đŸ Archived View for library.inu.red âș file âș anarchist-federation-of-britain-work.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 07:01:20. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
âĄïž Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Work Author: Anarchist Federation Date: 2015 Language: en Topics: anti-work, sabotage, social strike, strike, trade unions, union, wage labor, wage slavery, work, worker resistance, capitalism, Labor Union Source: Retrieved on 2020-04-09 from http://afed.org.uk/work/
This pamphlet was a collaborative project between the Anarchist
Federation and Red and Black Leeds. Be sure to check out their website
or contact them if you are in Leeds:
Much of the editing of this pamphlet was undertaken while on the clock
and slacking off.
[]
We live in a society where the activities we engage in for most of our
life are not based on being useful to society or fulfilling to
ourselves, but are based upon getting money to have our needs met. Our
work is the driving force behind capitalism. The activities weâre
required to perform are either detrimental to society or have their full
worth undermined by the drive for profits.
This pamphlet will explain why we must abolish work.
The following terms will be used in this pamphlet:
Alienation
A feeling of being cut off from other people, community, and the
environment around you.
Anarchism
An economic and political system based upon removing oppressive and
exploitative structures in society (such as capitalism and the state),
and building a society where everyone has an equal input into decisions
that affect their life.
Capitalism
An economic and political system based around exploiting those forced to
sell their labour, in which a countryâs trade and industry are
controlled by private owners for profit.
Class
A set of people given a shared title based on something they hold in
common. Anarchists often talk of class in terms of an economic
relationship, which this pamphlet will examine.
Communism
An economic and political system based around common ownership of the
means of production (such as factories, fields and workshops), where
goods are made available based upon need and ensuring the well-being of
all.
Concession
Something given in response to a demand, action, or prevailing standard.
Dispossession
To have something removed from you, such as land, property, or
belongings.
Economy
The system used to work out how goods and resources are produced and
allocated to people. The current economy is capitalist, but other forms
of economy are possible.
Free Association
A system of providing collectively managed access to the resources that
are required to have our needs met (such as land, workshops, or
factories). Those involved are free to take part in or leave the process
of production at their own will.
Internalise
To make an attitude or behaviour part of your everyday routine so
strongly that you think it is part of your nature, allowing it to go on
unquestioned.
Phone Tree
A network of people organised so that they can quickly and easily spread
information amongst each other by having each person pass on a message
to several others in the group. Those people then do the same, and this
repeats until everyone has received the message.
Revolutionary Consciousness
An awareness of the fact that to overcome the systems of exploitation
and oppression in our lives we will need to fundamentally change how
society functions.
Scab
Both a noun and a verb. A scab is someone who betrays their workmates to
the bosses (the act of scabbing), most commonly used when someone has
crossed a picket line. The harm scabs collectively cause others often
leaves them outcast, denied community and cut off by former friends and
family.
Self-actualisation
Becoming the person you want to be, living life to your full potential.
Solidarity
The act of undertaking supportive activity towards other people which
does not come with the expectation of reward, but instead comes from a
sense of mutual aid or common interest.
State, The
The collected institutions that create and enforce laws created by a
small minority of people within a given territory. Through laws the
state claims that only it has the right to grant the use of violence.
The state uses the law to justify and protect a capitalist economy.
âWhen the highwayman holds his gun to your head, you turn your valuables
over to him. You âconsentâ alright, but you do so because you cannot
help yourself, because you are compelled by his gun. Are you not
compelled to work for an employer? Your need compels you, just as the
highwaymanâs gun.â
â Alexander Berkman, âWhat is Anarchism?â
When we go to work our activity, our labour, is used to create a service
or product that our employers make money from. In return we are given a
wage. The amount of money in our wage is unrelated to the usefulness of
our job or the amount of money we make for the employer. Instead we get
paid just enough to keep us in the job and no more.
The money employers have left over after the wages and bills have been
paid is known as profit. Business owners control the profits and decide
what happens to them â they have the power to pocket the money or to
reinvest some or all into expanding their business interests so that
greater levels of profit can be gathered in the future.
Higher profits do not lead to higher wages or better conditions for
workers. In fact more profits are made when we are paid less, when we
work more hours, or when we are forced to do more tasks in the time we
are working. Developments in technology, rather than being put to use
making our lives easier, are put to use making more profit. This happens
either by removing the need for workers or by using the new inventions
as a way to get more work out of us.
