|
|
Index | What's New | Links | Introduction | Bibliography
 PDF
version of Section I.
I.3 What could the economic structure of anarchy look like?
Here we will examine possible frameworks of a libertarian-socialist economy.
We stress that it is frameworks rather than framework because
it is likely that any anarchist society will see a diverse number
of economic systems co-existing in different areas, depending on what
people in those areas want. "In each locality," argued Spanish
anarchist Diego Abad de Santillan, "the degree of communism, collectivism
or mutualism will depend on the conditions prevailing. Why dictate
rules? We who make freedom our banner, cannot deny it in economy.
Therefore there must be free experimentation, free show of initiative
and suggestions, as well as the freedom of organisation." [After
the Revolution, p. 97]
In general we will highlight and discuss the four major schools
of anarchist economic thought: Individualist anarchism, mutualism,
collectivism and communism. It is up to the reader to evaluate which
school best maximises individual liberty and the good life. There
may, of course, be other economic practices but these may not be libertarian.
In Malatesta's words:
"Admitted the basic principle of anarchism -- which is that no-one
should wish or have the opportunity to reduce others to a state
of subjection and oblige them to work for him -- it is clear that
all, and only, those ways of life which respect freedom, and
recognise that each individual has an equal right to the means
of production and to the full enjoyment of the product of his
own labour, have anything in common with anarchism." [Life and
Ideas, p. 33]
In addition, it should be kept in mind that in practice it is impossible
to separate the economic realm from the social and political realms,
as there are numerous interconnections between them. Indeed, as we
well see, anarchist thinkers like Bakunin argued that the "political"
institutions of a free society would be based upon workplace associations
while Kropotkin placed the commune at the heart of his vision of a
communist-anarchist economy and society. Thus the division between
social and economic forms is not clear cut in anarchist theory --
as it should be as society is not, and cannot be, considered as separate
from or inferior to the economy. An anarchist society will try to
integrate the social and economic, embedding the latter in the former
in order to stop any harmful externalities associated economic activity
being passed onto society. As Karl Polanyi argued, capitalism "means
no less than the running of society as an adjunct to the market. Instead
of the economy being being embedded in social relations, social relations
are embedded in the economic system." [The Great Transformation,
p. 57] Given the negative effects of such an arrangement, little wonder
that anarchism seeks to reverse it.
Also, by discussing the economy first we are not implying that dealing
with economic domination or exploitation is more important than dealing
with other aspects of the total system of domination, e.g. social
hierarchies, patriarchal values, racism, etc. We follow this order
of exposition because of the need to present one thing at a time,
but it would have been equally easy to start with the social and political
structure of anarchy. However, Rudolf Rocker is correct to argue that
an economic transformation in the economy is an essential aspect of
a social revolution. In his words:
"[A] social development in this direction [i.e. a stateless
society] was not possible without a fundamental revolution in
existing economic arrangements; for tyranny and exploitation
grow on the same tree and are inseparably bound together. The
freedom of the individual is secure only when it rests on
the economic and social well-being of all . . . The personality
of the individual stands the higher, the more deeply it is
rooted in the community, from which arise the richest sources
of its moral strength. Only in freedom does there arise in
man the consciousness of responsibility for his acts and
regard for the rights of others; only in freedom can there
unfold in its full strength that most precious of social
instinct: man's sympathy for the joys and sorrows of his
fellow men and the resultant impulse toward mutual aid
and in which are rooted all social ethics, all ideas of
social justice." [Nationalism and Culture, pp. 147-8]
The aim of any anarchist society would be to maximise freedom and
so creative work. In the words of Noam Chomsky:
"If it is correct, as I believe it is, that a fundamental element of
human nature is the need for creative work or creative inquiry, for
free creation without the arbitrary limiting effects of coercive
institutions, then of course it will follow that a decent society
should maximise the possibilities for this fundamental human
characteristic to be realised. Now, a federated, decentralised
system of free associations incorporating economic as well as
social institutions would be what I refer to as anarcho-syndicalism.
And it seems to me that it is the appropriate form of social
organisation for an advanced technological society, in which
human beings do not have to be forced into the position of tools,
of cogs in a machine."
So, as one might expect, since the essence of anarchism is opposition
to hierarchical authority, anarchists totally oppose the way the current
economy is organised. This is because authority in the economic sphere
is embodied in centralised, hierarchical workplaces that give an elite
class (capitalists) dictatorial control over privately owned means
of production, turning the majority of the population into order takers
(i.e. wage slaves). In contrast, the libertarian-socialist "economy"
will be based on decentralised, egalitarian workplaces ("syndicates")
in which workers democratically self-manage socially owned
means of production. Let us begin with the concept of syndicates.
The key principles of libertarian socialism are decentralisation,
self-management by direct democracy, voluntary association, and federation.
These principles determine the form and function of both the economic
and political systems. In this section we will consider just the economic
system. Bakunin gives an excellent overview of such an economy when
he writes:
"The land belongs to only those who cultivate it with their own
hands; to the agricultural communes. The capital and all the
tools of production belong to the workers; to the workers'
associations . . . The future political organisation should be
a free federation of workers." [Bakunin on Anarchy, p. 247]
The essential economic concept for libertarian socialists is workers'
self-management (sometimes termed workers' control). This
is essential to ensure "a society of equals, who will not be compelled
to sell their hands and their brains to those who choose to employ
them . . . but who will be able to apply their knowledge and capacities
to production, in an organism so constructed as to combine all the
efforts for procuring the greatest possible well-being for all, while
full, free scope will be left for every individual initiative."
[Kropotkin, Kropotkin: Selections from his Writings, pp. 113-4]
However, this concept of self-management needs careful explanation,
because, like the terms "anarchist" and "libertarian,"
"workers' control" is also is being co-opted by capitalists to
describe schemes in which workers' have more say in how their workplaces
are run while maintaining wage slavery (i.e. capitalist ownership,
power and ultimate control). Needless to say, such schemes are phoney
as they never place real power in the hands of workers. In
the end, the owners and their managers have the final say (and so
hierarchy remains) and, of course, profits are still extracted from
the workforce.
As anarchists use the term, workers' self-management/control means
collective worker ownership, control and self-management of all aspects
of production and distribution. This is achieved through participatory-democratic
workers' assemblies, councils and federations, in both agriculture
and industry. These bodies would perform all the functions formerly
reserved for capitalist owners, managers. executives and financiers
where these activities actually related to productive activity rather
than the needs to maximise minority profits and power. These workplace
assemblies will be complemented by people's financial institutions
or federations of syndicates which perform all functions formerly
reserved for capitalist owners, executives, and financiers in terms
of allocating investment funds or resources.
This means that an anarchist society is based on "workers'
ownership" of the means of production.
"Workers' ownership" in its most limited sense refers merely
to the ownership of individual firms by their workers. In such firms,
surpluses (profits) would be either equally divided between all full-time
members of the co-operative or divided unequally on the basis of the
type of work done, with the percentages allotted to each type being
decided by democratic vote, on the principle of one worker, one vote.
However, such a limited form of workers' ownership is rejected by
most anarchists. Social anarchists argue that this is but a step in
the right direction and the ultimate aim is social ownership
of all the means of life. This is because of the limitations of firms
being owned solely by their workers (as in a modern co-operative).
Worker co-operatives of this type do have the virtue of preventing
the exploitation and oppression of labour by capital, since workers
are not hired for wages but, in effect, become partners in the firm.
This means that the workers control both the product of their labour
(so that the value-added that they produce is not appropriated by
a privileged elite) and the work process itself (and so they no longer
sell their liberty to others). However, this does not mean that all
forms of economic domination and exploitation would be eliminated
if worker ownership were confined merely to individual firms. In fact,
most social anarchists believe this type of system would degenerate
into a kind of "petit-bourgeois co-operativism" in which worker-owned
firms would act as collective "capitalists" and compete against
each other in the market as ferociously as the real capitalists used
to. This would also lead to a situation where market forces ensured
that the workers involved made irrational decisions (from both a social
and individual point of view) in order to survive in the market. As
these problems were highlighted in section I.1.3 ("What's
wrong with markets anyway?"), we will not repeat ourselves
here.
For individualist anarchists, this "irrationality of rationality"
is the price to be paid for a free market and any attempt to overcome
this problem holds numerous dangers to freedom. Social anarchists
disagree. They think co-operation between workplaces can increase,
not reduce, freedom. Social anarchists' proposed solution is society-wide
ownership of the major means of production and distribution, based
on the anarchist principle of voluntary federation, with confederal
bodies or co-ordinating councils at two levels: first, between all
firms in a particular industry; and second, between all industries,
agricultural syndicates, and people's financial institutions throughout
the society. As Berkman put it:
"Actual use will be considered the only title [in communist anarchism] --
not to ownership but to possession. The organisation of the coal miners,
for example, will be in charge of the coal mines, not as owners but as
the operating agency. Similarly will the railroad brotherhoods run the
railroads, and so on. Collective possession, co-operatively managed in
the interests of the community, will take the place of personal ownership
privately conducted for profit." [ABC of Anarchism, p. 69]
While, for many anarcho-syndicalists, this structure is seen as
enough, most communist-anarchists consider that the economic federation
should be held accountable to society as a whole (i.e. the economy
must be communalised). This is because not everyone in society is
a worker (e.g. the young, the old and infirm) nor will everyone belong
to a syndicate (e.g. the self-employed), but as they also have to
live with the results of economic decisions, they should have a say
in what happens. In other words, in communist-anarchism, workers make
the day-to-day decisions concerning their work and workplaces, while
the social criteria behind these decisions are made by everyone.
