gemini - kennedy.gemi.dev

💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › politics › SPUNK › sp001760.txt captured on 2022-04-29 at 02:52:03.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Section I - What would an anarchist society look like?

I.1 Isn't libertarian socialism an oxymoron?

I.1.1 Didn't Ludwig von Mises' "calculation argument" prove that
socialism can't work?
I.1.2 Does Mises' argument mean libertarian communism is impossible?
I.1.3 What is wrong with markets anyway?
I.1.4 If capitalism is exploitative, then isn't socialism as well?

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

I.2.1 Why discuss what an anarchist society would be like at all?
I.2.2 Will it be possible to go straight to an anarchist society
from capitalism?

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

I.3.1 What is a "syndicate"?
I.3.2 What is workers' self-management?
I.3.3 What role do collectives play in the "economy"?
I.3.4 What relations exist between individual syndicates?
I.3.5 What would confederations of syndicates do?
I.3.6 What about competition between syndicates?
I.3.7 What about people who do not want to join a syndicate?

I.4 How would an anarchist economy function?

I.4.1 What is the point of economic activity?
I.4.2 Why do anarchists desire to abolish work?
I.4.3 How do anarchists intend to abolish work?
I.4.4 What economic decision making criteria could be
used in anarchy?
I.4.5 What about "supply and demand"?
I.4.6 Surely anarchist-communism would just lead to demand
exceeding supply?
I.4.7 What are the criteria for investment decisions?
I.4.8 What about funding for basic research?
I.4.9 Should technological advance be seen as anti-anarchistic?
I.4.10 What would be the advantage of a wide basis of surplus
distribution?
I.4.11 If libertarian socialism eliminates the profit motive, won't
creativity suffer?
I.4.12 Won't there be a tendency for capitalist enterprise to reappear
in any socialist society?
I.4.13 Who will do the dirty or unpleasant work?
I.4.14 What about the person who will not work?
I.4.15 What will the workplace of tomorrow look like? <br>

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

I.5.1 What are participatory communities and why are they needed?
I.5.2 Why are confederations of participatory communities needed?
I.5.3 What will be the scales and levels of confederation?
I.5.4 How will anything ever be decided by all those confederal
conferences?
I.5.5 Are participatory communities and confederations not just
new states?
I.5.6 Won't there be a danger of a "tyranny of the majority" under
libertarian socialism?
I.5.7 What if I don't want to join a commune?
I.5.8 What about crime?
I.5.9 What about Freedom of Speach under Anarchism?
I.5.10 What about Political Parties?
I.5.11 What about interest groups and other associations?

I.6 What about the "Tragedy of the Commons" and all that? Surely communal
ownership will lead to overuse and environmental destruction?

I.6.1 But anarchists cannot explain how the use of property 'owned by
everyone in the world' will be decided?
I.6.2 Doesn't any form of communal ownership involve restricting
individual liberty?

I.7 Won't Libertarian Socialism destroy individuality?

I.7.1 Do "Primative" cultures indicate that communalism defends
individuality?
I.7.2 Is this not worshipping the past or the "noble savage"?
I.7.3 Is the law required to protect individual rights?
I.7.4 Does capitalism protect individuality?

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

I.8.1 Wasn't the Spanish Revolution primarily a rural phenomenon and
therefore inapplicable as a model for modern industrialized
states?
I.8.2 How were the anarchists able to obtain mass popular support in
Spain?
I.8.3 How were Spanish industrial collectives organized?
I.8.4 How were the Spanish industrial collectives coordinated?
I.8.5 How were the Spanish agricultural cooperatives organized and
coordinated?
I.8.6 What did the agricultural collectives accomplish?
I.8.7 I've heard that the rural collectives were created by force.
Is this true?
I.8.8 But did the Spanish collectives innovate?
I.8.9 Why, if it was so good, did it not survive?
I.8.10 What political lessons were learned from the revolution?
I.8.11 What economic lessons were learned from the revolution?

Section I - What would an anarchist society look like?

So far this FAQ has been largely critical, focusing on capitalism, the
state, and the problems to which they have led, as well as refuting some
bogus "solutions" that have been offered by authoritarians of both the
right and the left. It is now time to examine the constructive side of
anarchism -- the libertarian-socialist society that anarchists envision.

Therefore, in this section of the FAQ we will give a short outline of what
an anarchist society might look like. To quote Glenn Albrecht, anarchists
"lay great stress on the free unfolding of a spontaneous order without the
use of external force or authority" ["Ethics, Anarchy and Sustainable
Development", _Anarchist Studies_ vol.2, no.2, pp. 110]. This type of
development implies that anarchist society would be organised from the
simple to the complex, from the individual upwards to the community, the
bioregion and, ultimately, the planet. The resulting complex and diverse
order, which would be the outcome of nature freely unfolding toward
greater diversity and complexity, is ethically preferable to any other
sort of order simply because it allows for the *highest* degree of organic
unity and freedom. As Kropotkin argued, "[w]e forsee millions and millions of
groups freely constituting themselves for the the satisfaction of all the
varied needs of human beings. . . All these will be composed of human beings
who will combine freely. . .'Take pebbles,' said Fourier, 'put them in a
box and shake them, and they will arrange themselves in a mosaic that you
could never get by instructing to anyone the work of arranging them
harmonimously.'" [_The Place of Anarchism in Socialistic Evolution_,
p. 11-12] Anarchist opposition to hierarchy is an essential part
of a "spontaneously ordered" society, for authority stops the free
development and growth of the individual. As Proudhon argued, "liberty
is the mother of order, not its daughter."

As the individual does not exist in a social vacuum, appropriate social
conditions are required for individual freedom (and so subjectivity, or
thought) to develop and blossom according to its full potential. The
theory of anarchism is built around the central assertion that individuals
and their organisations *cannot* be considered in isolation from each
other. As Carole Pateman points out, there is "the argument that there is
an interrelationship between the authority structures of institutions and
the psychological qualities and attitudes of individuals, and. . .the
related argument that the major function of participation is an educative
one" [_Participation and Democratic Theory_, p. 27]. In other words,
freedom is only sustained and protected by activity under conditions of
freedom, namely self-government. Freedom is the only precondition for
acquiring the maturity for continued freedom.

Thus, a system which encourages individuality must be decentralised and
participatory in order for people to develop a psychology that allows
them to accept the responsibilities of self-management. Living under
capitalism produces a servile character, as the individual is constantly
placed under hierarchical authority. Such a situation cannot promote
freedom. For under wage labour, people sell their creative energy and
control over their activity for a given period. The boss does not just
take surplus value from the time employees sell, but the time itself --
their ability to make their own decisions, express themselves through work
and with their fellow workers. Anarchism is about changing that, putting
life before the soul-destroying "efficiency" needed to survive under
capitalism; for the anarchist "takes his stand on his positive right to
life and all its pleasures, both intellectual, moral and physical. He
loves life, and intends to enjoy it to the full." [Mikhail Bakunin, quoted
in _Bakunin: The Philosophy of Freedom_, p. 118]

Anarchists think that the essential social values are human values, and
that society is a complex of associations held together by the wills of
their members, whose well-being is its purpose. They consider that it is
not enough that the forms of association should have the passive or
"implied" consent of their members, but that the society and the
individuals who make it up will be healthy only if it is in the full sense
libertarian, i.e. self-governing, self-managed, and directly democratic.
This implies not only that all the citizens should have a "right" to
influence its policy if they so desire, but that the greatest possible
opportunity should be afforded for every citizen to exercise this right.
Anarchism involves an active, not merely passive, citizenship on the part
of society's members and holds that this principle is not only applied to
some "special" sphere of social action called "politics" but to any and
every form of social action, including economic activity.

So, as will be seen, the key concept underlying both the social/political
and the economic structure of libertarian socialism is "self-management,"
a term that implies not only workers control of their workplaces but
also citizens' control of their communities (where it becomes
"self-government"), through direct democracy and voluntary federation.
Thus self-management is the positive implication of anarchism's "negative"
principle of opposition to hierarchical authority. For through
self-management, hierarchical authority is dissolved, as self-managing
workers' councils and community assemblies are decentralized, "horizontal"
organizations in which each participant has an equal voice in the
decisions that affect his or her life, instead of merely following orders
and being governed by others. Self-management, therefore, is the essential
condition for a world in which individuals will be free to follow their
own dreams, in their own ways, cooperating together as equals without
interference from any form of authoritarian power (such as government
or boss).

Perhaps needless to say, this section is intended as a heuristic device
only, as a way of helping readers envision how anarchist principles might
be embodied in practice, but not as a definitive statement of how they

must* be embodied. The idea that a few people could determine exactly

what a free society would look like is contrary to the anarchist principles
of free growth and thought, and is far from our intention. Here we simply
try to indicate some of the structures that an anarchist society may
contain, based on the few examples of anarchy in action that have existed
and our critical evaluation of their limitations and successes. Of
course, as such a society will not be created overnight or without links
to the past, and so it will initially include structures created in social
struggle and will be marked with the ideas that inspired and developed
within that struggle. For example, the anarchist collectives in Spain
were organised in a bottom-up manner, similar to the way the CNT (the
anarcho-syndicalist labor union) was organised before the revolution.

This means that how an anarchist society would look like and work is not
independent of the means used to create it. In other words, an anarchist
society will reflect the social struggle which preceded it and the ideas
which existed within that struggle as modified by the practical needs of
any given situation. Therefore the vision of a free society indicated in
this section of the FAQ is not some sort of abstraction which will be
created overnight. If anarchists did think that then they would rightly
be called utopian. No, an anarchist society is the outcome of activity and
social struggle, struggle which helps to create a mass movement which
contains individuals who can think for themselves and are willing and able
to take responsibility for their own lifes (see section J - "What do
anarchists do?").

So, when reading this section please remember that this is not a blueprint
but only one possible suggestion of what anarchy would look like. It is
designed to provoke thought and indicate that an anarchist society is
possible and that such a society is the product of our activity in the
here and now.

I.1 Isn't libertarian socialism an oxymoron?

No. As discussed in section A.1.3, the word "libertarian" has been used
by anarchist socialists for far longer than the pro-free market right have
been using it. This in itself does not, of course, prove that the term is
free of contradiction. However, as we will show below, the claim that the
term is self-contractory rests on the assumption that socialism requires
the state in order to exist and that socialism is incompatible with
liberty. This assumption, as is often true of objections to socialism, is
based on a misconception of what socialism is, a misconception that many
authoritarian socialists and the state capitalism of Soviet Russia have
helped to foster. In reality it is the term "state socialism" which is an
oxymoron.

The right (and many on the left) consider that, by definition, "socialism"

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

centrally planned determination of the national economy (and so social
life). This definition has become common because many Social Democrats,
Leninists, and other statists *call* themselves socialists. However, the
fact that certain people call themselves socialists does not imply that
the system they advocate is really socialism. We need to analyse and
understand the systems in question, by applying critical, scientific
thought, in order to determine whether their claims to the socialist label
are justified. As we'll see, to accept the above definition one has to
ignore the overall history of the socialist movement and consider only
certain trends within it as representing the movement as a whole.

Even a quick glance at the history of the socialist movement indicates
that the identification of socialism with state ownership and control is
not common. For example, Anarchists, many Guild Socialists, council
communists, and other libertarian Marxists, as well as followers of Robert
Owen, all rejected state ownership. Indeed, anarchists recognised that
the means of production did not change their form as capital when the
state took over their ownership, and hence that state ownership of capital
was a tendency *within,* not *opposed* to, capitalism (see section H.2.2
for more on this).

So what *does* socialism mean? And is it compatible with libertarian
ideals? _Webster's New International Dictionary_ defines a libertarian as
"One who holds to the doctrine of free will; also, one who upholds the
principles of liberty, esp. individual liberty of thought and action." As
we discussed earlier, capitalism denies liberty of thought and action
within the workplace (unless one is the boss, of course). Therefore,

real* libertarian ideas mean that workers control the work they do,

determining where and how they do it and what happens to the fruit of
their labour, which in turn means the elimination of wage labour. It
implies a classless and anti-authoritarian (i.e. libertarian) society in
which people manage their own affairs, either as individuals or as part
of a group (depending on the situation). In other words, it implies
self-management in all aspects of life.

According to the _American Heritage Dictionary_ "socialism" is "a social
system in which the producers possess both political power and the means
of producing and distributing goods." This definition fits neatly with
the implications of the word "libertarian" indicated above. In fact, it
shows that socialism is *necessarily* libertarian, not statist. For if the
state possesses the workplace, then the producers do not, and so they will
not be at liberty to manage their own work but will instead be subject to
the state as the boss. Moreover, replacing the capitalist owning class
by state officials in no way eliminates wage labour; in fact it makes it
worse in many cases. Therefore "socialists" who argue for
nationalisation of the means of production are *not* socialists (which
means that the soviet union and the other 'socialist" countries and
parties are *not* socialist).

Since it's an essential principle of socialism that inequalities of power
between people must be abolished in order to ensure liberty, it makes no
sense for a genuine socialist to support any institution based on
inequalities of power. And as we discussed in section B, the state and
the authoritarian workplace are just such institutions. However, the
meaning of "equality" has been so corrupted by capitalist ideologues, with
their "ethics of mathematics," that "equality" has come to mean
"identical." Given the uniqueness of individuals, any attempt to create a
society of people who are "equal" in the sense of identical would, of
course, not only be doomed to failure but would also create a slave
society in the process.

So, libertarian socialism rejects the idea of state ownership and control
of the economy, along with the state as such. Through workers'
self-management it proposes to bring an end to authority, exploitation,
and hierachy in production. This in itself will increase, not reduce,
liberty. Those who argue otherwise rarely claim that political democracy
results in less freedom than political dictatorship (although a few
"libertarian" capitalist supporters of the "natural law" dogma effectively
do so -- see section F.7).

The communal ownership advocated by collectivist and communist anarchists
is not the same as state ownership. This is because it is based on
horizontal relationships between the actual workers and the "owners" of
social capital (i.e. the federated communities as a whole), not vertical
ones as in nationalisation. In addition, all the members of a
participatory anarchist community fall into one of three categories: (1)
producers (i.e. members of a collective or self-employed artisans), (2)
those unable to work (i.e. the old, sick and so on, who *were*
producers), or (3) the young (i.e. those who *will be* producers).
Therefore, workers' self-management within a framework of communal
ownership is entirely compatible with libertarian and socialist ideas
concering the possession of the means of producing and distributing goods
by the producers themselves. Hence, far from there being any
contradiction between libertarianism and sociaism, libertarian ideals
imply socialist ones, and vice versa. As Bakunin argued in 1867, "We are
convinced that freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice, and
that Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality" [_Bakunin on
Anarchism_]. History has proven him correct.

I.1.1 Didn't Ludwig von Mises's "calculation argument" prove that
socialism can't work?

In 1920, von Mises declared socialism to be impossible on the grounds that
without private ownership of the means of production, there cannot be a
competitive market for production goods; that without a market for
production goods, it is impossible to determine their values; and that
without knowing their values, economic rationality is impossible. This is
his "calculation argument," which "anarcho"-capitalists are fond of
claiming is a "proof" that libertarian (or any other kind of) socialism is
impossible in principle.

As David Schweickart observes in _Against Capitalism_, however, it has
long been recognized that von Mises's argument is logically defective,
because even without a market in production goods, their monetary values
can be determined. In other words, economic calculation based on prices is
possible in a libertarian socialist system. In addition, the Mondragon
cooperatives indicate that a libertarian socialist economy can exist and
flourish. There is no need for capital markets in a system based on mutual
banks and networks of cooperatives. Unfortunately, the state socialists
who replied to Mises did not have such a libertarian economy in mind.

In response to von Mises initial challenge, a number of economists pointed
out that Pareto's disciple, Enrico Barone, had already, 13 years earlier,
demonstrated the theoretical possibility of a "market-simulated
socialism." However, the principal attack on von Mises's argument came
from Fred Taylor and Oscar Lange. (For a collection of their main papers,
see _On the Economic Theory of Socialism_, ed. by Benjamin Lippincott,
Univ. of Minnesota, 1938.) In light of their work, Frederick Hayek shifted
the question from theoretical impossibility to whether the theoretical
solution could be approximated in practice. Thus even Hayek, a major
free-market capitalist guru, seemed to think that von Mises's argument
could not be defended.

Moreover, it should be noted that both sides of the argument accepted the
idea of central planning of some kind or another. This means that von
Mises's and Hayek's arguments did not apply to libertarian socialism,
which rejects central planning along with every other form of
centralisation. This is a key point, as most members of the right seem to
assume that "socialists" all agree with each other in supporting a
centralised economic system. In other words, they ignore a large segment
of socialist thought and history in order to concentrate on Social
Democracy and Leninism. The idea of a network of "people's banks" and
cooperatives working together to meet their common interests is ignored,
although it has been a common feature in socialist thought since the time
of Robert Owen.

Thus the economic crises of the 1980s in the Soviet Union and Eastern
Europe do not provide evidence that Mises and Hayek were correct in
maintaining that "socialism" cannot be made to work in practice. For as
shown in the previous section, these countries were not socialist at all.
Obviously the Soviet Union and Eastern European countries had
authoritarian "command economies" with central bureaucratic planning, and
so their failure cannot be taken as proof that a decentralized,
libertarian socialism cannot work. The latter kind of socialism did in
fact work remarkably well during the Spanish Revolution in the face of
amazing difficulties, with increased productivity and output in many
workplaces (see Sam Dolgoff, _The Anarchist Collectives_ and section I.8
of this FAQ).

Finally, let us note that the theoretical work of Schweickart, Engler and
others on market socialism shows that von Mises was wrong in asserting that
"a socialist system with a market and market prices is as self-contradictory
as is the notion of a triangular square." So far, most models of market
socialism have not been fully libertarian, but instead involve the idea of
workers' control within a framework of state ownership of capital (Engler
is an exception to this, supporting community ownership). However, as we
argue in G.4, libertarian forms of market socialism are indeed possible and
would be similar to Proudhon's mutualism (as some Leninist Marxists recognise,
see _Against the Market_ in which the author argues that Proudhon was precuser
of the current market socialists).

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

No. While the "calculation argument" is often used by right-libertarian's
as *the* "scientific" basis for the argument that communism (a moneyless
society) is impossible, it is based on certain false ideas of what money
does and how an anarchist society would function without it. This is
hardly surprising, as Mises based his theory on the "subjective" theory of
value and marxian social-democratic ideas of what a "socialist" "economy"
would look like. However, it is useful here to indicate exactly why a
moneyless "economy" would work and why the "calculation argument" is
flawed as an objection to it.

Mises argued that without money there was no way a socialist economy would
make "rational" production decisions. Not even von Mises denied that a
moneyless society could estimate what is likely to be needed over a given
period of time (as expressed as physical quantities of definite types and
sorts of objects). As he argued, "calculation *in natura* in an economy
without exchange can embrace consumption-goods only." [_Collectivist
Economic Planning_, ed. F.A. Von Hayek, p. 104] Mises' argument is that
the next step, working out which productive methods to employ, would not
be possible, or at least would not be able to be done "rationally," i.e.
avoiding waste and inefficiency. As he argues, the evaluation of producer
goods "can only be done with some kind of economic calculation. The human
mind cannot orient itself properly among the bewildering mass of
intermediate products and potentialities without such aid. It would simply
stand perlexed before the problems of management and location" [Op. Cit.,
103]. Mises' claimed that monetary calculation based on market prices is
the only solution.

This argument is not without its force. How can a producer be expected to
know if tin is a better use of resources than iron when creating a
product? However, Mises' argument is based on a number of flawed
assumptions. Firstly, he assumes a centralised, planned economy. While
this was a common idea in Marxian social democracy, it is rejected by
anarchism. No small body of men can be expected to know what happens in
society. As Bakunin argued, it would lead to "an extremely complex
government. This government will not content itself with administering and
governing the masses politically. . .it will also administer the masses
economically, concentrating in the hands of the State [all economic
activity]. . .All that will demand an immense knowledge and many heads
`overflowing with brains' in this government. It will be the reign of

scientific intelligence,* the most aristocratic, despotic, arrogant, and

elitist of all regimes. There will be a new class, a new hierarchy. . .
Such a reigme will not fail to arouse very considerable discontent in the
masses of the people, and in order to keep them in check. . .[a]
considerable armed force [would be required]." [_Bakunin on Anarchism_,
p.319] Hence anarchists can agree with Mises: central planning cannot work
in practice. However, socialist ideas are not limited to Marxian Social
Democracy, and so Mises ignores far more socialistic ideas than he attacks.

His next assumption is equally flawed. This is that without the market, no
information is passed between producers beyond the final outcome of
production. In other words, he assumes that the final product is all that
counts in evaluating its use. Needless to say, it is true that without
more information than the name of a given product, it is impossible to
determine whether using it would be an efficient utilization of resources.
But Mises misunderstands the basic concept of use-value, namely the
utility of a good to the consumer of it. As Adam Buick and John Crump
point out, "at the level of the individual production unit or industry,
the only calculations that would be necessary in socialism would be
calculations in kind. On the one side would be recorded the resources
(materials, energy, equipment, labour) used up in production and on the
other the amount of good produced, together with any by-products. . . .
Socialist production is simply the production of use values from use
values, and nothing more" [_State Capitalism: The Wages System Under New
Management_, p. 137].

The generation and communication of such information implies a decentralised,
horizontal network between producers and consumers. Therefore, as John O'Neil
notes, "the market may be *one* way in which dispersed knowledge can be put
to good effect. It is not... the only way" [_Ecology, Policy and Politics_,
p. 118]

So, in order to determine if a specific good is useful to a person, that
person needs to know its "cost." Under capitalism, the notion of cost has
been so associated with *price* that we have to put the word "cost" in
quotation marks. However, the real cost of, say, writing a book, is not a
sum of money but so much paper, so much energy, so much ink, so much human
labour. In order to make a rational decision on whether a given good is
better for meeting a given need than another, the would-be consumer
requires this information. However, under capitalism this information is

hidden* by the price.

Therefore, a purely market-based system leaves out information on which to
base rational resource allocations (or, at the very least, hides it). The
reason for this is that a market system measures, at best, preferences of

individual* buyers among the *available* options. This assumes that all

pertinent use-values that are to be outcomes of production are things that
are to be consumed by the individual, rather than use-values that are
collectively enjoyed (like clean air). In other words, prices hide the
actual costs that production involved for the individual, society, and the
environment, and instead boils everything down into *one* factor, namely
price. There is a lack of dialogue and information between producer and
consumer. As John O'Neil argues, "the market distributes a little
information and. . . blocks the distribution of a great deal [more]. . .
The educative dialogue exists not through the market, but alongside of it"
[_Ecology, Policy and Politics_, p. 143].

Lastly, Mises assumes that the market is a rational system. As O'Neil
points out, "Von Mises' earlier arguments against socialist planning
turned on an assumption about commensurability. His central argument was
that rational economic decision-making required a single measure on the
basis of which the worth of alternative states of affairs could be
calculated and compared" [Op. Cit., p. 115]. This central assumption was
unchallenged by Talyor and Lange in their defense of socialism, meaning
that from the start the debate against Von Mises was defensive and based
on the argument that socialist planning could mimic the market and produce
results which were efficient from a capitalist point of view. Thus, no
one challenged Mises' assumptions either about the centrally planned
nature of socialism or about the market being a rational system. Little
wonder that the debate put the state socialists on the defensive. As
their system was little more than state capitalism, it is unlikely they
would attack the fundamentals of capitalism (namely wage labour and
centralisation).

So, is capitalism rational? Well, it does exist, but that does not prove
that it is rational. The Catholic Church exists, but that shows nothing
about the rationality of the institution. To answer the question, we must
return to our earlier point that using price means basing all decision
making on one criterion and ignoring all others. This has seriously
irrational effects, because the managers of capitalist enterprises are
obliged to choose technical means of production which produce the cheapest
results. All other considerations are subordinate, in particular the
health and welfare of the producers and the effects on the environment.
The harmful effects resulting from "rational" capitalist production
methods have long been pointed out. For example, speed-ups, pain, stress,
accidents, boredom, overwork, long hours and so on all harm the physical
and mental health of those involved, while pollution, the destruction of
the environment, and the exhaustion of non-renewable resources all have
serious effects on both the planet and those who live on it.

To claim that prices include all these "externalities" is nonsense. If
they did, we would not see capital moving to third-world countries with
few or any anti-pollution or labour laws. At best, the "cost" of pollution
would only be included in price if the company was sued successfully in
court for damages -- in other words, once the damage is done. Ultimately,
companies have a strong interest in buying inputs with the lowest prices,
regardless of *how* they are produced. As Noam Chomsky points out, "[i]n a
true capitalist society, . . . socially responsible behavior would be
penalized quickly in that competitors, lacking such social responsibility,
would supplant anyone so misguided as to be concerned with something other
than private benefit" [_Language and Politics_, pp. 300-1]. It is
reductionist accounting and its accompanying "ethics of mathematics" that
produces the "irrationality of rationality" which plagues capitalism's
exclusive reliance on prices to measure "efficiency." Moreover, the
critique we have just sketched ignores the periodic crises that hit
capitalist industry and economies to produce massive unemployment and
social distruption -- crises that are due to subjective and objective
pressures on the operation of the price mechanism.

Under communist-anarchism, the decision-making system used to determine
the best use of resources is not more or less "efficient" than market
allocation, because it goes beyond the market-based concept of
"efficiency." It does not seek to replace the market but to do what the
market fails to do. This is important, because the market is not the
rational system its defenders often claim. While reducing all decisions
to one common factor is, without a doubt, an easy method of decision
making, it also has serious side-effects *because* of its reductionistic
basis (as discussed further in the next section). As Einstein once pointed
out, things should be made as simple as possible but not simplistic. The
market makes decision making simplistic and generates a host of
irrationalities and dehumanising effects.

Sections I.4.4 and I.4.5 discusses one possible framework for a communist
economic decision-making process. Such a framework is necessary because
"an appeal to a necessary role for practical judgements in decision
making is *not* to deny any role to general principles. Neither...does it
deny any place for the use of technical rules and algorithmic
procedures...Moreover, there is a necessary role for rules of thumb,
standard procedures, the default procedures and institutional
arrangements that can be followed unreflectively and which *reduce* the
scope for *explicit* judgements comparing different states of affairs.
There are limits in time, efficient use of resources and the dispersal of
knowledge which require rules and institutions. Such rules and
institutions can fee us for space and time for reflective judgements
where they matter most" [John O'Neil, Op. Cit., pp.117-118].

As two libertarian socialists point out, "socialist society still has to
be concerned with using resources efficiently and rationally, but the
criteria of 'efficiency' and 'rationality' are not the same as they are
under capitalism." [Buick and Crump, Op. Cit., p. 137] So, to claim that
communism will be "more" efficient than capitalism misses the point. It
will be "efficient" in a totally different way and people will act in ways
considered "irrational" only under the logic of capitalism.

I.1.3 What is wrong with markets anyway?

A lot. Markets soon result in what are termed "market forces,"
"impersonal" forces which ensure that the people in the economy do what is
required of them in order for society to function. The market system, in
capitalist apologetics, is presented to appear as a regime of freedom
where no one forces anyone to do anything, where we "freely" exchange with
others as we see fit. However, the facts of the matter are somewhat
different, since the market often ensures that people act in ways

opposite* to what they desire or forces them to accept "free agreements"

which they may not actually desire. Wage labour is the most obvious
example of this, for, as we indicated in section B.4, most people have
little option but to agree to work for others.

However, even if we assume a mutualist or market-socialist system of
competing self-managed workplaces, it's clear that market forces would
soon result in many irrationalities occurring. Most obviously, operating
in a market means submitting to the profit criterion. This means that
however much workers might want to employ social criteria, they cannot. To
ignore profitability would cause their firm to go bankrupt. Markets
therefore create conditions that compel workers and consumers to decide
things which are not be in their interest, for example introducing
deskilling or polluting technology, longer hours, and so on. We could also
point to the numerous industrial deaths which are due to market forces
making it unprofitable to introduce adequate safety equipment or working
conditions, (conservative estimates for industrial deaths in the USA are
between 14, 000 and 25, 000 per year plus over 2 million disabled), or to
increased pollution and stress levels which shorten lifespans.

In addition, a market-based system can result in what we have termed "the
ethics of mathematics," where things (particularly money) become more
important than people. This can have a de-humanising effect, with people
becoming cold-hearted working calculators who put profits before people.
This can be seen in capitalism, where economic decisions are far more
important than ethical ones. Merit does not "necessarily" breed success,
and the successful do not "necessarily" have merit. The truth is that, in
the words of Noam Chomsky, "wealth and power tend to accrue to those who
are ruthless, cunning, avaricious, self-seeking, lacking in sympathy and
compassion, subservient to authority and willing to abandon principle for
material gain, and so on." (Thorstein Veblen elaborated at length on this
theme in _The Leisure Class_, a classic analysis of capitalist
psychology.) A system which elevates making money to the position of the
most important individual activity will obviously result in the degrading
of human values and an increase in neurotic and pyschotic behaviour.

Any market system is also marked by a continuing need to expand production
and consumption. This means that market forces ensure that work
continually has to expand, causing potentially destructive results for
both people and the planet. Competition ensures that we can never take it
easy, for as Max Stirner argued, "Restless acquistion does not let us take
breath, take a calm *enjoyment*. We do not get the comfort of our
possessions. . . . Hence it is at any rate helpful that we come to an
agreement about *human* labours that they may not, as under competition,
claim all our time and toil" [_The Ego and Its Own_]

Value needs to be created, and that can only be done by labour. It is
ironic that supporters of capitalism, while usually saying that "work" is
and always will be hell, support an economic system which must continually
expand that "work" (i.e. labour) while deskilling and automating it and
those who do it. Anarchists, in contrast, argue that work need not be
hell, and indeed, that when enriched by skills and self-management, can be
enjoyable. We go further and argue that work need not take all our time
and that *labour* (i.e. unwanted and boring work) can and must be
minimised. Hence, while the "anti-work" capitalist submits humanity to
more and more labour, the anarchist desires the liberation of "work" and
the end of "labour" as a way of life.

In addition, market decisions are crucially conditioned by the purchasing
power of those income groups that can back their demands with money. The
market is a continuous bidding for goods, resources, and services, with
those who have the most purchasing power the winners. This means that the
market system is the worst one for allocating resources when purchasing
power is unequally distributed. This is why orthodox economists make the
connvenient assumption of a 'given distribution of income' when they try
to show that a market-based allocation of resources is the best one (for
example, "Pareto optimality").

With the means of life monopolised by one class, the effects of market
forces and unequal purchasing power can be terrible. As Allan Engler
points out, "[w]hen people are denied access to the means of livelihood,
the invisible hand of market forces does not intervene on their behalf.
Equilibrium between supply and demand has no necessary connection with
human need. For example, assume a country of one million people in which
900,000 are without means of livelihood. One million bushels of wheat are
produced. The entire crop is sold to 100,000 people at $10 a bushel.
Supply and demand are in equilibrium, yet 900,000 people will face
starvation" [_Apostles of Greed_, pp. 50-51]. In case anyone thinks that
this just happens in theory, the example of African countries hit by
famine gives a classic example of this occuring in practice. There, rich
landowners grow cash crops and export food to the developed nations while
millions starve in their own.

Lastly, there are the distributional consequences of the market system. As
markets inform by 'exit' only -- some products find a market, others do
not -- 'voice' is absent. The operation of 'exit' rather than 'voice'
leaves behind those without power in the marketplace. For example, the
wealthy do not buy food poisoned with additives, the poor consume it. This
means a division grows between two environments: one inhabited by those
with wealth and one inhabited by those without it. As can be seen from the
current capitalist practice of "exporting pollution" to developing
countries, this problem can have serious ecological and social effects.
Far from the market being a "democracy" based on "one dollar, one vote,"
it is an oligarchy in which (e.g) the 79,000 Americans who earned the
minimum wage in 1987 have the same "influence" or "vote" as Michael
Milken, who "earned" as much as all of them combined.

So, for all its talk of "invisible hands" and "individual freedom,"
capitalism ignores the actual living individual in the economy and
society. The "individual rights" on which capitalists' base their "free"
system are said to be "man's rights," on what "man needs." But "man,"
after all, is only an abstraction, not a real living being. By talking
about "man" and basing "rights" on what this abstraction is said to need,
capitalism and statism ignore the uniqueness of each person and the
conditions required to develop that uniqueness. As Max Stirner pointed
out, "[h]e who is infatuated with *Man* leaves persons out of account so
far as that infatuation exists, and floats in an ideal, sacred interest.

Man*, you see, is not a person, but an ideal, a spook." [_The Ego and Its

Own_, p. 79] And like all spooks, it requires sacrifice -- the sacrifice
of individuality to hierarchy and authority.

This anti-individual biases in capitalism can be seen by its top-down
nature and the newspeak used to disguise its reality. For example, there
is what is called "increasing flexibility of the labor market."
"Flexibility" sounds great: rigid structures are unappealing and hardly
suitable for human growth. In reality, as Noam Chomsky points out,
"[f]lexibility means insecurity. It means you go to bed at night and don't
know if you have a job tomorrow morning. That's called flexibility of the
labor market, and any economist can explain that's a good thing for the
economy, where by 'the economy' now we understand profit-making. We don't
mean by 'the economy' the way people live. That's good for the economy,
and temporary jobs increase flexibility. Low wages also increase job
insecurity. They keep inflation low. That's good for people who have
money, say, bondholders. So these all contribute to what's called a
'healthy economy,' meaning one with very high profits. Profits are doing
fine. Corporate profits are zooming. But for most of the population, very
grim circumstances. And grim circumstances, without much prospect of a
future, may lead to constructive social action, but where that's lacking
they express themselves in violence" [_Keeping the Rabble in Line_].

This does not mean that social anarchists propose to "ban" the market --
far from it. This would be impossible. What we do propose is to convince
people that a profit-based market system has distinctly *bad* effects on
individuals, society and the planet's ecology, and that we can organise
our common activity to replace it with libertarian communism. As Max
Stirner argued, "competition. . .has a continued existence. . . [because]
all do not attend to *their* *affair* and come to an *understanding* with
each other about it. . . .Abolishing competition is not equivalent to
favouring the guild. The difference is this: In the *guild* baking, etc.,
is the affair of the guild-brothers; in *competition*, the affair of
chance competitors; in the *union*, of those who require baked goods, and
therefore my affair, yours, the affair of neither guildic nor the
concessionary baker, but the affair of the *united*" [_Ego and Its Own_,
p. 275].

Therefore, social anarchists do not appeal to "altruism" in their struggle
against the de-humanising effects of the market, but rather, to egoism:
the simple fact that cooperation and mutual aid is in our best interests
as individuals. By cooperating and controlling "the affairs of the
united," we can ensure a free society which is worth living in, one in
which the individual is not crushed by market forces and has time to fully
develop his or her individuality and uniqueness. "Solidarity is therefore
the state of being in which Man attains the greatest degree of security
and wellbeing; and therefore egoism itself, that is the exclusive
consideration of one's own interests, impels Man and human society towards
solidarity" [Errico Malatesta, _Anarchy_, p. 28].

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

Some "Libertarian" capitalists say yes to this question, arguing that the
labour theory of value (LTV) does not imply socialism but what they call
"self-managed" capitalism. This, however, is not a valid inference. The
LTV can imply both socialism (selling the product of ones labour) and
communism (distribution according to needs). The theory is a critique of
capitalism, not necessarily the basis of a socialist economy, although it

can* be considered this as well. For example, Proudhon used the LTV as

the foundation of his proposals for mutual banking and cooperatives, while
Robert Owen used it as the basis of his system of labour notes. Though a
system of cooperative selling on the market or exchanging labour-time
values would not be communism, it is *not* capitalism, because the workers
are not separated from the means of production. Therefore, right
libertarians' attempts to claim that it is capitalism are false, an
example of misinformed insistence that virtually *every* economic system,
bar state socialism and feudalism, is capitalist. Some libertarian
Marxists claim, similarly, that non-communist forms of socialism are just
"self-managed" capitalism. Why libertarian Marxists desire to reduce the
choices facing humanity to either communism some form of capitalism is
frankly strange, but also understandable because of the potential
dehumanising effects of market systems seen under capitalism.

However, it could be argued that communism (based on free access and
communal ownership of resources) would mean that workers are exploited by
non-workers (the young, the sick, the elderly and so on). While this may
reflect the sad lack of personal empathy (and so ethics) of the
pro-capitalist defenders of this argument, it totally misses the point as
far as communist anarchism goes. This is because "anarchist communism . . .
means voluntary communism, communism from free choice" [A. Berkman, _ABC
of Anarchism_, p. 11], which means it is not imposed on anyone but is created
and practiced only by those who believe in it. Therefore it would be up
to the communities and syndicates to decide how they wish to distribute
the products of their labour. Some may decide on equal pay, others on
payment in terms of labour time, yet others on communistic associations.
We have indicated elsewhere why communism would be in people's
self-interest, so we will not repeat ourselves here. The important thing
to realise is that cooperatives will decide what to do with their output,
whether to exchange it or to distribute it freely. Hence, because it is
based on free agreement, anarchist communism cannot be exploitative.
Members of a cooperative which is communistic are free to leave, after
all. Needless to say, the cooperatives will usually distribute their
product to others within their confederation and exchange with the
non-communist ones in a different manner. We say "usually," for in the
case of emergencies like earthquakes and so forth the situation would call
for mutual aid.

The reason why capitalism is exploitative is that workers *have* to agree
to give the product of their labour to another (the boss) in order to be
employed in the first place (see section B.4). Capitalists would not remain
capitalists if their capital did not produce a profit. In libertarian
communism, by contrast, the workers themselves agree to distribute part of
their product to others (i.e. society as a whole, their neightbours,
friends, and so forth). It is based on free agreement, while capitalism
is marked by power, authority, and the firm hand of market forces. Similiarly,
capitalism by its very nature, needs to expand into new areas, meaning
that unlike socialism, it will attempt to undermine and replace other
social systems (usually by force, if history is any guide). As freedom
cannot be given, there is no reason for a libertarian-socialist system to
expand beyond the effect of a "good example" on the oppressed of
capitalist regimes.

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

No, far from it. There can be no such thing as a "blueprint" for a free
society. All we can do here is indicate those general features that we
believe a free society *must* have in order to qualify as truly libertarian.
For example, a society based on hierarchical management in the workplace
(like capitalism) would not be libertarian, nor would it remain anarchist
for long, as private or public states would soon develop to protect the
power of those in the top hierarchical positions. Beyond such general
considerations, however, the specifics of how to structure a
non-hierarchical workplace must remain open for discussion and
experimentation.

So, this section of the anarchist FAQ should not be regarded as a detailed
plan. Anarchists have always been reticent about spelling out their
vision of the future in too much detail. For it would be contrary to
anarchist principles to dogmatise about the precise forms the new society
must take. Free people will create their own alternative institutions in
response to conditions specific to their area, and it would be
presumptuous of us to attempt to set forth universal policies in advance.
Not only that, given the ways in which our own unfree society has shaped
our ways of thinking, it's probably impossible for us to imagine what new
forms will arise once humanity's ingenuity and creativity is unleashed by
the removal of its present authoritarian fetters.

Nevertheless, anarchists have been willing to specify some broad
principles indicating the general framework within which they expect the
institutions of the new society to grow. It is important to emphasize that
these principles are not the arbitrary creations of intellectuals in ivory
towers. Rather, they are based on the actual political and economic
structures that have arisen *spontaneously* whenever the working class has
attempted to throw off its chains during eras of heightened revolutionary
activity, such as the Paris Commune, the Spanish Revolution, and the
Hungarian uprising of 1956, to name a few. Thus, for example, it is clear
that democratic workers' councils are basic libertarian-socialist forms,
since they have appeared during all revolutionary periods -- a fact that
is not surprising considering that they are rooted in traditions of
communal labor, shared resources, and participatory decision making that
stretch back tens of thousands of years, from the clans and tribes of
prehistoric times through the "barbarian" agrarian village of the
post-Roman world to the free medieval city, as Kropotkin documents in his
classic study _Mutual Aid_.

So, when reading these sections, please remember that this is just an
attempt to sketch the outline of a possible future. It is in no way an
attempt to determine *exactly* what a free society would be like, for such
a free society will be the result of the actions of all of society, not
just anarchists. As Malatesta argues, "[no] one can judge with certainty who
is right and who is wrong, who is nearest to the truth, or which is the
best way to achieve the greatest good for each and everyone. Freedom,
coupled by experience, is the only way of discovering the truth and what
is best; and there is no freedom if there is a denial of the freedom to
err" [_Malatesta: Life and Ideas_, p. 49]

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

Partly, in order to indicate why people should become anarchists. Most
people do not like making jumps in the dark, so an indication of what
anarchists think a desirable society would look like may help those people
who are attracted intellectually by anarchism, inspiring them to become
committed as well to its practical realization. Partly, it's a case
of learning from past mistakes. There have been numerous anarchistic
social experiments on varying scales, and its useful to understand what
happened, what worked and what did not. In that way, hopefully, we will
not make the same mistakes twice.

