💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › anarcho-co-operatives-conflicts-and-revolution.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 06:36:17. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Co-operatives, conflicts and revolution Author: Anarcho Date: August 18, 2010 Language: en Topics: cooperatives, conflict, revolution Source: Retrieved on 1st February 2021 from https://anarchism.pageabode.com/?p=433
A few years back, I published a few articles in Freedom on raising the
demand for co-operatives in response to the economic crisis. These were
‘Bailouts or co-operatives?’ and ‘Co-operatives and conflicts!’
(although they appeared in Freedom slightly edited). The last was in
reply to another article on this subject, which was replied to on-line.
Somewhat belatedly, I now respond to the response.
The author, Joseph Kay, stresses “the importance of a comprehensive
discussion of a libertarian communist response to the crisis is
reaffirmed” and his reply had “the hope of clarifying some of his
misunderstandings or misrepresentations of my position and contributing
constructively to this necessary debate.”
First, he proclaims that his arguments are not contradictory, as I
suggested. He argues that there “is no contradiction here, for two
important reasons.” First, he “made clear in my article my objection to
a strategy of co-operatives is twofold” as “anarchist demands for
co-operatives are impotent, since we’re in no position at present to
force them.” However, my point was that his position was contradictory
because he argued that anarchists were in “no position to demand”
anything yet that did not stop him raising “Communist demands” in the
very same article.
It appears that Kay wants to have it both ways.
That was the contradiction I pointed to, suggesting that we are “no
position to demand anything” and then raising “Communist demands.” The
nature of the demands is somewhat irrelevant to the point being made.
Ignoring this, it is suggested that:
“Demands as to how capital is managed (by the state, by co-operative
workers associations) are meaningless without a workers movement strong
enough to impose them. But in any event they would not represent a
communist demand even if we were.”
Which suggests a shocking lack of understanding what capital actually
it. Capital is a social relationship within production, when capitalists
hire workers to labour for them in return for keeping their product.
Co-operative workplaces are not “capital.” To re-quote Marx:
“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]
Now, it is asserted that co-operatives are “capital.” Are they? Well,
not if “capital” is defined as property used to employ wage-labour.
Perhaps Kay has another definition of “capital” and, if so, it would be
nice to see it defined. If it means “selling products for money” then
“capital” is no longer a unique mode of production. As Marx suggested,
“the production and circulation of commodities do not at all imply the
existence of the capitalist mode of production. On the contrary, as I
have already shown, they may be found even in ‘pre-bourgeois modes of
production.’” Specifically, when “the means of production and
subsistence, while they remain the property of the immediate producer,
are not capital. They only become capital under circumstances in which
they serve at the same time as means of exploitation of, and domination
over, the worker.” When the producer owns his “conditions of labour” and
“employs that labour to enrich himself instead of the capitalist” then
it is an economic system “diametrically opposed” to capitalism.
[Capital, vol. 1, pp. 949–50, p. 938, p. 931]
Key continues:
“Secondly even in the absence of a powerful workers movement, proposals
of what workers should do are not as impotent as demands over how
capital should be managed, because while the incumbent managers of
capital can only be swayed by force – that is by class struggle;
strikes, occupations and other forms of direct action – our fellow
workers can in principle be persuaded by force of argument, that is to
say by propaganda activities promoting libertarian communist tactics.”
Exactly my point, and why I raised the suggestion that workers facing
bailouts and closures should raise the demand for turning their
workplaces into co-operatives! As for occupations and other forms of
direct action, I suggested that in my first article:
“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.”
Kay admits that “even if you think co-ops are a good idea, we’d first
need to get into a position to force them. Iain agrees.” So “it’s still
worth debating what demands we’d make with such class power as and when
it exists, as to do otherwise would be to assume failure from the
outset. Therefore it’s worth revisiting my criticisms of a strategy
promoting co-operatives.”
After quoting me, Kay suggests I am “presuming to know more about my
workplace than I do, one could answer this question by reading my
original piece!” I do know that feeling, given that I have to re-quote
myself here! He suggests that “if my work became a co-op we could manage
it differently” while, at the same time, arguing that “into a co-op,
those same market forces causing my boss to make cuts would still be
there, but we would have nobody to say no to when under pressure to
increase the rate of exploitation to survive in a hostile market.” So,
workers would both do what the boss would do and not do what the boss
would do. What is it to be?
It appears that Kay wants to have it both ways.
Now, Kay asks “[w]hat then are we going to take over and self-manage?”
As I made clear, the workplaces we are employed in. As I noted, this was
in relation to firms going bankrupt (or being offered bailouts, a
slightly different situation). I suggested that workers should seize
their workplaces and turn them into co-operatives in preference to them
joining the dole-queues. I would expect, as a libertarian, the workers
in these firms would decide what to do with them, not I (the workers
“self-manage”, after all). I would expect that many workplaces would not
just do exactly what they did before. However, the key point is that it
is a staggering lack of imagination to think they workers seizing their
workplaces and forming co-operatives would simply do exactly what they
did before.
I admit to taking it for granted that self-management would mean that
workers would question what they did and how they did it.