Tasks that are useful to society do not take place within the system of
wage labour because they are necessary; they take place because their
outcomes can be sold and profits made. What use they have, if any, is
just a hook to make them sell. Because the goal in a capitalist economy
is making profit rather than fulfilling needs we find that even jobs
which have a useful function are undertaken in ways that are inefficient
or ineffective.
For example, jobs are duplicated throughout different companies due to
unnecessary competition. Companies make choices that contribute to
environmental destruction and lead to the poor health of us as workers.
Items get transported from one part of the globe to another, clocking up
months of travel time, as certain processes are cheaper to undertake in
different places. Products that should be able to last a lifetime get
made to poor quality so that they generate more immediate profits or so
that in the future they break and need replaced.
We waste our lives doing work that only makes sense if you are trying to
keep capitalism running but doesnât make sense otherwise. Even when the
main task that our job seems to be about is something useful or
enjoyable, we can see the ways that the drive for profit gets in the
way.
âSo when you spend a dollar thatâs ten seconds of my time. And when ya
spend a billion thatâs my life and thatâs a crimeâ
â The Coup, âLazymuthafuckaâ
All this waste and harm takes place because employers can take the
output of our work and make more money from it than they pay out in
wages and costs. This is the driving force behind capitalism and our
exploitation as workers. So why do bosses act they way they do?
First up, it is rare that the person directly managing you is a
capitalist boss in the real sense of the word. Foremen, team leaders,
gaffers â no matter what theyâre called workplaces often have layer upon
layer of management, each watching the layer of workers below them.
Managers are in the same boat as every other worker in terms of having
their needs withheld from them by the capitalist class, and so in that
way we share an interest. However, unlike other workers, they are being
employed to represent the class interests of those above them, making
sure the work gets done as specified and that the workers donât organise
against the bosses. To make their job worthwhile they have to believe
that those workers under them require what amounts to a glorified
babysitter, causing management to not only act against workers interest
but also their own.
When we look at the real capitalists we can see that competition between
different sets of bosses is taking place on a global scale. Those who
attempt to give their staff a better quality of life in one part of the
world will find they are undercut by employers elsewhere and so will
lose profits. If the director of a company doesnât squeeze as much value
out of the work of their employees for as low a wage as possible then
theyâll be replaced by someone who will. Capitalism creates these
external drives, known as market forces, that cause bosses to be
ruthless.
âI remember standing in the aisle where I work, casually chit-chatting
with a co-worker, wondering aloud about what things would be like if all
workplaces were run entirely democratically like our store. I figured
without hierarchies (formal ones, anyways), that big changes could be
realized. Workers would own and run everything. It would be the end of
capitalism. And then my co-worker said, âYeah, but if you flipped a
switch and tomorrow every place was a co-op, weâd still all be competing
with each other, just without bosses.ââ
â Ogier, âWorkers Co-Ops â Crashing in the same carâ.
Some people try to escape the frustrations of waged work by becoming
self-employed or joining a co-operative (which is basically a group form
of self-employment). In both cases those involved have equal say,
investment, and recompense from the business. Unfortunately the idea
that you are becoming your own boss has more truth to it than is often
intended.
A business where the workers are their own boss is still subject to the
same market forces as every other business, so instead of a manager or
director telling you what to do, market forces set the boundaries of any
decision you have to make. Rather than having capitalism managed for
you, you end up managing it for yourself, internalising the boss.
In good times being your own boss can feel empowering and fulfilling, as
the decisions you are allowed to make roughly match up with what you are
comfortable doing anyway, though self-exploitation and overwork are
common companions. However when the capitalist economy takes a downturn,
and competition becomes more cut-throat, the crushing inevitability of
the choices required to carry on can hit with far more impact than if
you were able to pin them on a boss.
Even worse than this, some bosses now force workers to be listed as
self-employed freelancers in order to gain more profits by avoiding the
cost associated with the hard-won rights from previous workersâ
struggles (such as sick pay, holiday time, guaranteed regular hours, or
regular pay raises). This often means having all the disadvantages of
having an employer, while the company you sell your labour to is free
from the legal obligation to give you your basic employment rights.
