectedindividuality by non-hierarchical social relationships and organisations, individuals would have a strongsense of self and so be less inclined to mindlessly consume. As Fromm put it: "If I am what I am andnot what I have, nobody can deprive me of or threaten my security and my sense of identity. My centreis within myself." [Op. Cit., p. 112] Such self-centred individuals do not have to consume endlessly tobuild a sense of security or happiness within themselves.In other words, the well-developed individuality that an anarchist society would develop would have lessneed to consume than the average person in a capitalist one. This is not to suggest that life will be bareand without luxuries in an anarchist society, far from it. A society based on the free expression ofindividuality could be nothing but rich in wealth and diverse in goods and experiences. What we arearguing here is that an anarchist-communist society would not have to fear rampant consumerismmaking demand outstrip supply constantly and always precisely because freedom will result in a nonalienated society of well developed individuals.It should not be forgotten that communism has two conditions, distribution according toneed and production according to ability. If the latter condition is not met, if someone does notcontribute to the goods available in the libertarian communist society, then the former condition is notlikely to be tolerated and they would be asked to leave so reducing demand for goods. The freedom toassociate means being free not to associate. Thus a free communist society would see goods beingsupplied as well as demanded. As Malatesta argued:"Basic to the anarchist system, before communism or any other forms of social conviviality is theprinciple of the free compact; the rule of integral communism -- 'from each according to his [or her]ability, to each according to his [or her] need' -- applies only to those who accept it, including naturallythe conditions which make it practicable." [quoted by Camillo Berneri, "The Problem of Work", pp. 5982, Why Work?, Vernon Richards (ed.), p. 74]So, as Malatesta suggested, it should be noted that communist-anarchists are well aware that it is likelythat free access to all goods and services cannot be done immediately (see section H.2.5 for details). AsAlexander Berkman summarised, "when the social revolution attains the stage where it can producesufficient for all, then is adopted the Anarchist principle of 'to each according to his [or her] needs' . . .But until it is reached, the system of equal sharing . . . is imperative as the only just method. It goeswithout saying, of course, that special consideration must be given to the sick and the old, to children,and to women during and after pregnancy." [What is Anarchism?, p. 216] Another possibility was
suggested by James Guillaume who argued that as long as a product was "in short supply it will to acertain extent have to be rationed. And the easiest way to do this would be to sell these scarceproducts" but as production grows then "it will not be necessary to ration consumption. The practice ofselling, which was adopted as a sort of deterrent to immoderate consumption, will be abolished" andgoods "will be distribute[d] . . . in accordance with the needs of the consumers." ["On Building the NewSocial Order", pp. 356-79, Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 368] Other possibilities may include communesdeciding that certain scarce goods are only available to those who do the unpleasant work (such ascollecting the rubbish) or that people have equal access but the actual goods are shared and used forshort periods of time (as is currently the case with public libraries). As Situationist Ken Knabb suggestsafter usefully discussing "just some of the possibilities": "Experimenting with different methods, peoplewill find out for themselves what forms of ownership, exchange and reckoning are necessary." [PublicSecrets, p. 73]Whether or not full communism can be introduced instantly is a moot point amongst collectivist andcommunist anarchists, although most would like to see society develop towards a communist goaleventually. Of course, for people used to capitalism 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 issure, if the developments we have outlined above fail to appear and attempts at communism fail due towaste and demand exceeding supply then a free society would make the necessary decisions andintroduce some means of limiting supply (such as, for example, labour notes, equal wages, and so on).Rest assured, though, "the difficulty will be solved and obstacles in the shape of making necessarychanges in the detailed working of the system of production and its relation to consumption, will vanishbefore the ingenuity of the myriad minds vitally concerned in overcoming them." [Charlotte M.Wilson, Anarchist Essays, p. 21]
While mutualist and collectivist anarchists can argue that producers would respond to consumer needsotherwise they would not get an income, communist-anarchists (as they seek a moneyless society)cannot argue their system would reward producers in this way. So what mechanism exists to ensurethat "the wants of all" are, in fact, met? How does anarcho-communism ensure that productionbecomes "the mere servant of consumption" and "mould itself on the wants of the consumer, not dictateto him conditions"? [Peter Kropotkin, Act for Yourselves, p. 57] Libertarian communists argue that ina free communist society consumers' needs would be met. This is because of the decentralised andfederal nature of such a society.So what is the mechanism which makes producers accountable to consumers in a libertarian communistsociety? Firstly, communes would practice their power of "exit" in the distributive network. If a syndicatewas producing sub-standard goods or refusing to change their output in the face of changing consumerneeds, then the communal stores would turn to those syndicates which were producing the goodsdesired. The original syndicates would then be producing for their own stocks, a pointless task and onefew, if any, would do. After all, people generally desire their work to have meaning, to be useful. To justwork, producing something no-one wanted would be such a demoralising task that few, if any, sanepeople would do it (under capitalism people put up with spirit destroying work as some income is betterthan none, such an "incentive" would not exist in a free society).As can be seen, "exit" would still exist in libertarian communism. However, it could be argued thatunresponsive or inefficient syndicates would still exist, exploiting the rest of society by producing rubbish(or goods which are of less than average quality) and consuming the products of other people's labour,confident that without the fear of poverty and unemployment they can continue to do this indefinitely.Without the market, it is argued, some form of bureaucracy would be required (or develop) which wouldhave the power to punish such syndicates. Thus the state would continue in "libertarian" communism,with the "higher" bodies using coercion against the lower ones to ensure they meet consumer needs orproduced enough.While, at first glance, this appears to be a possible problem on closer inspection it is flawed. This isbecause anarchism is based not only on "exit" but also "voice". Unlike capitalism, libertariancommunism is based on association and communication. Each syndicate and commune is in freeagreement and confederation with all the others. Thus, if a specific syndicate was producing bad goods ornot pulling its weight, then those in contact with them would soon realise this. First, those unhappy witha syndicate's work would appeal to them directly to get their act together. If this did not work, then theywould notify their disapproval by refusing to associate with them in the future (i.e. they would use theirpower of "exit" as well as refusing to provide the syndicate with any goods it requires). They would alsolet society as a whole know (via the media) as well as contacting consumer groups and co-operatives andthe relevant producer and communal confederations which they and the other syndicates are membersof, who would, in turn, inform their members of the problems (the relevant confederations could includelocal and regional communal confederations, the general cross-industry confederation, its ownindustrial/communal confederation and the confederation of the syndicate not pulling its weight). Intoday's society, a similar process of "word of mouth" warnings and recommendations goes on, along withconsumer groups and media. Our suggestions here are an extension of this common practice (that thisprocess exists suggests that the price mechanism does not, in fact, provide consumers with all therelevant information they need to make decisions, but this is an aside).If the syndicate in question, after a certain number of complaints had been lodged against it, still did notchange its ways, then it would suffer non-violent direct action. This would involve the boycotting of thesyndicate and (perhaps) its local commune (such as denying it products and investment), so resulting inthe syndicate being excluded from the benefits of association. The syndicate would face the fact that noone else wanted to associate with it and suffer a drop in the goods coming its way, including consumptionproducts for its members. In effect, a similar process would occur to that of a firm under capitalism thatlooses its customers and so its income. However, we doubt that a free society would subject any personto the evils of destitution or starvation (as capitalism does). Rather, a bare minimum of goods requiredfor survival would still be available.
In the unlikely event this general boycott did not result in a change of heart, then two options are leftavailable. These are either the break-up of the syndicate and the finding of its members new work placesor the giving/selling of the syndicate to its current users (i.e. to exclude them from the society theyobviously do not want to be part off). The decision of which option to go for would depend on theimportance of the workplace in question and the desires of the syndicates' members. If the syndicaterefused to disband, then option two would be the most logical choice (unless the syndicate controlled ascare resource). The second option would, perhaps, be best as this would drive home the benefits ofassociation as the expelled syndicate would have to survive on its own, subject to survival by selling theproduct of its labour and would soon return to the fold.Kropotkin argued in these terms over 100 years ago:"When a railway company, federated with other companies, fails to fulfil its engagements, when its trainsare late and goods lie neglected at the stations, the other companies threaten to cancel the contract, andthat threat usually suffices."It is generally believed . . . that commerce only keeps to its engagements from fear of lawsuits. Nothingof the sort; nine times in ten the trader who has not kept his word will not appear before a judge . . . thesole fact of having driven a creditor to bring a lawsuit suffices for the vast majority of merchants torefuse for good to have any dealings with a man who has compelled one of them to go to law."This being so, why should means that are used today among . . . traders in the trade, and railwaycompanies in the organisation of transport, not be made use of in a society based on voluntarywork?" [The Conquest of Bread, p. 153]Thus, to ensure producer accountability of production to consumption, no bureaucratic body is required inlibertarian communism (or any other form of anarchism). Rather, communication and direct action bythose affected by unresponsive producers would be an effective and efficient means of ensuring theaccountability of production to consumption.