However, the most important reason for discussing what an anarchist
society would look like is to ensure that the creation of such a society
is the action of as many people as possible. As Errico Malatesta indicated
in the middle of the Italian "Two Red Years" (see section A.5.5), "either
we all apply our minds to thinking about social reorganisation, and right
away, at the very same moment that the old structures are being swept
away, and we shall have a more humane and more just society, open to
future advances, or we shall leave such matters to the 'leaders' and we
shall have a new government." [_The Anarchist Revolution_, p. 69]

Hence the importance of discussing what the future will be like in the
here and now. The more people who have a fairly clear idea of what a free
society would look like, the easier it will be to create that society and
ensure that no important matters are left to the "leaders" to decide for
us. The example of the Spanish Revolution comes to mind. For many years
before 1936, the CNT and FAI put out publications discussing what an
anarchist society would look like (for example, _After the Revolution by
Diego Abel de Santallian and _Libertarian Communism_ by Isaac Puente]. In
fact, anarchists had been organising and educating in Spain for almost
seventy years before the revolution. When it finally occurred, the
millions of people who participated already shared a similar vision
and started to build a society based on it, thus learning firsthand where
their books were wrong and which areas of life they did not adequately
cover.

So, this discussion of what an anarchist society might look like is not a
drawing up of blueprints, nor is it an attempt to force the future into
the shapes created in past revolts. It is purely and simply an attempt to
start people discussing what a free society would be like and to learn
from previous experiments. However, as anarchists recognise the
importance of building the new world in the shell of the old, our ideas of
what a free society would be like can feed into how we organise and
struggle today. And vice versa; for how we organise and struggle today
will have an impact on the future.

As Malatesta pointed out, such discussions are necessary and essential,
for "[i]t is absurd to believe that, once government has been destroyed
and the capitalists expropriated, 'things will look after themselves'
without the intervention of those who already have an idea on what has to
be done and who immediately set about doing it. . . . [for] social life,
as the life of individual's, does not permit of interruption" [Op. Cit.,
p. 121]

We hope that this Section of the FAQ, in its own small way, will encourage
as many people as possible to discuss what a libertarian society would be
like and use that discussion to bring it closer.

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

Possibly. It depends on the social situation and what anarchists you
ask. For example, Bakunin and other collectivists have doubted the
possibility of introducing a communistic system instantly after a
revolution. Some anarchists, like the individualists, do not support the
idea of revolution and instead see anarchist alternatives growing within
capitalism and slowly replacing it. For Kropotkin and many other
anarcho-communists, communistic anarchy can, and must, be introduced at
once in order to ensure a successful revolution.

One thing that all anarchists do agree on is that it's essential for both
the state and capitalism to be undermined as quickly as possible. It is
true that, in the course of social revolution, we anarchists may not be able
to stop a new state being created or the old one from surviving. It all depends
on the balance of support for anarchist ideas in the population and how
willing people are to introduce them. There is no doubt, though, that for
a social revolt to be fully anarchist, the state and capitalism must be
destroyed and new forms of oppression and exploitation not put in their
place.

Most anarchists, however, agree that an anarchist society cannot be
created overnight, for to assume so would be to imagine that anarchists
could enforce their ideas on a pliable population. Libertarian socialism
can only be created from below, by people who want it and understand it,
organising and liberating themselves. The results of the Russian
Revolution should have cleared away long ago any contrary illusions about
how to create "socialist" societies. The lesson from every revolution is
that the mistakes made by people in liberating themselves are always
minor compared to the results of creating authorities, who eliminate such
"ideological errors" by destroying the freedom to make mistakes. For
freedom is the only real basis on which socialism can be built.

Therefore, most anarchists would support Malatesta's claim that "[t]o
organise a [libertarian] communist society on a large scale it would be
necessary to transform all economic life radically, such as methods of
production, of exchange and consumption; and all this could not be
achieved other than gradually, as the objective circumstances permitted
and to the extent that the masses understood what advantages could be
gained and were able to act for themselves" [_Malatesta: Life and Ideas_,
p. 36]

One thing is certain: an anarchist social revolution or mass movement
will need to defend itself against attempts by statists and capitalists to
defeat it. Every popular movement, revolt, or revolution has had to face a
backlash from the supporters of the status quo. An anarchist revolution or
mass movement will face (and indeed has faced) such counter-movements.

However, this does not mean that the destruction of the state and
capitalism need be put off until after the forces of reaction are defeated
(as Marxists usually claim). A social revolution can only be defended by
anti-statist means, for example arming the people and organising popular
militias, as the Mexican, Ukrainian, and Spanish anarchists did.

So, given an anarchist revolution which destroys the state, the type and
nature of the economic system created by it will depend on local
circumstances and the level of awareness in society. The individualists
are correct in the sense that what we do now will determine how the future
develops. Obviously, any "transition period" starts in the *here and now,*
as this helps determine the future. Thus, while social anarchists usually
reject the idea that capitalism can be reformed away, we agree with the
individualists that it is essential for anarchists to be active today in
constructing the ideas, ideals and new liberatory institutions of the
future society within the current one. The notion of waiting for the
"glorious day" of total revolution is not one held by anarchists.

Thus, all the positions outlined at the start of this section have a grain
of truth in them. This is because, as Malatesta put it, "We are, in any
case, only one of the forces acting in society, and history will advance,
as always, in the direction of the resultant of all the [social] forces."
[_Malatesta: Life and Ideas_. p. 109] This means that different areas will
experiment in different ways, depending on the level of awareness which
exists there -- as would be expected in a free society which is created by
the mass of the people.

Ultimately, the most we can say about the timing and necessary conditions
of revolution is that an anarchist society can only come about once people
liberate themselves (and this implies an ethical and psychological
transformation), but that this does not mean that people need to be
"perfect" nor that an anarchist society will come about "overnight,"
without a period of self-activity by which individuals reshape and change
themselves as they are reshaping and changing the world about them.

I.3 What could the economic structure of anarchy look like?

Here we will examine a possible framework of a libertarian-socialist
economy. 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. Also, by discussing the
economy first we are not implying that dealing with economic domination is
more important than dealing with other aspects of the total system of
domination, e.g. patricentric 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.

The aim of any anarchist society would be to maximize freedom and so
creative work. In the words of Noam Chomsky, "[i]f 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 maximize the possibilities for this fundamental
human characteristic to be realized. Now, a federated, decentralized 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 organization 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 centralized, 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 constrast, the libertarian-socialist "economy" will be based on
decentralized, equalitarian workplaces ("syndicates") in which workers
democratically self-manage *socially* owned means of production. Let's
begin with the concept of syndicates.

The key principles of libertarian socialism are decentralization,
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'll 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'
control.* However, this concept needs careful explanation, because, like
the terms "anarchist" and "libertarian," "workers' control" is also is
being co-opted by capitalists.

As anarchists use the term, workers' control means collective worker
ownership and self-management of all aspects of production and distribution,
through participatory-democratic workers' councils, agricultural syndicates,
and people's financial institutions which perform all functions formerly
reserved for capitalist owners, executives, and financiers.

"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 cooperative 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.

Worker cooperatives of this type do have the virtue of preventing the
exploitation of wage labor by capital, since workers are not hired for
wages but, in effect, become partners in the firm, so that the value-added
that they produce is not appropriated by a privileged elite. 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 "petty-bourgeois cooperativism" in which
worker-owned firms would act as syndicate capitalists and compete against
each other in the market as ferociously as the previously individual
capitalists. 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 cooperation 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 coordinating 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, "[a]ctual use will be considered the only title - 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,
many 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 though 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 delegates from workers' councils to meetings
of higher confederal bodies would be instructed, at every level of
confederation, by the workers they represent 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.
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 coordination of the economy.

A society-wide economic federation of this sort is clearly not the same
thing as a centralized state agency, as in the concept of nationalized or
state-owned industry. Rather, it is a decentralized, participatory-democratic
organization whose members can secede at any time and in which all power and
initiative arises from and flows back to the grassroots level. Thus
Kropotkin's summary of what anarchy would look like:

"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 civilized 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." ["Anarchism", from _The Encyclopaedia Britannica_, 1910]

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
organized 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 both the Stalinists and Fascists
to crush it. (See Sam Dolgoff, _The Anarchist Collectives: Workers'
Self-management in the Spanish Revolution, 1936-1939_, New York:
Free Life Editions, 1974).

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, cooperation 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 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. Also worth reading are
_The Political Economy of Participatory Economics_ and _Looking Forward_
by Micheal Albert and Robin Hanel which contain some useful ideas. Fictional accounts include William Morris' _News from Nowhere_, _The Dispossessed_ by
Ursula Le Guin and _Women on the Edge of Time_ by Marge Piercy.

I.3.1 What is a "syndicate"?

As we will use the term, a "syndicate" (often called a "producer
cooperative," or "cooperative" for short, sometimes "collective" 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 important to note that individuals who do not wish to join syndicates
will be able to work for themselves. There is no "forced collectivization"
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 monopolize 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 cooperative under capitalism.
Indeed, Bakunin argued that anarchists are "convinced that the cooperative
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 cooperatives 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
cooperatively.

"Cooperation" 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 decision-making powers would be 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' councils, open to all workers, would
decide what types of decision-making powers to delegate, thus ensuring
that ultimate power rests at the mass base. For example, if it turned out
that a certain type of delegated decision-making power 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 powers with the potential for seriously affecting all
workers' lives -- 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, etc. -- would not be delegated but would remain
with the workers' assemblies.

As Malatesta put it, "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. . . [However] 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].

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 initatives taking place.
(The criteria for investment decisions is discussed in section I.4.7).

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 so 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 antisocial 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 occured 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 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?").

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." 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," "democratization," "co-determination,"
"consensus," "empowerment", "Japanese-style management," etc. As Sam
Dolgoff notes, "For 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_, ed. Sam Dolgoff, Free Life Editions, 1974, 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 "democratization," "empowerment," and
"participation!" In reality, capitalistic "workers control" is merely an
another insidious attempt to make workers more willing and "cooperative"
partners in their own exploitation.

Hence we prefer the term "workers' self-management" -- a concept which
refers to the exercise of workers' power through collectivization 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 organization
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" [Ibid., p. 81].

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.

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.

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

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, 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
electorate in local neighbourhood and community 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.5.2 and
I.5.3).

Production for use rather than profit 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
organize themselves into syndicates, but ownership of a syndicate's
capital is limited to its workers rather than resting with the whole
society. Under most versions of market socialism, the state owns the
social capital but the syndicates use it to pursue profits, which are
retained by and divided among the members of the individual syndicates.
Thus both mutualism and market socialism are forms of "bourgeois
cooperativism" in which the worker-owners of the cooperatives function
as collective "capitalists", competing in the marketplace with other
cooperatives for customers, profits, raw materials, etc. -- a situation
that gives rise to many of the same problems that arise under capitalism
(see section H.4).

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 profits and the tendency for workers to develop a
proprietary interest the enterprises in which they work. This in turn
enables goods to be either sold at their production prices 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 capitalist
competition, including the destruction of the environment through the
"grow or die" principle, the development of oligopolies from capital
concentration and centralization, and the business cycle, with its
periodic recessions and depressions.

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 cooperatives).

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 Cooperative 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 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 cooperatives 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).

Given the general principle of social ownership and the absence of a
state, there is considerable leeway regarding the specific forms that
collectivization 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.

I.3.4 What relations would exist between individual syndicates?

Just as individuals associate together to work on and overcome common
problems, so would syndicates. Few, if any workplaces are totally
independent of others, but 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. Those directly involved in
production know their needs far better than any bureaucrat. Therefore
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
cooperates and enters into agreements with others because by so doing it
extends its own possibilities." [George Barret, _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 "decentralized" 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 practiced 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." [G. Barret, 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 medicocrity,
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 the same goods. 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.

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
cooperation 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.11, "Why are anarchists in favour of direct
democracy?" for more on the nature of anarchist confederation).

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]

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 existance 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]

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 cooperation, 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 cooperation 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 cooperative
society remains cooperative, 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
coordination 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. However, the investment response
to consumer actions would be coordinated 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 section
I.3.5).

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 coordinated 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 coordination become necessary.

Thus, investment decisions would be made at congresses and plenums of
the industry's syndicates, by a process of horizontal, negotiated
coordination. This model combines "planning" with decentralisation. Major
investment decisions are coordinated 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 coordinated 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 CNT 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]

I.3.5 What would confederations of syndicates do?

Voluntary confederation among syndicates is required in order to decide
on the policies governing relations between syndicates and to coordinate
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 coordinate its plans with the
others. By communicating across workplaces, people can overcome the
barriers to coordinating their plans which one finds in market systems
(see section C.7.1) 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 coordinate
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 argues (based on his firsthand experience of Russia under
Lenin), "[n]o government would be able to organize 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 cooperate in the development of
a new social system and find the best solutions for the thousands of
local needs." [_Revolutionary Pamphlets_, pp. 76-77]

Thus Coles 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 coordination, 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-coordination 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 coordinate 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).

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.

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, "They 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.).

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
coordinate 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.

I.3.6 What about competition between syndicates?

This is a common question, particularly from defenders of capitalism.
They argue that syndicates will not cooperate 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 cooperatives and
mutual banks, would minimise economic inequality, as the credit structure
would eliminate unearned income such as profit, interest and rent and give
workers enough bargaining power to eliminate exploitation. Other
anarchists think that whatever gains might accrue from competition 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 centralized 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 cooperation is the best means to do so, *not* competition.

Robert Axelrod, in his book, _The Evolution of Cooperation_ agrees and
presents abundant evidence that cooperation 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 minimalised and reduced to sports and other individual pastimes.

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.

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).

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, "But, 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. 110]

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 of friendship and support with others, develop new forms of ethics
and new ideas and ideal. This radicalisation process will help to ensure that
any differences in education and skill do not develop into differences in
power in an anarchist society.

In addition, education within the anarchist movement should aim, among other
things, to give its members familiarity with technological skills so that they
are not dependent on "experts" and can thus increase the pool of skilled
workers who will be happy working in conditions of liberty and equality.
This will ensure that differentials between workers can be minimised.

In the long run, however, popularisation of non-authoritarian methods of
child-rearing and education are particularly important because, as we have
seen, secondary drives such as greed and the desire the exercise power over
others are products of authoritarian upbringing based on punishments and fear
(See sections B.1.5, "What is the mass-psychological basis for authoritarian
civilization?" and J.6, "What methods of child rearing do anarchists
advocate?"). Only if the prevalence of such drives is reduced among the
general population can we be sure that an anarchist revolution will not
degenerate into some new form of domination and exploitation.

However, there are other reasons why economic inequality -- say, in
differences of income levels or working conditions, which may arise from
competition for "better" workers -- would be far less severe under any form
of anarchist society than it is under capitalism. Firstly, the syndicates
would be democratically managed. This would result in much smaller wage
differentials, because there is no board of wealthy directors setting
wage levels for their own gain and who think nothing of hierarchy and
having elites. The decentralisation of power in an anarchist society will
ensure that there would no longer be wealthy elites paying each other vast
amounts of money. This can be seen from the experience of the Mondragon
cooperatives, where the wage difference between the highest paid and lowest
paid worker was 4 to 1. This was only increased recently when they had to
compete with large capitalist companies, and even then the new ratio of 9
to 1 is *far* smaller than those in American or British companies (in
America, for example, the ratio is even as high at 200 to 1 and beyond!).

It is a common myth that managers, executives and so on are "rugged
individuals" and are paid so highly because of their unique abilities.
Actually, they are so highly paid because they are bureaucrats in command
of large hierarchical institutions. It is the hierarchical nature of the
capitalist firm that ensures inequality, *not* exceptional skills. Even
euthusiastic supporters of capitalism provide evidence to support this claim.
Peter Drucker (in _Concept of the Corporation_) brushed away the claim that
corporate organisation brings managers with exceptional ability to the top
when he noted that "[n]o institition can possibly survive if it needs geniuses
or supermen to manage it. It must be organised in such a way as to be able to
get along under a leadership of average human beings." [p. 35] For Drucker,
"the things that really count are not the individual members but the relations
of command and responsibility among them." [p. 34]

Anarchists argue that high wage differences are the result of how capitalism
is organised and that capitalist economics exists to justify these results by
assuming company hierarchy and capitalist ownership evolved naturally (as
opposed to being created by state action and protection). The end of
capitalist hierarchy would also see the end of vast differences of income
because decision making power would be decentralised back into the hands of
those affected by those decisions.

Secondly, corporations would not exist. A network of workplaces coordinated
by confederal committees would not have the resources available to pay
exhorbitant wages. Unlike a capitalist company, power is decentralised in
a confederation of syndicates and wealth does not flow to the top. This
means that there is no elite of executives who control the surplus made
from the company's workers and can use that surplus to pay themselves
high wages while ensuring that the major shareholders receive high enough
dividends not to question their activities (or their pay).

Thirdly, management positions would be rotated, ensuring that everyone gets
experience of the work, thus reducing the artificial scarcity created by the
division of labour. Also, education would be extensive, ensuring that
engineers, doctors, and other skilled workers would do the work because
they *enjoyed* doing it and not for financial reward. And lastly, we should
like to point out that people work for many reasons, not just for high wages.
Feelings of solidarity, empathy, friendship with their fellow workers would
also help reduce competition between syndicates for workers. Of course, having
no means of unearned income (such as rent and interest), social anarchism
will reduce income differentials even more.

Of course, the "competition" objection assumes that syndicates and members
of syndicates will place financial considerations above all else. This is
not the case, and few individuals are the economic robots assumed in
capitalist dogma. Since syndicates are *not* competing for market share,
it is likely that new techniques would be shared between workplaces and
skilled workers might decide to rotate their work between syndicates in
order to maximise their working time until such time as the general skill
level in society increases.

So, while recognising that competition for skilled workers could exist,
anarchists think there are plenty of reasons not to worry about massive
economic inequality being created, which in turn would re-create the
state. The apologists for capitalism who put forward this argument forget
that the pursuit of self-interest is universal, meaning that everyone
would be interested in maximising his or her liberty, and so would be
unlikely to allow inequalities to develop which threatened that liberty.

As for competition for scarce resources, it is clear that it would be in
the interests of communes and syndicates which have them to share them with
others instead of charging high prices for them. This is for two reasons.
Firstly, they may find themselves boycotted by others, and so they would be
denied the advantages of social cooperation. Secondly, they may be subject
to such activities themselves at a future date and so it would wise for
them to remember to "treat others as you would like them to treat you
under similar circumstances." As anarchism will never come about unless
people desire it and start to organise their own lives, it's clear that
an anarchist society would be inhabited by individuals who followed
that ethical principle.

It is doubtful that people inspired by anarchist ideas would start to
charge each other high prices, particularly since the syndicates and
community assemblies are likely to vote for a wide basis of surplus
distribution, precisely to avoid this problem and to ensure that
production will be for use rather than profit (see section I.4.9, "What
would be the advantage of a wide basis of surplus distribution?"). In
addition, as other communities and syndicates would likely boycott any
syndicate or commune that was acting in non-cooperative ways, it is
likely that social pressure would soon result in those willing to exploit
others rethinking their position. Cooperation does not imply a willingness
to tolerate with those who desire to take advantage of you.

Examples of anarchism in action show that there is frequently a
spontaneous tendency towards charging cost prices for goods, as well as
attempts to work together to reduce the dangers of isolation and
competition. One thing to remember is that anarchy will not be created
"overnight," and so potential problems will be worked out over time.
Underlying all these kinds of objections is the assumption that
cooperation will *not* be more beneficial to all involved than
competition. However, in terms of quality of life, cooperation will soon
be seen to be the better system, even by the most highly paid workers.
There is far more to life than the size of one's pay packet, and anarchism
exists in order to ensure that life is far more than the weekly grind of
boring work and the few hours of hectic consumption in which people
attempt to fill the "spiritual hole" created by a way of life which places
profits above people.

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

In this case, they are free to work alone, by their own labour. Anarchists
have no desire to force people to join a syndicate, for as Malatesta
argued, "what has to be destroyed at once. . . is *capitalistic property,*
that is, the fact that a few control the natural wealth and the instruments
of production and can thus oblige others to work for them . . . [but one
must have a] right and the possibility to live in a different regime,
collectivist, mutualist, individualist -- as one wishes, always on the
condition that there is no oppression or exploitation of others."
[_Malatesta: Life and Ideas_, p. 102]

In other words, different forms of social life will be experimented with,
depending on what people desire. Of course some people (particularly
right-wing "libertarians") ask how anarchists can reconcile individual
freedom with expropriation of capital. All we can say is that these
critics subscribe to the idea that one should not interfere with the
"individual freedom" of those in positions of authority to oppress others,
and that this premise turns the concept of individual freedom on its head,
making oppression a "right!"

However, right-wing "libertarians" do raise a valid question when they ask
if anarchism would result in self-employed people being forced into
cooperatives as the result of a popular movement. The answer is no,
because the destruction of title deeds would not harm the independent
worker, whose real title is possession and the work done. What anarchists
want to eliminate is not possessions but capitalist "property" -- namely
"the destruction of the titles of the proprietors who exploit the labour
of others and, above all, of expropriating them in fact in order to put
. . . all the means of production at the disposal of those who do the work"
[Op. Cit., p. 103].

This means that independent producers will still exist within an anarchist
society, and some workplaces -- perhaps whole areas -- will not be part of
a confederation. This is natural in a free society, for different people
have different ideas and ideals. Of course, some people may desire to
become capitalists, and they may offer to employ people and pay them wages.
However, such a situation would be unlikely. Simply put, why would anyone
desire to work for the would-be employer? Malatesta makes this point as
follows:

"It remains to be seen whether not being able to obtain assistance or
people to exploit -- and he [the would-be capitalist] would find none
because nobody, having a right to the means of production and being free
to work on his own or as an equal with others in the large organisations
of production would want to be exploited by a small employer -- . . . it
remains to be seen whether these isolated workers would not find it more
convenient to combine with others and voluntarily join one of the existing
communities" [Op. Cit., p. 102-103].

So where would the capitalist wannabe find people to work for him?

However, let us suppose there is a self-employed inventor, Ferguson, who
comes up with a new innovation without the help of the cooperative sector.
Would anarchists steal his idea? Not at all. The cooperatives, which by
hypothesis have been organized by people who believe in giving producers
the full value of their product, would pay Ferguson an equitable amount
for his idea, which would then become common across society. However, if
he refused to sell his invention and instead tried to claim a patent
monopoly on it in order to gather a group of wage slaves to exploit, no
one would agree to work for him unless they got the full control over both
the product of their labour and the labour process itself.

In addition, we would imagine they would also refuse to work for someone
unless they also got the capital they used at the end of their contract
(i.e. a system of "hire-purchase" on the means of production used). In
other words, by removing the statist supports of capitalism, would-be
capitalists would find it hard to "compete" with the cooperative sector
and would not be in a position to exploit others' labour.

With a system of communal production (in social anarchism) and mutual
banks (in individualist anarchism), "usury" -- i.e. charging a use-fee for
a monopolized item, of which patents are an instance -- would no longer be
possible and the inventor would be like any other worker, exchanging the
product of his or her labour. As Ben Tucker argued, "the patent monopoly.
. . consists in protecting inventors and authors against competition for a
period of time long enough for them to extort from the people a reward
enormously in excess of the labour measure of their services -- in other
words, in giving certain people a right of property for a term of years in
laws and facts of nature, and the power to extract tribute from others for
the use of this natural wealth, which should be open to all. The abolition
of this monopoly would fill its beneficiaries with a wholesome fear of
competition which should cause them to be satisfied with pay for their
services equal to that which other labourers get for theirs, and secure it
by placing their products and works on the market at the outset at prices
so low that their lines of business would be no more tempting to
competitors than any other lines" [_The Anarchist Reader_, p. 150-1].

In other words, with the end of capitalism and statism, a free society has
no fear of capitalist firms being created or growing again, because it
rejects the idea that everyone must be in a syndicate. Without statism to
back up various class-based monopolies of capitalist privilege, capitalism
could not become dominant. In addition, the advantages of cooperation
between syndicates would exceed whatever temporary advantages existed for
syndicates to practice commodity exchange in a mutualist market.

I.4 How could an anarchist economy function?

This is an important question facing all opponents of a given system - what
will you replace it with? We can say, of course, that it is pointless to make
blueprints of how a future anarchist society will work as the future will
be created by everyone, not just the few anarchists and libertarian socialists
who write books and FAQs. This is very true, we cannot predict what a free
society will actually be like or develop and we have no intention to do
so here. However, this reply (whatever its other merits) ignores a key point,
people need to have some idea of what anarchism aims for before they decide
to spend their lives trying to create it.

So, how would an anarchist system function? That depends on the economic
ideas people have. A mutualist economy will function differently than a
communist one, for example, but they will have similar features. As Rudolf
Rocker put it, "[c]ommon to all Anarchists is the desire to free society of
all political and social coercive institutions which stand in the way of
the development of a free humanity. In this sense, Mutualism, Collectivism,
and Communism are not to be regarded as closed systems permitting no further
development, but merely assumptions as to the means of safeguarding a free
community. There will even probably be in the society of the future different
forms of economic cooperation existing side-by-side, since any social
progress must be associated with that free experimentation and practical
testing-out for which in a society of free communities there will be
afforded every opportunity" [_Anarcho-Syndicalism_, p.16]

So, given the common aims of anarchists, its unsurprising that the economic
systems they suggest will have common features. For all anarchists, a
"voluntary association that will organise labour, and be the manufacturer and
distributor of necessary commodities... *is to make what is useful. The
individual is to make what is beautiful.*" [Oscar Wilde, _The Soul of Man
Under Socialism_, page 25] Or, to bring this ideal up to day, as Chomsky
put it, "[t]he task for a modern industrial society is to achieve what is
now technically realizable, namely, a society which is really based on free
voluntary participation of people who produce and create, live their lives
freely within institutions they control, and with limited hierarchical
structures, possibly none at all."

In other words, anarchists desire to organise voluntary workers associations
which will try to ensure a minimisation of mindless labour in order to maximise
the time available for creative activity both inside and outside "work." This
is to be achieved by free cooperation between equals, for while competition may
be the "law" of the jungle, cooperation is the law of civilisation.

This cooperation is *not* based on "altruism," but self-interest. As Proudhon
argued, "[m]utuality, reciprocity exists when all the workers in an industry
instead of working for an entrepreneur who pays them and keeps their products,
work for one another and thus collaborate in the making of a common product
whose profits they share amongst themselves. Extend the principle of reciprocity
as uniting the work of every group, to the Workers' Societies as units, and
you have created a form of civilisation which from all points of view -
political, economic and aesthetic - is radically different from all earlier
civilisations." [quoted by Martin Buber, _Paths in Utopia_, page 29-30]
In other words, solidarity and cooperation allows us time to enjoy life
and to gain the benefits of our labour ourselves - Mutual Aid results in a
better life than mutual struggle and so "the *association for struggle* will
be a much more effective support for civilisation, progress, and evolution
than is the *struggle for existence* with its savage daily competitions"
[Luigi Geallani, _The End of Anarchism_, p. 26]

Combined with this desire for free cooperation is a desire to end centralised
systems. The opposition to centralisation is often framed in a distinctly
false manner. This can be seen when Alex Nove, a leading market socialist,
argues that "there are horizontal links (market), there are vertical links
(hierarchy). What other dimension is there? [Alex Nove, _The Economics of
Feasible Socialism_, p. 226] In other words, Nove states that to oppose
central planning means to embrace the market. This, however, is not true.
Horizontal links need not be market based any more than vertical links need
be hierarchical. But the core point in his argument is very true, an
anarchist society must be based essentially on horizontal links between
individuals and associations, freely cooperating together as they (not a
central body) sees fit. This cooperation will be source of any "vertical"
links in an anarchist economy. When a group of individuals or associations
meet together and discuss common interests and make common decisions they
will be bound by their own decisions. This is radically different from a
a central body giving out orders because those affected will determine
the content of these decisions. In other words, instead of decisions being
handed down from the top, they will be created from the bottom up.

So, while refusing to define exactly how an anarchist system will work, we
will explore the implications of how the anarchist principles and ideals
outlined above could be put into practice. Bear in mind that this is just
a possible framework for a system which has few historical examples to draw
upon as evidence. This means that we can only indicate the general outlines
of what an anarchist society could be like. Those seeking "recipes" and
exactness should look elsewhere. In all likelihood, the framework we present
will be modified and changed (even ignored) in light of the real experiences
and problems people will face when creating a new society. Lastly we should
point out that there may be a tendency for some to compare this framework with
the *theory* of capitalism (i.e. perfectly functioning "free" markets or
quasi-perfect ones) as opposed to its reality. A perfectly working capitalist
system only exists in text books and in the heads of ideologues who take the
theory as reality. No system is perfect, particularly capitalism, and to
compare "perfect" capitalism with any system is a pointless task.

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

The basic point of economic activity is an anarchist society is to ensure
that we produce what we desire to consume and that our consumption is
under our own control and not vice versa. The second point may seem strange;
how can consumption control us -- we consume what we desire and no one
forces us to do so! It may come as a surprise that the idea that we consume
only what we desire is not quite true under a capitalist economy. Capitalism,
in order to survive, *must* expand, *must* create more and more profits.
This leads to irrational side effects, for example, the advertising industry.
While it goes without saying that producers need to let consumers know what
is available for consumption, capitalism ensures advertising goes beyond this
by creating needs that did not exist.

Therefore, the point of economic activity in an anarchist society is to
produce as and when required and not, as under capitalism, to organise
production for the sake of production. For anarchists, "Real wealth
consists of things of utility and beauty, in things that help create strong,
beautiful bodies and surroundings inspiring to live in." [Emma Goldman,
_Red Emma Speaks_, p. 53]

This means that, in an anarchist society, economic activity is the process by
which we produce what is both useful *and* beautiful in a way that empowers
the individual. As Oscar Wilde put it, individuals will produce what is
beautiful, based upon the "study of the needs of mankind, and the means of
satisfying them with the least possible waste of human energy" [Peter
Kropotkin, _The Conquest of Bread_, p. 175] This means that anarchist
economic ideas are the same as what Political Economy should be, not what
it actually is, namely the "essential basis of all Political Economy,
the study of the most favourable conditions for giving society the greatest
amount of useful products with the least waste of human energy" (and, we must
add today, the least disruption of nature). [_The Conquest of Bread_, p. 144]
The anarchists charge capitalism with wasting human energy and time due to
its irrational nature and workings, energy that could be spent creating what
is beautiful (both in terms of individualities and products of labour).

Under capitalism, instead of humans controlling production, production controls
them. Anarchists want to change this and desire to create an economic network
which will allow the maximisation of an individual's free time in order for
them to express and develop their individuality (or to "create what is
beautiful"). So instead of aiming just to produce because the economy will
collapse if we did not, anarchists want to ensure that we produce what is
useful in a manner which liberates the individual and empowers them in all
aspects of their lives. They share this desire with the classical Liberals
and agree totally with Humbolt's statement that "the end of man . . . is
the highest and most harmonious development of his powers to a complete
and consistent whole." [cited by J.S. Mill in _On Liberty_, chapter III]

This desire means that anarchists reject the capitalist definition of
"efficiency." Anarchists would agree with Albert and Hahnel when they
argue that "since people are conscious agents whose characteristics and
therefore preferences develop over time, to access long-term efficiency we
must access the impact of economic institutions on people's development."
[_The Political Economy of Participatory Economics_, p.9] Capitalism, as
we have explained before, is highly inefficient in this light due to the
effects of hierarchy and the resulting marginalisation and disempowerment
of the majority of society. As Albert and Hehnel go on to note,
"self-management, solidarity, and variety are all legitimate valuative
criteria for judging economic institutions . . . Asking whether particular
institutions help people attain self-management, variety, and solidarity
is sensible" [Op. Cit., p.9]

In other words, anarchists think that any economic activity in a free society
is to do useful things in such a way that gives those doing it as much pleasure
as possible. The point of such activity is to express the individuality of
those doing it, and for that to happen they must control the work process
itself. Only by self-management can work become a means of empowering the
individual and developing his or her powers.

In a nutshell, useful work will replace useless toil in an anarchist society.

I.4.2 Why do anarchists desire to abolish work?

Anarchists desire to see humanity liberate itself from "work." This may
come as a shock for many people and will do much to "prove" that anarchism
is essentially utopian. However, we think that such an abolition is not
only necessary, it is possible. This is because "work" is one of the major
dangers to freedom we face.

If by freedom we mean self-government, then it is clear that being subjected
to hierarchy in the workplace subverts our abilities to think and judge
for ourselves. Like any skill, critical analysis and independent thought
have to be practiced continually in order to remain at their full potential.
However, as well as hierarchy, the workplace environment created by these
power structures also helps to undermine these abilities. This was
recognised by Adam Smith:

"The understandings of the greater part of men are necessarily formed by
their ordinary employments." That being so, "the man whose life is spent
in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects too are, perhaps,
always the same, or nearly the same, has no occasion to extend his
understanding... and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is
possible for a human creature to be... But in every improved and civilised
society this is the state into which the labouring poor, that is the great
body of the people, must necessarily fall, unless government takes pains
to prevent it" [Adam Smith, quoted by Noam Chomsky, _Year 501_, p. 18]

Smith's argument (usually ignored by those who claim to follow his ideas)
is backed up by extensive evidence. The different types of authority
structures and different technologies have different effects on those who
work within them. Carole Pateman (in _Participation and Democratic Theory_)
notes that the evidence suggests that "[o]nly certain work situations were
found to be conducive to the development of the psychological characteristics
[suitable for freedom, such as] . . . the feelings of personal confidence
and efficacy that underlay the sense of political efficacy." [p. 51] Within
capitalist companies based upon highly rationalised work environment,
extensive division of labour and "no control over the pace or technique
of his [or her] work, no room to exercise skill or leadership" [Op. Cit.,
p.51] workers, according to a psychological study, is "resigned to his lot
. . . more dependent than independent . . .he lacks confidence in himself
. . .he is humble . . .the most prevalent feeling states . . .seem to be
fear and anxiety." [p. 52]

However, in workplaces where "the worker has a high degree of personal
control over his work . . . and a very large degree of freedom from
external control . . .[or has] collective responsibility of a crew of
employees . . .[who] had control over the pace and method of getting
the work done, and the work crews were largely internally self-disciplining"
[p. 52] a different social character is seen. This was characterised by
"a strong sense of individualism and autonomy, and a solid acceptance
of citizenship in the large society . . .[and] a highly developed feeling
of self-esteem and a sense of self-worth and is therefore ready to
participate in the social and political institutions of the community."
[p. 52]

She notes that R. Blauner (in _Alienation and Freedom_) states that the
"nature of a man's work affects his social character and personality" and
that an "industrial environment tends to breed a distinct social type."
[cited by Pateman, p. 52] As Bob Black argues:

"You are what you do. If you do boring, stupid, monotonous work, chances
are you'll end up boring, stupid, and monotonous. Work is a much better
explanation for the creeping cretinization all around us than even such
significant moronizing mechanisms as television and education. People who
are regimented all their lives, handed to work from school and bracketed by
the family in the beginning and the nursing home in the end, are habituated
to hierarchy and psychologically enslaved. Their aptitude for autonomy is so
atrophied that their fear of freedom is among their few rationally grounded
phobias. Their obedience training at work carries over into the families
they start, thus reproducing the system in more ways than one, and into
politics, culture and everything else. Once you drain the vitality from
people at work, they'll likely submit to hierarchy and expertise in
everything. They're used to it." [_The Abolition of Work_]

For this reason anarchists desire, to use Bob Black's phrase, "the
abolition of work." "Work," in this context, does not mean any form of
productive activity. Far from it. "Work" (in the sense of doing necessary
things) will always be with us. There is no getting away from it; crops
need to be grown, schools built, houses fixed, and so on. No, "work" in this
context means any form of labour in which the worker does not control his or
her own activity. In other words, *wage labour* in all its many forms.

A society based upon wage labour (i.e. a capitalist society) will result in
a society within which the typical worker uses few of their abilities,
exercise little or no control over their work because they are governed by a
boss during working hours. This has been proved to lower the individual's
self-esteem and feelings of self-worth, as would be expected in any social
relationship that denied self-government to workers. Capitalism is marked
by an extreme division of labour, particularly between mental labour and
physical labour. It reduces the worker to a mere machine operator, following
the orders of his or her boss. Therefore, a libertarian that does not
support economic liberty (i.e. self-management) is no libertarian at all.

Capitalism bases its rationale for itself on consumption. However, this
results in a viewpoint which minimises the importance of the time we
spend in productive activity. Anarchists consider that it is essential
for individual's to use and develop their unique attributes and capacities
in all walks of life, to maximise their powers. Therefore, the idea that
"work" should be ignored in favour of consumption is totally mad. Productive
activity is an important way of developing our inner-powers and express
ourselves; in other words, be creative. Capitalism's emphasis on consumption
shows the poverty of that system. As Alexander Berkman argues:

"We do not live by bread alone. True, existence is not possible without
opportunity to satisfy our physical needs. But the gratification of these
by no means constitutes all of life. Our present system of disinheriting
millions, made the belly the centre of the universe, so to speak. But in
a sensible society . . . [t]he feelings of human sympathy, of justice and
right would have a chance to develop, to be satisfied, to broaden and grow."
[_ABC of Anarchism_, p. 15]

Therefore, capitalism is based on a constant process of alienated
consumption, as workers try to find the happiness associated within
productive, creative, self-managed activity in a place it does not exist -
on the shop shelves. This can partly explain the rise of both mindless
consumerism and of religions, as individuals try to find meaning for
their lives and happiness, a meaning and happiness frustrated in wage
labour and hierarchy.

Capitalism's impoverishment of the individual's spirit is hardly surprising.
As William Godwin argued, "[t]he spirit of oppression, the spirit of
servility, and the spirit of fraud, these are the immediate growth of
the established administration of property. They are alike hostile to
intellectual and moral improvement." [_The Anarchist Reader_, p. 131] In
other words, any system based in wage labour or hierarchical relationships in
the workplace will result in a deadening of the individual and the creation
of a "servile" character. This crushing of individuality springs *directly*
from what Godwin called "the third degree of property" namely "a system. . .
by which one man enters into the faculty of disposing of the produce of
another man's industry" in other words, capitalism. [Op. Cit., p. 129]

Anarchists desire to change this and create a society based upon freedom in
all aspects of life. Hence anarchists desire to abolish work, simply because
it restricts the liberty and distorts the individuality of those who have to
do it. To quote Emma Goldman:

"Anarchism aims to strip labor of its deadening, dulling aspect, of its gloom
and compulsion. It aims to make work an instrument of joy, of strength, of
color, of real harmony, so that the poorest sort of a man should find in
work both recreation and hope."

Anarchists do not think that by getting rid of work we will not have to
produce necessary goods and so on. Far from it, an anarchist society "doesn't
mean we have to stop doing things. It does mean creating a new way of life
based on play; in other words, a ludic revolution . . .a collective adventure
in generalized joy and freely interdependent exuberance. Play isn't passive."
[Bob Black, Op. Cit.]

This means that in an anarchist society every effort would be made to reduce
boring, unpleasant activity to a minimum and ensure that whatever productive
activity is required to be done is as pleasant as possible and based upon
voluntary labour. However, it is important to remember Cornelius Castoriadis
point that a "Socialist society will be able to reduce the length of the
working day, and will have to do so, but this will not be the fundamental
preoccupation. Its first task will be to . . .transform the very nature of
work. The problem is not to leave more and more 'free' time to individuals -
which might well be empty time - so that they may fill it at will with
'poetry' or the carving of wood. The problem is to make all time a time
of liberty and to allow concrete freedom to find expression in creative
activity." [_Workers' Councils and the Economics of a Self-Managed Society_,
p. 14] Essentially, "the problem is to put poetry into work." [Op. Cit.,
p. 15]

This is why anarchists desire to abolish "work" (i.e. wage labour), to ensure
that whatever work (i.e. economic activity) is required to be done is
under the direct control of those who do it. In this way it can be liberated
and so become a means of self-realization and not a form of self-negation.
In other words, anarchists want to abolish work because "Life, the art of
living, has become a dull formula, flat and inert." [A. Berkman, Op. Cit.,
p. 27] Anarchists want to bring the spontaneity and joy of life back into
productive activity and save humanity from the dead hand of capital.

All this does not imply that anarchists think that individuals will not
seek to "specialise" in one form of productive activity rather than another.
Far from it, people in a free society will pick activities which interest
them as the main focal point of their means of self-expression. This
"division of work" is common in humanity and can be seen under capitalism -
most children and teenagers pick a specific line of work because they are
interested, or at least desire to do a specific kind of work. This natural
desire to do what interests you and what you are good at will encouraged
in an anarchist society. The difference is that individuals will manage
all aspects of the "work" required (for example, engineers will also take
part in self-managing their workplaces) and the strict division of labour
of capitalism will be abolished (see section I.4.3). In other words,
anarchists want to replace the division of labour by the division of work.