Kay argues that “a co-op would be faced with the same problem as the
boss, but would only have the option of managing it differently. The
same is true more generally for Woolworths or Zavvi workers:
co-operative insolvency is still insolvency.” So rather than seize their
workplaces, presumably workers facing insolvency should just, well, join
the dole queues? I’m not sure how that is particularly revolutionary.
I’m not sure how that will increase the confidence and power of our
class.
Kay’s opposition to my suggestion has been tried. All 807 Woolworths
stores were closed in the UK by 6 January 2009 resulting in 27,000 job
losses. Since then, there has been no generalised revolt against the
neo-liberal crisis. I wonder how things would have developed if these
27,000 people had seized their workplaces?
Kay suggests that occupations “may help prevent the administrators
selling off assets to pay off creditors instead of workers, and help
secure improved redundancy terms, but they can’t make a failing firm
viable.” Except, of course, that assumes that these co-operatives are
not inspiration to others to seize their workplaces, start to join
together and transcend a system which prefers insolvency to meeting
human needs? After all, while Woolworth as a capitalist company, with
debts, CEOs and stockholders to pay may not be viable, a co-operative
may not be. It seems strange that Kay assumes that a co-operative would
seek to repay all the debts incurred by its former owners.
Kay then shows his utter confusion by arguing that a co-operative would
see “a big increase in unpaid overtime by the workers providing the
surplus labour to kickstart the firm’s profitability”! In a co-operative
there is no “surplus labour” as the workers keep the product of their
labour. In terms of “profitability”, this is labour income we are
talking about. Profitability considered separately from “wages” (labour
income) is only applicable to a capitalist firm hiring wage-labour.
Ignoring that, Kay suggests that “even that unappealing prospect is
dependent on creditors and suppliers extending credit and workable terms
of trade to the illegally occupied firm, which seems about as likely as
Barclays providing mortgages to squatters.” And why would squatters want
a mortgage? But, yes, finding credit and contracts may be difficult but
that really makes being unemployed a better option? And the aim would
be, as I originally suggested, was to “inspire all workers to do the
same.” While capitalist firms may not wish to extend credit and
products, other co-operatives in “the illegally occupied” workplaces
will.
Kay suggests that arguing that co-operatives would act in the same way
as bosses would “is not an apology for capitalism” but rather “to
understand how it works.” Given that Kay seems unaware that without
wage-labour, capital would not exist this seems ironic. And talking of
ironically, he adds that “ironically, to claim that self-managed firms
are ‘socialist’ is much closer to an apology for capitalism than
anything I have written”! Wow. That means that Karl Marx was an
apologist for capitalism when he noted that in co-operatives “the
opposition between capital and labour is abolished,” they are “a new
mode of production” which “develops and is formed naturally out of the
old.” [Capital, vol. 3, p. 571] And if self-managed workplaces are not a
key aspect of (libertarian) socialism, then how is work going to be
managed?
Key suggests that “Bosses are not free, they must act broadly in
accordance with the market. They’re almost certainly not lying when they
say they regret making redundancies and the like, I’m sure they would
rather be taking on more workers and making more profit. Of course they
choose to lay off a worker on £15k rather than take a £15k pay cut
themselves, so yes ‘being a boss shapes any decisions made’ – as I made
clear in my article.” And so we have the wish to have it both ways.
Bosses are forced to act like they do (and so must co-operatives) while
the admission that they do have leeward in making specific decisions.
It appears that Kay wants to have it both ways.
Suffice to say, I did point out that the market does produce forces
which can make market participants (capitalist firms, co-operatives,
artisans, peasants, workers, etc.) make decisions they would sooner
avoid. That is why I’m a communist-anarchist, not a mutualist. As I made
clear in my second article:
“I stress that my suggestion was an attempt to bring a revolution closer
by encouraging direct action by workers – in other words, I am not
aiming for ‘workers’ control under capitalism’ but rather workers’
control (among other tactics) as a step towards ending capitalism.”
Kay argues that “if the resources are there to make less redundancies,
in what way is it more realistic to demand the boss surrenders his
capital to the workers rather than say forgoing some or all of his
salary to save jobs? What boss would rather surrender their capital than
take a temporary pay cut?” None, I would imagine. That is why I
suggested seizing the workplace would be a revolutionary act. As for it
being “realistic”, well, as they suggested in France, 1968: “Be
realistic, demand the impossible.”
Given this, Key argues that “if expropriation – which is what co-ops
represent – is on the cards, I’m sure the mere safeguarding of jobs
would have been on the table long before that.” In short, if workers do
threaten to seize their workplaces and turn them into co-operatives,
then the bosses would seek to safeguard jobs in order to maintain their
class position. Yet, apparently, co-operatives are only a different way
to “manage capital” so why would the capitalist class care?
Kay then states that it is “not that I think it would be a bad thing if
laid off workers occupied their workplace and tried to run it as a co-op
(a la Zanon)”! So why is he arguing against my suggestions? We have gone
from co-operatives are just another form of “capital” to “not ... a bad
thing”! I even pointed to examples like Zanon as an example of what I
meant (“As can be seen from the Argentine revolt against neo-liberalism,
the idea of occupation and co-operatives has mass appeal and can work”).