the Worker-Managed Firm Revisited", pp. 9-25, Journal of Comparative Economics, vol. 10, no. 1, p.21] As discussed in section I.1.1, eliminating the stock market will not harm investment (almost allinvestment funds are from other sources) and will remove an important negative influence in economicactivity.Collectivist and communist anarchists recognise that credit is based on human activity, which isrepresented as money. As Cole pointed out, the "understanding of this point [on investment] depends ona clear appreciation of the fact that all real additions to capital take the form of directing a part of theproductive power of labour and using certain materials not for the manufacture of products and therendering of services incidental to such manufacture for purposes of purposes of furtherproduction." [Op. Cit., p. 143] So collectivist and communist anarchists agree with their Mutualistcousins when they state that "[a]ll credit presupposes labour, and, if labour were to cease, credit wouldbe impossible" and that the"legitimate source of credit" was "the labouring classes" who "ought tocontrol it" and for "whose benefit [it should] be used". [Dana, Op. Cit., p. 35]Therefore, in collectivism, investment funds would exist for syndicates, communes and their incommunity ("People's") banks. These would be used to store depreciation funds and as well as otherfunds agreed to by the syndicates for investment projects (for example, confederations of syndicatesmay agree to allocate a certain percentage of their labour notes to a common account in order to havethe necessary funds available for major investment projects). Similarly, individual syndicates andcommunes would also create a store of funds for their own investment projects. Moreover, theconfederations of syndicates to which these "People's Banks" would be linked would also have a definedrole in investment decisions to ensure that production meets demand by being the forum which decideswhich investment plans should be given funding (this, we stress, is hardly "central planning" as capitalistfirms also plan future investments to meet expected demand). In this, collectivist anarchism is likemutualism and so we would also expect interest-free credit being arranged to facilitate investment.In a communist-anarchist society, things would be slightly different as this would not have the labournotes used in mutualism and collectivism. This means that the productive syndicates would agree that acertain part of their total output and activity will be directed to investment projects. In effect, eachsyndicate is able to draw upon the resources approved of by the co-operative commonwealth in the formof an agreed claim on the labour power of society (investment "is essentially an allocation of materialand labour, and fundamentally, an allocation of human productive power." [Cole, Op. Cit., pp. 144-5]).In this way, mutual aid ensures a suitable pool of resources for the future from which all benefit.It should be remembered that savings are not required before credit can be issued. Under capitalism, forexample, banks regularly issue credit in excess of their actual reserves of cash (if they did not then, one,they would not be very good capitalists and, two, the economy would grind to a halt). Nor does theinterest rate reflect a preference for future goods (as discussed in section C.2.6 interest rates reflectmarket power, the degree of monopoly in the credit industry, the social and class position of individualsand a host of other factors). Moreover, a developed economy replaces a process in time with a process inspace. In peasant and tribal societies, individuals usually did have to spend time and energy making theirown tools (the hunter had to stop hunting in order to create a new improved bow or spear). However,with a reasonably developed division of work then different people produce the tools others use and cando so at the same time as the others produce. If workers producing investment goods had to wait untilsufficient savings had been gathered before starting work then it is doubtful that any developed economycould function. Thus the notion that "investment" needs saving is somewhat inappropriate, as differentworkplaces produce consumption goods and others produce investment goods. The issue becomes one ofensuring that enough people and resources go towards both activities.How would this work? Obviously investment decisions have implications for society as a whole. Theimplementation of these decisions require the use of existing capacity and so must be the responsibilityof the appropriate level of the confederation in question. Investment decisions taken at levels above theproduction unit become effective in the form of demand for the current output of the syndicates whichhave the capacity to produce the goods required. This would require each syndicate to "prepare abudget, showing its estimate of requirements both of goods or services for immediate use, and of
extensions and improvements." [Cole, Op. Cit., p. 145] These budgets and investment projects would bediscussed at the appropriate level of the confederation (in this, communist-anarchism would be similar tocollectivist anarchism).The confederation of syndicates/communes would be the ideal forum to discuss (communicate) thevarious investment plans required -- and to allocate scarce resources between different ends. This wouldinvolve, possibly, dividing investment into two groups -- necessary and optional -- and using statisticaltechniques to consider the impact of an investment decision (for example, the use of input-output tablescould be used to see if a given investment decision in, say, the steel industry would require investment inenergy production). In this way social needs and social costs would be taken into account and ensurethat investment decisions are not taken in isolation from one another, so causing bottle-necks andinsufficient production due to lack of inputs from other industries.Necessary investments are those which have been agreed upon by the appropriate confederation. Itmeans that resources and productive capacity are prioritised towards them, as indicated in the agreedinvestment project. It will not be required to determine precisely which syndicates will provide thenecessary goods for a given investment project, just that it has priority over other requests. Undercapitalism, when a bank gives a company credit, it rarely asks exactly which companies will becontracted with when the money is spent but, rather, it gives the company the power to command thelabour of other workers by supplying them with credit/money. Similarly in an anarcho-communist society,except that the other workers have agreed to supply their labour for the project in question bydesignating it a "necessary investment". This means when a request arrives at a syndicate fora "necessary investment" a syndicate must try and meet it (i.e. it must place the request into itsproduction schedule before"optional" requests, assuming that it has the capacity to meet it). A list ofnecessary investment projects, including what they require and if they have been ordered, will beavailable to all syndicates to ensure such a request is a real one.Optional investment is simply investment projects which have not been agreed to by a confederation.This means that when a syndicate or commune places orders with a syndicate they may not be met ortake longer to arrive. The project may go ahead, but it depends on whether the syndicate or communecan find workers willing to do that work. This would be applicable for small scale investment decisions orthose which other communes/syndicates do not think of as essential.Thus we have two inter-related investment strategies. A communist-anarchist society would prioritisecertain forms of investment by the use of "necessary" and "optional" investment projects. Thissocialisation of investment will allow a free society to ensure that social needs are meet while maintaininga decentralised and dynamic economy. Major projects to meet social needs will be organised effectively,but with diversity for minor projects. The tasks of ensuring investment production, making orders forspecific goods and so forth, would be as decentralised as other aspects of a free economy and soanarchism "proposes . . . [t]hat usufruct of instruments of production -- land included -- should be freeto all workers, or groups of workers", that "workers should group themselves, and arrange their work astheir reason and inclination prompt" and that "the necessary connections between the variousindustries . . . should be managed on the same voluntary principle." [Charlotte M. Wilson, AnarchistEssays, p. 21]As for when investment is needed, it is clear that this will be based on the changes in demand for goodsin both collectivist and communist anarchism. As Guilliaume put it: "By means of statistics gathered fromall the communes in a region, it will be possible to scientifically balance production and consumption. Inline with these statistics, it will also be possible to add more help in industries where production isinsufficient and reduce the number of men where there is a surplus of production." ["On Building theNew Social Order", pp. 356-79, Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 370] Obviously, investment in branches ofproduction with a high demand would be essential and this would be easily seen from the statisticsgenerated by the collectives and communes. Tom Brown made this obvious point:"Goods, as now, will be produced in greater variety, for workers like producing different kinds, and newmodels, 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 [shop] assistant will decrease hisorder 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 othersyndicates who are experiencing excess demand before others, all other things being equal. Because ofsuch guidelines and communication between producers, investment would go to those industries thatactually required them. In other words, customer choice (as indicated by individuals choosing betweenthe output of different syndicates) would generate information that is relevant to investment decisions.As production would be decentralised as far as it is sensible and rational to do so, each locality/regionwould be able to understand its own requirements and apply them as it sees fit. This means that largescale planning would not be conducted (assuming that it could work in practice, of course) simplybecause it would not be needed. This, combined with an extensive communications network, wouldensure that investment not only did not duplicate unused plant within the economy but that investmentstake into account the specific problems and opportunities each locality has. Of course, collectives wouldexperiment with new lines and technology as well as existing lines and so invest in new technologies andproducts. As occurs under capitalism, extensive consumer testing would occur before dedicating majorinvestment decisions to new products.In addition, investment decisions would also require information which showed the different outcomes ofdifferent options. By this we simply mean an analysis of how different investment projects relate to eachother in terms of inputs and outputs, compared to the existing techniques. This would be in the form ofcost-benefit analysis (as outlined in section I.4.4) and would show when it would make economic, socialand ecological sense to switch industrial techniques to more efficient and/or more empowering and/ormore ecologically sound methods. Such an evaluation would indicate levels of inputs and compare themto the likely outputs. For example, if a new production technique reduced the number of hours worked intotal (comparing the hours worked to produce the machinery with that reduced in using it) as well asreducing waste products for a similar output, then such a technique would be implemented.Similarly with communities. A commune will obviously have to decide upon and plan civic investment(e.g. new parks, housing and so forth). They will also have the deciding say in industrial developments intheir area as it would be unfair for syndicate to just decide to build a cement factory next to a housingco-operative if they did not want it. There is a case for arguing that the local commune will decide oninvestment decisions for syndicates in its area (for example, a syndicate may produce X plans which willbe discussed in the local commune and one plan finalised from the debate). Regional decisions (forexample, a new hospital) could be decided at the appropriate level, with information fed from the healthsyndicate and consumer co-operatives. The actual location for investment decisions will be worked out bythose involved. However, local syndicates must be the focal point for developing new products andinvestment plans in order to encourage innovation.Therefore, under anarchism no capital market is required to determine whether investment is requiredand what form it would take. The work that apologists for capitalism claim currently is done by the stockmarket can be replaced by co-operation and communication between workplaces in a decentralised,confederated network. The relative needs of different consumers of a product can be evaluated by theproducers and an informed decision reached on where it would best be used. Without private property,housing, schools, hospitals, workplaces and so on will no longer be cramped into the smallest spacepossible. Instead, they will be built within a "green" environment. This means that human constructionswill be placed within a natural setting and no longer stand apart from nature. In this way human life canbe enriched and the evils of cramping as many humans and things into a small a space as is"economical" can be overcome.Only by taking investment decisions away from "experts" and placing it in the hands of ordinary peoplewill current generations be able to invest according to their, and future generations', benefit. It is hardlyin our best interests to have a system whose aim is to make the wealthy even wealthier and on whosewhims are dependent the lives of millions of people.
"'Productivity' in the society we live in, because it is not a means to a social end, but is the meanswhereby industrialists hope to make greater profits for themselves and their shareholders, should beresolutely resisted by the working people, for it brings them neither greater leisure nor liberation fromwage-slavery. Indeed for many it means unemployment . . ."The attempts by managers and the technocrats to streamline industry are resisted intuitively by mostwork people even if they haven't two political ideas in their heads to knock together, not because theyare resistant to change per se but because they cannot see that 'change' will do them any good. And ofcourse they are right! Such an attitude is nevertheless a negative one, and the task of anarchistpropagandists should be to make them aware of this and point to the only alternative, which, in broadterms, is that the producers of wealth must control it for the benefit of all." [Why Work?, VernonRichards (ed.), p. 206]This means that in an anarchist society, technology would have to be transformed and/or developedwhich empowered those who used it, so reducing any oppressive aspects associated with it. As Kropotkinargued, we are (potentially) in a good position, because "[f]or the first time in the history of civilisation,mankind has reached a point where the means of satisfying its needs are in excess of the needsthemselves. To impose, therefore, as hitherto been done, the curse of misery and degradation upon vastdivisions of mankind, in order to secure well-being and further development for the few, is needed nomore: well-being can be secured for all, without placing on anyone the burden of oppressive, degradingtoil and humanity can at last build its entire social life on the basis of justice." [Op. Cit., p. 2] Thequestion is, for most anarchists, how can we humanise and modify this technology and make it sociallyand individually liberatory, rather than destroying it (where applicable, of course, certain forms oftechnology and industry will be eliminated due to their inherently destructive nature).For Kropotkin, like most anarchists, the way to humanise technology and industry was for "the workers[to] lay hands on factories, houses and banks" and so "present production would be completelyrevolutionised by this simple fact." This would be the start of a process which would integrate industryand agriculture, as it was "essential that work-shops, foundries and factories develop within the reach ofthe fields." [The Conquest of Bread, p. 190] Such a process would obviously involve the transformationof both the structure and technology of capitalism rather than its simple and unthinking application. Asdiscussed in section A.3.9, while a few anarchists do seek to eliminate all forms of technology, mostwould agree with Bakunin when he argued that "to destroy . . . all the instruments of labour . . . wouldbe to condemn all humanity -- which is infinitely too numerous today to exist . . . on the simple gifts ofnature . . . -- to . . . death by starvation." His solution to the question of technology was, likeKropotkin's, to place it at the service of those who use it, to create "the intimate and complete union ofcapital and labour" so that it would "not . . . remain concentrated in the hands of a separate, exploitingclass." Only this could "smash the tyranny of capital." [The Basic Bakunin, pp. 90-1] So mostanarchists seek to transform rather then eliminate technology and to do that we need to be in possessionof the means of production before we can decide what to keep, what to change and what to throw awayas inhuman. In other words, it is not enough to get rid of the boss, although this is a necessary first step!Anarchists of all types recognise the importance of critically evaluating technology, industry and so on.The first step of any revolution will be the seizing of the means of production. Thesecond immediate step will be the start of their radical transformation by those who use them and areaffected by them (i.e. communities, those who use the products they produce and so on). Few, if any,anarchists seek to maintain the current industrial set-up or apply, unchanged, capitalist technology. Wedoubt that many of the workers who use that technology and work in industry will leave eitherunchanged. Rather, they will seek to liberate the technology they use from the influences of capitalism,just as they liberated themselves.This will, of course, involve the shutting down (perhaps instantly or over a period of time) of manybranches of industry and the abandonment of such technology which cannot be transformed intosomething more suitable for use by free individuals. And, of course, many workplaces will be transformedto produce new goods required to meet the needs of the revolutionary people or close due to necessityas a social revolution will disrupt the market for their goods -- such as producers of luxury export goods