In this type of economic system, workers' assemblies and councils
would be the focal point, formulating policies for their individual
workplaces and deliberating on industry-wide or economy-wide issues
through general meetings of the whole workforce in which everyone
would participate in decision making. Voting in the councils would
be direct, whereas in larger confederal bodies, voting would be carried
out by temporary, unpaid, mandated, and instantly recallable delegates,
who would resume their status as ordinary workers as soon as their
mandate had been carried out.
"Mandated" here means that the delegates from workers'
assemblies and councils to meetings of higher confederal bodies would
be instructed, at every level of confederation, by the workers who
elected them on how to deal with any issue. The delegates would be
given imperative mandates (binding instructions) that committed them
to a framework of policies within which they would have to act, and
they could be recalled and their decisions revoked at any time for
failing to carry out the mandates they were given (this support for
mandated delegates has existed in anarchist theory since at least
1848, when Proudhon argued that it was "a consequence of universal
suffrage" to ensure that "the people . . . do not . . . abjure
their sovereignty." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 63]).
Because of this right of mandating and recalling their delegates,
workers' councils would be the source of and final authority over
policy for all higher levels of confederal co-ordination of the economy.
A society-wide economic federation of this sort is clearly not the
same thing as a centralised state agency, as in the concept of nationalised
or state-owned industry. As Emma Goldman argued, there is a clear
difference between socialisation and nationalisation. "The first
requirement of Communism," she argued, "is the socialisation
of the land and of the machinery of production and distribution. Socialised
land and machinery belong to the people, to be settled upon and used
by individuals and groups according to their needs." Nationalisation,
on the other hand, means that a resource "belongs to the state;
that is, the government has control of it and may dispose of it according
to its wishes and views." She stressed that "when a thing is
socialised, every individual has free access to it and may use it
without interference from anyone." When the state owned property,
"[s]uch a state of affairs may be called state capitalism, but
it would be fantastic to consider it in any sense communistic."
[Red Emma Speaks, pp.360-1]
Clearly, an anarchist society is based on free access and a resource
is controlled by those who use it. It is a decentralised, participatory-democratic
(i.e. self-managed) organisation whose members can secede at any time
and in which all power and initiative arises from and flows back to
the grassroots level (see section I.6 for
a discussion on how social ownership would work in practice). Anarchists
reject the Leninist idea that state property means the end of capitalism
as simplistic and confused. Ownership is a juridical relationship.
The real issue is one of management. Do the users of a resource
manage it? If so, then we have a real (i.e. libertarian) socialist
society. If not, we have some form of class society (for example,
in the Soviet Union the state replaced the capitalist class but workers
still had no official control over their labour or the product of
that labour).
A social anarchist society combines free association, federalism
and self-management with communalised ownership. Free labour is its
basis and socialisation exists to complement and protect it.
Regardless of the kind of anarchy desired, anarchists all agree
on the importance of decentralisation, free agreement and free association.
Kropotkin's summary of what anarchy would look like gives an excellent
feel of what sort of society anarchists desire:
"harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by
obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the
various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the
sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the
infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilised being.
"In a society developed on these lines . . . voluntary associations . . .
would represent an interwoven network, composed of an infinite variety
of groups and federations of all sizes and degrees, local, regional,
national and international temporary or more or less permanent --
for all possible purposes: production, consumption and exchange,
communications, sanitary arrangements, education, mutual protection,
defence of the territory, and so on; and, on the other side, for
the satisfaction of an ever-increasing number of scientific, artistic,
literary and sociable needs.
"Moreover, such a society would represent nothing immutable. On
the contrary -- as is seen in organic life at large - harmony would
(it is contended) result from an ever-changing adjustment and readjustment
of equilibrium between the multitudes of forces and influences,
and this adjustment would be the easier to obtain as none of the
forces would enjoy a special protection from the State." [Kropotkin's
Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 284]
If this type of system sounds "utopian" it should be kept
in mind that it was actually implemented and worked quite well in
the collectivist economy organised during the Spanish Revolution of
1936, despite the enormous obstacles presented by an ongoing civil
war as well as the relentless (and eventually successful) efforts
of Republicans, Stalinists and Fascists to crush it (see Sam Dolgoff's
The Anarchist Collectives: Workers' Self-management in the Spanish
Revolution, 1936-1939 for an excellent introduction).
As well as this (and other) examples of "anarchy in action"
there have been other libertarian socialist economic systems described
in writing. All share the common features of workers' self-management,
co-operation and so on we discuss here and in section
I.4. These texts include Syndicalism by Tom Brown, The
Program of Anarcho-Syndicalism by G.P. Maximoff, Guild Socialism
Restated by G.D.H. Cole, After the Revolution by Diago
Abad de Santillan, Anarchist Economics and Principles of
Libertarian Economy by Abraham Guillen, Workers Councils and
the Economics of a Self-Managed Society by Cornelius Castoriadis
among others. A short summary of Spanish Anarchist visions of the
free society can be found in chapter 3 of Robert Alexander's The
Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War (vol. 1). Also worth reading
are The Political Economy of Participatory Economics and Looking
Forward: Participatory Economics for the Twenty First Century
by Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel which contain some useful ideas.
Fictional accounts include William Morris' News from Nowhere,
The Dispossessed by Ursula Le Guin, Women on the Edge of
Time by Marge Piercy and The Last Capitalist by Steve Cullen.
As we will use the term, a "syndicate" (often called a "producer
co-operative," or "co-operative" for short, sometimes "collective"
or "producers' commune" or "association of producers"
or "guild factory" or "guild workplace") is a democratically
self-managed productive enterprise whose productive assets are either
owned by its workers or by society as a whole. It is a useful generic
term to describe the situation aimed at by anarchists where "associations
of men and women who . . . work on the land, in the factories, in
the mines, and so on, [are] themselves the managers of production."
[Peter Kropotkin, Evolution and Environment, p. 78]
It is important to note that individuals who do not wish to join
syndicates will be able to work for themselves. There is no "forced
collectivisation" under any form of libertarian socialism,
because coercing people is incompatible with the basic principles
of anarchism. Those who wish to be self-employed will have free access
to the productive assets they need, provided that they neither attempt
to monopolise more of those assets than they and their families can
use by themselves nor attempt to employ others for wages (see section
I.3.7).
In many ways a syndicate is similar to a co-operative under capitalism.
Indeed, Bakunin argued that anarchists are "convinced that the
co-operative will be the preponderant form of social organisation
in the future, in every branch of labour and science." [Basic
Bakunin, p. 153] Therefore, even from the limited examples of
co-operatives functioning in the capitalist market, the essential
features of a libertarian socialist economy can be seen. The basic
economic element, the workplace, will be a free association of individuals,
who will organise their joint work co-operatively. To quote Bakunin
again, "[o]nly associated labour, that is, labour organised upon
the principles of reciprocity and co-operation, is adequate to the
task of maintaining . . . civilised society." [The Political
Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 341]
"Co-operation" in this context means that the policy
decisions related to their association will be based on the principle
of "one member, one vote," with "managers" and other administrative
staff elected and held accountable to the workplace as a whole. Workplace
self-management does not mean, as many apologists of capitalism suggest,
that knowledge and skill will be ignored and all decisions
made by everyone. This is an obvious fallacy, since engineers, for
example, have a greater understanding of their work than non-engineers
and under workers' self-management will control it directly. As G.D.H.
Cole argues:
"we must
understand clearly wherein this Guild democracy consists, and especially
how it bears on relations between different classes of workers included in
a single Guild. For since a Guild includes all the workers by hand and
brain engaged in a common service, it is clear that there will be among
its members very wide divergences of function, of technical skill, and of
administrative authority. Neither the Guild as a whole nor the Guild
factory can determine all issues by the expedient of the mass vote, nor
can Guild democracy mean that, on all questions, each member is to count
as one and none more than one. A mass vote on a matter of technique
understood only by a few experts would be a manifest absurdity, and, even
if the element of technique is left out of account, a factory administered
by constant mass votes would be neither efficient nor at all a pleasant
place to work in. There will be in the Guilds technicians occupying
special positions by virtue of their knowledge, and there will be
administrators possessing special authority by virtue both of skill an
ability and of personal qualifications." [G.D.H. Cole, Guild Socialism
Restated, pp. 50-51]
The fact that some decision-making has been delegated in this manner
sometimes leads people to ask whether a syndicate would not just be
another form of hierarchy. The answer is that it would not be hierarchical
because the workers' assemblies and their councils, open to all workers,
would decide what types of decision-making to delegate, thus ensuring
that ultimate power rests at the mass base. Moreover, power
would not be delegated. Malatesta clearly indicates the difference
between administrative decisions and policy decisions:
"Of course in every large collective undertaking, a division of
labour, technical management, administration, etc. is necessary.
But authoritarians clumsily play on words to produce a raison d'etre
for government out of the very real need for the organisation of work.
