File: secI4.html

package info (click to toggle)
anarchism 14.0-3
links: PTS, VCS
area: main
in suites: jessie, jessie-kfreebsd
size: 12,256 kB
ctags: 618
sloc: makefile: 12
file content (4633 lines) | stat: -rw-r--r-- 288,700 bytes
parent folder | download | duplicates (2)
<html>
<head>

<title>I.4 How could an anarchist economy function?</title>
</head>

<body>

<h1>I.4 How could an anarchist economy function?</h1>

<p>
This is an important question facing all opponents of a given system -- 
what will you replace it with? We can say, of course, that it is pointless 
to make blueprints of how a future anarchist society will work as the 
future will be created by everyone, not just the few anarchists and 
libertarian socialists who write books and FAQs. This is very true, we 
cannot predict what a free society will actually be like or develop and 
we have no intention to do so here. However, this reply (whatever its other 
merits) ignores a key point, people need to have some idea of what anarchism 
aims for before they decide to spend their lives trying to create it.
</p><p>
So, how would an anarchist system function? That depends on the economic
ideas people have. A mutualist economy will function differently than a
communist one, for example, but they will have similar features. As Rudolf 
Rocker put it:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Common to all Anarchists is the desire to free society of all political 
and social coercive institutions which stand in the way of development 
of a free humanity. In this sense Mutualism, Collectivism and Communism 
are not to be regarded as closed systems permitting no further 
development, but merely as economic assumptions as to the means of 
safeguarding a free community. There will even probably be in society 
of the future different forms of economic co-operation operating side 
by side, since any social progress must be associated with that free 
experiment and practical testing out for which in a society of free 
communities there will be afforded every opportunity."</i>
[<b>Anarcho-Syndicalism</b>, p. 9]
</blockquote></p><p>
So given the common ideals and aims of anarchists, it is unsurprising 
that the economic systems we suggest has common features such as 
workers' self-management, federation, free agreement and so on (as
discussed in <a href="secI3.html">last section</a>). For all anarchists, 
<i>"[t]he task for a modern industrial society is to achieve what is now 
technically realisable, namely, a society which is really based on free 
voluntary participation of people who produce and create, live their lives 
freely within institutions they control, and with limited hierarchical 
structures, possibly none at all."</i> [Noam Chomsky, quoted by Albert 
and Hahnel,  <b>Looking Forward</b>, p. 62]
</p><p>
This achieved by means of <i>"voluntary association that will organise 
labour, and be the manufacturer and distributor of necessary commodities"</i> 
and this <i>"<b>is to make what is useful. The individual is to make what 
is beautiful.</b>"</i> [Oscar Wilde, <b>The Soul of Man Under Socialism</b>, 
p. 1183] For example, the machine <i>"will supersede hand-work in the 
manufacture of plain goods. But at the same time, hand-work very probably 
will extend its domain in the artistic finishing of many things which are 
made entirely in the factory."</i> [Peter Kropotkin, <b>Fields, Factories 
and Workplaces Tomorrow</b>, p. 152] Murray Bookchin, decades later, 
argued for the same idea: <i>"the machine will remove the toil from the
productive process, leaving its artistic completion to man."</i> 
[<b>Post-Scarcity Anarchism</b>, p. 134]
</p><p>
The aim would be to maximise the time available for individuals to express
and development their individuality, including in production. As Stirner
put it, the <i>"organisation of labour touches only such labours as others 
can do for us. . . the rest remain egoistic, because no one can in your 
stead elaborate your musical compositions, carry out your projects of 
painting, etc.; nobody can replace Raphael's labours. The latter are 
labours of a unique person, which only he is competent to achieve."</i> 
Criticising the authoritarian socialists of his time, Stirner went on to 
ask <i>"for whom is time to be gained [by association]? For what does man 
require more time than is necessary to refresh his wearied powers of labour? 
Here Communism is silent."</i> He then answers his own question by arguing 
it is gained for the individual <i>"[t]o take comfort in himself as unique, 
after he has done his part as man!"</i> [Max Stirner, <b>The Ego and Its Own</b>, 
p. 268 and p. 269] Which is exactly what libertarian communists argue:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"[We] recognise that man [sic!] has other needs besides food, and as 
the strength of Anarchy lies precisely in that it understands <b>all</b>
human faculties and <b>all</b> passions, and ignores none, we shall
. . . contrive to satisfy all his intellectual and artistic needs . . . 
the man [or woman] who will have done the four or five hours of . . . 
work that are necessary for his existence, will have before him five or 
six hours which his will seek to employ according to tastes . . . </i>
</blockquote></p>
<p><blockquote>
<i>"He will discharge his task in the field, the factory, and so on, 
which he  owes to society as his contribution to the general production. 
And he will employ the second half of his day, his week, or his year, 
to satisfy his artistic or scientific needs, or his hobbies."</i> 
[Kropotkin, <b>Conquest of Bread</b>, pp. 110-1]
</blockquote></p><p>
Thus, while <b>authoritarian</b> Communism ignores the unique individual
(and that was the only kind of Communism existing when Stirner wrote
his classic book) <b>libertarian</b> communists agree with Stirner and
are not silent. Like him, they consider the whole point of organising
labour is to provide the means of providing the individual with the time 
and resources required to express their individuality. In other words, to 
pursue <i>"labours of a unique person."</i> Thus all anarchists base their 
arguments for a free society on how it will benefit actual individuals,
rather than abstracts or amorphous collectives (such as "society").
