File: secI3.html

package info (click to toggle)
anarchism 13.4-1
links: PTS
area: main
in suites: squeeze, wheezy
size: 24,760 kB
ctags: 640
sloc: makefile: 27
file content (2971 lines) | stat: -rw-r--r-- 183,864 bytes
parent folder | download | duplicates (2)
<html>
<head>

<title>I.3 What could the economic structure of anarchy look like?</title>

</head>
<body>

<h1>I.3 What could the economic structure of anarchy look like?</h1>

<p>
Here we will examine possible frameworks of a libertarian socialist
economy. We stress that it is <b>frameworks</b> rather than framework 
because it is likely that any anarchist society will see a diverse 
number of economic systems co-existing in different areas, depending 
on what people in those areas want. <i>"In each locality,"</i> argued 
Diego Abad de Santillan, <i>"the degree of communism, collectivism 
or mutualism will depend on the conditions prevailing. Why dictate 
rules? We who make freedom our banner, cannot deny it in economy. 
Therefore there must be free experimentation, free show of initiative 
and suggestions, as well as the freedom of organisation."</i> As such, 
anarchism <i>"can be realised in a multiformity of economic arrangements, 
individual and collective. Proudhon advocated mutualism; Bakunin, 
collectivism; Kropotkin, communism. Malatesta has conceived the 
possibility of mixed agreements, especially during the first period."</i> 
[<b>After the Revolution</b>, p. 97 and p. 96] 
</p><p>
Here, we will highlight and discuss the four major schools of 
anarchist economic thought: Individualist anarchism, mutualism, 
collectivism and communism. It is up to the reader to evaluate 
which school best maximises individual liberty and the good life
(as individualist anarchist Joseph LaBadie wisely said, <i>"Anarchism 
will not dictate to them any explicit rules as to what they must do, 
but that it opens to them the opportunities of putting into practice 
their own ideas of enhancing their own happiness."</i> [<b>The
Individualist Anarchists</b>, pp. 260-1]). <i>"Nothing is more 
contrary to the real spirit of Anarchy than uniformity and 
intolerance,"</i> argued Kropotkin. <i>"Freedom of development 
implies difference of development, hence difference of ideas and 
actions."</i> Experience, then, is <i>"the best teacher, and the 
necessary experience can only be gained by entire freedom of action."</i> 
[quoted by Ruth Kinna, <i>"Fields of Vision: Kropotkin and Revolutionary 
Change"</i>, pp. 67-86, <b>SubStance</b>, Vol. 36, No. 2, p. 81] There 
may, of course, be other economic practices but these may not be 
libertarian. In Malatesta's words:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Admitted the basic principle of anarchism -- which is that no-one
should wish or have the opportunity to reduce others to a state
of subjection and oblige them to work for him -- it is clear that
all, and only, those ways of life which respect freedom, and
recognise that each individual has an equal right to the means
of production and to the full enjoyment of the product of his
own labour, have anything in common with anarchism."</i> 
[<b>Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas</b>, p. 33]
</blockquote></p><p>
In addition, it should be kept in mind that in practice it is 
impossible to separate the economic realm from the social and 
political realms, as there are numerous interconnections between 
them: anarchist thinkers like Bakunin argued that the "political" 
institutions of a free society would be based upon workplace 
associations while Kropotkin placed the commune at the heart of 
his vision of a communist-anarchist economy <b>and</b> society. 
Thus the division between social and economic forms is not clear 
cut in anarchist theory -- as it should be as society is not, and 
cannot be, considered as separate from or inferior to the economy. 
An anarchist society will try to integrate the social and economic, 
embedding the latter in the former in order to stop any harmful 
externalities associated economic activity being passed onto society. 
As Karl Polanyi argued, capitalism <i>"means no less than the running 
of society as an adjunct to the market. Instead of the economy being  
being embedded in social relations, social relations are embedded 
in the economic system."</i> [<b>The Great Transformation</b>, p. 57] 
Given the negative effects of such an arrangement, little wonder that 
anarchism seeks to reverse it.
</p><p>
Also, by discussing the economy first we are not implying that 
dealing with economic domination or exploitation is more important 
than dealing with other aspects of the total system of domination, 
e.g. social hierarchies, patriarchal values, racism, etc. We follow 
this order of exposition because of the need to present one thing 
at a time, but it would have been equally easy to start with the 
social and political structure of anarchy. However, Rudolf Rocker
is correct to argue that an economic transformation in the
economy is an essential aspect of a social revolution:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"[A] social development in this direction [i.e. a stateless
society] was not possible without a fundamental revolution in 
existing economic arrangements; for tyranny and exploitation
grow on the same tree and are inseparably bound together. The
freedom of the individual is secure only when it rests on
the economic and social well-being of all . . . The personality
of the individual stands the higher, the more deeply it is
rooted in the community, from which arise the richest sources
of its moral strength. Only in freedom does there arise in
man the consciousness of responsibility for his acts and
regard for the rights of others; only in freedom can there
unfold in its full strength that most precious of social
instinct: man's sympathy for the joys and sorrows of his
fellow men and the resultant impulse toward mutual aid
and in which are rooted all social ethics, all ideas of 
social justice."</i> [<b>Nationalism and Culture</b>, pp. 147-8]
</blockquote></p><p>
The aim of any anarchist society would be to maximise freedom 
and so creative work: 
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"If it is correct, as I believe it is, that a fundamental element of 
human nature is the need for creative work or creative inquiry, for 
free creation without the arbitrary limiting effects of coercive 
institutions, then of course it will follow that a decent society 
should maximise the possibilities for this fundamental human 
characteristic to be realised. Now, a federated, decentralised 
system of free associations incorporating economic as well as 
social institutions would be what I refer to as anarcho-syndicalism. 
And it seems to me that it is the appropriate form of social 
organisation for an advanced technological society, in which 
human beings do not have to be forced into the position of tools, 
of cogs in a machine."</i> [Noam Chomsky, <b>Manufacturing Consent: 
Noam Chomsky and the Media</b>, p. 31]
</blockquote></p><p>
So, as one might expect, since the essence of anarchism is opposition 
to hierarchical authority, anarchists totally oppose the way the current 
economy is organised. This is because authority in the economic sphere 
is embodied in centralised, hierarchical workplaces that give an elite 
class (capitalists) dictatorial control over privately owned means of 
production, turning the majority of the population into order takers 
(i.e. wage slaves). In contrast, the libertarian-socialist economy 
will be based on decentralised, egalitarian workplaces in which 
workers democratically self-manage their productive activity in 
<b>socially</b> owned means of production.  
</p><p>
The key principles of libertarian socialism are decentralisation,
self-management, socialisation, voluntary association, and free
federation. These principles determine the form and function of both 
the economic and political systems. In this section we will consider 
just the economic system. Bakunin gives an excellent overview of 
such an economy when he wrote that in a free society the <i>"land 
belongs to only those who cultivate it with their own hands; to the 
agricultural communes. The capital and all the tools of production 
belong to the workers; to the workers' associations."</i> These 
associations are often called <i>"co-operatives"</i> and <i>"syndicates"</i> 
(see <a href="secI3.html#seci31">section I.3.1</a>). This feeds into an 
essential economic concept for libertarian socialists is <i><b>"workers' 
self-management"</b></i> This refers to those who do the work managing 
it, where the land and workplaces are <i>"owned and operated by the 
workers themselves: by their freely organised federations of industrial 
and agricultural workers"</i> (see <a href="secI3.html#seci32">section I.3.2</a>). 
For most anarchists, <i>"socialisation"</i> is the necessary foundation
for a free society, as only this ensures universal self-management
by allowing free access to the means of production 
(see <a href="secI3.html#seci33">section I.3.3</a>). Thus an anarchist
economy would be based on <i>"the land, tools of production and all
other capital"</i> being <i>"converted into collective property of
the whole of society and utilised only by the workers, i.e., by their
agricultural and industrial associations."</i> [<b>Bakunin on Anarchy</b>, 
p. 247, p. 400 and p. 427] As Berkman summarised:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"The revolution abolishes private ownership of the means of production,
distribution, and with it goes capitalistic business. Personal possession
remains only in the things you use. Thus, your watch is your own, but the
watch factory belongs to the people. Land, machinery, and all other public
utilities will be collective property, neither to be bought nor sold.
Actual use will be considered the only title [in communist anarchism] -- 
not to ownership but to possession. The organisation of the coal miners, 
for example, will be in charge of the coal mines, not as owners but as 
the operating agency. Similarly will the railroad brotherhoods run the 
railroads, and so on. Collective possession, co-operatively managed in 
the interests of the community, will take the place of personal ownership 
privately conducted for profit."</i> [<b>What is Anarchism?</b>, p. 217]
</blockquote></p><p>
So the solution proposed by social anarchists is <b>society-wide</b> 
ownership of the means of production and distribution, with each 
workplace run co-operatively by its members. However, no workplace
exists in isolation and would seek to associate with others to ensure
it gets the raw materials it needs for production and to see what it
produces goes to those who need it. These links would be based on the 
anarchist principles of free agreement and voluntary federation (see 
<a href="secI3.html#seci34">section I.3.4</a>). For social anarchists,
this would be supplemented by confederal bodies or co-ordinating 
councils at two levels: first, between all firms in a particular 
industry; and second, between all industries (including agriculture) 
throughout the society (<a href="secI3.html#seci35">section I.3.5</a>).
Such federations may, depending on the type of anarchism in question,
also include people's financial institutions.
</p><p>
While, for some anarcho-syndicalists, this structure is seen as enough,
most communist-anarchists consider that the economic federation should 
be held accountable to society as a whole (i.e. the economy must be
communalised). This is because not everyone in society is a worker (e.g.
the young, the old and infirm) nor will everyone belong to a syndicate 
(e.g. the self-employed), but as they also have to live with the results 
of economic decisions, they should have a say in what happens. In other
words, in communist-anarchism, workers make the day-to-day decisions 
concerning their work and workplaces, while the social criteria behind
these decisions are made by everyone. As anarchist society is based on 
free access and a resource is controlled by those who use it. It is a 
decentralised, participatory, self-managed, organisation whose members 
can secede at any time and in which all power and initiative arises 
from and flows back to the grassroots level. Such a society combines 
free association, federalism and self-management with communalised 
ownership. Free labour is its basis and socialisation exists to 
complement and protect it. Such a society-wide economic federation of 
this sort is <b>not</b> the same thing as a centralised state agency, 
as in the concept of nationalised or state-owned industry. 
</p><p>
The exact dynamics of a socialised self-managed system varies between
anarchist schools. Most obviously, as discussed in
<a href="secI3.html#seci36">section I.3.6</a>, while
individualists view competition between workplaces as unproblematic
and mutualists see its negative aspects but consider it necessary,
collectivists and communists oppose it and argue that a free society
can do without it. Moreover, socialisation should not be confused
with forced collectivisation -- individuals and groups will be free
<b>not</b> to join a syndicate and to experiment in different forms of 
economy (see <a href="secI3.html#seci37">section I.3.7</a>). Lastly,
anarchists argue that such a system would be applicable to all 
economies, regardless of size and development, and aim for an 
economy based on appropriately sized technology (Marxist assertions
<b>not</b> withstanding -- see <a href="secI3.html#seci38">section I.3.8</a>).
</p><p>
Regardless of the kind of anarchy desired, anarchists all agree 
on the importance of decentralisation, free agreement and free 
association. Kropotkin's summary of what anarchy would look like 
gives an excellent feel of what sort of society anarchists desire:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by 
obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the 
various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the 
sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the 
infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilised being.</i>
</blockquote> 
</p><p>
<blockquote><i>
"In a society developed on these lines . . . voluntary associations . . . 
would represent an interwoven network, composed of an infinite variety of 
groups and federations of all sizes and degrees, local, regional, national 
and international temporary or more or less permanent -- for all possible
purposes: production, consumption and exchange, communications, sanitary
arrangements, education, mutual protection, defence of the territory, and 
so on; and, on the other side, for the satisfaction of an ever-increasing
number of scientific, artistic, literary and sociable needs. </i>
</blockquote>
</p><p>
<blockquote><i>
"Moreover, such a society would represent nothing immutable. On the 
contrary -- as is seen in organic life at large - harmony would (it 
is contended) result from an ever-changing adjustment and readjustment 
of equilibrium between the multitudes of forces and influences, and 
this adjustment would be the easier to obtain as none of the forces 
would enjoy a special protection from the State."</i> [<b>Anarchism</b>, 
p. 284]
</blockquote></p><p>
If this type of system sounds "utopian" it should be kept in mind 
that it was actually implemented and worked quite well in the 
collectivist economy organised during the Spanish Revolution of 
1936, despite the enormous obstacles presented by an ongoing civil 
war as well as the relentless (and eventually successful) efforts 
of Republicans, Stalinists and Fascists to crush it (see 
<a href="secI8.html">section I.8</a> for an introduction).
</p><p>
As well as this (and other) examples of <b><i>"anarchy in action"</i></b> 
there have been other libertarian socialist economic systems described in 
writing. All share the common features of workers' self-management, 
co-operation and so on we discuss here and in 
<a href="secI4.html">section I.4</a>. These texts 
include <b>Syndicalism</b> by Tom Brown, <b>The Program of Anarcho-Syndicalism</b> 
by G.P. Maximoff, <b>Guild Socialism Restated</b> and <b>Self-Government
in Industry</b> by G.D.H. Cole, <b>After 
the Revolution</b> by Diego Abad de Santillan, <b>Anarchist Economics</b> and 
<b>Principles of Libertarian Economy</b> by Abraham Guillen, <b>Workers 
Councils and the Economics of a Self-Managed Society</b> by Cornelius 
Castoriadis among others. A short summary of Spanish Anarchist visions
of the free society can be found in chapter 3 of Robert Alexander's
<b>The Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War</b> (vol. 1). Some anarchists
support what is called <i>"Participatory Economics"</i> (<b>Parecon</b>,
for short) and <b>The Political Economy of Participatory Economics</b> and 
<b>Looking Forward: Participatory Economics for the Twenty First Century</b> 
by Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel are worth reading as they contain good
introductions to that project.
</p><p>
Fictional accounts include William Morris' <b>News from Nowhere</b>, 
the excellent <b>The Dispossessed</b> by Ursula Le Guin, <b>Women on the 
Edge of Time</b> by Marge Piercy and <b>The Last Capitalist</b> by Steve 
Cullen. Iain M. Banks Culture novels are about an anarcho-communist society, 
but as they are so technologically advanced they can only give an insight 
into the aims of libertarian socialism and the mentality of people 
living in freedom (<b>The State of the Art</b> and <b>The Player of
Games</b> contrast the Culture with hierarchical societies, the Earth in
1977 in the case of the former).
</p>