In short, Kay has just conceded the whole point of my argument.
So why the opposition? Because it is “not really on the cards given the
current state of the class struggle and the severity of the coming
recession.” There is no better way to ensure it remains off the cards
than by opposing raising it as a demand in the class struggle! And it
does take the biscuit to oppose a means of transforming the recession
into a revolution by arguing the “severity” of the recession makes
militant resistance difficult! It reminds me of those Leninists who
excuse the Bolshevik’s destruction of socialism in Russia by pointing to
the economic chaos there which socialism was meant to solve!
So this demand is unrealistic, in fact it is “far less practical and
realistic than demanding improved redundancy packages ... or no
redundancies at all”! Oh, right, workers should force their bosses to
keep their workplaces open rather the expropriate them? And how will
this capitalist make their workplaces profitable? If co-operatives will
be forced to maximize “surplus-labour”, what will bosses do? Oh, right,
appropriate and maximize actual surplus-labour! So it is more
“realistic” to demand the right to be exploited. And I as asked in my
second article, “Is he really suggesting that rather than expropriate
the boss, we just accept our P45s?” Apparently, yes, he is – along with
“an improved redundancy package”, if possible!
Now, do not get me wrong. Struggles for better redundancy packages and
no redundancies should be supported. Of course! But can we not suggest
something a bit more radical? Something which questions the right of
bosses to fire people in the first place? Something which questions
closing workplaces which could meet human needs because they do not make
enough profit? Suffice to say, it is not impossible to struggle for such
reforms while also raising the demand for occupations!
I must also note that these “Communist demands” would be acceptable to
many trade unions. They do not signify any real break with reformism. So
we find ultra-revolutionary rhetoric combined with reformist tactics.
However, Kay suggests that these points are irrelevant, because it is
“not something libertarian communists should be proposing as a strategy
given as if we’re in a position to expropriate capital, co-operatives
are a dead end for such militancy.” As I said in my second article, the
demand for co-operatives was premised as part of a goal to expropriate
capital, of achieving a social revolution! So, according to Kay, urging
people to expropriate capital is a “dead end” for the goal of
expropriating capital…
Kay suggests that “argued all this in my original article”, to which I
should note that I was “not sure whether Joseph Kay ... actually read my
article on co-operatives before writing his piece. I would guess not, as
it has the feel of a standard libertarian communist response against
co-operatives within capitalism.” I also suggested that he was covering
things somewhat irrelevant to the issue I was addressing. This still
seems to be the case, particularly as he has partially agreed with me!
He suggests that I “still hasn’t explained why co-ops are a more
realistic response to the crisis than struggles resisting cuts or
demanding decent redundancy packages – the kind of struggles that are
actually happening already.” As I said in my second article:
“And that is a key point. I never suggested that supporting
co-operatives was the only tactic we could make in the current crisis.
Far from it! ... So it is a case of co-operatives and conflict!”
And is calling for the expropriation of capital “realistic”? Not if we
accept what is acceptable to capitalism as our limits. Do not striking
workers always get told (particularly in a crisis) that their demands
and strikes are not “realistic”? And are not social revolutions always
unrealistic until they happen?
Kay suggests that I am “[q]uote-mining Marx does not change the fact
that there is money in motion, returning with a surplus (M – C – M’) –
the assets of a co-op do not cease being capital when votes are taken on
how they are used within a society of generalised commodity production
and wage labour.” Again, I will simply note that this utterly fails to
understand capitalism. He confuses surplus-labour with surplus-value,
the former existing in all societies while the later is dependent on
wage-labour. As Marx suggested, workers in co-operatives “have created
... new values, i.e., the working day added to the means of production.
This would comprise their wages plus surplus-value, the surplus labour
over and above their necessary requirements, though the result of this
would belong to themselves.” [Capital, vol. 3, p. 276] As workers keep
the product of their labour in a co-operative, they also keep the
products their “surplus-labour” creates. There is no capitalist who
appropriates their product, turning the surplus-labour into
surplus-value which they then own.
While Kay may not like what Marx wrote, it does get to the core of what
capital is. And it is not selling commodities, as Marx stressed time and
time again.
Kay argues that “there remains an imperative to accumulate with all the
drive to minimise the labour time taken to do a task this requires, even
in a co-op.” Very true, but it does not make it capitalist. After all,
slave owners (and both Marx and Engels noted) produced commodities for
the market but it did not make their mode of production capital. And as
I said, this issue is completely irrelevant to the issue I was raising:
“I had hoped that my article ... had made clear that suggesting
co-operatives was a short-term solution for those workers facing closing
workplaces or whose bosses are seeking bailouts. I did not address the
issue of (so-called) ‘self-managed exploitation’ simply because that is
a different question, relating to the issue of co-operatives within
capitalism and the future libertarian society. As my original article
addressed neither issue.”
Kay then argues that market forces ensuring co-operatives invest in
machinery “is why it is accurate to talk about self-managed
exploitation.” And as I noted, this is just confused terminology. There
is no “exploitation” involved, unless you also argue that the capitalist
exploits himself when market forces make him invest in machinery rather
than a new luxury car or villa.