or suppliers of repressive equipment for state security forces. Altogether, a social revolution implies thetransformation of technology and industry, just as it implies the transformation of society.This process of transforming work can be seen from the Spanish Revolution. Immediately after takingover the means of production, the Spanish workers started to transform it. They eliminated unsafe andunhygienic working conditions and workplaces and created new workplaces based on safe and hygienicworking conditions. Working practices were transformed as those who did the work (and so understoodit) managed it. Many workplaces were transformed to create products required by the war effort (such asweapons, ammunition, tanks and so on) and to produce consumer goods to meet the needs of the localpopulation as the normal sources of such goods, as Kropotkin predicted, were unavailable due toeconomic disruption and isolation. Needless to say, these were only the beginnings of the process butthey clearly point the way any libertarian social revolution would progress, namely the totaltransformation of work, industry and technology. Technological change would develop along new lines,ones which will take into account human and ecological needs rather the power and profits of a minority.Explicit in anarchism is the belief that capitalist and statist methods cannot be used for socialist andlibertarian ends. In our struggle for workers' and community self-management is the awareness thatworkplaces are not merely sites of production -- they are also sites of reproduction, the reproduction ofcertain social relationships based on specific relations of authority between those who give orders andthose who take them. The battle to democratise the workplace, to place the collective initiative of thedirect producers at the centre of any productive activity, is clearly a battle to transform the workplace,the nature of work and, by necessity, technology as well. As Kropotkin argued:"revolution is more than a mere change of the prevailing political system. It implies the awakening ofhuman intelligence, the increasing of the inventive spirit tenfold, a hundredfold; it is the dawn of a newscience . . . It is a revolution in the minds of men, as deep, and deeper still, than in their institutions . . .the sole fact of having laid hands on middle-class property will imply the necessity of completely reorganising the whole of economic life in the workplaces, the dockyards, the factories." [Op. Cit., p. 192]And some think that industry and technology will remain unchanged by such a process and that workerswill continue doing the same sort of work, in the same way, using the same methods!For Kropotkin "all production has taken a wrong direction, as it is not carried on with a view to securingwell-being for all"under capitalism. [Op. Cit., p. 101] Well-being for all obviously includes those who dothe producing and so covers the structure of industry and the technological processes used. Similarly,well-being also includes a person's environment and surroundings and so technology and industry mustbe evaluated on an ecological basis. Technological progress in an anarchist society, needless to say, willhave to take into account these factors as well as others people think are relevant, otherwise the idealof "well-being for all" is rejected (see section I.4.15 for a discussion of what the workplace of the futurecould look like).So, technology always partakes of and expresses the basic values of the social system in which it isembedded. If you have a system (capitalism) that alienates everything, it will naturally produce alienatedforms of technology and it will orient those technologies so as to reinforce itself. Capitalists will selecttechnology which re-enforces their power and profits and skew technological change in that directionrather than in those which empower individuals and make the workplace more egalitarian.All this suggests that technological progress is not neutral but dependent on who makes the decisions. AsDavid Noble argues, "[t]echnological determinism, the view that machines make history rather thanpeople, is not correct . . . If social changes now upon us seem necessary, it is because they follow notfrom any disembodied technological logic, but form a social logic." Technology conforms to "the interestsof power" but as "technological process is a social process" then "it is, like all social processes, markedby conflict and struggle, and the outcome, therefore, is always ultimately indeterminate."Viewingtechnological development "as a social process rather than as an autonomous, transcendent, anddeterministic force can be liberating . . . because it opens up a realm of freedom too long denied. Itrestores people once again to their proper role as subjects of the story, rather than mere pawns oftechnology . . . And technological development itself, now seen as a social construct, becomes a new
variable rather than a first cause, consisting of a range of possibilities and promising a multiplicity offutures." [Forces of Production, pp. 324-5]This does not mean that we have to reject all technology and industry because it has been shaped by, ordeveloped within, class society. Certain technologies are, of course, so insanely dangerous that they willno doubt be brought to a prompt halt in any sane society. Similarly, certain forms of technology andindustrial process will be impossible to transform as they are inherently designed for oppressive ends.Many other industries which produce absurd, obsolete or superfluous commodities will, of course, ceaseautomatically with the disappearance of their commercial or social rationales. But many technologies,however they may presently be misused, have few if any inherent drawbacks. They could be easilyadapted to other uses. When people free themselves from domination, they will have no trouble rejectingthose technologies that are harmful while adapting others to beneficial uses.Change society and the technology introduced and utilised will likewise change. By viewing technologicalprogress as a new variable, dependent on those who make the decisions and the type of society they livein, allows us to see that technological development is not inherently anti-anarchist. A non-oppressive,non-exploitative, ecological society will develop non-oppressive, non-exploitative, ecological technologyjust as capitalism has developed technology which facilitates exploitation, oppression and environmentaldestruction. Thus an anarchist questions technology: The best technology? Best for whom? Best forwhat? Best according to what criteria, what visions, according to whose criteria and whose visions?Needless to say, different communities and different regions would choose different priorities anddifferent lifestyles. As the CNT's Zaragoza resolution on libertarian communism made clear, "thosecommunes which reject industrialisation . . . may agree upon a different model of co-existence." Usingthe example of "naturists and nudists," it argued that they"will be entitled to an autonomousadministration released from the general commitments" agreed by the communes and their federationsand "their delegates to congresses of the . . . Confederation of Autonomous Libertarian Communes willbe empowered to enter into economic contacts with other agricultural and industrialCommunes." [quoted by Jose Peirats,The CNT in the Spanish Revolution, vol. 1, p. 106]For most anarchists, though, technological advancement is important in a free society in order tomaximise the free time available for everyone and replace mindless toil with meaningful work. Themeans of doing so is the use ofappropriate technology (and not the worship of technology as such).Only by critically evaluating technology and introducing such forms which empower, are understandableand are controllable by individuals and communities as well as minimising ecological distribution can thisbe achieved. Only this critical approach to technology can do justice to the power of the human mind andreflect the creative powers which developed the technology in the first place. Unquestioning acceptanceof technological progress is just as bad as being unquestioningly anti-technology.
Collectivisation in Catalonia embraced not only major industries like municipal transportation and utilities,but smaller establishments as well: small factories, artisan workshops, service and repair shops, etc.Augustin Souchy describes the process as follows:"The artisans and small workshop owners, together with their employees and apprentices, often joinedthe 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 . . . Thecollectivisation of the hairdressing shops provides an excellent example of how the transition of a smallscale manufacturing and service industry from capitalism to socialism was achieved . . ."Before July 19th, 1936 [the date of the Revolution], there were 1,100 hairdressing parlours inBarcelona, most of them owned by poor wretches living from hand to mouth. The shops were often dirtyand ill-maintained. The 5,000 hairdressing assistants were among the most poorly paid workers . . . Bothowners and assistants therefore voluntarily decided to socialise all their shops."How was this done? All the shops simply joined the union. At a general meeting they decided to shutdown all the unprofitable shops. The 1,100 shops were reduced to 235 establishments, a saving of135,000 pesetas per month in rent, lighting, and taxes. The remaining 235 shops were modernised andelegantly outfitted. From the money saved, wages were increased by 40%. Everyone having the right towork and everyone received the same wages. The former owners were not adversely affected bysocialisation. They were employed at a steady income. All worked together under equal conditions andequal pay. The distinction between employers and employees was obliterated and they were transformedinto a working community of equals -- socialism from the bottom up." [The Anarchist Collectives, SamDolgoff (ed.), pp. 93-94]The collectives, as well as improving working conditions, also ensured access to other goods and serviceswhich market forces had previously denied working class people. Across Republican Spain collectives intowns and villages organised health care. For example, in the village of Magdalena de Pulpishousing "was free and completely socialised, as was medical care . . . Medicines, supplies, transfer tohospitals in Barcelona or Castellon, surgery, services of specialists -- all was paid for by thecollective." This was also done for education, with collectives forming and running schools, colleges anduniversities. For example, Regional Peasant Federation of Levant saw each collective organise "one ortwo free schools for the children" and "almost wiped out illiteracy" (over 70% of rural Spain was illiteratebefore the Civil War). It also organised a "University of Moncada" which "gave courses in animalhusbandry, poultry raising. animal breeding, agriculture, tree science, etc." [Gaston Leval, Op. Cit., p.156 and p. 125]These examples, social anarchists argue, show that co-operation ensures that resources are efficientlyallocated and waste is minimised by cutting down needless competition. It also ensures that necessarygoods and services which meet vital areas for human well-being and development are available for allrather than the few. Rather than reduce choice, such co-operation increased it by making such thingsavailable to all (and as consumers have choices in which syndicate to consume from as well as havingdirect communication between consumer co-operatives and productive units, there is little danger thatrationalisation in production will hurt the interests of the consumer).Another way in which wide distribution of surplus can be advantageous is in Research and Development(R&D). By creating a fund for research and development which is independent of the fortunes ofindividual syndicates, society as a whole can be improved by access to useful new technologies andprocesses. Therefore, in a libertarian socialist society, people (both within the workplace and incommunities) are likely to decide to allocate significant amounts of resources for basic research from theavailable social output. This is because the results of this research would be freely available to all and sowould aid everyone in the long term. In addition, because workers directly control their workplace andthe local community effectively "owns" it, all affected would have an interest in exploring research whichwould reduce labour, pollution, waste and so on or increase output with little or no social impact.It should also be mentioned here that research would be pursued more and more as people take anincreased 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 onmany levels within society - in the workplace, in the community, in education and so on.This means that research and innovation would be in the direct interests of everyone involved and that allwould have the means to do it. Under capitalism, this is not the case. Most research is conducted in orderto get an edge in the market by increasing productivity or expanding production into new (previouslyunwanted) areas. Any increased productivity often leads to unemployment, deskilling and other negativeeffects for those involved. Libertarian socialism will not face this problem. Moreover, it should be stressedthat basic research is not something which free-market capitalism does well. As Doug Henwood notes,basic science research "is heavily funded by the public sector and non-profit institutions likeuniversities." The internet and computer, for example, were both projects for the Pentagon and"thegovernment picked up the basic R&D tab for decades, when neither Wall Street nor private industryshowed any interest. In fact, capital only became interested when the start-up costs had all been borneby the public sector and there were finally profits to be made . . . good American individualists don't liketo talk about the public sector, since their hero is the plucky entrepreneur." [After the New Economy,p. 196 and p. 6] The rise of such systems across the world indicates that basic research often needspublic support in order to be done. Even such a leading neo-classical economist as Kenneth Arrow had toadmit in the 1960s that market forces are insufficient:"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 undertakingit only if other firms are prevented from using the information. But such restriction reduces the efficiencyof inventive activity in general, and will therefore reduce its quantity also." [quoted by DavidSchweickart, Against capitalism, p. 132]Nothing has changed since. Would modern society have produced so many innovations if it had not beenfor the Pentagon system, the space race and so on? Take the Internet, for example -- it is unlikely thatthis would have got off the ground if it had not been for public funding. Needless to say, of course, muchof this technology has been developed for evil reasons and purposes and would be in need of drasticchange (or in some cases abolition) before it could be used in a libertarian society. However, the factremains that it is unlikely that a pure market based system could have generated most of the technologywe take for granted. As Noam Chomsky argues:"[Alan] Greenspan [then head of the US Federal Reserve] gave a talk to newspaper editors in the US. Hespoke passionately about the miracles of the market, the wonders brought by consumer choice, and soon. He also gave examples: the Internet, computers, information processing, lasers, satellites,transistors. It's an interesting list: these are textbook examples of creativity and production in the publicsector. In the case of the Internet, for 30 years it was designed, developed and funded primarily in thepublic sector, mostly the Pentagon, then the National Science Foundation -- that's most of the hardware,the software, new ideas, technology, and so on. In just the last couple of years it has been handed overto people like Bill Gates . . . In the case of the Internet, consumer choice was close to zero, and duringthe crucial development stages that same was true of computers, information processing, and all the rest..."In fact, of all the examples that Greenspan gives, the only one that maybe rises above the level of ajoke is transistors, and they are an interesting case. Transistors, in fact, were developed in a privatelaboratory -- Bell Telephone Laboratories of AT&T -- which also made major contributions to solar cells,radio astronomy, information theory, and lots of other important things. But what is the role of marketsand consumer choice in that? Well, again, it turns out, zero. AT&T was a government supportedmonopoly, so there was no consumer choice, and as a monopoly they could charge high prices: in effecta tax on the public which they could use for institutions like Bell Laboratories . . . So again, it's publiclysubsidised. As if to demonstrate the point, as soon as the industry was deregulated, Bell Labs went outof existence, because the public wasn't paying for it any more . . . But that's only the beginning of thestory. True, Bell invented transistors, but they used wartime technology, which, again, was publiclysubsidised and state-initiated. Furthermore, there was nobody to buy transistors at that time, becausethey were very expensive to produce. So, for ten years the government was the major procurer . . .