â[Capitalism] begins not with the offer of work, but with the imperative
to earn a living. [âŠ] We must insist that âproletarianâ is not a synonym
for âwage labourerâ but for dispossession, expropriation and radical
dependence on the market. You donât need a job to be a proletarian:
wageless life, not wage labour, is the starting point in understanding
the free market.â
â Michael Denning, âWageless Lifeâ
There are many ways to get our needs met: working for a boss or a
co-operative, self-employment in any form, underemployment, benefits,
scraping money together legally or illegally, or some combination of
these. No matter how someone gets their needs met, the one thing we have
in common as a working class is that capitalism cuts us off from what we
have produced and denies access to the things we need to survive.
At the same time we live in a world where useful tasks go undone:
buildings and land sit derelict, pollution clogs up the world, food rots
in fields, and people are denied access to work that theyâve been
specially trained for. Again, the reason for this waste is to make
profits. If having a job done doesnât make someone money then it usually
wonât happen.
Unemployment also helps to maintain a backdrop of desperation that
happens to work in favour of the bosses. If there is a high level of
unemployment then people become trapped in their jobs as there is
nowhere else for them to go to gain the employment they feel is the only
way to get their needs met, while at the same time they can easily be
replaced if they step out of line. Employers can take advantage of this
to drive down pay and worsen conditions, while it is in the governmentâs
interest to remove previously hard-won legal obligations on companies
that favour workers as this helps the stateâs global capitalist
strength.
Being provided with unemployment benefits, pensions, paternity leave,
free healthcare, free education and a host of other safety nets can all
be described as part of the social wage. This is the bottom-line
provided by the state, and is mainly funded by the state taking a
portion of the profits of businesses and investing them into projects
that on the one hand will keep the peace, but on the other not allow
people to live too comfortably. Benefits need to be low enough to make
unemployment an unattractive option.
By demonising the unemployed, sick and disabled as scroungers the state
gains the ability to lower the social wage further. Services are cut,
allowing for lower taxation on business, which means increased profits.
As the social wage is driven down unemployed people are forced to take
worse paying jobs than they would have previously considered. This also
gives employers the option to freeze the wages or remove benefits from
existing workers as the pressure of not losing what they have keeps
people in line. Again, this leads to increased profits.
âLet us fully understand that a revolution, intoxicated with the
beautiful words Liberty, Equality, Solidarity would not be a revolution
if it maintained slavery at home. Half humanity subjected to the slavery
of the hearth would still have to rebel against the other half.â
â Peter Kropotkin, âThe Conquest of Breadâ.
To be able to come back every day and continue working, we also need to
do various other tasks, such as travelling to work, cleaning, feeding
and clothing ourselves, taking some time to relax, and of course to
sleep. Capitalism also benefits from the tasks associated with raising a
new generation of workers. The combined tasks that are needed to ensure
we are fresh for the next shift and that there are new people coming
into the workforce are called reproductive labour, as in the tasks
required for the reproduction of our labour power, and are generally
takes place outside of our scheduled (and paid) hours of employment.
Traditionally much of this reproductive work has been done by women, in
their roles as wives and mothers. When a boss employed a man they also
benefited from the wife providing cooking, cleaning and childcare. The
oppression of women helps to squeeze as much labour out of men as
possible.
While as a family unit husbands and wives traditionally undertake
everything needed to survive between them, womenâs work is not valued or
paid, and they depend on their husbands for survival, making men the
boss of women in the home. Gendered oppression is supported by the need
for free reproductive labour. Even with women having entered the
workforce this gender-based oppression is maintained by these past, but
still currently accepted, ideas limiting access to certain (often higher
paid) jobs, social pressure to prioritise home labour over waged work,
and with lower wages being offered to women for the same tasks. Because
of this, even working women in family relationships often end up doing
most of the reproductive labour, referred to as the second shift.
Not only do we have to pay for everything from shelter to entertainment
to help us relax, there is an ever increasing push for our downtime
activities to be turned into products and sold by others. This is most
visible with social media, as our interactions can be considered a kind
of unwaged work, where we are given a platform to produce content that
generates advertising revenues for the parent company.
âChoose a job you love and youâll never work a day in your life.â
â Proverb.