He is right to suggest that I disagree, adding “it’s worth exploring
this point further, because it cuts to the heart of just what the
capitalist social relation is, and how to oppose it.” Given that Kay
thinks that “the capitalist social relation” is a product of commodity
production rather than wage-labour, this should be interesting. And how
do we oppose “the capitalist social relation”? Well, at the very least
by expropriating the capitalist and introducing associated
(co-operative) labour in place of wage-labour?
Kay then discusses how markets ensure that “the firm – as a
concentration of capital – has a logic of its own.” And so we have
“capital” postulated as something independent of the social relations in
production! Capital is simply machinery, in this view point, as the
“capitalist social relation” exists outside the firm. So capitalism is
no longer a mode of production but rather a product of market relations.
Which is wrong for reasons sketched above.
Kay also confuses “surplus” with surplus-value and I should note, a
communist society would also seek to re-invest “surplus” into “expanding
output and new technology” (true, not in order “to maintain or improve
its market position relative to its rivals” but that surplus will still
be utilized). After all, as Marx argued:
“Capital did not invent surplus labour. Wherever a part of society
possesses the monopoly of the means of production, the worker, free or
unfree, must add to the labour-time necessary for his own maintenance an
extra quantity of labour time in order to produce the means of
subsistence for the owner of the means of production” [Capital, vol.1,
p. 344]
Kay argues that capital “needs to be nourished by surplus living labour
or it will whither and perish.” The same can be said of any productive
system. The issue is how capital appropriates and uses surplus-labour,
not that surplus-labour exists and will be used. As Marx suggested, this
requires a proletariat – if workers possess their own means of
production then it is not capital!
Kay argues that pointing out that a co-operative is not capital because
it lacks capitalists “is an unnecessary personification of social
relations.” Well, what can I say? If workers keep the product of their
labour and so their surplus-labour remains in their own hands, then this
is a completely different social relationship than one in which a boss
hires then and appropriates their surplus-labour. Sure, it does not
matter if the boss is replaced by, say, the state bureaucracy but it
does matter if workers possess their own means of production.
Yes, identifying capital with capitalists can cause problems. So
arguing, as Marx once did, that “if one eliminates the capitalists, the
means of production cease to be capital” [Theories of Surplus Value,
Part 3, p. 296] raises an ideological blindness to what happens when the
means of production are nationalised and handed over to the state (as
can be seen under, say, the Bolsheviks). Marx, perhaps needless to say,
sometimes was blind to this, sometimes not. However, the
“personification” argument only applies when socialists talked about
replacing the capitalist with the state. Yes, indeed, the actual
capitalists have gone but wage-labour still exists but this time the
state bureaucracy is the employer. It is different when the workers
themselves possess the means of production.
Of course, commodity production will ensure that co-operatives will
adjust to the dynamics of the market. I’ve said that in my second
article, but that cannot be termed “self-managed exploitation” or
“self-managed” capitalism without hiding what makes capitalism a unique
mode of production. Somewhat ironically, Kay joins with the apologists
of capitalism in seeing capitalism wherever there are markets and
commodity production (“This is the reality of running a business, and it
exists independently of how that business is run (as a one-man private
tyranny, a Plc or a co-op”). Thus the co-operative, the artisan, the
peasant, the slave-owner are all capitalists as they all produce
commodities!
This reminds me of something David Graeber wrote:
“Almost immediately on jettisoning the modes of production model, once
die-hard Marxists began seeing the market, or even ‘capitalism,’
everywhere. Soon one had anthropologists like Jonathan Friedman arguing
that ancient slavery is really just a form of capitalism. One could, of
course, take the exact same evidence to make the argument precisely the
other way around, and argue that modern capitalism is really just a form
of slavery, but it never seems to occur to contemporary authors to do
this. When even Marxists are naturalizing capitalism, you know there’s
something seriously wrong.”
And:
“The idea that capitalism is as old as civilization is of course a
position long since popular amongst capitalists... The problem of course
is that defined so broadly, it is hard to imagine eliminating capitalism
at all.”
While I’m not surprised when supporters of capitalism make it a
universal feature of human history, but I feel anti-capitalists should
do better. And by ignoring wage-labour in favour of commodity
production, Kay does precisely that.
He accuses me of focusing on workplace hierarchy:
“Within the prevailing capitalist mode of production, the abolition of
the capitalist – that is, and individual personification of capital at
the level of the firm – does not abolish the exploitation of labour by
capital, that is by dead labour, which requires a surplus to sustain and
expand it relative to its rivals, lest those rivals expand and swallow
it up or force it out of business.”
Well, it is hard to know where to start with this confused jumble of
nonsense. Capital becomes “dead labour” and so a social relationship in
production between classes becomes a relationship with things. What is
unique about this mode of production becomes universalized into all
forms of commodity production, regardless of the actual mode of
production. Firms do need to make a surplus in the market, but that
surplus remains in the hands of those who produced it in a co-operative.
That market forces make them invest part of it into new technology and
machinery does not equate to exploitation of labour.