<a name="seci31"><h2>I.3.1 What is a <i>"syndicate"</i>?</h2></a>

<p>
As we will use the term, a <i>"syndicate"</i> (also called a 
<i>"producer co-operative"</i>, or <i>"co-operative"</i>, for short, 
sometimes a <i>"collective"</i>, <i>"producers' commune"</i>, 
<i>"association of producers"</i>, <i>"guild factory"</i> or 
<i>"guild workplace"</i>) is a democratically self-managed 
productive enterprise whose assets are controlled by its workers. 
It is a useful generic term to describe the situation aimed at by 
anarchists where <i>"associations of men and women who . . . work 
on the land, in the factories, in the mines, and so on, [are] 
themselves the managers of production."</i> [Kropotkin, 
<b>Evolution and Environment</b>, p. 78] 
</p><p>
This means that where labour is collective, <i>"the ownership of 
production should also be collective."</i> <i>"Each workshop, 
each factory,"</i> correctly suggested James Guillaume, <i>"will 
organise itself into an association of workers who will be free 
to administer production and organise their work as they think best, 
provided that the rights of each worker are safeguarded and the 
principles of equality and justice are observed."</i> This applies 
to the land as well, for anarchism aims to answer <i>"the question of 
how best to work the land and what form of possession is best."</i>
It does not matter whether peasants <i>"keep their plots of land
and continue to cultivate it with the help of their families"</i>
or whether they <i>"take collective possession of the vast tracts
of land and work them in common"</i> as <i>"the main purpose of 
the Revolution"</i> has been achieved, namely that <i>"the land is
now the property of those who cultivate it, and the peasants
no longer work for the profit of an idle exploiter who lives
by their sweat."</i> Any <i>"former hired hands"</i> will 
become <i>"partners and share . . . the products which their 
common labour extracts from the land"</i> as <i>"the Revolution 
will have abolished agricultural wage slavery and peonage and 
the agricultural proletariat will consist only of free workers 
living in peace and plenty."</i> As with industrial workplaces,
the <i>"internal organisation . . . need not necessarily be
identical; organisational forms and procedures will vary
greatly according to the preferences of the associated 
workers."</i> The <i>"administration of the community"</i> could be
<i>"entrusted either to an individual or to a commission of
many members,"</i> for example, but would always be <i>"elected 
by all the members."</i> [<i>"On Building the New Social Order"</i>, 
pp. 356-79, <b>Bakunin on Anarchism</b>, p. 363,  p. 359, p. 360 and
 p. 361]
</p><p>
It must be noted that this libertarian goal of abolishing the hierarchical 
capitalist workplace and ending wage labour by associating and democratising 
industry is as old as anarchism itself. Thus we find Proudhon arguing in 1840 
that the aim was a society of <i>"possessors without masters"</i> (rather than 
wage-labourers and tenants <i>"controlled by proprietors"</i>) with <i>"leaders, 
instructors, superintendents"</i> and so forth being <i>"chosen from the 
labourers by the labourers themselves."</i> [<b>What is Property?</b>, p. 167 
and p. 137]
</p><p>
<i>"Mutuality, reciprocity exists,"</i> Proudhon argued, <i>"when all
the workers in an industry, instead of working for an <b>entrepreneur</b>
who pays them and keeps their products, work for one another and thus 
collaborate in the making of a common product whose profits they share 
amongst themselves. Extend the principle of reciprocity as uniting the 
work of every group, to the Workers' Societies as units, and you have 
created a form of civilisation which from all points of view -- political, 
economic and aesthetic --  is radically different from all earlier 
civilisations."</i> In summary: <i>"All associated and all free"</i>. 
[quoted by Martin Buber, <b>Paths in Utopia</b>, pp. 29-30 and p. 30]
</p><p>
Nor was this idea invented by Proudhon and other anarchists. Rather, it
was first raised by workers themselves and subsequently taken up by 
the likes of Proudhon and Bakunin. So working class people came up with 
this fundamental libertarian socialist idea by themselves. The idea that 
wage labour would be replaced by associated labour was raised in many 
different countries in the 19th century. In France, it was during the 
wave of strikes and protests unleashed by the 1830 revolution. That year 
saw Parisian printers, for example, producing a newspaper (<b>L'Artisan: 
Journal de la classes ouvriere</b>) which suggested that the only way 
to stop being exploited by a master was for workers to form co-operatives. 
During the strikes of 1833, this was echoed by other skilled workers 
and so co-operatives were seen by many workers as a method of emancipation 
from wage labour. Proudhon even picked up the term <b>Mutualisme</b> from 
the workers in Lyon in the early 1840s and their ideas of co-operative 
credit, exchange and production influenced him as surely as he influenced 
them. In America, as Chomsky notes, <i>"[i]f we go back to the labour 
activism from the early days of the industrial revolution, to the working 
class press in 1850s, and so on, its got a real anarchist strain to it. 
They never heard of European anarchism . . . It was spontaneous. They took 
for granted wage labour is little different from slavery, that workers 
should own the mills"</i> [<b>Anarchism Interview</b>] As we noted in 
<a href="secF8.html#secf86">section F.8.6</a>, this was a commonplace 
response for working class people facing the rise of capitalism.
</p><p>
In many ways a syndicate is similar to a co-operative under capitalism.
Indeed, Proudhon pointed to such experiments as examples of what he 
desired, with <i>"co-operative associations"</i> being a key part of his 
<i>"general liquidation"</i> of capitalist society. [<b>General
Idea of the Revolution</b>, p. 203] Bakunin, likewise, argued that 
anarchists are <i>"convinced that the co-operative will be the 
preponderant form of social organisation in the future, in 
every branch of labour and science."</i> [<b>Basic Bakunin</b>, 
p. 153] Therefore, even from the limited examples of co-operatives 
functioning in the capitalist market, the essential features of 
a libertarian socialist economy can be seen. The basic economic 
element, the workplace, will be a free association of individuals
who will organise their joint work as equals. To quote Bakunin 
again, <i>"[o]nly associated labour, that is, labour organised upon 
the principles of reciprocity and co-operation, is adequate to the 
task of maintaining . . . civilised society."</i> [<b>The Political 
Philosophy of Bakunin</b>, p. 341]
</p><p>
<b><i>Co-operation</i></b> in this context means that the policy 
decisions related to their association will be based on the principle 
of "one member, one vote," with administrative staff elected and 
held accountable to the workplace as a whole. In the words of 
economist David Ellerman: <i>"Every enterprise should be legally 
reconstructured as a partnership of all who work in the enterprise. 
Every enterprise should be a democratic worker-owned firm."</i> 
[<b>The Democratic Worker-Owned Firm</b>, p. 43] Anarchists, 
unsurprisingly, reject the Leninist idea that state property 
means the end of capitalism as simplistic and confused. 
Ownership is a juridical relationship. The <b>real</b> issue 
is one of management. Do the users of a resource manage it? 
If so, then we have a real (i.e. libertarian) socialist society. 
If not, we have some form of class society (for example, in the 
Soviet Union the state replaced the capitalist class but workers 
still had no official control over their labour or the product of 
that labour).
</p><p>
Workplace self-management does not mean, as some apologists of 
capitalism suggest, that knowledge and skill will be ignored and 
<b>all</b> decisions made by everyone. This is an obvious fallacy, 
since engineers, for example, have a greater understanding of their 
work than non-engineers and under workers' self-management will 
control it directly:
</p><p><blockquote> 
<i>"we must understand clearly wherein this Guild democracy consists, 
and especially how it bears on relations between different classes of 
workers included in a single Guild. For since a Guild includes <b>all</b> 
the workers by hand and brain engaged in a common service, it is clear 
that there will be among its members very wide divergences of function, 
of technical skill, and of administrative authority. Neither the Guild 
as a whole nor the Guild factory can determine all issues by the expedient 
of the mass vote, nor can Guild democracy mean that, on all questions, 
each member is to count as one and none more than one. A mass vote on 
a matter of technique understood only by a few experts would be a 
manifest absurdity, and, even if the element of technique is left out 
of account, a factory administered by constant mass votes would be 
neither efficient nor at all a pleasant place to work in. There will 
be in the Guilds technicians occupying special positions by virtue of 
their knowledge, and there will be administrators possessing special 
authority by virtue both of skill and ability and of personal 
qualifications."</i> [G.D.H. Cole, <b>Guild Socialism Restated</b>, 
pp. 50-51] 
</blockquote></p><p>
The fact that some decision-making has been delegated in this 
manner sometimes leads people to ask whether a syndicate would not 
just be another form of hierarchy. The answer is that it would not be
hierarchical because the workers' assemblies and their councils, open 
to all workers, would decide what types of decision-making to delegate, 
thus ensuring that ultimate power rests at the base. Moreover,
<b>power</b> would not be delegated. Malatesta clearly indicates the 
difference between administrative decisions and policy decisions:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Of course in every large collective undertaking, a division of 
labour, technical management, administration, etc. is necessary. 
But authoritarians clumsily play on words to produce a <b>raison dtre</b> 
for government out of the very real need for the organisation of work. 
Government, it is well to repeat, is the concourse of individuals
who have had, or seized, the right and the means to make laws and to
oblige people to obey; the administrator, the engineer, etc., instead
are people who are appointed or assume the responsibility to carry out
a particular job and so on. Government means the delegation of power, 
that is the abdication of initiative and sovereignty of all into the 
hands of a few; administration means the delegation of work, that is 
tasks given and received, free exchange of services based on free 
agreement . . . Let one not confuse the function of government with 
that of an administration, for they are essentially different, and if 
today the two are often confused, it is only because of economic and 
political privilege."</i> [<b>Anarchy</b>, pp. 41-2]
</blockquote></p><p>
Given that power remains in the hands of the workplace assembly, it
is clear that the organisation required for every collective endeavour
cannot be equated with government. Also, never forget that administrative
staff are elected by and accountable to the rest of an association.
If, for example, it turned out that a certain type of delegated 
decision-making activity was being abused, it could be revoked by 
the whole workforce. Because of this grassroots control, there is 
every reason to think that crucial types of decision-making activity
which could become a source of power (and so with the potential for 
seriously affecting all workers' lives) would not be delegated 
but would remain with the workers' assemblies. For example, powers 
that are now  exercised in an authoritarian manner by managers 
under capitalism, such as those of hiring and firing, introducing 
new production methods or technologies, changing product lines, 
relocating production facilities, determining the nature, pace 
and rhythm of productive activity and so on would remain in the
hands of the associated producers and <b>not</b> be delegated to anyone.
</p><p>
New syndicates will be created upon the initiative of individuals within 
communities. These may be the initiative of workers in an existing
syndicate who desire to expand production, or members of the local
community who see that the current syndicates are not providing adequately
in a specific area of life. Either way, the syndicate will be a voluntary
association for producing useful goods or services and would spring up
and disappear as required. Therefore, an anarchist society would see
syndicates developing spontaneously as individuals freely associate to 
meet their needs, with both local and confederal initiatives taking place.
</p><p>
While having a common basis in co-operative workplaces, different forms
of anarchism see them work in different ways. Under mutualism, workers
organise themselves into syndicates and share in its gains and losses.
This means that in <i>"the labour-managed firm there is no profit, only 
income to be divided among members. Without employees the labour-managed 
firm does not have a wage bill, and labour costs are not counted among
the expenses to the subtracted from profit, as they are in the capitalist 
firm."</i> The <i>"labour-managed firm does not hire labour. It is a collective 
of workers that hires capital and necessary materials."</i> [Christopher 
Eaton Gunn, <b>Workers' Self-Management in the United States</b>, pp. 41-2] 
In this way, Proudhon and his followers argued, exploitation would end
and workers would receive the full-product of their labour. This, it 
should be noted, does not mean that workers consume all the proceeds of 
sales in personal consumption (i.e., no investment). It means that labour 
<b>controls</b> what to do with the sales income, i.e., how much to invest 
and how much to allocate to consumption:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"If Labour appropriated the whole product, that would include appropriating 
the liabilities for the property used up in the production process in addition 
to appropriating the produced outputs. Present Labour would have to pay input 
suppliers (e.g., past labour) to satisfy those liabilities."</i> [Ellerman,
<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 24]
</blockquote>
</p><p>
So under mutualism, surpluses (profits) would be either equally divided 
between all members of the co-operative or divided unequally on the 
basis of the type of work done, with the percentages allotted to 
each type being decided by democratic vote, on the principle of 
one worker, one vote. Worker co-operatives of this type do have the 
virtue of preventing the exploitation and oppression of labour by 
capital, since workers are not hired for wages but, in effect, become 
partners in the firm. This means that the workers control both the 
product of their labour (so that the value-added that they produce 
is not appropriated by a privileged elite) and the work process itself 
(and so they no longer sell their liberty to others). However, such 
a limited form of co-operation is rejected by most anarchists. 
Non-mutualist anarchists argue that this, at best, is but a step 
in the right direction and the ultimate aim is distribution according 
to need.
</p><p>
Production for use rather than profit/money is the key concept that
distinguishes collectivist and communist forms of anarchism from 
the competitive mutualism advocated by Proudhon. This is for two 
reasons. First, because of the harmful effects of markets we
indicated in <a href="secI1.html#seci13">section I.1.3</a> could make
co-operatives become, in effect, "collective capitalists" and compete 
against each other in the market as ferociously as actual capitalists. 
As Kropotkin put it, while co-operation had <i>"at its origin . . . 
an essentially mutual aid character"</i>, it <i>"is often described as 
'joint-stock individualism'"</i> and <i>"such as it is now, it undoubtedly 
tends to breed a co-operative egotism, not only towards the community at large, 
but also among the co-operators themselves."</i> [<b>Mutual Aid</b>, p. 214]
While he was discussing co-operatives under capitalism, his worries are
equally applicable to a mutualist system of competing syndicates. This
would also lead to a situation where market forces ensured that the workers 
involved made irrational decisions (from both a social and individual 
point of view) in order to survive in the market. For mutualists, this 
<i>"irrationality of rationality"</i> is the price to be paid to ensure
workers receive the full product of their labour and, moreover, any 
attempt to overcome this problem holds numerous dangers to freedom. 
Other social anarchists disagree. They think co-operation between 
workplaces can increase, not reduce, freedom. Second, as discussed in 
<a href="secI1.html#seci14">section I.1.4</a>, distribution according 
to work does not take into account the different needs of the workers 
(nor non-workers like the ill, the young and the old). As such, mutualism 
does not produce what most anarchists would consider a decent society, 
one where people co-operate to make a decent life for all.
</p><p>
What about entry into a syndicate? In the words of Cole, guilds 
(syndicates) are <i>"open associations which any man [or woman] 
may join"</i> but <i>"this does not mean, of course, that any 
person will be able to claim admission, as an absolute right, 
into the guild of his choice."</i>  This means that there may 
be training requirements (for example) and obviously <i>"a man 
[or woman] clearly cannot get into a Guild unless it needs fresh 
recruits for its work. [The worker] will have free choice, but only 
of the available openings."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 75] As David Ellerman
notes, it is important to remember that <i>"the labour market would not 
exist"</i> in a self-managed economy as labour would <i>"always be the 
residual claimant."</i> This means that capital would not be hiring labour 
as under capitalism, rather workers would be seeking out associations to 
join. <i>"There would be a job market in the sense of people looking for 
firms they could join,"</i> Ellerman continues, <i>"but it would not be a 
labour market in the sense of the selling of labour in the employment 
contract."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 91] 
</p><p>
All schools of social anarchism, therefore, are based on the use rights 
resting in the specific syndicate while ownership would be socialised 
rather than limited to the syndicate's workers. This would ensure free 
access to the means of production as new members of a syndicate would have 
the same rights and power as existing members. If this were not the case, 
then the new members would be the wage slaves of existing ones and it is 
<b>precisely</b> to avoid this that anarchists argue for socialisation
(see <a href="secI3.html#seci33">section I.3.3</a>). With socialisation,
free access is guaranteed and so all workers are in the same position so
ensuring self-management and no return to workplace hierarchy.
</p><p>
Obviously, as in any society, an individual may not be able to pursue the 
work they are most interested in (although given the nature of an anarchist 
society they would have the free time to pursue it as a hobby). However, 
we can imagine that an anarchist society would take an interest in ensuring 
a fair distribution of work and so would try to arrange work sharing if a 
given work placement is popular (see <a href="secI4.html#seci413">section I.4.13</a> 
on the question of who will do unpleasant work, and for more on work allocation 
generally, in an anarchist society). 
</p><p>
Of course there may be the danger of a syndicate or guild trying to
restrict entry from an ulterior motive, as such the exploitation of 
monopoly power vis--vis other groups in society. However, in an 
anarchist society individuals would be free to form their own 
syndicates and this would ensure that such activity is self-defeating. 
In addition, in a non-individualist anarchist system, syndicates would 
be part of a confederation (see 
<a href="secI3.html#seci34">section I.3.4</a>). It 
is a responsibility of the inter-syndicate congresses to assure that 
membership and employment in the syndicates is not restricted in any 
anti-social way. If an individual or group of individuals felt that 
they had been unfairly excluded from a syndicate then an investigation 
into the case would be organised at the congress. In this way any 
attempts to restrict entry would be reduced (assuming they occurred 
to begin with). And, of course, individuals are free to form new 
syndicates or leave the confederation if they so desire.
</p><p>
With the question of entry into syndicates comes the question of 
whether there would be enough places for those seeking to work 
(what could be termed "unemployment"). Ultimately, there are always 
an objective number of places available in a workplace: there is 
little point having people join a syndicate if there are no machines 
or materials for them to work on! Would a self-managed economy 
ensure that there are enough places available for those who seek
them? 
</p><p>
Perhaps unsurprisingly, neo-classical economics says no and equally
unsurprisingly this conclusion is based not on empirical evidence of
real co-operatives but rather on an abstract model developed in 
1958. The model is based on deducing the implications of assuming 
that a labour-managed (<i>"'Illyrian"</i>) firm will seek to maximise 
net income per worker rather than, in a capitalist firm, maximising 
net profit. This results in various perverse results compared to a 
capitalist firm. This makes a co-operative-based economy extremely 
unstable and inefficient, as well as leading to co-operatives firing 
workers when prices rise as this maximises income per (remaining) 
worker. Thus a co-operative system ends in <i>"producing less output 
and using less labour than its capitalist counterpart."</i> [Benjamin 
Ward, <i>"The Firm in Illyria: Market Syndicalism"</i>, pp. 566-589, 
<b>The American Economic Review</b>, Vol. 48, No. 4, p. 580]
</p><p>
Of course, it would be churlish to note that, unlike the theory, 
actual capitalism is marked by extensive unemployment (as noted in 
<a href="secC1.html#secc15">section C.1.5</a>, this is not surprising
as it is required to secure bosses' power over their wage slaves).
It would be equally churlish to note that, to quote one Yugoslav
economist, this is <i>"a theory whose predictions have absolutely 
nothing to do with the observed facts."</i> [Branko Horvat, <i>"The 
Theory of the Worker-Managed Firm Revisited"</i>, pp. 9-25, <b>Journal 
of Comparative Economics</b>, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 9] As David Ellerman
summarises:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"It might be noted parenthetically that there is a whole
academic literature on what is called the 'Illyrian firm'
. . . The main peculiarity of this model is that it assumes
the firm would expel members when that would increase the 
net income of the surviving members. The resulting short-run
perversities have endeared the model to capitalist economists.
Yet the Illyrian model had been an academic toy in the grand
tradition of much of modern economics. The predicted short-run
behaviour has not been observed in Yugoslavia or elsewhere,
and worker-managed firms such as the Mondragon co-operatives
take membership as a short-run fixed factor . . . Hence we
will continue to treat the Illyrian model with its much-deserved
neglect."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 150]
</blockquote></p><p>
The experience of self-managed collectives during the Spanish Revolution 
also confirms this, with collectives sharing work equitably in order
to avoid laying people off during the harsh economic conditions
caused by the Civil War (for example, one collective <i>"adopted 
a three-day workweek, dividing available work among all those who 
had worked at the plant -- thereby avoiding unemployment -- and 
continued to pay everyone his or her basic salary"</i> [Martha A. 
Ackelsberg, <b>Free Women of Spain</b>, p. 101]).
</p><p>
We need, therefore, to <i>"appeal to empirical reality and common 
sense"</i> when evaluating the claim of neo-classical economics 
on the issue of co-operatives. The <i>"empirical evidence supports"</i> 
the argument that this model is flawed. There <i>"has been no tendency
for workers to lay off co-workers when times are good, neither
in Mondragon nor in Yugoslavia. Even in bad times, layoffs are
rare."</i> Unsurprisingly, <i>"in the short run, a worker-managed firm
responds in the same fashion as a capitalist firm"</i> and workers
are added to the collective to meet increases in demand. [David
Schweickart, <b>Against Capitalism</b>, p. 91, p. 92 and p. 93] A 
conclusion shared by economist Geoffrey M. Hodgson:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Much of the evidence we do have about the behaviour of real-world
worker co-operatives is that they respond to changes in market prices
in a similar manner to the capitalist firm . . . Accordingly, the
basic assumptions in the model are questioned by the evidence."</i>
[<b>Economics and Utopia</b>, pp. 223-4]
</blockquote></p><p>
So, as Branko Horvat observes, in spite of the neo-classical analysis
producing specific predictions the <i>"mere fact that nothing of the 
kind has ever been observed in real-world economies leaves them 
undisturbed."</i> At most they would say that a <i>"self-managed firm 
may not behave as the theory predicts, but this is because it behaves 
irrationally. If something is wrong, it is not the theory but the 
reality."</i> Interestingly, though, if you assume that capitalist 
firms <i>"maximise the rate of profit, profit per unit invested"</i>
rather than total profit then neo-classical theory <i>"generates
equally absurd results."</i> That is why the distinction between short
and long runs was invented, so that in the short run the amount 
of capital is fixed. If this is applied to a co-operative, so that
<i>"in the short run, the work force is fixed"</i> then the alleged 
problems with labour-managed workplaces disappear. Needless to say,
a real co-operative acts on the assumption that the work force is
fixed and as <i>"the workers are no longer hired"</i> this means
that the worker-managers <i>"do not fire their colleagues when business 
is slack; they reduce work time or work for inventories. When the demand 
temporarily increases, they work overtime or contract outside work."</i> 
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 11-13] 
</p><p>
In summary, the neo-classical theory of the labour-managed firm has as 
much relation to a real co-operative as neo-classical economics generally 
does to capitalism. Significantly, "Austrian" economists generally accept 
the neo-classical theory of co-operatives (in part, undoubtedly, as it 
confirms their dislike of all forms of socialism). Even one as sympathetic
to self-management as David L. Prychitko accepts it, simply criticising
because it <i>"reduces the firm to a short-run objective function"</i> and
<i>"as long as market <b>entry</b> is allowed, the labour-managed market 
sheds any possible instability problem."</i> [<b>Markets, Planning and 
Democracy</b>, p. 81] While correct, this criticism totally misses the
point. Yes, in the long run other co-operatives would be set up and
this would increase supply of goods, increase employment and so forth,
yet this should not blind us to the limitations of the assumptions which 
drives the neo-classical theory.
</p><p>
To sum up, syndicates are voluntary associations of workers who manage
their workplace and their own work. Within the syndicate, the decisions
which affect how the workplace develops and changes are in the hands of
those who work there. In addition, it means that each section of the
workforce manages its own activity and sections and that all workers
placed in administration tasks (i.e. <i>"management"</i>) are subject to 
election and recall by those who are affected by their decisions. 
The workers' self-management is discussed in the <a href="secI3.html#seci32">next section</a>. 
</p><p>
Finally, two things. First, as noted in <a href="secG3.html#secg13">section G.1.3</a> 
a few individualist anarchists, although not all, were not opposed to 
(non-exploitative) wage labour and so did not place co-operatives at the
centre of their ideas. This position is very much a minority in the
anarchist tradition as it is not consistent with libertarian principles
nor likely to end the exploitation of labour (see <a href="secG4.html#secg41">section G.4.1</a>), 
so making most anarchists think such individualism is inconsistent anarchism
(see <a href="secG4.html#secg42">section G.4.2</a>). 
Secondly, it is important to note that individuals who do not wish to join 
syndicates will be able to work for themselves. There is no <i>"forced 
collectivisation"</i> under <b>any</b> form of libertarian socialism, because 
coercing people is incompatible with the basic principles of anarchism. 
Those who wish to be self-employed will have free access to the productive 
assets they need, provided that they neither attempt to monopolise more 
of those assets than they and their families can use by themselves nor 
attempt to employ others for wages 
(see <a href="secI3.html#seci37">section I.3.7</a>). 
</p>