Government procurement provided entrepreneurial initiatives and guided the development of thetechnology, which could then be disseminated to industry." [Rogue States, pp. 192-3]The free market can also have a negative impact on innovation. This is because, in order to pleaseshareholders with higher share prices, companies may reduce funds available for real investment as wellas R&D which would also depress growth and employment in the long term. What shareholders mightcondemn as "uneconomic" (investment projects and R&D) can, and does, make society as a whole betteroff. However, these gains are over the long term and, within capitalism, it is short-term gains whichcount. Higher share prices in the here and now are essential in order to survive and so see the long-run.A socialised economy with a wide-scale sharing of surpluses and resources could easily allocate resourcesfor R&D, long term investment, innovation and so on. Via the use of mutual banks or confederations ofsyndicates and communes, resources could be allocated which take into account the importance of longterm priorities, as well as social costs, which are not taken into account (indeed, are beneficial to ignore)under capitalism. Rather than penalise long term investment and research and development, a socialisedeconomy would ensure that adequate resources are available, something which would benefit everyonein society in some way.If we look at vocational training and education, a wide basis of surplus distribution would aid this no end.Under free market capitalism, vocational training suffers for profit seeking firms will not incur costs thatwill be enjoyed by others. This means that firms will be reluctant to spend money on training if they fearthat the trained workers will soon be poached by other firms which can offer more money because theyhad not incurred the cost of providing training. As a result few firms will provide the required training asthey could not be sure that the trained workers will not leave for their competitors (and, of course, atrained work force also, due to their skill, have more workplace power and are less replaceable). So aswell as technological developments, a wide basis of surplus distribution would help improve the skills andknowledge of the members of a community. As Keynesian economist Michael Stewart points out, "[t]hereare both theoretical and empirical reasons to suppose that market forces under-provide research anddevelopment expenditures, as well as both education and training." [Keynes in the 1990s, p. 77]By socialising training via confederations of workplaces, syndicates could increase productivity viaincreasing the skill levels of their members. Higher skill levels will also tend to increase innovation andenjoyment at "work" when combined with workers' self-management. This is because an educatedworkforce in control of their own time will be unlikely to tolerate mundane, boring, machine-like work andseek ways to eliminate it, improve the working environment and increase productivity to give them morefree time.In addition to work conducted by syndicates, education establishments, communes and so on, it wouldbe essential to provide resources for individuals and small groups to pursue "pet projects." Of course,syndicates and confederations will have their own research institutions but the innovatory role of theinterested "amateur" cannot be over-rated. As Kropotkin argued:"What is needed to promote the spirit of innovation is . . . the awakening of thought, the boldness ofconception, which our entire education causes to languish; it is the spreading of a scientific education,which would increase the numbers of inquirers a hundred-fold; it is faith that humanity is going to take astep forward, because it is enthusiasm, the hope of doing good, that has inspired all the great inventors.The Social Revolution alone can give this impulse to thought, this boldness, this knowledge, thisconviction of working for all."Then we shall have vast institutes . . . immense industrial laboratories open to all inquirers, where menwill be able to work out their dreams, after having acquitted themselves of their duty towards society; . .. where they will make their experiments; where they will find other comrades, experts in other branchesof industry, likewise coming to study some difficult problem, and therefore able to help and enlighteneach other -- the encounter of their ideas and experiences causing the longed-for solution to befound." [The Conquest of Bread, p. 117]
The example of free software (operating systems, programming languages, specific packages and code)today shows the potential of this. Thus socialisation would aid innovation and scientific development byproviding the necessary resources (including free time) for such work. Moreover, it would also provide thecommunity spirit required to push the boundaries of science forward. As John O'Neil argues:"There is, in a competitive market economy, a disincentive to communicate information. The marketencourages secrecy, which is inimical to openness in science. It presupposes a view of property in whichthe owner has rights to exclude others. In the sphere of science, such rights of exclusion place limits onthe communication of information and theories which are incompatible with the growth of knowledge . . .science tends to grow when communication is open. . . [In addition a] necessary condition for theacceptability of a theory or experimental result is that it pass the public, critical scrutiny of competentscientific judges. A private theory or result is one that is shielded from the criteria of scientificacceptability." [The Market, p. 153]Today inventors often "carefully hide their inventions from each other, as they are hampered by patentsand Capitalism -- that bane of present society, that stumbling-block in the path of intellectual and moralprogress." In a free society, socialisation would ensure that inventors will be able to build upon theknowledge of everyone, including past generations. Rather than hide knowledge from others, in case theyget a competitive advantage, knowledge would be shared, enriching all involved as well as the rest ofsociety. Thus the "spreading of a scientific education, which would increase the number ofinquirers", "faith that humanity is going to take a step forward" and the "enthusiasm, the hope of doinggood, that has inspired all the great inventors" will be maximised and innovation increased.[Kropotkin, Op. Cit., p. 117 and pp. 116-7]Social anarchists would also suggest that socialisation would produce more benefits by looking at existingsocieties. The evidence from the UK, USA, Australia, New Zealand and China shows that privatisation ofnationalised industries associated with neo-liberalism failed in its stated aims of cheaper and betterservices while more than succeeding in their unstated aim of redistributing wealth upwards (for detailssee In Government we Trust: Market Failure and the delusions of privatisation by WarrickFunnell, Robert Jupe and Jane Andrew). The examples of railway and utility privatisation, the energycrisis in California (with companies like Enron reaping huge speculative profits while consumers facedblackouts) and the Sydney water treatment scandal in Australia are sadly all too typical. Ironically, in theUK after 30 years of Thatcherite policies (first under the Tories and then New Labour) the readers of theright-wing press who supported it are subjected to article after article complaining about "Rip offBritain" and yet more increases in the prices charged for privatised utilities, services and goods. This, itmust be stressed, is not to suggest that anarchists aim for nationalisation (we do not, we aim forsocialisation and workers' self-management) but rather to indicate that privatising resources does notbenefit the majority of people in a given society.It should also be noted that more unequal societies are bad for almost everyone within them. RichardWilkinson and Kate Pickett in their book The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost AlwaysDo Better show that almost every modern social and environmental problem (including ill-health, lack ofcommunity life, violence, drugs, obesity, mental illness, long working hours, big prison populations) ismore likely to occur in an unequal society than a more equal one. Based on thirty years of research, itshows that inequality, as anarchists have long argued, is bad for us. As such, socialisation of wealthwould benefit us all.Lastly, there is the issue of those who cannot work and the general provision of public goods. With a widedistribution to surplus, communal hospitals, schools, universities and so on can be created. The simplefact is that any society has members who cannot (indeed, should not) work unless they want to, such asthe young, the old and the sick. In an Individualist Anarchist society, there is no real provision for theseindividuals unless someone (a family member, friend or charity) provides them with the money requiredfor hospital fees and so on. For most anarchists, such a situation seems far too much like the system weare currently fighting against to be appealing. As such, social anarchists argue that everyone deserves aneducation, health care and so on as a right and so be able live a fully human life as a right, rather than aprivilege to be paid for. A communal basis for distribution would ensure that every member of the
commune can receive such things automatically, as and when required. The removal of the worry that,for example, privatised health care produces can be seen as a benefit of socialisation which cannot bereflected in, say, GDP or similar economic measures (not to mention the ethical statement it makes).Significantly, though, non-privatised systems of health care are more efficient. Competition as well asdenying people treatment also leads to inefficiencies as prices are inflated to pay for advertising,competition related administration costs, paying dividends to share-holders and so on. This drives up thecost for those lucky enough to be covered, not to mention the stress produced by the constant fear oflosing insurance or being denied payment due to the insurance company deciding against the patient andtheir doctor. For example, in 1993, Canada's health plans devoted 0.9% of spending to overhead,compared to U.S. figures of 3.2% for Medicare and 12% for private insurers. In addition, when Canadaadopted its publicly financed system in 1971, it and the U.S. both spent just over 7% of GDP on healthcare. By 1990, the U.S. was up to 12.3%, verses Canada's 9%. Since then costs have continued to riseand rise, making health-care reform of key interest to the public who are suffering under it (assumingthey are lucky enough to have private insurance, of course).The madness of private health-care shows the benefits of a society-wide distribution of surpluses.Competition harms health-care provision and, as a result, people. According to Alfie Kohn:"More hospitals and clinics are being run by for-profit corporations; many institutions, forced to battle for'customers,' seem to value a skilled director of marketing more highly than a skilled caregiver. As in anyother economic sector, the race for profits translates into pressure to reduce costs, and the easiest wayto do it here is to cut back on services to unprofitable patients, that is, those who are more sick than rich. . . The result: hospital costs are actually higher in areas where there is more competition forpatients." [No Contest, p. 240]American Liberal Robert Kuttner concurs:"The American health-care system is a tangle of inequity and inefficiency -- and getting worse as privatemarket forces seek to rationalise it. A shift to a universal system of health coverage would cut thisGordian knot at a stroke. It would not only deliver the explicitly medical aspects of health moreefficiently and fairly, but, by socialising costs of poor health, it would also create a powerful financialincentive for society as a whole to stress primary prevention. . . every nation with a universal systemspends less of its GDP on health care than the United States . . . And nearly every other nation with auniversal system has longer life spans from birth (though roughly equivalent life spans fromadulthood) . . . most nations with universal systems also have greater patient satisfaction."The reasons . . . should be obvious. By their nature, universal systems spend less money on wastefuloverhead, and more on primary prevention. Health-insurance overhead in the United States aloneconsumes about 1 percent of the GDP, compared to 0.1 percent in Canada. Though medical inflation is aproblem everywhere, the universal systems have had far lower rates of cost inflation . . . In the yearsbetween 1980 and 1987, total health costs in the United States increased by 2.4 times the rate of GDPgrowth. In nations with universal systems, they increased far more slowly. The figures for Sweden,France, West Germany, and Britain were 1.2, 1.6, 1.8, and 1.7 percent, respectively . . ."Remarkably enough, the United States spends most money on health care, but has the fewest beds perthousand in population, the lowest admission rate, and the lowest occupancy rate -- coupled with thehighest daily cost, highest technology-intensiveness, and greatest number of employees perbed." [Everything for Sale, pp. 155-6]In 1993, the US paid 13.4% of its GDP towards health care, compared to 10% for Canada, 8.6% forSweden and Germany, 6.6% for Britain and 6.8% for Japan. Only 40% of the US population was coveredby public health care and over 35 million people, 14% of the population, went without health insurancefor all of 1991, and about twice that many were uninsured for some period during the year. In terms ofhealth indicators, the US people are not getting value for money. Life expectancy is higher in Canada,Sweden, Germany, Japan and Britain. The USA has the highest levels of infant mortality and is last in
basic health indicators as well as having fewer doctors per 1,000 people than the OECD average. All inall, the US system is miles behind the universal systems of other countries.Of course, it will be argued that the USA is not a pure "free market" and so comparisons are pointless.However, it seems strange that the more competitive system, the more privatised system, is less efficientand less fair than the universal systems. It also seems strange that defenders of competition happily useexamples from "actually existing" capitalism to illustrate their politics but reject negative examples asbeing a product of an "impure" system. They want to have their cake and eat it too.Significantly, we should note that the use of surplus for communal services (such as hospitals andeducation) can be seen from the Spanish Revolution. Many collectives funded new hospitals and collegesfor their members, providing hundreds of thousands with services they could never have afforded bytheir own labour. This is a classic example of co-operation helping the co-operators achieve far more thanthey could by their own isolated activities. How this libertarian health system was run and how otherpublic services would be organised in a free society are discussed insection I.5.12.So we can generalise from our experiences of different kinds of capitalism. If you want to live in a societyof well-educated people, working today as equals in pleasant surroundings with more than ample leisuretime to pursue your own projects and activities, then a wide sharing of the social surplus is required.Otherwise, you could live in a society where people work long and hard to survive on the market, withoutthe time or opportunity for education and leisure, and be bossed about for most of your waking hours toenrich the wealthy few so that they can live a life of leisure (which, in turn, will apparently inspire you towork harder in spite of the fact that such high inequality produces low social mobility). The first society,according to some, would be one of self-sacrificing altruism and "collectivism" while the latter is,apparently, one based on "individualism" and self-interest...