As I suggested, Kay’s analysis means that capitalists exploit themselves
when they invest their profits into new machinery rather than in a new
car.
In most theories of exploitation, surplus labour becomes “unpaid labour”
– labour which is appropriated from the producers by the owners of the
means of production. Such appropriation has taken many forms, depending
on the mode of production (slavery, feudalism, capitalism).
Under capitalism, it is used to produce surplus-value and is embodied in
the products created during this time of (unpaid) surplus-labour. It is
appropriated by the capitalist. Hence exploitation, with the capitalist
appropriating the (unpaid) labour of workers.
Under mutualism, in a co-operative, the producers themselves own the
means of production and so all the products of their labour. They sell
the full-product of their labour, including that produced by
“surplus-labour” (i.e., labour above and beyond their material needs).
This total income is then allocated by the workers between maintaining
their means of production, as income for the workers, investment and so
on. There is no “unpaid labour” and so no exploitation. In short,
“self-exploitation” and such like are confused and meaningless terms.
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” as 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]
Kay argues that “by appealing to pre-capitalist artisan production to
explain why co-ops under capitalism supposedly do not involve the
exploitation of labour, it is Iain that is confused, and ahistorical to
boot.” Wow, but I am in fine company – I am merely repeating that when
known idealist Marx and his analysis in Capital! Talking of which, to
quote said book:
“In encyclopaedias of classical antiquity one can read such nonsense as
this: In the ancient world capital was fully developed, ‘except for the
absence of the free worker [i.e., proletarian] and of a system of
credit.’” [Capital, vol. 1, p. 271]
So apparently in communist articles we can now read such nonsense as
this: In a socialist society capital was fully developed except for the
absence of the proletariat!
He suggests that I commit “precisely the mistake I warned against of
focusing on capital’s vertical rule ... to the detriment of
understanding the horizontal rule imposed by the market.” Except, of
course, I explicitly argued that market forces are not what makes
capitalism capital, as that “confused” and “ahistorical” analyst Karl
Marx pointed out. To repeat myself:
“[Kay] is confusing the fact market forces would still exist and rule
workers’ lives (and this is a serious objection) with capital/wage
labour and so exploitation (in an anarchist or Marxist sense of
expropriation of surplus by non-producers).”
He, in short, confuses “the imperative to accumulate” with wage-labour,
with what makes capitalism capitalism. As for “extract[ing] a surplus
from living labour”, as noted that happens in all societies. A
co-operative will still produce a surplus over costs, correct, and some
of this will be invested in new machinery, but this is “inherent to any
firm in” the market, not “capitalism.” To confuse the market with
capitalism is what you would expect from an apologist for capitalism,
not a libertarian.
Acknowledging this, as I indicated in my second article, does not mean
what these kinds of expressions (“self-managed exploitation”) are trying
to describe does not exist. Far from it! Yes, market forces can and do
force co-operatives to allocate more to investment than their members
would prefer. Market competition can force co-operatives to work longer
and harder than they would like to survive economically. However, such
things are not “exploitation” as there is no appropriation of the
producers (unpaid) surplus-labour. The producers get paid for the
full-product of their labour, unlike under capitalism.
And, yes, co-operatives within capitalism can and do adjust to market
realities and so cannot reform capitalism away. I have never suggested
that they could. I suggested that expropriating workplaces and turning
them into co-operatives can help build a revolutionary working class
movement which could abolish capitalism.
Kay suggests that demanding co-operatives is an example of the
“anarchist tradition of myopically focusing on the hierarchical aspect
of the capital relation to the detriment of the horizontal.” Except, of
course, the “horizontal” aspect he points to is not unique of capitalism
(unless any commodity producing economy is capitalism, regardless of its
social relations in production). He suggests that we end up “championing
the bourgeois freedom of the market against the despotism of production,
which is its necessary counter-point.” Ah, what can I say? Anarchists
have championed the freedom of the workers. Some have argued that
involved markets (Proudhon, obviously). Others have not, that it
requires communism (Kropotkin, obviously). How production units work
together in a free society is, of course, a moot point and will be
decided, and evolve, according to the objective circumstances faced by a
free people and what they wish to achieve. I hope it will be libertarian
communist or, at least, progress quickly to communism. Suffice to say,
without workplace autonomy and federalism (economic liberty) it is
unlikely (libertarian) communism would function.
Kay argues that “Proudhon, Kropotkin et al at least had the excuse of
not having the wealth of hindsight now afforded us in the early 21^(st)
century.” Surely he must know that Kropotkin was against “freedom of the
market” (bourgeois or not)? As for the “wealth of hindsight” we are
afforded, well, I think that some have lost any insights into what
defines capitalism and instead conflates commodity production as such
with capitalism. Some also seem to conflate pointing out the difference
with supporting markets.
So, just to re-iterate, arguing that capitalism does not equal markets
(it equals markets plus wage-labour) is not the same as arguing that
market socialism (mutualism) is all we can aim or hope for. Nor, for
that matter, suggesting self-exploitation is a meaningless concept means
denying that markets can and do force people to act in certain ways to
survive in it. It simply means that terms like self-exploitation are
confused and hide far more than they describe. It leads, most obviously,
to denying what makes capitalism a unique mode of production.
