💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › anarcho-bailouts-or-co-operatives.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 06:28:12. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

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

Title: Bailouts or co-operatives?
Author: Anarcho
Date: November 18, 2008
Language: en
Topics: cooperatives, financial crisis
Source: Retrieved on 29th January 2021 from https://anarchism.pageabode.com/?p=166
Notes: A suggestion for practical libertarian activity in the current crisis, one which tries to get beyond abstract calls for social revolution by presenting possible solutions which can aim the process of creating an anarchist social movement and, ultimately, anarchism.

Anarcho

Bailouts or co-operatives?

As capitalism goes into crisis (again), there have been bailouts of the

financial sector as well as calls for the bailing out of certain

industries. In America, the big three car companies having been asking

for state help. There are many reasons for rejecting this:

‘When it comes to bailing out the auto industry, count me in the “let

them starve” camp. The auto industry has been outsourcing American jobs

for 25 years now with little regard for the devastated communities

they’ve left in their wake (seriously, re-watch Roger & Me sometime).

The big three have also used their lobbying might to oppose every

environmental regulation in their sights. And on top of all of that,

their cars suck.’

As true as this is, the problem is that the workers who are left will be

harmed by this. As such, I think it is wise for anarchists to have some

practical suggestion on what to do – beyond, of course, calls for social

revolution (which is correct, but fails to take into account where we

are now and is, as a result, abstract sloganeering).

May I suggest that in return for any bailouts, the company is turned

into a co-operative? This is a libertarian alternative to just throwing

money at capitalists or nationalising workplaces.

For example, Proudhon argued in 1848 he “did not want to see the State

confiscate the mines, canals and railways; that would add to monarchy,

and more wage slavery. We want the mines, canals, railways handed over

to democratically organised workers’ associations ... these associations

[will] be models for agriculture, industry and trade, the pioneering

core of that vast federation of companies and societies woven into the

common cloth of the democratic social Republic.” (No Gods, No Masters,

vol. 1, p. 62)

In his classic work, The General Idea of the Revolution, he made a

similar suggestion as part of his general critique of capitalism:

“That is why I said one day, in February or March, 1849, at a meeting of

patriots, that I rejected equally the construction and management of

railroads by companies of capitalists and by the State. In my opinion,

railroads are in the field of workmen’s companies, which are different

from the present commercial companies, as they must be independent of

the State. A railroad, a mine, a factory, a ship, are to the workers who

use them what a hive is to the bees, at once their tool and their home,

their country, their territory, their property. It is surprising that

they who so zealously maintain the principle of association should have

failed to see that such was its normal application.”

Proudhon’s support for workers’ associations (or co-operatives) should

be well known. It influenced the Communards, who applied these ideas by

turning empty workplaces into co-operatives (which makes Engels’ later

attempts to distance the Communards from Proudhon seem a tad dishonest).

In 1912, Kropotkin argued along similar lines. He noted that the “State

phases which we are traversing now seems to be unavoidable.” However,

aiding “the Labour Unions to enter into a temporary possession of the

industrial concerns” anarchists would provide “an effective means to

check the State Nationalisation.” (quoted by Ruth Kinna, “Fields of

Vision: Kropotkin and Revolutionary Change”, pp. 67–86, SubStance, Vol.

36, No. 2, p. 77)

So there is a history of making this kind of demand in the anarchist

tradition. In terms of Marxism, in the 1880s Engels suggested as a

reform the putting of public works and state-owned land into the hands

of workers’ co-operatives rather than capitalists. (Collected Works,

vol. 47, p. 239) So, there is nothing anti-socialist in this demand.

What of the obvious objection, namely that this is not socialism and

just “worker capitalism.”