Hence chapter 9 of <b>The Conquest of Bread</b>, <i>"The Need for Luxury"</i> 
and, for that matter, chapter 10, <i>"Agreeable Work."</i> 
</p><p>
In other words, anarchists desire to organise voluntary workers associations 
which will try to ensure a minimisation of mindless labour in order to maximise 
the time available for creative activity both inside and outside "work." This
is to be achieved by free co-operation between equals, which is seen as being
based on self-interest. After all, while capitalist ideology may proclaim that
competition is an expression of self-interest it, in fact, results in the majority
of people sacrificing themselves for the benefits of the few who own and control
society. The time you sell to a boss in return for them ordering you about and
keeping the product of your labour is time you never get back. Anarchists
aim to end a system which crushes individuality and create one in which solidarity 
and co-operation allow us time to enjoy life and to gain the benefits of our 
labour ourselves. Mutual Aid, in other words, results in a better life than 
mutual struggle and so <i>"the <b>association for struggle</b> will be a much 
more effective support for civilisation, progress, and evolution than is the 
<b>struggle for existence</b> with its savage daily competitions."</i> [Luigi 
Geallani, <b>The End of Anarchism</b>, p. 26]
</p><p>
In the place of the rat race of capitalism, economic activity in an
anarchist society would be one of the means to humanise and individualise
ourselves and society, to move from <b>surviving</b> to <b>living.</b> Productive
activity should become a means of self-expression, of joy, of art, rather
than something we have to do to survive. Ultimately, "work" should become
more akin to play or a hobby than the current alienated activity. The
priorities of life should be towards individual self-fulfilment and
humanising society rather than <i>"running society as an adjunct to the
market,"</i> to use Polanyi's expression, and turning ourselves into
commodities on the labour market. Thus anarchists agree with John
Stuart Mill:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"I confess I am not charmed with an ideal of life held out by
those who think that the normal state of human beings is that of
struggling to get on; that the trampling, crushing, elbowing, and
treading on each other's heels, which form the existing type of
social life, are the most desirable lot of human kind, or anything
but the disagreeable symptoms of one of the phases of industrial
progress."</i> [<b>Collected Works</b>, vol. III, p. 754]
</blockquote></p><p>
The aim of anarchism is far more than the end of inequality. Hence 
Proudhon's comment that socialism's <i>"underlying dogma"</i> is that the 
<i>"objective of socialism is the emancipation of the proletariat and
the eradication of poverty."</i> This emancipation would be achieved
by ending <i>"wage slavery"</i> via <i>"democratically organised workers'
associations."</i> [<b>No Gods, No Masters</b>, vol. 1, p. 57 and p. 62]
Or, to use Kropotkin's expression, <i>"well-being for all"</i> -- physical, 
mental, emotional and ethical! Indeed, by concentrating on just poverty and 
ignoring the emancipation of the proletariat, the real aims of socialism are 
obscured:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"The 'right to well-being' means the possibility of living like
human beings, and of bringing up children to be members of a
society better than ours, whilst the 'right to work' only means
the right to be a wage-slave, a drudge, ruled over and exploited
by the middle class of the future. The right to well-being is the
Social Revolution, the right to work means nothing but the 
Treadmill of Commercialism. It is high time for the worker to
assert his right to the common inheritance, and to enter into
possession of it."</i> [Kropotkin, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 44]
</blockquote></p><p>
So, while refusing to define exactly how an anarchist system will work, we
will explore the implications of how the anarchist principles and ideals
outlined above could be put into practice. Bear in mind that this is just
a possible framework for a system which has few historical examples to 
draw upon. This means that we can only indicate the general outlines of 
what an anarchist society could be like. Those seeking blue-prints and
exactness should look elsewhere. In all likelihood, the framework we present 
will be modified and changed (even ignored) in light of the real experiences 
and problems people will face when creating a new society. 
</p><p>
We should point out that there may be a tendency for 
some to compare this framework with the <b>theory</b> of capitalism 
(i.e. perfectly functioning "free" markets or quasi-perfect ones) 
as opposed to its reality. A perfectly working capitalist system 
only exists in text books and in the heads of ideologues who take 
the theory as reality. No system is perfect, particularly capitalism, 
and to compare "perfect" text-book capitalism with any real system is 
a pointless task. As we discussed in depth in <a href="secCcon.html">section C</a>, 
capitalist economics does not even describe the reality of capitalism 
so why think it would enlighten discussion of post-capitalist systems?
What hope does it have of understanding post-capitalist systems which 
reject its proprietary despotism and inequalities? As anarchists aim 
for a qualitative change in our economic relationships, we can safely 
say that its economic dynamics will reflect the specific forms it will 
develop rather than those produced by a class-ridden hierarchical 
system like capitalism and the a-historic individualistic abstractions 
invented to defend it!
</p><p>
So any attempt to apply the notions developed from theorising about (or, 
more correctly, justifying and rationalising) capitalism to anarchism 
will fail to capture the dynamics of a non-capitalist system. John Crump 
stressed this point in his discussion of Japanese anarchism between the 
World Wars:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"When considering the feasibility of the social system
advocated by the pure anarchists, we need to be clear about 
the criteria against which it should be measured. It would, 
for example, be unreasonable to demand that it be assessed 
against such yardsticks of a capitalist economy as annual 
rate of growth, balance of trade and so forth . . . evaluating 
anarchist communism by means of the criteria which have been 
devised to measure capitalism's performance does not make sense
. . . capitalism would be . . . baffled if it were demanded that 
it assess its operations against the performance indicators to 
which pure anarchists attached most importance, such as personal 
liberty, communal solidarity and the individual's unconditional
right to free consumption. Faced with such demands, capitalism 
would either admit that these were not yardsticks against which 
it could sensibly measure itself or it would have to resort to 
the type of grotesque ideological subterfuges which it often
employs, such as identifying human liberty with the market and 
therefore with wage slavery . . . The pure anarchists' confidence 
in the alternative society they advocated derived not from an 
expectation that it would <b>quantitatively</b> outperform 
capitalism in terms of GNP, productivity or similar capitalist 
criteria. On the contrary, their enthusiasm for anarchist communism 
flowed from their understanding that it would be <b>qualitatively</b> 
different from capitalism. Of course, this is not to say that the 
pure anarchists were indifferent to questions of production and 
distribution . . . they certainly believed that anarchist communism 
would provide economic well-being for all. But neither were they 
prepared to give priority to narrowly conceived economic expansion, 
to neglect individual liberty and communal solidarity, as capitalism 
regularly does."</i> [<b>Hatta Shuzo and Pure Anarchism in Interwar 
Japan</b>, pp. 191-3]
</blockquote></p><p>
Finally, anarchists are well aware that transforming how an economy
works does not happen overnight. As discussed in 
<a href="secI2.html#seci22">section I.2.2</a>, we have long rejected 
the idea of instantaneous social transformation and argued that revolution
will take time to develop and change the legacy of centuries of 
class and hierarchical society. This transformation and the resulting
changes in people and surroundings can only be achieved by the full
participation of all in overcoming the (many) problems a free society
will face and the new ways of relating to each other liberation implies.
A free people will find their own practical solutions to their problems,
for <i>"there will be all sorts of practical difficulties to overcome,
but the [libertarian socialist] system is simplicity itself compared 
with the monster of centralised State control, which sets such an 
inhuman distance between the worker and the administrator that there
is room for a thousand difficulties to intervene."</i> [Herbert Read, 
<b>Anarchy and Order</b>, p. 49] Thus, for anarchists, the <i>"enthusiasm 
generated by the revolution, the energies liberated, and the inventiveness 
stimulated by it must be given full freedom and scope to find creative 
channels."</i> [Alexander Berkman, <b>What is Anarchism?</b>, p. 223] 
As such, the ideas within this section of our FAQ are merely suggestions, 
possibilities. 
</p>

<a name="seci41"><h2>I.4.1 What is the point of economic activity in anarchy?</h2></a>

<p>
The basic point of economic activity is an anarchist society is 
to ensure, to use Kropotkin's expression, <i><b>"well-being for
all"</b></i>. Rather than toil to make the rich richer, people
in a free society would work together to <i>"ensure to society as
a whole its life and further development."</i> Such an economy 
would be based upon <i>"giving society the greatest amount of useful 
products with the least waste of human energy"</i>, to meet <i>"the 
needs of mankind"</i>. [<b>The Conquest of Bread</b>, p. 43, p. 144 
and p. 175] Needless to say, today we must also add: with the least 
disruption of nature.