<a name="seci32"><h2>I.3.2 What is workers' self-management?</h2></a>

<p>
Quite simply, workers' self-management (sometimes called <i>"workers'
control"</i>) means that all workers affected by a decision have an equal
voice in making it, on the principle of "one worker, one vote." Thus 
<i>"revolution has launched us on the path of industrial democracy."</i> 
[<b>Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon</b>, p. 63] That is, 
workers <i>"ought to be the real managers of industries."</i> [Peter
Kropotkin, <b>Fields, Factories and Workshops Tomorrow</b>, p. 157] This 
is essential to ensure <i>"a society of equals, who will not be compelled 
to sell their hands and their brains to those who choose to employ them 
. . . but who will be able to apply their knowledge and capacities to 
production, in an organism so constructed as to combine all the efforts 
for procuring the greatest possible well-being for all, while full, 
free scope will be left for every individual initiative."</i> [Kropotkin,
<b>Kropotkin: Selections from his Writings</b>, pp. 113-4] As Chomsky
put it:
</p><p>
<blockquote>
<I>"Compassion, solidarity, friendship are also human needs. They are
driving needs, no less than the desire to increase one's share of
commodities or to improve working conditions. Beyond this, I do 
not doubt that it is a fundamental human need to take an active
part in the democratic control of social institutions. If this is
so, then the demand for industrial democracy should become a 
central goal of any revitalised left with a working-class base."</i>
[<b>Radical Priorities</b>, p. 191]
</blockquote>
</p><p>
As noted earlier, however, we need to be careful when using the term 
<i>"workers' control,"</i> as others use it and give it an entirely 
different meaning from the one intended by anarchists. Like the terms 
<i>"anarchist"</i> and <i>"libertarian,"</i> it has been co-opted by 
others to describe less than libertarian schemes.
</p><p>
The first to do so were the Leninists, starting with Lenin, who have 
used the term "workers' control" to describe a situation were workers 
have a limited supervision over either the capitalists or the appointed 
managers of the so-called workers' state. These do not equate to what 
anarchists aim for and, moreover, such limited experiments have not 
lasted long (see <a href="secH3.html#sech314">section H.3.14</a>).
More recently, "workers' control" have been used by capitalists to 
describe schemes in which workers' have more say in how their workplaces 
are run while maintaining wage slavery (i.e. capitalist ownership, power 
and ultimate control). So, in the hands of capitalists, "workers' control" 
is now referred to by such terms as "participation", "co-determination", 
"consensus", "empowerment", "Japanese-style management," etc. <i>"For 
those whose function it is solve the new problems of boredom and alienation 
in the workplace in advanced industrial capitalism, workers' control is seen 
as a hopeful solution"</i>, Sam Dolgoff noted, <i>"a solution in which 
workers are given a modicum of influence, a strictly limited area of 
decision-making power, a voice at best secondary in the control of conditions 
of the workplace. Workers' control, in a limited form sanctioned by the 
capitalists, is held to be the answer to the growing non-economic demands 
of the workers."</i> [<b>The Anarchist Collectives</b>, p. 81]
</p><p>
The new managerial fad of "quality circles" -- meetings where workers 
are encouraged to contribute their ideas on how to improve the company's
product and increase the efficiency with which it is made -- is an example
of "workers' control" as conceived by capitalists. However, when it comes
to questions such as what products to make, where to make them, and
(especially) how revenues from sales should be divided, capitalists 
and managers do not ask for or listen to workers' "input." So much for 
"democratisation," "empowerment," and "participation"! In reality, 
capitalistic "workers control" is merely an another insidious attempt 
to make workers more willing and "co-operative" partners in their own 
exploitation. Needless to say, such schemes are phoney as they never place 
<b>real</b> power in the hands of workers. In the end, the owners and their 
managers have the final say (and so hierarchy remains) and, of course, 
profits are still extracted from the workforce.
</p><p>
Hence anarchists prefer the term <b><i>workers' self-management</i></b>, 
a concept which refers to the exercise of workers' power through 
collectivisation and federation. It means <i>"a transition from private 
to collective ownership"</i> which, in turn, <i>"call[s] for new 
relationships among the members of the working community."</i> [Abel 
Paz, <b>The Spanish Civil War</b>, p. 55] Self-management in this sense 
<i>"is not a new form of mediation between the workers and their capitalist 
bosses, but instead refers to the very process by which the workers 
themselves <b>overthrow</b> their managers and take on their own 
management and the management of production in their own workplace. 
Self-management means the organisation of all workers . . . into a 
workers' council or factory committee (or agricultural syndicate), 
which makes all the decisions formerly made by the owners and managers."</i> 
[Dolgoff, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 81]  Self-management means the end of 
hierarchy and authoritarian social relationships in workplace and their 
replacement by free agreement, collective decision-making, direct 
democracy, social equality and libertarian social relationships. 
</p><p>
As anarchists use the term, workers' self-management means 
collective worker ownership, control and direction of all aspects 
of production, distribution and investment. This is achieved 
through participatory-democratic workers' assemblies, councils
and federations, in both agriculture and industry. These bodies
would perform all the functions formerly reserved for capitalist
owners, managers, executives and financiers where these activities
actually relate to productive activity rather than the needs
to maximise minority profits and power (in which case they would
disappear along with hierarchical management). These workplace 
assemblies will be complemented by people's financial institutions 
or federations of syndicates which perform all functions formerly 
reserved for capitalist owners, executives, and financiers in
terms of allocating investment funds or resources.
</p><p>
Workers' self-management is based around general meetings of the 
whole workforce, held regularly in every industrial or agricultural 
syndicate. These are the source of and final authority over decisions 
affecting policy within the workplace as well as relations with other 
syndicates. These meeting elect workplace councils whose job is to 
implement the decisions of these assemblies and to make the day to day 
administration decisions that will crop up. These councils are directly 
accountable to the workforce and its members subject to re-election and 
instant recall. It is also likely that membership of these councils will 
be rotated between all members of the syndicate to ensure that no one 
monopolises an administrative position. In addition, smaller councils 
and assemblies would be organised for divisions, units and work teams 
as circumstances dictate. 
</p><p>
In this way, workers would manage their own collective affairs
together, as free and equal individuals. They would associate
together to co-operate without subjecting themselves to an 
authority over themselves. Their collective decisions would
remain under their control and power. This means that 
self-management creates <i>"an organisation so constituted that 
by affording everyone the fullest enjoyment of his [or her] 
liberty, it does not permit anyone to rise above the others
nor dominate them in any way but through the natural influence
of the intellectual and moral qualities which he [or she]
possesses, <b>without this influence ever being imposed as
a right and without leaning upon any political institution
whatever.</b>"</i> [<b>The Political Philosophy of Bakunin</b>, p. 271]
Only by convincing your fellow associates of the soundness
of your ideas can those ideas become the agreed plan of the
syndicate. No one is in a position to impose their ideas 
simply because of the post they hold or the work they do. 
</p><p>
Most anarchists think that it is likely that purely administrative 
tasks and decisions would be delegated to elected individuals in
this way, freeing workers and assemblies to concentrate on important 
activities and decisions rather than being bogged down in trivial 
details. As Bakunin put it:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Is not administrative work just as necessary to production as
is manual labour -- if not more so? Of course, production would
be badly crippled, if not altogether suspended, without efficient
and intelligent management. But from the standpoint of elementary
justice and even efficiency, the management of production need
not be exclusively monopolised by one or several individuals.
And managers are not at all entitled to more pay. The co-operative
workers associations have demonstrated that the workers themselves,
choosing administrators from their own ranks, receiving the same
pay, can efficiency control and operate industry. The monopoly
of administration, far from promoting the efficiency of production,
on the contrary only enhances the power and privileges of the
owners and their managers."</i> [<b>Bakunin on Anarchism</b>, p. 424]
</blockquote></p><p>
What is important is that what is considered as important or trivial, 
policy or administration rests with the people affected by the decisions 
and subject to their continual approval. Anarchists do not make a 
fetish of direct democracy and recognise that there is more important
things in life than meetings and voting! While workers' assemblies
play the key role in self-management, it is not the focal point
of <b>all</b> decisions. Rather it is the place where all the important
policy decisions are made, administrative decisions are ratified
or rejected and what counts as a major decision determined. Needless
to say, what is considered as important issues will be decided
upon by the workers themselves in their assemblies.
</p><p>
Unsurprisingly, anarchists argue that, as well as being more free, 
workers self-management is more efficient and productive than the 
hierarchical capitalist firm (efficiency here means accomplishing 
goals without wasting valued assets). Capitalist firms fail to tap 
humanitys vast reservoir of practical knowledge, indeed they block 
it as any application of that knowledge is used to enrich the owners 
rather than those who generate and use it. Thus the hierarchical firm 
disenfranchises employees and reduces them to the level of order-takers 
with an obvious loss of information, knowledge and insight (as 
discussed in <a href="secI1.html#seci11">section I.1.1</a>). With 
self-management, that vast source of knowledge and creativity can be
expressed. Thus, self-management and worker ownership <i>"should also 
reap other rewards through the greater motivation and productivity of 
the workers."</i> [David Ellerman, <b>The Democratic Worker-Owned Firm</b>, 
p. 139] 
</p><p>
This explains why some firms try to simulate workers' control (by 
profit-sharing or "participation" schemes). For, as market socialist 
David Schweickart notes, <i>"the empirical evidence is overwhelming"</i> 
and supports those who argue for workers' participation. The <i>"evidence 
is strong that both worker participation in management and profit sharing 
tend to enhance productivity and that worker-run enterprises often are 
more productive than their capitalist counterparts."</i> [<b>Against 
Capitalism</b>, p. 100] In fact, 94% of 226 studies into this issue 
showed a positive impact, with 60% being statistically significant, 
and so the empirical evidence is <i>"generally supportive of a positive 
link between profit sharing and productivity."</i> This applies to 
co-operatives as well. [Martin L. Weitzman and Douglas L. Kruse, 
<i>"Profit Sharing and Productivity"</i>, pp. 95-140, <b>Paying for 
Productivity</b>, Alan S. Blinder (ed.), p. 137, p. 139 and pp. 131-2] 
Another study concludes that the <i>"available evidence is strongly 
suggestive that for employee ownership . . . to have a strong impact 
on performance, it needs to be accompanied by provisions for worker 
participation in decision making."</i> In addition, <i>"narrow differences 
in wages and status"</i>, as anarchists have long argued, <i>"increase 
productivity"</i>. [David I. Levine and Laura D'Andrea Tyson, 
<i>"Participation, Productivity, and the Firm's Environment"</i>, 
pp. 183-237, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 210 and p. 211]
</p><p>
This should be unsurprising, for as Geoffrey M. Hodgson notes, the 
neo-classical model of co-operatives <i>"wrongly assume[s] that social
relations and technology are separable . . . Yet we have much evidence
. . . to support the contention that participation and co-operation
can increase technological efficiency. Production involves people
-- their ideas and aspirations -- and not simply machines operating
under the laws of physics. It seems that, in their search for pretty
diagrams and tractable mathematical models, mainstream economists 
often forget this."</i> [<b>Economics and Utopia</b>, p. 223] 
</p><p>
Therefore anarchists have strong evidence to support Herbert Read's 
comment that libertarian socialism would <i>"provide a standard of 
living far higher than that realised under any previous form of 
social organisation."</i> [<b>Anarchy and Order</b>, p. 49] It
confirms Cole's comment that the <i>"key to real efficiency is
self-government; and any system that is not based upon self-government
is not only servile, but also inefficient. Just as the labour of the
wage-slave is better than the labour of the chattel-slave, so . . . 
will the labour of the free man [and woman] be better than either."</i>
[<b>Self-Government in Industry</b>, p. 157] Yet it is important 
to remember, as important as this evidence is, real social change 
comes not from "efficiency" concerns but from ideals and principles.
While anarchists are confident that workers' self-management will be
more efficient and productive than capitalism, this is a welcome
side-effect of the deeper goal of increasing freedom. The evidence
confirms that freedom is the best solution for social problems but
if, for example, slavery or wage-labour proved to be more productive 
than free, associated, labour it does not make them more desirable!
</p><p>
A self-managed workplace, like a self-managed society in general,
does not mean that specialised knowledge (where it is meaningful)
will be neglected or not taken into account. Quite the opposite.
Specialists (i.e. workers who are interested in a given area of
work and gain an extensive understanding of it) are part of the
assembly of the workplace, just like other workers. They can
and have to be listened to, like anyone else, and their expert
advice included in the decision making process. Anarchists do
not reject the idea of expertise nor the rational authority 
associated with it. As we indicated in 
<a href="secB1.html">section B.1</a>, anarchists 
recognise the difference between being <i><b>an</b></i> authority (i.e. 
having knowledge of a given subject) and being <i><b>in</b></i> authority 
(i.e. having power over someone else). as discussed in 
<a href="secH4.html">section H.4</a>, we reject the latter
and respect the former.
</p><p>
Such specialisation does not imply the end of self-management,
but rather the opposite. <i>"The greatest intelligence,"</i> Bakunin
argued, <i>"would not be equal to a comprehension of the whole.
Thence results, for science as well as industry, the necessity of the 
division and association of labour."</i> [<b>God and the State</b>, 
p. 33] Thus specialised knowledge is part of the associated workers
and not placed above them in positions of power. The other workers 
in a syndicate can compliment the knowledge of the specialists with 
the knowledge of the work process they have gained by working and so 
enrich the decision. Knowledge is distributed throughout society and 
only a society of free individuals associated as equals and managing 
their own activity can ensure that it is applied effectively (part of
the inefficiency of capitalism results from the barriers to knowledge 
and information flow created by its hierarchical workplace).
</p><p>
A workplace assembly is perfectly able to listen to an engineer,
for example, who suggests various ways of reaching various goals
(i.e. if you want X, you would have to do A or B. If you
do A, then C, D and E is required. If B is decided upon, then
F, G, H and I are entailed). But it is the assembly, <b>not</b> the 
engineer, that decides what goals and methods to be implemented.
As Cornelius Castoriadis put it: <i>"We are not saying: people
will have to decide <b>what</b> to do, and then technicians will
tell them <b>how</b> to do it. We say: after listening to technicians, 
people will decide what to do <b>and</b> how to do it. For the <b>how</b> 
is not neutral -- and the <b>what</b> is not disembodied. What and 
how are neither <b>identical</b>, nor <b>external</b> to each other. A
'neutral' technique is, of course, an illusion. A conveyor
belt is linked to a type of product <b>and</b> a type of producer
-- and vice versa."</i> [<b>Social and Political Writings</b>, vol. 3,
p. 265]
</p><p>
However, we must stress that while an anarchist society would
"inherit" a diverse level of expertise and specialisation
from class society, it would not take this as unchangeable.
Anarchists argue for <b><i>"all-round"</i></b> (or integral) education as
a means of ensuring that everyone has a basic knowledge or
understanding of science, engineering and other specialised
tasks. As Bakunin argued, <i>"in the interests of both labour
and science . . . there should no longer be either workers
or scholars but only human beings."</i> Education must <i>"prepare
every child of each sex for the life of thought as well as
for the life of labour."</i> [<b>The Basic Bakunin</b>, p. 116 and
p. 119] This does not imply the end of all specialisation 
(individuals will, of course, express their individuality 
and know more about certain subjects than others) but it 
does imply the end of the artificial specialisation developed 
under capitalism which tries to deskill and disempower the 
wage worker by concentrating knowledge into hands of management.
</p><p>
And, just to state the obvious, self-management does not imply
that the mass of workers decide on the application of specialised
tasks. Self-management implies the autonomy of those who do the 
work as well as collective decision making on collective issues.
For example, in a self-managed hospital the cleaning staff
would not have a say in the doctors' treatment of patients just
as the doctors would not tell the cleaners how to do their work
(of course, it is likely that an anarchist society will <b>not</b>
have people whose work is simply to clean and nothing else, 
we just use this as an example people will understand). All
members of a syndicate would have a say in what happens in the 
workplace as it affects them collectively, but individual workers
and groups of workers would manage their own activity within that 
collective.
</p><p>
Needless to say, self-management abolishes the division of labour
inherent in capitalism between order takers and order givers. It
integrates (to use Kropotkin's words) brain work and manual work
by ensuring that those who do the work also manage it and that a
workplace is managed by those who use it. Such an integration of
labour will, undoubtedly, have a massive impact in terms of
productivity, innovation and efficiency. As Kropotkin argued,
the capitalist firm has a negative impact on those subject
to its hierarchical and alienating structures:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"The worker whose task has been specialised by the permanent
division of labour has lost the intellectual interest in his
[or her] labour, and it is especially so in the great
industries; he has lost his inventive powers. Formerly, he
[or she] invented very much . . . But since the great factory
has been enthroned, the worker, depressed by the monotony of
his [or her] work, invents no more."</i> [<b>Fields, Factories and
Workshops Tomorrow</b>, p. 171]
</blockquote></p><p>
Must all the skills, experience and intelligence that very 
one has be swept away or crushed by hierarchy? Or could it 
not become a new fertile source of progress under a better
organisation of production? Self-management would ensure
that the independence, initiative and inventiveness of 
workers (which disappears under wage slavery) comes to the
fore and is applied. Combined with the principles of 
<i>"all-round"</i> (or integral) education (see 
<a href="secJ5.html#secj513">section J.5.13</a>)
who can deny that working people could transform the
current economic system to ensure <i>"well-being for all"</i>?
And we must stress that by <i>"well-being"</i> we mean well-being 
in terms of meaningful, productive activity in humane 
surroundings and using appropriate technology, in terms 
of goods of utility and beauty to help create strong, 
healthy bodies and in terms of surroundings which are 
inspiring to live in and ecologically integrated.
</p><p>
Little wonder Kropotkin argued that self-management and the 
<i>"erasing [of] the present distinction between the brain workers 
and manual worker"</i> would see <i>"social benefits"</i> arising from 
<i>"the concordance of interest and harmony so much wanted in our times 
of social struggles"</i> and <i>"the fullness of life which would result 
for each separate individual, if he [or she] were enabled to enjoy the 
use of both . . .  mental and bodily powers."</i> This is in addition 
to the <i>"increase of wealth which would result from having . . . 
educated and well-trained producers."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 180]
</p><p>
Let us not forget that today workers <b>do</b> manage their own working 
time to a considerable extent. The capitalist may buy a hour of a 
workers' time but they have to ensure that the worker follows their
orders during that time. Workers resist this imposition and this results
in considerable shop-floor conflict. Frederick Taylor, for example,
introduced his system of <i>"scientific management"</i> in part to try and
stop workers managing their own working activity. As David Noble notes,
workers <i>"paced themselves for many reason: to keep time for themselves,
to avoid exhaustion, to exercise authority over their work, to avoid
killing so-called gravy piece-rate jobs by overproducing and risking
a pay cut, to stretch out available work for fear of layoffs, to
exercise their creativity, and, last but not least, to express their
solidarity and their hostility to management."</i> These were <i>"[c]oupled 
with collective co-operation with their fellows on the floor"</i> and 
<i>"labour-prescribed norms of behaviour"</i> to achieve <i>"shop floor control
over production."</i> [<b>Forces of Production</b>, p. 33] This is
why <i>working to rule"</i> is such an efficient weapon in the class
struggle (see <a href="secH4.html#sech44">section H.4.4</a>) In other 
words, workers naturally tend towards self-management anyway and it is 
this natural movement towards liberty during work hours which is combated
by bosses (who wins, of course, depends on objective and subjective
pressures which swing the balance of power towards labour or capital).
</p><p>
Self-management will built upon this already existing unofficial
workers control over production and, of course, our knowledge of
the working process which actually doing it creates. The conflict 
over who controls the shop floor -- either those who do the work or 
those who give the orders -- not only shows that self-management is 
<b>possible</b> but also show how it can come about as it brings to 
the fore the awkward fact that while the bosses need us, we do not 
need them!
</p>