Yes, it is not socialism – but it contains more elements of socialism

than the alternatives of bailouts or nationalisation. It is a suggestion

that could be applied in the here and now, where a social revolution is

currently unlikely. If our position is one of revolutionary purity then

it will be unlikely that anyone will pay much attention to us and if a

revolt does break out then our influence will be smaller than it could

be if we addressed social issues today. If done in the right way, such

activity can be used to get us closer to our immediate aim – a

libertarian social movement which uses direct action and solidarity to

change society for the better.

What of the notion it is “worker capitalism”? This is confused. It is

not capitalist because workers own and control their own means of

production. If quoting Engels is not too out of place, the “object of

production – to produce commodities – does not import to the instrument

the character of capital” for the “production of commodities is one of

the preconditions for the existence of capital ... as long as the

producer sells only what he himself produces, he is not a capitalist; he

becomes so only from the moment he makes use of his instrument to

exploit the wage labour of others.”(Collected Works, vol. 47, pp.

179–80) So workers’ associations are not capitalist, as Marx also made

clear:

“Let us suppose the workers are themselves in possession of their

respective means of production and exchange their commodities with one

another. These commodities would not be products of capital.” (Capital,

vol. 3, p. 276)

This is Proudhon’s distinction between property and possession and,

unsurprisingly, he (like all consistent libertarians) placed workers’

associations at the heart of his anarchism, considering them as “a

protest against the wage system” and a “denial of the rule of

capitalists.” Proudhon’s aim was “Capitalistic and proprietary

exploitation, stopped everywhere, the wage system abolished, equal and

just exchange guaranteed.” (The General Idea of the Revolution)

As long as these associations remained democratic (i.e., all people who

work there are members) then this is a socialisation of the means of

life (albeit, currently within capitalism).

The key to understanding socialisation is to remember that it is

fundamentally about access. In other words, that every one has the same

rights to the means of life as everyone else. In contrast, a capitalist

society places the owner in the dominant position and new members of the

workforce are employees and so subordinate members of an “association”

which they have no say in.

The economies in which workplaces exist in the mutualism, collectivism

and communism forms of anarchism are different but rest on the same

principle of equal access and self-management. Thus when someone joins

an existing workers association they become full members of the

co-operative, with the same rights and duties as existing members. In

other words, they participate in the decisions on a basis of one person,

one vote. How the products of that association are distributed vary in

different types of anarchism, but the associations that create them are

rooted in an association of equals.

Unsurprisingly, this was Proudhon position. He argued that “every

individual employed in the association ... has an undivided share in the

property of the company”, has “the right to fill any position, of any

grade, in the company, according to the suitability of sex, age, skill,

and length of employment” and that “all positions are elective, and the

by-laws subject to the approval of the members” (The General Idea of the

Revolution) Bakunin was also a firm supporter of cooperatives, as was

Kropotkin.

This should be the criteria for any bailouts demanded under capitalism –

the turning of the company into a co-operative which is run by its

members and which any new workers are automatically members with the

same rights as others.

Of course, it is unlikely that any government will agree to such a

socialisation of companies. Unless pressurised from below, they will

pick bailouts or (part/full) nationalisation in order to keep capitalism

going. If ignored then people should simply socialise their workplaces

themselves by occupying and running them directly. Nor should this be

limited to simply those firms seeking bailouts. All workplaces in danger

of being closed should be occupied – which will hopefully inspire all

workers to do the same.

This support for co-operatives should be seen as a practical response to

current events, a means of spreading the anarchist message and getting

people to act for themselves. As can be seen from the Argentine revolt

against neo-liberalism, the idea of occupation and co-operatives has

mass appeal and can work. At the very least, it helps people who are

suffering from the crisis while, at the same time, showing that another

world is possible. And it is doubtful that the people whose jobs and

communities are on the line because of the decisions of their bosses can

make any more of a mess than has already been inflicted on them!

But this is a short-term libertarian solution to the crisis, one that

can be used to help create something better. The longer term aim is end

capitalism once and for all. Wage slavery has failed. It is time to give

economic liberty a go!