I.4.3 How do anarchists intend to abolish work?

Basically by workers' self-management of production and community control
of the means of production. It is hardly in the interests of those who do
the actual "work" to have bad working conditions, boring, repetitive labour,
and so on. Therefore, a key aspect of the liberation from work is to
create a self-managed society, "a society in which everyone has equal means
to develop and that all are or can be at the time intellectual and manual
workers, and the only differences remaining between men [and women] are those
which stem from the natural diversity of aptitudes, and that all jobs, all
functions, give an equal right to the enjoyment of social possibilities."
[Errico Malatesta, _Anarchy_, p. 40]

Essential to this task is decentralisation and the use of appropriate
technology. Decentralisation is important to ensure that those who do
work can determine how to liberate it. A decentralised system will ensure
that ordinary people can identify areas for technological innovation, and so
understand the need to get rid of certain kinds of work. Unless ordinary
people understand and control the introduction of technology, then they
will never be fully aware of the benefits of technology and resist
advances which may be in their best interests to introduce. This is the
full meaning of appropriate technology, namely the use of technology which
those most affected feel to be best in a given situation. Such technology
may or may not be technologically "advanced" but it will be of the kind
which ordinary people can understand and, most importantly, control.

The potential for rational use of technology can be seen from capitalism.
Under capitalism, technology is used to increase profits, to expand the
economy, not to liberate *all* individuals from useless toil (it does,
of course, liberate a few from such "activity"). As Ted Trainer argues:

"Two figures drive the point home. In the long term, productivity (i.e.
output per hour of work) increases at about 2 percent per annum, meaning
that each 35 years we could cut the work week by half while producing as
much as we were at the beginning. A number of OECD. . . countries could
actually have cut from a five-day work week to around a one-day work
week in the last 25 years while maintaining their output at the same
level. In this economy we must therefore double the annual amount we
consume per person every 35 years just to prevent unemployment from
rising and to avoid reduction in outlets available to OASK up investable
capital.

"Second, according to the US Bureau for Mines, the amount of capital per
person available for investment in the United States will increase at 3.6
percent per annum (i.e. will double in 20-year intervals). This indicates
that unless Americans double the volume of goods and services they consume
every 20 years, their economy will be in serious difficulties"

"Hence the ceaseless and increasing pressure to find more business
opportunities" ["What is Development", p 57-90, _Society and Nature_,
Issue No. 7, p.49]

And, remember, these figures include production in many areas of the
economy that would not exist in a free society - state and capitalist
bureaucracy, weapons production, and so on. In addition, it does not
take into account the labour of those who do not actually produce
anything useful and so the level of production for useful goods would
be higher than Trainer indicates. In addition, goods will be built to last
and so much production will become sensible and not governed by an
insane desire to maximise profits at the expense of everything else.

The decentralisation of power will ensure that self-management becomes
universal. This will see the end of division of labour as mental and
physical work becomes unified and those who do the work also manage it.
This will allow "the free exercise of *all* the faculties of man" [Peter
Kropotkin, _The Conquest of Bread_, p. 148] both inside and outside "work."

Work will become, primarily, the expression of a person's pleasure in
what they are doing and become like an art - an expression of their
creativity and individuality. Work as an art will become expressed in
the workplace as well as the work process, with workplaces transformed
and integrated into the local community and environment (see section
I.4.14 - What will the workplace of tomorrow be like?). This will
obviously apply to work conducted in the home as well, otherwise the "half
of humanity subjected to the slavery of the hearth would still have to
rebel against the other half." [Peter Kropotkin, _The Conquest of Bread_]

In other words, anarchists desire "to combine the best part (in fact, the
only good part) of work -- the production of use-values -- with the best
of play. . . its freedom and its fun, its voluntariness and its
intrinsic gratification" - the transformation of what economists call
production into productive play. [Bob Black, _Smokestack Lightning_]

In addition, a decentralised system will build up a sense of community and
trust between individuals and ensure the creation of an ethical economy, one
based on interactions between individuals and not commodities caught in the
flux of market forces. This ideal of a "moral economy" can be seen in both
social anarchists desire for the end of the market system and the
individualists insistence that "cost be the limit of price." Anarchists
recognise that the "traditional local market. . .is essentially different
from the market as it developed in modern capitalism. Bartering on a local
market offered an opportunity to meet for the purpose of exchanging
commodities. Producers and customers became acquainted; they were relatively
small groups. . .The modern market is no longer a meeting place but a
mechanism characterized by abstract and impersonal demand. One produces
for this market, not for a known circle of customers; its verdict is based
on laws of supply and demand." [_Man for Himself_, pp. 67-68]

Anarchists reject the capitalist notion that economic activity should be based
on maximising profit as the be all and end all of such work (buying and
selling on the "impersonal market"). As markets only work through people,
individuals, who buy and sell (but, in the end, control them - in "free
markets" only the market is free) this means that for the market to be
"impersonal" as it is in capitalism it implies that those involved have to
be unconcerned about personalities, including their own. Profit, not ethics,
is what counts. The "impersonal" market suggests individuals who act
in an impersonal, and so unethical, manner. The morality of what they
produce is irrelevant, as long as profits are produced.

Instead, anarchists consider economic activity as an expression of the
human spirit, an expression of the innate human need to express ourselves
and to create. Capitalism distorts these needs and makes economic activity
a deadening experience by the division of labour and hierarchy. Anarchists
think that "industry is not an end in itself, but should only be
a means to ensure to man his material subsistence and to make accessible to
him the blessings of a higher intellectual culture. Where industry is
everything and man is nothing begins the realm of a ruthless economic
despotism whose workings are no less disastrous than those of any political
despotism. The two mutually augment one another, and they are fed from the
same source." [Rudolph Rocker, _Anarcho-Syndicalism_].

Anarchists think that a decentralised social system will allow "work" to
be abolished and economic activity humanised and made a means to an end
(namely producing useful things and liberated individuals). This would
be achieved by, as Rudolf Rocker puts it, the "alliance of free groups of
men and women based on co-operative labor and a planned administration of
things in the interest of the community." [Ibid.]

However, as things are produced by people, it could be suggested that a
"planned administration of things" implies a "planned administration of
people" (although few who suggest this danger apply it to capitalist firms
which are like mini-centrally planned states). This objection is false simply
because anarchism aims "to reconstruct the economic life of the peoples
from the ground up and build it up in the spirit of Socialism." [Ibid.]

In other words, those who produce also administer and so govern themselves
in free association (and it should be pointed out that any group of
individuals in association will make "plans" and "plan," the important
question is who does the planning and who does the work. Only in anarchy
are both functions united into the same people). Rocker emphasizes this
point when he writes that

"Anarcho-syndicalists are convinced that a Socialist economic
order cannot be created by the decrees and statutes of a
government, but only by the solidaric collaboration of the
workers with hand and brain in each special branch of production;
that is, through the taking over of the management of all plants
by the producers themselves under such form that the separate
groups, plants, and branches of industry are independent members
of the general economic organism and systematically carry on
production and the distribution of the products in the interest
of the community on the basis of free mutual agreements."
[Op. Cit. p. 94]

In other words, the "planned administration of things" would be done
by the producers *themselves,* in independent groupings. This would likely
take the form (as we indicated in section I.3) of confederations of
syndicates who communicate information between themselves and respond to
changes in the production and distribution of products by increasing or
decreasing the required means of production in a cooperative (i.e. "planned")
fashion. No "central planning" or "central planners" governing the economy,
just workers cooperating together as equals.

Therefore, an anarchist society would abolish work by ensuring that
those who do the work actually control it. They would do so in a network
of self-managed associations, a society "composed of a number of societies
banded together for everything that demands a common effort: federations
of producers for all kinds of production, of societies for consumption . . .
All these groups will unite their efforts through mutual agreement . . .
Personal initiative will be encouraged and every tendency to uniformity
and centralisation combated" [Peter Kropotkin, quoted by Buber in _Paths
in Utopia_]

In response to consumption patterns, syndicates will have to expand or
reduce production and will have to attract volunteers to go the necessary
work. The very basis of free association will ensure the abolition of work,
as individuals will apply for "work" they enjoy doing and so would be
interested in reducing "work" they did not want to do to a minimum. Such
a decentralisation of power would unleash a wealth of innovation and ensure
that unpleasant work be minimalised and fairly shared (see section I.4.13).

Now, any form of association requires agreement. Therefore, even a society
based on the communist-anarchist maxim "from each according to their
ability, to each according to their need" will need to make agreements
in order to ensure cooperative ventures succeed. In other words, members of
a cooperative commonwealth would have to make and keep to their agreements
between themselves. This means that syndicates would agree joint starting and
finishing times, require notice if individuals want to change "jobs" and
so on within and between syndicates. Any joint effort requires some degree
of cooperation and agreement. Therefore, between syndicates, an agreement
would be reached (in all likelihood) that determined the minimum working
hours required by all members of society able to work. How that minimum
was actually organised would vary between workplace and commune, with
worktimes, flexi-time, job rotation and so on determined by each syndicate
(for example, one syndicate may work 8 hours a day, another 4, one may
use flexi-time, another more rigid starting and stopping times).

As Kropotkin argued, an anarchist-communist society would be based upon the
following kind of "contract" between its members:

"We undertake to give you the use of our houses, stores, streets,
means of transport, schools, museums, etc., on condition that, from twenty
to forty-five or fifty years of age, you consecrate four or five hours a
day to some work recognised as necessary to existence. Choose yourself the
producing group which you wish to join, or organize a new group, provided
that it will undertake to produce necessaries. And as for the remainder of
your time, combine together with whomsoever you like, for recreation, art,
or science, according to the bent of your taste . . . Twelve or fifteen
hundred hours of work a year . . . is all we ask of you." [_The Conquest of
Bread_, p. 153-4]

With such work "necessary to existence" being recognised by individuals
and expressed by demand for labour from productive syndicates. It is, of
course, up to the individual to decide which work he or she desires to
perform from the positions available in the various associations in
existence. A union card would be the means by which work hours would be
recorded and access to the common wealth of society ensured. And, of course,
individuals and groups are free to work alone and exchange the produce of
their labour with others, including the confederated syndicates, if they so
desired. An anarchist society will be as flexible as possible.

Therefore, we can imagine a social anarchist society being based on two basic
arrangements -- firstly, an agreed minimum working week of, say, 20 hours,
in a syndicate of your choice, plus any amount of hours doing "work" which
you feel like doing - for example, art, experimentation, DIY, composing,
gardening and so on. The aim of technological progress would be to reduce
the basic working week more and more until the very concept of necessary
"work" and free time enjoyments is abolished. In addition, in work considered
dangerous or unwanted, then volunteers could trade doing a few hours of
such activity for more free time (see section I.4.13 for more on this).

It can be said that this sort of agreement is a restriction of liberty
because it is "man-made" (as opposed to the "natural law" of "supply
and demand"). This is a common defense of the free market by individualist
anarchists against anarcho-communism, for example. However, while in theory
individualist-anarchists can claim that in their vision of society, they
don't care when, where, or how a person earns a living, as long as they are
not invasive about it the fact is that any economy is based on interactions
between individuals. The law of "supply and demand" easily, and often, makes
a mockery of the ideas that individuals can work as long as they like -
usually they end up working as long as required by market forces (ie the
actions of other individuals, but turned into a force outwith their control,
see section I.1.3). This means that individuals do not work as long as
they like, but as long as they have to in order to survive. Knowing that
"market forces" is the cause of long hours of work hardly makes them any
nicer.

And it seems strange to the communist-anarchist that certain free agreements
made between equals can be considered authoritarian while others are not.
The individualist-anarchist argument that social cooperation to reduce
labour is "authoritarian" while agreements between individuals on the
market are not seems illogical to social anarchists. They cannot see
how it is better for individuals to be pressured into working longer than
they desire by "invisible hands" than to come to an arrangement with others
to manage their own affairs to maximise their free time.

Therefore, free agreement between free and equal individuals is considered
the key to abolishing work, based upon decentralisation of power and
the use of appropriate technology.

I.4.4 What economic decision making criteria could be used in anarchy?

Firstly, it should be noted that anarchists do not have any set idea
about the answer to this question. Most anarchists are communists, desiring
to see the end of the wages system, but that does not mean they want to
impose communism onto people. Far from it, communism can only be truly
libertarian if it is organised from the bottom up. So, anarchists would
agree with Kropotkin that it is a case of not "determining in advance
what form of distribution the producers should accept in their different
groups - whether the communist solution, or labor checks, or equal salaries,
or any other method" [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_, p. 166]
while considering a given solution best in their opinion. Free experiment
is a key aspect of anarchism.

However, we will outline some possible means of economic decision making
criteria as this question is an important one (it is the crux of the
"libertarian socialism is impossible" argument, for example). Therefore,
we will indicate what possible solutions exist in different forms of
anarchism.

In a mutualist or collectivist system, the answer is easy. Prices will exist
and be used as a means of making decisions. Mutualism will be more market
orientated than collectivism, with collectivism being based on confederations
of collectives to respond to changes in demand (i.e. to determine investment
decisions and ensure that supply is kept in line with demand). Mutualism,
with its system of market based distribution around a network of cooperatives
and mutual banks, does not really need a further discussion as its basic
operations are the same as in any non-capitalist market system. Collectivism
and communism will have to be discussed in more detail. However, all systems
are based on workers' self-management and so the individuals directly affected
make the decisions concerning what to produce, when to do it, and how to do
it. In this way workers retain control of the product of their labour. It
is the social context of these decisions and what criteria workers use to
make their decisions that differ between anarchist schools of thought.

Although collectivism promotes the greatest autonomy for worker associations,
it should not be confused with a market economy as advocated by supporters
of mutualism (particularly in its Individualist form). The goods produced
by the collectivized factories and workshops are exchanged not according to
highest price that can be wrung from consumers, but according to their actual
production costs. The determination of these honest prices is to be by a "Bank
of Exchange" in each community (obviously an idea borrowed from Proudhon).
These "Banks" would represent the various producer confederations and
consumer/citizen groups in the community and would seek to negotiate these
"honest" prices (which would, in all likelihood, include "hidden" costs
like pollution). These agreements would be subject to ratification by
the assemblies of those involved.

As Guillaume puts it "...the value of the commodities having been established
in advance by a contractual agreement between the regional cooperative
federations [i.e. confederations of syndicates] and the various communes,
who will also furnish statistics to the Banks of Exchange. The Bank of Exchange
will remit to the producers negotiable vouchers representing the value of their
products; these vouchers will be accepted throughout the territory included
in the federation of communes." [_Bakunin on Anarchism_, p. 366] These
vouchers would be related to hours worked, for example, and when used as a
guide for investment decisions could be supplemented with cost-benefit
analysis of the kind possibly used in a communist-anarchist society (see
below).

Although this scheme bears a strong resemblance to Proudhonian "People's
Banks," it should be noted that the Banks of Exchange, along with a "Communal
Statistical Commission," are intended to have a "planning" function as well
to ensure that supply meets demand. This does not imply a "command" economy,
but simple book keeping for "each Bank of Exchange makes sure in advance that
these products are in demand [in order to risk] nothing by immediately issuing
payment vouchers to the producers." [Op. Cit., p. 367] The workers syndicates
would still determine what orders to produce and each commune would be free
to choose its suppliers.

As will be discussed in more depth later (see section I.4.7) information
about consumption patterns will be recorded and used by workers to inform
their production and investment decisions. In addition, we can imagine that
production syndicates would encourage communes as well as consumer groups and
cooperatives to participate in making these decisions. This would ensure
that produced goods reflect consumer needs. Moreover, as conditions permit,
the exchange functions of the communal "banks" would (in all likelihood) be
gradually replaced by the distribution of goods "in accordance with the needs
of the consumers." In other words, most supporters of collectivist anarchism
see it as a temporary measure before anarcho-communism could develop.

Communist anarchism would be similar to collectivism, i.e. a system of
confederations of collectives, communes and distribution centers ("Communal
stores"). However, in an anarcho-communist system, prices are not used. How
will economic decision making be done? One possible solution is as follows:

"As to decisions involving choices of a general nature, such as what forms
of energy to use, which of two or more materials to employ to produce a
particular good, whether to build a new factory, there is a ... technique...
that could be [used]... 'cost-benefit analysis'... in socialism a points
scheme for attributing relative importance to the various relevant
considerations could be used... The points attributed to these considerations
would be subjective, in the sense that this would depend on a deliberate
social decision rather than some objective standard, but this is the case
even under capitalism when a monetary value has to be attributed to some
such 'cost' or 'benefit'... In the sense that one of the aims of socialism
is precisely to rescue humankind from the capitalist fixation with
production time/money, cost-benefit analyses, as a means of taking into
account other factors, could therefore be said to be more appropriate for
use in socialism than under capitalism. Using points systems to attribute
relative importance in this way would not be to recreate some universal
unit of evaluation and calculation, but simply to employ a technique to
facilitate decision-making in particular concrete cases." [Adam Buick and
John Crump, _State Capitalism: The Wages System Under New Management_,
pp. 138-139]

This points system would be the means by which producers and consumers
would be able to determine whether the use of a particular good is
efficient or not. Unlike prices, this cost-benefit analysis system would
ensure that production and consumption reflects social and ecological costs,
awareness and priorities. Of course, as well as absolute scarcity, prices
also reflect relative scarcity (while in the long term, market prices
tend towards their production price, in the short term prices can change
as a result of changes in supply and demand under capitalism). How a communist
society could take into account such short term changes and communicate them
through out the economy is discussed in section I.4.5 (What about "supply and
demand"?). Needless to say, production and investment decisions based upon
such cost-benefit analysis would take into account the current production
situation and so the relative scarcity of specific goods.

Therefore, a communist-anarchist society would be based around a network
of syndicates who communicate information between each other. Instead of
the "price" being communicated between workplaces as in capitalism, actual
physical data will be sent. This data is a summary of the use values
of the good (for example labour time and energy used to produce it,
pollution details, relative scarcity and so forth). With this information a
cost-benefit analysis will be conducted to determine which good will be best
to use in a given situation based upon mutually agreed common values. The
data for a given workplace could be compared to the industry as a whole (as
confederations of syndicates would gather and produce such information - see
section I.3.5) in order to determine whether a specific workplace will
efficiently produce the required goods (this system has the additional
advantage of indicating which workplaces require investment to bring them
in line, or improve upon, the industrial average in terms of working
conditions, hours worked and so on). In addition, common rules of thumb
would possibly be agreed, such as agreements not to use scarce materials
unless there is no alternative (either ones that use a lot of labour,
energy and time to produce or those whose demand is currently exceeding
supply capacity).

Similarly, when ordering goods, the syndicate, commune or individual involved
will have to inform the syndicate why it is required in order to allow the
syndicate to determine if they desire to produce the good and to enable them
to prioritise the orders they receive. In this way, resource use can be guided
by social considerations and "unreasonable" requests ignored (for example, if
an individual "needs" a ship-builders syndicate to build a ship for his
personal use, the ship-builders may not "need" to build it and instead builds
ships for the transportation of freight). However, in almost all cases of
individual consumption, no such information will be needed as communal stores
would order consumer goods in bulk as they do now. Hence the economy would be
a vast network of cooperating individuals and workplaces and the dispersed
knowledge which exists within any society can be put to good effect (*better*
effect than under capitalism because it does not hide social and ecological
costs in the way market prices do and cooperation will eliminate the business
cycle and its resulting social problems).

Therefore, production units in a social anarchist society, by virtue of
their autonomy within association, are aware of what is socially useful
for them to produce and, by virtue of their links with communes, also
aware of the social (human and ecological) cost of the resources they
need to produce it. They can combine this knowledge, reflecting overall
social priorities, with their local knowledge of the detailed circumstances
of their workplaces and communities to decide how they can best use their
productive capacity. In this way the division of knowledge within society
can be used by the syndicates effectively as well as overcoming the
restrictions within knowledge communication imposed by the price mechanism.

Moreover, production units, by their association within confederations
(or Guilds) ensure that there is effective communication between them. This
results in a process of negotiated coordination between equals (i.e horizontal
links and agreements) for major investment decisions, thus bringing together
supply and demand and allowing the plans of the various units to be
coordinated. By this process of co-operation, production units can reduce
duplicating effort and so reduce the waste associated with over-investment
(and so the irrationalities of booms and slumps associated with the price
mechanism, which does not provide sufficient information to allow
workplaces to efficiently coordinate their plans - see section C.7.1).

One final point on this subject. As social anarchists consider it important
to encourage all to participate in the decisions that affect their lives,
it would be the role of communal confederations to determine the relative
points value of given inputs and outputs. In this way, *all* individuals in a
community determine how their society develops, so ensuring that economic
activity is responsible to social needs and takes into account the desires of
everyone affected by production. In this way the problems associated with
the "Isolation Paradox" (see section B.6) can be over come and so consumption
and production can be harmonised with the needs of individuals as members
of society and the environment they live in.

I.4.5 What about "supply and demand"?

Anarchists do not ignore the facts of life, namely that at a given moment
there is so much a certain good produced and so much of is desired to be
consumed or used. Neither do we deny that different individuals have different
interests and tastes. However, this is not what is usually meant by "supply
and demand." In often in general economic debate, this formula is given a
certain mythical quality which ignores the underlying realities which it
reflects as well as some unwholesome implications of the theory. So, before
discussing "supply and demand" in an anarchist society, it is worthwhile to
make a few points about the "law of supply and demand" in general.

Firstly, as E.P. Thompson argues, "supply and demand" promotes "the notion
that high prices were a (painful) remedy for dearth, in drawing supplies to
the afflicted region of scarcity. But what draws supply are not high prices
but sufficient money in their purses to pay high prices. A characteristic
phenomenon in times of dearth is that it generates unemployment and empty
pursues; in purchasing necessities at inflated prices people cease to be
able to buy inessentials [causing unemployment] . . . Hence the number of
those able to pay the inflated prices declines in the afflicted regions,
and food may be exported to neighbouring, less afflicted, regions where
employment is holding up and consumers still have money with which to pay.
In this sequence, high prices can actually withdraw supply from the most
afflicted area." [_Customs in Common_, pp. 283-4]

Therefore "the law of supply and demand" may not be the "most efficient"
means of distribution in a society based on inequality. This is clearly
reflected in the "rationing" by purse which this system is based on. While
in the economics books, price is the means by which scare resources are
"rationed" in reality this creates many errors. Adam Smith argued that
high prices discourage consumption, putting "everybody more or less, but
particularly the inferior ranks of people, upon thrift and good management."
[cited by Thompson, Op. Cit., p. 284] However, as Thompson notes, "[h]owever
persuasive the metaphor, there is an elision of the real relationships
assigned by price, which suggests. . .ideological sleight-of-mind. Rationing
by price does not allocate resources equally among those in need; it
reserves the supply to those who can pay the price and excludes those
who can't. . .The raising of prices during dearth could 'ration' them
[the poor] out of the market altogether." [Op. Cit., p. 285]

In other words, the market cannot be isolated and abstracted from the network
of political, social and legal relations within which it is situated. This
means that all that "supply and demand" tells us is that those with money
can demand more, and be supplied with more, than those without. Whether this
is the "most efficient" result for society cannot be determined (unless, of
course, you assume that rich people are more valuable than working class
ones *because* they are rich). This has an obvious effect on production, with
"effective demand" twisting economic activity. As Chomsky notes, "[t]hose
who have more money tend to consume more, for obvious reasons. So
consumption is skewed towards luxuries for the rich, rather than necessities
for the poor." George Barret brings home of the evil of such a "skewed" form
of production:

"To-day the scramble is to compete for the greatest profits. If there is
more profit to be made in satisfying my lady's passing whim than there is
in feeding hungry children, then competition brings us in feverish haste
to supply the former, whilst cold charity or the poor law can supply the
latter, or leave it unsupplied, just as it feels disposed. That is how it
works out." [_Objections to Anarchism_]

Therefore, as far as "supply and demand" is concerned, anarchists are well
aware of the need to create and distribute necessary goods to those who
require them. This, however, cannot be achieved under capitalism. In effect,
supply and demand under capitalism results in those with most money
determining what is an "efficient" allocation of resources for if financial
profit is the sole consideration for resource allocation, then the wealthy
can outbid the poor and ensure the highest returns. The less wealthy can
do without.

However, the question remains of how, in an anarchist society, do you know
that valuable labour and materials might be better employed elsewhere? How
do workers judge which tools are most appropriate? How do they decide
among different materials if they all meet the technical specifications?
How important are some goods than others? How important is cellophane
compared to vacuum-cleaner bags?

It is answers like this that the supporters of the market claim that their
system answers. However, as indicated, it does answer them in irrational and
dehumanising ways under capitalism but the question is: can anarchism answer
them? Yes, although the manner in which this is done varies between anarchist
threads. In a mutualist economy, based on independent and cooperative labour,
differences in wealth would be vastly reduced, so ensuring that irrational
aspects of the market that exist within capitalism would be minimalised.
The workings of supply and demand would provide a more just result than
under the current system.

However, collectivist, syndicalist and communist anarchists reject the
market. This rejection often implies, to some, central planning. As the
market socialist David Schweickart puts it, "[i]f profit considerations do
not dictate resource usage and production techniques, then central direction
must do so. If profit is not the goal of a productive organisation, then
physical output (use values) must be." [_Against Capitalism_, p. 86]

However, Schweickart is wrong. Horizontal links need not be market based
and cooperation between individuals and groups need not be hierarchical.
Therefore, it is a question of distributing information between producers
and consumers, information which the market often hides or activity blocks.
This information network has partly been discussed in the last section
where a method of comparison between different materials, techniques and
resources based upon use value was discussed. However, the need to indicate
the current fluctuations in production and consumption needs to be indicated
which complements that method.

In a non-Mutualist anarchist system it is assumed that confederations of
collectives will wish to adjust their capacity if they are aware of the need
to do so. Hence, price changes in response to changes in demand would not
be necessary to provide the information that such changes are required. This
is because a "change in demand first becomes apparent as a change in the
quantity being sold at existing prices [or being consumed in a moneyless
system] and is therefore reflected in changes in stocks or orders. Such
changes are perfectly good indicators or signals that an imbalance between
demand and current output has developed. If a change in demand for its
products proved to be permanent, a production unit would find its stocks
being run down and its order book lengthening, or its stocks increasing and
orders falling....Price changes in response to changes in demand are therefore
not necessary for the purpose of providing information about the need to
adjust capacity" [Pat Devine, _Democracy and Economic Planning_, p. 242]

Therefore, to indicate the relative changes in scarcity of a given good
it will be necessary to calculate a "scarcity index." This would inform
potential users of this good so that they may effectively adjust their
decisions in light of the decisions of others. This index could be, for
example, a percentage value which indicates the relation of orders placed
for a commodity to the amount actually produced. For example, a good which
has a demand higher than its supply would have an index value of 101% or
higher. This value would inform potential users to start looking for
substitutes for it or to economise on its use. Such a scarcity figure would
exist for each collective as well as (possibly) a generalised figure for
the industry as a whole on a regional, "national," etc. level. In this way,
a specific good could be seen to be in high demand and so only those
producers who *really* required it would place orders for it (so ensuring
effective use of resources). Needless to say, stock levels and other
basic book-keeping techniques would be utilised in order to ensure a
suitable buffer level of a specific good to take into account unexpected
changes in consumption. This may result in some excess supply of goods
being produced and used as used as stock to buffer out unexpected changes
in the aggregate demand for a good.

This, combined with cost-benefit analysis described in section I.4.4, would
allow information about changes within the "economy" to rapidly spread
throughout the whole system and influence all decision makers without
the great majority knowing anything about the original causes of these
changes (which rest in the decisions of those directly affected). The
relevant information is communicated to all involved, without having to
be order by an "all-knowing" central body as in a Leninist centrally
planned economy. As argued in section I.1.2, anarchists have long realised
that no centralised body could possibly be able to possess all the
information dispersed throughout the economy and if such a body attempted
to do so, the resulting bureaucracy would effectively reduce the amount of
information available to society and so cause shortages and inefficiencies.

Therefore, each syndicate receives its own orders and supplies and sends
its own produce out. Similarly, communal distribution centers would order
required goods from syndicates it determines. In this way consumers can
change to syndicates which respond to their needs and so production units
are aware of what it is socially useful for them to produce as well as the
social cost of the resources they need to produce it. In this way a network
of horizontal relations spread across society, with coordination achieved
by equality of association and not the hierarchy of the corporate structure.
This system ensures a cooperative response to changes in supply and
demand and so reduces the communication problems associated with the
market which help causes periods of unemployment and economic downturn
(see section C.7.1).

While anarchists are aware of the "isolation paradox" (see section B.6)
this does not mean that they think the commune should make decisions *for*
people on what they were to consume. This would be a prison. No, all
anarchists agree that is up to the individual to determine their own needs
and for the collectives they join to determine social requirements like parks,
infrastructure improvements and so on. However, social anarchists think that
it would be beneficial to discuss the framework around which these decisions
would be made. This would mean, for example, that communes would agree to
produce eco-friendly products, reduce waste and generally make decisions
enriched by social interaction. Individuals would still decide which sort
goods they desire, based on what the collectives produce but these goods
would be based on a socially agreed agenda. In this way waste, pollution
and other "externalities" of atomised consumption could be reduced. For
example, while it is rational for individuals to drive a car to work,
collectively this results in massive *irrationality* (for example, traffic
jams, pollution, illness, unpleasant social infrastuctures). A sane society
would discuss the problems associated with car use and would agree to
produce a fully integrated public transport network which would reduce
pollution, stress, illness, and so on.

Therefore, while anarchists recognise individual tastes and desires, they
are also aware of the social impact of them and so try to create a social
environment where individuals can enrich their personal decisions with the
input of other people's ideas.

On a related subject, it is obvious that different collectives would produce
slightly different goods, so ensuring that people have a choice. It is
doubtful that the current waste implied in multiple products from different
companies (sometimes the same company) all doing the same job would be
continued in an anarchist society. However, production will be "variations on
a theme"in order to ensure consumer choice and to allow the producers to know
what features consumers prefer. It would be impossible to sit down beforehand
and make a list of what features a good should have - that assumes perfect
knowledge and that technology is fairly constant. Both these assumptions
are of limited use in real life. Therefore, cooperatives would produce
goods with different features and production would change to meet the demand
these differences suggest (for example, factory A produces a new CD player,
and consumption patterns indicate that this is popular and so the rest of
the factories convert). This is in addition to R&D experiments and test
populations. In this way consumer choice would be maintained, and enhanced
as consumers would be able to influence the decisions of the syndicates
as producers (in some cases) and through syndicate/commune dialogue.

Therefore, anarchists do not ignore "supply and demand." Instead, they
recognise the limitations of the capitalist version of this truism and
point out that capitalism is based on *effective* demand which has no
necessary basis with efficient use of resources. Instead of the market,
social anarchists advocate a system based on horizontal links between
producers which effectively communicates information across society about
the relative changes in supply and demand which reflect actual needs of
society and not bank balances. The response to changes in supply and
demand will be discussed in section I.4.7 (What are the criteria for
investment decisions?) and section I.4.13 ( Who will do the dirty or
unpleasant work?) will discuss the allocation of work tasks.

I.4.6 Surely anarchist-communism would just lead to demand exceeding supply?

Its a common objection that communism would lead to people wasting resources
by taking more than they need. Kropotkin stated that "free communism . . .
places the product reaped or manufactured at the disposal of all, leaving to
each the liberty to consume them as he pleases in his own home." [_The Place
of Anarchism in the Evolution of Socialist Thought_, p. 7]

But, some argue, what if an individual says they "need" a luxury house or
a personal yacht? Simply put, workers may not "need" to produce for that
need. As Tom Brown puts it, "such things are the product of social labour. . .
Under syndicalism. . .it is improbable that any greedy, selfish person would
be able to kid a shipyard full of workers to build him a ship all for his
own hoggish self. There would be steam luxury yachts, but they would be
enjoyed in common" [_Syndicalism_, p. 51]

Therefore, communist-anarchists are not blind to the fact that free access
to products is based upon the actual work of real individuals - "society"
provides nothing, individuals working together do. This is reflected in
the classic statement of communism - "From each according to their ability,
to each according to their needs." Therefore, the needs of both consumer

and* producer are taken into account. This means that if no syndicate or

individual desires to produce a specific order an order then this order can
be classed as an "unreasonable" demand - "unreasonable" in this context
meaning that no one freely agrees to produce it. Of course, individuals
may agree to barter services in order to get what they want produced if
they *really* want something but such acts in no way undermines a
communist society.

Communist-anarchists recognise that production, like consumption, must be
based on freedom. However, it has been argued that free access would
lead to waste as people take more than they would under capitalism. This
objection is not as serious as it first appears. There are plenty of examples
within current society to indicate that free access will not lead to abuses.
Let us take three examples, public libraries, water and pavements. In public
libraries people are free to sit and read books all day. However, few if any
actually do so. Neither do people always take the maximum number of books
out at a time. No, they use the library as they need to and feel no need to
maximise their use of the institution. Some people never use the library,
although it is free. In the case of water supplies, its clear that people
do not leave taps on all day because water is often supplied freely or for
a fixed charge. Similarly with pavements, people do not walk everywhere
because to do so is free. In both cases individuals use the resource as and
when they need to.

We can expect a similar effect as other resources become freely available.
In effect, this argument makes as much sense as arguing that individuals will
travel to stops *beyond* their destination if public transport is based on
a fixed charge! And only an idiot would travel further than required in
order to get "value for money."

However, there is a deeper point to be made here about consumerism. Capitalism
is based on hierarchy and not liberty. This leads to a weakening of
individuality and a lose of self-identity and sense of community. Both these
senses are a deep human need and consumerism is often a means by which
people overcome their alienation from their selves and others (religion,
ideology and drugs are other means of escape). Therefore the consumption
within capitalism reflects *its* values, not some abstract "human nature."
As Bob Black argues:

"what we want, what we are capable of wanting is relative to the forms
of social organization. People 'want' fast food because they have to
hurry back to work, because processed supermarket food doesn't
taste much better anyway, because the nuclear family (for the
dwindling minority who have even that to go home to) is too small
and too stressed to sustain much festivity in cooking and eating
-- and so forth. It is only people who can't get what they want
who resign themselves to want more of what they can get. Since we
cannot be friends and lovers, we wail for more candy."
[_Smokestack Lightning_]

Therefore, most anarchists think that consumerism is a product of a
hierarchical society within which people are alienated from themselves
and the means by which they can make themselves *really* happy (i.e.
meaningful relationships, liberty, work, and experiences). Consumerism is
a means of filling the spiritual hole capitalism creates within us by denying
our freedom.

This means that capitalism produces individuals who define themselves by
what they have, not who they are. This leads to consumption for the sake
of consumption, as people try to make themselves happy by consuming more
commodities. But, as Erich Fromm points out, this cannot work for and only
leads to even more insecurity (and so even more consumption):

"*If I am what I have and if what I have is lost, who then am I?*
Nobody but a defeated, deflated, pathetic testimony to a wrong way of living.
Because I *can* lose what I have, I am necessarily constantly worried that
I *shall* lose what I have." [_To Have Or To Be_, p. 111]

Such insecurity easily makes consumerism seem a "natural" way of life and
so make communism seem impossible. However, rampant consumerism is far more
a product of lack of meaningful freedom within an alienated society than a
"natural law" of human existence. In a society that encouraged and protected
individuality by non-hierarchical social relationships and organisations,
individuals would have a strong sense of self and so be less inclined to
mindlessly consume. As Fromm puts it, "If *I am what I am* and not what I have,
nobody can deprive me of or threaten my security and my sense of identity.
My centre is within myself." [Op. Cit., p. 112] Such self-centred individuals
do not have to consume endlessly to build a sense of security or happiness
within themselves (a sense which can never actually be created by those means).

In other words, the well-developed individuality that an anarchist society
would develop would have less need to consume than the average person in a
capitalist one. This is not to suggest that life will be bare and without
luxuries in an anarchist society, far from it. A society based on the
free expression of individuality could be nothing but rich in wealth and
diverse in goods and experiences. What we are arguing here is that an
anarchist-communist society would not have to fear rampant consumerism
making demand outstrip supply constantly and always precisely because
freedom will result in a non-alienated society of well developed
individuals.

Of course, this may sound totally utopian. Possibly it is. However, as
Oscar Wilde said, a map of the world without Utopia on it is not worth
having. One thing is sure, if the developments we have outlined above fail
to appear and attempts at communism fail due to waste and demand exceeding
supply then a free society would make the necessary decisions and introduce
some means of limiting supply (such as, for example, labour notes, equal
wages, and so on). Whether or not full communism *can* be introduced instantly
is a moot point amongst anarchists, although most would like to see society
develop towards a communist goal eventually.

I.4.7 What are the criteria for investment decisions?

Obviously, a given society needs to take into account changes in consumption
and so invest in new means of production. An anarchist society is no
different. As G.D.H Cole points out, "it is essential at all times, and
in accordance with considerations which vary from time to time, for a
community to preserve a balance between production for ultimate use and
production for use in further production. And this balance is a matter
which ought to be determined by and on behalf of the whole community."
[_Guild Socialism Restated_, p. 144]

How this balance is determined varies according to the school of anarchist
thought considered. All agree, however, that such an important task should
be under effective community control. The mutualists see the solution to the
problems of investment as creating a system of mutual banks, which reduce
interest rates to zero. This would be achieved "[b]y the organisation of
credit, on the principle of reciprocity or mutualism. . .In such an
organisation credit is raised to the dignity of a social function, managed
by the community; and, as society never speculates upon its members, it will
lend its credit . . .at the actual cost of transaction. " [Charles A. Dana,
_Proudhon and his "Bank of the People"_, p. 36] This would allow money to
be made available to those who needed it and so break the back of the
capitalist business cycle (i.e. credit would be available as required,
not when it was profitable for bankers to supply it) as well as capitalist
property relations. Under a mutualist regime, credit for investment would
be available from two sources. Firstly, an individual's or cooperative's own
saved funds and, secondly, as zero interest loans from mutual banks, credit
unions and other forms of credit associations. Loans would be allocated to
projects which the mutual banks considered likely to succeed and repay the
original loan.

Collectivist and communist anarchists recognise that credit is based on
human activity, which is represented as money. As the Guild Socialist G.D.H.
Cole pointed out, "The understanding of this point [on investment] depends
on a clear appreciation of the fact that all real additions to capital
take the form of directing a part of the productive power of labour and
using certain materials not for the manufacture of products and the
rendering of services incidental to such manufacture for purposes of
purposes of further production." [_Guild Socialism Restated_, p. 143]
Collectivist and Communist anarchists agree with their Mutualist cousins
when they state that "[a]ll credit presupposes labor, and, if labor were to
cease, credit would be impossible" and that the "legitimate source of
credit" was "the labouring classes" who "ought to control it" and "whose
benefit [it should] be used" [Charles A. Dana, Op. Cit., p. 35]

Therefore, in collectivism, investment funds would exist in the confederations
of collectives, community "banks" and other such means by which depreciation
funds could be stored and as well as other funds agreed to by the collectives
(for example, collectives may agree to allocate a certain percentage of their
labour notes to a common account in order to have the necessary funds available
for new investment). In a communist-anarchist society, the collectives would
agree that a certain part of their output and activity will be directed to
new means of production. In effect, each collective is able to draw upon the
sums approved of by the Commune in the form of an agreed claim on the labour
power of all the collectives. In this way, mutual aid ensures a suitable
pool of resources for the future from which all benefit.

As for when investment is needed, it is clear that this will be based on the
changes in demand for goods. As Guilliame points it, "[b]y means of statistics
gathered from all the communes in a region, it will be possible to
scientifically balance production and consumption. In line with these
statistics, it will also be possible to add more help in industries where
production is insufficient and reduce the number of men where there is
a surplus of production." [_Bakunin on Anarchism_, p. 370] Obviously,
investment in branches of production with a high demand would be essential
and this would be easily seen from the statistics generated by the collectives
and communes. Tom Brown states this obvious
point:

"Goods, as now, will be produced in greater variety, for workers like
producing different kinds, and new models, of goods. Now if some goods
are unpopular, they will be left on the shelves. . . Of other goods more
popular, the shops will be emptied. Surely it is obvious that the
assistant will decrease his order of the unpopular line and increase his
order of the popular" [_Syndicalism_, p. 55]

As a rule of thumb, syndicates that produce investment goods would be
inclined to supply other syndicates who are experiencing excess demand
before others, all other things being equal. Because of such guidelines and
communication between producers, investment would go to those industries
that actually required them.

As production would be decentralised as far as possible, each locality would
be able to understand its own requirements and apply them as it sees fit.