<a name="seci33"><h2>I.3.3 What does socialisation mean?</h2></a>

<p>
A key aspect of anarchism is the socialisation of the means of
life. This means that the land, housing, workplaces and so forth
become common property, usable by all who need them. Thus Emma
Goldman's summary:
</p><p>
<blockquote>
<i>"That each and every individual is and ought to be free to own 
himself and to enjoy the full fruit of his labour; that man is 
absolved from all allegiance to the kings of authority and 
capital; that he has, by the very fact of his being, free 
access to the land and all means of production, and entire
liberty of disposing of the fruits of his efforts; that each and
every individual has the unquestionable right of free and voluntary 
association with other equally sovereign individuals for economic, 
political, social, and other purposes, and that to achieve this end
man must emancipate himself from the sacredness of property, the 
respect for man-made law, the fear of the Church, the cowardice of
public opinion, the stupid arrogance of national, racial, religious,
and sex superiority, and from the narrow puritanical conception of
human life."</i> [<b>A Documentary History of the American Years</b>, vol. 2,
pp. 450-1]
</blockquote>
</p><p>
This is required because private ownership of collectively used 
"property" (such as workplaces and land) results in a situation
where the many have to sell their labour (i.e., liberty) to the
few who own it. This creates hierarchical and authoritarian social
relationships as well as economic classes. For anarchists, society 
cannot be divided into <i>"a possessing and a non-possessing"</i> 
class system as this is <i>"a condition of social injustice"</i> as well as
making the state <i>"indispensable to the possessing minority 
for the protection of its privileges."</i> [Rudolf Rocker, 
<b>Anarcho-Syndicalism</b>, p. 11] In other words, <i>"as long as land 
and capital are unappropriated, the workers are free, and that, 
when these have a master, the workers also are slaves."</i> 
[Charlotte M. Wilson, <b>Anarchist Essays</b>, p. 21]
</p><p>
While there is a tendency by state socialists and the right to
equate socialisation with nationalisation, there are key differences
which the different names signify. Nationalisation, in practice
and usually in theory, means that the means of life become state
property. This means that rather than those who need and use a 
specific part of the co-operative commonwealth deciding what to
do with it, the government does. As we discussed in 
<a href="secB3.html#secb35">section B.3.5</a> this would just 
be state capitalism, with the state replacing the current 
capitalist and landlords.
</p><p>
As Emma Goldman argued, there is a clear difference between socialisation 
and nationalisation. <i>"The first requirement of Communism,"</i> she 
argued, <i>"is the socialisation of the land and of the machinery 
of production and distribution. Socialised land and machinery 
belong to the people, to be settled upon and used by individuals 
and groups according to their needs."</i> Nationalisation, on the 
other hand, means that a resource <i>"belongs to the state; that is, 
the government has control of it and may dispose of it according
to its wishes and views."</i> She stressed that <i>"when a thing is
socialised, every individual has free access to it and may
use it without interference from anyone."</i> When the state
owned property, <i>"[s]uch a state of affairs may be called
state capitalism, but it would be fantastic to consider it
in any sense communistic."</i> [<b>Red Emma Speaks</b>, pp. 406-7]
</p><p>
Socialisation aims at replacing property rights by use rights. The 
key to understanding socialisation is to remember that it is about 
<b>free access</b>. In other words, that every one has the same 
rights to the means of life as everyone else, that no one is exploited 
or oppressed by those who own the means of life. In the words of 
Herbert Read: 
</p><p>
<blockquote>
<i>"The essential principle of anarchism is that mankind has reached
a stage of development at which it is possible to abolish the old
relationship of master-man (capitalist-proletarian) and substitute
a relationship of egalitarian co-operation. This principle is based,
not only on ethical ground, but also on economic grounds."</i> 
[<b>Anarchy and Order</b>, p. 92]
</blockquote>
</p><p>
This implies two things. Firstly, that the means of life are common
property, without an owning class. Secondly, there is free association 
between equals within any association and so industrial democracy (or
self-management). 
</p><p>
This has been an anarchist position as long as anarchism has been 
called anarchism. Thus we find Proudhon arguing in 1840 that <i>"the 
land is indispensable to our existence"</i> and <i>"consequently a common 
thing, consequently insusceptible of appropriation"</i> and that <i>"all 
accumulated capital being social property, no one can be its exclusive 
proprietor."</i> This means <i>"the farmer does not appropriate the field 
which he sows"</i> and <i>"all capital . . . being the result of collective 
labour"</i> is <i>"collective property."</i> Without this there is inequality
and a restriction of freedom as <i>"the working-man holds his labour 
by the condescension and necessities of the master and proprietor."</i>
The <i>"civilised labourer who bakes a loaf that he may eat a slice of 
bread . . . is not free. His employer . . . is his enemy."</i> In fact, 
<i>"neither a commercial, nor an industrial, nor an agricultural
association can be conceived of in the absence of equality."</i> The aim
was a society of <i>"possessors without masters"</i> rather than wage-labourers 
and tenants <i>"controlled by proprietors."</i> Within any economic association 
there would be democracy, with <i>"leaders, instructors, superintendents"</i>
and so forth being <i>"chosen from the labourers by the labourers themselves, 
and must fulfil the conditions of eligibility. It is the same with all 
public functions, whether of administration or instruction."</i> [<b>What is 
Property?</b>, p. 107, p. 130, p. 153, p. 128, p. 142, p. 227, p. 167 and 
p. 137] 
</p><p>
This meant <i>"democratically organised workers associations"</i> and 
<i>"[u]nder the law of association, transmission of wealth does not 
apply to the instruments of labour, so cannot become a cause of 
inequality."</i> [Proudhon, <b>No Gods, No Masters</b>, vol. 1., p. 62] 
Thus workplaces <i>"are the common and undivided property of all 
those who take part therein"</i> rather than <i>"companies of 
stockholders who plunder the bodies and souls of the wage 
workers."</i> This meant free access, with <i>"every individual 
employed in the association"</i> having <i>"an undivided share 
in the property of the company"</i> and has <i>"a right to fill 
any position"</i> as <i>"all positions are elective, and the 
by-laws subject to the approval of the members."</i> Each 
member <i>"shall participate in the gains and in the losses of 
the company, in proportion to his [or her] services."</i> [Proudhon, 
<b>General Idea of the Revolution</b>, p. 219 and p. 222] Proudhon's 
idea of free credit from a People's Bank, it should be noted, is 
another example of free access, of socialisation. Needless to 
say, anarchists like Bakunin and Kropotkin based their arguments 
for socialisation on this vision of self-managed workplaces and 
free access to the means of life. For Bakunin, for example, 
<i>"the land, the instruments of work and all other capital may
become the collective property of the whole of society and be
utilised only by the workers, on other words, by the agricultural
and industrial associations."</i> [<b>Michael Bakunin: Selected 
Writings</b>, p. 174] 
</p><p>
So the means of production are socialised in the mutualism, collectivism 
and communism and all rest on the same principle of equal access. So 
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 the free association 
of equals. 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 organisation which 
they have no say in (see <a href="secB1.html">section B.1</a>).
</p><p>
Socialisation would mean that workplaces would become <i>"little 
republics of workingmen."</i> [Proudhon, quoted by Dorothy W. 
Douglas, <i>"Proudhon: A Prophet of 1848: Part II"</i>, pp. 35-59, 
<b>The American Journal of Sociology</b>, Vol. 35, No. 1, p. 45]
As economist David Ellerman explains, the democratic workplace 
<i>"is a social community, a community of work rather than a 
community residence. It is a republic, or <b>res publica</b> of 
the workplace. The ultimate governance rights are assigned 
as personal rights . . . to the people who work in the firm 
. . . This analysis shows how a firm can be socialised and 
yet remain 'private' in the sense of not being government-owned."</i>
As noted in <a href="secI3.html#seci31">section I.3.1</a>, this
means the end of the labour market as there would be free access
to workplaces and so workers would not be wage-labourers employed
by bosses. Instead, there would be a people seeking associations
to join and associations seeking new associates to work with.
<i>"Instead of abolishing the employment relation,"</i> Ellerman 
argues, <i>"state socialism nationalised it . . . Only the 
democratic firm -- where the workers are jointly self-employed -- 
is a genuine alternatives to private or public employment."</i>
[<b>The Democratic Worker-Owned Firm</b>, p. 76 and p. 209]
</p><p>
So libertarian socialism is based on decentralised decision making 
within the framework of socially-owned but independently-run and 
worker-self-managed syndicates. The importance of socialisation 
should not be downplayed. This is because the self-management of 
work is not sufficient in and of itself to ensure an anarchist 
society. Under feudalism, the peasants managed their own labour 
but such a regime was hardly libertarian for, at a minimum, the
peasants paid the landlord rent. An industrial equivalent can be 
imagined, where workers hire workplaces and land from capitalists 
and landlords. As left-wing economist Geoffrey M. Hodgson suggests:
</p><p>
<blockquote>
<i>"Assume that the workers are self-employed but do not own all 
the means of production. In this case there still may be powerful
owners of factories, offices and machines . . . the owners of 
the means of production would still receive an income, emanating
from that ownership. In bargaining with these owners, the workers
would be required to concede the claim of these owners to an 
income, as they would be unable to produce without making use of 
the means of production owned by others. Hence the workers would
still be deprived of . . . 'surplus value'. Profits would still
derive from ownership of the means of production."</i> [<b>Economics 
and Utopia</b>, p. 168]
</blockquote>
</p><p>
This would not be (libertarian) socialism (as workers would still be 
exploited) nor would it be capitalism (as there is no wage labour as 
such, although there would be a proletariat). Thus genuine anarchism 
requires socialisation of the means of life, which ensures free 
access (no usury). In other words, self-management (while an
essential part of anarchism) is not sufficient to make a society
anarchistic. Without socialism (free access to the means of life)
it would be yet another class system and rooted in exploitation.
To eliminate all exploitation, social anarchists propose that 
productive assets such as workplaces and land be owned by society 
as a whole and run by syndicates and self-employed individuals. Thus 
Kropotkin: <i>"Free workers, on free land, with free machinery, and 
freely using all the powers given to man by science."</i> [<b>Act 
for Yourselves</b>, p. 102]
</p><p>
This vision of socialisation, of free access, also applies to 
housing. Proudhon, for example, suggested that payments of rent 
in housing under capitalism would be <i>"carried over to the account
of the purchase of the property"</i> and once paid for the house
<i>"shall pass under the control of the town administration . . . 
in the name of all the tenants, and shall guarantee them all a 
domicile, in perpetuity, at the cost of the building."</i> Rented 
farm land would be the same and would, once paid for, <i>"revert 
immediately to the town, which shall take the place of the former 
proprietor."</i> Provision <i>"shall be made for the supervision of 
the towns, for the installation of cultivators, and for the fixing 
of the boundaries of possessions."</i> [<b>General Idea of the 
Revolution</b>, p. 194 and p. 199] Kropotkin had a similar end
in mind, namely <i>"the abolition of rent"</i>, but by different
means, namely by <i>"the expropriation of houses"</i> during 
a social revolution. This would be <i>"the communalising of
houses and the right of each family to a decent dwelling."</i>
[<b>The Conquest of Bread</b>, p. 91 and p. 95]
</p><p>
It is important to note here that while anarchists tend to stress 
communes (see <a href="secI5.html">section I.5</a>) this does <b>not</b> imply
communal living in the sense of one-big family. As Kropotkin, for
example, was at pains to stress such continual communal living 
is <i>"repugnant to millions of human beings. The most reserved man
[and woman] certainly feels the necessity of meeting his [or her]
fellows for the pursue of common work . . . But it is not so for
the hours of leisure, reserved for rest and intimacy."</i> Communal 
living in the sense of a human bee-hive <i>"can please some, and even
all at a certain period of their life, but the great mass prefers
family life (family life of the future, be it understood). They
prefer isolated apartments."</i> A community living together under 
one roof <i>"would be hateful, were it the general rule. Isolation,
alternating with time spent in society, is the normal desire of
human nature."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 123-4] Thus
the aim is <i>"Communism, but not the monastic or barrack-room 
Communism formerly advocated [by state socialists], but the free
Communism which places the products reaped or manufactured at 
the disposal of all, leaving to each the liberty to consume them 
as he pleases in his [or her] own home."</i> [<b>The Place of 
Anarchism in the Evolution of Socialist Thought</b>, p. 7] Needless 
to say, each household, like each workplace, would be under the 
control of its users and socialisation exists to ensure that 
remains the case (i.e., that people cannot become tenants/subjects 
of  landlords).
</p><p>
See <a href="secI6.html">section I.6</a> for a discussion of how 
socialisation and free access could work.
</p><p>
Beyond this basic vision of self-management and socialisation, the
schools of anarchism vary. Mutualism eliminates wage labour and unites 
workers with the means of production they use. Such a system is 
socialist as it is based on self-management and workers' control/ownership 
of the means of production. However, other social anarchists argue that
such a system is little more than "petit-bourgeois co-operativism"
in which the worker-owners of the co-operatives compete in the 
marketplace with other co-operatives for customers, profits, raw 
materials, etc. -- a situation that could result in many of the same 
problems that arise under capitalism or even a return to capitalism
(see <a href="secI1.html#seci13">section I.1.3</a>). 
Some Mutualists recognise this danger. Proudhon,
as discussed in <a href="secI3.html#seci35">section I.3.5</a>,
advocated an agro-industrial federation to combat the effects 
of market forces in generating inequality and wage labour.
In addition, supporters of mutualism can point to the fact that 
existing co-operatives rarely fire their members and are far more 
egalitarian in nature than corresponding capitalist firms. This 
they argue will ensure that mutualism will remain socialist, with 
easy credit available to those who are made unemployed to start 
their own co-operatives again.
</p><p>
In contrast, within anarcho-collectivism and anarcho-communism 
society as a whole owns the means of life, which allows for the 
elimination of both competition for survival and the tendency for 
workers to develop a proprietary interest the enterprises in which 
they work. As Kropotkin argued, <i>"[t]here is no reason why the 
factory . . . should not belong to the community . . . It is evident 
that now, under the capitalist system, the factory is the curse of 
the village, as it comes to overwork children and to make paupers 
of its male inhabitants; and it is quite natural that it should be 
opposed by all means by the workers . . . But under a more rational 
social organisation, the factory would find no such obstacles; it 
would be a boon to the village."</i> Needless to say, such a workplace 
would be based on workers' self-management, as <i>"the workers . . . 
ought to be the real managers of industries."</i> [<b>Fields, 
Factories and Workshops Tomorrow</b>, p. 152 and p. 157] This 
<i>"socially organised industrial production"</i> (to use Kropotkin's 
term) would ensure a decent standard of living without the problems 
associated with a market, even a non-capitalist one. 
</p><p>
In other words, the economy is communalised, with land and the means 
of production being turned into common "property". The community
determines the social and ecological framework for production while the
workforce makes the day-to-day decisions about what to produce and how 
to do it. This is because a system based purely on workplace assemblies
effectively disenfranchises those individuals who do not work but live with
the effects of production (e.g., ecological disruption). In Murray
Bookchin's words, the aim would be to advance <i>"a holistic approach
to an ecologically oriented economy"</i> with key policy decisions 
<i>"made by citizens in face-to-face assemblies -- as <b>citizens</b>,
not simply as workers, farmers, or professionals . . . As citizens,
they would function in such assemblies by their highest level --
their <b>human</b> level -- rather than as socially ghettoised beings.
They would express their general human interests, not their 
particular status interests."</i> These communalised economies
would join with others  <i>"into a regional confederal system. 
Land, factories, and workshops would be controlled by the popular
assemblies of free communities, not by a nation-state or by 
worker-producers who might very well develop a proprietary interest
in them."</i> [<b>Remaking Society</b>, p. 194] 
</p><p>
An important difference between workplace and community assemblies is 
that the former can be narrow in focus while the latter can give a hearing 
to solutions that bring out the common ground of people as people rather
than as workers in a specific workplace or industry. This would be in the 
context of communal participation, through face-to-face voting of the whole 
community in local neighbourhood and confederal assemblies, which will be 
linked together through voluntary federations. It does <b>not</b> mean that 
the state owns the means of production, as under Marxism-Leninism or social 
democracy, because there is no state under libertarian socialism (for 
more on community assemblies, see <a href="secI5.html">section I.5</a>).
</p><p>
This means that when a workplace is communalised workers' self-management is
placed within the broader context of the community, becoming an aspect of
community control. This does not mean that workers' do not control what 
they do or how they do it. Rather, it means that the framework within which
they make their decisions is determined by the community. For example,
the local community may decide that production should maximise recycling
and minimise pollution, and workers informed of this decision make
investment and production decisions accordingly. In addition, consumer
groups and co-operatives may be given a voice in the confederal congresses 
of syndicates or even in the individual workplaces (although it would
be up to local communities to decide whether this would be practical or
not). In these ways, consumers could have a say in the administration
of production and the type and quality of the product, adding their
voice and interests in the creation as well as the consumption of
a product.
</p><p>
Given the general principle of social ownership and the absence of a
state, there is considerable leeway regarding the specific forms that
collectivisation might take -- for example, in regard to methods of
distribution, the use or non-use of money, etc. -- as can be seen
by the different systems worked out in various areas of Spain during the
Revolution of 1936-39. Nevertheless, freedom is undermined when 
some communities are poor while others are wealthy. Therefore the method 
of surplus distribution must insure that all communities have an adequate 
share of pooled revenues and resources held at higher levels of confederation 
as well as guaranteed minimum levels of public services and provisions to 
meet basic human needs. That is why anarchists have supported the need
for syndicates and communities to federate (see 
<a href="secI3.html#seci34">next section</a>)
</p><p>
Finally, one key area of disagreement between anarchist schools is how 
far socialisation should go. Mutualists think that it should only
include the means of production while communist-anarchists argue
that socialisation, to be consistent, must embrace what is 
produced as well as what produced it. Collectivist-anarchists
tend to agree with mutualists on this, although many think that,
over time, the economy would evolve into communism as the legacies
of capitalism and scarcity are overcome. Proudhon spoke for the 
mutualists:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"This, then, is the first point settled: property in product, if we 
grant so much, does not carry with it property in the means of 
production; that seems to me to need no further demonstration . . . 
all . . . are proprietors of their products -- not one is proprietor 
of the means of production. The right to product is exclusive --
<b>jus in re</b>; the right to means is common -- <b>jus ad rem</b>."</i> 
[<b>What is Property?</b>, pp. 120-1] 
</blockquote></p><p>
For libertarian communists, socialisation should be extended to the
products of labour as well. This means that as well as having free
access to the means of production, people would also have free 
access to the goods and services produced by them. Again, this does
not imply people having to share the possessions they use. Rather
it means that instead of having to buy the goods in question they
are distributed freely, according to need. To maintain socialisation
of the means of product but not in goods means basing society <i>"on
two absolutely opposed principles, two principles that contradict 
one another continually."</i> [Kropotkin, <b>The Conquest of Bread</b>, 
p. 163] The need is to go beyond the abolition of wage labour into 
the abolition of money (the wages system). This is because any attempt 
at measuring a person's contribution to society will be flawed and,
more importantly, people <i>"differ from one another by the amount 
of their <b>needs</b>. There is the young unmarried woman and the 
mother of a family of five or six children. For the employer of our 
days there is no consideration of the needs of"</i> each and <i>"the 
labour cheque . . . acts in the same way."</i> [Kropotkin, <b>Act 
For Yourselves</b>, pp. 108-9]
</p><p>
Regardless of precisely which mode of distribution specific individuals,
workplaces, communes or areas picks, socialisation would be underlying
all. Free access to the means of production will ensure free individuals,
including the freedom to experiment with different anarchistic economic
systems.
</p>