</p><p>
In terms of needs, it should be stressed that these are
not limited to just material goods (important as they may be, 
particularly to those currently living in poverty). Needs also
extend to having meaningful work which you control, pleasant and
ecologically viable surroundings, the ability to express oneself
freely within and outwith work, and a host of other things 
associated with the quality of life rather than merely survival.
Anarchism seeks to transform economic activity rather than merely
liberate it by self-management (important as that is).
</p><p>
Therefore, for anarchists, <i>"[r]eal wealth consists of things of 
utility and beauty, in things that help create strong, beautiful 
bodies and surroundings inspiring to live in."</i> Anarchism's <i>"goal
is the freest possible expression of all the latent powers of
the individual"</i> and this <i>"is only possible in a state of
society where man [sec!] is free to choose the mode of work, the 
conditions of work, and the freedom to work. One whom making a 
table, the building of a house, or the tilling of the soil is what 
the painting is to the artist and the discovery to the scientist -- 
the result of inspiration, of intense longing, and deep interest in 
work as a creative force."</i> [Emma Goldman, <b>Red Emma Speaks</b>, 
p. 67 and p. 68]
</p><p>
So the point of economic activity in an anarchist society is to 
produce as and when required and not, as under capitalism, to 
organise production for the sake of production in order to make
profits for the few. Production, to use Kropotkin's words, is to 
become <i>"the mere servant of consumption; it must mould itself 
on the wants of the consumer, not dictate to him [or her] conditions."</i> 
[<b>Act For Yourselves</b>, p. 57] This should <b>not</b> be taken to
imply that anarchism seeks production for the sake of production in
order to meet all the needs of all. Far from it, as such a regime 
would, to quote Malatesta, involve <i>"employing <b>all</b> of 
one's strength in producing things, because taken literally, this 
would mean working until one is exhausted, which would mean that by 
maximising the satisfaction of human needs we destroy humanity."</i> 
In other words, a free society would take into account the wants 
of the producers (and the planet we live on) when meeting the wants 
of consumers. Thus, there would be a balance sought. <i>"What we 
would like,"</i> continued Malatesta, <i>"is for everybody to live in 
the best possible way: so that everybody with a minimum amount of 
effort will obtain maximum satisfaction."</i> [<b>At the Caf</b>, 
p. 61] 
</p><p>
So while the basic aim of economic activity in an anarchist society 
is, obviously, producing wealth -- i.e., satisfying individual needs -- 
without enriching capitalists or other parasites in the process, it 
is far more than that. Yes, an anarchist society will aim to create 
society in which everyone will have a standard of living suitable for 
a fully human life. Yes, it will aim to eliminate poverty, inequality, 
individual want and social waste and squalor, but it aims for far 
more than that. It aims to create free individuals who express their 
individuality within and outwith "work." After all, what is the most 
important thing that comes out of a workplace? Pro-capitalists may 
say profits, others the finished commodity or good. In fact, the 
most important thing that comes out of a workplace is the <b>worker.</b> 
What happens to us in the workplace will have an impact on all aspects 
of our life and so cannot be ignored. 
</p><p>
To value "efficiency" above all else, as capitalism says it does
(it, in fact, values <b>profits</b> above all else and hinders 
developments like workers' control which increase efficiency but 
harm power and profits), is to deny our own humanity and individuality. 
Without an appreciation for grace and beauty there is no pleasure in 
creating things and no pleasure in having them. Our lives are made drearier 
rather than richer by "progress." How can a person take pride in their work 
when skill and care are considered luxuries (if not harmful to "efficiency" 
and, under capitalism, the profits and power of the capitalist and manager)? 
We are not machines. We have a need for craftspersonship and anarchism 
recognises this and takes it into account in its vision of a free society. 
This means that, in an anarchist society, economic activity is the process 
by which we produce what is useful but, in addition, is also beautiful (to 
use Oscar Wilde's words) in a way that empowers the individual. We anarchists 
charge capitalism with wasting human energy and time due to its irrational 
nature and workings, energy that could be spent creating what is beautiful 
(both in terms of individualities and products of labour). Under capitalism 
we are <i>"toiling to live, that we may live to toil."</i> [William Morris, 
<b>Useful Work Versus Useless Toil</b>, p. 37]
</p><p>
In addition, we must stress that the aim of economic activity within
an anarchist society is <b>not</b> to create equality of outcome -- i.e.
everyone getting exactly the same goods. As we noted in 
<a href="secA2.html#seca25">section A.2.5</a>,
such a "vision" of "equality" attributed to socialists by pro-capitalists
indicates more the poverty of imagination and ethics of the critics
of socialism than a true account of socialist ideas. Anarchists, like
other genuine socialists, support <b>social</b> equality in order to 
maximise freedom, including the freedom to choose between options to 
satisfy ones needs. To treat people equally, as equals, means to 
respect their desires and interests, to acknowledge their right to 
equal liberty. To make people consume the same as everyone else does 
not respect the equality of all to develop ones abilities as one sees 
fit. Socialism means equality of opportunity to satisfy desires and 
interests, not the imposition of an abstract minimum (or maximum)
on unique individuals. To treat unique individuals equally means
to acknowledge that uniqueness, not to deny it.
</p><p>
Thus the <b>real</b> aim of economic activity within an anarchy is to 
ensure <i>"that every human being should have the material and moral 
means to develop his humanity."</i> [Michael Bakunin, <b>The Political 
Philosophy of Bakunin</b>, p. 295] And you cannot develop your humanity 
if you cannot express yourself freely. Needless to say, to treat 
unique people "equally" (i.e. identically) is simply evil. You 
cannot, say, have a 70 year old woman do the same work in order to 
receive the same income as a 20 year old man. No, anarchists do not 
subscribe to such "equality," which is a product of the <i>"ethics of 
mathematics"</i> of capitalism and <b>not</b> of anarchist ideals. Such a 
scheme is alien to a free society. The equality anarchists desire 
is a social equality, based on control over the decisions that 
affect you. The aim of anarchist economic activity, therefore, is to
provide the goods required for <i>"equal freedom for all, an equality 
of conditions such as to allow everyone to do as they wish."</i> [Errico 
Malatesta, <b>Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas</b>, p. 49] Thus 
anarchists <i>"demand not natural but social equality of individuals 
as the condition for justice and the foundations of morality."</i> 
[Bakunin, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 249]
</p><p>
Under capitalism, instead of humans controlling production, production 
controls them. Anarchists want to change this and desire to create an 
economic network which will allow the maximisation of an individual's 
free time in order for them to express and develop their individuality 
(while creating what is beautiful). So instead of aiming just to produce 
because the economy will collapse if we did not, anarchists want to ensure 
that we produce what is useful in a manner which liberates the individual 
and empowers them in all aspects of their lives. 