This, combined with an extensive communications network, would ensure that
investment not only did not duplicate unused plant within the economy but
that investments take into account the specific problems and opportunities
each locality has. Of course, collectives would experiment with new lines
and technology as well as existing lines and so invest in new technologies
and products. As occurs under capitalism, extensive consumer testing would
occur before dedicating major investment decisions to new products. In the
case of new technology and plant, cost benefit analysis (as outlined in
section I.4.4) would be used to determine which technology would produce
the best results and whether changes should be made in plant stock.

Similarly with communities. A commune will obviously have to decide upon and
plan civic investment (e.g. new parks, housing and so forth). They will also
have the deciding say in industrial developments in their area as it would
be unfair for syndicate to just decide to build a cement factory next to a
housing cooperative if they did not want it. There is a case for arguing
that the local commune will decide on investment decisions for syndicates
in its area (for example, a syndicate may produce X plans which will be
discussed in the local commune and 1 plan finalised from the debate). For
regional decisions (for example, a new hospital) would be decided at the
appropriate level, with information fed from the health syndicate and
consumer cooperatives. The actual location for investment decisions will
be worked out by those involved. However, local syndicates must be the
focal point for developing new products and investment plans in order to
encourage innovation.

Therefore, under social anarchism no capital market is required to determine
whether investment is required and what form it would take. The work that
apologists for capitalism claim currently is done by the stock market can
be replaced by cooperation and communication between workplaces in a
decentralised, confederated network. The relative needs of different
consumers of a product can be evaluated by the producers and an informed
decision reached on where it would best be used.

Without a capital market, housing, workplaces and so on will no longer
be cramped into the smallest space possible. Instead, housing, schools,
hospitals, workplaces and so on will be built within a "green" environment.
This means that human constructions will be placed within a natural
environment and no longer stand apart from it. In this way human life
can be enriched and the evils of cramping as many humans and things into
a small a space as is "economical" can be overcome.

In addition, the stock market is hardly the means by which capital is
actually raised within capitalism. As Engler points out, "Supporters of the
system... claim that stock exchanges mobilise funds for business. Do they?
When people buy and sell shares, 'no investment goes into company treasuries...
Shares simply change hands for cash in endless repetition.' Company
treasuries get funds only from new equity issues. These accounted for an
average of a mere 0.5 per cent of shares trading in the US during the
1980s" [_Apostles of Greed_, pp. 157-158] And it hardly needs to be repeated
that capitalism results in production being skewed away from the working
class and that the "efficiency" of market allocation is highly suspect.

Only by taking investment decisions away from "experts" and placing it in
the hands of ordinary people will current generations be able to invest
according to their, and future generations', self-interest. It is hardly in
our interest to have a institution whose aim is to make the wealthy even
wealthier and on whose whims are dependent the lives of millions of people.

I.4.8 What about funding for basic research?

In a libertarian-socialist society, people are likely to "vote" to allocate
significant amounts of resources for basic research from the available
social output. This is because the results of this research would be freely
available to all enterprises and so would aid everyone in the long term. In
addition, because workers directly control their workplace and the
local community effectively "owns" it, all affected would have an interest
in exploring research which would reduce labour, pollution, raw materials
and so on or increase output with little or no social impact.

This means that research and innovation would be in the direct interests of
everyone involved. Under capitalism, this is not the case. Most research
is conducted in order to get an edge in the market by increasing productivity
or expanding production into new (previously unwanted) areas. Any increased
productivity often leads to unemployment, deskilling and other negative
effects for those involved. Libertarian socialism will not face this problem.

It should also be mentioned here that research would be pursued more and
more as people take an increased interest in both their own work and
education. As people become liberated from the grind of everyday life,
they will explore possibilities as their interests take them and so
research will take place on many levels within society - in the workplace,
in the community, in education and so on.

In addition, it should be noted that basic research is not something which
capitalism does well. The rise of the Pentagon system in the USA indicates
that basic research often needs state support in order to be successful. As
Kenneth Arrow noted over thirty years ago that market forces are
insufficient to promote basic research:

"Thus basic research, the output of which is only used as an informational
input into other inventive activities, is especially unlikely to be
rewarded. In fact, it is likely to be of commercial value to the firm
undertaking it only if other firms are prevented from using the
information. But such restriction reduces the efficiency of inventive
activity in general, and will therefore reduce its quantity also"
["Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Inventiveness," in
National Bureau of Economic Research, _The Rate and Direction of
Inventive Activity_, Princeton Univ. Press, 1962, p. 618].

Would modern society have produced so many innovations if it had not
been for the Pentagon system, the space race and so on? Take the
Internet, for example -- it is unlikely that this would have got off the
ground if it had not been for the state.

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

Not necessarily. Because technology allows us to "do more with less,"
technological progress can improve standards of living for all people, and
technologies can be used to increase personal freedom: medical technology,
for instance, can free people from the scourges of pain, illness, and a
"naturally" short lifespan; agricultural technology can be used to free
labor from the mundane chore of food production; advanced communications
technology can enhance our ability to freely associate. The list goes on
and on. However, most anarchists agree with Kropotkin when he pointed
out that the "development of [the industrial] technique at last gives
man [sic!] the opportunity to free himself from slavish toil" [_Ethics_,
p.2]

Of course technology can be used for oppressive ends, as indicated in section
D.10. Human knowledge, like all things, can be used to increase freedom or
to decrease it. Technology is neither "good," nor "bad" per se, but may be
used for either. What can be said is that in a hierarchical society,
technology will be introduced that serves the interests of the powerful and
helps marginalise and disempower the majority. This means that in an
anarchist society, technology would be developed which empowered those who
used it, so reducing any oppressive aspects of it, and, in the words of
Cornelius Castoriadais, the "conscious transformation of technology will
. . .be a central task of a society of free workers." [_Workers' Councils
and the Economics of a Self-Managed Society_, p. 13]

For example, increased productivity under capitalism usually leads to
further exploitation, displaced workers, etc. But it doesn't have to in
an anarchist world. By way of example, consider a small, self-sufficient
group in which all resources are distributed equally amongst the members.
Let's say that this group has 5 people and, for the sake of argument, 20
man-hours of production per week is spent on baking bread for the group.
Now, what happens if the introduction of automation reduces the
amount of labor required for bread production to 5 man-hours per week?
Clearly, no one stands to lose - even if someone's work is "displaced", that
person will continue to receive the same resource income as before - and
they might even gain. This last is due to the fact that 15 man-hours have
been freed up from the task of bread production, and those man-hours may now
be used elsewhere or converted to leisure, either way increasing each
person's standard of living.

Obviously, this happy outcome derives not only from the technology,
but from its use in an equitable economic system. Certainly, a wide variety
of outcomes would be possible under alternative allocations. Yet, we have
managed to prove our point: in the end, there's no reason why increases in
productivity need lead to a lower standard of living! Therefore, "[f]or
the first time in the history of civilisation, mankind has reached a point
where the means of satisfying its needs are in excess of the needs themselves.
To impose, therefore, as hitherto been done, the curse of misery and
degradation upon vast divisions of mankind, in order to secure well-being
and further development for the few, is needed no more: well-being can be
secured for all, without placing on anyone the burden of oppressive,
degrading toil and humanity can at last build its entire social life
on the basis of justice." [_Ethics_, p. 2]

It is for these reasons that anarchists have held a wide range of opinions
concerning the relationship between human knowledge and anarchism. Some,
such as Peter Kropotkin, were themselves scientists and saw great potential for
the use of advanced technology to expand human freedom. Others have held
technology at arm's length, concerned about its oppressive uses, and a few
have rejected science and technology completely. All of these are, of course,
possible anarchist positions. But most anarchists support Kropotkin's
viewpoint, but with a healthy dose of practical Luddism when viewing how
technology is (ab)used in capitalism.

So technological advancement is important in a free society in order to
maximise the free time available for everyone and replace mindless toil
with meaningful work. The means of doing so is the use of *appropriate*
technology (and *not* the worship of technology as such). Only by
critically evaluating technology and introducing such forms which
empower, are understandable and are controllable by individuals and
communities as well as minimising ecological distribution (in other
words, what is termed appropriate technology) can this be achieved.
Only this critical approach to technology can do justice to the power of
the human mind and reflect the creative powers which developed the technology
in the first place. Unquestioning acceptance of technological progress is
just as bad as being unquestioning anti-technology.

So whether technological advance is a good thing or sustainable depends on
the choices we make, and on the social, political, and economic systems we
use. We live in a universe which contains effectively infinite resources
of matter and energy, yet at the moment we are stuck on a planet whose
resources can only be stretched so far. Anarchists (and others) differ as
to their assessments of how much development the earth can take, and of the
best course for future development, but there's no reason to believe that
advanced technological societies per se cannot be sustained into the
foreseeable future if they are structured and used properly.

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

We noted earlier (H.4) that competition between syndicates can lead to
"petty-bourgeois cooperativism," and that to eliminate this problem, the basis
of collectivisation needs to be widened so that surpluses are distributed
industry-wide or even society-wide. We also pointed out another advantage
of a wide surplus distribution: that it allows for the consolidation of
enterprises that would otherwise compete, leading to a more efficient
allocation of resources and technical improvements. Here we will back up
this claim with illustrations from the Spanish Revolution.

Collectivization in Catalonia embraced not only major industries like
municipal transportation and utilities, but smaller establishments as
well: small factories, artisan workshops, service and repair shops, etc.
Augustin Souchy describes the process as follows: "The artisans and small
workshop owners, together with their employees and apprentices, often
joined the union of their trade. By consolidating their efforts and
pooling their resources on a fraternal basis, the shops were able to
undertake very big projects and provide services on a much wider scale. .
. . The collectivisation of the hairdressing shops provides an excellent
example of how the transition of a small-scale manufacturing and service
industry from capitalism to socialism was achieved."

"Before July 19th, 1936 [the date of the Revolution], there were 1,100
hairdressing parlors in Barcelona, most of them owned by poor wretches
living from hand to mouth. The shops were often dirty and ill-maintained.
The 5,000 hairdressing assistants were among the most poorly paid
workers. . . Both owners and assistants therefore voluntarily decided to
socialize all their shops.

"How was this done? All the shops simply joined the union. At a general
meeting they decided to shut down all the unprofitable shops. The 1,100
shops were reduced to 235 establishments, a saving of 135,000 pesetas per
month in rent, lighting, and taxes. The remaining 235 shops were
modernized and elegantly outfitted." From the money saved, income per
worker was increased by 40 percent, with everyone having the right to work
and all earning the same amount. "The former owners were not adversely
affected by socialization. They were employed at a steady income. All
worked together under equal conditions and equal pay. The distinction
between employers and employees was obliterated and they were transformed
into a working community of equals -- socialism from the bottom up"
["Collectivisation in Catalonia," in Dolgoff, _The Anarchist Collectives_,
pp. 93-94].

Therefore, cooperation ensures that resources are efficiently allocated
and waste is minimised by cutting down needless competition. As consumers
have choices in which syndicate to consume from as well as having direct
communication between consumer cooperatives and productive units, there
is little danger that rationalisation in production will hurt the interests
of the consumer.

I.4.11 If libertarian socialism eliminates the profit motive, won't
creativity and performance suffer?

According to Alfie Kohn, a growing body of psychological research suggests
that rewards can lower performance levels, especially when the performance
involves creativity ["Studies Find Reward Often No Motivator," _Boston
Globe_, Monday 19 January 1987]. Kohn notes that "a related series of
studies shows that intrinsic interest in a task -- the sense that
something is worth doing for its own sake -- typically declines when
someone is rewarded for doing it."

Much of the research on creativity and motivation has been performed by
Theresa Amabile, associate professor of psychology at Brandeis
University. One of her recent experiments involved asking elementary
school and college students to make "silly" collages. The young children
were also asked to invent stories. Teachers who rated the projects found
that those students who had contracted for rewards did the least creative
work. "It may be that commissioned work will, in general, be less
creative than work that is done out of pure interest," Amabile says.

In 1985, Amabile asked 72 creative writers at Brandeis and at Boston
University to write poetry. "Some students then were given a list of
extrinsic (external) reasons for writing, such as impressing teachers,
making money and getting into graduate school, and were asked to think
about their own writing with respect to these reasons. Others were given
a list of intrinsic reasons: the enjoyment of playing with words,
satisfaction from self-expression, and so forth. A third group was not
given any list. All were then asked to do more writing.

"The results were clear. Students given the extrinsic reasons not only
wrote less creatively than the others, as judged by 12 independent poets,
but the quality of their work dropped significantly. Rewards, Amabile
says, have this destructive effect primarily with creative tasks,
including higher-level problem-solving. 'The more complex the activity,
the more it's hurt by extrinsic reward, she said'" [Ibid.].

In another study, by James Gabarino of Chicago's Erikson Institute for
Advanced Studies in Child Development, it was found that girls in the
fifth and sixth grades tutored younger children much less effectively if
they were promised free movie tickets for teaching well. "The study,
showed that tutors working for the reward took longer to communicate
ideas, got frustrated more easily, and did a poorer job in the end than
those who were not rewarded" [Ibid.]

Such studies cast doubt on the claim that financial reward is the only
effective way -- or even the best way -- to motivate people. As Kohn
notes, "[t]hey also challenge the behaviorist assumption that any activity
is more likely to occur if it is rewarded." Amabile concludes that her
research "definitely refutes the notion that creativity can be operantly
conditioned."

These findings re-inforce the findings of other scientific fields. Biology,
social psychology, ethnology and anthropology all present evidence that
support cooperation as the natural basis for human interaction. For
example, ethnological studies indicate that virtually all indigenous
cultures operate on the basis of highly cooperative relationships and
anthropologists have presented evidence to show that the predominant
force driving early human evolution was cooperative social interaction,
leading to the capacity of hominids to develop culture. This is even
sinking into capitalism, with industrial psychology now promoting "worker
participation" and team functioning because it is decisively more
productive than hierarchical management. More importantly, the evidence
shows that cooperative workplaces are more productive than those organized
on other principles. All other things equal, producers' cooperatives will
be more productive than capitalist or state enterprises, on average.
Cooperatives can often achieve higher productivity even when their equipment
and conditions are worse. Furthermore, the better the organization
approximates the cooperative ideal, the better the productivity.

All this is unsurprising to social anarchists (and it should make
individualist anarchists reconsider their position). Peter Kropotkin
(in _Mutual Aid_) asserted that, "[i]f we . . . ask Nature: 'who are
the fittest: those who are continually at war with each other, or those
who support one another?' we at once see that those animals which acquire
habits of mutual aid are undoubtedly the fittest. They have more chances
to survive, and they attain, in their respective classes, the highest
development of intelligence and bodily organization." From his observation
that mutual aid gives evolutionary advantage to living beings, he derived
his political philosophy--a philosophy which stressed community and
cooperative endeavor.

Modern research has reinforced his argument. For example, Alfie Kohn is
also the author of _No Contest: The Case Against Competition_ and he
spent seven years reviewing more than 400 research studies dealing
with competition and cooperation. Prior to his investigation, he
believed that "competition can be natural and appropriate and healthy."
After reviewing research findings, he radically revised this opinion,
concluding that, "The ideal amount of competition . . . in any environment,
the classroom, the workplace, the family, the playing field, is none . . . [Competition] is always destructive." [_Noetic Sciences Review_,
Spring 1990]

Here we present a very short summary of his findings. According to Kohn,
there are three principle consequences of competition:

Firstly, it has a negative effect on productivity and excellence. This is
due to increased anxiety, inefficiency (as compared to cooperative sharing
of resources and knowledge), and the undermining of inner motivation.
Competition shifts the focus to victory over others, and away from intrinsic
motivators such as curiosity, interest, excellence, and social interaction.
Studies show that cooperative behaviour, by contrast, consistently
predicts good performance--a finding which holds true under a wide range of
subject variables. Interestingly, the positive benefits of cooperation
become more significant as tasks become more complex, or where greater
creativity and problem-solving ability is required (as indicated above).

Secondly, competition lowers self-esteem and hampers the development of
sound, self-directed individuals. A strong sense of self is difficult to
attain when self-evaluation is dependent on seeing how we measure up to
others. On the other hand, those whose identity is formed in relation to
how they contribute to group efforts generally possess greater
self-confidence and higher self-esteem.

Finally, competition undermines human relationships. Humans are social
beings; we best express our humanness in interaction with others. By
creating winners and losers, competition is destructive to human unity
and prevents close social feeling.

Anarchists have long argued these points. In the competitive mode, people
work at cross purposes, or purely for (material) personal gain. This leads
to an impoverishment of society and hierarchy, with a lack of communal
relations that result in an impoverishment of all the individuals
involved (mentally, spiritually, ethically and, ultimately, materially).
This not only leads to a weakening of individuality and social disruption,
but also to economic inefficiency as energy is wasted in class conflict
and invested in building bigger and better cages to protect the haves from
the have-nots. Instead of creating useful things, human activity is
spent in useless toil reproducing an unjustice and authoritarian system.

All in all, the results of competition (as documented by a host of
scientific disciplines) shows its poverty as well as indicating that
cooperation is the means by which the fittest survive.

I.4.12 Won't there be a tendency for capitalist enterprise to reappear
in any socialist society?

This is a common right-libertarian objection. Robert Nozick, for example,
imagines the following scenario: "[S]mall factories would spring up in a
socialist society, unless forbidden. I melt some of my personal
possessions and build a machine out of the material. I offer you and
others a philosophy lecture once a week in exchange for yet other things,
and so on. . . .some persons might even want to leave their jobs in
socialist industry and work full time in this private sector. [This is]
how private property even in means of production would occur in a
socialist society." Hence Nozick claims that "the socialist society will
have to forbid capitalist acts between consenting adults." [_Anarchy, State
and Utopia_, pp. 162-3]

As Jeff Stein points out, however, "the only reason workers want to be
employed by capitalists is because they have no other means for making a
living, no access to the means of production other than by selling
themselves. For a capitalist sector to exist there must be some form of
private ownership of productive resources, and a scarcity of
alternatives. The workers must be in a condition of economic desperation
for them to be willing to give up an equal voice in the management of
their daily affairs and accept a boss" ["Market Anarchism? Caveat
Emptor!", a review of _A Structured Anarchism : An Overview of
Libertarian Theory and Practice_ by John Griffin, _Libertarian Labor
Review_ #13, Winter 1992-93, pp. 33-39].

In an anarchist society, there is no need for anyone to "forbid"
capitalist acts. All people have to do is *refrain* from helping would-be
capitalists set up monopolies of productive assets. This is because, as
we have noted in B.3.2, capitalism cannot exist without some form of state
to protect such monopolies. In a libertarian-socialist society, of
course, there would be no state to begin with, and so there would be no
question of it "refraining" from doing anything, including protecting
would-be capitalists' monopolies of the means of production. In other
words, would-be capitalists would face stiff competition for workers
in an anarchist society. This is because self-managed workplaces would be
able to offer workers more benefits (such as self-government) than the
would-be capitalist ones. The would-be capitalists would have to offer
not only excellent wages and conditions but also, in all likelihood,
workers' control and hire-purchase on capital used. The chances of making
a profit once the various monopolies associated with capitalism are
abolished are slim.

It should be noted that Nozick makes a serious error in his case. He assumes
that the "use rights" associated with an anarchist (i.e. socialist) society
are identical to the "property rights" of a capitalist one. This is *not*
the case, and so his argument is weakened and loses its force. Simply put,
there is no such thing as an absolute or "natural" law of property. As J.S.
Mill points out, "powers of exclusive use and control are very various, and
differ greatly in different countries and in different states of society."
["Chapters on Socialism," _John Stuart Mill on Politics and Society_, p. 354]
Therefore, Nozick slips an ideological ringer into his example by erroneously
interpreting socialism (or any other society for that matter) as specifying
a distribution of private property (like those he, and other supporters
of capitalism, believes in) along with the wealth.

In other words, Nozick assumes that in *all* societies property rights must
replace use rights in both consumption *and* production (an assumption that
is ahistorical in the extreme). As Cheyney C. Ryan comments, "Different
conceptions of justice differ not only in how they would apportion society's
holdings but in what rights individuals have over their holdings once they
have been apportioned." ["Property Rights and Individual Liberty", in
_Reading Nozack_, p. 331]

In effect, what possessions someone holds within a libertarian
socialist society will not be his or her property (in the capitalist sense)
any more than a company car is the property of the employee under
capitalism. This means that as long as an individual remained a member of
a commune then they would have full use of the resources of that commune
and could use their possessions as they saw fit. Such lack of *absolute*
"ownership" does not reduce liberty any more than the employee and the company
car he or she uses (bar destruction, the employee can use it as they see
fit).

Notice also that Nozick confuses exchange with capitalism ("I offer you a
lecture once a week in exchange for other things"). This is a telling
mistake by someone who claims to be an expert on capitalism, because the
defining feature of capitalism is not exchange (which obviously took place
long before capitalism existed) but labor contracts involving capitalist
middlemen who appropriate a portion of the value produced by workers - in
other words, wage labour. Nozick's example is merely a direct labor contract
between the producer and the consumer. It does not involve any capitalist
intermediary taking a percentage of the value created by the producer. It
is only this latter type of transaction that libertarian socialism prevents --
and not by "forbidding" it but simply by refusing to maintain the conditions
necessary for it to occur, i.e. protection of capitalist property.

Lastly, we must also note that Nozick also ignores the fact that acquisition

must* come before transfer, meaning that before "consenting" capitalist acts

occur, individual ones must precede it. As argued above, for this to happen
the would-be capitalist must steal communally owned resources by barring
others from using them. This obviously would restrict the liberty of those
who currently used them and so be hotly opposed by members of a community.
If an individual did desire to use resources to employ wage labour then they
would have effectively removed themselves from "socialist society" and so
that society would bar them from using *its* resources (i.e. they would
have to buy access to all the resources they currently took for granted).

It should also be noted here that Nozick's theory does not provide any support
for such appropriation of commonly held resources, meaning that his
(right) libertarianism is totally without foundations. His argument in
favour of such appropriations recognises that certain liberties are very
definitely restricted by private property (and it should be keep in mind
that the destruction of commonly held resources, such as village commons,
were enforced by the state - see section F.8.3). As Cheyney C. Ryan points
out, Nozick "invoke[s] personal liberty as the decisive ground for
rejecting patterned principles of justice [such as socialism] and
restrictions on the ownership of capital. . .[b]ut where the rights of
private property admittedly restrict the liberties of the average person,
he seems perfectly happy to *trade off* such liberties against material
gain for society as a whole." ["Property Rights and Individual Liberty",
in _Reading Nozack_, p. 339]

Again, as pointed out in section F.2 (What do "anarcho"-capitalists mean
by "freedom?") right-libertarians would better be termed "Propertarians."
Why is liberty according a primary importance when arguing against socialism
but not private property restricts liberty? Obviously, Nozick considers
the liberties associated with private property as more important than
liberty *in general.* Likewise, capitalism must forbid corresponding
socialist acts by individuals (for example, squatting unused property) and
often socialist acts between consenting individuals (i.e. the formation of
unions).

So, to conclude, this question involves some strange logic (and many
question begging assumptions) and ultimately fails in its attempt to prove
libertarian socialism must "ban" "capitalistic acts between individuals."
In addition, the objection undermines capitalism because it cannot support
the creation of private property out of communal property in the first
place.

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

That depends on the kind of community you are a member of. Obviously, few
would argue against the idea that individuals will voluntarily work at things
they enjoyed doing. However there are some jobs that few, if any, would
enjoy (for example, collecting rubbish, processing sewage, dangerous work,
etc.). So how would an anarchist society deal with it?

It will be clear what is considered unpleasant work in any society - few
people (if any) will volunteer to do it. As in any advanced society,
communities and syndicates who required extra help would inform others
of their need by the various form of media that existed. In addition, it
would be likely that each community would have a "division of activity"
syndicate whose work would be to distribute information about these
posts and to which members of a community would go to discover what
placements existed for the line of "work" they were interested in.
So we have a means by which syndicates and communes can ask for new hands
and the means by which individuals can discover these placements. Obviously,
some work will still require qualifications and that will be taken into
account when syndicates and communes "advertise" for help.

For "work" placements in which supply exceeded demand, it would be easy
to arrange a work share scheme to ensure that most people get a chance to do
that kind of work (see below for a discussion of what could happen if the
numbers applying for a certain form of work were too high for this to work).
When such placements are marked by an excess of demand by supply, its obvious
that the activity in question is not viewed as pleasant or desirable. Until
such time as it can be automated away, a free society will have to encourage
people to volunteer for "work" placements they do not particularly want to do.

So, it is obvious that not all "jobs" are equal in interest or enjoyment. It
is sometimes argued that people would start to join or form syndicates
which are involved in more fun activities. By this process excess workers would
be found in the more enjoyable "jobs" while the boring and dangerous ones
would suffer from a scarcity of willing workers. Hence, so the argument
goes, a socialist society would have to force people to do certain jobs
and so that requires a state. Obviously, this argument ignores the fact that
under capitalism usually it is the boring, dangerous work which is the least
well paid with the worse working conditions. In addition, this argument
ignores the fact that under workers self-management boring, dangerous work
would be minimised and transformed as much as possible. Only under capitalist
hierarchy are people in no position to improve the quality of their work and
working environment. As George Barret argues:

"Now things are so strangely organised at present that it is just the
dirty and disagreeable work that men will do cheaply, and consequently
there is no great rush to invent machines to take their place. In a free
society, on the other hand, it is clear that the disagreeable work will be
one of the first things that machinery will be called upon to eliminate. It
is quite fair to argue, therefore, that the disagreeable work will, to a
large extent, disappear in a state of anarchism." [_Objections to Anarchism_]

Moreover, most anarchists would think that the argument that there would
be a flood of workers taking up "easy" work placements is abstract and
ignores the dynamics of a real society. While many individuals would
try to create new productive syndicates in order to express themselves
in innovative work outwith the existing research and development going
on within existing syndicates, the idea that the majority of individuals
would leave their current work at a drop of a hat is crazy. A workplace
is a community and part of a community and people would value the links
they have with their fellow workers. As such they would be aware of the
impacts of their decisions on both themselves and society as a whole. So,
while we would expect a turnover of workers between syndicates, the mass
transfers claimed in this argument are unlikely. Most workers who did want
to try their hand at new work would apply for work places at syndicates that
required new people, not create their own ones. Because of this, work
transfers would be moderate and easily handled.

However, the possibility of mass desertions does exist and so must be
addressed. So how would a libertarian socialist society deal with a majority
of its workers deciding to all do interesting work, leaving the boring
and/or dangerous work undone? It, of course, depends on the type of
anarchism in question and is directly related to the question of who
will do the "dirty work" in an anarchist society. So, how will an anarchist
society ensure that individual perferences for certain types of work
matches the requirements of social demand for labour?

Under mutualism, those who desired a certain form of work done would
reach an agreement with a workers or a cooperative and pay them to do
the work in question. Individuals would form cooperatives with each
cooperative would have to find its place on the market and so this
would ensure that work was spread across society as required. Individuals
desiring to form a new cooperative would either provide their own start
up credit or arrange a interest free loan from a mutual bank. However, this
could lead to some people doing unpleasant work all the time and so is hardly
a solution. As in capitalism, we may see some people doing terrible work
because it is better than no work at all. This is a solution few anarchists
would support.

In a collectivist or communist anarchist society, such an outcome would
be avoided by sharing such tasks as fairly as possible between a community's
members. For example, by allocating one day in a month to all fit members
of a community to do work which no one volunteers to do, it would soon be
done. This, however, may not prove to a possible in some "work" placements.
Possible solutions could be to take into account the undesirability of the
work when considering the level of labour notes received or communal
hours worked.

In other words, in a collectivist society the individuals who do unpleasant
work may be "rewarded" (along with social esteem) with a slightly higher
pay - the number of labour notes, for example, for such work would be
a multiple of the standard amount, the actual figure being related to
how much supply exceeds demand. In a communist society, the number of
necessary hours required by an individual would be reduced by an amount
that corresponds to the undesirability of the work involved. The
actual levels of "reward" would be determined by agreements between
the syndicates.

To be more precise, in a collectivist society, individuals would either
use their own savings and/or arrange loans of community labour banks
for credit in order to start up a new syndicate. This will obviously
restrict the number of new syndicates being formed. In the case of individuals
joining existing syndicates, the labour value of the work done would be
related to the number of people interested in doing that work. For example,
if a given type of work has 50% more people wanting to do it than actually
required, then the labour value for one hours work in this industry would
correspondingly be less than one hour. If it is in excess, then the labour
value would increase, as would holiday time, etc.

In this way, "supply and demand" for workers would soon approximate each
other. In addition, a collectivist society would be better placed than the
current system to ensure work-sharing and other methods to spread unpleasant
and pleasant tasks equally around society.

A communist-anarchist society's solution would be similar to the collectivist
one. There would still be basic agreements between its members for work done
and so for work placements with excess supply of workers the amount of hours
necessary to meet the confederations agreed minimum would correspondingly
increase. For example, an industry with 100% excess supply of volunteers
would see its minimum requirement increase from (say) 20 hours a week to 30
hours. An industry with less applicants than required would see the number
of required hours of "work" decrease, plus increases in holiday time and
so on. As G.D.H. Cole argues in respect of this point:

"Let us first by the fullest application of machinery and scientific methods
eliminate or reduce . . . 'dirty work' that admit to such treatment. This has
never been tried. . . under capitalism. . . It is cheaper to exploit and ruin
human beings. . . Secondly, let us see what forms of 'dirty work' we can do
without . . . [and] if any form of work is not only unpleasant but degrading,
we will do without it, whatever the cost. No human being ought to be allowed
or compelled to do work that degrades. Thirdly, for what dull or unpleasant
work remains, let us offer whatever special conditions are required to
attract the necessary workers, not in higher pay, but in shorter hours,
holidays extending over six months in the year, conditions attractive
enough to men who have other uses for their time or attention to being
the requisite number to undertake it voluntarily."[_Guild Socialism
Restated_, p. 76]

By these methods a balance between industrial sectors would be achieved
as individuals would balance their desire for interesting work with their
desires for free time. Over time, by using the power of appropriate
technology, even such time keeping would be minimised or even got eliminated
as society developed freely.

And it is important to remember that the means of production required by
new syndicates do not fall from the sky. Other members of society will
have to work to produce the required goods. Therefore it is likely that
the syndicates and communes would agree that only a certain (maximum)
percentage of production would be allocated to start-up syndicates (as
opposed to increasing the resources of existing confederations). Such a
figure would obviously be revised periodically in order to take into
account changing circumstances. Members of the community who decide to
form syndicates for new productive tasks or syndicates which do the same
work but are independent of existing confederations would have to get the
agreement of other workers to supply them with the necessary means of
production (just as today they have to get the agreement of a bank to
receive the necessary credit to start a new business). By budgeting the
amounts available, a free society can ensure that individual desires for
specific kinds of work can be matched with the requirements of society for
useful production.

And we must point out (just to make sure we are not misunderstood) that
there will be no group of "planners" deciding which applications for
resources get accepted. Instead, individuals and associations would apply
to different production units for resources, whose workers in turn decide
whether to produce the goods requested. If it is within the syndicate's
agreed budget then it is likely that they will produce the required materials.
In this way, a communist-anarchist society will ensure the maximum amount
of economic freedom to start new syndicates and join existing ones plus
ensure that social production does not suffer in the process.

Of course, no system is perfect - we are sure that not everyone will be
able to do the work they enjoy the most (this is also the case under
capitalism, we may add). In an anarchist society every method of ensuring
that individuals pursue the work they are interested in would be
investigated. If a possible solution can be found, we are sure that it will.
What a free society would make sure of was that neither the capitalist
market redeveloped (which ensures that the majority are marginalised into
wage slavery) or a state socialist "labour army" type allocation process
developed (which would ensure that free socialism did not remain free or
socialist for long).

In this manner, anarchism will be able to ensure the principle of
voluntary labour and free association as well as making sure that
unpleasant and unwanted "work" is done. Moreover, most anarchists are
sure that in a free society such requirements to encourage people to
volunteer for unpleasant work will disappear over time as feelings
of mutual aid and solidarity become more and more common place. Indeed,
it is likely that people will gain respect for doing jobs that others might
find unpleasant and so it might become "glamourous" to do such activity.
Showing off to friends can be a powerful stimulus in doing any
activity. So, anarchists would agree with Albert and Hahnel when they
say that:

"In a society that makes every effort to depreciate the esteem that derives
from anything other than conspicuous consumption, it is not surprising that
great income differentials are seen as necessary to induce effort. But to
assume that only conspicuous consumption can motivate people because under
capitalism we have strained to make it so is unwarranted. There is plenty
of evidence that people can be moved to great sacrifices for reasons other
than a desire for personal wealth...there is good reason to believe that for
nonpathological people wealth is generally coveted only as a *means* of
attaining other ends such as economic security, comfort, social esteem,
respect, status, or power." [_The Political Economy of Participatory
Economics_, p. 52]

We should note here that the education syndicates would obviously take
into account the trends in "work" placement requirements when deciding
upon the structure of their classes. In this way, education would
respond to the needs of society as well as the needs of the individual
(as would any productive syndicate).

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

Anarchism is based on voluntary labour. If people do not desire to work
then they cannot (must not) be forced to. However, this does not mean that
an anarchist society will continue to feed, clothe, house someone who can
produce but refuses to. As Camillo Berneri points out, anarchism is
based upon "no compulsion to work, bit no duty towards those who do not
want to work." ["The Problem of Work", in _Why Work?_ ed. Vernon Richards,
p. 74]

Obviously, there is a difference between not wanting to work and being unable
to work. The sick, children, the old, pregnant women and so on will be
looked after by their friends and family. As child rearing will be considered
"work" along with other more obviously economic tasks, mothers and fathers
will not have to leave their children unattended and work to make ends meet.
Instead, consideration will be given to the needs of both parents and
children as well as the creation of community nurseries and child care
centres.

So, in an anarchist society, individuals have two options, either they
can join a commune and work together as equals, or they can work as an
individual or independent cooperative and exchange the product of their
labour with others. If an individual joins a commune and does not carry
their weight, even after their fellow workers ask them to, then that person
will possibly be expelled and given enough land, tools or means of production
to work alone. Of course, if a person is depressed, run down or otherwise
finding it hard to join in communal responsibilities then their friends
and fellow workers would do everything in their power to help and be
flexible in their approach to the problem.

So people will have to work, but how they do so will be voluntary. If
people did not work, society would obviously fall apart and to let some live
off the labour of those who do work would be a reversion to capitalism.
However, most social anarchists think that the problem of people trying
not to work would be a very minor one in an anarchist society. This is
because work is part of human life to express oneself. With work being
voluntary and self-managed, it will become like current day hobbies and
many people work harder at their hobbies than they do at work. It is the
nature of employment under capitalism that makes it "work" instead of
pleasure. Work need not be a part of the day that we wish would end.

This, combined with the workday being shortened, will help ensure
that only an idiot would desire to work alone. As Malatesta argued, the
"individual who wished to supply his own material needs by working alone
would be the slave of his labours." [_The Anarchist Revolution_, p. 15]

So, enlightened self-interest would secure the voluntary labour and
egalitarian distribution anarchists favour in the vast majority of the
population. The parasitism associated with capitalism would be a thing of
the past.

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

Given the anarchist desire to liberate the artist in all of us, we can
easily imagine that a free society would transform totally the working
environment. No longer would workers be indifferent to their workplaces,
but they would express themselves in transforming them into pleasant
places, integrated into both the life of the local community and into
the local environment.

A glimpse of the future workplace can been seen from the actual class
struggle. In the 40 day sit-down strike at Fisher Body plant #1 in Flint,
Michigan in 1936, "there was a community of two thousand strikers . . .
Committees organised recreation, information, classes, a postal service,
sanitation. . .There were classes in parliamentary procedure, public
speaking, history of the labour movement. Graduate students at the
University of Michigan gave courses in journalism and creative writing.
[Howard Zinn, _A People's History of the United States_, p. 391]

Therefore the workplace would be expanded to include education and
classes in individual development. This would allow work to become
part of a wider community, drawing in people from different areas to
share their knowledge and learn new insights and ideas. In addition,
children would have part of their school studies with workplaces, getting
them aware of the practicalities of many different forms of work and so
allowing them to make informed decisions in what sort of activity they
would be interested in pursuing when they were older.

Obviously, a workplace managed by its workers would also take care to make
the working environment as pleasant as possible. No more "sick building
syndrome" or unhealthy and stressful work areas. Buildings would be
designed to maximise space and allow individual expression within them.
Outside the workplace, we can imagine it surrounded by gardens and allotments
which were tended by workers themselves, giving a pleasant surrounding
to the workplace.

Therefore the future workplace would be an expression of the desires of
those who worked there. It would be based around a pleasant working
environment, within gardens and with extensive library, resources for
education classes and other leisure activities. All this, and more, will
be possible in a society based upon self-realisation and self-expression
and one in which individuality is not crushed by authority and capitalism.
Such a vision is possible and is only held back by capitalism which
denounces such visions of freedom as "uneconomic." However, as William
Morris points out:

"Impossible I hear an anti-Socialist say. My friend, please to remember
that most factories sustain today large and handsome gardens, and not
seldom parks . . .*only* the said gardens, etc. are twenty miles away from
the factory, *out of the smoke,* and are kept up for *one member of the
factory only,* the sleeping partner to wit" [_A Factory as It Might Be_,
pp. 7-8]

Pleasant working conditions based upon the self-management of work can
produce a workplace within which economic "efficiency" can be achieved
without disrupting and destroying individuality and the environment.

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

The social and political structure of anarchy is parallel to that of the
economic structure, i.e., it is based on a voluntary federation of
decentralized, directly democratic policy-making bodies, the neighborhood
and community assemblies. In these grassroots political units, the concept
of "self-management" becomes that of municipal self-government, a form
of civic organization in which people take back control of their
living places from the bureaucratic state and the capitalist class whose
interests it serves. As Kropotkin argued, "socialism must become *more
popular*, more communalistic, and less dependent upon indirect government
through elected representatives. It must become more *self-governing.*"
[_Revolutionary Pamphlets_, p. 185]

This empowerment of ordinary citizens through decentralization and direct
democracy will eliminate the alienation and apathy that are now rampant in
the modern city, and (as always happens when people are free) unleash a
flood of innovation in dealing with the social breakdown now afflicting
our urban wastelands. The gigantic metropolis with its hierarchical and
impersonal administration, its atomised and isolated "residents," will be
transformed into a network of humanly scaled participatory communities
(sometimes called "communes"), each with its own unique character and
forms of self-government, which will be cooperatively linked through
federation with other communities at several levels, from the municipal
through the bioregional to the global.

Of course, it can (and has) been argued that people are just not
interested in "politics." Further, some claim that this disinterest is
why governments exist -- people delegate their responsibilities and power
to others because they have better things to do. Anarchists, however, do
not draw this conclusion from the current apathy that surrounds us. In
fact, we argue that this apathy is not the cause of government but its
result. Government is an inherently hierarchical system in which ordinary
people are deliberately marginalised. The powerlessness people feel due to
the workings of the system ensure that they are apathetic about it, thus
guaranteeing that wealthy and powerful elites govern society without
hindrance from the majority.

This result is not an accident, and the marginalisation of "ordinary" people
is actually celebrated in "democratic" theory. As Noam Chomsky notes,
"Twentieth century democratic theorists advise that 'The public must be
put in its place,' so that the 'responsible men' may 'live free of the
trampling and roar of a bewildered herd,' 'ignorant and meddlesome
outsiders' whose 'function' is to be 'interested spectators of action,'
not participants, lending their weight periodically to one or another of
the leadership class (elections), then returning to their private
concerns. (Walter Lippman). The great mass of the population, 'ignorant
and mentally deficient,' must be kept in their place for the common good,
fed with 'necessary illusion' and 'emotionally potent oversimplifications'
(Wilson's Secretary of State Robert Lansing, Reinhold Niebuhr). Their
'conservative' counterparts are only more extreme in their adulation of the
Wise Men who are the rightful rulers -- in the service of the rich and
powerful, a minor footnote regularly forgotten." [_Year 501_, p. 18]

As discussed in Section B.2.6 (Who benefits from centralisation?) this
marginalisation of the public from political life ensures that the wealthy
can be "left alone" to use their power as they see fit. In other words,
such marginalisation is a necessary part of a fully functioning
capitalist society (as predicted by Thomas Jefferson, among others, when
he said that "The end of democracy and the defeat of the American
Revolution will occur when the government falls into the hands of banking
institutions and monied incorporations"). Hence, under capitalism,
libertarian social structures are to be discouraged. Or as Chomsky puts
it, the "rabble must be instructed in the values of subordination and a
narrow quest for personal gain within the parameters set by the
institutions of the masters; meaningful democracy, with popular
association and action, is a threat to be overcome." [Op. Cit., p. 18]
This philosophy can be seen in the statement of a US Banker in Venezuela
under the murderous Jimenez dictatorship: "You have the freedom here to
do whatever you want to do with your money, and to me, that is worth all
the political freedom in the world." [quoted by Chomsky, Op. Cit., p. 99]

Deterring libertarian alternatives to statism is a common feature of our
current system. By marginalising and disempowering people, the ability of
individuals to manage their own social activities is undermined and
weakened. They develop a "fear of freedom" and embrace authoritarian
institutions and "strong leaders," which in turn reinforces their
marginalisation.