Government, it is well to repeat, is the concourse of individuals
who have had, or seized, the right and the means to make laws and to
oblige people to obey; the administrator, the engineer, etc., instead
are people who are appointed or assume the responsibility to carry out
a particular job and so on. Government means the delegation of power,
that is the abdication of initiative and sovereignty of all into the
hands of a few; administration means the delegation of work, that is
tasks given and received, free exchange of services based on free
agreement . . . Let one not confuse the function of government with
that of an administration, for they are essentially different, and if
today the two are often confused, it is only because of economic and
political privilege." [Anarchy, pp. 39-40]
Given that power remains in the hands of the workplace assembly,
it is clear that the organisation required for every collective endeavour
cannot be equated with government. Also, never forget that administrative
staff are elected by and accountable to the rest of an association.
If, for example, it turned out that a certain type of delegated decision-making
activity was being abused, it could be revoked by the whole workforce.
Because of this grassroots control, there is every reason to think
that crucial types of decision-making activity which could become
a source of power (and so with the potential for seriously affecting
all workers' lives) would not be delegated but would remain with the
workers' assemblies. For example, powers that are now exercised in
an authoritarian manner by managers under capitalism, such as those
of hiring and firing, introducing new production methods or technologies,
changing product lines, relocating production facilities, determining
the nature, pace and rhythm of productive activity and so on would
remain in the hands of the associated producers and not be
delegated to anyone.
New syndicates will be created upon the initiative of individuals
within communities. These may be the initiative of workers in an existing
syndicate who desire to expand production, or members of the local
community who see that the current syndicates are not providing adequately
in a specific area of life. Either way, the syndicate will be a voluntary
association for producing useful goods or services and would spring
up and disappear as required. Therefore, an anarchist society would
see syndicates developing spontaneously as individuals freely associate
to meet their needs, with both local and confederal initiatives taking
place. (The criteria for investment decisions is discussed in section
I.4.8).
What about entry into a syndicate? In the words of Cole, workers
syndicates are "open associations which any man [or woman] may
join" but "this does not mean, of course, that any person will
be able to claim admission, as an absolute right, into the guild of
his choice." [Op. Cit., p. 75] This means that there may
be training requirements (for example) and obviously "a man [or
woman] clearly cannot get into a Guild [i.e. syndicate] unless it
needs fresh recruits for its work. [The worker] will have free choice,
but only of the available openings." [Ibid.] Obviously,
as in any society, an individual may not be able to pursue the work
they are most interested (although given the nature of an anarchist
society they would have the free time to pursue it as a hobby). However,
we can imagine that an anarchist society would take an interest in
ensuring a fair distribution of work and so would try to arrange work
sharing if a given work placement is popular.
Of course there may be the danger of a syndicate or guild trying
to restrict entry from an ulterior motive. The ulterior motive would,
of course, be the exploitation of monopoly power vis-a-vis other groups
in society. However, in an anarchist society individuals would be
free to form their own syndicates and this would ensure that such
activity is self-defeating. In addition, in a non-mutualist anarchist
system, syndicates would be part of a confederation (see section
I.3.4). It is a responsibility of the inter-syndicate congresses
to assure that membership and employment in the syndicates is not
restricted in any anti-social way. If an individual or group of individuals
felt that they had been unfairly excluded from a syndicate then an
investigation into the case would be organised at the congress. In
this way any attempts to restrict entry would be reduced (assuming
they occurred to begin with). And, of course, individuals are free
to form new syndicates or leave the confederation if they so desire
(see section I.4.13 on the question
of who will do unpleasant work, and for more on work allocation generally,
in an anarchist society).
To sum up, syndicates are voluntary associations of workers who
manage their workplace and their own work. Within the syndicate, the
decisions which affect how the workplace develops and changes are
in the hands of those who work there. In addition, it means that each
section of the workforce manages its own activity and sections and
that all workers placed in administration tasks (i.e. "management")
are subject to election and recall by those who are affected by their
decisions. (Workers' self-management is discussed further in section
I.3.2 -- "What is workers' self-management?").
Quite simply, workers' self-management (sometimes called "workers' control")
means that all workers affected by a decision have an equal voice
in making it, on the principle of "one worker, one vote." That
is, workers "ought to be the real managers of industries."
[Peter Kropotkin, Fields, Factories and Workshops Tomorrow,
p. 157] As noted earlier, however, we need to be careful when using
the term "workers' control," as the concept is currently being
co-opted by the ruling elite, which is to say that it is becoming
popular among sociologists, industrial managers, and social-democratic
union leaders, and so is taking on an entirely different meaning from
the one intended by anarchists (who originated the term).
In the hands of capitalists, "workers' control" is now referred
to by such terms as "participation," "democratisation,"
"co-determination," "consensus," "empowerment",
"Japanese-style management," etc. As Sam Dolgoff notes, "[f]or
those whose function it is solve the new problems of boredom and alienation
in the workplace in advanced industrial capitalism, workers' control
is seen as a hopeful solution. . . . a solution in which workers are
given a modicum of influence, a strictly limited area of decision-making
power, a voice at best secondary in the control of conditions of the
workplace. Workers' control, in a limited form sanctioned by the capitalists,
is held to be the answer to the growing non-economic demands of the
workers." ["Workers' Control" in The Anarchist Collectives,
p. 81]
The new managerial fad of "quality circles" -- meetings where
workers are encouraged to contribute their ideas on how to improve
the company's product and increase the efficiency with which it is
made -- is an example of "workers' control" as conceived by capitalists.
However, when it comes to questions such as what products to make,
where to make them, and (especially) how revenues from sales should
be divided among the workforce and invested, capitalists and managers
don't ask for or listen to workers' "input." So much for "democratisation,"
"empowerment," and "participation!" In reality, capitalistic "workers
control" is merely an another insidious attempt to make workers more
willing and "co-operative" partners in their own exploitation.
Hence we prefer the term "workers' self-management"
-- a concept which refers to the exercise of workers' power through
collectivisation and federation (see below). Self-management in this
sense "is not a new form of mediation between the workers and their
capitalist bosses, but instead refers to the very process by which
the workers themselves overthrow their managers and take on
their own management and the management of production in their own
workplace. Self-management means the organisation of all workers .
. . into a workers' council or factory committee (or agricultural
syndicate), which makes all the decisions formerly made by the owners
and managers." [Dolgoff, Op. Cit., p. 81] As such, it means
"a transition from private to collective ownership" which,
in turn, "call[s] for new relationships among the members of the
working community." [Abel Paz, The Spanish Civil War, p.
55] Self-management means the end of hierarchy and authoritarian social
relationships in workplace and their replacement by free agreement,
collective decision-making, direct democracy, social equality and
libertarian social relationships.
Therefore workers' self-management is based around general meetings
of the whole workforce, held regularly in every industrial or agricultural
syndicate. These are the source of and final authority over decisions
affecting policy within the workplace as well as relations with other
syndicates. These meeting elect workplace councils whose job is to
implement the decisions of these assemblies and to make the day to
day administration decisions that will crop up. These councils are
directly accountable to the workforce and its members subject to re-election
and instant recall. It is also likely that membership of these councils
will be rotated between all members of the syndicate to ensure that
no one monopolises an administrative position. In addition, smaller
councils and assemblies would be organised for divisions, units and
work teams as circumstances dictate.
In this way, workers would manage their own collective affairs together,
as free and equal individuals. They would associate together to co-operate
without subjecting themselves to an authority over themselves. Their
collective decisions would remain under their control and power. This
means that self-management creates "an organisation so constituted
that by affording everyone the fullest enjoyment of his [or her] liberty,
it does not permit anyone to rise above the others nor dominate them
in any way but through the natural influence of the intellectual and
moral qualities which he [or she] possesses, without this influence
ever being imposed as a right and without leaning upon any political
institution whatever." [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin,
p. 271] Only by convincing your fellow associates of the soundness
of your ideas can those ideas become the agreed plan of the syndicate.
No one is in a position to impose their ideas simply because of the
post they hold or the work they do.
Most anarchists think that it is likely that purely administrative
tasks and decisions would be delegated to elected individuals in this
way, freeing workers and assemblies to concentrate on important activities
and decisions rather than being bogged down in trivial details. As
Bakunin put it:
"Is not administrative work just as necessary to production as
is manual labour -- if not more so? Of course, production would
be badly crippled, if not altogether suspended, without efficient
and intelligent management. But from the standpoint of elementary
justice and even efficiency, the management of production need
not be exclusively monopolised by one or several individuals.
And managers are not at all entitled to more pay. The co-operative
workers associations have demonstrated that the workers themselves,
choosing administrators from their own ranks, receiving the same
pay, can efficiency control and operate industry. The monopoly
of administration, far from promoting the efficiency of production,
on the contrary only enhances the power and privileges of the
owners and their managers." [Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 424]
What is important is that what is considered as important or trivial,
policy or administration rests with the people affected by the decisions
and subject to their continual approval. Anarchists do not make a
fetish of direct democracy and recognise that there is more important
things in life than meetings and voting! While workers' assemblies
play the key role in self-management, it is not the focal point of
all decisions. Rather it is the place where all the important
policy decisions are made, administrative decisions are ratified or
rejected and what counts as a major decision determined. Needless
to say, what is considered as important issues will be decided upon
by the workers themselves in their assemblies.