<a name="seci34"><h2>I.3.4 What relations would exist between individual syndicates?</h2></a>

<p>
Just as individuals associate together to work on and overcome common
problems, so would syndicates. Few, if any, workplaces are totally
independent of others. They require raw materials as inputs and consumers
for their products. Therefore there will be links between different
syndicates. These links are twofold: firstly, free agreements between
individual syndicates; secondly, confederations of syndicates (within
branches of industry and regionally). 
</p><p>
Combined with this desire for free co-operation is a desire to end 
centralised systems. The opposition to centralisation is often framed 
in a distinctly false manner. This can be seen when Alex Nove, a leading 
market socialist, argued that <i>"there are horizontal links (market), 
there are vertical links (hierarchy). What other dimension is there?"</i> 
[<b>The Economics of Feasible Socialism</b>, p. 226] In other words, to 
oppose central planning means to embrace the market. This is not true:
horizontal links need not be market based any more than vertical links 
need be hierarchical. An anarchist society must be based essentially 
on horizontal links between individuals and associations, freely 
co-operating together as they (not a central body) sees fit. This 
co-operation will be source of many links in an anarchist economy. 
When a group of individuals or associations meet together and discuss 
common interests and make common decisions they will be bound by their 
own decisions. This is radically different from a central body 
giving out orders because those affected will determine the content 
of these decisions. In other words, instead of decisions being handed 
down from the top, they will be created from the bottom up. 
</p><p>
Let us consider free agreement. Anarchists recognise the importance 
of letting people organise their own lives. This means that they 
reject central planning and instead urge direct links between 
workers' associations. In the words of Kropotkin, <i>"[f]ree workers 
would require a free organisation, and this cannot have any other 
basis than free agreement and free co-operation, without sacrificing 
the autonomy of the individual."</i> Those directly involved in 
production (and in consumption) know their needs far better than 
any bureaucrat. Thus voluntary agreement is the basis of a free economy, 
such agreements being <i>"entered by free consent, as a free choice between 
different courses equally open to each of the agreeing parties."</i> 
[<b>Anarchism</b>, p. 52 and p. 69] Without the concentration of wealth 
and power associated with capitalism, free agreement will become real 
and no longer a mask for hierarchy. 
</p><p>
The anarchist economy <i>"starts from below, not from above. Like an organism, 
this free society grows into being from the simple unit up to the complex 
structure. The need for . . . the individual struggle for life"</i> is 
<i>"sufficient to set the whole complex social machinery in motion. Society 
is the result of the individual struggle for existence; it is not, as many 
suppose, opposed to it."</i> So anarchists think that <i>"[i]n the same way 
that each free individual has associated with his brothers [and sisters!] 
to produce . . . all that was necessary for life, driven by no other force 
than his [or her] desire for the full enjoyment of life, so each institution 
is free and self-contained, and co-operates and enters into agreements with 
others because by so doing it extends its own possibilities."</i> This 
suggests a decentralised economy -- even more decentralised than capitalism 
(which is decentralised only in capitalist mythology, as shown by big 
business and transnational corporations, for example) -- one <i>"growing 
ever more closely bound together and interwoven by free and mutual 
agreements."</i> [George Barrett, <b>The Anarchist Revolution</b>, p. 18] 
</p><p>
An anarchist economy would be based on spontaneous order as workers 
practised mutual aid and free association. For communist anarchists, 
this would take the form of <i>"free exchange without the medium of 
money and without profit, on the basis of requirement and the supply 
at hand."</i> [Alexander Berkman, <b>What is Anarchism?</b>, p. 217]
<i>"Anarchists"</i>, summarised Rocker, <i>"desire a federation of free 
communities which shall be bound to one another by their common economic 
and social interest and shall arrange their affairs by mutual agreement 
and free contract."</i> [<b>Anarcho-Syndicalism</b>, p. 1] An example 
of one such agreement would be orders for products and services: 
</p><p>
<blockquote>
<i>"This factory of ours is, then, to the fullest extent consistent 
with the character of its service, a self-governing unit, managing  its 
own productive operations, and free to experiment to the heart's content 
in new methods, to develop new styles and products. . . This autonomy of 
the factory is the safeguard. . . against the dead level of mediocrity, 
the more than adequate substitute for the variety which the competitive 
motive was once supposed to stimulate, the guarantee of liveliness, and
of individual work and workmanship."</i> [G.D.H. Cole, <b>Guild Socialism 
Restated</b>, p. 59]
</blockquote>
</p><p>
This means that free agreement will ensure that customers would be 
able to choose their own suppliers, meaning that production units would 
know whether they were producing what their customers wanted, when they
wanted it (i.e., whether they were meeting individual and social needs). 
If they were not, customers would go elsewhere, to other production units
within the same branch of production. We should stress that in addition
to this negative check (i.e. "exit" by consumers) it is likely, via
consumer groups and co-operatives as well as communes, that workplaces
will be subject to positive checks on what they produced. Consumer
groups, by formulating and communicating needs to producer groups,
will have a key role in ensuring the quality of production and goods
and that it satisfies their needs (see 
<a href="secI4.html#seci47">section I.4.7</a> for more details
of this).
</p><p>
These direct horizontal links between syndicates are essential to
ensure that goods are produced which meet the needs of those who
requested them. Without specific syndicates requesting specific 
goods at specific times to meet specific requirements, an economy 
will not meet people's needs. A central plan, for example, which 
states that 1 million tonnes of steel or 25 million shirts need to 
be produced in a year says nothing about what specifically needs 
to be produced and when, which depends on how it will be used and 
the needs of those using it. As Malatesta argued, <i>"it would be 
an absurd waste of energy to produce blindly for all possible needs, 
rather than calculating the actual needs and organising to satisfy 
them with as little effort as possible . . . the solution lies in 
accord between people and in the agreements . . . that will come 
about"</i> between them. [<b>At the Caf</b>, pp. 62-3] Hence 
the pressing need for the classic anarchist ideas on free association, 
free agreement and mutual aid! These direct links between producer and 
consumer can communicate the information required to produce the right 
thing at the right time! As Kropotkin argued (based on his firsthand 
experience of state capitalism in Russia under Lenin):
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"production and exchange represent an undertaking so complicated
that the plans of the state socialists . . . would prove to be absolutely
ineffective as soon as they were applied to life. No government would 
be able to organise production if the workers themselves through their 
unions did not do it in each branch of industry; for in all production 
there arise daily thousands of difficulties which no government can 
solve or foresee. It is certainly impossible to foresee everything. 
Only the efforts of thousands of intelligences working on the problems 
can co-operate in the development of a new social system and find the 
best solutions for the thousands of local needs."</i> [<b>Anarchism</b>, 
pp. 76-77] 
</blockquote>
</p><p>
This brings us to the second form of relationships between syndicates,
namely confederations of syndicates in the same industry or geographical
area. It should be noted that inter-workplace federations are not limited 
to collectivist, syndicalist and communist anarchists. The idea of 
federations of syndicates goes back to Proudhon's agro-industrial 
federation, first raised during the 1848 revolution and named as 
such in his 1863 book, <b>The Principle of Federation</b>. The French 
mutualist suggested an <i>"agro-industrial federation"</i> as the 
structural support organisation for his system of self-managed 
co-operatives. These confederations of syndicates, are necessary to
aid communication between workplaces. No syndicate exists in isolation, 
and so there is a real need for a means by which syndicates can meet 
together to discuss common interests and act on them. Thus confederations 
are complementary to free agreement and also reflect anarchist ideas of 
free association and decentralised organisation as well as concern for 
practical needs:
</p><p>
<blockquote>
<i>"Anarchists are strenuously opposed to the authoritarian, centralist 
spirit . . . So they picture a future social life in the basis of 
federalism, from the individual to the municipality, to the commune, 
to the region, to the nation, to the international, on the basis of 
solidarity and free agreement. And it is natural that this ideal 
should be reflected also in the organisation of production, giving 
preference as far as possible, to a decentralised sort of organisation; 
but this does not take the form of an absolute rule to be applied in 
every instance. A libertarian order would be in itself . . . rule 
out the possibility of imposing such a unilateral solution."</i> [Luigi 
Fabbri, <i>"Anarchy and 'Scientific Communism"</i>, pp. 13-49, <b>The 
Poverty of Statism</b>, Albert Meltzer (ed.), p. 23]
</blockquote>
</p><p>
A confederation of syndicates (called a <i>"guild"</i> by some libertarian
socialists, or <i>"industrial union"</i> by others) works on two levels: within
an industry and across industries. The basic operating principle of these
confederations is the same as that of the syndicate itself -- voluntary
co-operation between equals in order to meet common needs. In other words,
each syndicate in the confederation is linked by horizontal agreements
with the others, and none owe any obligations to a separate entity above
the group (see  <a href="secA2.html#seca211">section A.2.11</a> for more 
on the nature of anarchist confederation). As Herbert Read summarised:
</p><p>
<blockquote>
<i>"The general principle is clear: each industry forms itself into
a federation of self-governing collectives; the control of each
industry is wholly in the hands of the workers in that industry,
and these collectives administer the whole economic life of the
country."</i> [<b>Anarchy and Order</b>, p. 49]
</blockquote>
</p><p>
Kropotkin's comments on federalism between communes indicate this
(a syndicate can be considered as a producers' commune). <i>"The 
Commune of tomorrow,"</i> he argued <i>"will know that it cannot 
admit any higher authority; above it there can only be the interests 
of the Federation, freely accepted by itself as well as other communes."</i> 
So federalism need not conflict with autonomy, as each member would
have extensive freedom of action within its boundaries and so each
<i>"Commune will be absolutely free to adopt all the institutions
it wishes and to make all the reforms and revolutions it finds
necessary."</i> [<b>Words of a Rebel</b>, p. 83] Moreover, these 
federations would be diverse and functional. Economic federation 
would a produce a complex inter-networking between associations 
and federations:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Our needs are in fact so various, and they emerge with such rapidity,
that soon a single federation will not be sufficient to satisfy them
all. The Commune will then feel the need to contract other alliances,
to enter into other federations. Belonging to one group for the
acquisition of food supplies, it will have to join a second group
to obtain other goods, such as metals, and then a third and a fourth
group for textiles and works of art."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 87] 
</blockquote></p><p>
Therefore, a confederation of syndicates would be adaptive to its members
needs. As Tom Brown argued, the <i>"syndicalist mode of organisation is 
extremely elastic, therein is its chief strength, and the regional 
confederations can be formed, modified, added to or reformed according 
to local conditions and changing circumstances."</i> [<b>Syndicalism</b>, p. 58]
</p><p>
As would be imagined, these confederations are voluntary associations and 
<i>"[j]ust as factory autonomy is vital in order to keep the Guild system 
alive and vigorous, the existence of varying democratic types of factories 
in independence of the National Guilds may also be a means of valuable
experiment and fruitful initiative of individual minds. In insistently
refusing to carry their theory to its last 'logical' conclusion, the
Guildsmen [and anarchists] are true to their love of freedom and varied 
social enterprise."</i> [G.D.H. Cole, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 65] This, it 
must be stressed does not mean centralised control from the top:
</p><p>
<blockquote> 
<i>"But when we say that ownership of the tools of production, including
the factory itself, should revert to the corporation [i.e. confederation]
we do not mean that the workers in the individual workshops will be ruled
by any kind of industrial government having power to do what it pleases
with the tools of production. No, the workers in the various factories 
have not the slightest intention of handing over their hard-won control 
. . . to a superior power . . . What they will do is . . . to guarantee 
reciprocal use of their tools of production and accord their fellow 
workers in other factories the right to share their facilities, 
receiving in exchange the same right to share the facilities of the
fellow workers with whom they have contracted the pact of solidarity."</i> 
[James Guillaume, <i>"On Building the New Social Order"</i>, pp. 356-79, 
<b>Bakunin on Anarchism</b>, pp. 363-364] 
</blockquote>
</p><p>
So collectivist and communist anarchism, like mutualism, is rooted in 
self-management in the workplace. This implies the ability of workers 
to pick the kinds of productive tasks they want to do. It would not be 
the case of workplaces simply being allocated tasks by some central 
body and expected to fulfil them (a task which, ignoring the real
issues of bureaucracy and freedom, would be difficult to implement in
any large and complex economy). Rather, workplaces would have the power 
to select tasks submitted to them by other associations (economic and 
communal) and control how the work required to achieve them was done. 
In this type of economic system, workers' assemblies and councils 
would be the focal point, formulating policies for their individual 
workplaces and deliberating on industry-wide or economy-wide issues 
through general meetings of the whole workforce in which everyone 
would participate in decision making. Voting in the councils would 
be direct, whereas in larger confederal bodies, voting would be 
carried out by temporary, unpaid, mandated, and instantly recallable 
delegates, who would resume their status as ordinary workers as soon 
as their mandate had been carried out. 
</p><p>
<b>Mandated</b> here means that the delegates from workers' assemblies 
and councils to meetings of higher confederal bodies would be instructed, 
at every level of confederation, by the workers who elected them on 
how to deal with any issue. They would be delegates, not representatives,
and so would attend any confederal meeting with specific instructions on 
how to vote on a particular issue. <b>Recallable</b> means that if they 
do not vote according to that mandate they will be replaced and the 
results of the vote nullified. The delegates, in other words, would be 
given imperative mandates (binding instructions) that committed them to 
a framework of policies within which they would have to act, and they 
could be recalled and their decisions revoked at any time for failing 
to carry out the mandates they were given (this support for mandated 
delegates has existed in anarchist theory since at least 1848, when 
Proudhon argued that it was <i>"a consequence of universal suffrage"</i> 
to ensure that <i>"the people . . . do not . . . abjure their sovereignty."</i> 
[<b>No Gods, No Masters</b>, vol. 1, p. 63]). Because of this right of 
mandating and recalling their delegates, the workers' assemblies at
the base would be the source of, and final "authority" (so to speak) 
over, policy for all higher levels of confederal co-ordination of the 
economy. Delegates will be ordinary workers rather than paid full-time
representatives or union leaders, and they will return to their usual 
jobs as soon as the mandate for which they have been elected has been 
carried out. In this way, decision-making power remains with the workers' 
councils and does not become concentrated at the top of a bureaucratic 
hierarchy in an elite class of professional administrators or union leaders.
What these confederations could do is discussed in the
<a href="secI3.html#seci35">next section</a>.
</p><p>
In summary, a free society <i>"is freely organised, from the bottom to top, 
staring from individuals that unite in associations which slowly grow 
bit by bit into ever more complex federations of associations"</i>. [Malatesta, 
<b>At the Cafe</b>, p. 65]
</p>