This consequence is hardly surprising. Anarchists maintain that the desire to
participate and the ability to participate are in a symbiotic relationship:
participation feeds on itself. By creating the social structures that allow
participation, participation will increase. As people increasingly take control
of their lives, so their ability to do so also increases. The challenge of
having to take responsibility for decisions that make a difference is at the
same time an opportunity for personal development. To begin to feel power,
having previously felt powerless, to win access to the resources required for
effective participation and learn how to use them, is a liberating experience.
Once people become active subjects, making things happen in one aspect of
their lives, they are less likely to remain passive objects, allowing things
to happen to them, in other aspects.

Hence a meaningful communal life based on self-empowered individuals is a
distinct possibility. It is the hierarchical structures in statism and
capitalism, marginalising and disempowering the majority, which is at the
root of the current social apathy in the face of increasing social and
ecological disruption. Libertarian socialists therefore call for a
radically new form of political system to replace the centralized
nation-state, a form that would be based around confederations of
self-governing communities. In other words "*Society is a society of
societies; a league of leagues of leagues; a commonwealth of commonwealths
of commonwealths; a republic of republics of republics.* Only there is
freedom and order, only there is spirit, a spirit which is
self-sufficiency and community, unity and independence." [Gustav
Landauer, _For Socialism_, pp. 125-126]

To create such a system would require dismantling the nation-state and
reconstituting relations between communities on the basis of
self-determination and free and equal confederation from below. In the
following subsections we will examine in more detail why this new system
is needed and what it might look like. We will point out here that we
are discussing the social structure of areas within which the inhabitants
are predominately anarchists. It is obviously the case that areas in which
the inhabitants are not anarchists will take on different forms depending
upon the ideas that dominate there. Hence, assuming the end of the current
state structure, we could see anarchist communities along with statist
ones (capitalist or socialist) and these communities taking different
forms depending on what their inhabitants want - communist to individualist
communities in the case of anarchist ones, republician to private state
organisations in the statist areas, ones based on religious sects and so
on. As it is up to non-anarchists to present their arguments in favour of
their kind of statism, we will concentrate on discussing anarchist ideas
on social organisation here.

I.5.1 What are participatory communities and why are they needed?

As Murray Bookchin argues in _The Rise of Urbanization and the Decline of
Citizenship_, the modern city is a virtual appendage of the capitalist
workplace, being an outgrowth and essential counterpart of the factory
(where "factory" means any enterprise in which surplus value is extracted
from employees.) As such, cities are structured and administered primarily
to serve the needs of the capitalist elite -- employers -- rather than the
needs of the many -- their employees. From this standpoint, the city must
be seen as (1) a transportation hub for importing raw materials and
exporting finished products; and (2) a huge dormitory for wage slaves,
conveniently locating them near the enterprises where their labor is to
exploited, providing them with entertainment, clothing, medical
facilities, etc. as well as coercive mechanisms for controlling their
behavior.

The attitude behind the management of these "civic" functions by the
bureaucratic servants of the capitalist ruling class is purely
instrumental: worker-citizens are to be treated merely as means to
corporate ends, not as ends in themselves. This attitude is reflected in
the overwhelmingly alienating features of the modern city: its inhuman
scale; the chilling impersonality of its institutions and functionaries;
its sacrifice of health, comfort, pleasure, and aesthetic considerations
to bottom-line requirements of efficiency and "cost effectiveness"; the
lack of any real communal interaction among residents other than
collective consumption of commodities and amusements; their consequent
social isolation and tendency to escape into television, alcohol, drugs,
gangs, etc. Such features make the modern metropolis the very antithesis
of the genuine community for which most of its residents hunger. This
contradiction at the heart of the system contains the possibility of
radical social and political change.

The key to that change, from the anarchist standpoint, is the creation of
a network of participatory communities based on self-government through
direct, face-to-face democracy in grassroots neighbourhood and community
assemblies. These assemblies will be general meetings open to all citizens
in every neighbourhood, town, and village, and will be the source of and
final authority over public policy for all levels of confederal
coordination. Such "town meetings" will bring ordinary people directly
into the political process and give them an equal voice in the decisions
that affect their lives - "a people governing itself directly - when
possible - without intermediaries, without masters." [Peter Kropotkin,
_The Great French Revolution_ Vol 1, p. 210] Traditionally, these "town
meetings" or participatory communities were called *communes* in anarchist
theory.

As Kropotkin pointed out, a "new form of political organisation has to be
worked out the moment that socialistic principles shall enter our life.
And it is self-evident that this new form will have to be *more popular,
more decentralised, and nearer to the folk-mote self-government* than
representative government can ever be." [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_,
p. 184] He, like all anarchists, considered the idea that socialism could
be created by taking over the current state or creating a new one as
doomed to failure. Instead, he recognised that socialism would only be
built using new organisations that reflect the spirit of socialism (such
as freedom, self-government and so on). Kropotkin, like Proudhon and
Bakunin before him, therefore argued that "*[t]his was the form that
the social revolution must take* -- the independent commune. . .[whose]
inhabitants have decided that they *will* communalize the consumption of
commodities, their exchange and their production" [Op. Cit., p. 163]

The size of the neighbourhood assemblies will vary, but it will probably
fluctuate around some ideal size, discoverable in practice, that will
provide a viable scale of face-to-face interaction and allow for both a
variety of personal contacts and the opportunity to know and form a
personal estimation of everyone in the neighborhood. Some anarchists have
suggested that the ideal size for a neighbourhood assembly might be around
300 to 600 adults, meeting in neighborhoods of 500 to 1,000 people. (See,
for example, "Green Political and Social Change" by the Syracuse/Onandaga
County Greens, in _Our Generation_ magazine, vol. 24, No 2. ). Such
assemblies would meet regularly, perhaps monthly, and deal with a variety
of issues. "Neighborhoods of this size can support their assemblies to
oversee the administration of elementary schools, child care centers,
retail outlets for basic home supplies, solar based energy sources,
community gardens, community handicraft and machine tool workshops,
community laundries, and much more, all within close walking distance"
[Ibid.].

Community assemblies and councils would be larger political units covering
groups of neighborhoods involving perhaps 5,000 to 10,000 people. Like the
neighborhood assemblies, they would be based on direct, "town-meeting"-style
democracy. Most economies of scale are reached at this size:

"For example, assuming today's technology, division of labor,
and level of workforce participation, a community of 10,000 with 2,000
manufacturing workers would be able to staff three plants of current
average size in each of the thirteen basic manufacturing categories --
enough to supply the community with most of its manufacturing needs with
considerable variety. Add multi-purpose machines, miniaturization, and
cybernation, and the possibilities for a high degree of economic
self-reliance become obvious. At this scale, the community still remains
comprehensible, community control of the economy feasible, and such
measures as distribution according to need and the regular rotation of
people through a full range of types of work and public administrative
responsibilities can be easily introduced. Communities of 5,000 to 10,000
would combine community assemblies, meeting perhaps quarterly to decide on
basic policy, with community councils consisting of mandated, recallable,
and rotating delegates from the neighborhood assemblies to oversee day to
day coordination and administration of community policies" [Ibid.]

I.5.2 Why are confederations of participatory communities needed?

Since not all issues are local, the neighbourhood and community assemblies
will also elect mandated and recallable delegates to the larger-scale
units of self-government in order to address issues affecting larger
areas, such as urban districts, the municipality as a whole, the county,
the bioregion, and ultimately the entire planet. Thus the assemblies
will confederate at several levels in order to develop and coordinate
common policies to deal with common problems.

This need for cooperation does not imply a centralised body. As Kropotkin
pointed out, anarchists "understand that if no central government was needed
to rule the independent communes, if national government is thrown
overboard and national unity is obtained by free federation, then a
central *municipal* government becomes equally useless and noxious. The
same federative principle would do within the commune." [_Kropotkin's
Revolutionary Pamphlets, pp. 163-164]

As in the economic federation of collectives, the lower levels will control
the higher, thus eliminating the current pre-emptive powers of centralised
government hierarchies. Delegates to higher-level coordinating councils or
conferences will be instructed, at every level of confederation, by the
assemblies they represent, on how to deal with any issue. These
instructions will be binding, committing delegates to a framework of
policies within which they must act and providing for their recall and the
nullification of their decisions if they fail to carry out their mandates.
Delegates may be selected by election and/or sortition (random selection
by lot, as for jury duty).

Most anarchists recognize that there will be a need for "public officials"
with delegated "powers" within the social confederation. However, "powers"
is not the best word to describe their activities, because their work is
essentially administrative in nature -- for example, an individual may be
elected to look into alternative power supplies for a community and report
back on what he or she discovers. Or one may be elected to overlook the
installation of a selected power supply. Because such a person is an elected
delegate of the community, he or she is a "public official" in the broadest
sense of the word, essentially an agent of the local community who is
controlled by, and accountable to, that community.

Therefore, such "officials" are unlike politicians. This is for two reasons.
Firstly, they cannot make policy decisions on behalf of those who elected
them, and so they do not have governmental power over those who elected them.
Taking the example of alternative power supplies, the elected "official"
would present findings to the body by which he or she had been mandated.
These findings are *not* a law which the electors are required to follow,
but a series of suggestions and information from which they chose what
they think is best. By this method the "officials" remain the servants of the
public and are not given power to make decisions for people. In addition,
these "officials" will be rotated frequently to prevent a professionalization
of politics and the problem of politicians being largely on their own once
elected.

Therefore, such "public officials" would be under the strict control of
the organisations that elected them to administration posts. But, as
Kropotkin argued, the general assembly of the community "in permanence -
the forum always open - is the only way . . .to assure an honest and
intelligent administration . . . [and is based upon] *distrust of all
executive powers.*" [_The Great French Revolution_ Vol.1, p. 211]

As Murray Bookchin argues, a "confederalist view involves a clear distinction
between policy making and the coordination and execution of adopted policies.
Policy making is exclusively the right of popular community assemblies based
on the practices of participatory democracy. Administration and coordination
are the responsibility of confederal councils, which become the means for
interlinking villages, towns, neighbourhoods, and cities into confederal
networks. Power flows from the bottom up instead of from the top down, and
in confederations, the flow of power from the bottom up diminishes with the
scope of the federal council ranging territorially from localities to
regions and from regions to ever-broader territorial areas." ["The Meaning
of Confederation", p. 48, _Society and Nature_ No.3, pp. 41-54]

Thus the people will have the final word on policy, which is the essence
of self-government, and each citizen will have his or her turn to
participate in the coordination of public affairs. In other words, the
"legislative branch" of self-government will be the people themselves
organized in their community assemblies and their confederal coordinating
councils, with the "executive branch" (public officials) limited to
implementing policy formulated by the legislative branch, that is, by the
people.

Besides rotation of public officials, means to ensure the accountability
of such officials to the people will include a wider use of elections and
sortitions, open access to proceedings and records of "executive"
activities by computer or direct inspection, the right of citizen
assemblies to mandate delegates to higher-level confederal meetings,
recall their officials, and revoke their decisions, and the creation of
accountability boards, elected or selected by lot (as for jury duty), for
each important administrative branch, from local to national.

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

Virtually all the services and productive enterprises necessary to meet
the needs of the population are present in today's small cities of 50,000
to 100,000. Beyond this size, diseconomies of scale begin to appear due to
the complexities of coordinating urban services across wide areas and
large populations. Therefore a libertarian-socialist society would
probably form another level of confederation at the 50,000 to 100,000
range. Such units of confederation would include urban districts within
today's large cities, small cities, and rural districts composed of
several nearby towns. At this size, economies of scale can be achieved for
nearly all the remaining social needs such as universities, hospitals, and
cultural institutions.

However, face-to-face meetings of the whole population are impractical at
this size. Therefore, the legislative body at this level would be the

confederal council,* which would consist of mandated, recallable, and

rotating delegates from the neighborhood assemblies. These delegates would
formulate policies to be discussed and voted on by the neighborhood
assemblies, with the votes being summed across the district to determine
district policy by majority rule.

To quote the Syracuse/Onandaga County Greens again, "Since almost all of
the economies of scale and public decisions necessary for social
self-management can be achieved by the time we reach the 50,000 to 100,000
scale, larger levels of confederation can be oriented mainly around
bioregional and cultural affinities and the few remaining but important
economic resources that must be shared at these scales." ["Green Political
and Social Change", Ibid.]

Ties between bioregions or larger territories based on the distribution of
such things as geographically concentrated mineral deposits, climate dependent
crops, and production facilities that are most efficient when concentrated
in one area will unite communities confederally on the basis of common
material needs as well as values. At the bioregional and higher levels of
confederation, councils of mandated, recallable, and rotating delegates
will coordinate policies at those levels, but such policies will still be
subject to approval by the neighborhood and community assemblies through
their right to recall their representatives and revoke their decisions.

In the final analysis, libertarian socialism cannot function optimally --
and indeed may be fatally undermined -- unless the present system of
competing nation-states is replaced by a cooperative system of
decentralized bioregions of self-governing communities confederated on a
global scale. For, if a libertarian-socialist nation is forced to compete
in the global market for scarce raw materials and hard cash with which to
buy them, the problems of "bourgeois cooperativism," previously noted,
will have merely been displaced to a higher level of organization. That
is, instead of individual cooperatives acting as collective capitalists
and competing against each other in the national market for profits, raw
materials, etc., the nation *as a whole* will become the "collective
capitalist" and compete against other nations in the global capitalist
market -- a situation that is bound to reintroduce many problems, e.g.
militarism, imperialism, and alienating/disempowering measures in the
workplace, justified in the name of "efficiency" and "global
competitiveness."

To some extent such problems can be reduced in the transition period by
achieving self-sufficiency within bioregions (which should be easier in a
libertarian-socialist economy where artificial needs are not manufactured
by massive advertising campaigns of giant profit-seeking corporations) and
by limiting interbioregional trade as much as possible to other members of
the libertarian-socialist federation. However, to eliminate the problem
completely, anarchists envision a global council of bioregional delegates
to coordinate global cooperation based on policies formulated and approved
at the grassroots by the confederal principles outlined above.

I.5.4 How will anything ever be decided by all those confederal conferences?

Firstly, we doubt that a free society will spend all its time in
assemblies or organising confederal conferences. As these congresses are
concerned purely with joint activity and coordination, it is likely that
they will not be called very often. Different associations and
cooperatives have a functional need for cooperation and so would meet more
regularly and take action on practical activity which affects a specific
section of a community or group of communities. Not every issue that a
member of a community is interested in is necessarily best discussed at a
meeting of all members of a community or at a confederal conference.

In other words, communal assemblies and conferences will have specific,
well defined agendas, and so there is little danger of "politics" taking
up everyone's time. Hence, far from discussing abstract laws and pointless
motions which no one actually knows much about, the issues discussed in
these conferences will be on specific issues which are important to those
involved. In addition, the standard procedure may be to elect a sub-group
to investigate an issue and report back at a later stage with
recommendations. The conference can change, accept, or reject any
proposals. As Kropotkin argued, anarchy would be based on "free agreement,
by exchange of letters and proposals, and by congresses at which
delegates met to discuss well specified points, and to come to an
agreement about them, but not to make laws. After the congress was over,
the delegates [would return]. . .not with a law, but with the draft of a
contract to be accepted or rejected" [_Conquest of Bread_, p. 131]

By reducing conferences to functional bodies based on concrete issues, the
problems of endless discussions can be reduced, if not totally eliminated.
In addition, as functional groups would exist outside of these communal
confederations (for example, industrial collectives would organise
conferences about their industry with invited participants from consumer
groups), there would be a limited agenda in most communal get-togethers.

The most important issues would be to agree on the guidelines for
industrial activity, communal investment (e.g. houses, hospitals, etc.)
and overall coordination of large scale communal activities. In this way
everyone would be part of the commonwealth, deciding on how resources
would be used to maximise human well-being and ecological survival. The
problems associated with "the tyranny of small decisions" would be
overcome without undermining individual freedom. (In fact, a healthy
community would enrich and develop individuality by encouraging
independent and critical thought, social interaction, and empowering
social institutions based on self-management).

Is such a system fantasy? As Murray Bookchin points out, "Paris in the late
eighteenth century was, by the standards of that time, one of the largest
and economically most complex cities in Europe: its population
approximated a million people. . .Yet in 1793, at the height of the French
Revolution, the city was managed *institutionally* almost entirely by [48]
citizen assemblies. . .and its affairs were coordinated by the *Commune*.
. .and often, in fact, by the assemblies themselves, or sections as they
were called, which established their own interconnections without recourse
to the *Commune.*" [_Society and Nature_, issue no. 5, p. 96] Kropotkin
argued that these "sections" (as they were called" showed "the principles
of anarchism, expressed some years later in England by W. Godwin, . . .
had their origin, not in theoretical speculations, but in the *deeds*
of the Great French Revolution" [_The Great French Revolution_, Vol. 1,
p.204]

In other words, it *is* possible. It *has* worked. With the massive
improvements in communication technology it is even more viable than
before. Whether or not we reach such a self-managed society depends on
whether we desire to be free or not.

I.5.4 Aren't participatory communities and confederations just new states?

No. As we have seen in section B.2, a state can be defined both by its
structure and its function. As far as structure is concerned, a state
involves the politico-military and economic domination of a certain
geographical territory by a ruling elite, based on the delegation of power
into the hands of the few, resulting in hierarchy (centralised authority).
As Kropotkin argued, "the word 'State' . . . should be reserved for those
societies with the hierarchical system and centralisation." [_Ethics_,
p. 317f]

In a system of federated participatory communities, however, there is no
ruling elite, and thus no hierarchy, because power is retained by the
lowest-level units of confederation through their use of direct democracy
and mandated, rotating, and recallable delegates to meetings of
higher-level confederal bodies. This eliminates the problem in
"representative" democratic systems of the delegation of power leading to
the elected officials becoming isolated from and beyond the control of the
mass of people who elected them. As Kropotkin pointed out, an anarchist
society would make decisions by "means of congresses, composed of
delegates, who discuss among themselves, and submit *proposals*, not

laws*, to their constituents" [_The Conquest of Bread_, p. 135], and so

is based on *self*-government, *not* representative government (i.e.
statism).

In addition, in representative democracy, elected officials who must make
decisions on a wide range of issues inevitably gather an unelected
bureaucracy around them to aid in their decision making, and because of
its control of information and its permanency, this bureaucracy soon has
more power than the elected officials (who themselves have more power than
the people). In the system we have sketched, policy proposals formulated
by higher-level confederal bodies would often be presented to the
grassroots political units for discussion and voting (though the
grassroots units could also formulate policy proposals directly), and
these higher-level bodies would often need to consult experts in
formulating such proposals. But these experts would not be retained as a
permanent bureaucracy, and all information provided by them would be
available to the lower-level units to aid in their decision making, thus
eliminating the control of information on which bureaucratic power is
based.

Perhaps it will be objected that communal decision making is just a form
of "statism" based on direct, as opposed to representative, democracy --
"statist" because the individual is still be subject to the rules of the
majority and so is not free. This objection, however, confuses statism
with free agreement (i.e. cooperation). Since participatory communities,
like productive syndicates, are voluntary associations, the decisions they
make are based on self-assumed obligations (see section A.2.11 - Why are
anarchists in favour of direct democracy?), and dissenters can leave the
association if they so desire.

In addition, in a free society, dissent and direct action can be used by
minorities to press their case (or defend their freedom) as well as debate.
As Carole Pateman argues, "Political disobedience is merely one
possible expression of the active citizenship on which a self-managing
democracy is based." In this way, individual liberty can be protected
in a communal system and society enriched by opposition, confrontation and
dissent. Without self-management and minority dissent, society would become
"an ideological cemetery" which would "stifle the dialectic of ideas that
thrives" on discussion, and we may add, stifle the development of the
individuals within that society. [Bookchin, Op. Cit., p.9] Therefore it
is likely that a society based on voluntary agreements and self-management
would, out of interpersonal empathy and self-interest, create a society
that encouraged individuality and respect for minorities.

Therefore, a commune's participatory nature is the opposite of statism.
April Carter, in _Authority and Democracy_ agrees. She states that
"commitment to direct democracy or anarchy in the socio-political sphere
is incompatible with political authority" [p. 69] and that the "only
authority that can exist in a direct democracy is the collective
'authority' vested in the body politic . . . it is doubtful if authority
can be created by a group of equals who reach decisions be a process of
mutual persuasion." [p. 380]

Anarchists assert that individuals and the institutions they create
cannot be considered in isolation. Authoritarian institutions will
create individuals who have a servile nature, who cannot govern themselves.
Anarchists, therefore, consider it common sense that individuals, in order to
be free, *must* have take part in determining the general agreements they
make with their neighbours which give form to their communities. Otherwise,
society itself could not exist and individuals would be subject to rules
others make *for* them (following orders is hardly libertarian). Therefore,
anarchists recognise the social nature of humanity and the fact any society
based on contracts (like capitalism) will be marked by authority, injustice
and inequality, *not* freedom. As Bookchin points out, "To speak of 'The
Individual' part from its social roots is as meaningless as to speak of a
society that contains no people or institutions." ["Communalism: The
Democratic Dimension of Anarchism", _Society and Nature_ no. 8, p. 15]

Society cannot be avoided and "[u]nless everyone is to be psychologically
homogeneous and society's interests so uniform in character that dissent
is simply meaningless, there must be room for conflicting proposals,
discussion, rational explication and majority decisions - in short,
democracy." [Op. Cit, pp. 15-16] Those who reject democracy in the name
of liberty (such as many supporters of capitalism) usually also see
the need for laws and hierarchical authority (particularly in the workplace).
This is unsurprising, as such authority is the only means left by which
collective activity can be coordinated if "democracy" is rejected (usually
as "statist", which is ironic as the resulting institutions, such as
a capitalist company, are far more statist than directly democratic ones).

However, it should be noted that communities can expel individuals or
groups of individuals who constantly hinder community decisions. As
Malatesta argued, "for if it is unjust that the majority should
oppress the minority, the contrary would be quite as unjust; and if the
minority has a right to rebel, the majority has a right to defend itself.
. . it is true that this solution is not completely satisfactory. The
individuals put out of the association would be deprived of many social
advantages, which an isolated person or group must do without, because
they can only be procured by the cooperation of a great number of human
beings. But what would you have? These malcontents cannot fairly demand
that the wishes of many others should be sacrificed for their sakes." [_A
Talk about Anarchist-Communism_, p. 29]

Nevertheless, such occurrences would be rare (for reasons discussed in
section I.5.6), and their possibility merely indicates that free
association also means the freedom *not* to associate. This a very
important freedom for both the majority and the minority, and must be
defended. However, as an isolated life is impossible, the need for
communal associations is essential. It is only by living together in a
supportive community can individuality be encouraged and developed along
with individual freedom.

Lastly, that these communities and confederations are not just states
with new names in indicated by two more considerations. Firstly, in regard
to the activities of the confederal conferences, it is clear that they
would *not* be passing laws on personal behaviour or ethics, i.e. not
legislating to restrict the liberty of those who live in these communities
they represent. For example, a community is unlikely to pass laws
outlawing homosexuality or censoring the press, for reasons discussed in
the next section. Hence they would not be "law-making bodies" in the modern
sense of the term, and thus not statist. Secondly, these confederations
have no means to enforce their decisions. In other words, if a confederal
congress makes a decision, it has no means to force people to act or not
act in a certain way. We can imagine that there will be ethical reasons
why participants will not act in ways to oppose joint activity -- as they
took part in the decision making process they would be considered childish
if they reject the final decision because it did not go in their favour.

So, far from being new states by which one section of a community imposes
its ethical standards on another, the anarchist commune is just a public
forum. In this forum, issues of community interest (for example,
management of the commons, control of communalised economic activity, and
so forth) are discussed and policy agreed upon. In addition, interests
beyond a local area are also discussed and delegates for confederal
conferences are mandated with the wishes of the community. Hence,
administration of things replaces government of people, with the community
of communities existing to ensure that the interests of all are managed by
all and that liberty, justice and equality are more than just ideals.

For these reasons, a libertarian-socialist society would not create a new
state as far as structure goes. But what about in the area of function?
As noted in section B.2.1, the function of the state is to enable the
ruling elite to exploit subordinate social strata, i.e. to derive an
economic surplus from them, which it does by protecting certain economic
monopolies from which the elite derives its wealth, and so its power. But
this function is completely eliminated by the economic structure of
anarchist society, which, by abolishing private property, makes it
impossible for a privileged elite to form, let alone exploit "subordinate
strata" (which will not exist, as no one is subordinate in power to anyone
else). In other words, by placing the control of productive resources in
the hands of the workers councils and community assemblies, every worker
is given free access to the means of production that he or she needs to
earn a living. Hence no one will be forced to pay usury (i.e. a use-fee)
in the form of appropriated surplus value (profits) to an elite class that
monopolizes the means of production. In short, without private property,
the state loses its reason for existence.

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

There is, of course, this danger in *any* system of democracy, direct or
indirect. However, while there is cause for concern (and anarchists are
at the forefront in expressing it), the "tyranny-of-the-majority"
objection fails to take note of the vast difference between direct and
"representative" forms of democracy.

In the current system, as we pointed out in section B.5, voters are mere
passive spectators of occasional, staged, and highly rehearsed debates
among candidates preselected by the corporate elite, who pay for campaign
expenses. More often the public is expected to choose simply on the basis
of political ads and news sound bites. Moreover, once the choice is made,
cumbersome and ineffective recall procedures insure that elected
representatives can act more or less as they (or rather, their wealthy
sponsors) please. The function, then, of the electorate in bourgeois
"representative government" is ratification of "choices" that have been

already made for them!*

By contrast, in a direct, libertarian democracy, decisions are made
following public discussion in community assemblies open to all. After
decisions have been reached, outvoted minorities -- even minorities of one
-- still have ample opportunity to present reasoned and persuasive
counterarguments to try to change the decision. This process of debate,
disagreement, challenge, and counter-challenge, which goes on even after
the defeated minority has temporarily acquiesced in the decision of the
majority, is virtually absent in the representative system, where "tyranny
of the majority" is truly a problem. In addition, minorities can secede
from an association if the decision reached by it are truly offensive to
them.

And let's not forget that in all likelihood, issues of personal conduct or
activity will not be discussed in the neighbourhood assemblies. Why?
Because we are talking about a society in which most people consider
themselves to be unique, free individuals, who would thus recognise and
act to protect the uniqueness and freedom of others. Unless people are
indoctrinated by religion or some other form of ideology, they can be
tolerant of others and their individuality. If this is not the case now,
it has to do with the existence of authoritarian social relationships and
the type of person they create -- relationships that will be dismantled
under libertarian socialism.

Today an authoritarian worldview, characterized by an inability to think
beyond the categories of domination and submission, is imparted by
conditioning in the family, schools, religious institutions, clubs,
fraternities, the army, etc., and produces a type of personality that is
intolerant of any individual or group perceived as threatening to the
perpetuation of that worldview and its corresponding institutions and
values. Thus, as Bakunin argues, "public opinion" is potentially intolerant
"simply because hitherto this power has not been humanized itself; it has
not been humanized because the social life of which it is ever the
faithful expression is based. . .in the worship of divinity, not on
respect for humanity; in authority, not on liberty; on privilege, not on
equality; in the exploitation, not on the brotherhood, of men; on iniquity
and falsehood, not on justice and truth. Consequently its real action,
always in contradiction of the humanitarian theories which it professes,
has constantly exercised a disastrous and depraving influence" [_God and
the State_, p. 43ff].

In an anarchist society, however, a conscious effort will be made to
dissolve the institutional and traditional sources of the
authoritarian/submissive type of personality, and thus to free "public
opinion" of its current potential for intolerance. In addition, it should
be noted that as anarchists recognise that the practice of self-assumed
political obligation implied in free association also implies the right to
practice dissent and disobedience as well. As Carole Pateman notes, "[e]ven
if it is impossible to be unjust to myself, I do not vote for myself alone,
but alone with everyone else. Questions about injustice are always
appropriate in political life, for there is no guarantee that participatory
voting will actually result in decisions in accord with the principles
of political morality." [_The Problem of Political Obligation_, p. 160]

If an individual or group of individuals feel that a specific decision
threatens their freedom (which is the basic principle of political
morality in an anarchist society) they can (and must) act to defend that
freedom. "The political practice of participatory voting rests in a
collective self-consciousness about the meaning and implication of
citizenship. The members of the political association understand that to
vote is simultaneously to commit oneself, to commit one's fellow citizens,
and also to commit oneself to them in a mutual undertaking . . . a refusal
to vote on a particular occasion indicates that the refusers believe . . .
[that] the proposal . . . infringes the principle of political morality
on which the political association is based . . A refusal to vote [or the
use of direct action] could be seen as an appeal to the 'sense of justice'
of their fellow citizens." [Carole Pateman, Op. Cit., p. 161]

As they no longer "consent" to the decisions made by their community they
can appeal to the "sense of justice" of their fellow citizens by direct
action and indicate that a given decision may have impacts which the
majority were not aware. Hence direct action and dissent is a key aspect
of an anarchist society and help ensure against the tyranny of the majority.
Anarchism rejects the "love it or leave it" attitude that marks classical
liberalism as well as Rousseau (this aspect of his work being inconsistant
with its foundations in participation).

It should be stressed, however, that most anarchists do not think that the
way to guard against tyranny by the majority is to resort to
decision-making by consensus (where no action can be taken until every
person in the group agrees) or a property system (based in contracts).
Both consensus (see section A.2.12 - Is consensus an alternative to direct
democracy?) and contracts (see section A.2.14 - Why is voluntarism not
enough?) soon result in authoritarian social relationships developing in
the name of "liberty."

For example, decision making by consensus tends to eliminate the creative
role of dissent and mutate into a system that pressures people into
psychic and intellectual conformity -- hardly a libertarian ideal. In the
case of property- and contract-based systems, those with property have
more power than those without, and so they soon determine what can and
cannot be done -- in other words, the "tyranny of the minority" and
hierarchical authority. Both alternatives are deeply flawed. Hence most
anarchists have recognized that majority decision making, though not
perfect, is the best way to reach decisions in a political system based
on maximising freedom. Direct democracy in grassroots confederal
assemblies and workers' councils ensures that decision making is
"horizontal" in nature (i.e. between *equals*) and not hierarchical (i.e.
governmental, between order giver and order taker).

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

As would be expected, no one would be *forced* to join a commune nor take
part in its assemblies. To suggest otherwise would be contrary to
anarchist principles. We have already indicated why the communes would not
be likely to restrict individuals with new "laws". However, what about
individuals who live within the boundaries of a commune (obviously
individuals can leave to find communities more in line with their own
concepts of right and wrong if they cannot convince their neighbours of
the validity of their ideas)? For example, a local neighbourhood may include
households that desire to associate and a few that do not. Are the communal
decisions binding on non-members? Obviously not. If an individual or family
desire *not* to join (for whatever reason), their freedoms must be respected.
However, this also means that they cannot benefit from communal activity and
resources (such a free housing, hospitals, and so forth) and, possibly,
have to pay for their use. As long as they do not exploit or oppress
others, an anarchist community would respect their decision.

However, many who oppose anarchist direct democracy in the name of freedom
often do so because they desire to oppress and exploit others. In other
words, they oppose participatory communities because they (rightly) fear
that this would restrict their ability to oppress, exploit and grow rich off
the labour of others. This type of opposition can be seen from history, when
rich elites, in the name of liberty, have replaced democratic forms of
social decision making with representative or authoritarian ones (see
section B.2.6). Regardless of what defenders of capitalism claim,
"voluntary bilateral exchanges" affect third parties and can harm others
indirectly. This can easily be seen from examples like concentrations of
wealth which have effects across society, or crime in the local
community, or the ecological impacts of consumption and production.

As a way to minimize this problem, an anarchist revolution aims to
place social wealth (starting with the land) in the hands of all and to
protect only those uses of it which are considered just by society as a
whole. In other words, by recognising that "property" is a product of
society, an anarchist society will ensure than an individual's "property"
is protected by his or her fellows when it is based purely upon actual
occupancy and use. As Malatesta put it, some "seem almost to believe that
after having brought down government and private property we would allow
both to be quietly built up again, because of respect for the *freedom*
of those who might feel the need to be rulers and property owners. A
truly curious way of interpreting our ideas." [_Anarchy_, p. 41]

So, it goes without saying that the minority, as in any society,
will exist within the ethical norms of society and they will be "forced to
adhere" to them in the same sense that they are "forced to adhere" not to
murder people. Few people would say that forcing people not to commit murder
is a restriction of their liberty. Therefore, while allowing the maximum
of individual freedom of dissent, an anarchist community would still have
to apply its ethical standards to those beyond that community. Individuals
would not be allowed to murder or enslave others and claim that they are
allowed to do so because they are not part of the local community (see
section I.5.8 on crime in an anarchist society). Similarly, individuals
would not be allowed to develop private property (as opposed to possession)
simply because they wanted to. Such a "ban" on private property would not be
a restriction on liberty simply because stopping the development of
authority hardly counts as an authoritarian act (for an analogy, supporters
of capitalism do not think that banning theft is a restriction of liberty
and because this view is - currently - accepted by the majority, it is
enforced on the minority). Even the word "ban" is wrong, as it is the
would-be capitalist who is trying to ban freedom for others from their
"property." Members of a free society would simply refuse to recognise the
claims of private property - "occupancy and use" (to use Tucker's term)
would be the limits of possession - and so property would become "that
control of a thing by a person which will receive either social sanction,
or else unanimous individual sanction, when the laws of social expediency
shall have been fully discovered." [B. Tucker, _Instead of a Book_, p. 131]

Therefore anarchists support the maximum of experimentations while ensuring
that the social conditions that allow this experimentation are protected
against concentrations of wealth and power. As Malatesta put it, "Anarchism
involves all and only those forms of life that respect liberty and recognise
that every person has an equal right to enjoy the good things of nature and
the products of their own activity." [_The Anarchist Revolution_, p. 14]
This means that Anarchists do not support the liberty of being a boss
(anarchists will happily work *with* someone but not *for* someone). Of
course, those who desire to create private property against the wishes of
others expect those others to respect their wishes. So, when the would-be
propertarians happily fence off their "property" and exclude others from it,
could not these others remember these words from Woody Guthrie's _This Land
is Your Land_, and act accordingly?

"As I went rumbling that dusty highway
I saw a sign that said private property
But on the other side it didn't say nothing
This land was made for you and me"

While happy to exclude others from "their" property, such owners seem more
than happy to use the resources held in common by others. They are the
ultimate "free riders," desiring the benefits of society but rejecting the
responsibilities that go with it. In the end, such "individualists" usually
end up supporting the state (an institution they claim to hate) precisely
because it is the only means by which private property and their "freedom"
to exercise authority can be defended .

Therefore, individuals are free not to associate, but their claims of
"ownership" will be based around *use* rights, not property rights.
Individuals will be protected by their fellows only in so far as what
they claim to "own" is related to their ability to use said "property."
Without a state to back up and protect property "rights," we see that all
rights are, in the end, what society considers to be fair (the difference
between law and social custom is discussed in section I.7.3). What the
state does is to impose "rights" which do not have such a basis (i.e.
those that protect the property of the elite) or "rights" which have been
corrupted by wealth and would have been changed because of this corruption
had society been free to manage its own affairs.

In summary, individuals will be free not to join a participatory community,
and hence free to place themselves outside its decisions and activities
on most issues that do not apply to the fundamental ethical standards of
a society. Hence individuals who desire to live outside of anarchist
communities would be free to live as they see fit but would not be able
to commit murder, rape, create private property or other activities
that harmed individuals. It should be noted, moreover, that this does not
mean that their possessions will be taken from them by "society" or
that "society" will tell them what to do with their possessions. Freedom,
in a complex world, means that such individuals will not be in a position
to turn their possessions into *property* and thus recreate capitalism. (For
the distinction between "property" and "possessions," see B.3.1.) This will
not be done by "anarchist police" or by "banning" voluntary agreements,
but purely by recognising that "property" is a social creation and by
creating a social system that will encourage individuals to stand up for
their rights and cooperate with each other.

I.5.8 What about crime?

For anarchists, "crime" can best be described as anti-social acts, or
behavior which harms someone else or which invades their personal space.
Anarchists argue that the root cause for crime is not some perversity of
human nature or "original sin," but is due to the type of society by which
people are moulded. For example, anarchists point out that by eliminating
private property, crime could be reduced by about 90 percent, since about
90 percent of crime is currently motivated by evils stemming from private
property such as poverty, homelessness, unemployment, and alienation.
Moreover, by adopting anarchist methods of non-authoritarian child rearing
and education, most of the remaining crimes could also be eliminated,
because they are largely due to the anti-social, perverse, and cruel
"secondary drives" that develop because of authoritarian, pleasure-negative
child-rearing practices (See section J.6 What methods of child rearing do
anarchists advocate?)

"Crime", therefore, cannot be divorced from the society within which it
occurs. Society, if you like, gets the criminals it deserves. For example,
anarchists do not think it unusual nor unexpected that crime exploded
under the pro-free market capitalist regimes of Thatcher and Reagan. Crime,
the most obvious symptom of social crisis, took 30 years to double in
Britain (from 1 million incidents in 1950 to 2.2 million in 1979). However,
between 1979 and 1992 the crime rate more than doubled, exceeding the 5
million mark in 1992. These 13 years were marked by a government firmly
committed to the "free market" and "individual responsibility." It
was entirely predictable that the social disruption, atomisation of
individuals, and increased poverty caused by freeing capitalism from
social controls would rip society apart and increase criminal activity.
Unsurprisingly (from an anarchist viewpoint), under these pro-market
governments we also saw a reduction in civil liberties, increased state
centralisation, and the destruction of local government. As Malatesta put
it, the classical liberalism which these governments represented could
have had no other effect, for "the government's powers of repression must
perforce increase as free competition results in more discord and
inequality" [_Anarchy_, p. 46]

Hence the paradox of governments committed to "individual rights," the
"free market" and "getting the state off our backs" increasing state power
and reducing rights while holding office during a crime explosion is no
paradox at all. "The conjuncture of the rhectoric of individual freedom and
a vast increase in state power," argues Carole Pateman, "is not unexpected
at a time when the influence of contract doctrine is extending into the
last, most intimate nooks and crannies of social life. Taken to a conclusion,
contract undermines the conditions of its own existance. Hobbes showed
long ago that contract - all the way down - requires absolutism and the
sword to keep war at bay" [_The Sexual Contract_, p. 232]

Capitalism, and the contract theory on which it is built, will inevitably
rip apart society. Capitalism is based upon a vision of humanity as isolated
individuals with no connection other than that of money and contract. Such
a vision cannot help but institutionalise anti-social acts. As Kropotkin
argued "it is not love and not even sympathy upon which society is based
in [humanity]. It is the conscience - be it only at the stage of an instinct
- of human solidarity. It is the unconscious recognition of . . . the close
dependency of every one's happiness upon the happiness of all; and of the
sense of justice, or equity, which brings the individual to consider the
rights of every other individual as equal to [one's] own." [_Mutual Aid_,
p. xiv]

The social atomisation required and created by capitalism destroys the basic
bonds of society - namely human solidarity - and hierarchy crushes the
individuality required to understand that we share a common humanity with
others and so understand *why* we must be ethical and respect others rights.

We should also point out that prisons have numerous negative affects on
society as well as often re-inforcing criminal (i.e. anti-social) behaviour.
Kropotkin originated the accurate description of prisons as "Universities
of Crime" wherein the first-time criminal learns new techniques and have
adapt to the prevailing ethical standards within them. Hence, prisons would
have the effect of increasing the criminal tendencies of those sent there
and so prove to be counter-productive. In addition, prisons do not affect
the social conditions which promote many forms of crime.

We are not saying, however, that anarchists reject the concept of individual
responsibility. While recognising that rape, for example, is the result of
a social system which represses sexuality and is based on patriarchy (i.e.
rape has more to do with power than sex), anarchists do not "sit back" and
say "it's society's fault." Individuals have to take responsibility for
their own actions and recognise that consequences of those actions. Part
of the current problem with "law codes" is that individuals have been
deprived of the responsibility for developing their own ethical code, and so
are less likely to develop "civilised" social standards (see section I.7.3).

Therefore, while anarchists reject the ideas of law and a specialised
justice system, they are not blind to the fact that anti-social action may
not totally disappear in a free society. Therefore, some sort of "court"
system would still be necessary to deal with the remaining crimes and to
adjudicate disputes between citizens.