motivate people. They challenge the behaviourist assumption that any activity is more likely to occur orbe better in terms of outcome if it is rewarded.These findings re-enforce the findings of other scientific fields. Biology, social psychology, ethnology andanthropology all present evidence that support co-operation as the natural basis for human interaction.For example, ethnological studies indicate that virtually all indigenous cultures operate on the basis ofhighly co-operative relationships and anthropologists have presented evidence to show that thepredominant force driving early human evolution was co-operative social interaction, leading to thecapacity of hominids to develop culture. This is even sinking into capitalism, with industrial psychologynow promoting "worker participation" and team functioning because it is decisively more productive thanhierarchical management. More importantly, the evidence shows that co-operative workplaces are moreproductive than those organised on other principles. All other things equal, producers' co-operatives willbe more efficient than capitalist or state enterprises, on average. Co-operatives can often achieve higherproductivity even when their equipment and conditions are worse. Furthermore, the better theorganisation approximates the co-operative ideal, the better the productivity.All this is unsurprising to social anarchists (and it should make individualist anarchists reconsider theirposition). Peter Kropotkin argued that, "[i]f we . . . ask Nature: 'Who are the fittest: those who arecontinually at war with each other, or those who support one another?' we at once see that thoseanimals which acquire habits of mutual aid are undoubtedly the fittest. They have more chances tosurvive, and they attain, in their respective classes, the highest development of intelligence and bodilyorganisation." [Mutual Aid, p. 24]It should be noted that, as one biologist points out, "Kropotkin's ideas, though unorthodox, werescientifically respectable, and indeed the contention that mutual aid can be a means of increasing fitnesshad become a standard part of modern sociobiology." [Douglas H. Boucher, "The Idea of Mutualism, Pastand Future", pp. 1-28, The Biology of Mutualism: Biology and Evolution, Douglas H. Boucher (ed.),p. 17] Frans de Waal (a leading primatologist) and Jessica C. Flack argue that Kropotkin is part of a widertradition "in which the view has been that animals assist each other precisely because by doing so theyachieve long term, collective benefits of greater value than the short term benefits derived fromstraightforward competition." They summarise that the "basic tenet of [Kropotkin's] ideas was on themark. Almost seventy years later, in an article entitled 'The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism', [Robert]Trivers refined the concepts Kropotkin advanced and explained how co-operation and, more importantly,a system of reciprocity (called 'reciprocal altruism' by Trivers) could have evolved." ["'Any AnimalWhatever': Darwinian Building Blocks of Morality in Monkeys and Apes", pp. 1-29, Journal ofConsciousness Studies, Vol. 7, No. 1-2, p. 4]So modern research has reinforced Kropotkin's argument. This applies to both human and non-humananimals. For the former, the evidence is strong that we have intrinsic abilities and needs to co-operate aswell as an intrinsic senses of fairness and ethics. This suggests that co-operation is part of "humannature" and so studies which show that such behaviour is more productive than competition should comeas no surprise -- and the evidence is impressive. As noted, Alfie Kohn is also the author of No Contest:The Case Against Competition and he spent seven years reviewing more than 400 research studiesdealing with competition and co-operation. According to Kohn, there are three principle consequences ofcompetition:Firstly, it has a negative effect on productivity and excellence. This is due to increased anxiety,inefficiency (as compared to co-operative sharing of resources and knowledge), and the undermining ofinner motivation. Competition shifts the focus to victory over others, and away from intrinsic motivatorssuch as curiosity, interest, excellence, and social interaction. Studies show that co-operative behaviour,by contrast, consistently produces good performance -- a finding which holds true under a wide range ofsubject variables. Interestingly, the positive benefits of co-operation become more significant as tasksbecome more complex, or where greater creativity and problem-solving ability is required.Secondly, competition lowers self-esteem and hampers the development of sound, self-directedindividuals. 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 theycontribute to group efforts generally possess greater self-confidence and higher self-esteem.Thirdly, competition undermines human relationships. Humans are social beings; we best express ourhumanness in interaction with others. By creating winners and losers, competition is destructive tohuman unity and prevents close social feeling.Social Anarchists have long argued these points. In the competitive mode, people work at crosspurposes, or purely for (material) personal gain. This leads to an impoverishment of society as well ashierarchy, with a lack of communal relations that result in an impoverishment of all the individualsinvolved (mentally, spiritually, ethically and, ultimately, materially). This not only leads to a weakening ofindividuality and social disruption, but also to economic inefficiency as energy is wasted in class conflictand invested in building bigger and better cages to protect the haves from the have-nots. Instead ofcreating useful things, human activity is spent in useless toil reproducing an injust and authoritariansystem.All in all, the results of competition (as documented by a host of scientific disciplines) show its poverty aswell as indicating that co-operation is the means by which the fittest survive.Moreover, the notion that material rewards result in better work is simply not true. Basing itself on simplebehaviourist psychology, such arguments fail to meet the test of long-term success (and, in fact, can becounter-productive). Indeed, it means treating human beings as little better than pets or other animals(Kohn argues that it is "not an accident that the theory behind 'Do this and you'll get that' derives fromwork with other species, or that behaviour management is frequently described in words better suited toanimals.") In other words, it "is by its very nature dehumanising." Rather than simply being motivated byoutside stimuli like mindless robots, people are not passive. We are "beings who possess natural curiosityabout ourselves and our environment, who search for and overcome challenges, who try and masterskills and attain competence, and who seek new levels of complexity in what we learn and do . . . ingeneral we act on the environment as much as we are acted on by it, and we do not do so simply inorder to receive a reward." [Punished by Rewards, p. 24 and p. 25]Kohn presents extensive evidence to back upon his case that rewards harm activity and individuals. Wecannot do justice to it here so we will present a few examples. One study with college students showedthat those paid to work on a puzzle "spent less time on it than those who hadn't been paid" when theywere given a choice of whether to work on it or not. "It appeared that working for a reward made peopleless interested in the task." Another study with children showed that "extrinsic rewards reduce intrinsicmotivation." [Op. Cit., p. 70 and p. 71] Scores of other studies confirmed this. This is because a rewardis effectively saying that a given activity is not worth doing for its own sake -- and why would anyonewish to do something they have to be bribed to do?In the workplace, a similar process goes on. Kohn presents extensive evidence to show that extrinsicmotivation also fails even there. Indeed, he argues that "economists have it wrong if they think of workas a 'disutility' -- something unpleasant we must do in order to be able to buy what we need, merely ameans to an end." Kohn stresses that "to assume that money is what drives people is to adopt animpoverished understanding of human motivation." Moreover, "the risk of any incentive or pay-forperformance system is that it will make people less interested in their work and therefore less likely toapproach it with enthusiasm and a commitment to excellence. Furthermore, the more closely we tiecompensation (or other rewards) to performance, the most damage we do." [Op. Cit., p. 131, p.134 and p. 140]Kohn argues that the idea that humans will only work for profit or rewards "can be fairly described asdehumanising" if"the capacity for responsible action, the natural love of learning, and the desire to dogood work are already part of who we are." Also, it is "a way of trying to control people" and soto "anyone who is troubled by a model of human relationships founded principally on the idea of oneperson controlling another must ponder whether rewards are as innocuous as they are sometimes madeout to be". So "there is no getting around the fact that 'the basic purpose of merit pay is manipulative.'One observer more bluntly characterises incentives as 'demeaning' since the message they really convey
is, 'Please big daddy boss and you will receive the rewards that the boss deems appropriate.'" [Op. Cit.,p. 26]Given that much work is controlled by others and can be a hateful experience under capitalism does notmean that it has to be that way. Clearly, even under wage slavery most workers can and do find workinteresting and seek to do it well -- not because of possible rewards or punishment but because we seekmeaning in our activities and try and do them well. Given that research shows that reward orientatedwork structures harm productivity and excellence, social anarchists have more than just hope to basetheir ideas. Such research confirms Kropotkin's comments:"Wage-work is serf-work; it cannot, it must not, produce all it could produce. And it is high time todisbelieve the legend which presents wagedom as the best incentive to productive work. If industrynowadays brings in a hundred times more than it did in the days of our grandfathers, it is due to thesudden awakening of physical and chemical sciences towards the end of the [18th] century; not to thecapitalist organisation of wagedom, but in spite of that organisation." [The Conquest of Bread, p. 150]For these reasons, social anarchists are confident that the elimination of the profit motive within thecontext of self-management will not harm productivity and creativity, but rather enhance them (withinan authoritarian system in which workers enhance the power and income of bureaucrats, we can expectdifferent results). With the control of their own work and workplaces ensured, all working people canexpress their abilities to the full. This will see an explosion of creativity and initiative, not a reduction.