A self-managed workplace, like a self-managed society in general,
does not mean that specialised knowledge (where it is meaningful)
will be neglected or not taken into account. Quite the opposite. Specialists
(i.e. workers who are interested in a given area of work and gain
an extensive understanding of it) are part of the assembly of the
workplace, just like other workers. They can and have to be listened
to, like anyone else, and their expert advice included in the decision
making process. Anarchists do not reject the idea of expertise nor
the rational authority associated with it. As we indicated in section
B.1, anarchists recognise the difference between being an
authority (i.e. having knowledge of a given subject) and being in
authority (i.e. having power over someone else). We reject the latter
and respect the former:
"Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such
a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority
of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads,
I consult that of architect or engineer. For such or such
special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I
allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the
savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them
freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence,
their character, their knowledge, reserving always my
incontestable right of criticism and censure. . . If I
bow before the authority of specialists and avow a readiness
to follow, to a certain extent and as long as may seem to
me necessary, their indications and even their directions,
it is because their authority is imposed upon me by no
one, neither men nor by God . . . I bow before the authority
of special men [and women] because it is imposed upon me
by my own reason." [Bakunin, God and the State, pp. 32-3]
However, specialisation does not imply the end of self-management,
but rather the opposite. "The greatest intelligence," Bakunin
argued, "would not be equal to a comprehension of the whole. Thence
results, for science as well as industry, the necessity of the division
and association of labour." [Op. Cit., p. 33] Thus specialised
knowledge is part of the associated workers and not placed above them
in positions of power. The other workers in a syndicate can compliment
the knowledge of the specialists with the knowledge of the work process
they have gained by working and so enrich the decision. Knowledge
is distributed throughout society and only a society of free individuals
associated as equals and managing their own activity can ensure that
it is applied effectively (part of the inefficiency of capitalism
results from the barriers to knowledge and information flow created
by the hierarchical workplace).
A workplace assembly is perfectly able to listen to an engineer,
for example, who suggests various ways of reaching various goals (i.e.
if you want X, you would have to do A or B. If you do A, then C, D
and E is required. If B is decided upon, then F, G, H and I are entailed).
But it is the assembly, not the engineer, that decides what
goals and methods to be implemented. As Cornelius Castoriadis puts
it, "[w]e are not saying: people will have to decide what
to do, and then technicians will tell them how to do it. We
say: after listening to technicians, people will decide what to do
and how to do it. For the how is not neutral -- and
the what is not disembodied. What and how are neither identical,
nor external to each other. A 'neutral' technique is, of course,
an illusion. A conveyor belt is linked to a type of product and
a type of producer -- and vice versa." [Social and Political
Writings, vol. 3, p. 265]
However, we must stress that while an anarchist society would "inherit"
a diverse level of expertise and specialisation from class society,
it would not take this as unchangeable. Anarchists argue for "all-round"
(or integral) education as a means of ensuring that everyone has a
basic knowledge or understanding of science, engineering and other
specialised tasks. As Bakunin argued, "in the interests of both
labour and science . . . there should no longer be either workers
or scholars but only human beings." Education must "prepare
every child of each sex for the life of thought as well as for the
life of labour." [The Basic Bakunin, p. 116 and p. 119]
This does not imply the end of all specialisation (individuals will,
of course, express their individuality and know more about certain
subjects than others) but it does imply the end of the artificial
specialisation developed under capitalism which tries to deskill and
disempower the wage worker by concentrating knowledge into hands of
management.
And, just to state the obvious, self-management does not imply that
the mass of workers decide on the application of specialised tasks.
Self-management implies the autonomy of those who do the work as well
as collective decision making on collective issues. For example, in
a self-managed hospital the cleaning staff would not have a say in
the doctors' treatment of patients just as the doctors would not tell
the cleaners how to do their work (of course, it is likely that an
anarchist society will not have people whose work is simply
to clean and nothing else, we just use this as an example people will
understand). All members of a syndicate would have a say in what happens
in the workplace as it affects them collectively, but individual workers
and groups of workers would manage their own activity within that
collective.
Needless to say, self-management abolishes the division of labour
inherent in capitalism between order takers and order givers. It integrates
(to use Kropotkin's words) brain work and manual work by ensuring
that those who do the work also manage it and that a workplace is
managed by those who use it. Such an integration of labour will, undoubtedly,
have a massive impact in terms of productivity, innovation and efficiency.
As Kropotkin argued, the capitalist firm has a negative impact on
those subject to its hierarchical and alienating structures:
"The worker whose task has been specialised by the permanent
division of labour has lost the intellectual interest in his
[or her] labour, and it is especially so in the great
industries; he has lost his inventive powers. Formerly, he
[or she] invented very much . . . But since the great factory
has been enthroned, the worker, depressed by the monotony of
his [or her] work, invents no more." [Fields, Factories and
Workshops Tomorrow, p. 171]
Must all the skills, experience and intelligence that very one has
be swept away or crushed by hierarchy? Or could it not become a new
fertile source of progress under a better organisation of production?
Self-management would ensure that the independence, initiative and
inventiveness of workers (which disappears under wage slavery) comes
to the fore and is applied. Combined with the principles of "all-round"
(or integral) education (see section
J.5.13) who can deny that working people could transform the current
economic system to ensure "well-being for all"? And we must
stress that by "well-being" we mean well-being in terms of
meaningful, productive activity in humane surroundings and using appropriate
technology, in terms of goods of utility and beauty to help create
strong, healthy bodies and in terms of surroundings which are inspiring
to live in and ecologically integrated.
Little wonder Kropotkin argued that self-management and the "erasing
[of] the present distinction between the brain workers and manual
worker" would see "social benefits" arising from "the
concordance of interest and harmony so much wanted in our times of
social struggles" and "the fullness of life which would result
for each separate individual, if he [or she] were enabled to enjoy
the use of both . . . mental and bodily powers." This is in addition
to the "increase of wealth which would result from having . . .
educated and well-trained producers." [Fields, Factories and
Workshops Tomorrow, p. 180]
It is the face-to-face meetings that bring workers directly into
the management process and give them power over the economic decisions
that affect their lives. In social anarchism, since the means of production
are owned by society as a whole, decisions on matters like how to
apportion the existing means of production among the syndicates, how
to distribute and reinvest the surpluses, etc. will be made by the
grassroots social units, i.e. the community assemblies (see
section I.5.2), not by the workers'
councils. This does not mean that workers will have no voice in decisions
about such matters, but only that they will vote on them as "citizens"
in their local community assemblies, not as workers in their local
syndicates. As mentioned before, this is because not everyone will
belong to a syndicate, yet everyone will still be affected by economic
decisions of the above type. This is an example of how the social/political
and economic structures of social anarchy are intertwined.
Lastly, the introduction of workers' self-management will be a product
of two processes.
Firstly, the class struggle will help workers gain experience of
managing their own affairs. Struggles to resist oppression and exploitation
in the workplace will mean that workers will have to organise themselves
to manage those struggles. This will be an important means of accustoming
them to make their own decisions. By participating in the structures
created to conduct the class war, they will gain the skills and experience
needed to go beyond class society. The process of struggle will ensure
we can manage our own working time when we take over the means of
life and abolish wage slavery.
Secondly, today workers do manage their own working time
to a considerable extent. As we have argued before, the capitalist
may buy a hour of a workers' time but they have to ensure that the
worker follows their orders during that time. Workers resist this
imposition and this results in considerable shop-floor conflict. Frederick
Talyor, for example, introduced his system of "scientific management"
in part to try and stop workers managing their own working activity.
As David Noble notes, workers "paced themselves for many reason:
to keep time for themselves, to avoid exhaustion, to exercise authority
over their work, to avoid killing so-called gravy piece-rate jobs
by overproducing and risking a pay cut, to stretch out available work
for fear of layoffs, to exercise their creativity, and, last but not
least, to express their solidarity and their hostility to management."
These were "[c]oupled with collective co-operation with their fellows
on the floor" and "labour-prescribed norms of behaviour"
to achieve "shop floor control over production." [Forces
of Production, p. 33] In other words, workers naturally tend towards
self-management anyway and it is this natural movement towards liberty
during work hours which is combated by bosses (who wins, of course,
depends on objective and subjective pressures which swing the balance
of power towards labour or capital).
Self-management will built upon this already existing unofficial
workers control over production and, of course, our knowledge of the
working process which actually doing it creates. The conflict over
who controls the shop floor -- either those who do the work or those
who give the orders -- creates two processes that not only show that
self-management is possible but also show how it can come about.
As we have seen, private ownership of the means of production is the lynchpin
of capitalism, because it is the means by which capitalists are able
to exploit workers by appropriating surplus value from them. To eliminate
such exploitation, social anarchists propose that social capital --
productive assets such as factories and farmland -- be owned by society
as a whole and shared out among syndicates and self-employed individuals
by directly democratic methods, through face-to-face voting of the
whole community in local neighbourhood and confederal assemblies,
which will be linked together through voluntary federations. It does
not mean that the state owns the means of production, as under
Marxism-Leninism or social democracy, because there is no state under
libertarian socialism. (For more on neighbourhood and community assemblies,
see sections I.5.1 and I.5.2).