These courts would function on two levels. Firstly, if the parties
involved could agree to hand their case to a third party, then the "court"
in question would be the arrangements made by those parties. Secondly, if
the parties could not agree (or if the victim was dead), the issue could
be raised at a communal assembly and a "court" appointed to look into the
issue. These "courts" would be independent from the commune, their
independence strengthened by popular election instead of executive
appointment of judges, by protecting the jury system of selection of
random citizens by lot, and by informing jurors of their right to judge
the law itself, according to their conscience, as well as the facts of a
case. As Malatesta pointed out, "when differences were to arise between
men [sic!], would not arbitration voluntarily accepted, or pressure
of public opinion, be perhaps more likely to establish where the right
lies than through an irresponsible magistrature which has the right to
adjudicate on everything and everybody and is inevitably incompetent
and therefore unjust?" [_Anarchy_, p. 43]

In the case of a "police force," this would not exist as either a public
or private specialised body or company. If a local community did consider
that public safety required a body of people who could be called upon for
help, we imagine that a new system would be created. This system would be
based around a voluntary militia system, in which all members of the
community could serve if they so desired. Those who served would not
constitute a professional body; instead the service would be made up of
local people who would join for short periods of time and be replaced if
they abused their position. Hence the likelihood that a communal militia
would become corrupted by power, like the current police force or a
private security firm exercising a policing function, would be vastly
reduced.

Such a body would not have a monopoly on protecting others, but
would simply be on call if others required it. It would no more be a
"police force" than the current fire service is a police force (individuals
are not banned from putting out fires today because the fire service
exists, similarly individuals will be free to help stop anti-social crime
by themselves in an anarchist society).

Of course there are anti-social acts which occur without witnesses and
so the "guilty" party cannot be readily identified. If such acts did
occur we can imagine an anarchist community taking two courses of
action. The injured party may look into the facts themselves or appoint
an agent to do so or, more likely, an ad hoc group would be elected at
a community assembly to investigate specific crimes of this sort. Such
a group would be given the necessary "authority" to investigate the crime
and be subject to recall by the community if they start trying to abuse
whatever authority they had. Once the investigating body thought it had
enough evidence it would inform the community as well as the affected parties
and then organise a court. Of course, a free society will produce different
solutions to such problems, solutions no-one has considered yet and so
these suggestions are just that, suggestions.

As is often stated, prevention is better than cure. This is as true of
crime as of disease. In other words, crime is best fought by rooting out
its *causes* as opposed to punishing those who act in response to these
causes. For example, its hardly surprising that a culture that promotes
individual profit and consumerism would produce individuals who do not
respect other people (or themselves) and see them as purely means to
an end (usually increased consumption). And, like everything else in
a capitalist system, such as honour and pride, conscience is also available
at the right price -- hardly an environment which encourages consideration
for others, or even for oneself.

In addition, a society based on hierarchical authority will also tend to
produce anti-social activity because the free development and expression
it suppresses. Thus, irrational authority (which is often claimed to be
the only cure for crime) actually helps produce it. As Emma Goldman
argued, "Crime is naught but misdirected energy. So long as every institution
of today, economic, political, social, moral conspires to misdirect human
energy into wrong channels; so long as most people are out of place doing
things they hate to do, living a life they loathe to live, crime will be
inevitable, and all the laws on the statues can only increase, but never
do away with, crime" [_Red Emma Speaks_, p. 57]

Eric Fromm, decades latter, makes the same point:

"It would seem that the amount of destructiveness to be found in individuals
is proportionate to the amount to which expansiveness of life is curtailed.
By this we do not refer to individual frustrations of this or that instinctive
desire but to the thwarting of the whole of life, the blockage of spontaneity
of the growth and expression of man's sensuous, emotional, and intellectual
capacities. Life has an inner dynamism of its own; it tends to grow, to
be expressed, to be lived. . .the drive for life and the drive for
destruction are not mutually interdependent factors but are in a reversed
interdependence. The more the drive towards life is thwarted, the stronger
is the drive towards destruction; the more life is realised, the less
is the strength of destructiveness. *Destructiveness is the outcome of
unlived life.* Those individual and social conditions that make for
suppression of life produce the passion for destruction that forms, so to
speak, the reservoir from which particular hostile tendencies -- either
against others or against oneself -- are nourished" [_The Fear of Freedom_,
p. 158]

Therefore, by reorganising society so that it empowers everyone and
actively encourages the use of all our intellectual, emotional and
sensuous abilities, crime would soon cease to be the huge problem that
it is now. As for the anti-social behavior or clashes between individuals
that might still exist in such a society, it would be dealt with in a
system based on respect for the individual and a recognition of the
social roots of the problem. Restraint would be kept to a minimum.

Anarchists think that public opinion and social pressure would be the
main means of preventing anti-social acts in an anarchist society, with
such actions as boycotting and ostracising used as powerful sanctions to
convince those attempting them of the errors of their way. Extensive
non-cooperation by neighbours, friends and workmates would be the best
means of stopping acts which harmed others.

An anarchist system of justice, we should note, would have a lot to learn
from aboriginal societies simply because they are examples of social order
without the state. Indeed many of the ideas we consider as essential to
justice today can be found in such societies. As Kropotkin argued, "when
we imagine that we have made great advances in introducing, for instance,
the jury, all we have done is to return to the institutions of the
so-called 'barbarians' after having changed it to the advantage of the
ruling classes" [_The State - Its Historic Role_, p. 18]

Like aboriginal justice (as documented by Rupert Ross in _Returning to the
Teachings: Exploring Aborginal Justice__) anarchists contend that offenders
should not be punished but justice achieved by the teaching and healing
of all involved. Public condemnation of the wrongdoing would be a key
aspect of this process, but the wrong doer would remain part of the
community and so see the effects of their actions on others in terms of
grief and pain caused. It would be likely that wrong doers would be
expected to try to make amends for their act by community service or
helping victims and their families.

So, from a practical viewpoint, almost all anarchists oppose prisons
on both practical grounds (they do not work) and ethical grounds ("We
know what prisons mean - they mean broken down body and spirit, degradation,
consumption, insanity" Voltairine de Cleyre, quoted by Paul Avrich in
_An American Anarchist_, p. 146]). The Makhnovists took the usual anarchist
position on prisons:

"Prisons are the symbol of the servitude of the people, they are always
built only to subjugate the people, the workers and peasants. . . Free
people have no use for prisons. Wherever prisons exist, the people are not
free. . . In keeping with this attitude, they [the Makhnovists] demolished
prisons wherever they went." [Peter Arshinov, _The History of the Makhnovist
Movement_, p. 153]

With the exception of Benjamin Tucker, no major anarchist writer supported
the institution. Few anarchists think that private prisons (like private
policemen) are compatible with their notions of freedom. All anarchists
are against the current "justice" system which seems to them to be
organised around *revenge* and punishing effects and not fixing causes.

However, there are psychopaths and other people in any society who are
too dangerous to be allowed to walk freely. Restraint in this case would
be the only option and such people may have to be isolated from others
for their own, and others, safety. Perhaps mental hospitals would be
used, or an area quarantined for their use created (perhaps an
island, for example). However, such cases (we hope) would be rare.

So instead of prisons and a legal code based on the concept of
punishment and revenge, anarchists support the use of pubic opinion
and pressure to stop anti-social acts and the need to therapeutically
rehabilite those who commit anti-social acts. As Kropotkin argued,
"liberty, equality, and practical human sympathy are the most effective
barriers we can oppose to the anti-social instinct of certain among us"
and *not* a parasitic legal system. [_The Anarchist Reader_, p. 117]

I.5.9 What about Freedom of Speech under Anarchism?

Many express the idea that *all* forms of socialism would endanger
freedom of speech, press, and so forth. The usual formulation of this
argument is in relation to state socialism and goes as follows: if the
state (or "society") owned all the means of communication, then only the
views which the government supported would get access to the media.

This is an important point and it needs to be addressed. However, before
doing so, we should point out that under capitalism the major media are
effectively controlled by the wealthy. As we argued in section D.3, the
media are *not* the independent defenders of freedom that they like to
portray themselves as. This is hardly surprising, since newspapers,
television companies, and so forth are capitalist enterprises owned by the
wealthy and with managing directors and editors who are also wealthy
individuals with a vested interest in the status quo. Hence there are
institutional factors which ensure that the "free press" reflects the
interests of capitalist elites.

However, in democratic capitalist states there is little overt censorship.
Radical and independent publishers can still print their papers and books
without state intervention (although market forces ensure that this
activity can be difficult and financially unrewarding). Under socialism,
it is argued, because "society" owns the means of communication and
production, this liberty will not exist. Instead, as can be seen from
all examples of "actually existing socialism," such liberty is crushed in
favour of the government's point of view.

As anarchism rejects the state, we can say that this danger does not
exist under libertarian socialism. However, since social anarchists argue
for the communalisation of production, could not restrictions on free
speech still exist? We argue no, for two reasons. Firstly, publishing
houses, radio stations, and so on will be run by their workers, directly.
They will be supplied by other cooperatives, with whom they will make
agreements, and *not* by "central planning" officials, who would not
exist. In other words, there is no bureaucracy of officials allocating
(and so controlling) resources (and so the means of communication). Hence,
anarcho-syndicalist self-management will ensure that there is a wide
range of opinions in different magazines and papers. There would be
community papers, radio stations, etc., and obviously they would play an
increased role in a free society. But they would not be the only media.
Associations, political parties, syndicates, and so on would have their
own media and/or would have access to the resources of communication
workers' syndicates, so ensuring that a wide range of opinions can be
expressed.

Secondly, the "ultimate" power in a free society will be the individuals
of which it is composed. This power will be expressed in communal and
workplace assemblies that can recall delegates and revoke their
decisions. It is doubtful that these assemblies would tolerate a set of
would-be bureaucrats determining what they can or cannot read, see, or
hear. In addition, individuals in a free society would be interested in
hearing different viewpoints and discussing them. This is the natural
side-effect of critical thought (which self-management would encourage),
and so they would have a vested interest in defending the widest possible
access to different forms of media for different views. Having no vested
interests to defend, a free society would hardly encourage or tolerate
the censorship associated with the capitalist media ("I listen to criticism
because I am *greedy.* I listen to criticism because I am *selfish.* I
would not deny myself another's insights." [_The Right to be Greedy_]

Therefore, anarchism will *increase* freedom of speech in many important
ways, particularly in the workplace (where it is currently denied under
capitalism). This will be a natural result of a society based on maximising
freedom and the desire to enjoy life.

We would also like to point out that during both the Spanish and Russian
revolutions, freedom of speech was protected within anarchist areas.

For example, the Makhnovists in the Urkaine "fully applied the revolutionary
principles of freedom of speech, of thought, of the Press, and of political
association. In all the cities and towns occupied . . . [c]omplete freedom
of speech, Press, assembly, and association of any kind and for everyone
was immediately proclaimed." [Peter Arshinov, _The History of the Makhnovist
Movement_, p. 153] This is confirmed by Micheal Malet who notes that "[o]ne
of the most remarkable achievements of the Makhnovists was to perserve a
freedom of speech more extensive than any of their opponents." [_Nestor
Makhno in the Russian Civil War_, p. 175]

In revolutionary Spain republicians, liberals, communists, trotskyites and
many different anarchist groups all had freedom to express their views.
Emma Goldman writes that "[o]n my first visit to Spain in September 1936,
nothing surprised me so much as the amount of political freedom I found
everywhere. True, it did not extend to Fascists . . . [but] everyone of
the anti-Fascist front enjoyed political freedom which hardly existed
in any of the so-called European democracies." [_Vision on Fire_, David
Porter (ed), p.147] This is confirmed in a host of other eye-witnesses,
including George Orwell in _Homage to Catalonia_ (in fact, it was
the rise of the pro-capitalist republicans and communists that introduced
censorship).

Both movements were fighting a life-and-death struggle against fascist and
pro-capitalist armies and so this defense of freedom of expression, given
the circumstances, is particularly noteworthy.

Therefore, based upon both theory and practice we can say that anarchism
will not endanger freedom of expression.

I.5.10 What about political parties?

Political parties and other interest groups will exist in an anarchist
society as long as people feel the need to join them. They will not be
"banned" in any way, and their members will have the same rights as
everyone else. Individuals who are members of political parties or
associations can take part in communal and other assemblies and try to
convince others of the soundness of their ideas.

However, there is a key difference between such activity and politics
under a capitalist democracy. This is that elections to positions of
responsibility in an anarchist society will not be based on party tickets.
In other words, when individuals are elected to administrative posts they
are elected to carry out their mandate, *not* to carry out their party's
programme. Of course, if the individuals in question had convinced their
fellow workers and citizens that their programme was correct, then this
mandate and the programme would be identical. However this is unlikely in
practice. We would imagine that the decisions of collectives and communes
would reflect the complex social interactions and diverse political
opinions their members and of the various groupings within the
association.

Hence anarchism will likely contain many different political groupings and
ideas. The relative influence of these within collectives and communes
would reflect the strength of their arguments and the relevance of their
ideas, as would be expected in a free society. As Bakunin argued, "The
abolition of this mutual influence would be death. And when we vindicate
the freedom of the masses, we are by no means suggesting the abolition of
any of the natural influences that individuals or groups of individuals
exert on them. What we want is the abolition of influences which are
artificial, privileged, legal, official" [quoted by Malatesta in _Anarchy_]

It is only when representative government replaces self-management that
political debate results in "elected dictatorship" and centralisation of
power into the hands of one party which claims to speak for the whole of
society, as if the latter had one mind.

I.5.11 What about interest groups and other associations?

Anarchists do not think that social life can be reduced to political and
economic associations alone. Individuals have many different interests and
desires which they must express in order to have a truly free and
interesting life. Therefore an anarchist society will see the development
of numerous voluntary associations and groups to express these
interests. For example, there would be consumer groups, musical groups,
scientific associations, art associations, clubs, housing cooperatives and
associations, craft and hobby guilds, fan clubs, animal rights associations,
groups based around sex, sexuality, creed and colour and so forth.
Associations will be created for all human interests and activities.
As Kropotkin argued:

"He who wishes for a grand piano will enter the association of musical
instrument makers. And by giving the association part of his half-days'
leisure, he will soon possess the piano of his dreams. If he is fond of
astronomical studies he will join the association of astronomers. . . and
he will have the telescope he desires by taking his share of the
associated work. . .In short, the five or seven hours a day which each
will have at his disposal, after having consecrated several hours to the
production of necessities, would amply suffice to satisfy all longings for
luxury, however varied. Thousands of associations would undertake to
supply them." [_The Conquest of Bread_, p. 120]

We can imagine, therefore, an anarchist society being based around
associations and interest groups on every subject which fires the
imagination of individuals and for which individuals want to meet in
order to express and further their interests. Housing associations,
for example, would exist to allow inhabitants to manage their local
areas, design and maintain their homes and local parks and gardens.
Animal rights and other interest groups would produce information on
issues they consider important, trying to convince others of the
errors of eating meat or whatever. Consumer groups would be in dialogue
with syndicates about improving products and services, ensuring that
syndicates produce what is required by consumers. Environment groups
would exist to watch production and make sure that it is not creating
damaging side effects and informing both syndicates and communes of
their findings. Feminist, homosexual, bisexual and anti-racist groups
would exist to put their ideas across, highlighting areas in which social
hierarchies and prejudice still existed. All across society, people
would be associating together to express themselves and convince others
of their ideas on many different issues.

Hence in a anarchist society, free association would take on a stronger
and more positive role than under capitalism. In this way, social life
would take on many dimensions, and the individual would have the choice of
thousands of societies to join to meet his or her interests or create new
ones with other like-minded people. Anarchists would be the last to deny
that there is more to life than work!

I.6 What about the "Tragedy of the Commons"? Surely communal
ownership will lead to overuse and environmental destruction?

It should first be noted that the paradox of the "Tragedy of the Commons"
is actually an application of the "tragedy of the free-for-all" to the
issue of the "commons" (communally owned land). Resources that are "free
for all" have all the problems associated with what is called the "Tragedy
of the Commons," namely the overuse and destruction of such resources; but
unfortunately for the capitalists who refer to such examples, they do not
involve true "commons."

The "free-for-all" land in such examples becomes depleted (the "tragedy")
because hypothetical shepherds each pursue their maximum individual gain
without regard for their peers or the land. What is individually rational
(e.g., grazing the most sheep for profit), when multiplied by each
shepherd acting in isolation, ends up grossly irrational (e.g., ending the
livilehood of *every* shepherd). What works for one cannot work as well
for everyone in a given area. But, as discussed below, because such land
is not communally *managed* (as true commons are), the so-called Tragedy
of the Commons is actually an indictment of what is, essentially,
laissez-faire capitalist economic practices!

As Allan Engler points out, "[s]upporters of capitalism cite what they
call the tragedy of the commons to explain the wanton plundering of
forests, fish and waterways, but common property is not the problem. When
property was held in common by tribes, clans and villages, people took no
more than their share and respected the rights of others. They cared for
common property and when necessary acted together to protect it against
those who would damage it. Under capitalism, there is no common property.
(Public property is a form of private property, property owned by the a
government as a corporate person.) Capitalism recognises only private
property and free-for-all property. Nobody is responsible for free-for-all
property until someone claims it as his own. He then has a right to do as
he pleases with it, a right that is uniquely capitalist. Unlike common or
personal property, capitalist property is not valued for itself or for its
utility. It is valued for the revenue it produces for its owner. If the
capitalist owner can maximise his revenue by liquidating it, he has the
right to do that." [_Apostles of Greed_, pp. 58-59]

So, the *real* problem is that a lot of economists and sociologists
conflate this scenario, in which *unmanaged* resources are free for all,
with the situation that prevailed in the use of "commons," which were
communally *managed* resources in village and tribal communities.

The confusion has, of course, been used to justify the stealing of
communal property by the rich and the state. The continued acceptance of
this "confusion" in political debate is due to of the utility of the
theory for the rich and powerful, who have a vested interest in
undermining pre-capitalist social forms and stealing communal resources.
Therefore, most examples used to justify the "tragedy of the commons" are

false* examples, based on situations in which the underlying social

context is radically different from that involved in using true commons.

In reality, the "tragedy of the commons" comes about only after wealth and
private property, backed by the state, starts to eat into and destroy
communal life. This is well indicated by the fact that commons existed for
thousands of years and only disappeared after the rise of capitalism --
and the powerful central state it requires -- had eroded communal values
and traditions. Without the influence of wealth concentrations and the
state, people get together and come to agreements over how to use communal
resources, and have been doing so for millennia. That was how the commons
were managed, so "the tragedy of the commons" would be better called the
"tragedy of private property."

As E.P. Thompson notes in an extensive investigation on this subject, the
tragedy "argument [is] that since resources held in common are not owned
and protected by anyone, there is an inexorable economic logic that dooms
them to over-exploitation. . . . Despite its common sense air, what it
overlooks is that commoners themselves were not without common sense. Over
time and over space the users of commons have developed a rich variety of
institutions and community sanctions which have effected restraints and
stints upon use. . . . As the old. . . institutions lapsed, so they fed
into a vacuum in which political influence, market forces, and popular
assertion contested with each other without common rules" [_Customs in
Common_, p. 107].

In practice, of course, both political influence and market forces are
dominated by wealth. Popular assertion means little when the state
enforces property rights in the interests of the wealthy. "Parliament and
law imposed capitalist definitions to exclusive property in land" [Ibid.,
p. 163].

The working class is only "left alone" to starve. In practice, the
privatisation of communal land has led to massive ecological destruction,
while the possibilities of free discussion and agreement are destroyed in
the name of "absolute" property rights and the power and authority which
goes with them.

For more on this subject, try _The Question of the Commons_, Bonnie M.
McCoy and James M. Acheson (ed), Tucson, 1987 and _The Evolution of
Cooperation_ by Robert Axelrod, Basic Books, 1984.

I.6.1 How can anarchists explain how the use of property "owned by
everyone in the world" will be decided?

First, we need to point out the fallacy normally lying behind this
objection. It is assumed that because everyone owns something, that
everyone has to be consulted in what it is used for. This, however,
applies the logic of private property to non-capitalist social forms.
While it is true that everyone owns collective "property" in an anarchist
society, it does not mean that everyone *uses* it. Anarchists, therefore,
think that those who *use* a part of society's wealth have the most say
in what happens to it (e.g. workers control the means of production they
use and the work they do in using it). This does not mean that those using
it can do what they like to it. Users are subject to recall by local
communities if they are abusing their position (for example, if a
workplace was polluting the environment, then the local community could
act to close down the workplace). Thus use rights (or usufruct) replace
property rights in a free society.

It is no coincidence that societies that are stateless are also without
private property. As Murray Bookchin points out "an individual appropriation
of goods, a personal claim to tools, land, and other resources . . . is
fairly common in organic [i.e. aboriginal] societies. . . By the same
token, cooperative work and the sharing of resources on a scale that
could be called communistic is also fairly common. . . But primary to
both of these seemingly contrasting relationships is the practice of

usufruct.*" [_The Ecology of Freedom_, p.50]

Such stateless societies are based upon "the principle of *usufruct,* the
freedom of individuals in a community to appropriate resources merely by
the virtue of the fact they are using them. . . Such resources belong to
the user as long as they are being used. Function, in effect, replaces
our hallowed concept of possession." [Op. Cit., p. 50] The future
stateless society anarchists hope for would also be based upon such a
principle.

As for deciding what a given area of commons is used for, that falls to
the local communities who live next to them. If, for example, an
anarchosyndicalist factory wants to expand and eat into the commons, then
the local community who uses (and so controls) the local commons would
discuss it and come to an agreement concerning it. If a minority *really*
objects, they can use direct action to put their point across. But
anarchists argue that rational debate among equals will not result in too
much of that. Or suppose an individual wanted to set up a some allotment
in a given area, which had not been allocated as a park. Then he or she
would notify the community assembly by appropriate means (e.g. on a notice
board or newspaper), and if no one objected at the next assembly or in a
set time-span, the allotment would go ahead, as no one else desired to use
the resource in question.

Other communities would be confederated with this one, and joint activity
would also be discussed by debate, with a community (like an individual)
being free *not* to associate if they so desire. Other communities could
and would object to ecologically and individually destructive practices.
The interrelationships of both ecosystems and freedom is well known, and
its doubtful that free individuals would sit back and let some amongst
them destroy *their* planet.

Therefore, those who use something control it. This means that "users'
groups" would be created to manage resources used by more than one person.
For workplaces this would (essentially) be those who worked there (with,
possibly, the input of consumer groups and cooperatives). Housing
associations made up of tenants would manage housing and repairs.
Resources that are used by associations within society, such as communally
owned schools, workshops, computer networks, and so forth, would be
managed on a day-to-day basis by those who use them. User groups would
decide access rules (for example, time-tables and booking rules) and how
they are used, making repairs and improvements. Such groups would be
accountable to their local community. Hence, if that community thought
that any activities by a group within it was destroying communal
resources or restricting access to them, the matter would be discussed at
the relevent assembly. In this way, interested parties manage their own
activities and the resources they use (and so would be very likely to
have an interest in ensuring their proper and effective use), but
without private property and its resulting hierarchies and restrictions on
freedom.

Lastly, let us examine clashes of use rights, i.e. cases where two or more
people or communities/collectives desire to use the same resource. In
general, such problems can be resolved by discussion and decision
making by those involved. This process would be roughly as follows: if
the contesting parties are reasonable, they would probably mutually agree
to allow their dispute to be settled by some mutual friend whose judgment
they could trust, or they would place it in the hands of a jury, randomly
selected from the community or communities in question. This would take
place if they could not come to an agreement between themselves to share
the resource in question.

On thing is certain, however: such disputes are much better settled without
the interference of authority or the re-creation of private property. If
those involved do not take the sane course described above and instead
decide to set up a fixed authority, disaster will be the inevitable
result. In the first place, this authority will have to be given power to
enforce its judgment in such matters. If this happens, the new authority
will undoubtedly keep for itself the best of what is disputed, and allot
the rest to its friends! By re-introducing private property, such
authoritarian bodies would develop sooner, rather than later, with two
new classes of oppressors being created -- the property owners and the
enforcers of "justice."

It is a strange fallacy to suppose that two people who meet on terms of
equality and disagree could not be reasonable or just, or that a third
party with power backed up by violence will be the incarnation of justice
itself. Common sense should certainly warn us against such an illusion.
Historical "counterexamples" to the claim that people meeting on terms of
equality cannot be reasonable or just are suspect, since the history of
disagreements with unjust or unreasonable outcomes (e.g. resulting in war)
generally involve conflicts between groups with unequal power and within
the context of private property and hierarchical institutions.

Communal "property" needs communal structures in order to function. Use
rights, and discussion among equals, replace property rights in a free
society. Freedom cannot survive if it is caged behind laws enforced by
public or private states.

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

This point is expressed in many different forms. John MacKay (an
individualist anarchist) puts the point as follows:

"Would you [the social anarchist], in the system of society which you call
'free Communism' prevent individuals from exchanging their labor among
themselves by means of their own medium of exchange? And further: Would
you prevent them from occupying land for the purpose of personal use?"...
[The] question was not to be escaped. If he answered 'Yes!' he admitted
that society had the right of control over the individual and threw
overboard the autonomy of the individual which he had always zealously
defended; if on the other hand he answered 'No!' he admitted the right of
private property which he had just denied so emphatically."

However, as is clearly explained above and in sections B.3 and I.5.7.,
anarchist theory has a simple and clear answer to this question. This is
to recognise that use rights replace property rights. In other words,
individuals can exchange their labour as they see fit and occupy land for
their own use. This in no way contradicts the abolition of private
property, because occupancy and use is directly opposed to private
property. Therefore, in a free communist society individuals can use land
as they personally wish. If they do so, however, they cannot place claims
on the benefits others receive from cooperation and their communal life.

John MacKay goes on to state that "every serious man must declare
himself: for Socialism, and thereby for force and against liberty, or for
Anarchism, and thereby for liberty and against force," which is a strange
statement, as individualist anarchists like Ben Tucker considered
themselves socialists and opposed private property. However, MacKay's
statement begs the question, does private property support liberty? He
does not address or even acknowledge the fact that private property will
inevitably lead to the owners of such property gaining control over the
individual and so denying them liberty (see section B.4). Neither does he
address the fact that private property requires extensive force (i.e. a
state) to protect it against those who use it or could use it.

In other words, MacKay ignores two important aspects of private property.
Firstly, that private property is based upon force, which must be used
to ensure the owner's right to exclude others (the main reason for the
existence of the state). And secondly, he ignores the anti-libertarian
nature of wage labour-- the other side of "private property" -- in which
the liberty of employees is obviously restricted by the owners whose
property they are hired to use. Therefore, it seems that in the name of
"liberty" John MacKay and a host of other "individualists" end up
supporting authority and (effectively) some kind of state. This is hardly
surprising as private property is the opposite of personal possession,
not its base.

Therefore, far from communal property restricting individual liberty (or
even personal use of resources) it is in fact its only defense.

I.7 Won't Libertarian Socialism destroy individuality?

No. Libertarian socialism only suppresses individuality for those who are
so shallow that they can't separate their identity from what they own.
However, be that as it may, this is an important objection to any form
of socialism and, given the example of "socialist" Russia, needs to be
discussed more.

The basic assumption behind this question is that capitalism encourages
individuality, but this assumption can be faulted on many levels. As
Kropotkin noted, "individual freedom [has] remained, both in theory and
in practice, more illusory than real" [_Ethics_, p. 27] and that "the want
of development of the personality [leading to herd-psychology] and the lack
of individual creative power and initiative are certainly one of the chief
defects of our time." [Op. Cit., p. 28] In effect, modern capitalism has
reduced individuality to a parody of what it could be (see section I.7.4).
As Alfie Kohn points out, "our miserable individuality is screwed to the
back of our cars in the form of personalized license plates."

So we see a system which is apparently based on "egoism" and "individuality"
but whose members are free to expand as standardized individuals, who
hardly express their individuality at all. Far from increasing individuality,
capitalism standardizes it and so restricts it - that it survives at all
is more an expression of the strength of humanity than any benefits of
the capitalist system. This impoverishment of individuality is hardly
surprising in a society based on hierarchical institutions which are
designed to assure obedience and subordination.

So, can we say that libertarian socialism will *increase* individuality or
is this conformity and lack of "individualism" a constant feature of the
human race? In order to make some sort of statement on this, we have to
look at non-hierarchical societies and organisations. We will discuss
"primitive" cultures as an example of non-hierarchical societies in section
I.7.1. Here, however, we indicate how anarchist organisations will protect
and increase an individual's sense of self.

Anarchist organisations and tactics are designed to promote individuality.
They are decentralised, participatory organisations and so they give those
involved the "social space" required to express themselves and develop their
abilities and potential in ways restricted under capitalism. As Gaston Leval
notes in his book on the anarchist collectives during the Spanish Revolution,
"so far as collective life is concerned, the freedom of each is the right
to participate spontaneously with one's thought, one's will, one's initiative
to the full extent of one's capacities. A negative liberty is not liberty;
it is nothingness." [_Collectives in the Spanish Revolution_, p. 346]

By being able to take part in and manage the decision making processes which
directly affect you, your ability to think for yourself is increased and
so you are constantly developing your abilities and personality. The
spontaneous activity described by Leval has important psychological impacts.
As Eric Fromm notes, "[i]n all spontaneous activity, the individual embraces
the world. Not only does his [sic] individual self remain intact; it becomes
stronger and more solidified. *For the self is as strong as it is active.*"
[_Escape from Freedom_, p. 225]

Therefore, individuality does not atrophy within an anarchist organisation
and becomes stronger as it participates and acts within the social
organisation. In other words, individuality requires community. As Max
Horkheimer once observed, "individuality is impaired when each man decides
to fend for himself. . . . The absolutely isolated individual has always been
an illusion. The most esteemed personal qualities, such as independence,
will to freedom, sympathy, and the sense of justice, are social as well as
individual virtues. The fully developed individual is the consummation of a
fully developed society." [_The Eclipse of Reason_, p. 135]

The sovereign, self-sufficient individual is as much a product of a healthy
community as it is from individual self-realization and the fulfillment of
desire. Kropotkin, in _Mutual Aid_, documented the tendency for *community* to
enrich and develop *individuality.* As he proved, this tendency is seen
throughout human history, which suggests that the abstract individualism of
capitalism is more the exception than the rule in social life. In other
words, history indicates that by working together with others as equals
individuality is strengthen far more than in the so-called "individualism"
associated with capitalism.

This communal support for individuality is hardly surprising as
individuality is a product of the interaction between *social* forces
and individual attributes. The more an individual cuts themselves off
from social life, the more likely their individuality will suffer. This
can be seen from the 1980's when neoliberal governments supporting the
"radical" individualism associated with free market capitalism were
elected in both Britain and the USA. The promotion of market forces
lead to social atomisation, social disruption and a more centralised
state. As "the law of the jungle" swept across society, the resulting
disruption of social life ensured that many individuals became
impoverished ethically and culturally as society became increasingly
privatised.

In other words, many of the characteristics which we associate with a
developed individuality (namely ability to think, to act, to hold ones
own opinions and standards and so forth) are (essentially) *social* skills
and are encouraged by a well developed community. Remove that social
background and these valued aspects of individuality are undermined by
fear, lack of social interaction and atomisation. Taking the case of
workplaces, for example, surely it is an obvious truism that a hierarchical
working environment will marginalise the individual and ensure that they
cannot express their opinions, exercise their thinking capacities to the
full or manage their own activity. This will have in impact in all aspects
of an individual's life.

Hierarchy in all its forms produces oppression and a crushing of
individuality (see section B.1). In such a system, the "business" side
of group activities would be "properly carried out" but at the expense
of the individuals involved. Anarchists agree with John Stuart Mill when
he asks, under such "benevolent dictatorship," "what sort of human beings
can be formed under such a regimen? what development can either their
thinking or their active faculties attain under it? . . .Their moral
capacities are equally stunted. Wherever the sphere of action of human
beings is artificially circumscribed, their sentiments are narrowed and
dwarfed." [_Representative Government_, pp. 203-4] Like anarchists, Mill
tended his critique of political associations into all forms of associations
and stated that if "mankind is to continue to improve" then in the end
one form of association will predominate, "not that that which can exist
between a capitalist as chief, and workpeople without a voice in the
management, but the association of labourers themselves on terms of equality,
collectively owning the capital with which they carry on their operations,
and working under managers elected and removable by themselves." [_Collected
Works_, book II, p. 205]

Hence, anarchism will protect and develop individuality by creating the
means by which all individuals can participate in the decisions that affect
them, in all aspects of their lives. Anarchism is build upon the central
assertion that individuals and their institutions cannot be considered in
isolation from one another. Authoritarian organisations will create a
servile personality, one that feels savest conforming to authority and
what is considered normal. A libertarian organisation, one that is based
upon participation and self-management will encourage a strong personality,
one that knows his or her own mind, thinks for itself and feels confident in
his or her own powers.

A libertarian re-organisation of society will be based upon, and encourage,
a self-empowerment and self-liberation of the individual and by participation
within self-managed organisations, individuals will educate themselves for
the responsibilities and joys of freedom. As Carole Pateman points out,
"participation develops and fosters the very qualities necessary for it;
the more individuals participate the better able they become to do so."
[_Participation and Democratic Theory_, pp. 42-43]

Such a re-organisation (as we will see in section J) is based upon the
tactic of *direct action.* This tactic also encourages individuality by
encouraging the individual to fight directly, by their own self-activity,
that which they consider to be wrong. As Voltairine de Cleyre puts it:

"Every person who ever thought he had a right to assert, and went boldly and
asserted it, himself, or jointly with others that shared his convictions,
was a direct actionist. . . Every person who ever had a plan to do anything,
and went and did it, or who laid his plan before others, and won their
co-operation to do it with him, without going to external authorities to
please do the thing for them, was a direct actionist. All co-operative
experiments are essentially direct action. . . [direct actions] are the
spontaneous retorts of those who feel oppressed by a situation." [_Direct
Action_]

Therefore, anarchist tactics base themselves upon self-assertion and this
can only develop individuality. Self-activity can only occur when there is
a independent, free-thinking self. As self-management is based upon
the principle of direct action ("all co-operative experiments are essentially
direct action") we can suggest that individuality will have little to
fear from an anarchist society.

For anarchists, like Mill, real liberty requires social equality. For "[i]f
individuals are to exercise the maximum amount of control over their own
lives and environment then authority structures in these areas most be
so organised that they can participate in decision making." [Pateman,
Op. Cit., p. 43] Hence individuality will be protected, encouraged and
developed in an anarchist society far more than in a class ridden,
hierarchical society like capitalism. It is because wonders are many, and
none is more wonderful than individuality that anarchists oppose capitalism
in the name of socialism -- libertarian socialism, the free association
of free individuals.

I.7.1 Do "Primitive" cultures indicate that communalism defends individuality?

Yes. In many so-called primitive cultures, we find a strong respect for
individuals. As Paul Radin points out, "If I were to state... what are the
outstanding features of aboriginal civilisation, I... would have no
hesitation in answering that... respect for the individual, irrespective
of age or sex" is the first one. [_The World of Primitive Man_, p. 11]

Murray Bookchin comments on Radin's statement as follows, "respect for the
individual, which Radin lists first as an aboriginal attribute, deserves
to be emphasized, today, in an era that rejects the collective as destructive
of individuality on the one hand, and yet, in an orgy of pure egotism, has
actually destroyed all the ego boundaries of free-floating, isolated, and
atomised individuals on the other. A strong collectivity may be even more
supportive of the individual as close studies of certain aboriginal societies
reveal, than a 'free market' society with its emphasis on an egoistic, but
impoverished, self" [_Remaking Society_, p. 48]

This individualization associated with "primitive" cultures was also noted
by Howard Zinn when he wrote that "Gary Nash describes Iroquois culture. No
laws and ordinances, sheriffs and constables, judges and juries, or courts or
jails - the apparatus of authority in European societies - were to be
found in the northeast woodlands prior to European arrival. Yet boundaries
of acceptable behaviour were firmly set. Though priding themselves on the
autonomous individual, the Iroquois maintained a strict sense of right
and wrong..." [_Columbus, the Indians and Human Progress, 1492-1992_]

In addition, Native American tribes also indicate that communal living and
high standards of living can and do go together. The Cherokees, for
example, in the 1870s, "land was held collectively and life was contented
and prosperous" with the Department of the Interior recognising that it
was "a miracle of progress, with successful production by people living
in considerable comfort, a level of education 'equal to that furnished by an
ordinary college in the States,' flourishing industry and commerce, an
effective constitutional government, a high level of literacy, and a state
of 'civilization and enlightenment' comparable to anything known: 'What
required five hundred years for the Britons to accomplish in this direction
they have accomplished in one hundred years,' the Department declared in
wonder." [Noam Chomsky, _Year 501_, p. 231]

Senator Henry Dawes of Massachusetts visited "Indian Territory" in 1883 and
described what he found in glowing terms: "There was not a pauper in that
nation, and the nation did not owe a dollar. It built its own capitol, in
which we had this examination, and it built its schools and its hospitals."
No family lacked a home. [Cited by Chomsky, Op. Cit., p. 231]

(It must be mentioned that Dawes recommended that the society must be
destroyed because "[t]hey have got as far as they can go, because they own
their land in common. . .there is no enterprise to make your home any better
than that of your neighbors. There is no selfishness, which is the bottom of
civilization. Till this people will consent to give up their lands, and
divide them among their citizens so that each can own the land he cultivates,
they will not make much more progress." The introduction of capitalism -
as usual by state action - resulted in poverty and destitution, again
showing the link between capitalism and high living standards is not clear
cut, regardless of claims otherwise).

Undoubtedly, having access to the means of production ensured that members
of such cultures did not have to place themselves in situations which could
produce a servile character structure. As they did not have to follow the
orders of a boss they did not have to learn to obey others and so could
develop their own abilities to govern themselves. This self-government
allowed the development of a custom in such tribes called "the principle of
non-interference" in anthropology. This is the principle of defending
someone's right to express the opposing view and it is a pervasive principle
in the "primitive" world, and it is so much so as to be safely called a
"universal".

The principle of non-interference is a powerful principle that extends
from the personal to the political, and into every facet of daily life.
Most modern people are aghast when they realize the extent to which it is
practiced, but it has proven itself to be an integral part of living
anarchy (as many of these communities can be termed, although they would
be considered imperfect anarchies in some ways). It means that people
simply do not limit the activities of others, period. This in effect
makes absolute tolerance a custom, or as the modern would say, a law. But
the difference between law and custom is important to point out. Law is
dead, and Custom lives (see section I.7.3).

As modern people we have so much baggage that relates to "interfering" with
the lives of others that merely visualizing the situation that would
eliminate this daily pastime for many is impossible. But think about it.
First of all, in a society where people do not interfere with each other's
behavior, people tend to feel trusted and empowered by this simple social
fact. Their self-esteem is already higher because they are trusted with
the responsibility for making learned and aware choices. This is not
fiction; individual responsibility is a key aspect of social responsibility.

Therefore, given the strength of individuality documented in tribes with
little or no hierarchical structures within them, can we not conclude that
anarchism will defend individuality and even develop it in ways blocked
by capitalism? At the very least we can say "possibly," and that is enough
to allow us to question that dogma that capitalism is the only system based
on respect for the individual.

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

No. However, this is a common attack on socialists by supporters of
capitalism and on anarchists by Marxists. Both claim that anarchism is
"backward looking", opposed to "progress" and desire a society based on
inappropriate ideas of freedom. In particular, ideological capitalists
maintain that all forms of socialism base themselves on the ideal of the
"noble savage" and ignore the need for laws and other authoritarian social
institutions to keep people "in check."

Anarchists are well aware of the limitations of the "primitive communist"
societies they have used as example of anarchistic tendencies within
history or society. They are also aware of the problems associated with
using *any* historical period as an example of "anarchism in action." Take
for example the "free cities" of Medieval Europe which was used by
Kropotkin as an example of the potential of decentralised, confederated
communes. He was sometimes accused of being a "Medievalist" (as was
William Morris) while all he was doing was indicating that capitalism
need not equal progress and that alternative social systems have existed
which have encouraged freedom in ways capitalism restricts.

Again it is hardly surprising to find that many supporters of capitalism
ignore the insights that can be gained by studying "primitive" cultures
and the questions they raise about capitalism and freedom. Instead, they
duck the issues raised by these insights and accuse socialists of
idealising "the noble savage." As indicated, nothing could be further from the
truth. What socialists point out from this analysis is that the atomised
individual associated with capitalist society is not "natural" and that
capitalist social relationships help to weaken individuality. All the
many attacks on socialist analysis of past societies is a product of
capitalists attempts to deny history and state that "Progress" reaches its
final resting place in capitalism.