As well as maintaining our position as workers through our dispossession
there are also a whole host of myths and attitudes that go towards
strengthening the ideology of work.
One view is that thereâs virtue in labour in itself. Weâre encouraged to
keep a strong work ethic, ask one another what we do for a living, and
are expected to look down on people who are âworkshyâ. Anyone without
employment isnât just lazy, but is somehow wrong for refusing to take
part in pointless jobs that provide poor pay. At work we can be
complaining about how stupid a task is one minute, then complaining
about a âlazyâ colleague who is trying to avoid it the next. The
question of whether the unemployed person or the âlazyâ colleague would
otherwise be doing something valuable to society is conveniently avoided
to make people feel that doing anything at all for money is more noble
than doing nothing. It is never mentioned that our work provides the
employer with far more money than weâll ever see in our pay packets. In
light of these facts, we should reject looking down on people who shirk
some pointless task, and should instead figure out ways to take back our
lives together.
We often hear that the boss is the wealth creator, an entrepreneur, and
that they are taking all the risk when starting a business. This is a
lie. Even if the boss works their ass off, which much of the time they
donât, they do so in the hope of being able to live off the backs of
others at a later date. Their only real risk is losing the business they
control, leaving them (at worst) in the same position as any other
person being put out of work. On the other hand the workers do all the
labour that creates the profits yet have just enough to live on at the
end of each month. They can be put out of work at any time, not just
when the company goes belly-up.
Another common myth is that our jobs should be an âexpression of our own
self-actualisationâ, needed to make us whole. They are presented as the
medium by which we express our own values or creativity. The platitude
often applied here is âDo what you love and youâll never work a day in
your lifeâ, though âLove what you do and youâll never work a day in your
lifeâ is also used, in spite of the very different implications. Either
way, the onus is on the worker to get into a position where the labour
theyâre performing is effortlessly enjoyable to them. If not, maybe they
picked the wrong job, maybe they donât really enjoy what they thought
they enjoyed, maybe they havenât worked hard enough to attain the level
of privilege and independence that gives them room for self-expression,
or maybe they just donât have the ârightâ attitude.
The idea that turning something you enjoy into a job will lead to a
fulfilling life ignores the mechanisms by which taking money for
something fundamentally changes the nature of the activity, as making
money becomes the goal, while any other possible benefits become
incidental. This problem is exposed in discussions on at what point an
artist has âsold outâ, as their vision of what they would like to
produce clashes with the pressure of market forces. In fact the
predicament exists throughout the work and is a constant burden on an
artistâs creativity and authenticity which is felt to a greater or
lesser extent depending on the circumstances. The gap between what you
should be doing and what you want to be doing is the breeding ground for
alienation.
A particularly stark illustration of the absurdity of this myth is in
societyâs attitudes to sex and sex work. In our highly sexualised
culture sex is something everyone is expected to want. It is assumed to
be everyoneâs default hobby. Having sex is automatically expected to be
a fun activity as well as an indication of oneâs worth. In contrast, sex
work is considered to be disgusting and demeaning, and obviously a last
resort which no one would actually want. People claiming this will often
correctly be able to explain how the work aspect of sex work might make
it unpleasant. In spite of societyâs expectation that we should want as
much sex as possible, people know that what makes sex good is being able
to choose what you do and who you do it with, which is a liberty that
the necessity of following the money will impact on and often completely
override.
Any valid arguments against the existence of sex work are arguments
against the existence of all work, narrowly applied to a single
industry. On the other hand, many arguments in favour of the existence
of sex work justify libertarian capitalist ideology, and would easily be
recognised as such if applied to work in general. In these discussions
the inherent alienation of work is only brought into focus when it comes
to the sex industry. This is to the detriment of sex workers as it
demands that they should convince people that theyâre just as able to
âlove what they doâ (as is expected of all work under middle class
idealism), before people will consider supporting them to make their
work safer. This is a major hurdle to improving conditions.
The expectation that we should enjoy our work impacts on our ability to
organise in a more direct way too. If we consider our jobs a form of
self-expression, or we convince other people that they are, then we
undermine our demand to work less for more money. People working as
teachers or nurses are shamed for demanding better pay and conditions.
Striking transport workers and firefighters are made out to be selfish.