Production for use rather than profit/money is the key concept that
distinguishes collectivist and communist forms of anarchism from market
socialism or from the competitive forms of mutualism advocated by
Proudhon and the Individualist Anarchists. Under mutualism, workers
organise themselves into syndicates, but ownership of a syndicate's
capital is limited to its workers rather than resting with the whole
society. The workers' in each co-operative/syndicate share in the
gains and losses of workplace. There is no profit as such, for in
"the labour-managed firm there is no profit, only income to be
divided among members. Without employees the labour-managed firm does
not have a wage bill, and labour costs are not counted among the expenses
to the subtracted from profit, as they are in the capitalist firm.
. . [T]he labour-managed firm does not hire labour. It is a collective
of workers that hires capital and necessary materials." [Christopher
Eaton Gunn, Workers' Self-Management in the United States,
pp. 41-2]
Thus mutualism eliminates wage labour and unites workers with the
means of production they use. Such a system is socialist as it is
based on self-management and workers' control/ownership of the means
of production. However, social anarchists argue that such a system
is little more than "petit-bourgeois co-operativism" in which
the worker-owners of the co-operatives compete in the marketplace
with other co-operatives for customers, profits, raw materials, etc.
-- a situation that could result in many of the same problems that
arise under capitalism (see section I.3).
Moreover, social anarchists argue, such a system can easily degenerate
back 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. The successful co-operatives could then hire those workers
and so re-introduce wage labour.
Some Mutualists recognise this danger. Proudhon, for example, argued
for an "ago-industrial federation" which would "provide
reciprocal security in commerce and industry" and "protect
the citizens . . . from capitalist and financial exploitation."
In this way, the "agro-industrial federation. . . will tend to
foster increasing equality . . . through mutualism in credit and insurance
. . . guaranteeing the right to work and to education, and an organisation
of work which allows each labourer to become a skilled worker and
an artist, each wage-earner to become his own master." Thus mutualism
sees "all industries guaranteeing one another mutually" and
"the conditions of common prosperity." [The Principle of
Federation, p. 70, p. 71 and p. 72] It seems likely that this
agro-industrial federation would be the body which would fix "after
amicable discussion of a maximum and minimum profit
margin" and "the organising of regulating societies. . . to
regulate the market." [Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon,
p. 70]
Thus, some Mutualists are aware of the dangers associated with even
a self-managed, socialistic market and create support structures to
defend workers' self-management. Moreover, it is likely that industrial
syndicates would be linked to mutual banks (a credit syndicate). Such
syndicates would exist to provide interest-free credit for self-management,
new syndicate expansion and so on. And if the experience of capitalism
is anything to go by, mutual banks will also reduce the Business cycle
as its effects as "[c]ountries like Japan and Germany that are
usually classifies as bank-centred -- because banks provide more outside
finance than markets, and because more firms have long-term relationships
with their banks -- show greater growth in and stability of investment
over time than the market-centred ones, like the US and Britain. .
. Further, studies comparing German and Japanese firms with tight
bank ties to those without them also show that firms with bank ties
exhibit greater stability in investment over the business cycle."
[Doug Henwood, Wall Street, pp. 174-5]
In addition, supporters of mutualism can point to the fact that
existing co-operatives rarely fire their members and are far more
egalitarian in nature than corresponding capitalist firms. This they
argue will ensure that mutualism will remain socialist, with easy
credit available to those who are made unemployed to start their own
businesses again.
In contrast, within anarcho-collectivism and anarcho-communism,
society as a whole owns the social capital, which allows for the elimination
of both competition for survival and the tendency for workers to develop
a proprietary interest the enterprises in which they work. As Kropotkin
argued, "[t]here is no reason why the factory . . . should not
belong to the community. . . It is evident that now, under the capitalist
system, the factory is the curse of the village, as it comes to overwork
children and to make paupers of its male inhabitants; and it is quite
natural that it should be opposed by all means by the workers. . .
But under a more rational social organisation, the factory would find
no such obstacles; it would be a boon to the village." Needless
to say, such a workplace would be based on workers' self-management,
as "the workers . . . ought to be the real managers of industries."
[Fields, Factories and Workshops Tomorrow, p. 152 and p. 157]
This "socially organised industrial production" (to use Kropotkin's
term) would ensure a decent standard of living without the problems
associated with a market, even a non-capitalist one. It would enable
goods to be either sold at their production prices (or labour-cost)
so as to reduce their cost to consumers or distributed in accordance
with communist principles (namely free); it facilitates efficiency
gains through the consolidation of formerly competing enterprises;
and it eliminates the many problems due to the predatory nature of
competition, including the destruction of the environment through
the "grow or die" principle, the development of oligopolies
from capital concentration and centralisation, and the business cycle,
with its periodic recessions and depressions, and the turning of free
people into potential wage slaves.
For social anarchists, therefore, libertarian socialism is based
on decentralised decision making within the framework of communally-owned
but independently-run and worker-self-managed syndicates (or co-operatives):
"[T]he land, the instruments of work and all other capital may
become the collective property of the whole of society and be
utilised only by the workers, on other words, by the agricultural
and industrial associations." [Bakunin, Michael Bakunin: Selected
Writings, p. 174]
In other words, the economy is communalised, with land and the means
of production being turned into communal "property." The community
determines the social and ecological framework for production while
the workforce makes the day-to-day decisions about what to produce
and how to do it. This is because a system based purely on workplace
assemblies effectively disenfranchises those individuals who do not
work but live with the effects of production (e.g., ecological disruption).
In Howard Harkins' words, "the difference between workplace and
community assemblies is that the internal dynamic of direct democracy
in communities gives a hearing to solutions that bring out the common
ground and, when there is not consensus, an equal vote to every member
of the community." ["Community Control, Workers' Control and
the Co-operative Commonwealth", pp. 55-83, Society and Nature
No. 3, p. 69]
This means that when a workplace joins a confederation, that workplace
is communalised as well as confederated. In this way, workers' control
is placed within the broader context of the community, becoming an
aspect of community control. This does not mean that workers' do not
control what they do or how they do it. Rather, it means that the
framework within which they make their decisions is determined by
the community. For example, the local community may decide that production
should maximise recycling and minimise pollution, and workers informed
of this decision make investment and production decisions accordingly.
In addition, consumer groups and co-operatives may be given a voice
in the confederal congresses of syndicates or even in the individual
workplaces (although it would be up to local communities to decide
whether this would be practical or not). In these ways, consumers
could have a say in the administration of production and the type
and quality of the product, adding their voice and interests in the
creation as well as the consumption of a product.
Given the general principle of social ownership and the absence
of a state, there is considerable leeway regarding the specific forms
that collectivisation might take -- for example, in regard to methods
of surplus distribution, the use or non-use of money, etc. -- as can
be seen by the different systems worked out in various areas of Spain
during the Revolution of 1936-39 (as described, for example, in Sam
Dolgoff's The Anarchist Collectives).
Nevertheless, democracy is undermined when some communities are
poor while others are wealthy. Therefore the method of surplus distribution
must insure that all communities have an adequate share of pooled
revenues and resources held at higher levels of confederation as well
as guaranteed minimum levels of public services and provisions to
meet basic human needs.
Just as individuals associate together to work on and overcome common problems,
so would syndicates. Few, if any, workplaces are totally independent
of others. They require raw materials as inputs and consumers for
their products. Therefore there will be links between different syndicates.
These links are twofold: firstly, free agreements between individual
syndicates, and secondly, confederations of syndicates (within branches
of industry and regionally). Let's consider free agreement first.
Anarchists recognise the importance of letting people organise their
own lives. This means that they reject central planning and instead
urge direct links between workers' associations. In the words of Kropotkin,
"[f]ree workers would require a free organisation, and this cannot
have any other basis than free agreement and free co-operation, without
sacrificing the autonomy of the individual." [Kropotkin's Revolutionary
Pamphlets, p. 52] Those directly involved in production (and in
consumption) know their needs far better than any bureaucrat. Thus
voluntary agreement is the basis of a free economy, such agreements
being "entered by free consent, as a free choice between different
courses equally open to each of the agreeing parties." [Peter
Kropotkin, Anarchism and Anarchist Communism, p. 52] Without
the concentration of wealth and power associated with capitalism,
free agreement will become real and no longer a mask for hierarchy.
So anarchists think that "[i]n the same way that each free individual
has associated with his brothers [and sisters!] to produce . . . all
that was necessary for life, driven by no other force than his desire
for the full enjoyment of life, so each institution is free and self-contained,
and co-operates and enters into agreements with others because by
so doing it extends its own possibilities." [George Barrett, The
Anarchist Revolution, p. 18] An example of one such agreement
would be orders for products and services.
This suggests a decentralised economy -- even more decentralised
than capitalism (which is "decentralised" only in capitalist
mythology, as shown by big business and transnational corporations,
for example) -- one "growing ever more closely bound together and
interwoven by free and mutual agreements." [Ibid., p. 18]
For social anarchists, this would take the form of "free exchange
without the medium of money and without profit, on the basis of requirement
and the supply at hand." [Alexander Berkman, ABC of Anarchism,
p. 69]
Therefore, an anarchist economy would be based on spontaneous order
as workers practised mutual aid and free association. The anarchist
economy "starts from below, not from above. Like an organism, this
free society grows into being from the simple unit up to the complex
structure. The need for . . . the individual struggle for life . .
. is . . .sufficient to set the whole complex social machinery in
motion. Society is the result of the individual struggle for existence;
it is not, as many suppose, opposed to it." [George Barrett, Op.