Moreover, as George Orwell points out, such attacks miss the point:

"In the first place he [the defender of modern life] will tell you that it
is impossible to 'go back'. . .and will then accuse you of being a medievalist
and begin to descant upon the horrors of the Middle Ages. . .As a matter of
fact, most attacks upon the Middle Ages and the past generally by apologists
of modernity are beside the point, because their essential trick is to
protect a modern man, with his sqeamishness and his high standard of comfort,
into an age when such things were unheard of. But notice that in any case
this is not an answer. For dislike of the mechanized future does not imply
the smallest reverence for any period of the past. . .When one pictures
it merely as an objective; there is no need to pretend that it has ever
existed in space and time." [_The Road to Wigan Pier_, p. 183]

We should also note that such attacks on anarchist investigations of past
cultures assumes that these cultures have *no* good aspects at all and so
indicates a sort of intellectual "all or nothing" approach to modern life.
The idea that past (and current) civilisations may have got *some* things
right and others wrong and should be investigated is rejected for a
totally uncritical "love it or leave" approach to modern society. Of course,
the well known "free market" capitalist love of 19th century capitalist
life and values warrants no such claims of "past worship" by the supporters
of the system.

Therefore attacks on anarchists as supporters of the "noble savage" ideal
indicate more about the opponents of anarchism and their fear of looking
at the implications of the system they support than about anarchist theory.

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

No, far from it. While it is obvious that, as Kropotkin put it, "[n]o
society is possible without certain principles of morality generally
recognised. If everyone grew accustomed to deceiving his fellow-men; if
we never could rely on each other's promise and words; if everyone
treated his fellow as an enemy, against whom every means of warfare is
justified - no society could exist." [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary
Pamphlets_, p. 73] this does not mean that a legal system (with its
resultant bureaucracy, vested interests and inhumanity) is the best way
to protect individual rights within a society.

What anarchists propose instead of the current legal system (or an
alternative law system based on religious or "natural" laws) is *custom*
- namely the development of living "rules of thumb" which express what
a society considers as right at any given moment.

However, the question arises, if a fixed set of principles are used to
determine the just outcome, in what way would this differ from laws?

The difference is that the "order of custom" would prevail rather than the
"rule of law". *Custom* is a body of living institutions that enjoys the
support of the body politic, whereas *law* is a codified (read dead) body
of institutions that separates social control from moral force. This, as
anyone observing modern Western society can testify, alienates
everyone. A *just outcome* is the predictable, but not necessarily the
inevitable outcome of interpersonal conflict because in a traditional
anarchistic society people are trusted to do it themselves. Anarchists
think people have to grow up in a social environment free from the
confusions generated by a fundamental discrepancy between morality, and
social control, to fully appreciate the implications. However, the essential
ingredient is the investment of trust, by the community, in people to come
up with *functional solutions* to interpersonal conflict. This stands in
sharp contrast with the present situation of people being infantilized by
the state through a constant bombardment of fixed social structures removing
all possibility of people developing their own unique solutions.

Therefore, anarchist recognise that social custom changes with society. What
was once considered "normal" or "natural" may become to be seen as oppressive
and hateful. This is because the "conception of good or evil varies
according to the degree of intelligence or of knowledge acquired. There is
nothing unchangeable about it." [Op. Cit., p. 92] Only by removing the
dead hand of the past can society's ethical base develop and grow with
the individuals that make it up (see section A.2.19 for a discussion of
anarchist ethics).

We should also like to point out here that laws (or "The Law") also restrict
the development of an individual's sense of ethics or morality. This is
because it relieves them of the responsibility of determining if something
is right or wrong. All they need to know is whether it is legal. The morality
of the action is irrelevant. This "nationalisation" of ethics is very
handy for the would be capitalist, governor or other exploiter. In addition,
capitalism also restricts the development of an individual's ethics because
it creates the environment where these ethics can be bought. To quote
Shakespeare's _Richard III_:

"Second Murderer : . . .Some certain dregs of conscience are yet within me.

First Murderer : Remember our reward, when the deed's done.

Second Murderer : Zounds! He dies. I had forgot the reward.

First Murderer : Where's thy conscience now?

Second Murderer : O, in the Duke of Gloucester's purse."

Therefore, as far as "The Law" defending individual rights, it creates the
necessary conditions (such as the de-personalisation of ethics, the existence
of wealth, and so on) for undermining individual ethical behaviour, and so
respect for other individual's rights. Individual rights, for anarchists,
are best protected in a social environment based on the self-respect and
sympathy. Custom, because it is based on the outcome of numerous individual
actions and thought does not have this problem and reflects (and encourages
the development of) individual ethical standards and so a generalised
respect for others.

Tolerance of other individuals depends far more on the attitudes of the
society in question that on its system of laws. In other words, even if
the law does respect individual rights, if others in society disapprove
of an action then they can and will act to stop it (or restrict individual
rights). All that the law can do is try to prevent this occurring. Needless
to say, governments can (and have) been at the forefront of ignoring
individual rights when its suits them.

In addition, the state perverts social customs for its own, and the
economically powerful's interests. As Kropotkin argued, "The law has
used Man's social feelings to get passed not only moral precepts which
were acceptable to Man, but also orders which were useful only to the
minority of exploiters against whom he would have rebelled" [quoted by
Malatesta in _Anarchy_, pp. 21-22]

Therefore anarchists argue that state institutions are not only unneeded
to create a ethical society (i.e. one based on respecting individuality)
but activity undermines such a society. That the economically and politically
powerful state that a state is a necessary condition for a free society and
individual space is hardly surprising. Malatesta put it as follows:

"A government cannot maintain itself for long without hiding its true nature
behind a pretense of general usefulness. . .it cannot impose acceptances
of the privileges of the few if it does not pretend to be the guardian of
the rights of all" [_Anarchy_, p. 21]

Therefore, its important to remember why the state exists and so whatever
actions and rights it promotes for the individual it exists to protect the
powerful against the powerless. Any human rights recognised by the state
are a product of social struggle and exist because of pass victories in
the class war and not due to the kindness of ruling elites. In addition,
capitalism itself undermines the ethical foundations of any society by
encouraging people to grow "accustomed to deceiving his fellow-men" and
women and treating "his fellow as an [economic] enemy, against whom every
means of warfare is justified." Hence capitalism undermines the basic
social context within which individuals develop and need to become fully
human and free. Little wonder that a strong state has always been required
to introduce a free market - firstly, to protect wealth from the increasingly
dispossessed and secondly, to try to hold society together as capitalism
destroys the social fabric which makes a society worth living in.

I.7.4 Does capitalism protect individuality?

Given that many people claim that *any* form of socialism will destroy
liberty (and so individuality) it is worthwhile to consider whether
capitalism actually does protect individuality. As noted briefly in
section I.7 the answer must be no. Capitalism seems to help create a
standardisation which helps to distort individuality and the fact that
individuality does exist under capitalism says more about the human
spirit than capitalist social relationships.

So, why does a system apparently based on the idea of individual profit
result in such a deadening of the individual? There are four main reasons:

1) capitalism produces a hierarchical system which crushes self-government
in many areas of life (see sections B.1 and B.4). This, naturally, represses
individual initiative and the skills needed to express ones own mind;

2) there is the lack of community which does not provide the necessary
supports for the encouragement of individuality (see section I.7 and
I.7.1);

3) there is the psychological impact of "individual profit" when it becomes
identified purely with monetary gain (as in capitalism);

4) the effects of competition in creating conformity and mindless obedience
to authority.

These last two points are worth discussing more thoroughly, and we will do
so here.

Taking the third point first, when this kind of "greed" becomes the guiding
aspect of an individual's life (and the society they live in) they usually
end up sacrificing their own ego to it. Instead of the individual dominating
their "greed," "greed" dominates them and so they end up being possessed by
one aspect of themselves. This "selfishness" hides the poverty of ego who
practices it.

As Erich Fromm argues:

"Selfishness if not identical with self-love but with its very opposite.
Selfishness is one kind of greediness. Like all greediness, it contains
an insatiability, as a consequence of which there is never any real
satisfaction. Greed is a bottomless pit which exhausts the person in an
endless effort to satisfy the need without ever reaching satisfaction. . .
this type of person is basically not fond of himself, but deeply dislikes
himself.

"The puzzle in this seeming contradiction is easy to solve. Selfishness
is rooted in this very lack of fondness for oneself. . . He does not have
the inner security which can exist only on the basis of genuine
fondness and affirmation" [_The Fear of Freedom_, pp. 99-100]

In other words, the "selfish" person allows their greed to dominate their
ego and they sacrifice their personality feeding this new "God." This
was clearly seen by Max Stirner who denounced this as a "one-sided, unopened,
narrow egoism" which leads the ego being "ruled by a passion to which he
brings the rest as sacrifices" (see section G.6). Like all "spooks,"
capitalism results in the self-negation of the individual and so the
impoverishment of individuality. Little wonder, then, that a system
apparently based upon "egoism" and "individualism" ends up weakening
individuality.

The effects of competition on individuality are equally as destructive.

Indeed, a "culture dedicated to creating standardized, specialized,
predictable human components could find no better way of grinding them
out than by making every possible aspect of life a matter of competition.
'Winning out' in this respect does not make rugged individualists. It
shapes conformist robots." [George Leonard, "Winning Isn't Everything.
It's Nothing", p. 46, _Intellectual Digest_, October, 1975, pp. 45-47]

Why is this?

Competition is based upon outdoing others and this can only occur if you
are doing the same thing they are. However, individuality is the most
unique thing there is and "unique characteristics by definition cannot
be ranked and participating in the process of ranking demands essential
conformity." [Alfie Kohn, _No Contest: The Case Against Competition_,
p. 130] According to Kohn in his extensive research into the effects of
competition, the evidence suggests that it in fact "encourages rank
conformity" as well as undermining the "substantial and authentic kind
of individualism" associated by such free thinkers as Thoreau. [Op. Cit.,
p. 129]

As well as impoverishing individuality by encouraging conformity, competition
also makes us less free thinking and rebellious:

"Attitude towards authorities and general conduct do count in the kinds of
competitions that take place in the office or classroom. If I want to get
the highest grades in class, I will not be likely to challenge the teacher's
version of whatever topic is being covered. After a while, I may cease to
think critically altogether. . . If people tend to 'go along to get along,'
there is even more incentive to go along when the goal is to be number one.
In the office or factory where co-workers are rivals, beating out the next
person for a promotion means pleasing the boss. Competition acts to
extinguish the Promethean fire of rebellion." [Op. Cit., p. 130]

In section I.4.11 (If libertarian socialism eliminates the profit motive,
won't creativity suffer?) we noted that when an artistic task is turned
into a contest, children's work reveal significantly less spontaneity
and creativity. In other words, competition reduces creativity and so
individuality because creativity is "anti-conformist at its core: it is
nothing if not a process of idiosyncratic thinking and risk-taking.
Competition inhibits this process." [Op. Cit., p. 130]

Competition, therefore, will result in a narrowing of our lives, a failing
to experience new challenges in favour of trying to win and be "successful."
It turns "life into a series of contests [and] turns us into cautious,
obedient people. We do not sparkle as individuals *or* embrace collective
action when we are in a race." [Op. Cit., p. 131]

So, far from defending individuality, capitalism places a lot of barriers
(both physical and mental) in the path of individuals who are trying to
express their freedom. Anarchism exists precisely because capitalism has
not created the free society it supporters claimed it would during its
struggle against the absolutist state.

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

Yes. As Murray Bookchin puts it, "[i]n Spain, millions of people took
large segments of the economy into their own hands, collectivized them,
administered them, even abolished money and lived by communistic
principles of work and distribution -- all of this in the midst of a
terrible civil war, yet without producing the chaos or even the serious
dislocations that were and still are predicted by authoritarian
'radicals.' Indeed, in many collectivized areas, the efficiency with
which an enterprise worked by far exceeded that of a comparable one in
nationalized or private sectors. This 'green shoot' of revolutionary
reality has more meaning for us than the most persuasive theoretical
arguments to the contrary. On this score it is not the anarchists who are
the 'unrealistic day-dreamers,' but their opponents who have turned their
backs to the facts or have shamelessly concealed them ["Introductory,"
in _The Anarchist Collectives_, ed. Sam Dolgoff, Free Life Editions,
1974]

Sam Dolgoff's book is by far the best English source on the Spanish
collectives and deserves to be quoted at length (as we do below). He
points out that more than 60% of the land was very quickly collectivized
and cultivated by the peasants themselves, "without landlords, without
bosses, and without instituting capitalist competition to spur
production. In almost all the industries, factories, mills, workshops,
transportation services, public services, and utilities, the rank and file
workers, their revolutionary committees, and their syndicates reorganized
and administered production, distribution, and public services without
capitalists, high-salaried managers, or the authority of the state.

"Even more: the various agrarian and industrial collectives immediately
instituted economic equality in accordance with the essential principle of
communism,

'From each according to his ability and to each according to his needs.'

They coordinated their efforts through free association in
whole regions, created new wealth, increased production (especially in
agriculture), built more schools, and bettered public services. They
instituted not bourgeois formal democracy but genuine grass roots
functional libertarian democracy, where each individual participated
directly in the revolutionary reorganization of social life. They
replaced the war between men, 'survival of the fittest,' by the universal
practice of mutual aid, and replaced rivalry by the principle of
solidarity" [Ibid.]

According to Gaston Leval in _Espagne Libertaire_, about eight million people directly or indirectly participated in the new economy during the short
time it was able to survive the military assaults and of the fascists and
the sabotage of the Communists.

Lest the reader think that Dolgoff and Bookchin are exaggerating the
accomplishments and ignoring the failures of the Spanish collectives, in
the following subsections we will present specific details and answer some
objections often raised by misinformed critics. We will try to present
an objective analysis of the revolution, both its strong points and weak
points, the mistakes made and possible lessons to be drawn from those
mistakes.

I.8.1 Wasn't the Spanish Revolution primarily a rural phenomenon and
therefore inapplicable as a model for modern industrialized states?

It's true that collectivization was more extensive and lasted longer in
the rural areas. However, about 75% of Spanish industry was concentrated
in Catalonia, the stronghold of the anarchist labor movement, and
widespread collectivization of factories took place there.

As Dolgoff rightly observes, "[t]his refutes decisively the allegation that
anarchist organizational principles are not applicable to industrial areas,
and if at all, only in primitive agrarian societies or in isolated
experimental communities" [Ibid., pp. 7-8].

There had been a long tradition of peasant collectivism in the Iberian
Peninsula, as there was among the Berbers and in the ancient Russian

mir.* The historians Costa and Reparaz maintain that a great many

Iberian collectives can be traced to "a form of rural libertarian-communism
[which] existed in the Iberian Peninsula before the Roman invasion. Not
even five centuries of oppression by Catholic kings, the State and the
Church have been able to eradicate the spontaneous tendency to establish
libertarian communistic communities" [cited Ibid., p. 20]. So it's not
surprising that there were more collectives in the countryside.

According to Augustin Souchy, "[i]t is no simple matter to collectivize
and place on firm foundations an industry employing almost a quarter of a
million textile workers in scores of factories scattered in numerous
cities. But the Barcelona syndicalist textile union accomplished this
feat in a short time. It was a tremendously significant experiment. The
dictatorship of the bosses was toppled, and wages, working conditions and
production were determined by the workers and their elected delegates.
All functionaries had to carry out the instructions of the membership and
report back directly to the men on the job and union meetings. The
collectivization of the textile industry shatters once and for all the
legend that the workers are incapable of administrating a great and
complex corporation" [cited Ibid., p. 94].

Therefore the Spanish Revolution cannot be dismissed as a product a of
pre-industrial society. The urban collectivisations occurred in the most
heavily industrialised part of Spain and indicate that anarchist ideas
are applicable to modern societies. In addition, by 1936 agriculture
itself was predominately capitalist (with 2% of the population owning
67% of the land). The revolution in Spain was the work (mostly) of
rural and urban wage labourers (joined with poor peasants) fighting a
well developed capitalist system.

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

Anarchism was introduced in Spain in 1868 by Giuseppi Fanelli, an
associate of Michael Bakunin, and found fertile soil among both the
workers and the peasants of Spain.

The peasants supported anarchism because of the rural tradition of Iberian
collectivism mentioned in the last section. The urban workers supported it
because its ideas of direct action, solidarity and free federation of unions
corresponded to their needs in their struggle against capitalism and the
state.

In addition, many Spanish workers were well aware of the dangers of
centralisation and the republican tradition in Spain was very much
influenced by federalist ideas (coming, in part, from Proudhon's work).
The movement later spread back and forth between countryside and cities
as union organisers and anarchist militants visited villages and as
peasants came to industrial cities like Barcelona, looking for work.

Therefore, from the start anarchism in Spain was associated with the
labour movement (as Bakunin desired) and so anarchists had a practical
area to apply their ideas and spread the anarchist message. By applying
their principles in everyday life, the anarchists in Spain ensured that
anarchist ideas became commonplace and accepted in a large section of
the population.

The Spanish Revolution also shows the importance of anarchist education
and media. In a country with a very high illiteracy rate, huge quantities
of literature on social revolution were disseminated and read out loud at
meetings by those who could read to those who couldn't. Anarchist ideas
were widely discussed. "There were tens of thousands of books, pamphlets
and tracts, vast and daring cultural and popular educational experiments
(the Ferrer schools) that reached into almost every village and hamlet
throughout Spain" [Ibid., p. 28].

Newspapers and periodicals were extremely important. By 1919, more than
50 towns in Andalusia had their own libertarian newspapers. By 1934 the
C.N.T. [the anarcho-syndicalist labor union] had a membership of 1,500,000
and the anarchist press covered all of Spain. In Barcelona the C.N.T.
published a daily, _Solidaridad Obrera_, with a circulation of 30,000.
The magazine _Tierra y Libertad_ [Land and Liberty] in Barcelona had a
circulation of 20,000. In Gijon there was _Vida Obrera_ [Working Life],
in Seville _El Productor_ [The Producer], and in Saragossa _Accion y
Cultura_ [Action and Culture], all with large circulations. There were
many more.

As well as leading struggles, organising unions, and producing books,
papers and periodicals, the anarchists also organised libertarian schools,
cultural centres, cooperatives, anarchist groups (the F.A.I.), youth groups
(the Libertarian Youth) and women's organisations (the Free Women movement).
They applied their ideas in all walks of life and so ensured that ordinary
people saw that anarchism was practical and relevant to them.

This was the great strength of the Spanish Anarchist movement. It was a
movement "that, in addition to possessing a revolutionary ideology [sic],
was also capable of mobilising action around objectives firmly rooted in the
life and conditions of the working class.... It was this ability
periodically to identify and express widely felt needs and feelings that,
together with its presence at community level, formed the basis of the
strength of radical anarchism, and enabled it to build a mass base of
support." [Nick Rider, "The practice of direct action: the Barcelona rent
strike of 1931", p. 99, from _For Anarchism_, pp. 79-105]

The Spanish anarchists, before and after the C.N.T. was formed, fought in
and out of the factory for economic, social and political issues. This
refusal of the anarchists to ignore any aspect of life ensured that they
found many willing to hear their message, a message based around the ideas
of individual liberty. Such a message could do nothing but radicalise
workers for "the demands of the C.N.T. went much further than those of any
social democrat: with its emphasis on true equality, autogestion
[self-management] and working class dignity, anarchosyndicalism made demands
the capitalist system could not possibly grant to the workers." [J. Romero
Maura, "The Spanish case", p. 79, from _Anarchism Today_, edited by
J. Joll and D. Apter]

The structure and tactics of the C.N.T. encouraged the politicisation,
initiative and organisational skills of its members. It was a federal,
decentralised body, based on direct discussion and decision making from
the bottom up. "The CNT tradition was to discuss and examine everything",
as one militant put it. In addition, the C.N.T. created a viable and
practical example of an alternative method by which society could be
organised. A method which was based on the ability of ordinary people to
direct society themselves and which showed in practice that special ruling
authorities are undesirable and unnecessary.

The very structure of the C.N.T. and the practical experience it provided
its members in self-management produced a revolutionary working class the
likes of which the world has rarely seen. As Jose Peirats points out,
"above the union level, the C.N.T. was an eminently political organisation
. . ., a social and revolutionary organisation for agitation and
insurrection." [_Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution_, p. 239] It was
the revoluntary nature of the C.N.T. that created a militant membership
who were willing and able to use direct action to defend their liberty.
Unlike the German workers who did nothing to stop Hilter, the Spanish
working class (like their comrades in anarchist unions in Italy) took to
the streets to stop fascism.

The revolution in Spain did not "just happen"; it was the result of nearly
seventy years of persistent anarchist agitation and revolutionary
struggle, including a long series of peasant uprisings, insurrections,
industrial strikes, protests, sabotage and other forms of direct action
that prepared the peasants and workers organise popular resistance to the
attempted fascist coup in July 1937 and to take control of the economy when
they had defeated it in the streets.

I.8.3 How were Spanish industrial collectives organized?

The collectives were based on workers' democratic self-management of their
workplaces, using productive assets that were under the custodianship of
the entire working community and administered through federations of
workers' associations. Augustin Souchy writes:

"The collectives organized during the Spanish Civil War were workers'
economic associations without private property. The fact that collective
plants were managed by those who worked in them did not mean that these
establishments became their private property. The collective had no right to
sell or rent all or any part of the collectivised factory or workshop, The rightful custodian was the C.N.T., the National Confederation of Workers
Associations. But not even the C.N.T. had the right to do as it pleased.
Everything had to be decided and ratified by the workers themselves through
conferences and congresses." [cited in _The Anarchist Collectives_, p. 67]

According to Souchy, in Catalonia "every factory elected its administrative
committee composed of its most capable workers. Depending on the size of
the factory, the function of these committees included inner plant
organization, statistics, finance, correspondence, and relations with
other factories and with the community. . . . Several months after
collectivization the textile industry of Barcelona was in far better shape
than under capitalist management. Here was yet another example to show
that grass roots socialism from below does not destroy initiative. Greed
is not the only motivation in human relations." [Ibid., p 95].

A plenum of syndicates met in December of 1936 and formulated norms for
socialization in which the inefficiency of the capitalist industrial
system was analyzed. The report of the plenum stated:

"The major defect of most small manufacturing shops is fragmentation and
lack of technical/commercial preparation. This prevents their
modernization and consolidation into better and more efficient units of
production, with better facilities and coordination. . . . [F]or us,
socialization must correct these deficiencies and systems of organization
in every industry. . . . To socialize an industry, we must consolidate the
different units of each branch of industry in accordance with a general
and organic plan which will avoid competition and other difficulties
impeding the good and efficient organization of production and
distribution."

As Souchy points out, this document is very important in the evolution of
collectivization, because it indicates a realization that "workers must
take into account that partial collectivization will in time degenerate
into a kind of bourgeois cooperativism," as discussed earlier (see
H.4). Thus many collectives did not compete with each other for profits,
as surpluses were pooled and distributed on a wider basis than the
individual collective -- in most cases industry-wide.

We have already noted some examples of the improvements in efficiency
realized by collectivization during the Spanish Revolution (I.4.10).
Another example was the baking industry. Souchy reports that, "[a]s in the
rest of Spain, Barcelona's bread and cakes were baked mostly at night in
hundreds of small bakeries. Most of them were in damp, gloomy cellars
infested with roaches and rodents. All these bakeries were shut down.
More and better bread and cake were baked in new bakeries equipped with
new modern ovens and other equipment" [Ibid., p. 82].

Therefore, the collectives in Spain were marked by workplace democracy
and a desire to cooperate within and across industries. This attempt
at libertarian socialism, like all experiments, had its drawbacks as
well as successes and these will be discussed in the next section as
well as some of the conclusions drawn from the experience.

I.8.4 How were the Spanish industrial collectives coordinated?

The methods of cooperation tried by the collectives varied considerably.
Initially, there were very few attempts to coordinate economic activities
beyond the workplace. This is hardly surprising, given that the overwhelming
need was to restart production, convert a civilian economy to a wartime one
and to ensure that the civilian population and militias were supplied with
necessary goods. This, unsurprisingly enough, lead to a situation of anarchist
mutualism developing, with many collectives selling the product of their own
labour on the market (in other words, a form of simple commodity production).

This lead to some economic problems as there existed no framework of
institutions between collectives to ensure efficient coordination of
activity and so lead to pointless competition between collectives (which
lead to even more problems). As there were initially no confederations of
collectives nor mutual/communal banks this lead to the inequalities that
initially existed between collectives (due to the fact that the collectives
took over rich and poor capitalist firms) and it made the many ad hoc
attempts at mutual aid between collectives difficult and temporary.

Therefore, the collectives were (initially) a form of "self-management
straddling capitalism and socialism, which we maintain would not have
occurred had the Revolution been able to extend itself fully under the
direction of our syndicates." [Gaston Leval, _Collectives in the Spanish
Revolution_, p. 227-8] As economic and political development are closely
related, the fact that the C.N.T. did not carry out the *political* aspect
of the revolution meant that the revolution in the economy was doomed to
failure.

Given that the C.N.T. program of libertarian communism recognized that a
fully cooperative society must be based upon production for use, many C.N.T.
militants fought against this system of mutualism and for inter-workplace
coordination. They managed to convince their fellow workers of the
difficulties of mutualism by free debate and discussion within their
unions and collectives.

For example, the woodworkers' union had a massive debate on socialisation and
decided to do so (the shopworkers' union had a similar debate, but the majority
of workers rejected socialisation). According to Ronald Frazer a "union
delegate would go round the small shops, point out to the workers that the
conditions were unhealthy and dangerous, that the revolution was changing all
this, and secure their agreement to close down and move to the union-built
Double-X and the 33 EU."[Ronald Frazer, _Blood of Spain_, p. 222]

This process went on in many different unions and collectives and,
unsurprisingly, the forms of coordination agreed to lead to different forms
of organisation in different areas and industries, as would be expected in
a free society. However, the two most important forms can be termed
syndicalisation and confederationalism (we will ignore the forms created
by the collectivisation decree as these were not created by the workers
themselves).

"Syndicalisation" (our term) meant that the C.N.T.'s industrial union ran the
whole industry. This solution was tried by the woodworkers' union after
extensive debate. One section of the union, "dominated by the F.A.I. [the
anarchist federation], maintained that anarchist self-management meant that
the workers should set up and operate autonomous centres of production so as
to avoid the threat of bureaucratization." [Ronald Frazer, _Blood of Spain_,
p. 222] However, those in favour of syndicalisation won the day and
production was organised in the hands of the union, with administration
posts and delegate meetings elected by the rank and file.

However, the "major failure . . . (and which supported the original anarchist
objection) was that the union became like a large firm . . . [and its]
structure grew increasingly rigid." According to one militant, "From the
outside it began to look like an American or German trust" and the workers
found it difficult to secure any changes and "felt they weren't particularly
involved in decision making."

In the end, the major difference between the union-run industry and a
capitalist firm organisationally appeared to be that workers could vote for
(and recall) the industry management at relatively regular General Assembly
meetings. While a vast improvement on capitalism, it is hardly the best
example of participatory self-management in action although the economic
problems caused by the Civil War and Stalinist led counter-revolution
obviously would have had an effect on the internal structure of any
industry and so we cannot say that the form of organisation created was
totally responsible for any marginalisation that took place.

The other important form of cooperation was what we will term
"confederalisation." This form of cooperation was practiced by the Badalona
textile industry (and had been defeated in the woodworkers' union). It was
based upon each workplace being run by its elected management, sold its own
production, got its own orders and received the proceeds. However, everything
each mill did was reported to the union which charted progress and kept
statistics. If the union felt that a particular factory was not acting in
the best interests of the industry as a whole, it was informed and asked to
change course. According to one militant, "The union acted more as a
socialist control of collectivised industry than as a direct hierarchized
executive" [Op. Cit., p. 229]

This system ensured that the "dangers of the big 'union trust' as of
the atomised collective were avoided" [Frazer, Op. Cit., p. 229] as well
as maximising decentralisation of power. Unlike the syndicalisation
experiment in the woodworkers' industry, this scheme was based on horizontal
links between workplaces (via the C.N.T. union) and allowed a maximum of
self-management *and* mutual aid. The ideas of an anarchist economy
sketched in section I.3 reflects the actual experiments in self-management
which occurred during the Spanish Revolution.

Therefore, the industrial collectives coordinated their activity in many
ways, with varying degrees of direct democracy and success. As would be
expected, mistakes were made and different solutions found. When reading
this section of the FAQ its important to remember that an anarchist society
can hardly be produced "overnight" and so it is hardly surprising that the
workers of the C.N.T. faced numerous problems and had to develop their
self-management experiment as objective conditions allowed them to.

Unfortunately, thanks to fascist aggression and Communist Party
backstabbing, the experiment did not last long enough to fully answer all
the questions we have about the viability of the solutions they tried.
Given the time, however, we are sure they would have solved the problems
they faced.

I.8.5 How were the Spanish agricultural cooperatives organized and
coordinated?

Jose Peirats describes collectivization among the peasantry as follows:

"The expropriated lands were turned over to the peasant syndicates, and it
was these syndicates that organized the first collectives. Generally the
holdings of small property owners were respected, always on the condition
that only they or their families would work the land, without employing
wage labor. In areas like Catalonia, where the tradition of petty peasant
ownership prevailed, the land holdings were scattered. There were no
great estates. Many of these peasants, together with the C.N.T., organized
collectives, pooling their land, animals, tools, chickens, grain,
fertilizer, and even their harvested crops.

"Privately owned farms located in the midst of collectives interfered with
efficient cultivation by splitting up the collectives into disconnected
parcels. To induce owners to move, they were given more or even better
land located on the perimeter of the collective.

"The collectivist who had nothing to contribute to the collective was
admitted with the same rights and the same duties as the others. In some
collectives, those joining had to contribute their money (Girondella in
Catalonia, Lagunarrotta in Aragon, and Cervera del Maestra in Valencia)."
[cited _The Anarchist Collectives_, p. 112].

Peirats also notes that in conducting their internal affairs, all the
collectives scrupulously and zealously observed democratic procedures.
For example, "Hospitalet de Llobregat held regular general membership
meetings every three months to review production and attend to new
business. The administrative council, and all other committees, submitted
full reports on all matters. The meeting approved, disapproved, made
corrections, issued instructions, etc." [Ibid., p. 119]

Dolgoff observes that "[S]upreme power was vested in, and actually
exercised by, the membership in general assemblies, and all power derived
from, and flowed back to, the grass roots organizations of the people"
[Ibid., p 119]. This is confirmed by Gaston Leval [in _Espagne
Liberataire_, p. 219]: "Regular general membership meetings were convoked
weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly. . . and these meetings were completely
free of the tensions and recriminations which inevitably emerge when the
power of decisions is vested in a few individuals -- even if
democratically elected. The Assemblies were open for everyone to
participate in the proceedings. Democracy embraced all social life. In
most cases, even the 'individualists' who were not members of the
collective could participate in the discussions, and they were listened
to by the collectivists."

It was in these face-to-face assemblies that decisions upon the distribution
of resources were decided both within and without the collective. Here, when
considering the importance of mutual aid, appeals were made to an
individual's sense of empathy. As one activist remembers:

"There were, of course, those who didn't want to share and who said that
each collective should take care of itself. But they were usually convinced
in the assemblies. We would try to speak to them in terms they understood.
We'd ask, 'Did you think it was fair when the cacique [local boss] let people
starve if there wasn't enough work?' and they said, 'Of course not.' They
would eventually come around. Don't forget, there were three hundred
thousand collectivists [in Aragon], but only ten thousand of us had been
members of the C.N.T.. We had a lot of educating to do." [Felix Carrasquer,
quoted in _Free Women of Spain_, p. 79]

In addition, regional federations of collectives were formed in many
areas of Spain (for example, in Aragon and the Levant). The federations were
created at congresses to which the collectives in an area sent delegates.
These congresses agreed a series of general rules about how the federation
would operate and what commitments the affiliated collectives would
have to each other. The congress elected an administration council, which
took responsibility for implementing agreed policy.

These federations had many tasks. They ensured the distribution of surplus
produce to the front line and to the cities, cutting out middlemen and
ensuring the end of exploitation. They also arranged for exchanges between
collectives to take place. In addition, the federations allowed the
individual collectives to pool resources together in order to improve the
infrastructure of the area (building roads, canals, hospitals and so on)
and invest in means of production which no one collective could afford.

In this way individual collectives pooled their resources, increased
and improved the means of production they had access to as well as
improving the social infrastructure of their regions. All this, combined
with an increase of consumption at the point of production and the
feeding of militia men and women fighting the fascists at the front.

Rural collectivisations allowed the potential creative energy that
existed among the rural workers and peasants to be unleashed, an energy
that had been wasted under private property. The popular assemblies allowed
community problems and improvements to be identified and solved directly,
drawing upon the ideas and experiences of everyone and enriched by
discussion and debate. This enabled rural Spain to be transformed from
one marked by poverty and fear, into one of hope and experimentation (see
the next section for a few examples of this experimentation).

Therefore self-management in collectives combined with cooperation in rural
federations allowed an improvement in quality of rural life. From a
purely economic viewpoint, production increased and as Benjamin Martin
summarises, "[t]hough it is impossible to generalize about the rural
land takeovers, there is little doubt that the quality of life for most
peasants who participated in cooperatives and collectives notably improved."
[_The Agony of Modernization_, p. 394]

More importantly, however, this improvement in the quality of life included
an increase in freedom as well as in consumption. To requote the member
of the Beceite collective in Aragon we cited in section A.5.6, "it was
marvellous. . . to live in a collective, a free society where one could
say what one thought, where if the village committee seemed unsatisfactory
one could say. The committee took no big decisions without calling the
whole village together in a general assembly. All this was wonderful."
[Ronald Frazer, _Blood of Spain_, p. 288]

I.8.6 What did the agricultural collectives accomplish?

Here are a few examples cited by Jose Peirats: "In Montblanc the
collective dug up the old useless vines and planted new vineyards. The
land, improved by modern cultivation with tractors, yielded much bigger
and better crops. . . . Many Aragon collectives built new roads and
repaired old ones, installed modern flour mills, and processed
agricultural and animal waste into useful industrial products. Many of
these improvements were first initiated by the collectives. Some
villages, like Calanda, built parks and baths. Almost all collectives
established libraries, schools, and cultural centers." [cited
_The Anarchist Collectives_, p. 116].

Gaston Leval points out that "the Peasant Federation of Levant . . .
produced more than half of the total orange crop in Spain: almost four
million kilos (1 kilo equals about 2 and one-fourth pounds). It then
transported and sold through its own commercial organization (no
middlemen) more than 70% of the crop. (The Federations's commercial
organization included its own warehouses, trucks, and boats. Early in
1938 the export section established its own agencies in France:
Marseilles, Perpignan, bordeaux, Cherbourg, and Paris.) Out of a total
of 47,000 hectares in all Spain devoted to rice production, the
collective in the Province of Valencia cultivated 30,000 hectares."
[cited Ibid., p. 124]

To quote Peirats again: "Preoccupation with cultural and pedagogical
innovations was an event without precedent in rural Spain. The Amposta
collectivists organized classes for semi-literates, kindergartens, and
even a school of arts and professions. The Seros schools were free to all
neighbors, collectivists or not. Grau installed a school named after its
most illustrious citizen, Joaquin Costa. The Calanda collective (pop.
only 4,500) schooled 1,233 children. The best students were sent to the
Lyceum in Caspe, with all expenses paid by the collective. The Alcoriza
(pop. 4,000) school was attended by 600 children. Many of the schools
were installed in abandoned convents. In Granadella (pop. 2,000), classes
were conducted in the abandoned barracks of the Civil Guards. Graus
organized a print library and a school of arts and professions, attended
by 60 pupils. The same building housed a school of fine arts and high
grade museum. In some villages a cinema was installed for the first
time. The Penalba cinema was installed in a church. Viladecana built an
experimental agricultural laboratory.

"The collectives voluntarily contributed enormous stocks of provisions and
other supplies to the fighting troops. Utiel sent 1,490 litres of oil and
300 bushels of potatoes to the Madrid front (in addition to huge stocks of
beans, rice, buckwheat, etc.). Porales de Tujana sent great quantities of
bread, oil, flour, and potatoes to the front, and eggs, meat, and milk to
the military hospital.

"The efforts of the collectives take on added significance when we take
into account that their youngest and most vigorous workers were fighting
in the trenches. 200 members of the little collective of Vilaboi were at
the front; from Viledecans, 60; Amposta, 300; and Calande, 500." [Ibid.,
pp. 116-120].

Peirats sums up the accomplishments of the agricultural collectives as
follows: "In distribution the collectives' cooperatives eliminated
middlemen, small merchants, wholesalers, and profiteers, thus greatly
reducing consumer prices. The collectives eliminated most of the
parasitic elements from rural life, and would have wiped them out
altogether if they were not protected by corrupt officials and by the
political parties. Non-collectivized areas benefited indirectly from
the lower prices as well as from free services often rendered by the
collectives (laundries, cinemas, schools, barber and beauty parlors,
etc.)." [Ibid., p114].

Leval emphasizes the following achievements (among others): "In the
agrarian collectives solidarity was practiced to the greatest degree.
Not only was every person assured of the necessities, but the district
federations increasingly adopted the principle of mutual aid on an
inter-collective scale. For this purpose they created common reserves to
help out villages less favored by nature. In Castile special institutions
for this purpose were created. In industry this practice seems to have
begun in Hospitalet, on the Catalan railways, and was applied later in
Alcoy.

Had the political compromise not impeded open socialization, the
practices of mutual aid would have been much more generalized.

"A conquest of enormous importance was the right of women to livelihood,
regardless of occupation or function. In about half of the agrarian
collectives, the women received the same wages as men; in the rest the
women received less, apparently on the principle that they rarely live
alone.

"In all the agrarian collectives of Aragon, Catalonia, Levant, Castile,
Andalusia, and Estremadura, the workers formed groups to divide the labor
or the land; usually they were assigned to definite areas. Delegates
elected by the work groups met with the collective's delegate for
agriculture to plan out the work. This typical organization arose quite
spontaneously, by local initiative.

"In land cultivation the most significant advances were: the rapidly
increased use of machinery and irrigation; greater diversification; and
forestation. In stock raising: the selection and multiplication of
breeds; the adaptation of breeds to local conditions; and large-scale
construction of collective stock barns." [Ibid., pp. 166-167].

I.8.7 I've heard that the rural collectives were created by force. Is this
true?

No, it is not. The myth that the rural collectives were created by "terror,"
organised and carried out by the anarchist militia, was started by the
Stalinists of the Spanish Communist Party. More recently, some right-wing
Libertarians have warmed up and repeated these Stalinist fabrications.
Anarchists have been disproving these allegations since 1936 and it is
worthwhile to do so again here.

As Vernon Richards notes, "[h]owever discredited Stalinism may appear to
be today the fact remains that the Stalinist lies and interpretation of
the Spanish Civil War still prevail, presumably because it suits the
political prejudices of those historians who are currently interpreting it."
[Introduction to Gaston Leval's _Collectives in the Spanish Revolution_,
p. 11] Here we shall present evidence to refute claims that the rural
collectives were created by force.

Firstly, we should point out that rural collectives were created in many
different areas of Spain, such as the Levant (900 collectives), Castile (300)
and Estremadera (30), where the anarchist militia did not exist. In Catalonia,
for example, the C.N.T. militia passed through many villages on its way to
Aragon and only around 40 collectives were created unlike the 450 in Aragon.
In other words, the rural collectivisation process occurred independently of
the existence of anarchist troops, with the majority of the 1,700 rural
collectives created in areas without a predominance of anarchist troops.

One historian, Ronald Frazer, seems to imply that the Aragon Collectives were
imposed upon the Aragon population. As he puts it the "collectivization,
carried out under the general cover, if not necessarily the direct agency,
of C.N.T. militia columns, represented a revolutionary minority's attempt to
control not only production but consumption for egalitarian purposes and
the needs of the war." [_Blood of Spain_, p. 370] Notice that he does not
suggest that the anarchist militia actually *imposed* the collectives, a
claim for which there is little or no evidence. Earlier he states that
"There was no need to dragoon them [peasants] at pistol point [into
collectives]: the coercive climate, in which 'fascists' were being shot,
was sufficient. 'Spontaneous' and 'forced' collectives existed, as did
willing and unwilling collectivists within them." [Op. Cit., p.349]

Therefore, his suggestion that the Aragon collectives were imposed upon the
rural population is based upon the insight that there was a "coercive
climate" in Aragon at the time. Of course a civil war against fascism would
produce a "coercive climate," particularly at the front line, and so the
C.N.T. can hardly be blamed for that. In addition, in a life and death
struggle against fascism, in which the fascists were systematically
murdering vast numbers of anarchists, socialists and republicans in the
areas under their control, it is hardly surprising that some anarchist troops
took the law into their own hands and murdered some of those who supported
and would help the fascists. Given what was going on in fascist Spain, and
the experience of fascism in Germany and Italy, the C.N.T. militia knew
exactly what would happen to them and their friends and family if they lost.