<a name="seci35"><h2>I.3.5 What would confederations of syndicates do?</h2></a>

<p>
Voluntary confederation among syndicates is considered necessary by social
anarchists for numerous reasons but mostly in order to decide on the policies 
governing relations between syndicates and to co-ordinate their activities.
This could vary from agreeing technical standards, to producing guidelines
and policies on specific issues, to agreeing major investment decisions or
prioritising certain large-scale economic projects or areas of research.
In addition, they would be the means by which disputes could be solved and
any tendencies back towards capitalism or some other class society identified
and acted upon.
</p><p>
This can be seen from Proudhon, who was the first to suggest the need 
for such federations. <i>"All my economic ideas developed over the last 
twenty-five years,"</i> he stated, <i>"can be defined in 
three words: <b>Agro-industrial federation</b>"</i> This was required 
because <i>"[h]owever impeccable in its basic logic the federal
principle may be . . . it will not survive if economic factors tend 
persistently to dissolve it. In other words, political right requires
to be buttressed by economic right"</i>. A free society could not 
survive if <i>"capital and commerce"</i> existed, as it would be
<i>"divided into two classes -- one of landlords, capitalists, and
entrepreneurs, the other of wage-earning proletarians, one rich,
the other poor."</i> Thus <i>"in an economic context, confederation 
may be intended to provide reciprocal security in commerce and industry
. . . The purpose of such specific federal arrangements is to protect 
the citizens . . . from capitalist and financial exploitation, both 
from within and from the outside; in their aggregate they form . . .
an <b>agro-industrial federation</b>"</i> [<b>The Principle of 
Federation</b>, p. 74, p. 67 and p. 70]
</p><p>
While capitalism results in <i>"interest on capital"</i> and 
<i>"wage-labour or economic servitude, in short inequality of
condition"</i>, the <i>"agro-industrial federation . . . will 
tend to foster increasing equality . . . through mutualism in 
credit and insurance . . . guaranteeing the right to work and 
to education, and an organisation of work which allows each
labourer to become a skilled worker and an artist, each
wage-earner to become his own master."</i> The <i>"industrial
federation"</i> will apply <i>"on the largest scale"</i> the
<i>"principles of mutualism"</i> and <i>"economic solidarity"</i>.
As <i>"industries are sisters"</i>, they <i>"are parts of the
same body"</i> and <i>"one cannot suffer without the 
others sharing in its suffering. They should therefore federate
. . . in order to guarantee the conditions of common prosperity,
upon which no one has an exclusive claim."</i> Thus mutualism sees
<i>"all industries guaranteeing one another mutually"</i> as well
as <i>"organising all public services in an economical fashion 
and in hands other than the state's."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 70, 
p. 71, p. 72 and p. 70] 
</p><p>
Later anarchists took up, built upon and clarified these ideas of 
economic federation. There are two basic kinds of confederation: 
an industrial one (i.e., a federation of all workplaces of a certain 
type) and a regional one (i.e. a federation of all syndicates within 
a given economic area). Thus there would be a federation for each
industry and a federation of all syndicates in a geographical area. 
Both would operate at different levels, meaning there would be 
confederations for both industrial and inter-industrial associations 
at the local and regional levels and beyond. The basic aim of this 
inter-industry and cross-industry networking is to ensure that the 
relevant information is spread across the various parts of the 
economy so that each can effectively co-ordinate its plans with 
the others in a way which minimises ecological and social harm. Thus 
there would be a railway workers confederation to manage the rail 
network but the local, regional and national depots and stations 
would send a delegate to meet regularly with the other syndicates 
in the same geographical area to discuss general economic issues.
</p><p>
However, it is essential to remember that each syndicate within the 
confederation is autonomous. The confederations seek to co-ordinate
activities of joint interest (in particular investment decisions for new
plant and the rationalisation of existing plant in light of reduced
demand). They do not determine what work a syndicate does or how 
they do it:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"With the factory thus largely conducting its own concerns, the duties 
of the larger Guild organisations [i.e. confederations] would be mainly 
those of co-ordination, or regulation, and of representing the Guild in 
its external relations. They would, where it was necessary, co-ordinate 
the production of various factories, so as to make supply coincide 
with demand. . . they would organise research . . . This large Guild 
organisation. . . must be based directly on the various factories 
included in the Guild."</i> [Cole, <b>Guild Socialism Restated</b>, 
pp. 59-60]
</blockquote>
</p><p>
So it is important to note that the lowest units of confederation -- the
workers' assemblies -- will control the higher levels, through their power 
to elect mandated and recallable delegates to meetings of higher confederal 
units. It would be fair to make the assumption that the "higher" up the
federation a decision is made, the more general it will be. Due to the 
complexity of life it would be difficult for federations which cover wide 
areas to plan large-scale projects in any detail and so would be, in practice, 
more forums for agreeing guidelines and priorities than planning actual 
specific projects or economies. As Russian anarcho-syndicalist G.P.
Maximov put it, the aim <i>"was to co-ordinate all activity, all local
interest, to create a centre but not a centre of decrees and ordinances
but a centre of regulation, of guidance -- and only through such a centre
to organise the industrial life of the country."</i> [quoted by M. 
Brinton, <b>For Workers' Power</b>, p. 330]
</p><p>
So this is a decentralised system, as the workers' assemblies and 
councils at the base having the final say on <b>all</b> policy 
decisions, being able to revoke policies made by those with delegated 
decision-making power and to recall those who made them:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"When it comes to the material and technical method of production, anarchists
have no preconceived solutions or absolute prescriptions, and bow to what
experience and conditions in a free society recommend and prescribe. What
matters is that, whatever the type of production adopted, it should be the
free choice of the producers themselves, and cannot possibly be imposed,
any more than any form is possible of exploitations of another's labour. . . 
Anarchists do not <b>a priori</b> exclude any practical solution and likewise 
concede that there may be a number of different solutions at different 
times."</i> [Luigi Fabbri, <i>"Anarchy and 'Scientific' Communism"</i>, 
pp. 13-49, <b>The Poverty of Statism</b>, Albert Meltzer (ed.), p. 22]
</blockquote></p><p>
</p><p>
Confederations would exist for specific reasons. Mutualists, as can
be seen from Proudhon, are aware of the dangers associated with
even a self-managed, socialistic market and create support
structures to defend workers' self-management. Moreover, it 
is likely that industrial syndicates would be linked to mutual
banks (a credit syndicate). Such syndicates would exist to
provide interest-free credit for self-management, new syndicate
expansion and so on. And if the experience of capitalism is
anything to go by, mutual banks will also reduce the business
cycle as <i>"[c]ountries like Japan and Germany that are 
usually classifies as bank-centred -- because banks provide 
more outside finance than markets, and because more firms 
have long-term relationships with their banks -- show 
greater growth in and stability of investment over time
than the market-centred ones, like the US and Britain . . .
Further, studies comparing German and Japanese firms with
tight bank ties to those without them also show that firms
with bank ties exhibit greater stability in investment over
the business cycle."</i> [Doug Henwood, <b>Wall Street</b>, pp. 174-5]
</p><p>
One argument against co-operatives is that they do not allow the
diversification of risk (all the worker's eggs are on one basket).
Ignoring the obvious point that most workers today do not have
shares and are dependent on their job to survive, this objection
can be addressed by means of <i>"the <b>horizontal association</b> 
or grouping of enterprises to pool their business risk. The 
Mondragon co-operatives are associated together in a number of
regional groups that pool their profits in varying degrees. 
Instead of a worker diversifying his or her capital in six 
companies, six companies partially pool their profits in a 
group or federation and accomplish the same risk-reduction purpose
without transferable equity capital."</i> Thus <i>"risk-pooling in 
federations of co-operatives"</i> ensure that <i>"transferable equity 
capital is not necessary to obtain risk diversification in the
flow of annual worker income."</i> [David Ellerman, <b>The 
Democratic Worker-Owned Firm</b>, p. 104] Moreover, as the 
example of many isolated co-operatives under capitalism have 
shown, support networks are essential for co-operatives to survive. 
It is no co-incidence that the Mondragon co-operative complex in the 
Basque region of Spain has a credit union and mutual support networks 
between its co-operatives and is by far the most successful co-operative
system in the world. The <i>"agro-industrial federation"</i> exists
precisely for these reasons.
</p><p>
Under collectivist and communist anarchism, the federations would have
addition tasks. There are two key roles. Firstly, the sharing and 
co-ordination of information produced by the syndicates and, secondly, 
determining the response to the changes in production and consumption 
indicated by this information. 
</p><p>
Confederations (negotiated-co-ordination bodies) would be responsible 
for clearly defined branches of production, and in general,
production units would operate in only one branch of production. These
confederations would have direct links to other confederations and the
relevant communal confederations, which supply the syndicates with
guidelines for decision making (see <a href="secI4.html#seci44">section I.4.4</a>) 
and ensure that common problems can be highlighted and discussed. These 
confederations exist to ensure that information is spread between
workplaces and to ensure that the industry responds to changes in social
demand. In other words, these confederations exist to co-ordinate major
new investment decisions (i.e. if demand exceeds supply) and to determine 
how to respond if there is excess capacity (i.e. if supply exceeds demand).
</p><p>
It should be pointed out that these confederated investment decisions 
will exist along with the investments associated with the creation of 
new syndicates, plus internal syndicate investment decisions. We are 
not suggesting that <b>every</b> investment decision is to be made by the
confederations. (This would be particularly impossible for <b>new</b>
industries, for which a confederation would not exist!) Therefore, in
addition to co-ordinated production units, an anarchist society would see
numerous small-scale, local activities which would ensure creativity,
diversity, and flexibility. Only after these activities had spread across
society would confederal co-ordination become necessary. So while 
production will be based on autonomous networking, the investment 
response to consumer actions would, to some degree, be co-ordinated 
by a confederation of syndicates in that branch of production. By 
such means, the confederation can ensure that resources are not 
wasted by individual syndicates over-producing goods or over-investing 
in response to changes in production.  By communicating across workplaces, 
people can overcome the barriers to co-ordinating their plans which one 
finds in market systems (see <a href="secC7.html#secc72">section C.7.2</a>) 
and so avoid the economic and social disruptions associated with them.
</p><p>
Thus, major investment decisions would be made at congresses and plenums 
of the industry's syndicates, by a process of horizontal, negotiated 
co-ordination. Major investment decisions are co-ordinated at an appropriate 
level, with each unit in the confederation being autonomous, deciding what to 
do with its own productive capacity in order to meet social demand. Thus we 
have self-governing production units co-ordinated by confederations 
(horizontal negotiation), which ensures local initiative (a vital source 
of flexibility, creativity, and diversity) and a rational response to 
changes in social demand. As links between syndicates are non-hierarchical, 
each syndicate remains self-governing. This ensures decentralisation of power
and direct control, initiative, and experimentation by those involved in
doing the work.
</p><p>
It should be noted that during the Spanish Revolution successfully federated
in different ways. Gaston Leval noted that these forms of confederation did 
not harm the libertarian nature of self-management:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Everything was controlled by the syndicates. But it must not therefore 
be assumed that everything was decided by a few higher bureaucratic
committees without consulting the rank and file members of the union. 
Here libertarian democracy was practised. As in the C.N.T. there was a
reciprocal double structure; from the grass roots at the base . . .
upwards, and in the other direction a reciprocal influence from the
federation of these same local units at all levels downwards, from the
source back to the source."</i> [<b>The Anarchist Collectives</b>, p. 105]
</blockquote></p><p>
The exact nature of any confederal responsibilities will vary, although 
we <i>"prefer decentralised management; but ultimately, in practical 
and technical problems, we defer to free experience."</i> [Luigi Fabbri, 
<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 24] The specific form of organisation will obviously 
vary as required from industry to industry, area to area, but the underlying 
ideas of self-management and free association will be the same. Moreover, 
the <i>"essential thing . . . is that its [the confederation or guild] 
function should be kept down to the minimum possible for each industry."</i> 
[Cole, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 61]
</p><p>
Another important role for inter-syndicate federations is to even-out 
inequalities. After all, each area will not be identical in terms of 
natural resources, quality of land, situation, accessibility, and so 
on. Simply put, social anarchists <i>"believe that because of natural 
differences in fertility, health and location of the soil it would be
impossible to ensure that every individual enjoyed equal working 
conditions."</i> Under such circumstances, it would be <i>"impossible 
to achieve a state of equality from the beginning"</i> and so 
<i>"justice and equity are, for natural reasons, impossible to 
achieve . . . and that freedom would thus also be unachievable."</i> 
[Malatesta, <b>The Anarchist Revolution</b>, p. 16 and p. 21] 
</p><p>
This was recognised by Proudhon, who saw the need for economic 
federation due to differences in raw materials, quality of land 
and so on, and as such argued that a portion of income from 
agricultural produce be paid into a central fund which 
would be used to make equalisation payments to compensate 
farmers with less favourably situated or less fertile land. 
As he put it, economic rent <i>"in agriculture has no other 
cause than the inequality in the quality of land . . . if 
anyone has a claim on account of this inequality . . . 
[it is] the other land workers who hold inferior land. That 
is why in our scheme for liquidation [of capitalism] we 
stipulated that every variety of cultivation should pay 
a proportional contribution, destined to accomplish a 
balancing of returns among farm workers and an assurance 
of products."</i> In addition, <i>"all the towns of the 
Republic shall come to an understanding for equalising among 
them the quality of tracts of land, as well as accidents 
of culture."</i> [<b>General Idea of the Revolution</b>, 
p. 209 and p. 200]
</p><p>
By federating together, workers can ensure that <i>"the earth will 
. . . be an economic domain available to everyone, the riches 
of which will be enjoyed by all human beings."</i> [Malatesta, 
<b>Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas</b>, p. 93] Local
deficiencies of raw materials, in the quality of land,
and, therefore, supplies would be compensated from outside,
by the socialisation of production and consumption. This
would allow all of humanity to share and benefit from economic 
activity, so ensuring that well-being for all is possible.
</p><p>
Federation would eliminate the possibility of rich and poor 
collectives and syndicates co-existing side by side. As 
Kropotkin argued, <i>"[c]ommon possession of the necessities
for production implies the common enjoyment of the fruits
of common production . . . when everybody, contributing
for the common well-being to the full extent of his
[or her] capacities, shall enjoy also from the common
stock of society to the fullest possible extent of his
[or her] needs."</i> [<b>Anarchism</b>, p. 59] Hence we 
find the CNT arguing in its 1936 resolution on libertarian 
communism that <i>"[a]s far as the interchange of produce 
between communes is concerned, the communal councils are 
to liase with the regional federations of communes and with 
the confederal council of production and distribution, 
applying for whatever they may need and [giving] any 
available surplus stocks."</i> [quoted by Jose Peirats, 
<b>The CNT in the Spanish Revolution</b>, vol. 1, p. 107] 
This clearly followed Kropotkin's comments that the 
<i>"socialising of production, consumption, and exchange"</i> 
would be based on workplaces <i>"belong[ing] to federated 
Communes."</i> [<b>The Conquest of Bread</b>, p. 136]
</p><p>
The legacy of capitalism, with its rich and poor areas, its
rich and poor workplaces, will be a problem any revolution will 
face. The inequalities produced by centuries of class society
will take time to change. This is one of the tasks of the confederation, 
to ensure the socialisation of both production and consumption
so that people are not penalised for the accidents of history
and that each commune can develop itself to an adequate level. 
In the words of the CNT during the Spanish Revolution:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Many arguments are used against the idea of socialisation; 
one of these -- the most delightful -- says that by socialising 
an industry we simply take it over and run it with the consequence 
that we have flourishing industries where the workers are privileged, 
and unfortunate industries where the workers get less benefits but 
have to work harder than workers elsewhere . . . There are 
differences between the workers in prosperous industries and
those which barely survive. . . Such anomalies, which we don't
deny exist, are attributed to the attempts at socialisation. We 
firmly assert that the opposite is true; such anomalies are the 
logical result of the absence of socialisation. </i></blockquote>
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"The socialisation which we propose will resolve these problems which 
are used to attack it. Were Catalan industry socialised, everything 
would be organically linked -- industry, agriculture, and the trade 
union organisations, in accordance with the council for the economy. 
They would become normalised, the working day would become more equal 
or what comes to the same thing, the differences between workers of 
different activities would end . . .</i></blockquote>
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Socialisation is -- and let its detractors hear it -- the genuine 
authentic organisation of the economy. Undoubtedly the economy has 
to be organised; but not according to the old methods, which are 
precisely those which we are destroying, but in accordance with 
new norms which will make our people become an example to the 
world proletariat."</i> [<b>Solidaridad Obrera</b>, 30 April 1937, p. l2]
</blockquote>
</p><p>
Workers' self-management does not automatically mean that all forms 
of economic domination and exploitation would be eliminated. After
all, in a market economy firms can accrue super-profits simply
because of their size or control over a specific technology or
resource. Hence Proudhon's suggestion that <i>"advocates of mutualism"</i> 
would <i>"regulate the market"</i> to ensure <i>"an honest breakdown of 
cost prices"</i>, fix <i>"after amicable discussion of a <b>maximum</b> 
and <b>minimum</b> profit margin"</i> and <i>"the organising of 
regulating societies."</i>  [<b>Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph 
Proudhon</b>, p. 70] It seems likely that the agro-industrial 
federation would be the body which ensures that. Similarly, the
federation would be the means by which to air, and deal with,
suggestions that syndicates are monopolising their resources,
i.e., treating them as private property rather than socialised
possessions. Thus the federation would unite workers <i>"to 
guarantee the mutual use of the tools of production"</i> which are, 
<i>"by a reciprocal contract"</i>, the <i>"collective property 
of the whole."</i> [James Guillaume, <i>"On Building the New Social
Order"</i>, pp. 356-79, <b>Bakunin on Anarchism</b>, p. 376] 
</p><p>
The inter-industry confederations help ensure that when the members of
a syndicate change work to another syndicate in another (or the same)
branch of industry, they have the same rights as the members of their new
syndicate. In other words, by being part of the confederation, a worker
ensures that s/he has the same rights and an equal say in whatever
workplace is joined. This is essential to ensure that a co-operative
society remains co-operative, as the system is based on the principle of
<i>"one person, one vote"</i> by all those involved the work process.
If specific syndicates <b>are</b> restricting access and so 
producing wage-labour, monopolising resources and so charging 
monopoly prices, the federation would be forum to publicly
shame such syndicates and organise boycotts of them. Such anti-social
activity is unlikely to be tolerated by a free people seeking to
protect that freedom.
</p><p>
However, it could again be argued that these confederations are still
centralised and that workers would still be following orders coming from
above. This is incorrect, for any decisions concerning an industry or plant
are under the direct control of those involved. For example, the steel
industry confederation may decide to rationalise itself at one of its
congresses. Murray Bookchin sketches the response to this situation as
follows: 
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"[L]et us suppose that a board of highly qualified technicians is
established [by this congress] to propose changes in the steel 
industry. This board . . . advances proposals to rationalise the 
industry by closing down some plants and expanding the operation 
of others . . . Is this a 'centralised' body or not? The answer 
is both yes and no. Yes, only in the sense that the board is 
dealing with problems that concern the country as a whole; no, 
because it can make no decision that <b>must</b> be executed for
the country as a whole. The board's plan must be examined by 
all the workers in the plants [that are affected] . . . The 
board itself has no power to enforce 'decisions'; it merely 
makes recommendations. Additionally, its personnel are controlled 
by the plant in which they work and the locality in which they 
live . . . they would have no decision-making powers. The adoption, 
modification or rejection of their plans would rest entirely with 
. . . [those] involved."</i> [<b>Post Scarcity Anarchism</b>, p. 180]
</blockquote></p><p>
Therefore, confederations would not be in positions of power over the 
individual syndicates. No attempt is made to determine which plants 
produce which steel for which customers in which manner. Thus, the 
confederations of syndicates ensure a decentralised, spontaneous 
economic order without the negative side-effects of capitalism 
(namely power concentrations within firms and in the market, periodic 
crises, etc.).
</p><p>
As one can imagine, an essential feature of these confederations will be 
the collection and processing of information in order to determine how an 
industry is developing. This does not imply bureaucracy or centralised 
control at the top. Taking the issue of centralisation first, the 
confederation is run by delegate assemblies, meaning that any officers 
elected at a congress only implement the decisions made by the delegates
of the relevant syndicates. It is in the congresses and plenums of the
confederation that new investment decisions, for example, are made. The
key point to remember is that the confederation exists purely to
co-ordinate joint activity and share information, it does not take an
interest in how a workplace is run or what orders from consumers it fills.
(Of course, if a given workplace introduces policies which other
syndicates disapprove of, it can be expelled). As the delegates to these
congresses and plenums are mandated and their decisions subject to
rejection and modification by each productive unit, the confederation is 
not centralised. 
</p><p>
As far as bureaucracy goes, the collecting and processing of information
does necessitate an administrative staff to do the work. However, this 
problem affects capitalist firms as well; and since syndicates are based
on bottom-up decision making, its clear that, unlike a centralised
capitalist corporation, administration would be smaller. In fact, 
it is likely that a fixed administration staff for the confederation 
would not exist in the first place! At the regular congresses, a particular 
syndicate may be selected to do the confederation's information processing, 
with this job being rotated regularly around different syndicates. In this 
way, a specific administrative body and equipment can be avoided and the 
task of collating information placed directly in the hands of ordinary 
workers. Further, it prevents the development of a bureaucratic elite by 
ensuring that <b>all</b> participants are versed in information-processing 
procedures.
</p><p>
Lastly, what information would be collected? That depends on the context.
Individual syndicates would record inputs and outputs, producing summary
sheets of information. For example, total energy input, in kilowatts and
by type, raw material inputs, labour hours spent, orders received, orders
accepted, output, and so forth. This information can be processed into
energy use and labour time per product (for example), in order to give an 
idea of how efficient production is and how it is changing over time. For
confederations, the output of individual syndicates can be aggregated and
local and other averages can be calculated. In addition, changes in demand
can be identified by this aggregation process and used to identify when 
investment will be needed or plants closed down. In this way the chronic
slumps and booms of capitalism can be avoided without creating a system
which is even more centralised than capitalism.
</p>