Kay ignores my “army of authorities”, suggesting that “[o]f all the
logical fallacies one could expect from an anarchist, appeals to
authority are perhaps the most ironic.” Except, of course, I am using
these people precisely to show why attempts like Kay’s of conflating
markets with capitalism are flawed. He wonders “what bearing do the
19^(th) century political strategies of dead celebrities have on the
crisis today?” Well, perhaps we can learn from the suggestions made in
the past when facing a similar crisis today? Sure, this was “not
explained” but I took it for granted that would recognize the obvious!
Rather than being “expected to be wowed by their authority”, I had hoped
that those who confuse markets with capitalism and dismiss co-operatives
as part of the strategy for ending capitalism would question their
flawed assumptions.
Sadly I was proven wrong.
Somewhat ironically, Kay states that the “rallying cry ‘it is time to
give economic liberty a go!’ is precisely in this tradition – the
tradition of 19^(th) century small business socialism that was
discredited both practically and intellectually long ago.” Oh, right,
communism will not be based on economic liberty? What will it be based
on? One-man management? I doubt that Kay supports that, so I will assume
he also supports economic liberty rather than economic hierarchy. And I
should note that I find dismissal of the demand for “economic liberty”
surprising. To quote communist-anarchist Kropotkin:
“But ours is neither the Communism of Fourier and the Phalansteriens,
nor of the German State-Socialists. It is Anarchist Communism, —
Communism without government — the Communism of the Free. It is the
synthesis of the two ideals pursued by humanity throughout the ages —
Economic and Political Liberty.” [Conquest of Bread, p. 49]
The call for “economic liberty”, then, is hardly alien to libertarian
communism
— unless you equate, like the apologists of capitalism, such liberty
with
capitalism…
I guess that the use of irony would be lost on someone who calls Marx’s
distorted diatribe “The Poverty of Philosophy” a “demolition” of
Proudhon! Do I really have to point out that proclaiming the end of
capitalism as “economic liberty” was an ironic jab at those apologists
for capitalism who proclaim it that? Apparently I do… Just as I have to
point out that Marx’s book on Proudhon is riddled with selective
quoting, tampered quotes and a host of other intellectually dishonest
practices which would make anyone familiar with the material shudder to
see it invoked.
Sadly, Kay thinks that he has “addressed the more substantive matters at
issue.” I can only say, that he has just confirmed that he really does
not understand capitalism. He has simply repeated the tired old-clichés
which I hoped quoting Marx (etc.) would give cause for thought.
He also thinks I have made some “rather uncomradely accusations and
misrepresentations.”
Specifically, he objects to my suggesting that he was “seriously
suggesting that workers, faced with the closure of their workplaces,
should simply collect their P45s and head straight to the unemployment
office?” He objects that this is “a ridiculous insinuation, and one
(unsurprisingly) made without any quotation from my article.” Except, of
course, Kay strenuously argued that workers should not form
co-operatives when their workplaces are closed. I argued they should,
Kay opposed this. What other conclusion are we to draw?
Now it is a case of “nowhere do I oppose workers occupying their
workplaces or propose workers ‘simply collecting their P45s.’” Oh,
right, so why was Kay so against the suggestion that (and I quote my
original article) “All workplaces in danger of being closed should be
occupied – which will hopefully inspire all workers to do the same.”
What other conclusion can we draw? Somewhat ironically, he quotes from
his own article as evidence against me, without noting that I also
quoted that precise same sentence to show the illogical nature of
arguing against co-operatives while raising demands like “no to job
losses, wage cuts, public service cuts and evictions.”
So not only did I have the “benefit of actually reading my article
before responding” I actually quoted that sentence from it!
Kay does confirm a question I did have, namely whether he had seen my
article or not. He states that “our original articles were written
‘blind’, simultaneously.” As I concluded, his article was a standard
boiler-plate “communist” response to something I was not actually
discussing – namely building co-operatives to reform capitalism away. He
states he would “appreciate him withdrawing this charge, because it
makes it hard to have an honest discussion when you stand baselessly
condemned for things precisely the opposite of what you actually said.”
Except, of course, I was asking a question, not stating that this was
Kay’s opinion. I then addressed the illogical nature of opposing what I
suggested (co-operatives formed by workplace occupations) and raising
various “Communist demands” he raised.
Kay then states that “[w]orkplace occupations are indeed something I
support, my argument is that demanding they be turned into co-operatives
is misguided.” Now that takes the biscuit! So workplaces should be
occupied, but they must not start producing goods? Really? Kay then
argues that “[c]learly ‘revolutionary situations’ are not created by the
expropriation or workplaces so much as characterised by them.” What? So
when workers, say, occupied their workplaces in Italy, in 1920, they
were not creating a revolutionary situation? Really?