</p><p>
This desire means that anarchists reject the capitalist definition 
of "efficiency." Anarchists would agree with Albert and Hahnel when 
they argue that <i>"since people are conscious agents whose characteristics 
and therefore preferences develop over time, to access long-term efficiency 
we must access the impact of economic institutions on people's development."</i> 
Capitalism, as we have explained before, is highly inefficient in this light 
due to the effects of hierarchy and the resulting marginalisation and 
disempowerment of the majority of society. As Albert and Hahnel go on to note, 
<i>"self-management, solidarity, and variety are all legitimate valuative
criteria for judging economic institutions . . . Asking whether particular
institutions help people attain self-management, variety, and solidarity
is sensible."</i> [<b>The Political Economy of Participatory Economics</b>, 
p. 9]
</p><p>
In other words, anarchists think that any economic activity in a free 
society is to do useful things in such a way that gives those doing it 
as much pleasure as possible. The point of such activity is to express 
the individuality of those doing it, and for that to happen they must 
control the work process itself. Only by self-management can work become 
a means of empowering the individual and developing his or her powers.
</p><p>
In a nutshell, to use the words of William Morris, useful work will replace 
useless toil in an anarchist society.
</p>

<a name="seci42"><h2>I.4.2 Why do anarchists desire to abolish work?</h2></a>

<p>
Anarchists desire to see humanity liberate itself from work. This may
come as a shock for many people and will do much to "prove" that anarchism
is essentially utopian. However, we think that such an abolition is not
only necessary, it is possible. This is because work as we know it today
is one of the major dangers to freedom we face. 
</p><p>
If by freedom we mean self-government, then it is clear that being subjected
to hierarchy in the workplace subverts our abilities to think and judge
for ourselves. Like any skill, critical analysis and independent thought
have to be practised continually in order to remain at their full potential.
So a workplace environment with power structures undermines these abilities. 
This was recognised by Adam Smith who argued that the <i>"understandings of 
the greater part of men are necessarily formed by their ordinary employments."</i> 
That being so, <i>"the man whose life is spent in performing a few simple 
operations, of which the effects too are, perhaps, always the same, or nearly 
the same, has no occasion to extend his understanding . . . and generally 
becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to be 
. . . But in every improved and civilised society this is the state into 
which the labouring poor, that is the great body of the people, must 
necessarily fall, unless government takes pains to prevent it."</i> [quoted 
by Noam Chomsky, <b>Year 501</b>, p. 18] 
</p><p>
Smith's argument (usually ignored by those who claim to follow his 
ideas) is backed up by extensive evidence. Different types of 
authority structures and different technologies have different effects 
on those who work within them. Carole Pateman notes that the evidence 
suggests that <i>"[o]nly certain work situations were found to be 
conducive to the development of the psychological characteristics"</i>
suitable for freedom, such as <i>"the feelings of personal confidence 
and efficacy that underlay the sense of political efficacy."</i> 
[<b>Participation and Democratic Theory</b>, p. 51] She quotes one expert 
who argues that within capitalist companies based upon a highly rationalised 
work environment and extensive division of labour, the worker has no 
control over the pace or technique of his work, no room to exercise skill 
or leadership and so they <i>"have practically no opportunity to solve
problems and contribute their own ideas."</i> The worker, according to 
a psychological study, is <i>"resigned to his lot . . . more dependent 
than independent . . . he lacks confidence in himself . . . he is humble 
. . . the most prevalent feeling states . . . seem to be fear and 
anxiety."</i> [quoted by Pateman, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 51 and p. 52] 
</p><p>
The evidence Pateman summarises shows that an individual's <i>"attitudes
will depend to a large degree on the authority structure of his [or her]
work environment"</i>, with workplaces which are more autocratic and
with a higher division of labour being worse for an individual's sense
of self-esteem, feelings of self-worth and autonomy. In workplaces where 
<i>"the worker has a high degree of personal control over his [or her] 
work . . . and a very large degree of freedom from external control"</i>
or is based on the <i>"collective responsibility of a crew of employees"</i>
who <i>"had control over the pace and method of getting the work done, 
and the work crews were largely internally self-disciplining"</i> a 
different social character is seen. [Pateman, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 52-3]
This was characterised by <i>"a strong sense of individualism and autonomy, 
and a solid acceptance of citizenship in the large society"</i> and <i>"a 
highly developed feeling of self-esteem and a sense of self-worth and is 
therefore ready to participate in the social and political institutions 
of the community."</i> Thus the <i>"nature of a man's work affects his 
social character and personality"</i> and that an <i>"industrial environment 
tends to breed a distinct social type."</i> [R. Blauner, quoted by Pateman, 
<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 52] 
</p><p>
Thus, to quote Bob Black (who notes that Smith's comments against the 
division of labour are his <i>"critique of work"</i>), the capitalist 
workplace turns us into <i>"stultified submissives"</i> and places us 
<i>"under the sort of surveillance that ensures servility."</i> For this 
reason anarchists desire, to use Bob Black's phrase, <i>"the abolition of 
work."</i> [<b>The Abolition of Work and other essays</b>, p. 26, p. 22 
and p. 19]
</p><p>
Work, in this context, does not mean any form of productive activity. 
Far from it. Work (in the sense of doing necessary things or productive
activity) will always be with us. There is no getting away from it; crops 
need to be grown, schools built, homes fixed, and so on. No, work in this 
context means any form of labour in which the worker does not control 
his or her own activity. In other words, <b>wage labour</b> in all its 
many forms. 
</p><p>
A society based upon hierarchical relations in production will result 
in a society within which the typical worker uses few of their abilities, 
exercise little or no control over their work because they are governed 
by a boss during working hours. This has been proved to lower the individual's 
self-esteem and feelings of self-worth, as would be expected in any social
relationship that denied self-government. Capitalism is marked by an 
extreme division of labour, particularly between mental and physical 
labour. It reduces the worker to a mere machine operator, following 
the orders of his or her boss. Therefore, a libertarian that does not 
support economic liberty (i.e. self-management) is no libertarian at all.
</p><p>
Capitalism bases its rationale for itself on consumption and this
results in a viewpoint which minimises the importance of the time we
spend in productive activity. Anarchists consider that it is essential
for individual's to use and develop their unique attributes and capacities
in all walks of life, to maximise their powers. Therefore, the idea that
"work" should be ignored in favour of consumption is totally mad. Productive
activity is an important way of developing our inner-powers and express
ourselves; in other words, be creative. Capitalism's emphasis on consumption
shows the poverty of that system. As Alexander Berkman argued:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"We do not live by bread alone. True, existence is not possible without
opportunity to satisfy our physical needs. But the gratification of these
by no means constitutes all of life. Our present system of disinheriting
millions, made the belly the centre of the universe, so to speak. But in 
a sensible society . . . [t]he feelings of human sympathy, of justice and
right would have a chance to develop, to be satisfied, to broaden and grow."</i> 
[<b>What is Anarchism?</b>, pp. 152-3] 
</blockquote></p><p>
Therefore, capitalism is based on a constant process of alienated consumption, 
as workers try to find the happiness associated within productive, creative, 
self-managed activity in a place it does not exist -- on the shop shelves. This 
can partly explain the rise of both mindless consumerism and the continuation of 
religions, as individuals try to find meaning for their lives and happiness, a 
meaning and happiness frustrated in wage labour and other hierarchies.