Cit., p. 18]
In other words, "[t]his factory of ours is, then, to the fullest
extent consistent with the character of its service, a self-governing
unit, managing its own productive operations, and free to experiment
to the heart's content in new methods, to develop new styles and products.
. . This autonomy of the factory is the safeguard. . . against the
dead level of mediocrity, the more than adequate substitute for the
variety which the competitive motive was once supposed to stimulate,
the guarantee of liveliness, and of individual work and workmanship."
[G.D.H. Cole, Guild Socialism Restated, p. 59]
This brings us to the second form of relationships between syndicates,
namely confederations of syndicates. If individual or syndicate activities
spread beyond their initial locality, they would probably reach a
scale at which they would need to constitute a confederation. At this
scale, industrial confederations of syndicates are necessary to aid
communication between workplaces who produce for a large area. No
syndicate exists in isolation, and so there is a real need for a means
by which syndicates can meet together to discuss common interests
and act on them. Thus confederations are complementary to free agreement.
Bakunin's comments are very applicable here:
"[A] truly popular organisation begins from below, from the association,
from the commune. Thus starting out with the organisation of the lowest
nucleus and proceeding upward, federalism becomes a political institution
of socialism, the free and spontaneous organisation of popular life."
[The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, pp. 273-4]
Given that Bakunin, like many anarchists, considered that "the
federative Alliance of all working men's [sic!] associations . . .
[would] constitute the Commune," the political institutions of
anarchy would be similar to its economic institutions. Indeed, Bakunin
argued for a "free federation of agricultural and industrial associations
. . . organised from the bottom upwards" to be the basis of a
revolution (in 1905 and in 1917, revolutionary workers and peasants
did exactly that, we should note, when they created soviets
-- Russian for councils -- during their revolutions). Hence Bakunin's
comments on "political" institutions and federalism are applicable
to a discussion of economic institutions. [Michael Bakunin: Selected
Writings, p. 170 and p. 172]
A confederation of syndicates (called a "guild" by some libertarian
socialists, or "industrial union" by others) works on two levels:
within an industry and across industries. The basic operating principle
of these confederations is the same as that of the syndicate itself
-- voluntary co-operation between equals in order to meet common needs.
In other words, each syndicate in the confederation is linked by horizontal
agreements with the others, and none owe any obligations to a separate
entity above the group (see section A.2.11, "Why
are anarchists in favour of direct democracy?" for more on
the nature of anarchist confederation).
Kropotkin's comments on federalism between communes indicate this
(a syndicate can be considered as a producers' commune):
"The Commune of tomorrow will know that it cannot admit any higher
authority; above it there can only be the interests of the Federation,
freely accepted by itself as well as other communes. . ." [Words of
a Rebel, p. 83]
Nor need federalism conflict with autonomy, as each member would
have extensive freedom of action within its boundaries:
"The Commune will be absolutely free to adopt all the institutions
it wishes and to make all the reforms and revolutions it finds
necessary." [Op. Cit., p. 83]
Moreover, these federations would be diverse and functional. Economic
federation would a produce a complex inter-networking between associations
and federations. In Kropotkin's words:
"Our needs are in fact so various, and they emerge with such rapidity,
that soon a single federation will not be sufficient to satisfy them
all. The Commune will then feel the need to contract other alliances,
to enter into other federations. Belonging to one group for the
acquisition of food supplies, it will have to join a second group
to obtain other goods, such as metals, and then a third and a fourth
group for textiles and works of art." [Op. Cit., p. 87]
As such, the confederations reflect anarchist ideas of free association
and decentralised organisation as well as concern for practical needs:
"Anarchists are strenuously opposed to the authoritarian, centralist
spirit . . . So they picture a future social life in the basis of
federalism, from the individual to the municipality, to the commune,
to the region, to the nation, to the international, on the basis of
solidarity and free agreement. And it is natural that this ideal
should be reflected also in the organisation of production, giving
preference as far as possible, to a decentralised sort of organisation;
but this does not take the form of an absolute rule to be applied in
every instance. A libertarian order would be in itself, on the other
hand, rule out the possibility of imposing such a unilateral solution."
[Luigi Fabbri, "Anarchy and 'Scientific Communism", pp. 13-49, The
Poverty of Statism, Albert Meltzer (ed.), p. 23]
Therefore, a confederation of syndicates would be adaptive to its
members needs. As Tom Brown argued, the "syndicalist mode of organisation
is extremely elastic, therein is its chief strength, and the regional
confederations can be formed, modified, added to or reformed according
to local conditions and changing circumstances." [Syndicalism,
p. 58]
As would be imagined, these confederations are voluntary associations
and "[j]ust as factory autonomy is vital in order to keep the Guild
system alive and vigorous, the existence of varying democratic types
of factories in independence of the National Guilds may also be a
means of valuable experiment and fruitful initiative of individual
minds. In insistently refusing to carry their theory to its last 'logical'
conclusion, the Guildsmen [and anarchists] are true to their love
of freedom and varied social enterprise." [G.D.H. Cole, Op.
Cit., p. 65]
As we noted, in the last section,
inter-workplace federations are not limited to collectivist, syndicalist
and communist anarchists. Proudhon, for example, suggested an "agro-industrial
federation" as the structural support organisation for his system
of self-managed co-operatives. As the example many isolated co-operatives
have shown, support networks are essential for co-operatives to survive
under capitalism. It is no co-incidence that the Mondragon co-operative
complex in the Basque region of Spain has a credit union and mutual
support networks between its co-operatives and is by far the most
successful co-operative system in the world.
If a workplace agrees to confederate, then it gets to share in the
resources of the confederation and so gains the benefits of mutual
aid. In return for the benefits of confederal co-operation, the syndicate's
tools of production become the "property" of society, to be
used but not owned by those who work in them. This does not mean centralised
control from the top, for "when we say that ownership of the tools
of production, including the factory itself, should revert to the
corporation [i.e. confederation] we do not mean that the workers in
the individual workshops will be ruled by any kind of industrial government
having power to do what it pleases with [them]. . . . No, the workers.
. .[will not] hand over their hard-won control. . . to a superior
power. . . . What they will do is. . . to guarantee reciprocal use
of their tools of production and accord their fellow workers in other
factories the right to share their facilities [and vice versa]. .
.with [all] whom they have contracted the pact of solidarity."
[James Guillaume, Bakunin on Anarchism, pp. 363-364]
Facilitating this type of co-operation is the major role of inter-industry
confederations, which also ensure that when the members of a syndicate
change work to another syndicate in another (or the same) branch of
industry, they have the same rights as the members of their new syndicate.
In other words, by being part of the confederation, a worker ensures
that s/he has the same rights and an equal say in whatever workplace
is joined. This is essential to ensure that a co-operative society
remains co-operative, as the system is based on the principle of "one
person, one vote" by all those involved the work process.
So, beyond this reciprocal sharing, what other roles does the confederation
play? Basically, there are two. Firstly, the sharing and co-ordination
of information produced by the syndicates (as will be discussed in
section I.3.5), and, secondly, determining
the response to the changes in production and consumption indicated
by this information. As the "vertical" links between syndicates
are non-hierarchical, each syndicate remains self-governing. This
ensures decentralisation of power and direct control, initiative,
and experimentation by those involved in doing the work. Hence, "the
internal organisation [of one syndicate] . . . need not be identical
[to others]: Organisational forms and procedures will vary greatly
according to the preferences of the associated workers." [Ibid.,
p. 361] In practice, this would probably mean that each syndicate
gets its own orders and determines the best way to satisfy them (i.e.
manages its own work and working conditions).
As indicated above, free agreement will ensure that customers would
be able to choose their own suppliers, meaning that production units
would know whether they were producing what their customers wanted,
i.e., whether they were meeting social need as expressed through demand.
If they were not, customers would go elsewhere, to other production
units within the same branch of production. We should stress that
in addition to this negative check (i.e. "exit" by consumers)
it is likely, via consumer groups and co-operatives as well as communes,
that workplaces will be subject to positive checks on what they produced.
Consumer groups, by formulating and communicating needs to producer
groups, will have a key role in ensuring the quality of production
and goods and that it satisfies their needs (see section
I.4.7 for more details of this).
However, while production will be based on autonomous networking,
the investment response to consumer actions would, to some degree,
be co-ordinated by a confederation of syndicates in that branch of
production. By such means, the confederation can ensure that resources
are not wasted by individual syndicates over-producing goods or over-investing
in response to changes in production (see the next
section).
Voluntary confederation among syndicates is required in order to decide on
the policies governing relations between syndicates and to co-ordinate
their activities. There are two basic kinds of confederation: within
all workplaces of a certain type, and within the whole economy (the
federation of all syndicates). Both would operate at different levels,
meaning there would be confederations for both industrial and inter-industrial
associations at the local and regional levels and beyond. The basic
aim of this inter-industry and cross-industry networking is to ensure
that the relevant information is spread across the various elemental
parts of the economy so that each can effectively co-ordinate its
plans with the others. By communicating across workplaces, people
can overcome the barriers to co-ordinating their plans which one finds
in market systems (see section C.7.2)
and so avoid the economic and social disruptions associated with capitalism.