Actors, musicians, and designers are expected to put in many hours of
free labour to prove they are passionate enough about their craft. Not
only is it harder to make a case for overtime pay or a smaller workload
when the job is presented as a labour of love, it also devalues work
that is clearly only done for money. This is because the aspiration to
âdo what you loveâ puts pressure on us to instead settle for trying to
âlove what we doâ so we can also achieve the idealised position of not
being there for the money. Belief that we are working out of a love for
the job, and not just to have our needs met, makes us easier to exploit.
In fact, any enjoyment or sense of purpose we manage to experience at
work is a bonus, but our survival and comfort are paramount.
âI say to the wage class: Think clearly and act quickly, or you are
lost. Strike not for a few cents more an hour, because the price of
living will be raised faster still, but strike for all you earn, be
content with nothing less.â
â Lucy Parsons, âThe Principles Of Anarchismâ.
âAn injury to one is an injury to all.â
â Motto of the IWW.
Most of us do not have the option to just drop out of the systems that
exploit us because we have no other way to survive. Those who can move
to a self-sufficient commune are few and far between, and while someone
looking out for their own well-being canât be looked on too poorly, in
doing so they do not provide an example for the world (as it is often
presented), but hide themselves from the struggles we face as a class.
The struggle against work is the struggle to have our needs met on our
own terms. This puts us up against capitalism and the state. While
individual battles can sometimes lead to small victories, these are
isolated and any gains can be easily reversed at a later date. The
strongest concessions won in the past have always happened when the
working class has taken collective direct action.
Collective action means that we recognise that we have to work together
as a group. Bosses may be able to sack one or two people and still keep
their profit level steady, but it is often far simpler (and loses less
profit) to concede to the demands of a large group or an entire
workforce compared to getting into a lengthy fight with them. Direct
action is where we try and solve a problem as directly as possible,
without hoping that someone else will fix the problem for us.
Both in the workplace, on the dole, and in our neighbourhoods we can
find unions presenting themselves as the place to go to solve our
problems, by having members of the union bureaucracy sit in official
negotiations with management. In order to have any say in these
negotiations the union needs to be able to both start and stop any
worker militancy. Therefore the interest of the union, and its paid
bureaucrats, is not to do the best by workers but to become a layer of
management with the main task of controlling our ability to take
collective direct action. Union members who have an interest in fighting
for the best are either isolated, given shop-floor roles that bury them
under case work, or are convinced to fall in line. Although much
importance is given to negotiations with the bosses, a union committee
negotiating on our behalf rarely produces satisfactory results as they
do not live with the same problems and have different interests to
ourselves. In spite of these limitations, there can be good reasons to
be part of your union. The local branch can be a place to meet workers
who are itching to take militant action outside of the unionâs
restrictions and if it gives all members a fair vote in any decisions
being made then it can produce effective results.
Before taking action we should undertake a realistic review of the
situation and ask how much harm can we cause the target (given the
number of people we can call upon and the energy they can put in), and
how easy is it for them to give in. If the profits lost would be
significantly more than the cost of conceding then the chances of
winning are good. On the other hand if a boss has a lot to lose or can
ignore any action being taken then the fight could be long and the
chances of victory are slim.
One way to make our actions have more impact on the bosses is to work
out a plan of escalation. This means that rather than throwing our most
powerful punch from the start or simply trying out different actions in
random order, we work out all the different methods of collective direct
action we could take against the bosses and rate them from weakest to
strongest (given how much we think they will hurt the boss and how much
energy it will take out of those involved). We then start the campaign
with the weakest action, and if it fails to work take the next on the
list, working our way one step up the list each time an action fails to
have the desired effect. This has some key benefits.
First, we might win concessions far sooner and for less effort than we
believed would be possible, while people will not be tired out and lose
heart when the first action is a big push that the boss manages to
survive. We can use the space between each escalating step to prepare
for any backlash from our actions, plan out the next stage, and even
change course if required.
At the same time bosses donât just have to weather the storm of our
current activity but also have to start worrying about what we have
planned for them next. The effects of profit loss happening now are
compounded when there is a real fear of ever more profit-harming actions
down the line, and it is often this factor that will win the struggle.