</p><p>
Capitalism's impoverishment of the individual's spirit is hardly surprising. 
As William Godwin argued, <i>"[t]he spirit of oppression, the spirit of 
servility, and the spirit of fraud, these are the immediate growth of the 
established administration of property. They are alike hostile to intellectual 
and moral improvement."</i> [<b>The Anarchist Reader</b>, p. 131] Any system 
based on hierarchical relationships in work will result in a deadening 
of the individual and in a willingness to defer to economic masters. Which is 
why Anarchists desire to change this and create a society based upon freedom in
all aspects of life. Hence anarchists desire to abolish work, simply because
it restricts the liberty and distorts the individuality of those who have to 
do it. To quote Emma Goldman:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Anarchism aims to strip labour of its deadening, dulling aspect, of its 
gloom and compulsion. It aims to make work an instrument of joy, of strength, 
of colour, of real harmony, so that the poorest sort of a man should find in 
work both recreation and hope."</i> [<b>Anarchism and Other Essays</b>, p. 61]
</blockquote></p><p>
Anarchists do not think that by getting rid of work we will not have to 
produce necessary goods. Far from it. An anarchist society <i>"doesn't
mean we have to stop doing things. It does mean creating a new way of life 
based on play; in other words, a ludic revolution . . . a collective adventure 
in generalised joy and freely interdependent exuberance. Play isn't passive."</i> 
The aim is <i>"to abolish work and replace it, insofar as it serves useful
purposes, with a multitude of new kinds of free activities. To abolish work
requires going at it from two directions, quantitative and qualitative."</i>
In terms of the first, <i>"we need to cut down massively the amount of working 
being done"</i> (luckily, <i>"most work is useless or worse and we should simply
get rid of it"</i>). For the second, <i>"we have to take what useful work remains
and transform it into a pleasing variety of game-like and craft-like pastimes,
indistinguishable from other pleasurable pastimes, except that the happen to
yield useful end-products."</i> [Bob Black, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 17 and p. 28]
</p><p>
This means that in an anarchist society every effort would be made to reduce 
boring, unpleasant activity to a minimum and ensure that whatever productive 
activity is required to be done is as pleasant as possible and based upon 
voluntary labour. However, it is important to remember Cornelius Castoriadis
point: <i>"Socialist society will be able to reduce the length of the 
working day, and will have to do so, but this will not be the fundamental
preoccupation. Its first task will be to . . . transform the very nature of
work. The problem is not to leave more and more 'free' time to individuals --
which might well be <b>empty</b> time -- so that they may fill it at will with 
'poetry' or the carving of wood. The problem is to make all time a time
of liberty and to allow concrete freedom to find expression in creative
activity."</i> Essentially, the <i>"problem is to put poetry into work."</i> 
[<b>Political and Social Writings</b>, vol. 2, p. 107]
</p><p>
This is why anarchists desire to abolish "work" (i.e., productive activity 
not under control of the people doing it), to ensure that whatever productive
economic activity is required to be done is managed by those who do it. In 
this way it can be liberated, transformed, and so become a means of 
self-realisation and not a form of self-negation. In other words, anarchists 
want to abolish work because <i>"[l]ife, the art of living, has become a dull 
formula, flat and inert."</i> [Berkman, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 166] Anarchists 
want to bring the spontaneity and joy of life back into productive activity 
and save humanity from the dead hand of capital. Anarchists consider economic 
activity as an expression of the human spirit, an expression of the innate 
human need to express ourselves and to create. Capitalism distorts these 
needs and makes economic activity a deadening experience by the division 
of labour and hierarchy. We think that <i>"industry is not an end in itself, 
but should only be a means to ensure to man his material subsistence and to 
make accessible to him the blessings of a higher intellectual culture. Where 
industry is everything and man is nothing begins the realm of a ruthless 
economic despotism whose workings are no less disastrous than those of any 
political despotism. The two mutually augment one another, and they are 
fed from the same source."</i> [Rudolph Rocker, <b>Anarcho-Syndicalism</b>, 
p. 2] 
</p><p>
One last point on the abolition of work. May 1st -- International
Workers' Day -- was, as we discussed in 
<a href="secA5.html#seca52">section A.5.2</a>, created to 
commemorate the Chicago Anarchist Martyrs. Anarchists then, as
now, think that it should be celebrated by strike action and mass
demonstrations. In other words, for anarchists, International
Workers' Day should be a non-work day! That sums up the anarchist
position to work nicely -- that the celebration of workers' day
should be based on the rejection of work.
</p><p>
The collection of articles in <b>Why Work? Arguments for the Leisure 
Society</b> (edited by Vernon Richards) is a useful starting place for 
libertarian socialist perspectives on work.
</p>

<a name="seci43"><h2>I.4.3 How do anarchists intend to abolish work?</h2></a>

<p>
Basically by workers' self-management of production and common
ownership of the means of production. It is hardly in the interests 
of those who do the actual "work" to have bad working conditions, 
boring, repetitive labour, and so on. Therefore, a key aspect of 
the liberation from work is to create a self-managed society, <i>"a 
society in which everyone has equal means to develop and that all 
are or can be at the same time intellectual and manual workers, and the 
only differences remaining between men [and women] are those which 
stem from the natural diversity of aptitudes, and that all jobs, 
all functions, give an equal right to the enjoyment of social 
possibilities."</i> [Errico Malatesta, <b>Anarchy</b>, p. 42]
</p><p>
Essential to this task is decentralisation and the use of appropriate 
technology. Decentralisation is important to ensure that those who do 
work can determine how to liberate it. A decentralised system will 
ensure that ordinary people can identify areas for technological 
innovation and so understand the need to get rid of certain kinds 
of work. Unless ordinary people understand and control the 
introduction of technology, then they will never be fully aware 
of the benefits of technology and resist advances which may be in 
their best interests to introduce. This is the full meaning of 
appropriate technology, namely the use of technology which those 
most affected feel to be best in a given situation. Such technology
may or may not be technologically "advanced" but it will be of the kind
which ordinary people can understand and, most importantly, control.
</p><p>
The potential for rational use of technology can be seen from capitalism.
Under capitalism, technology is used to increase profits, to expand the
economy, not to liberate <b>all</b> individuals from useless toil (it does,
of course, liberate a few from such "activity"). As economist Juliet B.