<a name="seci36"><h2>I.3.6 What about competition between syndicates?</h2></a> 

<p>
This is a common question, particularly from defenders of capitalism.
They argue that syndicates will not co-operate together unless forced to
do so, and will compete against each other for raw materials, skilled
workers, and so on. The result of this process, it is claimed, will be
rich and poor syndicates, inequality within society and within the
workplace, and (possibly) a class of unemployed workers from unsuccessful
syndicates who are hired by successful ones. In other words, they argue
that libertarian socialism will need to become authoritarian to prevent
competition, and that if it does not do so it will become capitalist very
quickly.
</p><p>
For individualist anarchists and mutualists, competition is not viewed 
as a problem. They think that competition, based around co-operatives and
mutual banks, would minimise economic inequality, as the new economic 
structure based around free credit and co-operation would eliminate 
non-labour (i.e. unearned) income such as profit, interest and rent and 
give workers enough bargaining power to eliminate exploitation. For
these anarchists it is a case of capitalism perverting competition
and so are not against competition itself. Other anarchists 
think that whatever gains might accrue from competition (assuming
there are, in fact, any) would be more than offset by its negative 
effects, which are outlined in <a href="secI1.html#seci13">section I.1.3</a>. 
It is to these anarchists that the question is usually asked.
</p><p>
Before continuing, we would like to point out that individuals trying to
improve their lot in life is not against anarchist principles. How could
it be? <i>"Selfish is not a crime,"</i> John Most and Emma Goldman noted, 
<i>"it only becomes a crime when conditions are such as to give an 
individual the opportunity to satisfy his selfishness to the detriment 
of others. In an anarchistic society everyone will seek to satisfy his 
ego"</i> but in order to do so he <i>"will extend his aid to those who 
will aid him, and then selfishness will no more be a curse but a blessing."</i> 
[<i>"Talking about Anarchy"</i>, <b>Black Flag</b>, no. 228, p. 28]
Thus anarchists see co-operation and mutual aid as an expression of
"self-interest", in that working with people as equals is in our joint
benefit. In the words of John O'Neill:
<p></p><blockquote>
<i>"[F]or it is the institutions themselves that define what counts as 
one's interests. In particular, the market encourages egoism, not 
primarily because it encourages an individual to be 'self-interested' 
-- it would be unrealistic not to expect individuals to act for the
greater part in a 'self-interested' manner -- but rather because it 
defines an individual's interests in a particularly narrow fashion, 
most notably in terms of possession of certain material goods. In 
consequence, where market mechanism enter a particular sphere of
life, the pursuit of goods outside this narrow range of market goods 
is institutionally defined as an act of altruism."</i> [<b>The 
Market</b>, p. 158]
</blockquote>
</p><p>
As such, anarchists would suggest that we should not confuse 
competition with self-interest and that a co-operative society
would tend to promote institutions and customs which would 
ensure that people recognised that co-operation between equals
maximises individual freedom and self-interest far more than 
individualistic pursuit to material wealth at the expense of
all other goals. Ultimately, what use would it be to gain the
world and loose what makes life worth living?
</p><p>
Of course, such a society would not be based on exactly equal 
shares of everything. Rather, it would mean equal opportunity 
and free, or equal, access to resources (for example, that only 
ill people use medical resources is unproblematic for egalitarians!). 
So a society with unequal distributions of resources is not automatically a 
non-anarchist one. What <b>is</b> against anarchist principles 
is centralised power, oppression, and exploitation, all of which 
flow from large inequalities of income and private property. This 
is the source of anarchist concern about equality -- concern that 
is not based on some sort of <i>"politics of envy."</i> Anarchists
oppose inequality because it soon leads to the few oppressing the 
many (a relationship which distorts the individuality and liberty 
of all involved as well as the health and very lives of the oppressed). 
</p><p>
Anarchists desire to create a society in which such relationships are 
impossible, believing that the most effective way to do this is by 
empowering all, by creating an egoistic concern for liberty and equality 
among the oppressed, and by developing social organisations which encourage 
self-management. As for individuals' trying to improve their lot, anarchists 
maintain that co-operation is the best means to do so, <b>not</b> competition. 
And there is substantial evidence to support this claim (see, for example,
Alfie Kohn's <b>No Contest: The Case Against Competition</b> and Robert 
Axelrod's <b>The Evolution of Co-operation</b> present abundant evidence 
that co-operation is in our long term interests and provides better 
results than short term competition). This suggests that, as Kropotkin 
argued, mutual aid, not mutual struggle, will be in an individual's 
self-interest and so competition in a free, sane society would be 
minimised and reduced to sports and other individual pastimes. As Stirner
argued, co-operation is just as egoistic as competition (a fact sometimes
lost on many due to the obvious ethical superiority of co-operation):
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"But should competition some day disappear, because concerted effort
will have been acknowledged as more beneficial than isolation, then
will not every single individual inside the associations be equally
egoistic and out for his own interests?"</i> [<b>No Gods, No Masters</b>, 
vol. 1, p. 22]
</blockquote></p><p>
Now to the "competition" objection, which we'll begin to answer by 
noting that it ignores a few key points. 
</p><p>
Firstly, the assumption that a libertarian society would "become capitalist" 
in the absence of a <b>state</b> is obviously false. If competition did 
occur between collectives and did lead to massive wealth inequalities, 
then the newly rich would have to create a state to protect their private 
property against the dispossessed. So inequality, not equality, leads to 
the creation of states. It is no co-incidence that the anarchic communities 
that existed for millennia were also egalitarian.
</p><p>
Secondly, as noted in <a href="secA2.html#seca25">section A.2.5</a>, 
anarchists do not consider <i>"equal"</i> to mean <i>"identical."</i> 
Therefore, to claim that wage differences mean the end of anarchism 
makes sense only if one thinks that <i>"equality"</i> means everyone
getting <b>exactly</b> equal shares. As anarchists do not hold such an idea,
wage differences in an otherwise anarchistically organised syndicate do
not indicate a lack of equality. How the syndicate is <b>run</b> is of far
more importance, because the most pernicious type of inequality from the
anarchist standpoint is inequality of <b>power,</b> i.e. unequal influence on
political and economic decision making. 
</p><p>
Under capitalism, wealth inequality translates into such an inequality of
power, and vice versa, because wealth can buy private property (and state
protection of it), which gives owners authority over that property and those 
hired to produce with it; but under libertarian socialism, minor or even 
moderate differences in income among otherwise equal workers would not lead 
to this kind of power inequality, because self-management and socialisation 
severs the link between wealth and power. Moreover, when labour becomes free
in a society of rebels (and, surely, an anarchist society could be nothing 
but) few would tolerate relatively minor income inequalities becoming a
source of power.
</p><p>
Thirdly, anarchists do not pretend that an anarchist society will be
perfect. Hence there may be periods, particularly just after capitalism
has been replaced by self-management, when differences in skill, etc.,
leads to some people exploiting their position and getting more wages, 
better hours and conditions, and so forth. This problem existed in
the industrial collectives in the Spanish Revolution. As Kropotkin
pointed out, <i>"[b]ut, when all is said and done, some inequalities, some
inevitable injustice, undoubtedly will remain. There are individuals in
our societies whom no great crisis can lift out of the deep mire of egoism
in which they are sunk. The question, however, is not whether there will
be injustices or no, but rather how to limit the number of them."</i> [<b>The
Conquest of Bread</b>, p. 94] 
</p><p>
In other words, these problems will exist, but there are a number of
things that anarchists can do to minimise their impact. There will be 
a <i>"gestation period"</i> before the birth of an anarchist society, in
which social struggle, new forms of education and child-rearing, and other
methods of consciousness-raising increase the number of anarchists and
decrease the number of authoritarians. 
</p><p>
The most important element in this gestation period is social struggle. 
Such self-activity will have a major impact on those involved in it
(see <a href="secJ2.html">section J.2</a>). By 
direct action and solidarity, those involved develop 
bounds of friendship and support with others, develop new forms of ethics 
and new ideas and ideal. This radicalisation process will help to ensure that 
any differences in education and skill do not develop into differences in 
power in an anarchist society by making people less likely to exploit
their advantages nor, more importantly, for others to tolerate them
doing so!
</p><p>
In addition, education within the anarchist movement should aim, among other 
things, to give its members familiarity with technological skills so that they 
are not dependent on "experts" and can thus increase the pool of skilled 
workers who will be happy working in conditions of liberty and equality. 
This will ensure that differentials between workers can be minimised. 
In the long run, however, popularisation of non-authoritarian methods of 
child-rearing and education (see <a href="secJ6.html">section J.6</a>) 
are particularly important because, as we suggested in 
<a href="secB1.html#secb15">section B.1.5</a>, 
secondary drives such as greed and the desire the exercise power over 
others are products of authoritarian upbringing based on punishments and 
fear. Only if the prevalence of such drives is reduced among the 
general population can we be sure that an anarchist revolution will not 
degenerate into some new form of domination and exploitation. 
</p><p>
However, there are other reasons why economic inequality -- say, in
differences of income levels or working conditions, which may arise from
competition for "better" workers -- would be far less severe under any form 
of anarchist society than it is under capitalism. 
</p><p>
Firstly, the syndicates would be democratically managed. This would result 
in much smaller wage differentials, because there is no board of wealthy 
directors setting wage levels for their own gain. So without hierarchies
in the workplace no one would be in a position to monopolise the work of
others and grow rich as a result:
</p><p>
<blockquote>
<i>"Poverty is the symptom: slavery the disease. The extremes of riches 
and destitution follow inevitably upon the extremes of license and bondage. 
The many are not enslaved because they are poor, they are poor because 
they are enslaved. Yet Socialists have all too often fixed their eyes 
upon the material misery of the poor without realising that it rests 
upon the spiritual degradation of the slave."</i> [G.D.H. Cole,
<b>Self-Government in Industry</b>, p. 41]
</blockquote>
</p><p>
Empirical evidence supports anarchist claims as co-operatives have a far
more egalitarian wage structure than capitalist firms. This can be 
seen from the experience of the Mondragon co-operatives, where the 
wage difference between the highest paid and lowest paid worker 
was 4 to 1. This was only increased when they had to compete with 
large capitalist companies, and even then the new ratio of 9 to 1 
is <b>far</b> smaller than those in capitalist companies (in America 
the ratio is 200 to 1 and beyond!). Thus, even under capitalism, 
<i>"[t]here is evidence that the methods of distribution chosen by 
worker-controlled or self-managed firms are more egalitarian than 
distribution according to market precepts."</i> [Christopher Eaton 
Gunn, <b>Workers' Self-Management in the United States</b>, p. 45] Given 
that market precepts fail to take into account power differences, this is
unsurprising. Thus we can predict that a fully self-managed economy 
would be just, if not, more egalitarian as differences in power would
be eliminated, as would unemployment (James K. Galbraith, in his book
<b>Created Unequal</b>, has presented extensive evidence that unemployment
increases inequality, as would be expected).
</p><p>
It is a common myth that managers, executives and so on are 
paid so highly because of their unique abilities. Actually, they 
are so highly paid because they are bureaucrats in command of 
large hierarchical institutions. It is the hierarchical nature 
of the capitalist firm that ensures inequality, <b>not</b> 
exceptional skills. Even enthusiastic supporters of capitalism 
provide evidence to support this claim. In the 1940s Peter Drucker, 
a supporter of capitalism, brushed away the claim that corporate 
organisation brings managers with exceptional ability to the top when 
he noted that <i>"[n]o institution can possibly survive if it 
needs geniuses or supermen to manage it. It must be organised in 
such a way as to be able to get along under a leadership of average 
human beings."</i> For Drucker, <i>"the things that really count are not 
the individual members but the relations of command and responsibility 
among them."</i> [<b>Concept of the Corporation</b>, p. 35 and p. 34] 
Little has changed, beyond the power of PR to personalise the bureaucratic
structures of corporations.
</p><p>
Secondly, having no means of unearned income (such as rent, interest and
intellectual property rights), anarchism will reduce income differentials 
substantially. 
</p><p>
Thirdly, management positions would be rotated, ensuring that everyone 
gets experience of the work, thus reducing the artificial scarcity 
created by the division of labour. Also, education would be extensive, 
ensuring that engineers, doctors, and other skilled workers would do 
the work because they <b>enjoyed</b> doing it and not for financial reward. 
</p><p>
Fourthly, we should like to point out that people work for many reasons, 
not just for high wages. Feelings of solidarity, empathy, friendship with 
their fellow workers would also help reduce competition between syndicates.
</p><p>
Of course, the "competition" objection assumes that syndicates and 
members of syndicates will place financial considerations above all 
else. This is not the case, and few individuals are the economic robots 
assumed in capitalist dogma. Indeed, the evidence from co-operatives 
refutes such claims (ignoring, for the moment, the vast evidence of 
our own senses and experiences with real people rather than the insane 
<i>"economic man"</i> of capitalist economic ideology). As noted in
<a href="secI3.html#seci31">section I.3.1</a> neo-classical 
economic theory, deducing from its basic assumptions, argues 
that members of co-operatives will aim to maximise profit per 
worker and so, perversely, fire their members during good times. 
Reality contradicts these claims. In other words, the underlying 
assumption that people are economic robots cannot be maintained -- 
there is extensive evidence pointing to the fact that different 
forms of social organisation produce different considerations which
motivate people accordingly.
</p><p>
So, while recognising that competition could exist, anarchists 
think there are plenty of reasons not to worry about massive
economic inequality being created, which in turn would re-create the
state. The apologists for capitalism who put forward this argument forget
that the pursuit of self-interest is universal, meaning that everyone
would be interested in maximising his or her liberty, and so would be
unlikely to allow inequalities to develop which threatened that liberty. 
It would be in the interests of communes and syndicates which to share 
with others instead of charging high prices for them as they may find 
themselves boycotted by others, and so denied the advantages of social 
co-operation. Moreover, they may be subject to such activities themselves 
and so it would wise for them to remember to <i>"treat others as you would 
like them to treat you under similar circumstances."</i> As anarchism 
will never come about unless people desire it and start to organise 
their own lives, it is clear that an anarchist society would be 
inhabited by individuals who followed that ethical principle. 
</p><p>
So it is doubtful that people inspired by anarchist ideas would start 
to charge each other high prices, particularly since the syndicates and
community assemblies are likely to vote for a wide basis of surplus
distribution, precisely to avoid this problem and to ensure that
production will be for use rather than profit. In addition, as other 
communities and syndicates would likely boycott any syndicate or commune 
that was acting in non-co-operative ways, it is likely that social 
pressure would soon result in those willing to exploit others 
rethinking their position. Co-operation does not imply a willingness
to tolerate those who desire to take advantage of you. In other words,
neither mutual aid nor anarchist theory implies people are naive 
indiscriminate  altruists but rather people who, while willing to 
work with others co-operatively, will act to stop others taking advantage 
of them.  Mutual aid, in other words is based on reciprocal relationships. 
If someone or a syndicate does not co-operate but rather seeks to take
advantage of others, then the others are well within their rights to 
boycott them and otherwise protest against them. A free society is based 
on <b>all</b> people pursuing their self-interest, not just the few. This 
suggests that anarchists reject the assumption that those who lose by 
competition should be altruistic and let competition ruin their lives.
</p><p>
Moreover, given the experience of the neo-liberal period from the 1980s
onwards (with rising inequality marked by falling growth, lower wage growth,
rising unemployment and increased economic instability) the impact of
increased competition and inequality harms the vast majority. It is
doubtful that people aware of these tendencies (and that, as we
argued in <a href="secF3.html">section F.3</a>, 
<i>"free exchange"</i> in an unequal society tends to
<b>increase</b>, not decrease, inequality) would create such a regime.
</p><p>
Unsurprisingly, examples of anarchism in action show that there is 
working together to reduce the dangers of isolation and competition. 
One thing to remember is that anarchy will not be created "overnight" 
and so potential problems will be worked out over time. Underlying 
all these kinds of objections is the assumption that co-operation 
will <b>not</b> be more beneficial to all involved than competition. 
However, in terms of quality of life, co-operation will soon be 
seen to be the better system, even by the most highly paid 
workers. There is far more to life than the size of one's pay packet, 
and anarchism exists in order to ensure that life is far more than 
the weekly grind of boring work and the few hours of hectic consumption 
in which people attempt to fill the "spiritual hole" created by a way 
of life which places profits above people.
</p>