anthropologist David Graeber notes that in the ancient Mediterranean world "[w]hile one doesperiodically run into evidence of arrangements which to the modern eye look like wage-labour contracts,on closer examination they almost always actually turn out to be contracts to rent slaves . . . Free menand women thus avoided anything remotely like wage-labour, seeing it as a matter, effectively, ofslavery, renting themselves out." This means that wage labour "(as opposed to, say, receiving fees forprofessional services) involves a degree of subordination: a labourer has to be to some degree at thecommand of his or her employer. This is exactly why, through most of history, free men and womentended to avoid wage-labour, and why, for most of history, capitalism . . . neveremerged." [Possibilities, p. 92]Thus while the idea that people will happily become wage slaves may be somewhat common place today(particularly with supporters of capitalism) the evidence of history is that people, given a choice, willprefer self-employment andresist wage labour (often to the death). As E. P. Thompson noted, forworkers at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th centuries, the "gap in status between a'servant,' a hired wage-labourer subject to the orders and discipline of the master, and an artisan, whomight 'come and go' as he pleased, was wide enough for men to shed blood rather than allowthemselves to be pushed from one side to the other. And, in the value system of the community, thosewho resisted degradation were in the right." [The Making of the English Working Class, p. 599] Overone hundred years later, the rural working class of Aragon showed the same dislike of wage slavery. AfterCommunist troops destroyed their self-managed collectives, the "[d]ispossessed peasants, intransigentcollectivists, refused to work in a system of private property, and were even less willing to rent out theirlabour." [Jose Peirats, Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution, p. 258] The rural economy collapsed asthe former collectivists refused to be the servants of the few.People who have tasted freedom are unlikely to go back to oppression. Therefore, any perception thatpeople will become wage-slaves through choice in a free society is based on the assumption what peopleaccept through necessity under capitalism will pass over, without change, into a free one. Thisassumption is unfounded and anarchists expect that once people struggle for freedom and taste thepleasures of freedom they will not freely accept a degradation back to having a master -- and as historyshows, we have some evidence to support our argument. It seems a strangely debased perspective onfreedom to ponder whether people will be "free" to alienate their freedom -- it is a bit like proclaiming it arestriction of freedom to "forbid" owning slaves (and, as noted in section F.2.2, Nozick did supportvoluntary slave contracts).So anarchists think Nozick's vision of unfreedom developing from freedom is unlikely. As anarchosyndicalist Jeff Stein points out "the only reason workers want to be employed by capitalists is becausethey have no other means for making a living, no access to the means of production other than byselling themselves. For a capitalist sector to exist there must be some form of private ownership ofproductive resources, and a scarcity of alternatives. The workers must be in a condition of economicdesperation for them to be willing to give up an equal voice in the management of their daily affairs andaccept a boss." ["Market Anarchism? Caveat Emptor!", Libertarian Labour Review, no. 13]In an anarchist society, there is no need for anyone to "forbid" capitalist acts. All people have to dois refrain from helping would-be capitalists set up monopolies of productive assets. This is because, aswe have noted in section B.3.2, capitalism cannot exist without some form of state to protect suchmonopolies. In a libertarian-socialist society, of course, there would be no state to begin with, and sothere would be no question of it "refraining" people from doing anything, including protecting would-becapitalists' monopolies of the means of production. In other words, would-be capitalists would face stiffcompetition for workers in an anarchist society. This is because self-managed workplaces would be ableto offer workers more benefits (such as self-government, better working conditions, etc.) than the wouldbe capitalist ones. The would-be capitalists would have to offer not only excellent wages and conditionsbut also, in all likelihood, workers' control and hire-purchase on capital used. The chances of making aprofit once the various monopolies associated with capitalism are abolished are slim.Thus the would-be capitalist would "not [be] able to obtain assistance or people to exploit" and "wouldfind none because nobody, having a right to the means of production and being free to work on his own
or as an equal with others in the large organisations of production would want to be exploited by a smallemployer". [Malatesta, Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, pp. 102-103] So where would thecapitalist wannabe find people to work for him? As Kropotkin argued:"Everywhere you will find that the wealth of the wealthy springs from the poverty of the poor. That iswhy an anarchist society need not fear the advent of a [millionaire] who would settle in its midst. Ifevery member of the community knows that after a few hours of productive toil he [or she] will have aright to all the pleasures that civilisation procures, and to those deeper sources of enjoyment which artand science offer to all who seek them, he [or she] will not sell his strength . . . No one will volunteer towork for the enrichment of your [millionaire]." [Conquest of Bread, p. 61]However, let us suppose there is a self-employed inventor, Ferguson, who comes up with a newinnovation without the help of the socialised sector. Would anarchists steal his idea? Not at all. Thesyndicates, which by hypothesis have been organised by people who believe in giving producers the fullvalue of their product, would pay Ferguson an equitable amount for his idea, which would then becomecommon across society. However, if he refused to sell his invention and instead tried to claim a patentmonopoly on it in order to gather a group of wage slaves to exploit, no one would agree to work for himunless they got the full control over both the product of their labour and the labour process itself. And,assuming that he did find someone willing to work for him (and so be governed by him), the would-becapitalist would have to provide such excellent conditions and pay such good wages as to reduce hisprofits to near zero. Moreover, he would have to face workers whose neighbours would be encouragingthem to form a union and strike for even better conditions and pay, including workers' control and so on.Such a militant workforce would be the last thing a capitalist would desire. In addition, we would imaginethey would also refuse to work for someone unless they also got the capital they used at the end of theircontract (i.e. a system of "hire-purchase" on the means of production used). In other words, byremoving the statist supports of capitalism, would-be capitalists would find it hard to "compete" with theco-operative sector and would not be in a position to exploit others' labour.With a system of communal production (in social anarchism) and mutual banks (in individualistanarchism), usury -- i.e. charging a use-fee for a monopolised item, of which patents are an instance -would no longer be possible and the inventor would be like any other worker, exchanging the product ofhis or her labour. As Benjamin Tucker argued, "the patent monopoly . . . consists in protecting inventorsand authors against competition for a period of time long enough for them to extort from the people areward enormously in excess of the labour measure of their services -- in other words, in giving certainpeople a right of property for a term of years in laws and facts of nature, and the power to extracttribute from others for the use of this natural wealth, which should be open to all. The abolition of thismonopoly would fill its beneficiaries with a wholesome fear of competition which should cause them to besatisfied with pay for their services equal to that which other labourers get for theirs, and secure it byplacing their products and works on the market at the outset at prices so low that their lines of businesswould be no more tempting to competitors than any other lines." [The Anarchist Reader, pp. 150-1]So, if someone has labour to sell then they deserve a free society to do it in -- as Tucker once pointedout. Such an environment would make the numbers seeking employment so low as to ensure that therate of exploitation would be zero. Little wonder that, when faced with a self-employed, artisanworkforce, capitalists have continually turned to the state to create the "correct" market forces. Sowithout statism to back up various class-based monopolies of capitalist privilege, capitalism would nothave become dominant.It should also 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 capitalistone. This is not the case, and so his argument is weakened and loses its force. Simply put, there is nosuch thing as an absolute or "natural" law of property. As John Stuart Mill pointed out, "powers ofexclusive use and control are very various, and differ greatly in different countries and in different statesof society." Therefore, Nozick slips an ideological ringer into his example by erroneously interpretingsocialism (or any other society for that matter) as specifying a distribution of capitalist property rightsalong with the wealth. As Mill argued: "One of the mistakes oftenest committed, and which are the
sources of the greatest practical errors in human affairs, is that of supposing that the same name alwaysstands for the same aggregation of ideas. No word has been subject of more of this kind ofmisunderstanding that the word property."["Chapters on Socialism," Principles of Political Economy,p. 432]In other words, Nozick assumes that in all societies capitalist property rights are distributed along withconsumptionand production goods. As Cheyney C. Ryan comments "[d]ifferent conceptions of justicediffer not only in how they would apportion society's holdings but in what rights individuals have overtheir holdings once they have been apportioned."["Property Rights and Individual Liberty", pp. 32343, Reading Nozick, Jeffrey Paul (Ed.), p. 331] This means that when goods are distributed in alibertarian socialist society the people who receive or take them have specific (use) rights to them. Aslong as an individual remained a member of a commune and abided by the rules they helped create inthat commune then they would have full use of the resources of that commune and could use theirpossessions as they saw fit (even "melt them down" to create a new machine, or whatever). If they usedthose goods to create an enterprise to employ (i.e., exploit and oppress) others then they have, in effect,announced their withdrawal from civilised society and, as a result, would be denied the benefits of cooperation. They would, in effect, place themselves in the same situation as someone who does not wishto join a syndicate (see section I.3.7). If an individual did desire to use resources to employ wagelabour then they would have effectively removed themselves from "socialist society"and so that societywould bar them from using its resources (i.e. they would have to buy access to all the resources theycurrently took for granted).Would this be a restriction of freedom? While it may be considered so by the impoverished definitions ofcapitalism, it is not. In fact, it mirrors the situation within capitalism as what possessions someone holdsare not his or her property (in the capitalist sense) any more than a company car is currently theproperty of the employee under capitalism. While the employee can use the car outside of work, theylack the "freedom" to sell it or melt it down and turn it into machines. Such lack of absolute "ownership"in a free society does not reduce liberty any more than in this case.This point highlights another flaw in Nozick's argument. If his argument were true, then it applies equallyto capitalist society. For 40 hours plus a week, workers are employed by a boss. In that time they aregiven resources to use and they are most definitely not allowed to melt down these resources to create amachine or use the resources they have been given access to further their own plans. This can applyequally to rented accommodation as well, for example when landlords ban working from home or sellingoff the furniture that is provided. Thus, ironically, "capitalist society will have to forbid capitalist actsbetween consenting adults" -- and does so all the time.Moreover, it must be stressed that as well as banning capitalist acts between consenting adults,capitalism involves the continual banning of socialist acts between consenting adults. For example, ifworkers agree to form a union, then the boss can fire them. If they decide to control their own work, theboss can fire them for not obeying orders. Thus capitalism forbids such elemental freedoms asassociation and speech -- at least for the majority, for the wage slaves. Why would people seek such"freedom" in a free society?Of course, Nozick's reply to this point would be that the individuals involved have "consented" to theserules when they signed their contract. Yet the same can be said of an anarchist society -- it is freelyjoined and freely left. To join a communist-anarchist society it would simply be a case of agreeing to"exchange" the product of ones labour freely with the other members of that society and not to createoppressive or exploitative social relationships within it. If this is "authoritarian" then so is capitalism -and we must stress that at least anarchist associations are based on self-management and so theindividuals involved have an equal say in the obligations they live under.Notice also that Nozick confused exchange with capitalism ("I offer you a lecture once a week inexchange for other things"). This is a telling mistake by someone who claims to be an expert oncapitalism, because the defining feature of capitalism is not exchange (which obviously took place longbefore capitalism existed) but labour contracts involving wage labour. Nozick's example is merely a direct
labour contract between the producer and the consumer. It does not involve wage labour, what makescapitalism capitalism. It is only this latter type of transaction that libertarian socialism prevents -- andnot by "forbidding" it but simply by refusing to maintain the conditions necessary for it to occur, i.e.protection of capitalist property.In addition, we must note that Nozick also confused "private property in the means of production" withcapitalism. Liberation socialism can be easily compatible with "private property in the means ofproduction" when that "private property" is limited to what a self-employed worker uses rather thancapitalistic property (see section G.2.1). Nozick, in other words, confused pre-capitalist forms ofproduction with capitalist ones (see section G.1.2). Thus possession of the means of production bypeople outside of the free commune is perfectly acceptable to social anarchists (seesection I.6.2).Thus an anarchist society would have a flexible approach to Nozick's (flawed) argument. Individuals, intheir free time, could "exchange" their time and possessions as they saw fit. These are not "capitalistacts" regardless of Nozick's claims. However, the moment an individual employs wage labour then, bythis act, they have broken their agreements with their fellows and are, therefore, no longer partof "socialist society." This would involve them no longer having access to the benefits of communal lifeand to communal possessions. They have, in effect, placed themselves outside of their community andmust fend for themselves. After all, if they desire to create "private property" (in the capitalist sense)then they have no right of access to communal possessions without paying for that right. For those whobecome wage slaves, a socialist society would, probably, be less strict. As Bakunin argued:"Since the freedom of every individual is inalienable, society shall never allow any individual whatsoeverlegally to alienate his [or her] freedom or engage upon any contract with another on any footing but theutmost equality and reciprocity. It shall not, however, have the power to disbar a man or woman sodevoid of any sense of personal dignity as to contract a relationship of voluntary servitude with anotherindividual, but it will consider them as living off private charity and therefore unfit to enjoy politicalrights throughout the duration of that servitude." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, pp. 689]Lastly, we must also note that Nozick also ignored the fact that acquisition must come before transfer,meaning that before "consenting" capitalist acts occur, individual ones must precede it. As arguedin section B.3.4, Nozick provided no convincing arguments why natural resources held in common canbe appropriated by individuals. This means that his defence of transferring absolute capitalist propertyrights in goods is without foundations. Moreover, his argument in favour of such appropriations ignorethat liberties are very definitely restricted by private property (and it should be keep in mind that thedestruction of commonly held resources, such as village commons, was imposed by the state -see section F.8.3). As pointed out in section F.2, right-wing "libertarians" would better betermed "Propertarians" (why is liberty accorded a primary importance when arguing against socialism butnot when private property restricts liberty?). As Cheyney C. Ryan points out, Nozick "invoke[s] personalliberty as the decisive ground for rejecting patterned principles of justice [such as socialism] andrestrictions on the ownership of capital . . . [b]ut where the rights of private property admittedly restrictthe liberties of the average person, he seems perfectly happy to trade off such liberties against materialgain for society as a whole." [Op. Cit., p. 339] This can be seen by his lack of comment on howcapitalism forbids socialist acts between consenting adults, not to mention quite a few numerouscapitalist acts for good measure.Thus Nozick's acquisition of resources is based on the would-be capitalist stealing communally ownedresources and barring others from using them. This obviously would restrict the liberty of those whocurrently used them and so be hotly opposed by members of a community. As Murray Bookchin noted, afree society is based on "the practice ofusufruct, the freedom of individuals in a community toappropriate resources merely by virtue of the fact that they are using them. Such resources belong tothe user as long as they are being used." [The Ecology of Freedom, p. 116] As the would-be capitalistis not actually using the machines they have created, they would be in constant worry that their wageslaves would simply expropriate them -- with the full backing of the local commune and its federations.