Schor points out, productivity <i>"measures the goods and services that
result from each hour worked. When productivity rises, a worker can
either produce the current output in less time, or remain at work the
same number of hours and produce more."</i> With rising productivity,
we are presented with the possibility of more free time. For example,
since 1948 the level of productivity of the American worker <i>"has
more than doubled. In other words, we could now produce our 1948 
standard of living . . . . in less than half the time it took that
year. We could actually have chosen the four-hour day. Or a working
year of six months."</i> [<b>The Overworked American</b>, p. 2]
</p><p>
And, remember, these figures include production in many areas of the
economy that would not exist in a free society -- state and capitalist 
bureaucracy, weapons production for the military, property defence, the 
finance sector, and so on. As Alexander Berkman argued, millions are 
<i>"engaged in trade, . . . advertisers, and various other middlemen of 
the present system"</i> along with the armed forces and <i>"the great 
numbers employed in unnecessary and harmful occupations, such as 
building warships, the manufacture of ammunition and other military 
equipment"</i> would be <i>"released for useful work by a revolution."</i> 
[<b>What is Anarchism</b>, pp. 224-5] So the working week will be reduced 
simply because more people will be available for doing essential work. 
Moreover, goods will be built to last and so much production will become 
sensible and not governed by an insane desire to maximise profits at the 
expense of everything else. In addition, this is not taking into account 
the impact of a more just distribution of consumption in terms of living 
standards and production, meaning that a standard of living produced by 
working half the time would be far higher than that implied by Schor's 
1948 baseline (not to mention the advances in technology since then either!).
In short, do not take the 1948 date as implying a literal return to that
period!
</p><p>
Moreover, a lower working week would see productivity rising. 
<i>"Thus,"</i> as one economist summarises, <i>"when the hours 
of labour were reduced, the better-rested workers were often 
able to produce as much or more in the shorter hours than they 
had previously in longer hours."</i> Yet <i>"competition
between employers would make it unlikely that a working day of
optimal length would be established"</i> under capitalism. In
addition, <i>"more disposable time might better contribute to people's
well-being -- that is, to things such as trust, health, learning,
family life, self-reliance and citizenship"</i>. While this
may reduce such conventional economic measures as GDP, the fact
is that such measures are flawed. After all, <i>"an increase
in GDP could represent a diminution of free time accompanied
by an increased output of goods and services whose sole utility
was either facilitating labour-market participation or repairing 
some of the social damage that resulted from the stress of overwork
or neglect of non-market activity."</i> [Tom Walker, <i>"Why 
Economists dislike a Lump of Labor"</i>, pp. 279-91, <b>Review of
Social Economy</b>, vol. 65, No. 3, p. 286, pp. 287-8 and p. 288]
</p><p>
All this suggests the level of production for useful goods with a four-hour 
working day would be much higher than the 1948 level or, of course, the 
working day could be made even shorter. As such, we can easily combine 
a decent standard of living with a significant reduction of the necessary
working time required to produce it. Once we realise that much work 
under capitalism exists to manage aspects of the profit system or are
produced as a result of that system and the damage it does, we can see
how a self-managed society can give us more time for ourselves in addition
to producing useful goods (rather than working long and hard to produce 
surplus value for the few).
</p><p>
However, anarchists do not see it as simply a case of reducing the hours
of work will keeping the remaining work as it. That would be silly. We aim
to transform what useful productive activity is left. When self-management 
becomes universal we will see the end of division of labour as mental and 
physical work becomes unified and those who do the work also manage it. This 
will allow <i>"the free exercise of <b>all</b> the faculties of man"</i> both 
inside and outside "work." [Peter Kropotkin, <b>The Conquest of Bread</b>, 
p. 148] The aim of such a development would be to turn productive activity, 
as far as possible, into an enjoyable experience. In the words of Murray 
Bookchin it is the <b>quality</b> and <b>nature</b> of the work process 
that counts:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"If workers' councils and workers' management of production do not 
transform the work into a joyful activity, free time into a marvellous 
experience, and the workplace into a community, then they remain merely 
formal structures, in fact, <b>class</b> structures. They perpetuate the 
limitations of the proletariat as a product of bourgeois social conditions.
Indeed, no movement that raises the demand for workers' councils can be 
regarded as revolutionary unless it tries to promote sweeping transformations 
in the environment of the work place."</i> [<b>Post-Scarcity Anarchism</b>, 
p. 88]
</blockquote></p><p>
Work will become, primarily, the expression of a person's pleasure in
what they are doing and become like an art -- an expression of their 
creativity and individuality. Work as an art will become expressed in
the workplace as well as the work process, with workplaces transformed
and integrated into the local community and environment (see 
<a href="secI4.html#seci415">section I.4.15</a>). This will
obviously apply to work conducted in the home as well, otherwise the 
<i>"revolution, intoxicated with the beautiful words, Liberty, Equality,
Solidarity, would not be a revolution if it maintained slavery at
home. Half [of] humanity subjected to the slavery of the hearth would 
still have to rebel against the other half."</i> [Kropotkin, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
p. 128]
</p><p>
In other words, anarchists desire <i>"to combine the best part (in fact, 
the only good part) of work -- the production of use-values -- with 
the best of play . . . its freedom and its fun, its voluntariness and 
its intrinsic gratification"</i>. In short, the transformation of 
production (creating <i>"what seems needful"</i>") into <i>"<b>productive 
play</b></i>". [Bob Black, <i>"Smokestack Lightning"</i>, <b>Friendly Fire</b>, 
p. 48 and p. 49]
</p><p>
Workers' self-management of production (see 
<a href="secI3.html#seci32">section I.3.2</a>)
would be the means of achieving this. Only those subject to a specific
mode of working can be in a position to transform it and their workplace 
into something fit for free individuals to create in. Only those who
know a workplace which would only exist in a hierarchical system like
capitalism can be in a position to decommission it safely and quickly.
The very basis of free association will ensure the abolition of work, 
as individuals will apply for "work" they enjoy doing and so would be 
interested in reducing "work" they did not want to do to a minimum.
Therefore, an anarchist society would abolish work by ensuring that
those who do it actually control it. <i>"Personal initiative will be 
encouraged and every tendency to uniformity and centralisation combated."</i> 
[Kropotkin, quoted by Martin Buber, <b>Paths in Utopia</b>, p. 42] 
</p><p>
All this does not imply that anarchists think that individuals will 
not seek to "specialise" in one form of productive activity rather 
than another. Far from it, people in a free society will pick 
activities which interest them as the main focal point of their 
means of self-expression (after all, not everyone enjoys the same 
games and pastimes so why expect the same of productive play?). <i>"It 
is evident,"</i> noted Kropotkin, <i>"that all men and women cannot 
equally enjoy the pursuit of scientific work. The variety of 
inclinations is such that some will find more pleasure in science, 
some others in art, and others again in some of the numberless 
branches of the production of wealth."</i> This "division of work" 
is commonplace in humanity this natural desire to do what interests 
you and what you are good at will be encouraged in an anarchist 
society. As Kropotkin argued, anarchists <i>"fully recognise the 
necessity of specialisation of knowledge, but we maintain that 
specialisation must follow general education, and that general 
education must be given in science and handicraft alike. To 
the division of society into brain workers and manual workers 
we oppose the combination of both kinds of activities . . . we 
advocate the <b>education integrale</b> [integral education], or 
complete education, which means the disappearance of that pernicious 
division."</i> Anarchists are, needless to say, aware that training
and study are required to qualify you to so some tasks and a free
society would ensure that individuals would achieve the necessary
recognised levels before undertaking them (by means of, say, 
professional bodies who organise a certification process). Kropotkin 
was aware, however, that both individuals and society would 
benefit from a diversity of activities and a strong general 
knowledge: <i>"But whatever the occupations preferred by everyone, 
everyone will be the more useful in his [or her] branch if he [or she]
is in possession of a serious scientific knowledge. And, whosoever he 
might be . . . he would be the gainer if he spent a part of his life 
in the workshop or the farm (the workshop <b>and</b> the farm), if 
he were in contact with humanity in its daily work, and had the 
satisfaction of knowing that he himself discharges his duties as an
unprivileged producer of wealth."</i> [<b>Fields, Factories and 
Workshops Tomorrow</b>, p. 186, p. 172 and p. 186]
</p><p>
However, while specialisation would continue, the permanent division 
of individuals into manual or brain workers would be eliminated.  