After a plug for the Solidarity Federation’s industrial strategy (which
I don’t disagree with), he argues that we “would certainly include
workplace occupations as an example of collective, direct action. But I
would see it as a mistake to encourage workers to try take over
businesses on the verge of going bust going into the worst recession
since WWII.” So, it would be a mistake for workers to seize the means of
production just as capitalism places the need for profits before human
needs? Does economic bad times really place libertarian communism off
the agenda? I doubt that Kay actually thinks this, although apparently
he thinks such calls are not “realistic.” I would suggest that by
raising this demand we make such an expropriation a little bit more
realistic.
Finally, he argues that I have “two assumptions unbecoming of a
libertarian communist.” He suggests that “the identification of state
funds with ‘our!’ money (exclamation no less!) requires an embarrassing
conflation of the population with the state” as state “funds raised by
taxation are no more ‘ours’ than my boss’ Bentley is ‘mine’, because tax
revenue represents the state’s portion of the surplus value expropriated
by the capitalist class.” Sorry, but no. Just as the bosses’ profits are
the product of our unpaid labour, so are the states funds. I think it
unbecoming for a libertarian communist to suggest that the boss and
state have a right to the surplus-value we produce. Call me old
fashioned, but I think surplus-value is the result of exploitation of
the working classes and that it is ours as we produced it.
And, really, to suggest that the state should not spend the money
produced by our exploitation bailing out capital is not “a naked
conflation of the population and the state.” Quite the reverse, as it is
reminding people that all wealth is produced by labour and that we (the
population) should own and control it, not the state (or capitalists).
Kay suggests that “it repeats the line of no less an exemplar of
bourgeois ideology than the Prime Minister, that the bankers are to
blame for the crisis.” Where did I say that? My original article was in
response to bailouts to the car industry in America, although I did
mention the finance sector in passing I also mentioned bailouts to
industry. So my fire was directed to all the capitalist class. Needless
to say, I did not discuss the causes of the crisis in my articles as
this was somewhat beyond their scope. However, I would suggest that “any
materialist, communist analysis of the crisis” needs to address the role
of “greedy or reckless bankers,” or more correctly the role of finance
capital in extending credit and so contributing to an economic crisis
with its roots in exploitation at the point of production. Suffice to
say, I did not suggest “the vacuousness of the notion bankers ‘got us
into this crisis.’” I actually wrote:
“Or that we should be indifferent when public (our!) money is used to
bailout the muppets who got us into this crisis to begin with?”
And, as I’ve indicated, my original article was driven by calls to
bailout the American car industry (although that was edited out, I
think, from what was in Freedom). Suffice to say, I did not limit my
article to just what was happening in Britain.
However, let us assume Kay’s position. State funds, like capitalist
profits, are not “ours”. As such, we cannot object when the state or
capitalist uses their surplus-value as they see fit. Thus, when state
finance is used to bailout capitalists we have no reason to object – it
is not, apparently, our money. Similarly, when a capitalist manager
decides to raise his salary from the profits exploited from his workers,
we cannot object — it is not our money. I’m not sure that gets us very
far.
I know that Marx considered such acceptance of capitalist property
rights as very “scientific” (unlike, say, Proudhon who rejected such
appropriations as theft of the workers’ labour). I’m not convinced.
Sure, the worker has sold his labour to the capitalist but that does not
mean that the surplus-value they appropriate should be considered
theirs. Far from it. And, after all, that was one of the reasons
socialism developed – to oppose the exploitation of labour, not accept
that such funds are not ours.
It is also somewhat strange to be accused to being a “populist.” After
all, the aim of my article was to present an argument to influence
popular demands and was written not to reflect the debates of political
activists but for the general public. As such, I explained the rationale
behind my arguments (with appropriate quotes) to show why co-operatives
are acceptable to those seeking the end of capitalism (as part of a
wider strategy, of course). If I had been writing an article just for
revolutionaries, I would have phrased it somewhat differently. Suffice
to say, if by “populist” it means trying to get your message across of
your fellow workers free from jargon then I would say my article was
that. I’m not really that interested in preaching to the converted and
discussing the finer points of what makes capital capital, how
surplus-labour becomes surplus-value, the confused nature of terms like
“self-managed exploitation” and such like. Practically, that would have
made my original article much longer and get away from the point I was
trying to make. As this article (and forums like libcom) shows, this can
be a time consuming process and one which would detract from the aim of
influencing the class struggle.
Kay states “in conclusion I feel Iain has failed to defend his
assertion,” although he has made it pretty clear that he does not
understand my assertion. He asserts that I “claimed – undoubtedly in
continuity with some in the ‘anarchist tradition’ – that running your
own business is a useful strategy in the class struggle.” Compare this
to what I actually suggested:
“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.”
In my second article I repeated this:
“All in all, I feel that my suggestion for co-operatives as a practical
alternative for libertarians remains valid. Provided, of course, that
they are seen as one form of many kinds of direct action and solidarity.
Our focus should be, then, co-operatives and conflicts with both
supporting each other in an attempt to first build the revolutionary
workers’ movement we are sorely lacking and, ultimately, to abolish
capitalism!”
Yes, apparently this equates to “running your own business”! And he
accuses me of misrepresentation!