The question does arise, however, of whether the climate was made so coercive
by the war and the nearness of the anarchist militia that individual choice
was impossible.

The facts speak for themselves -- rural collectivization in Aragon embraced
more than 70% of the population in the area saved from fascism. Around
30% of the population felt safe enough not to join a collective, a
sizable percentage.

If the collectives had been created by anarchist terror or force, we would
expect a figure of 100% membership in the collectives. This was not the case,
indicating the basically voluntary nature of the experiment (we should point
out that other figures suggest a lower number of collectivists which makes
the forced collectivisation argument even less likely). In addition, if the
C.N.T. militia had forced peasants into collectives we would expect the
membership of the collectives to peak almost overnight, not grow slowly
over time. However, this is what happened:

"At the regional congress of collectives, held at Caspe in mid-February 1937,
nearly 80 000 collectivists were represented from 'almost all the villages
of the region.' This, however, was but a beginning. By the end of April the
number of collectivists had risen to 140 000; by the end of the first
week of May to 180 000; and by the end of June to 300 000." [Graham Kelsey,
"Anarchism in Aragon," pp. 60-82, _Spain in Conflict 1931-1939_,
Martin Blinkhorn (ed), p. 61]

If the collectives has been created by force, then their membership would
have been 300 000 in February, 1937, not increasing steadily to reach that
number four months later. Neither can it be claimed that the increase was
due to new villages being collectivised, as almost all villages had sent
delegates in February. This indicates that many peasants joined the
collectives because of the advantages associated with common labour, the
increased resources it placed at their hands and the fact that the surplus
wealth which had in the previous system been monopolised by the few was
used instead to raise the standard of living of the entire community.

The voluntary nature of the collectives is again emphasized by the number of
collectives which allowed smallholders to remain outside. According to evidence
Frazer presents (on page 366), an FAI schoolteacher is quoted as saying that
the forcing of smallholders into the collective "wasn't a widespread problem,
because there weren't more than twenty or so villages where collectivisation
was total and no one was allowed to remain outside..." Instead of forcing
the minority in a village to agree with the wishes of the majority, the
vast majority (95%) of Aragon collectives stuck to their libertarian
principles and allowed those who did not wish to join to remain outside.

So, only around 20 were "total" collectives (out of 450) and around 30% of the
population felt safe enough *not* to join. In other words, in the vast majority
of collectives those joining could see that those who did not were safe.
These figures should not be discounted, as they give an indication of the
basically spontaneous and voluntary nature of the movement.

As was the composition of the new municipal councils created after July 19th.
As Graham Kesley notes, "[w]hat is immediately noticeable from the results
is that although the region has often been branded as one controlled by
anarchists to the total exclusion of all other forces, the C.N.T. was far
from enjoying the degree of absolute domination often implied and inferred."
[_Anarchosyndicalism, Libertarian Communism and the State_, p. 198]

In his account of the rural revolution, Burnett Bolloton notes that "many
of the 450 collectives of the region were largely voluntary" although "it
must be emphasized that this singular development was in some measure due
to the presence of militiamen from the neighboring region of Catalonia, the
immense majority of whom were members of the C.N.T. and FAI."

As Gaston Leval points out, "it is true that the presence of these forces
. . . favoured indirectly these constructive achievements by preventing
active resistance by the supporters of the bourgeois republic and of
fascism." [_Collectives in the Spanish Revolution_, p. 90]

In other words, the presence of the militia changed the balance of
class forces in Aragon by destroying the capitalist state (i.e. the local
bosses - caciques - could not get state aid to protect their property)
and many landless workers took over the land. The presence of the militia
ensured that land could be taken over by destroying the capitalist "monopoly
of force" that existed before the revolution (the power of which will be
highlighted below) and so the C.N.T. militia allowed the possibility of
experimentation by the Aragonese population.

This class war in the countryside is reflected by Bolloten's statement that
"[if] the individual farmer viewed with dismay the swift and widespread
collectivisation of agriculture, the farm workers of the Anarchosyndicalist
C.N.T. and the Socialist UGT saw it as the commencement of a new era."
[_The Spanish Civil War_, p. 63] Both were mass organisations and
supported collectivisation.

Therefore, anarchist militia allowed the rural working class to abolish the
artificial scarcity of land created by private property (and enforced by the
state). The rural bosses obviously viewed with horror the possibility that
they could not exploit day workers' labour. As Bolloten points out "the
collective system of agriculture threaten[ed] to drain the rural labour
market of wage workers." [Op. Cit., p. 62] Little wonder the richer peasants
and landowners hated the collectives.

Bolloten also quotes a report on the district of Valderrobes which indicates
popular support for the collectives:

"Collectivisation was nevertheless opposed by opponents on the right and
adversaries on the left. If the eternally idle who have been expropriated
had been asked what they thought of collectivisation, some would have
replied that it was robbery and others a dictatorship. But, for the
elderly, the day workers, the tenant farmers and small proprietors who
had always been under the thumb of the big landowners and heartless
usurers, it appeared as salvation" [Op. Cit., p. 71]

However, most historians ignore the differences in class that existed in
the countryside. They ignore it and explain the rise in collectives in
Aragon (and ignore those elsewhere) as the result of the C.N.T. militia.
Frazer, for example, states that "[v]ery rapidly collectives. . . began
to spring up. It did not happen on instructions from the C.N.T. leadership -
no more than had the [industrial] collectives in Barcelona. Here, as there,
the initiative came from C.N.T. militants; here, as there, the 'climate'
for social revolution in the rearguard was created by C.N.T. armed strength:
the anarcho-syndicalists' domination of the streets of Barcelona was
re-enacted in Aragon as the C.N.T. militia columns, manned mainly by
Catalan anarcho-syndicalist workers, poured in. Where a nucleus of
anarcho-syndicalists existed in a village, it seized the moment to carry
out the long-awaited revolution and collectivized spontaneously. Where
there was none, villagers could find themselves under considerable pressure
from the militias to collectivize. . ." [Op. Cit., p. 347]

In other words, he implies that the revolution was mostly imported into Aragon
from Catalonia. However, the majority of C.N.T. column leaders were opposed to
the setting up of the Council of Aragon (a confederation for the collectives)
[Frazer, Op. Cit., p. 350]. Hardly an example of Catalan C.N.T. imposed
social revolution. The evidence we have suggests that the Aragon C.N.T. was
a widespread and popular organisation, suggesting that the idea that the
collectives were imported into Aragon by the Catalan C.N.T. is simply *false.*

Frazer states that in "some [of the Aragonese villages] there was a
flourishing C.N.T., in others the UGT was strongest, and in only too many
there was no unionisation at all." [_Blood of Spain_, p. 348] The question
arises of how extensive was that strength. The evidence we have suggests
that it was extensive, strong and growing, so indicating that rural Aragon
was not without a C.N.T. base, a base that makes the suggestion of imposed
collectives a false one.

Murray Bookchin summarises the strength of the C.N.T. in rural Aragon as
follows:

"The authentic peasant base of the C.N.T. [by the 1930s] now lay in Aragon
. . .[C.N.T. growth in Zaragoza] provided a springboard for a highly
effective libertarian agitation in lower Aragon, particularly among
the impoverished laborers and debt-ridden peasantry of the dry steppes
region." [_The Spanish Anarchists_, p. 220]

Graham Kelsey, in his social history of the C.N.T. in Aragon between 1930
and 1937, provides the necessary evidence to more than back Bookchin's
claim of C.N.T. growth. Kesley points out that as well as the "spread of
libertarian groups and the increasing consciousness among C.N.T. members
of libertarian theories . . .contribu[ting] to the growth of the
anarchosyndicalist movement in Aragon" the existence of "agrarian unrest"
also played an important role in that growth [_Anarchosyndicalism, Libertarian
Communism and the State_, pp.80-81]. This all lead to the "revitalisation
of the C.N.T. network in Aragon" [p. 82] and so by 1936, the C.N.T. had built
upon the "foundations laid in 1933. . . [and] had finally succeeded in
translating the very great strength of the urban trade-union organisation
in Zaragoza into a regional network of considerable extent." [Op. Cit.,
p. 134]

Kelsey and other historians note the long history of anarchism in Aragon,
dating back to the late 1860s. However, before the 1910s there had been
little gains in rural Aragon by the C.N.T. due to the power of local bosses
(called *caciques*):

"Local landowners and small industrialists, the *caciques* of provincial
Aragon, made every effort to enforce the closure of these first rural
anarchosyndicalist cells [created after 1915]. By the time of the first
rural congress of the Aragonese CNT confederation in the summer of 1923,
much of the progress achieved through the organization's considerable
propaganda efforts had been countered by repression elsewhere."
[Graham Kelsey, "Anarchism in Aragon," p. 62]

A C.N.T. activist indicates the power of these bosses and how difficult
it was to be a union member in Aragon:

"Repression is not the same in the large cities as it is in the villages
where everyone knows everybody else and where the Civil Guards are
immediately notified of a comrade's slightest movement. Neither friends
nor relatives are spared. All those who do not serve the state's repressive
forces unconditionally are pursued, persecuted and on occassions beaten
up." [cited by Kelsey, Op. Cit., p. 74]

However, while there were some successes in organising rural unions,
even in 1931 "propaganda campaigns which led to the establishment of scores
of village trade-union cells, were followed by a counter-offensive from
village *caciques* which forced them to close." [Ibid. p. 67] But even in
the face of this repression the C.N.T. grew and "from the end of 1932. . .
[there was] a successful expansion of the anarchosyndicalist movement into
several parts of the region where previously it had never penetrated."
[Kesley, _Anarchosyndicalism, Libertarian Communism and the State_, p. 185]

This growth was built upon in 1936, with increased rural activism which had
slowly eroded the power of the *caciques* (which in part explains their support
for the fascist coup). After the election of the Popular Front, years of
anarchist propaganda and organisation paid off with a massive increase
in rural membership in the C.N.T.:

"The dramatic growth in rural anarch-syndicalist support in the six
weeks since the general election was emphasized in the [Aragon CNT's
April] congress's agenda. . . the congress directed its attention
to rural problems . . . [and agreed a programme which was] exactly
what was to happen four months later in liberated Aragon." [Kesley,
"Anarchism in Aragon", p. 76]

In the aftermath of a regional congress, held in Zaragoza at the start of
April, a series of of intensive propaganda compaigns was organized
through each of the provinces of the regional confederation. Many
meetings were held in villages which had never before heard anarcho-
syndicalist propaganda. This was very successful and by the beginning
of June, 1936, the number of Aragon unions had topped 400, compared to
only 278 one month earlier (an increase of over 40% in 4 weeks). [Ibid.,
pp. 75-76]

This increase in union membership reflects increased social struggle
by the Aragonese working population and their attempts to improve their
standard of living, which was very low for most of the population. A
journalist from the conservative-Catholic _Heraldo de Aragon_ visited
lower Aragon in the summer of 1935 and noted "[t]he hunger in many homes,
where the men are not working, is beginning to encourage the youth to
subscribe to misleading teachings." [cited by Kesley, Ibid., p. 74]

Little wonder, then, the growth in CNT membership and social struggle
Kesley indicates:

"Evidence of a different kind was also available that militant trade
unionism in Aragon was on the increase. In the five months between
mid-February and mid-July 1936 the province of Zaragoza experienced
over seventy strikes, more than had previously been recorded in any
entire year, and things were clearly no different in the other two
provinces . . . the great majority of these strikes were occuring in
provincial towns and villages. Strikes racked the provinces and in at
least three instances were actually transformed into general strikes."
[Ibid., p. 76]

Therefore, in the spring and summer of 1936, we see a massive growth in
C.N.T. membership which reflects growing militant struggle by the urban
and rural population of Aragon. Years of C.N.T. propaganda and organising
had ensured this growth in C.N.T. influence, a growth which is also
reflected in the creation of collectives in liberated Aragon during the
revolution. Therefore, the construction of a collectivized society was
founded directly upon the emergence, during the five years of the Second
Republic, of a mass trade-union movement infused by libertarian, anarchist
principles. These collectives were constructed in accordance with the
programme agreed at the Aragon C.N.T. conference of April 1936 which
reflected the wishes of the rural membership of the unions within Aragon
(and due to the rapid growth of the C.N.T. afterwards obviously reflected
popular feelings in the area).

In the words of Graham Kesley, "libertarian dominance in post-insurrection
Aragon itself reflected the predominance that anarchists had secured before
the war; by the summer of 1936 the CNT had succeeded in establishing
throughout Aragon a mass trade-union movement of strictly libertarian
orientation, upon which widespread and well-supported network the extensive
collective experiment was to be founded." [Ibid., p. 61]

Additional evidence that supports a high level of C.N.T. support in
rural Aragon can be provided by the fact that it was Aragon that was the
center of the December 1933 insurrection organised by the C.N.T. As Bookchin
notes, "only Aragon rose on any significant scale, particularly Saragossa
. . .many of the villages declared libertarian communism and perhaps the
heaviest fighting took place between the vineyard workers in Rioja and the
authorities" [M. Bookchin, Op. Cit., p. 256]

It is unlikely for the C.N.T. to organise an insurrection in an area within
which it had little support or influence. According to Kesley's in-depth
social history of Aragon, "it was precisely those areas which had most
important in December 1933 . . . which were now [in 1936], in seeking to
create a new pattern of economic and social organisation, to form the basis
of libertarian Aragon" [G. Kesley, _Anarchosyndicalism, Libertarian Communism
and the State_, p. 161] After the revolt, thousands of workers were jailed,
with the authorities having to re-open closed prisons and turn at least
one disused monastrey into a jail due to the numbers arrested.

Therefore, it can be seen that the majority of collectives in Aragon
were the product of C.N.T. (and UGT) influenced workers taking the opportunity
to create a new form of social life, a form marked by its voluntary and
directly democratic nature. For from being unknown in rural Aragon, the
C.N.T. was well established and growing at a fast rate - "Spreading out from
its urban base... the CNT, first in 1933 and then more extensively in 1936,
succeeded in converting an essentially urban organisation into a truly
regional confederation." [Ibid., p. 184]

Therefore the evidence suggests that historians like Frazer are wrong to
imply that the Aragon collectives were created by the C.N.T. militia and
enforced upon a unwilling population. The Aragon collectives were the natural
result of years of anarchist activity within rural Aragon and directly
related to the massive growth in the C.N.T. between 1930 and 1936. Thus
Kesley is correct to state that:

"Libertarian communism and agrarian collectivisation were not economic
terms or social principles enforced upon a hostile population by special
teams of urban anarchosyndicalists . . ." [G. Kesley, Op. Cit., p. 161]

This is not to suggest that there were *no* examples of people joining
collectives involuntarily because of the "coercive climate" of the front
line. And, of course, there were villages which did not have a C.N.T. union
within them before the war and so created a collective because of the
existence of the C.N.T. militia. But these can be considered as exceptions
to the rule.

Moreover, the way the C.N.T. handled such a situation is noteworthy. Frazer
indicates such a situation in the village of Alloza. In the autumn of
1936, representatives of the C.N.T. district committee had come to suggest
that the villagers collectivise (we would like to stress here that the
C.N.T. militia which had passed through the village had made no attempt
to create a collective there).

A village assembly was called and the C.N.T. explained their ideas and
suggested how to organise the collective. However, who would join and how
the villagers would organise the collective was left totally up to them (the
C.N.T. representatives "stressed that no one was to be maltreated"). Within
the collective, self-management was the rule.

According to one member, "Once the work groups were established on a
friendly basis and worked their own lands, everyone got on well enough,"
he recalled. "There was no need for coercion, no need for discipline and
punishment. . . A collective wasn't a bad idea at all." [Op. Cit., p. 360].
This collective, like the vast majority, was voluntary and democratic -
"I couldn't oblige him to join; we weren't living under a dictatorship."
[Op. Cit., p. 362] In other words, *no* force was used to create the
collective and the collective was organised by local people directly.

Of course, as with any public good (to use economic jargon), all members of
the community had to pay for the war effort and feed the militia. As Kesely
notes, "The military insurrection had come at a critical moment in the
agricultural calendar. Throughout lower Aragon there were fields of grain
ready for harvesting. . . At the assembly in Albalate de Cinca the opening
clause of the agreed programme had required everyone in the district,
independent farmers and collectivists alike, to contribute equally to
the war effort, thereby emphasizing one of the most important considerations
in the period immediately following the rebellion."

In addition, the collectives controlled the price of crops in order to ensure
that speculation and inflation were controlled. However, these policies
as with the equal duties of individualists and collectivists in the war
effort were enforced upon the collectives by the war.

Lastly, in support of the popular nature of the rural collectives, we
will indicate the effects of the suppression of the collectives in August
1937 by the Communists, namely the collapse of the rural economy. This
sheds considerable light on the question of popular attitudes to the
collectives.

At a meeting of the agrarian commission of the Aragonese Communist Party
(October 9th, 1937), Jose Silva emphasized "the little incentive to work of
the entire peasant population" and that the situation brought about by the
dissolution of the collectives was "grave and critical." [quoted by
Bolloten, Op. Cit., p. 530] A few days earlier the Communist-controlled
Regional Delegation of Agrarian Reform acknowledged that "in the majority of
villages agricultural work was paralyzed causing great harm to our agrarian
economy." [Ibid.]

Jose Peirats explains the reasons for this economic collapse as a result
of popular boycott: "When it came time to prepare for the next harvest,
smallholders could not by themselves work the property on which they had
been installed [by the communists]. Dispossessed peasants, intransigent
collectivists, refused to work in a system of private property, and
were even less willing to rent out their labour." [_Anarchists in the
Spanish Revolution_, p. 258]

If the collectives were unpopular, created by anarchist force, then why did
the economy collapse after the suppression? If Lister had overturned a
totalitarian anarchist regime, why did the peasants not reap the benefit of
their toil? Could it be because the collectives were essentially a
spontaneous Aragonese development and supported by most of the population
there? This analysis is backed up by Yaacov Oved's statement (from a paper
submitted to the XII Congress of Sociology, Madrid, July 1990):

"Those who were responsible for this policy [of "freeing" the Aragon
Collectivists], were convinced that the farmers would greet it joyfully
because they had been coerced into joining the collectives. But they were
proven wrong. Except for the rich estate owners who were glad to get their
land back, most of the members of the agricultural collectives objected and
lacking all motivation they were reluctant to resume the same effort of in the
agricultural work. This phenomenon was so widespread that the authorities and
the communist minister of agriculture were forced to retreat from their
hostile policy." [Yaacov Oved, _Communismo Libertario and Communalism in
the Spanish Collectivisations (1936-1939)_]

Even in the face of Communist repression, most of the collectives kept going.
This, if nothing else, proves that the collectives were popular institutions.
As Yaacov Oved argues in relation to the breaking up of the collectives:

"Through the widespread reluctance of collectivists to cooperate with the
new policy it became evident that most members had voluntarily joined the
collectives and as soon as the policy was changed a new wave of collectives
was established. However, the wheel could not be turned back. An atmosphere
of distrust prevailed between the collectives and the authorities and
every initiative was curtailed" [Op. Cit.]

Jose Peirats sums up the situation after the communist attack on the
collectives and the legalisation of the collectives as follows:

"It is very possible that this second phase of collectivisation better
reflects the sincere convictions of the members. They had undergone a
sever test and those who had withstood it were proven collectivists. Yet
it would be facile to label as anti-collectivists those who abandoned
the collectives in this second phase. Fear, official coercion and
insecurcity weighed heavily in the decisions of much of the Aragonese
peasantry." [Op. Cit., p. 258]

While the collectives had existed, there was a 20% increase in production
(and this is compared to the pre-war harvest which had been "a good crop."
[Frazer, p. 370]); after the destruction of the collectives, the economy
collapsed. Hardly the result that would be expected if the collectives were
forced upon an unwilling peasantry. The forced collectivisation by Stalin
in Russia resulted in a famine. Only the victory of fascism made it possible
to restore the so-called "natural order" of capitalist property in the
Spanish countryside. The same land-owners who welcomed the Communist
repression of the collectives also, we are sure, welcomed the fascists
who ensured a lasting victory of property over liberty.

So, overall, the evidence suggests that the Aragon collectives, like their
counterparts in the Levante, Catalonia and so on, were *popular*
organisations, created by and for the rural population and, essentially,
an expression of a spontaneous and popular social revolution. Claims that
the anarchist militia created them by force of arms are *false.* While acts
of violence *did* occur and some acts of coercion *did* take place
(against C.N.T. policy, we may add) these are the exceptions to the rule.
Bolloten's summary best fits the facts:

"But in spite of the cleavages between doctrine and practice that plagued
the Spanish Anarchists whenever they collided with the realities of power,
it cannot be overemphasized that notwithstanding the many instances of
coercion and violence, the revolution of July 1936 distinguished itself
from all others by the generally spontaneous and far-reaching character of
its collectivist movement and by its promise of moral and spiritual
renewal. Nothing like this spontaneous movement had ever occurred before"
[Op. Cit., p. 78]

I.8.8 But did the Spanish collectives innovate?

Yes. In contradiction to the old capitalist claim that no one will
innovate unless private property exists, the workers and peasants exhibited
much more incentive and creativity under libertarian socialism than they
had under the private enterprise system. This is apparent from Gaston
Leval's description of the results of collectivization in Cargagente:

"Carcagente is situated in the southern part of the province of Valencia.
The climate of the region is particularly suited for the cultivation of
oranges. . . . All of the socialized land, without exception, is cultivated
with infinite care. The orchards are thoroughly weeded. To assure that
the trees will get all the nourishment needed, the peasants are
incessantly cleaning the soil. 'Before,' they told me with pride, 'all
this belonged to the rich and was worked by miserably paid laborers. The
land was neglected and the owners had to buy immense quantities of
chemical fertilizers, although they could have gotten much better yields
by cleaning the soil. . . .' With pride, they showed me trees that had
been grafted to produce better fruit.

"In many places I observed plants growing in the shade of the orange
trees. 'What is this?,' I asked. I learned that the Levant peasants
(famous for their ingenuity) have abundantly planted potatoes among the
orange groves. The peasants demonstrate more intelligence than all the
bureaucrats in the Ministry of Agriculture combined. They do more than
just plant potatoes. Throughout the whole region of the Levant, wherever
the soil is suitable, they grow crops. They take advantage of the four
month [fallow period] in the rice fields. Had the Minister of Agriculture
followed the example of these peasants throughout the Republican zone, the
bread shortage problem would have been overcome in a few months." [cited in
Dolgoff, _Anarchist Collectives_, p. 153].

This is just one from a multitude of examples presented in the accounts
of both the industrial and rural collectives (for more see section C.2.3
in which we present more examples to refute that charge that "workers'
control would stifle innovation" and I.8.6). The available evidence proves
that the membership of the collectives showed a keen awareness of the
importance of investment and innovation in order to increase production
and to make work both lighter and more interesting *and* that the
collectives allowed that awareness to be expressed freely. The Spanish
collectives indicate that, given the chance, everyone will take an interest
in their own affairs and express a desire to use their minds to improve
their surroundings. In fact, capitalism distorts what innovation exists
under hierarchy by channeling it purely in how to save money and maximise
investor profit, ignoring other, more important, issues.

As Gaston Leval argues, self-management encouraged innovation:

"The theoreticians and partisans of the liberal economy affirm that
competition stimulates initiative and, consequently, the creative spirit
and invention without which it remains dormant. Numerous observations made
by the writer in the Collectives, factories and socialized workshops permit
him to take quite the opposite view. For in a Collective, in a grouping
where each individual is stimulated by the wish to be of service to his
fellow beings research, the desire for technical perfection and so on
are also stimulated. But they also have as a consequence that other
individuals join those who were first to get together. Furthermore, when,
in present society, an individualist inventor discovers something, it is
used only by the capitalist or the individual employing him, whereas in
the case of an inventor living in a community not only is his discovery
taken up and developed by others, but is immediately applied for the
common good. I am convinced that this superiority would very soon manifest
itself in a socialised society." [_Collectives in the Spanish Revolution_,
p. 247]

Therefore the actual experiences of self-management in Spain supports the
points made in section I.4.11. Freed from hierarchy, individuals will
creatively interact with the world to improve their circumstances. This
is not due to "market forces" but because the human mind is an active
agent and unless crushed by authority it can no more stop thinking and
acting than the Earth stop revolving round the Sun. In addition, the
Collectives indicate that self-management allows ideas to be enriched
by discussion, as Bakunin argued:

"The greatest intelligence would not be equal to a comprehension of the
whole. Thence results... the necessity of the division and association
of labour. I receive and I give - such is human life. Each directs and
is directed in his turn. Therefore there is no fixed and constant
authority, but a continual exchange of mutual, temporary, and, above all,
voluntary authority and subordination" [_God and the State_, p. 33]

The experience of self-management proved Bakunin's point that society is
more intelligent than even the most intelligent individual simply because
of the wealth of viewpoints, experience and thoughts contained there.
Capitalism impoverishes individuals and society by its artificial boundaries
and authority structures.

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

Just because something is good does not mean that it will survive.

For example, the Warsaw Ghetto uprising against the Nazis failed but that
does not mean that the uprising was a bad cause or that the Nazi regime
was correct, far from it. Similarly, while the experiments in workers'
self-management and communal living undertaken across Republican Spain
is one of the most important social experiments in a free society ever
undertaken, this cannot change the fact that Franco's forces and the
Communists had access to more and better weapons.

Faced with the aggression and terrorism of Franco, and behind him the
military might of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, the treachery of the
Communists, and the aloofness of the Western bourgeois "republics" (whose
policy of "non-intervention" was strangely ignored when their citizens
aided Franco) it is amazing the revolution lasted as long as it did.

This does not excuse the actions of the anarchists themselves. As is well
known, the C.N.T. cooperated with the other anti-fascist parties and trade
unions on the Republican side (see next section). This cooperation lead to
the C.N.T. joining the anti-fascist government and "anarchists" becoming
ministers of state. This cooperation, more than anything, helped ensure the
defeat of the revolution.

Some anarchists still maintain that the Spanish anarchist movement had
no choice and that collaboration (while having unfortunate effects) was
the only choice available. This view was defended by Sam Dolgoff and
finds some support in the writings of Gaston Leval, August Souchy and
many other anarchists.

Most anarchists opposed collaboration at the time and most think it was a
terrible mistake. This viewpoint finds its best expression in Vernon Richard's
_Lessons of the Spanish Revolution_ and, in part, in such works as _Anarchists
in the Spanish Revolution_ by Jose Pierats and _Anarchist Organisation:
The History of the FAI_ by Juan Gomaz Casas as well as in a host of
pamphlets and articles written by anarchists ever since.

So, regardless of how good a social system is, objective facts will
overcome that experiment. Saturnino Carod (a leader of a C.N.T. Militia
column at the Aragon Front) sums up the successes of the revolution
as well as its objective limitations:

"Always expecting to be stabbed in the back, always knowing that if we
created problems, only the enemy across the lines would stand to gain. It
was a tragedy for the anarcho-syndicalist movement; but it was a tragedy for
something greater - the Spanish people. For it can never be forgotten that
it was the working class and peasantry which, by demonstrating their ability
to run industry and agriculture collectively, allowed the republic to
continue the struggle for thirty-two months. It was they who created a war
industry, who kept agricultural production increasing, who formed militias
and later joined the army. Without their creative endeavour, the republic
could not have fought the war..." [_Blood of Spain_, 394]

I.8.10 What political lessons were learned from the revolution?

The most important political lesson learned from the Spanish Revolution is
that a revolution cannot compromise with existing power structures.

The Spanish Revolution is a clear example of the old maxim, "those who only
make half a revolution dig their own graves." Essentially, the most important
political lesson of the Spanish Revolution is that an anarchist revolution
will only succeed if it follows an anarchist path and does not seek to
compromise in the name of fighting a "greater evil."

On the 20th of July, after the fascist coup had been defeated in Barcelona,
the C.N.T. sent a delegation of its members to meet the leader of the Catalan
Government. A plenum of C.N.T. union shop stewards, in the light of the
fascist coup, agreed that libertarian communism would be "put off" until
Franco had been defeated (the rank and file ignored them and collectivised
their workplaces). They organised a delegation to visit the Catalan president
to discuss the situation - "The delegation. . . was intransigent . . .
[e]ither Companys [the Catalan president] must accept the creation of a
Central Committee [of Anti-Fascist Militias] as the ruling organisation or
the C.N.T. would *consult the rank and file and expose the real situation
to the workers.* Companys backed down." [Abel Paz, _Durruti - the people
armed_, p. 216, our emphasis]

The C.N.T. committee members used their new-found influence in the eyes of
Spain to unite with the leaders of other organisations/parties but not the
rank and file. This process lead to the creation of the "Central Committee of
Anti-Fascist Militias", in which political parties as well as labour unions
were represented. This committee was not made up of mandated delegates, but
of representatives of existing organisations, nominated by committees.
Instead of a genuine confederal body (made up of mandated delegates from
workplace, militia and neighbourhood assemblies) the C.N.T. created a body
which was not accountable to, nor could reflect the ideas of, ordinary
working class people expressed in their assemblies. The state and government
was not abolished by self-management, only ignored.

This first betrayal of anarchist principles led to all the rest, and so the
defeat of the revolution and the civil war. In the name of "antifascist"
unity, the C.N.T. worked with parties and classes which hated both them and
the revolution. In the words of Sam Dolgoff "both before and after July
19th, an unwavering determination to crush the revolutionary movement was
the leitmotif behind the policies of the Republican government; irrespective
of the party in power." [_The Anarchist Collectives_, p. 40]

To justify their collaboration, the leaders of the C.N.T.-F.A.I. claimed not
to collaborate would have lead to a civil war within the civil war. In
practice, while paying lip service to the revolution, the Communists and
republicans attacked the collectives, murdered anarchists, cut supplies to
collectivised industries (even *war* industries) and disbanded the anarchist
militias after refusing to give them weapons and ammunition (preferring to
arm the Civil Guard in the rearguard in order to crush the C.N.T. and so the
revolution). By collaborating, a civil war was not avoided. One occurred
anyway, with the working class as its victims, as soon as the state felt
strong enough.

Garcia Oliver (the first ever, and hopefully last, "anarchist" minister
of justice) stated that collaboration was necessary and that the C.N.T.
had "renounc[ed] revolutionary totalitarianism, which would lead to
the strangulation of the revolution by anarchist and Confederal [C.N.T.]
dictatorship. We had confidence in the word and in the person of a Catalan
democrat" Companys (who had in the past jailed anarchists). Which means that
only by working with the state, politicians and capitalists can an anarchist
revolution be truly libertarian!

However, as Vernon Richards makes clear:

"[Was it] essential, and possible, to collaborate with political parties that
is politicians honestly and sincerely, and at a time when power was in the
hands of the two workers organisations?. . . All the initiative. . . was in
the hands of the workers. The politicians were like generals without armies
floundering in a desert of futility. Collaboration with them could not, by
any stretch of the imagination, strengthen resistance to Franco. On the
contrary, it was clear that collaboration with political parties meant the
recreation of governmental institutions and the transferring of initiative
from the armed workers to a central body with executive powers." [Vernon
Richards, _Lessons of the Spanish Revolution_, p. 42]

The false dilemma of "anarchist dictatorship" or "collaboration" was
fundamentally wrong. It was never a case of banning parties, etc. under an
anarchist system, far from it. Full rights of free speech, organisation and
so on should have existed for all but the parties would only have as much
influence as they exerted in union/workplace/community/militia/etc.
assemblies, as should be the case! "Collaboration" yes, but within the rank
and file and within organisations organised in an anarchist manner.
Anarchism does not respect the "freedom" to be a boss or politician.

In his history of the FAI, Juan Gomaz Casas (an active F.A.I. member in 1936)
makes this clear:

"How else could libertarian communism be brought about? It would always
signify dissolution of the old parties dedicated to the idea of power, or at
least make it impossible for them to pursue their politics aimed at seizure
of power. There will always be pockets of opposition to new experiences and
therefore resistance to joining 'the spontaneity of the unanimous masses.'
In addition, the masses would have complete freedom of expression in the
unions as well as. . .their political organisations in the district and
communities." [_Anarchist Organisation: the History of the FAI_, p. 188]

Instead of this "collaboration" from the bottom up, the C.N.T. and F.A.I.
committees favoured "collaboration" from the top down. The leaders ignored
the state and cooperated with other trade unions as well as political
parties in the _Central Committee of Anti-Fascist Militias_. In other words,
they ignored their political ideas in favour of a united front against what
they considered the greater evil, namely fascism. This lead the way to
counter-revolution, the destruction of the militias and collectives.

In particular, the continued existence of the state ensured that economic
confederalism between collectives (i.e. extending the revolution under the
direction of the syndicates) could not develop naturally nor be developed
far enough in all places. Due to the political compromises of the C.N.T.
the tendencies to coordination and mutual aid could not develop freely
(see next section).

It is clear that the defeat in Spain was due to a failure not of anarchist
theory and tactics but a failure of anarchists to *apply* their theory and
tactics. Instead of destroying the state, the C.N.T.-F.A.I. ignored it. For
a revolution to be successful it needs to create organisations which can
effectively replace the state and the market; that is, to create a widespread
libertarian organisation for social and economic decision-making through
which working class people can start to set their own agendas. Only by going
this route can the state and capitalism be effectively smashed.

In building the new world we must destroy the old one. Revolutions are
authoritarian by their very nature, but only in respect to structures and
social relations which promote injustice, hierarchy and inequality. It is
not "authoritarian" to destroy authority and not tyrannical to dethrone
tyrants!

Revolutions, above all else, must be libertarian in respect to the oppressed.
That is, they must develop structures that involve the great majority of the
population, who have previously been excluded from decision-making about
social and economic issues.

As the _Friends of Durruti_ argued "A revolution requires the absolute
domination of the workers' organisations." ["The Friends of Durruti accuse",
from _Class War on the Home Front_, p. 34] Only this, the creation of viable
anarchist social organisations, can ensure that the state and capitalism can
be destroyed and replaced with a just system based on liberty, equality and
solidarity.

The second important lesson is on the nature of anti-fascism. The C.N.T.
leaders were totally blinded by the question of anti-fascist unity, leading
them to support a "democratic" state against a "fascist" one. While the bases
of a new world was being created around them by the working class, inspiring
the fight against fascism, the C.N.T. leaders collaborated with the system
that spawns fascism, As the Friends of Durruti make clear, "Democracy
defeated the Spanish people, not Fascism." [_Class War on the Home Front_,
p. 30]

To be opposed to fascism is not enough, you also have to be anti-capitalist.

In Spain, anti-fascism destroyed the revolution, not fascism. As the Scottish Anarchist Ethal McDonald argued at the time, "Fascism is not something new,
some new force of evil opposed to society, but is only the old enemy, Capitalism, under a new and fearful sounding name. . . Anti-Fascism is the
new slogan by which the working class is being betrayed." [_Workers Free
Press_, Oct 1937]

I.8.11 What economic lessons were learned from the revolution?

The most important lesson from the revolution is the fact that ordinary
people took over the management of industry and did an amazing job of
keeping (and improving!) production in the face of the direst circumstances.
Not only did workers create a war industry from almost nothing in Catalonia,
they also improved working conditions and innovated with new techniques and
processes. The Spanish Revolution shows that self-management is possible.

From the point of view of individual freedom, its clear that self-management
allowed previously marginalised people to take an active part in the decisions
that affected them. Egalitarian organisations provided the framework for a
massive increase in participation and individual self-government, which
expressed itself in the extensive innovations carried out by the Collectives.
The Collectives indicate, in Stirner's words, that "[o]nly in the union can
you assert yourself as unique, because the union does not possess you, but
you possess it or make it of use to you." [_The Ego and Its Own_, p. 312]

As predicted in anarchist theory, and borne out by actual experience, there
exists large untapped reserves of energy and initiative in the ordinary
person which self-management can call forth. The collectives proved
Kropotkin's argument that cooperative work is more productive and that if
the economists wish to prove "their thesis in favour of *private property*
against all other forms of *possession*, should not the economists demonstrate
that under the form of communal property land never produces such rich
harvests as when the possession is private. But this they could not prove;
in fact, it is the contrary that has been observed." [_The Conquest of Bread_,
p. 146]

Therefore, five important lessons from the actual experience of a libertarian
socialist economy can be derived:

Firstly, that an anarchist society cannot be created overnight, but is a
product of many different influences as well as the objective conditions.

The lesson from every revolution is that the mistakes made in the process
of liberation by people themselves are always minor compared to the results
of creating institutions *for* people. The Spanish Revolution is a clear
example of this, with the "collectivisation decree" causing more harm than
good. Luckily, the Spanish anarchists recognized the importance of having
the freedom to make mistakes, as can be seen by the many different forms
of collectives and federations tried.

Secondly, that self-management allowed a massive increase in innovation and
new ideas.

The Spanish Revolution is clear proof of the anarchist case against
hierarchy and validates Isaac Puente words that in "a free collective
each benefits from accumulated knowledge and specialized experiences of all,
and vice versa. There is a reciprocal relationship wherein information is
in continuous circulation." [cited in _The Anarchist Collectives_, p. 32]

Thirdly, the importance of decentralisation of management.

The woodworkers' union experience indicates that when an industry becomes
centralised, the administration of industry becomes constantly merged in fewer
hands which leads to ordinary workers being marginalised. This can happen even
in democratically run industries and soon result in apathy developing within
it. This was predicted by Kropotkin and other anarchist theorists (and by
many F.A.I. members in Spain at the time). While undoubtedly better than
capitalist hierarchy, such democratically run industries are only close
approximations to anarchist ideas of self-management. Importantly, however,
the collectivisation experiments also indicate that cooperation need not
imply centralisation (as can be seen from the Badelona collectives).

Fourthly, the importance of building links of solidarity between workplaces
as soon as possible.

While the importance of starting production after the fascist uprising
made attempts at coordination seem of secondary importance to the
collectives, the competition that initially occurred between workplaces
helped the state to undermine self-management. Because there was no
People's Bank or other communistic body to coordinate credit and
production, state control of credit and the gold reserves made it
easier for the Republican state (through its monopoly of credit) to
undermine the revolution and control the collectives and (effectively)
nationalise them in time (Durruti and a few others planned to seize the
gold reserves but were advised not to by De Santillan).

This attack on the revolution started when the Catalan State issued a decree
legalising (and so controlling) the collectives in October 1936 (the famous
"Collectivisation Decree"). The counter-revolution also withheld funds for
collectivised industries, even war industries, until they agreed to come
under state control. The industrial organisation created by this decree
was a compromise between anarchist ideas and those of other parties
(particularly the communists) and in the words of Gaston Leval, "the
decree had the baneful effect of preventing the workers' syndicates
from extending their gains. It set back the revolution in industry."
[_The Anarchist Collectives_, p. 54]

And lastly, that an economic revolution can only succeed if the existing
state is destroyed. As Kropotkin argued, a new economic system requires
a new political system - capitalism needs the state, socialism needs
anarchy.

Due to the failure to consolidate the revolution *politically,* it was lost

economically.* The decree "legalising collectivisation" "distorted everything

right from the start" [_Collectives in the Spanish Revolution_, p. 227] and
helped undermine the revolution by ensuring that the mutualism of the
collectives did not develop freely into libertaria communism ("The
collectives lost the economic freedom they had won at the beginning" due
to the decree, as one participant put it. [Ronald Frazer, _Blood of Spain_,
p. 230]).

As Frazer notes, it "was doubtful that the C.N.T. had seriously envisaged
collectivisation of industry. . .before this time." [Op. Cit., p. 212]
C.N.T. policy was opposed to the collectivisation decree. As an eyewitness
pointed out, "The C.N.T.'s policy was thus not the same as that pursued by
the decree." [Op. Cit., p. 213] Indeed, leading anarchists like Abad
de Santillan opposed it and urged people to ignore it: "I was an enemy
of the decree because I considered it premature. . .when I became
councilor, I had no intention of taking into account or carrying out the
decree: I intended to allow our great people to carry on the task as they
best saw fit, according to their own inspiration." [Op. Cit., p. 212]

However, with the revolution lost politically, the C.N.T. was soon forced
to compromise and support the decree (it did propose more libertarian
forms of coordination between workplaces but these were undermined by
the state). A lack of effective mutual aid organisations allowed the state
to gain power over the collectives and so undermine and destroy
self-management. Working class control over the economy (important as it
is) does not automatically destroy the state. In other words, the economic
aspects of the revolution cannot be considered in isolation from its
political ones.

However, these points do not diminish the successes of the Spanish
revolution. Beyond doubt these months of economic liberty in Spain shows
that not only that libertarian socialism *works* but that it can improve
the quality of life and increase freedom. Given the time and breathing
space, the experiment would undoubtedly have ironed out its problems. Even
in the very difficult environment of a civil war (and with resistance of
almost all other parties and unions) the workers and peasants of Spain
showed that a better society is possible.