Individuals will manage all aspects of the "work" required (for 
example, engineers will also take part in self-managing their 
workplaces), a variety of activities would be encouraged and 
the strict division of labour of capitalism will be abolished. 
In other words, anarchists want to replace the division of labour 
by the division of  work. We must stress that we are not playing
with words here. John Crump presents a good summary of the ideas
of the Japanese anarchist Hatta Shuzo on this difference:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"[We must] recognise the distinction which Hatta made between
the 'division of labour' . . . and the 'division of work' . . .
while Hatta believed that the division of labour . . . was the cause
of class divisions and exploitation, he did not see anything sinister 
in the division of work . . . On the contrary, Hatta believed that 
the division of work was a benign and unavoidable feature of any 
productive process: 'it goes without saying that within society,
whatever the kind of production, there has to be a  division of work.' 
. . . [For] the dangers [of division of labour] to which Hatta [like
other anarchists like Proudhon and Kropotkin] drew attention did not
arise from a situation where, at any one time, different people were
engaged in different productive activities . . . What did spell 
danger, however, was when, either individually or collectively, 
people permanently divided along occupational lines . . . and gave rise
to the disastrous consequences . . . . [of] the degrading of labour
to a mechanical function; the lack of responsibility for, understanding
of, or interest in other branches of production; and the need for a
superior administrative organ to co-ordinate the various branches of
production."</i> [<b>Hatta Shuzo and Pure Anarchism in Interwar Japan</b>, 
pp. 146-7]
</blockquote></p><p>
As Kropotkin argued:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"while a <b>temporary</b> division of functions remains the surest
guarantee of success in each separate undertaking, the <b>permanent</b>
division is doomed to disappear, and to be substituted by a variety
of pursuits -- intellectual, industrial, and agricultural --
corresponding to the different capacities of the individual, as 
well as to the variety of capacities within every human aggregate."</i> 
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 26]
</blockquote></p><p>
As an aside, supporters of capitalism argue that <b>integrated</b> labour
must be more inefficient than <b>divided</b> labour as capitalist firms
have not introduced it. This is false for numerous reasons. 
</p><p>
Firstly, we have to put out the inhuman logic of the assertion. 
After all, few would argue in favour of slavery if it were, in fact, 
<b>more</b> productive than wage labour but such is the logical conclusion 
of this argument. If someone did argue that the only reason slavery
was not the dominant mode of labour simply because it was inefficient
we would consider them as less than human. Simply put, it is a sick
ideology which happily sacrifices individuals for the sake of
slightly more products. Sadly, that is what many defenders of
capitalism do, ultimately, argue for.
</p><p>
Secondly, capitalist firms are not neutral structures but rather 
a system of hierarchies, with entrenched interests and needs. 
Managers will only introduce a work technique that maintains 
their power (and so their profits). As we argue in 
<a href="secJ5.html#secj512">section J.5.12</a>, 
while experiments in workers' participation see a rise in efficiency 
and productivity, managers stop them simply because they recognise
that workers' control undercuts their power by empowering workers who 
then can fight for a greater slice of the value they produce (not to
mention come to the conclusion that while the boss needs them to work,
they don't need to boss to manage them!). So the lack of integrated 
labour under capitalism simply means that it does not empower management
nor secure their profits and power, <b>not</b> that it is less efficient. 
</p><p>
Thirdly, the attempts by managers and bosses to introduce "flexibility" 
by eliminating unions suggests that integration <b>is</b> more efficient. After 
all, one of the major complains directed towards union contracts are that 
they explicitly documented what workers could and could not do (for example, 
union members would refuse to do work which was outside their agreed job
descriptions). This is usually classed as an example of the evil of regulations.
However, if we look at it from the viewpoint of contract and division of labour, 
it exposes the inefficiency and inflexibility of both as a means of co-operation. 
After all, what is this refusal actually mean? It means that the worker refuses to 
do work that is not specified in his or her contract! Their job description indicates
what they have been contracted to do and anything else has not been agreed upon 
in advance. The contract specifies a clear, specified and agreed division of labour 
in a workplace between worker and boss.
</p><p>
While being a wonderful example of a well-designed contract, managers discovered 
that they could not operate their workplaces because of them. Rather, they needed 
a general "do what you are told" contract (which of course is hardly an 
example of contract reducing authority) and such a contract <b>integrates</b> 
numerous work tasks into one. The managers diatribe against union contracts 
suggests that production needs some form of integrated labour to actually 
work (as well as showing the hypocrisy of the labour contract under capitalism 
as labour "flexibility" simply means labour "commodification" -- a machine 
does not question what its used for, the ideal under capitalism is a similar 
unquestioning nature for labour). The union job description indicates that 
production needs the integration of labour while demanding a division of work. 
As Cornelius Castoriadis argued:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Modern production has destroyed many traditional professional
qualifications. It has created automatic or semi-automatic machines. 
It has thereby itself demolished its own traditional framework for the 
industrial division of labour. It has given birth to a universal worker 
who is capable, after a relatively short apprenticeship, of using most 
machines. Once one gets beyond its class aspects, the 'posting' of workers 
to particular jobs in a big modern factory corresponds less and less to a 
genuine division of <b>labour</b> and more and more to a simple division of 
tasks. Workers are not allocated to given areas of the productive process 
and then riveted to them because their 'occupational skills' invariably
correspond to the 'skills required' by management. They are placed there 
. . . just because a particular vacancy happened to exist."</i> [<b>Political
and Economic Writings</b>, vol. 2, p. 117]
</blockquote></p><p>
By replacing the division of labour with the division of work, a 
free society will ensure that productive activity can be transformed 
into an enjoyable task (or series of tasks). By integrating labour, 
all the capacities of the producer can be expressed so eliminating a 
major source of alienation and unhappiness in society. <i>"The main 
subject of social economy,"</i> argued Kropotkin, is <i>"the <b>economy</b> 
of energy required for the satisfaction of <b>human needs.</b>"</i> These 
needs obviously expressed both the needs of the producers for empowering 
and interesting work and their need for a healthy and balanced environment. 