However, it is essential to remember that each syndicate within
the confederation is autonomous. The confederations seek to co-ordinate
activities of joint interest (in particular investment decisions for
new plant and the rationalisation of existing plant in light of reduced
demand). They do not determine what work a syndicate does or how they
do it. As Kropotkin argued (based on his firsthand experience of Russia
under Lenin):
"No government would be able to organise production if the workers
themselves through their unions did not do it in each branch of
industry; for in all production there arise daily thousands of
difficulties which no government can solve or foresee. It is certainly
impossible to foresee everything. Only the efforts of thousands of
intelligences working on the problems can co-operate in the development
of a new social system and find the best solutions for the thousands of
local needs." [Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets, pp. 76-77]
Thus Cole's statement:
"With the factory thus largely conducting its own concerns, the duties
of the larger Guild organisations [i.e. confederations] would be mainly
those of co-ordination, or regulation, and of representing the Guild in
its external relations. They would, where it was necessary, co-ordinate
the production of various factories, so as to make supply coincide
with demand. . . they would organise research . . . This large Guild
organisation. . . must be based directly on the various factories
included in the Guild." [Guild Socialism Restated, pp. 59-60]
So it is important to note that the lowest units of confederation
-- the workers' councils -- will control the higher levels, through
their power to elect mandated and recallable delegates to meetings
of higher confederal units. "Mandated" means that the
delegates will go to the meeting of the higher confederal body with
specific instructions on how to vote on a particular issue, and if
they do not vote according to that mandate they will be recalled and
the results of the vote nullified. Delegates will be ordinary workers
rather than paid representatives or union leaders, and they will return
to their usual jobs as soon as the mandate for which they have been
elected has been carried out. In this way, decision-making power remains
with the workers' councils and does not become concentrated at the
top of a bureaucratic hierarchy in an elite class of professional
administrators or union leaders. For the workers' councils will have
the final say on all policy decisions, being able to revoke
policies made by those with delegated decision-making power and to
recall those who made them:
"When it comes to the material and technical method of production, anarchists
have no preconceived solutions or absolute prescriptions, and bow to what
experience and conditions in a free society recommend and prescribe. What
matters is that, whatever the type of production adopted, it should be the
free choice of the producers themselves, and cannot possibly be imposed,
any more than any form is possible of exploitations of another's labour. . .
Anarchists do not a priori exclude any practical solution and likewise
concede that there may be a number of different solutions at different
times." [Luigi Fabbri, "Anarchy and 'Scientific' Communism", pp. 13-49,
The Poverty of Statism, Albert Meltzer (ed.), p. 22]
Confederations (negotiated-co-ordination bodies) would, therefore,
be responsible for clearly defined branches of production, and in
general, production units would operate in only one branch of production.
These confederations would have direct links to other confederations
and the relevant communal confederations, which supply the syndicates
with guidelines for decision making (as will be discussed in section
I.4.4) and ensure that common problems can be highlighted and
discussed. These confederations exist to ensure that information is
spread between workplaces and to ensure that the industry responds
to changes in social demand. In other words, these confederations
exist to co-ordinate major new investment decisions (i.e. if demand
exceeds supply) and to determine how to respond if there is excess
capacity (i.e. if supply exceeds demand).
It should be pointed out that these confederated investment decisions
will exist along with the investments associated with the creation
of new syndicates, plus internal syndicate investment decisions. We
are not suggesting that every investment decision is to be
made by the confederations. (This would be particularly impossible
for new industries, for which a confederation would not exist!)
Therefore, in addition to co-ordinated production units, an anarchist
society would see numerous small-scale, local activities which would
ensure creativity, diversity, and flexibility. Only after these activities
had spread across society would confederal co-ordination become necessary.
Thus, major investment decisions would be made at congresses and
plenums of the industry's syndicates, by a process of horizontal,
negotiated co-ordination. This model combines "planning" with
decentralisation. Major investment decisions are co-ordinated at an
appropriate level, with each unit in the confederation being autonomous,
deciding what to do with its own productive capacity in order to meet
social demand. Thus we have self-governing production units co-ordinated
by confederations (horizontal negotiation), which ensures local initiative
(a vital source of flexibility, creativity, and diversity) and a rational
response to changes in social demand.
It should be noted that during the Spanish Revolution syndicates
organised themselves very successfully as town-wide industrial confederations
of syndicates. These were based on the town-level industrial confederation
getting orders for products for its industry and allocating work between
individual workplaces (as opposed to each syndicate receiving orders
for itself). Gaston Leval noted that this form of organisation (with
increased responsibilities for the confederation) did not harm the
libertarian nature of anarchist self-management:
"Everything was controlled by the syndicates. But it must not therefore
be assumed that everything was decided by a few higher bureaucratic
committees without consulting the rank and file members of the union.
Here libertarian democracy was practised. As in the C.N.T. there was a
reciprocal double structure; from the grass roots at the base . . .
upwards, and in the other direction a reciprocal influence from the
federation of these same local units at all levels downwards, from the
source back to the source." [The Anarchist Collectives, p. 105]
Such a solution, or similar ones, may be more practical in some
situations than having each syndicate receive its own orders and so
anarchists do not reject such confederal responsibilities out of hand
(although the general prejudice is for decentralisation). This is
because we "prefer decentralised management; but ultimately, in
practical and technical problems, we defer to free experience."
[Luigi Fabbri, Op. Cit., p. 24] The specific form of organisation
will obviously vary as required from industry to industry, area to
area, but the underlying ideas of self-management and free association
will be the same. Moreover, in the words of G.D.H Cole, the "essential
thing . . . is that its [the confederation or guild] function should
be kept down to the minimum possible for each industry." [Op.
Cit., p. 61]
In this way, the periodic crises of capitalism based on over-investment
and over-production (followed by depression) and their resulting social
problems can be avoided and resources efficiently and effectively
utilised. In addition, production (and so the producers) can be freed
from the centralised control of both capitalist and state hierarchies.
Another important role for inter-syndicate federations is to even
out natural inequalities. After all, each commune will not be identical
in terms of natural resources, quality of land, situation, accessibility,
and so on. Simply put, social anarchists "believe that because
of natural differences in fertility, health and location of the soil
it would be impossible to ensure that every individual enjoyed equal
working conditions." Under such circumstances, it would be "impossible
to achieve a state of equality from the beginning" and so "justice
and equity are, for natural reasons, impossible to achieve . . . and
that freedom would thus also be unachievable." [Malatesta, The
Anarchist Revolution, p. 16 and p. 21] By federating together,
workers can ensure that "the earth will . . . be an economic domain
available to everyone, the riches of which will be enjoyed by all
human beings." [Malatesta, Life and Ideas, p. 93] Local
deficiencies of raw materials, in the quality of land, and, therefore,
supplies would be compensated from outside, by the socialisation of
production and consumption. This would allow all of humanity to share
and benefit from economic activity, so ensuring that well-being for
all is possible.
Federation would eliminate the possibility of rich and poor collectives
and syndicates co-existing side by side. As Kropotkin argued, "[c]ommon
possession of the necessities for production implies the common enjoyment
of the fruits of common production . . . when everybody, contributing
for the common well-being to the full extent of his [or her] capacities,
shall enjoy also from the common stock of society to the fullest possible
extent of his [or her] needs." [Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets,
p. 59]
Hence we find the CNT, arguing in its 1936 resolution on libertarian
communism, that "[a]s far as the interchange of produce between
communes is concerned, the communal councils are to liase with the
regional federations of communes and with the confederal council of
production and distribution, applying for whatever they may need and
[giving] any available surplus stocks." [quoted by Jose Peirats,
The CNT in the Spanish Revolution, vol. 1, p. 107] This clearly
followed Kropotkin's comments that the "socialising of production,
consumption, and exchange" would be based on workplaces "belong[ing]
to federated Communes." [The Conquest of Bread, p. 136]
The legacy of capitalism, with its rich and poor areas, its rich
and poor workplaces, will be a problem any revolution will face. The
inequalities produced by centuries will take time to change. This
is one of the tasks of the federation, to ensure the socialisation
of both production and consumption so that people are not penalised
for the accidents of history and that each commune can develop itself
to an adequate level. In the words of the CNT during the Spanish Revolution:
"Many arguments are used against the idea of socialisation;
one of these -- the most delightful -- says that by socialising
an industry we simply take it over and run it with the consequence
that we have flourishing industries where the workers are privileged,
and unfortunate industries where the workers get less benefits but
have to work harder than workers elsewhere . . . There are
differences between the workers in prosperous industries and
those which barely survive. . . Such anomalies, which we don't
deny exist, are attributed to the attempts at socialisation. We
firmly assert that the opposite is true; such anomalies are the
logical result of the absence of socialisation.
"The socialisation which we propose will resolve these problems which are
used to attack it. Were Catalan industry socialised, everything
would be organically linked -- industry, agriculture, and the trade
union organisations, in accordance with the council for the economy.
They would become normalised, the working day would become more
equal or what comes to the same thing, the differences between workers
of different activities would end . . .
"Socialisation is -- and let its detractors hear it -- the genuine
authentic organisation of the economy. Undoubtedly the economy has
to be organised; but not according to the old methods, which are
precisely those which we are destroying, but in accordance with
new norms which will make our people become an example to the world
proletariat." [Solidaridad Obrera, 30 April 1937, p.
l2]
However, it could again be argued that these confederations are
still centralised and that workers would still be following orders
coming from above. This is incorrect, for any decisions concerning
an industry or plant are under the direct control of those involved.