<a name="seci37"><h2>I.3.7 What about people who do not want to join a syndicate?</h2></a>

<p>
In this case, they are free to work alone, by their own labour. 
Anarchists have no desire to force people to join a syndicate. 
Emma Goldman spoke for all anarchists when she stated that <i>"[w]e 
believe in every person living his own life in his own way and not 
in coercing others to follow any one's dictation."</i> [<b>A 
Documentary History of the American Years</b>, vol. 2, p. 324] 
</p><p>
Therefore, the decision to join a syndicate will be a free one, with
the potential for living outside it guaranteed for non-exploitative
and non-oppressive individuals and groups. Malatesta stressed this 
when he argued that in an anarchist revolution <i>"what has to be 
destroyed at once . . . is <b>capitalistic property,</b> that is, the 
fact that a few control the natural wealth and the instruments 
of production and can thus oblige others to work for them"</i> 
but one must have a <i>"right and the possibility to live in a 
different regime, collectivist, mutualist, individualist -- as 
one wishes, always on the condition that there is no oppression 
or exploitation of others."</i> [<b>Errico Malatesta: Life and Ideas</b>, 
p. 102] In other words, different forms of social life will be 
experimented with, depending on what people desire. 
</p><p>
Of course some people ask how anarchists can reconcile 
individual freedom with expropriation of capital. All we can
say is that these critics subscribe to the idea that one should 
not interfere with the "individual freedom" of those in positions 
of authority to oppress others, and that this premise turns the 
concept of individual freedom on its head, making oppression a 
"right" and the denial of freedom a form of it!
</p><p>
However, it is a valid question to ask if anarchism would 
result in self-employed people being forced into syndicates 
as the result of a popular movement. The answer is no. This 
is because the destruction of title deeds would not harm 
the independent worker, whose real title is possession and the 
work done. What anarchists want to eliminate is not possession 
but capitalist <i><b>property</b></i>. Thus such workers <i>"may 
prefer to work alone in his own small shop"</i> rather than join 
an association or a federation. [James Guillaume, <i>"On Building the 
New Social Order"</i>, pp. 356-79, <b>Bakunin on Anarchism</b>, 
p. 362]
</p><p>
This means that independent producers will still exist within 
an anarchist society, and some workplaces -- perhaps whole 
areas -- will not be part of a confederation. This is natural 
in a free society, for different people have different ideas 
and ideals. Nor does such independent producers imply a 
contradiction with libertarian socialism, for <i>"[w]hat we 
concerned with is the destruction of the titles of proprietors 
who exploit the labour of others and, above all, of expropriating 
them in fact in order to put . . . all the means of production at 
the disposal of those who do the work."</i> [Malatesta, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
p. 103] Such freedom to work independently or associate as desired
does <b>not</b> imply any support for private property (as discussed
in <a href="secI6.html#seci62">section I.6.2</a>). Thus any individual 
in a libertarian socialist economy <i>"always has the liberty 
to isolate himself and work alone, without being considered a bad 
citizen or a suspect."</i> [Proudhon, quoted by K. Steven Vincent,
<b>Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican Socialism</b>, 
p. 145]
</p><p>
In summary, in a free society people need not join syndicates nor
does a co-operative need to confederate with others. Given we have 
discussed the issue of freedom of economic arrangements at length in 
<a href="secG2.html#secg21">section G.2.1</a> we will leave this 
discussion here. 
</p>

<a name="seci38"><h2>I.3.8 Do anarchists seek <i>"small autonomous 
communities, devoted to small scale production"</i>?</h2></a>

<p>
No. The idea that anarchism aims for small, self-sufficient, communes 
is a Leninist slander. They misrepresent anarchist ideas on this 
matter, suggesting that anarchists seriously want society based 
on <i>"small autonomous communities, devoted to small scale 
production."</i> In particular, they point to Kropotkin, arguing
that he <i>"looked backwards for change"</i> and <i>"witnessed such 
communities among Siberian peasants and watchmakers in the Swiss 
mountains."</i> [Pat Stack, <i>"Anarchy in the UK?"</i>, <b>Socialist
Review</b>, no. 246] Another Leninist, Donny Gluckstein, makes a similar
assertion about Proudhon wanting a federation of <i>"tiny economic units"</i>.
[<b>The Paris Commune</b>, p. 75]
</p><p>
While it may be better to cover this issue in <a href="secH2.html">section H.2</a>,
we discuss it here simply because it relates directly to what an anarchist 
society could look like and so it allows us to that more fully.
</p><p>
So what do anarchists make of the assertion that we aim for
<i>"small autonomous communities, devoted to small scale 
production"</i>? Simply put, we think it is nonsense (as would be 
quickly obvious from reading anarchist theory). Indeed, it is 
hard to know where this particular anarchist "vision" comes 
from. As Luigi Fabbri noted, in his reply to an identical 
assertion by the leading Bolshevik Nikolai Bukharin, <i>"[i]t 
would be interesting to learn in what anarchist book, pamphlet 
or programme such an 'ideal' is set out, or even such a hard
and fast rule!"</i> [<i>"Anarchy and 'Scientific' Communism"</i>, 
pp. 13-49, <b>The Poverty of Statism</b>, Albert Meltzer (ed.), 
p. 21] 
</p><p>
If we look at, say, Proudhon, we soon see no such argument for 
<i>"small scale"</i> production. For Proudhon, <i>"[l]arge industry 
. . . come to us by big monopoly and big property: it is necessary 
in the future to make them rise from the [workers] association."</i> 
[quoted by K. Steven Vincent, <b>Proudhon and the Rise of French 
Republican Socialism</b>, p. 156] In fact, The Frenchman <b>explicitly</b> 
rejected the position Stack inflicts on him by arguing that it 
<i>"would be to retrograde"</i> and  <i>"impossible"</i> to wish 
<i>"the division of labour, with machinery and manufactures, to be 
abandoned, and each family to return to the system of primitive 
indivision, - that is, to <b>each one by himself, each one for 
himself</b>, in the most literal meaning of the words."</i> 
[<b>System of Economic Contradictions</b>, p. 206] As historian
K. Steven Vincent correctly summarises:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"On this issue, it is necessary to emphasise that, contrary to the
general image given in the secondary literature, Proudhon was not
hostile to large industry. Clearly, he objected to many aspects of
what these large enterprises had introduced into society. For
example, Proudhon strenuously opposed the degrading character of
. . . work which required an individual to repeat one minor
function continuously. But he was not opposed in principle to 
large-scale production. What he desired was to humanise such
production, to socialise it so that the worker would not be the
mere appendage to a machine. Such a humanisation of large 
industries would result, according to Proudhon, from the
introduction of strong workers' associations. These associations
would enable the workers to determine jointly by election how
the enterprise was to be directed and operated on a day-to-day
basis."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 156]
</blockquote></p><p>
Moreover, Proudhon did not see an anarchist society as one
of isolated communities or workplaces. Like other anarchists,
as we discussed in <a href="secI3.html#seci34">section I.3.4</a>, 
Proudhon saw a free society's productive activity centred 
around federations of syndicates. 
</p><p>
This vision of a federation of workplaces can also be found in 
Bakunin's writings: <i>"The future organisation of society must 
proceed from the bottom up only, through free association or 
federations of the workers, into their associations to begin 
with, then into communes, regions, nations and, finally, into 
a great international and universal federation."</i> [<b>No 
Gods, No Masters</b>, vol. 1, p. 176] Like Proudhon, Bakunin 
also explicitly rejected the idea of seeking small-scale 
production, arguing that <i>"if [the workers] tried to divide 
among themselves the capital that exists, they would . . . 
reduce to a large decree its productive power."</i> Therefore 
the need was for <i>"the collective property of capital"</i> to 
ensure <i>"the emancipation <b>of labour and of the workers.</b>"</i> 
[<b>The Basic Bakunin</b>, p. 91] Bakunin, again like Proudhon, 
considered that <i>"[i]ntelligent free labour will necessarily 
be associated labour"</i> as under capitalism the worker <i>"works 
for others"</i> and her labour is <i>"bereft of liberty, leisure 
and intelligence."</i> Under anarchism, <i>"the free productive 
associations"</i> would become <i>"their own masters and the owners 
of the necessary capital"</i> and <i>"amalgamate among themselves"</i> 
and <i>"sooner or later"</i> will <i>"expand beyond national
frontiers"</i> and <i>"form one vast economic federation."</i> 
[<b>Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings</b>, pp. 81-3]
</p><p>
Nor can such a vision be attributed to Kropotkin. While,
of course, supporting decentralisation of power and decision
making as did Proudhon and Bakunin, he did not reject the
necessity of federations to co-ordinate activity. As he
put it, the <i>"commune of tomorrow will know that it cannot
admit any higher authority; above it there can only be the
interests of the Federation, freely accepted by itself
as well as the other communes"</i>/ For anarchists the 
commune <i>"no longer means a territorial agglomeration; it 
is rather a generic name, a synonym for the grouping of equals 
which knows neither frontiers nor walls . . . Each group in the 
Commune will necessarily be drawn towards similar groups in 
other communes; they will come together and the links that 
federate them will be as solid as those that attach 
them to their fellow citizens."</i> [<b>Words of a Rebel</b>, 
p. 83 and p. 88] Nor did he reject industry or machinery,
stating he <i>"understood the poetry of machinery"</i> and 
that while in <i>"our present factories, machinery work is 
killing for the worker"</i> this was <i>"a matter of bad 
organisation, and has nothing to do with the machine itself."</i> 
[<b>Memiors of a Revolutionist</b>, p. 111]
</p><p>
Kropotkin's vision was one of federations of decentralised 
communities in which production would be based on the <i>"scattering of 
industries over the country -- so as to bring the factory amidst the 
fields . . . agriculture . . . combined with industry . . . to produce 
a combination of industrial with agricultural work."</i> He considered 
this as <i>"surely the next step to be made, as soon as a reorganisation 
of our present conditions is possible"</i> and <i>"is imposed by the 
very necessity of <b>producing for the producers themselves.</b>"</i> 
[<b>Fields, Factories and Workshops Tomorrow</b>, pp. 157-8] He based 
this vision on a detailed analysis of current economic statistics 
and trends. 
</p><p>
Kropotkin did not see such an anarchist economy as being based around 
the small community, taking the basic unit of a free society as one 
<i>"large enough to dispose of a certain variety of natural resources 
-- it may be a nation, or rather a region -- produces and itself 
consumes most of its own agricultural and manufactured produce."</i> 
Such a region would <i>"find the best means of combining agriculture 
with manufacture -- the work in the field with a decentralised 
industry."</i> Moreover, he recognised that the <i>"geographical 
distribution of industries in a given country depends . . . to a 
great extent upon a complexus of natural conditions; it is obvious 
that there are spots which are best suited for the development of 
certain industries . . . The[se] industries always find some advantages
in being grouped, to some extent, according to the natural features of 
separate regions."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 26, p. 27 and pp. 154-5]
</p><p>
Kropotkin stressed that agriculture <i>"cannot develop without the aid 
of machinery and the use of a perfect machinery cannot be generalised 
without industrial surroundings . . . The village smith would not do."</i> 
He supported the integration of agriculture and industry, with <i>"the 
factory and workshop at the gates of your fields and gardens"</i> in
which a <i>"variety of agricultural, industrial and intellectual pursuits 
are combined in each community"</i> to ensure <i>"the greatest sum total
of well-being."</i> He thought that <i>"large establishments"</i> would 
still exist, but these would be <i>"better placed at certain spots 
indicated by Nature."</i> He stressed that it <i>"would be a great 
mistake to imagine industry ought to return to its hand-work stage 
in order to be combined with agriculture. Whenever a saving of human 
labour can be obtained by means of a machine, the machine is welcome 
and will be resorted to; and there is hardly one single branch of 
industry into which machinery work could not be introduced with great 
advantage, at least at some of the stages of the manufacture."</i>
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 156, p. 197, p. 18, pp. 154-5 and pp. 151-2]
</p><p>
Clearly Kropotkin was <b>not</b> opposed to large-scale industry for 
<i>"if we analyse the modern industries, we soon discover that for 
some of them the co-operation of hundred, even thousands, of workers 
gathered at the same spot is really necessary. The great iron works 
and mining enterprises decidedly belong to that category; oceanic 
steamers cannot be built in village factories."</i> However, he 
stressed that this objective necessity was not the case in many
other industries and centralised production existed in these purely 
to allow capitalists <i>"to hold command of the market"</i> and 
<i>"to suit the temporary interests of the few -- by no means 
those of the nation."</i> Kropotkin made a clear division between 
economic tendencies which existed to aid the capitalist to dominate 
the market and enhance their profits and power and those which 
indicated a different kind of future. Once we consider the <i>"moral 
and physical advantages which man would derive from dividing his work 
between field and the workshop"</i> we must automatically evaluate 
the structure of modern industry with the criteria of what is best 
for the worker (and society and the environment) rather than what 
was best for capitalist profits and power. [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 153, 
p. 147 and p. 153]
</p><p>
Clearly, Leninist summaries of Kropotkin's ideas on this subject are 
nonsense. Rather than seeing "small-scale" production as the basis of 
his vision of a free society, he saw production as being geared around 
the economic unit of a nation or region: <i>"Each region will become 
its own producer and its own consumer of manufactured goods . . . 
[and] its own producer and consumer of agricultural produce."</i> 
Industry would come to the village <i>"not in its present shape 
of a capitalist factory"</i> but <i>"in the shape of a socially 
organised industrial production, with the full aid of machinery 
and technical knowledge."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 40 and p. 151] 
</p><p>
Industry would be decentralised and integrated with agriculture and 
based around communes, but these communes would be part of a federation 
and so production would be based around meeting the needs of these 
federations. A system of rational decentralisation would be the basis 
of Kropotkin's communist-anarchism, with productive activity and a free 
society's workplaces geared to the appropriate level. For those forms 
of industry which would be best organised on a large-scale would 
continue to be so organised, but for those whose current (i.e., 
capitalist) structure had no objective need to be centralised would 
be broken up to allow the transformation of work for the benefit of both
workers and society. Thus we would see a system of workplaces geared to 
local and district needs complementing larger factories which would 
meet regional and wider needs.
</p><p>
Anarchism rejects the idea of small-scale production and isolated 
communes and, as we discussed in <a href="secH2.html#sech23">section H.2.3</a>, 
it does <b>not</b> look backwards for its ideal. The same applies 
to other forms of libertarian socialism with, for example, G.D.H. Cole 
arguing that we <i>"cannot go back to 'town economy', a general regime 
of handicraft and master-craftmanship, tiny-scale production. We can
neither pull up our railways, fill our mines, and dismantle our 
factories nor conduct our large-scale enterprises under a system 
developed to fit the needs of a local market and a narrowly-restricted
production."</i> The aim is <i>"to reintroduce into industry the 
communal spirit, by re-fashioning industrialism in such a way as to 
set the communal motives free to co-operate."</i> [<b>Guild Socialism 
Reststed</b>, pp. 45-6 and p. 46]
</p><p>
The obvious implication of Leninist comments arguments against anarchist 
ideas on industrial transformation after a revolution is that they think 
that a socialist society will basically be the same as capitalism, using 
the technology, industry and industrial structure developed under class 
society without change (as noted in <a href="secH3.html#sech312">section H.3.12</a>, 
Lenin did suggest that was the case). Needless to say, capitalist industry, 
as Kropotkin was aware, has not developed neutrally nor purely because of 
technical needs. Rather it has been distorted by the twin requirements to 
maintain capitalist profits and power. One of the first tasks of a social 
revolution will be to transform the industrial structure, not keep it as 
it is. You cannot use capitalist means for socialist ends. So while we 
will "inherent" an industrial structure from capitalism it would be the 
greatest possible error to leave it unchanged and an even worse one to 
accelerate the processes by which capitalists maintain and increase their 
power (i.e. centralisation and concentration) in the name of "socialism." 
</p><p>
We are sorry to have laboured this point, but this issue is one which 
arises with depressing frequency in Marxist accounts of anarchism. It 
is best that we indicate that those who make the claim that anarchists seek 
<i>"small scale"</i> production geared for <i>"small autonomous communities"</i> 
simply show their ignorance. In actually, anarchists see production as being 
geared to whatever makes most social, economic and ecological sense. Some 
production and workplaces will be geared to the local commune, some will 
be geared to the district federation, some to the regional federation, and 
so on. It is for this reason anarchists support the federation of workers'
associations as the means of combining local autonomy with the needs for 
co-ordination and joint activity. To claim otherwise is simply to 
misrepresent anarchist theory.
</p><p>
Finally, it must be psychologically significant that Leninists 
continually go on about anarchists advocating "small" and "tiny" 
workplaces. Apparently size <b>does</b> matter and Leninists think 
their productive units are much, much bigger than anarchist ones. 
As has been proven, anarchists advocate <b>appropriately sized</b> 
workplaces and are not hung-up about their size. Why Leninists are
could be a fruitful area of research...
</p>

</body>
</html>