He continues with the inventions, arguing I have “demonstrated several
assumptions quite in line with bourgeois ideology.” First, “that the
market represents a freedom worth fighting for.” Now where did I state
that? I notice that no quotes are provided, unsurprisingly as I said no
such thing. He seems to confuse pointing out that markets do not equal
capitalism with support for market socialism! Second, that “state
finances are ‘our money.’” Yet as he admits, these finances come from
the surplus-value our class produces. So it is our money, just as much
as the surplus-value exploited by capitalists from our labour is.
Unless, of course, we workers do not have the right to the full product
of our labour? (I will note here that I’m sure this will provoke some
claim I do not desire communism). Third, “that the crisis is all the
fault of some banker ‘muppets’ and not rooted in the very contradictions
of capitalist accumulation.” Really, an off-hand remark in a short
article on another subject is taken as evidence about my understanding
of an economic crisis! I am impressed…
Finally, we have this wonderful contradiction. After arguing that
demanding that expropriating capital is not “realistic”, Kay ends by
arguing that “a libertarian communist response to the crisis is one
which increases the power, confidence and self-organisation of the class
to demand the concrete things we want from capital, and not one which
puts forward ‘realistic’ ways in which capital could be better managed”!
So demands that workers seize their workplaces and form co-operatives
are both unrealistic and realistic!
It appears that Kay wants to have it both ways.
And need I repeat that I’m all in favour of building the power,
confidence and self-organisation of our class. That is why I suggested
that workers facing unemployment seize their workplaces and that should
be used as a basis to expropriate all the means of production. I fail to
understand why such a strategy creates less power, confidence and
self-organisation than one which limits itself to demanding better
redundancy packages. Equally, expropriating “capital” can hardly be
equated to it being “better managed” – still that is apparently not
“realistic.” Our “Communist demands” must reflect “concrete things we
want from capital” rather than raising the possibility of going beyond
capital and no only having to “demand” things from it. Ultimately, what
we “want” cannot be got “from capital” – it can only be taken and urging
the seizing of workplaces and their transformation by associated labour
is a step in building a movement that can achieve this.
He argues that a “strategy of promoting co-ops and conflict in the
21^(st) century would have as much to do with communism – the real
movement asserting our needs against the present state of things – as
nationalisation and conflict had in the 20^(th).” So urging workers to
seize the workplaces being closed because profits are more important
than needs has nothing “to do with communism”? Really? What is? Well,
fighting for “improved redundancy packages” is more “realistic”!
Although, of course, actual examples of workers doing what I demand are
“not ... a bad thing”! While also, of course, also an example of “trying
to manage capital.” He is also keen to stress that he is not against
factory occupations, although he seems to be when I suggest that workers
do it. Perhaps it is the bit about starting to produce their own goods
he objects to? That would be wrong. Far better to be unemployed or
wage-slaves (“improved redundancy packages ... or no redundancies at
all”) than give a positive example that we do not need the bosses or
their system… You know, like the Zanon factory which he thinks is “not
... a bad thing”!
Still, I do feel that Kay really is not arguing against what I actually
wrote. He is arguing against his own assumptions. When he does address
what I actually wrote, he does see merit in my suggestions – which makes
you wonder why he objects so much to them. Perhaps it has to do with his
flawed understanding of capitalism? Perhaps.
He ends with:
“We have to learn to stop trying to manage capital and instead try to
fight it.”
I quite agree. My proposals were made in an attempt to bolster that
fight. Two years have passed since I wrote my first article. I return to
it now simply because I was unaware of Kay’s response. During that time
the economic crisis has rolled on, with the working class being made to
pay the price in a crisis rooted in an economic system based on the
exploitation of labour. I cannot help thinking if these workers had
fought capitalism by seizing their workplaces that the last few years
may have developed differently. Who knows? One thing is sure, we know
what happened when they did not.
To conclude, what have we learned? That we are “no position to demand
anything” and but that we can raise “Communist demands.” The workers
seizing their workplaces and forming co-operatives is both a “dead end”
and “not ... a bad thing.” That market forces would make co-operatives
both act like their old bosses as well as differently. That it is
“ahistorical” to point out, with that well-known philosophical idealist
Marx, that capitalism is a relatively recent development and not simply
commodity production (which has existed for thousands of years). That it
is not “realistic” to call for factory occupations as a means of
expropriating capital in an economic downturn but also that they “are
indeed something I support” when they are limited to demands capital
could grant without bringing the system into question. That the key
difference is that the demand “they be turned into co-operatives is
misguided” and that the realistic approach is for libertarian communists
to raise (the trade union friendly) demands of “improved redundancy
packages ... or no redundancies at all”!
So what is the conclusion? That workers should occupy their workplaces
but most definitely not seek to expropriate them. That would not be
realistic. Well, we had two years of Kay’s realism. The crisis has
spluttered on. We are paying for it. Would anarchists calling for
workers to seize their workplaces made much difference? Comparing the
Argentine revolt in response to its neo-liberal crisis and Britain’s, I
think it may have. Suffice to say, to dismiss it out-of-hand based on a
confused, flawed and ahistoric definition of capital shows the power of
ideology and how it can get in the way of developing revolutionary
theory and practice.