What follows is a brief introduction to some ways collective direct
action has been used to win past struggles:
This is usually the first action taken in a series of escalating
tactics. A letter is produced with any outstanding grievances listed,
the demands being made to resolve the issue, and a declaration that if
they are not met within a certain time-frame then further action will be
taken. The people with the grievances then gather along with as many
people that will stand in solidarity with them and march on the target
to deliver the letter. Once those with the grievance hand it over
everyone leaves to clapping from everyone present before dispersing.
While the action can be over in mere minutes the show of collective
strength and support can sometimes be enough to sway the bossesâ mind.
Businesses today rely on their ability to stay in contact with
customers, a state of affairs that can be exploited to our advantage. A
communications blockade is where a mass of people complain about the
situation at hand by phone, email, website, social media, and fax to the
bosses all in the same time period. The length of time the blockage is
set to take place in can be scaled to suit the numbers you have at your
disposal, and it is a good action to engage friends, family and general
supporters. Many smaller disputes have been won with a communications
blockade. These tactics can also be adapted to targets that are
particularly reliant on getting good reviews online.
A go slow works exactly as it sounds. The workforce as a whole pick a
speed to work at and stick to it rigidly. This is where collective
action is vital as even if a few workers were to break from the agreed
pace then there would be the chance to victimise those who refused to
scab. Sit-Ins are similar to go slows only with a clear physical
expression â people stop work and sit down. While this can be effective,
management will carry on as best they can before security or police
remove everyone. Occupations take this a step further and actually take
over a plant and deny access to the management. The latter needs a high
level of militancy and solidarity, as well as good rank-and-file
organisation.
An occupation requires a high level of militancy and organisation on the
part of the workers concerned. It is doomed if they remain isolated from
the rest of organised labour and the working class generally but in the
right conditions it can be dynamite. What is needed is mass involvement.
Workers should not be presented with a plan: an effective occupation
must be preceded by mass meetings to plan the occupation, and lots of
promotion to gather popular support both in the place of work and
beyond.
Occupation can also be used to prevent eviction by bailiffs, as groups
of people use their own bodies to block the streets and entranceways to
target properties. In areas where there are multiple houses under
threat, a phone tree and internet call-outs can be used to gather people
quickly, however nothing beats being at a property before the bailiff
starts their work and staying until after they have gone home.
Boycotts and protests try to hit the profitability of a business by
pointing out the flaws of the employer and encouraging customers to shop
elsewhere. Boycotts are rarely effective by themselves as they attempt
to have the battle at the point of purchase, making it relatively easy
for bosses to weather the storm and wait for customers to return.
Far more effective is to strike at the point of production. This
involves the workforce and their supporters blockading the entrances,
forming what is known as a picket line, and preventing scab workers from
going in and the transport of goods or work vehicles from getting out.
Wildcat strikes are when a workforce ballot in person and walk off the
job there and then to form a picket. As this happens without notice the
bosses ability to minimise the impact of a strike is non-existent.
Strike action can also be taken at the same time as other workplaces and
communities even if you have no demands of your own. Even if the
strikers are superficially unconnected, the act of solidarity striking
makes the original demand easier to achieve as the bosses not only have
to manage their own workforce but multiple strands of the economy being
shut down. It is also in our own interests to make solidarity striking
commonplace, as when it comes time for us to make a demand we know we
can rely upon the mutual aid of others in achieving our goals.
Wildcat and solidarity strikes may be illegal, but combined they are the
most powerful form of industrial action. When undertaken successfully
they almost always included a demand to have no negative outcomes for
the strikers which is backed by a threat of harsh repercussions if not
kept.
Outside of the formal workplace there is also a history of reproductive
labour strikes. This can take many forms, from a rent strike (where a
group of tenants refuse to hand over rent until demands are met),
through to sex strikes (organised by groups of women who refused sex
with their partners unless conditions were changed for them). Any type
of unpaid labour could be targeted and very quickly have a knock-on
effect to be addressed.
A sick-in is a way to strike without striking. The idea is to cripple
your workplace by having all or most of the workforce call in sick on
the same day(s). Unlike a formal walk-out, it can be used effectively by
departments and work areas instead of the whole workplace, and because
itâs usually informal it can catch management unawares. Sometimes just
the hint of âflu doing the roundsâ and the likelihood of it spreading to
important areas of work can work wonders with a stubborn boss or
supervisor.