So, to conclude, this question involves some strange logic (and many question begging assumptions) andultimately fails in its attempt to prove libertarian socialism must "forbid capitalistic acts betweenindividuals." In addition, Nozick cannot support the creation of private property out of communalproperty in the first place. It also undermines capitalism because that system must forbid socialistic actsby and between individuals. Thus Nozick's society would forbid squatting unused property or trespassingon private property as well as, say, the formation of unions against the wishes of the property owner(who is sovereign over their property and those who use it) or the use of workplace resources to meetthe needs of the producer rather than the owner. As such, Nozick exposes how capitalism's hierarchicalnature means that capitalist society "forbids socialist acts between consenting adults."
and each offers alternative ways to ensure that individual preference for certain types of work matchesthe requirements of social demand for labour.Under individualist anarchism and mutualism, those who desired a certain form of work done would reachan agreement with workers or a co-operative and pay them to do the work in question. Within a cooperative, as Proudhon argued, a person's "education, instruction, and apprenticeship should . . . be sodirected that, while permitting him to do his share of unpleasant and disagreeable tasks, they may alsogive variety of work and knowledge, and may assure him . . . an encyclopaedic attitude and a sufficientincome." [Property is Theft!, pp.585-6] In terms of unpleasant tasks for other people (for example,collecting and processing a community's rubbish) then individuals would form co-operatives which wouldhave to find their place on the market and this would ensure that such work was done as they wouldcontract with others to provide the appropriate services. However, this could lead to some people doingunpleasant work all the time and so is hardly a solution. As in capitalism, we may see some people doingterrible 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 as far as possible.Noam Chomsky points to two possible alternatives, one "in which the undesired work, after the bestefforts to make it meaningful, is shared" and another one "where the undesired work receives high extrapay, so that individuals voluntarily choose to do it." Such schemes are "consistent with . . . anarchistprinciples" unlike the current situation where "the undesired work is given to wage-slaves." [RadicalPriorities, p. 220] Another way, somewhat complementary to these two, would be to take a leaffrom "peasant attitudes toward labour" and their "most striking feature", the extent "to which any kind ofcommunal toil, however onerous, can be transformed by the workers themselves into festive occasionsthat serve to reinforce community ties." [Murray Bookchin, The Ecology of Freedom, p. 342]It would be easy to imagine a free community sharing such tasks as fairly as possible between acommunity's members by, for example, allocating a few days a month to all fit members of a communityto do work which no one volunteers to do. This would soon ensure that it would be done, particularly if itwere part of a festival or before a party. In this way, every one shares in the unpleasant as well aspleasant tasks (and, of course, minimises the time any one individual has to spend on it). Or, for taskswhich are very popular, individuals would also have to do unpleasant tasks as well. In this way, popularand unpopular tasks could balance each other out. Or such tasks could be rotated randomly by lottery.The possibilities are many and, undoubtedly, a free people will try many different ones in different areas.Another possible solution could be to follow the ideas of Josiah Warren and take into account theundesirability of the work when considering the level of labour notes received or communal hoursworked. 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, forexample, for such work would be a multiple of the standard amount, the actual figure being related tohow much supply exceeds demand (in a communist society, a similar solution could be possible, with thenumber of necessary hours required by an individual being reduced by an amount that corresponds tothe undesirability of the work involved). The actual levels of "reward" would be determined byagreements between the syndicates. For example, if a given type of work has 50% more people wantingto do it than actually required, then the labour value for one hours work in this industry wouldcorrespondingly be less than one hour. If fewer people applied than required, then the labour value wouldincrease, as would holiday time, etc. For "work" placements in which supply exceeded demand, it wouldbe easy to arrange a work share scheme to ensure that most people get a chance to do that kind of work(along with such methods as increasing the value of an hour's labour, reducing holiday allocations andsuch like).In this way, "supply and demand" for workers would soon approximate each other. In addition, acollectivist society would be better placed than the current system to ensure work-sharing and othermethods to spread unpleasant and pleasant tasks equally around society due to its organs of selfmanagement and the rising social awareness via participation and debate within those organs.
A communist-anarchist society's solution would be similar to the collectivist one. There would still bebasic agreements between its members for work done and so for work placements with excess supply ofworkers the amount of hours necessary to meet the agreed minimum would correspondingly increase.For example, an industry with 100% excess supply of volunteers would see its minimum requirementincrease from (say) 20 hours a week to 30 hours. An industry with less applicants than required wouldsee the number of required hours decrease, plus increases in holiday time and so on. As G.D.H. Coleargued in respect of this point:"Let us first by the fullest application of machinery and scientific methods eliminate or reduce . . . 'dirtywork' that admit to such treatment. This has never been tried . . . under capitalism . . . It is cheaper toexploit 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 orunpleasant work remains, let us offer whatever special conditions are required to attract the necessaryworkers, 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 therequisite number to undertake it voluntarily." [Guild Socialism Restated, p. 76]By these methods a balance between industrial sectors would be achieved as individuals would balancetheir desire for interesting work with their desires for free time. Over time, by using the power ofappropriate technology, even such time keeping would be minimised or even got eliminated as societydeveloped freely. Until such time as it can be automated away, a free society will have to encouragepeople to volunteer for "work" placements they do not particularly want to do by these and othermethods.It will be clear what is considered unpleasant work in any society -- few people (if any) will volunteer todo it. As in any advanced society, communities and syndicates who required extra help would informothers of their need by the various form of media that existed. In addition, it would be likely that eachcommunity would have a "division of activity" syndicate whose work would be to distribute informationabout these posts and to which members of a community would go to discover what placements existedfor the line of "work" they were interested in. So we have a means by which syndicates and communescan ask for new associates and the means by which individuals can discover these placements.Obviously, some tasks will still require qualifications and that will be taken into account when syndicatesand communes "advertise" for help.And it is important to remember that the means of production required by new syndicates do not fallfrom the sky. Other members of society will have to work to produce the required goods. Therefore it islikely that the syndicates and communes would agree that only a certain (maximum) percentage ofproduction would be allocated to start-up syndicates (as opposed to increasing the resources of existingconfederations). Such a figure would obviously be revised periodically in order to take into accountchanging circumstances. Members of the community who decide to form syndicates for new productivetasks or syndicates which do the same work but are independent of existing confederations would haveto get the agreement of other workers to supply them with the necessary means of production (just astoday 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 ofwork 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 associationswould apply to different production units for resources, whose workers in turn decide whether to producethe goods requested. If it is within the syndicate's agreed budget then it is likely that they will producethe required materials. In this way, a communist-anarchist society will ensure the maximum amount ofeconomic freedom to start new syndicates and join existing ones plus ensure that social production doesnot suffer in the process.
Of course, no system is perfect -- we are sure that not everyone will be able to do the work they enjoythe most (this is also the case under capitalism, we may add). In an anarchist society every method ofensuring that individuals pursue the work they are interested in would be investigated. If a possiblesolution can be found, we are sure that it will. What a free society would make sure of was that neitherthe 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 freesocialism 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 aswell as making sure that unpleasant and unwanted "work" is done. Moreover, most anarchists are surethat in a free society such requirements to encourage people to volunteer for unpleasant work willdisappear 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 itmight become "glamorous" to do such activity. Showing off to friends can be a powerful stimulus in doingany 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 thanconspicuous consumption, it is not surprising that great income differentials are seen as necessary toinduce effort. But to assume that only conspicuous consumption can motivate people because undercapitalism we have strained to make it so is unwarranted. There is plenty of evidence that people can bemoved to great sacrifices for reasons other than a desire for personal wealth . . . there is good reason tobelieve that for nonpathological people wealth is generally coveted only as a means of attaining otherends such as economic security, comfort, social esteem, respect, status, or power." [The PoliticalEconomy 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, educationwould respond to the needs of society as well as the needs of the individual (as would any productivesyndicate).