For example, the steel industry confederation may decide to rationalise
itself at one of its congresses. Murray Bookchin sketches the response
to this situation as follows:
"[L]et us suppose that a board of highly qualified technicians is
established [by this congress] to propose changes in the steel
industry. This board. . . advances proposals to rationalise the
industry by closing down some plants and expanding the operation
of others . . . Is this a 'centralised' body or not? The answer
is both yes and no. Yes, only in the sense that the board is
dealing with problems that concern the country as a whole; no,
because it can make no decision that must be executed for
the country as a whole. The board's plan must be examined by
all the workers in the plants [that are affected]. . . . The
board itself has no power to enforce 'decisions'; it merely
makes recommendations. Additionally, its personnel are controlled
by the plant in which they work and the locality in which they
live." [Post Scarcity Anarchism, p. 267]
Therefore, confederations would not be in positions of power over
the individual syndicates. As Bookchin points out, "[t]hey would
have no decision-making powers. The adoption, modification or rejection
of their plans would rest entirely with the communities involved."
[Op. Cit., p. 267] No attempt is made to determine which plants
produce which steel for which customers in which manner. Thus, the
confederations of syndicates ensure a decentralised, spontaneous economic
order without the negative side-effects of capitalism (namely power
concentrations within firms and in the market, periodic crises, etc.).
It should be pointed out that these confederated investment decisions
will exist along with the investments associated with the creation
of new syndicates, plus internal syndicate investment decisions. We
are not suggesting that every investment decision is to be
made by the confederations. (This would be particularly impossible
for new industries, for which a confederation would not exist!)
Therefore, in addition to co-ordinated production units, an anarchist
society would see numerous small-scale, local activities which would
ensure creativity, diversity, and flexibility. Only after these activities
had spread across society would confederal co-ordination become necessary.
As one can imagine, an essential feature of these confederations
will be the collection and processing of information in order to determine
how an industry is developing. This does not imply bureaucracy or
centralised control at the top. Taking the issue of centralisation
first, the confederation is run by delegate assemblies, meaning that
any officers elected at a congress only implement the decisions made
by the delegates of the relevant syndicates. It is in the congresses
and plenums of the confederation that new investment decisions, for
example, are made. The key point to remember is that the confederation
exists purely to co-ordinate joint activity and share information,
it does not take an interest in how a workplace is run or what orders
from consumers it fills. (Of course, if a given workplace introduces
policies which other syndicates disapprove of, it can be expelled).
As the delegates to these congresses and plenums are mandated and
their decisions subject to rejection and modification by each productive
unit, the confederation is not centralised.
As far as bureaucracy goes, the collecting and processing of information
does necessitate an administrative staff to do the work. However,
this problem affects capitalist firms as well; and since syndicates
are based on bottom-up decision making, its clear that, unlike a centralised
capitalist corporation, administration would be smaller.
In fact, it is likely that a fixed administration staff for the
confederation would not exist in the first place! At the regular congresses,
a particular syndicate may be selected to do the confederation's information
processing, with this job being rotated regularly around different
syndicates. In this way, a specific administrative body and equipment
can be avoided and the task of collating information placed directly
in the hands of ordinary workers. Further, it prevents the development
of a bureaucratic elite by ensuring that all participants are
versed in information-processing procedures.
Lastly, what information would be collected? That depends on the
context. Individual syndicates would record inputs and outputs, producing
summary sheets of information. For example, total energy input, in
kilowatts and by type, raw material inputs, labour hours spent, orders
received, orders accepted, output, and so forth. This information
can be processed into energy use and labour time per product (for
example), in order to give an idea of how efficient production is
and how it is changing over time. For confederations, the output of
individual syndicates can be aggregated and local and other averages
can be calculated. In addition, changes in demand can be identified
by this aggregation process and used to identify when investment will
be needed or plants closed down. In this way the chronic slumps and
booms of capitalism can be avoided without creating a system which
is even more centralised than capitalism.
This is a common question, particularly from defenders of capitalism. They
argue that syndicates will not co-operate together unless forced to
do so, but will compete against each other for raw materials, skilled
workers, and so on. The result of this process, it is claimed, will
be rich and poor syndicates, inequality within society and within
the workplace, and (possibly) a class of unemployed workers from unsuccessful
syndicates who are hired by successful ones. In other words, they
argue that libertarian socialism will need to become authoritarian
to prevent competition, and that if it does not do so it will become
capitalist very quickly.
For individualist anarchists and mutualists, competition is not
viewed as a problem. They think that competition, based around co-operatives
and mutual banks, would minimise economic inequality, as the new economic
structure based around free credit and co-operation would eliminate
non-labour (i.e. unearned) income such as profit, interest and rent
and give workers enough bargaining power to eliminate exploitation.
For these anarchists it is a case of capitalism perverting competition
and so are not against competition itself (see Proudhon's General
Idea of the Revolution, pages 50-1 for example). Other anarchists
think that whatever gains might accrue from competition (assuming
there are, in fact, any) would be more than offset by its negative
effects, which are outlined in section
I.1.3. It is to these anarchists that the question is usually
asked.
Before continuing, we would like to point out that individuals trying
to improve their lot in life is not against anarchist principles.
How could it be? What is against anarchist principles is centralised
power, oppression, and exploitation, all of which flow from large
inequalities of income. This is the source of anarchist concern about
equality -- concern that is not based on some sort of "politics
of envy." Anarchists oppose inequality because it soon leads to
the few oppressing the many (a relationship which distorts the individuality
and liberty of all involved as well as the health and very lives of
the oppressed).
Anarchists desire to create a society in which such relationships
are impossible, believing that the most effective way to do this is
by empowering all, by creating an egoistic concern for liberty and
equality among the oppressed, and by developing social organisations
which encourage self-management. As for individuals' trying to improve
their lot, anarchists maintain that co-operation is the best means
to do so, not competition. And there is substantial evidence
to support this claim (see, for example, Alfie Kohn's No Contest:
The Case Against Competition).
Robert Axelrod, in his book, The Evolution of Co-operation
agrees and presents abundant evidence that co-operation is in our
long term interests (i.e. it provides better results than short term
competition). This suggests that, as Kropotkin argued, mutual aid,
not mutual struggle, will be in an individual's self-interest and
so competition in a free, sane society would be minimised and reduced
to sports and other individual pastimes. As Stirner argued, co-operation
is just as egoistic as competition (a fact sometimes lost on many
due to the obvious ethical superiority of co-operation):
"But should competition some day disappear, because concerted effort
will have been acknowledged as more beneficial than isolation, then
will not every single individual inside the associations be equally
egoistic and out for his own interests?" [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1,
p. 22]
Now to the "competition" objection, which we'll begin to
answer by noting that it ignores a few key points. Firstly, the assumption
that libertarian socialism would "become capitalist" in the
absence of a state is obviously false. If competition did occur
between collectives and did lead to massive wealth inequalities, then
the newly rich would have to create a state to protect their private
property (means of production) against the dispossessed. So inequality,
not equality, leads to the creation of states. It is no co-incidence
that the anarchic communities that existed for millennia were also
egalitarian.
Secondly, as noted in section A.2.5,
anarchists do not consider "equal" to mean "identical."
Therefore, to claim that wage differences mean inequality makes sense
only if one thinks that "equality" means everyone getting exactly
equal shares. As anarchists do not hold such an idea, wage differences
in an otherwise anarchistically organised syndicate do not indicate
a lack of equality. How the syndicate is run is of far more
importance, because the most pernicious type of inequality from the
anarchist standpoint is inequality of power, i.e. unequal influence
on political and economic decision making.
Under capitalism, wealth inequality translates into such an inequality
of power, and vice versa, because wealth can buy private property
(and state protection of it), which gives owners authority over that
property and those hired to produce with it; but under libertarian
socialism, minor or even moderate differences in income among otherwise
equal workers would not lead to this kind of power inequality, because
direct democracy, social ownership of capital, and the absence of
a state severs the link between wealth and power (see further below).
Empirical evidence supports anarchist claims as co-operatives have
a more egalitarian wage structure than corresponding capitalist firms.
Thirdly, anarchists do not pretend that an anarchist society will
be "perfect." Hence there may be periods, particularly just
after capitalism has been replaced by self-management, when differences
in skill, etc., leads to a few people exploiting their fellow workers
and getting more wages, better hours and conditions, and so forth.
This problem existed in the industrial collectives in the Spanish
Revolution. As Kropotkin pointed out, "[b]ut, when all is said
and done, some inequalities, some inevitable injustice, undoubtedly
will remain. There are individuals in our societies whom no great
crisis can lift out of the deep mire of egoism in which they are sunk.
The question, however, is not whether there will be injustices or
no, but rather how to limit the number of them." [The Conquest
of Bread, p. 94]
In other words, these problems will exist, but there are a number
of things that anarchists can do to minimise their impact. Primarily
there must be a "gestation period" before the birth of an anarchist
society, in which social struggle, new forms of education and child-rearing,
and other methods of consciousness-raising increase the number of
anarchists and decrease the number of authoritarians.
The most important element in this gestation period is social struggle.
Such self-activity will have a major impact on those involved in it
(see section J.2). By direct action and solidarity,
those involved develop bounds o |