This is another powerful tool at our disposal today. Every industry is
covered by a mass of rules, regulations and agreed working practices
that, if applied strictly, can make work difficult if not impossible.
While following the letter of the rules may inconvenience workers for a
time, if they stay focussed it will ruin the profitability of a
workplace and leave the boss powerless to fight back; after all, the
workers are following the rules. Even an agreement not to take overtime
for a short period can be effective if applied at the right moment.
Another way that workers can choose to strike at the point of production
is to put a spanner in the works. Machinery is damaged, parts go
missing, work bottlenecks around vulnerable points in production, and
all the workers say they have no idea what is happening. Other times,
rather than things randomly breaking down, they just go missing.
Businesses put in place all kinds of checks that keep a watch on the
small scale, but they are rarely prepared for a large-scale theft that
canât be pinned on any one person. These are risky tactics, but
sometimes needed.
This concept of collective theft can be used to have our social
reproductive needs met while minimising the amount of paid work we have
to do. Individualised shoplifting can be scaled up so a group enters the
target shop together, sticks tight while loading up on goods, leaves
quickly, and has a plan worked out in advance for how items will be
redistributed to those that need them. Often this can be done while
getting the passive support of staff.
This is known as expropriation, and as well as being done to items in a
supermarket could also be applied to taking over property (such as when
squatting an unused building), or when a point of production is taken
into collective control.
Sometimes breaking the rules can hurt other segments of the working
class in a way that turns them against your struggle, isolating you and
giving the bosses a chance to win. Good work is coming up with ways to
break the rules in a way that hurts the bosses but helps others. Letting
customers go without paying, adding on extras, going the extra mile when
you donât have to, or bending the rules to make a job more fulfilling
and satisfying to everyone except the bosses and their profits.
Taking charge takes good work and mixes in the ideas of an occupation,
except here the workers agree as a group how to run their work and do it
that way in the bosses face. When workers decide that they are going to
do what they want to do, instead of what the employers want, there is
not a lot can be done to stop it.
These act of collectively deciding how to subvert their job roles can
bring workers closer to activity as it would be under communism, meeting
peopleâs needs in a way that we can all find acceptable.
âFreedom begins where work ends.â
â Work and the Free Society, 1^(st) Edition
âFrom each according to their ability, to each according to their need.â
â Slogan popularised by Karl Marx
Winning reforms and changing the conditions under which we work can only
get us so far. Eventually there is nothing else that can be won from the
boss except the places we work and live themselves. However if we simply
become our own bosses with capitalism and state intact then we would
still be chained to the ideology of work for survival. We must recognise
these limits and aim for a social revolution â the complete reordering
of society. Having gained a revolutionary consciousness from our
previous struggles we would be able to undertake the general political
strike â the use of both mass industrial action and mass social protest
â to replace capitalism with communism and work with free association.
This means the end of artificial competition for profits, and with it
the huge volume of pointless or repeated work being done today. We would
be given a fair voice in deciding what work is to be done and how we
will undertake it. Dirty or dangerous tasks could be automated, shared
through collective agreement, or abandoned as unworkable.
Environmentally unsound practices would end, as our wellbeing as
individuals and that of the planet as a whole would drive production and
innovation. We would be free to learn our true potential as humans.
Writing this pamphlet has left us feeling angry. While we started the
project fully aware of the bare-faced truth â that our time and
productive energies are being stolen from us so that some executive can
buy themselves another car for their collection â it is hard to stomach
the sickening disregard for human life that capitalism holds at its
core. We only get one life and it is being robbed from us.
Our common interest as a working class comes from having our needs
withheld and it is only by aiming for a free society, for anarchist
communism, that we have a chance of changing this. Initially resistance
will simply provide better conditions in our exploitation, but these
struggles will provide the experience needed to win back control of our
lives and provide liberty not only for ourselves but for all those who
follow in our footsteps.
The problem with work: feminism, marxism, antiwork politics and postwork imaginaries
Kathi Weeks, 2011
Prole, 2010
Michael Denning, 2010
The Reproduction of Daily Life
Fredy Perlman, 1969
Peter Kropotkin, 1906