On this question there is some disagreement. Some anarchists argue that the lazy should not bedeprived of the means of life. Social pressure, they argue, would ensure those who take from, but do notcontribute, to the community listen to their conscience and start producing for the community thatsupports them. If this did not happen, then the person who refused to contribute would be asked to leave(freedom of association means the freedom not to associate). As Kropotkin argued;"First of all, is it not evident that if a society, founded on the principle of free work, were really menacedby loafers, it could protect itself without the authoritarian organisation we have nowadays, and withouthaving recourse to wagedom [i.e., payment by deeds]?"Let us take a group of volunteers, combining for some particular enterprise. Having its success at heart,they all work with a will, save one of the associates, who is frequently absent from his post . . . someday the comrade who imperils their enterprise will be told: 'Friend, we should like to work with you; butas you are often absent from your post, and you do your work negligently, we must part. Go and findother comrades who will put up with your indifference!'"This is so natural that it is practised everywhere, even nowadays, in all industries . . . [I]f [a worker]does his work badly, if he hinders his comrades by his laziness or other defects, if he is quarrelsome,there is an end of it; he is compelled to leave the workshop."Authoritarians pretend that it is the almighty employer and his overseers who maintain regularity andquality of work in factories. In reality . . . it is the factory itself, the workmen [and women] who see tothe good quality of the work." [The Conquest of Bread, pp. 152-3]Most anarchists agree with Camillo Berneri when he argued that anarchism should be based upon "nocompulsion to work, but no duty towards those who do not want to work." ["The Problem of Work", pp.59-82, Why Work?, Vernon Richards (ed.), p. 74] This means that an anarchist society will not continueto feed, clothe, house someone who can produce but refuses to. Anarchists have had enough of thewealthy under capitalism consuming but not producing and do not see why they should support a newgroup of parasites after the revolution.Obviously, there is a difference between not wanting to work and being unable to work. The sick,children, the old, pregnant women and so on will be looked after in libertarian communism. As childrearing would be considered "work" along with other more obviously economic tasks, mothers andfathers will not have to leave their children unattended and work to make ends meet. Instead,consideration will be given to the needs of both parents and children as well as the creation ofcommunity nurseries and child care centres.We have to stress here that an anarchist society will not deny anyone the means of life. This wouldviolate the voluntary labour which is at the heart of all schools of anarchism. Unlike capitalism, themeans of life will not be monopolised by any group -- including the commune. This means that someonewho does not wish to join a commune or who does not pull their weight within a commune and areexpelled or choose to leave will have access to the means of making a living.We stated that we stress this fact as many supporters of capitalism seem to be unable to understand thispoint (or prefer to ignore it and so misrepresent the anarchist position). In an anarchist society, no onewill be forced to join a commune simply because they do not have access to the means of productionand/or land required to work alone. Unlike capitalism, where access to these essentials of life isdependent on buying access to them from the capitalist class (and so, effectively, denied to the vastmajority), an anarchist society will ensure that all have access and have a real choice between living in acommune and working independently. This access is based on the fundamental difference betweenpossession and property -- the commune possesses as much land as it needs, as do non-members. Theresources used by them are subject to the usual possession rationale -- they possess it only as long asthey use it and cannot bar others using it if they do not (i.e., it is not property).Thus an anarchist commune remains a voluntary association and ensures the end of all forms ofdomination. The member of the commune has the choice of working as part of a community, giving
according to their abilities and taking according to their needs (or some other means of organisingproduction and consumption such as equal income or receiving labour notes, and so on), or workingindependently and so free of communal benefits as well as any commitments (bar those associated withusing communal resources such as roads and so on).So, in most, if not all, anarchist communities, individuals have two options, either they can join acommune and work together as equals, or they can work as an individual or independent co-operativeand exchange the product of their labour with others. If an individual joins a commune and does notcarry their weight, even after their fellow workers ask them to, then that person will possibly be expelledand given enough land, tools or means of production to work alone. Of course, if a person is depressed,run down or otherwise finding it hard to join in communal responsibilities then their friends and fellowworkers would do everything in their power to help and be flexible in their approach to the problem.What method a community would use would depend on what people in that community thought wasbest.However, most social anarchists think that the problem of people trying not to work would be a veryminor one in a free society. This is because productive activity is part of human life and an essential wayto express oneself. With work being voluntary and self-managed, it will become like current day hobbiesand many people work harder at their hobbies than they do at "real" work (this FAQ can be considered asan example of this!). How long this takes to organise fully is, of course, unknown but one of the mostimportant tasks of a free society will be to ensure work is transformed and the burden of what remains isshared in order to reduce toil to a minimum.It is the nature of employment under capitalism, the hierarchical nature of its workplace, that makes it"work" instead of pleasure. Work need not be a part of the day that we wish would end. It is not workthat people hate. Rather it isover-work, in unpleasant circumstances and under the control of others thatpeople hate. Reduce the hours of labour, improve the working conditions and place the work under selfmanagement and work will stop being a hated thing. All these will help ensure that only an idiot woulddesire to work alone for, as Malatesta argued, the "individual who wished to supply his own materialneeds by working alone would be the slave of his labours." [The Anarchist Revolution, p. 15]So, enlightened self-interest would secure the voluntary labour and egalitarian distribution anarchistsfavour in the vast majority of the population. The parasitism associated with capitalism would be a thingof the past. Thus the problem of the "lazy" person fails to understand the nature of humanity or therevolutionising effects of freedom on the nature and content of work.
The future workplace would be expanded to include education and classes in individual development. Thisfollows Proudhon's suggestion made during the 1848 revolution that we should "[o]rganise association,and by the same token, every workshop becoming a school, every worker becomes a master, everystudent an apprentice." [Property is Theft!, p. 378] This means that in a free society "Workers'associations have a very important role to play . . . Linked to the system of public education, they willbecome both centres of production and centres for education . . . The working masses will be in dailycontact with the youthful army of agricultural and industrial workers. Labour and study, which have forso long and so foolishly been kept apart, will finally emerge side by side in their natural state of union.Instead of being confined to narrow, specialised fields, vocational education will include a variety ofdifferent types of work which, taken as a whole, will insure that each student becomes an all-roundworker." [Proudhon, Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, p. 87]This would allow work to become part of a wider community, drawing in people from different areas toshare their knowledge and learn new insights and ideas. In addition, children would have part of theirschool studies with workplaces, getting them aware of the practicalities of many different forms of workand so allowing them to make informed decisions in what sort of activity they would be interested inpursuing when they were older.Obviously, a workplace managed by its workers would also take care to make the working environmentas pleasant as possible. No more "sick building syndrome" or unhealthy and stressful work areas for "canwe doubt that work will become a pleasure and a relaxation in a society of equals, in which 'hands' willnot be compelled to sell themselves to toil, and to accept work under any conditions Repugnant tasks willdisappear, because it is evident that these unhealthy conditions are harmful to society as a whole. Slavescan submit to them, but free men [and women] will create new conditions, and their work will bepleasant and infinitely more productive." [Kropotkin, The Conquest of Bread, p. 123] Workplaces wouldbe designed to maximise space and allow individual expression within them. We can imagine such placessurrounded by gardens and allotments which were tended by workers themselves, giving a pleasantsurrounding to the workplace. There would, in effect, be a break down of the city/rural divide -workplaces would be placed next to fields and integrated into the surroundings:"Have the factory and the workshop at the gates of your fields and gardens, and work in them. Not thoselarge establishments, of course, in which huge masses of metals have to be dealt with and which arebetter placed at certain spots indicated by Nature, but the countless variety of workshops and factorieswhich are required to satisfy the infinite diversity of tastes among civilised men [and women] . . .factories and workshops which men, women and children will not be driven by hunger, but will beattracted by the desire of finding an activity suited to their tastes, and where, aided by the motor andthe machine, they will choose the branch of activity which best suits theirinclinations." [Kropotkin, Fields, Factories and Workshops Tomorrow, p. 197]This vision of rural and urban integration is just part of the future anarchists see for the workplace. AsKropotkin argued, "[w]e proclaim integration. . . a society of integrated, combined labour. A societywhere each individual is a producer of both manual and intellectual work; where each able-bodied humanbeing is a worker, and where each worker works both in the field and the industrial workshop; whereevery aggregation of individuals, large enough to dispose of a certain variety of natural resources -- itmay be a nation, or rather a region -- produces and itself consumes most of its own agricultural andmanufactured produce." [Op. Cit., p. 26]The future workplace would be an expression of the desires of those who worked there. It would bebased around a pleasant working environment, within gardens and with an extensive library, resourcesfor education classes and other leisure activities. All this, and more, will be possible in a society basedupon self-realisation and self-expression and one in which individuality is not crushed by authority andcapitalism. To quote Kropotkin, the future workplace would be "airy and hygienic, and consequentlyeconomical, factories in which human life is of more account than machinery and the making of extraprofits." [Op. Cit., p. 197] For, obviously, "if most of the workshops we know are foul and unhealthy, it isbecause the workers are of no account in the organisation of factories". [The Conquest of Bread, p.121]
"So in brief," argued William Morris, "our buildings will be beautiful with their own beauty of simplicity asworkshops" and"besides the mere workshops, our factory will have other buildings which may carryornament further than that, for it will need dinning-hall, library, school, places for study of differentkinds, and other such structures." [A Factory as It Might Be, p. 9] This is possible and is only heldback by capitalism which denounces such visions of freedom as "uneconomic." Yet such claims ignore thedistribution of income in class society:"Impossible I hear an anti-Socialist say. My friend, please to remember that most factories sustain todaylarge and handsome gardens, and not seldom parks . . . only the said gardens, etc. are twenty milesaway from the factory, out of the smoke, and are kept up for one member of the factory only, thesleeping partner to wit." [Morris, Op. Cit., pp. 7-8]Pleasant working conditions based upon the self-management of work can produce a workplace withinwhich economic "efficiency" can be achieved without disrupting and destroying individuality and theenvironment (also see section I.4.9for a fuller discussion of anarchism and technology).
the possibility of having more time available for themselves and their own projects, people involved inproductive activities would have a strong interest in being efficient. Of course, if the work in question issomething they enjoy then any increases in efficiency would enhance what makes their work enjoyableand not eliminate it.Rewarding efficiency with free time would also be an important means to ensure efficient use ofresources as well as a means of reducing time spent in productive activity which was considered asboring or otherwise undesirable. The incentive of getting unpleasant tasks over with as quickly aspossible would ensure that the tasks were done efficiently and that innovation was directed towardsthem. Moreover, when it came to major investment decisions, a syndicate would be more likely to getothers to agree to its plans if the syndicate had a reputation of excellence. This, again, would encourageefficiency as people would know that they could gain resources for their communities and workplaces(i.e. themselves) more easily if their work is efficient and reliable. This would be a key means ofencouraging efficient and effective use of resources.Similarly, an inefficient or wasteful syndicate would have negative reactions from their fellow workers. Aswe argued insection I.4.7, a libertarian communist economy would be based on free association. If asyndicate or community got a reputation for being inefficient with resources then others would notassociate with them (i.e. they would not supply them with materials, or place them at the end of thequeue when deciding which production requests to supply, and so on). As with a syndicate whichproduced shoddy goods, the inefficient syndicate would also face the judgement of its peers. This willproduce an environment which will encourage efficient use of resources and time.All these factors, the possibility of increased free time, the respect and resources gained for efficient andexcellent work and the possibility of a lack of co-operation with others for inefficient use of resources,would ensure that an anarchist-communist or anarchist-collectivist society would have no need to fearinefficiency. Indeed, by placing the benefits of increased efficiency into the hands of those who do thework, efficiency will no doubt increase.With self-management, we can soon see time and resources being used efficiently and productivelysimply because those doing the work would have a direct and real interest in it. Rather than alienatetheir liberty, as under capitalism, they would apply their creativity and minds to transforming theirproductive activity in such a way as to make it enjoyable and not a waste of their time.Little wonder Kropotkin argued that modern knowledge could be applied to a society in whichpeople, "with the work of their own hands and intelligence, and by the aid of the machinery alreadyinvented and to be invented, should themselves create all imaginable riches. Technics and science willnot be lagging behind if production takes such a direction. Guided by observation, analysis andexperiment, they will answer all possible demands. They will reduce the time required for producingwealth to any desired amount, so as to leave to everyone as much leisure as he or she may ask for . . .they guarantee . . . the happiness that can be found in the full and varied exercise of the differentcapacities of the human being, in work that need not be overwork." [Fields, Factories and WorkshopsTomorrow, pp. 198-9]