Thus Kropotkin discussed the <i>"advantages"</i> which could be 
<i>"derive[d] from a combination of industrial pursuits with intensive 
agriculture, and of brain work with manual work."</i> The <i>"greatest 
sum total of well-being can be obtained when a variety of agricultural, 
industrial and intellectual pursuits are combined in each community; and 
that man [and woman] shows his best when he is in a position to apply
his usually-varied capacities to several pursuits in the farm, the 
workshop, the factory, the study or the studio, instead of being riveted 
for life to one of these pursuits only."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 17-8] 
This means that <i>"[u]nder socialism, factories would have no reason to 
accept the artificially rigid division of labour now prevailing. There will 
be every reason to encourage a rotation of workers <b>between shops and 
departments</b> and between production and office areas."</i> The <i>"residues 
of capitalism's division of labour gradually will have to be eliminated"</i> 
as <i>"socialist society cannot survive unless it demolishes this division."</i> 
[Castoriadis, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 117] 
</p><p>
Anarchists think that a decentralised social system will allow "work" to 
be abolished and economic activity humanised and made a means to an end
(namely producing useful things and liberated individuals). This would 
be achieved by, as Rudolf Rocker puts it, the <i>"alliance of free groups of 
men and women based on co-operative labour and a planned administration of 
things in the interest of the community."</i> However, as things are produced 
by people, it could be suggested that this implies a <i>"planned administration 
of people"</i> (although few who suggest this danger apply it to capitalist 
firms which are like mini-centrally planned states). This objection is 
false simply because anarchism aims <i>"to reconstruct the economic life  
of the peoples from the ground up and build it up anew in the spirit of 
Socialism"</i> and, moreover, <i>"only the producers themselves are fitted for 
this task, since they are the only value-creating element in society out 
of which a new future can arise."</i> Such a reconstructed economic life 
would be based on anarchist principles, that is <i>"based on the principles 
of federalism, a free combination from below upwards, putting the right 
of self-determination of every member above everything else and recognising 
only the organic agreement of all on the basis of like interests and common 
convictions."</i> [<b>Anarcho-Syndicalism</b>, p. 72, p. 62 and p. 60]
</p><p>
In other words, those who produce also administer and so govern themselves 
in free association (and it should be pointed out that any group of individuals 
in association will make "plans" and "plan", the important question is who 
does the planning and who does the work. Only in anarchy are both functions 
united into the same people). The <i>"planned administration of things"</i> 
would be done by the producers <b>themselves,</b> in their independent 
groupings. This would likely take the form (as we indicated in 
<a href="secI3.html">section I.3</a>) of confederations 
of syndicates who communicate information between themselves and respond 
to changes in the production and distribution of products by increasing or
decreasing the required means of production in a co-operative (i.e. 
<i>"planned"</i>) fashion. No "central planning" or "central planners" 
governing the economy, just workers co-operating together as equals (as 
Kropotkin argued, free socialism <i>"must result from thousands of separate 
local actions, all directed towards the same aim. It cannot be dictated by 
a central body: it must result from the numberless local needs and wants."</i> 
[<b>Act for Yourselves</b>, p. 54]). 
</p><p>
Now, any form of association requires agreement. Therefore, even a 
society based on the communist-anarchist maxim <i>"from each according 
to their ability, to each according to their need"</i> will need to make 
agreements in order to ensure co-operative ventures succeed. In other 
words, members of a co-operative commonwealth would have to make and 
keep to their agreements between themselves. This means that the members 
of a syndicate would agree joint starting and finishing times, require 
notice if individuals want to change "jobs" and so on within and between 
syndicates. Any joint effort requires some degree of co-operation and 
agreement. Moreover, between syndicates, an agreement would be reached 
(in all likelihood) that determined the minimum working hours required 
by all members of society able to work. As Kropotkin argued, an communist
anarchist society would be based upon the such a minimum-hour <i>"contract"</i> 
between its members:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"We undertake to give you the use of our houses, stores, streets,  
means of transport, schools, museums, etc., on condition that, from 
twenty to forty-five or fifty years of age, you consecrate four or 
five hours a day to some work recognised as necessary to existence. 
Choose yourself the producing group which you wish to join, or organise 
a new group, provided that it will undertake to produce necessaries. And 
as for the remainder of your time, combine together with whomsoever you 
like, for recreation, art, or science, according to the bent of your 
taste . . . Twelve or fifteen hundred hours of work a year . . . is 
all we ask of you. For that amount of work we guarantee to you the 
free use of all that these groups produce, or will produce."</i> [<b>The 
Conquest of Bread</b>, pp. 153-4]
</blockquote></p><p>
With such work <i>"necessary to existence"</i> being recognised by individuals
and expressed by demand for labour from productive syndicates. It is, of
course, up to the individual to decide which work he or she desires to
perform from the positions available in the various associations in 
existence. A union card could be the means by which work hours would be 
recorded and access to the common wealth of society ensured. And, of course, 
individuals and groups are free to work alone and exchange the produce of 
their labour with others, including the confederated syndicates, if they so 
desired. An anarchist society will be as flexible as possible.
</p><p>
Therefore, we can imagine a social anarchist society being based on two 
basic arrangements -- firstly, an agreed minimum working week of, say, 16 
hours, in a syndicate of your choice, plus any amount of hours doing "work" 
which you feel like doing -- for example, art, scientific experimentation, 
DIY, playing music, composing, gardening and so on. How that minimum working
week was actually organised would vary between workplace and commune, with 
work times, flexi-time, job rotation and so on determined by each syndicate
(for example, one syndicate may work 8 hours a day for 2 days, another 4 
hours a day for 4 days, one may use flexi-time, another more rigid starting 
and stopping times). Needless to say, in response to consumption patterns, 
syndicates will have to expand or reduce production and will have to attract 
volunteers to do the necessary work as would syndicates whose work was 
considered dangerous or unwanted. In such circumstances, volunteers could 
arrange doing a few hours of such activity for more free time or it could
be  agreed that one hour of such unwanted positions equals more hours in a
more desired one (see <a href="secI4.html#seci413">section I.4.13</a> for 
more on this). Needless to say, the aim of technological progress would be
to eliminate unpleasant and unwanted tasks and to reduce the basic working 
week more and more until the very concept of necessary "work" and free time 
enjoyments is abolished. Anarchists are convinced that the decentralisation 
of power within a free society would unleash a wealth of innovation and ensure 
that unpleasant tasks are minimised and fairly shared while required productive
activity is made as pleasant and enjoyable as possible.
</p><p>
It could be said that this sort of agreement is a restriction of liberty because 
it is "man-made" (as opposed to the "natural law" of "supply and demand"). 
This is a common defence of the non-capitalist market by individualist 
anarchists against anarcho-communism, for example. However, while in theory
individualist-anarchists can claim that in their vision of society, they
don't  care  when, where, or how a person earns a living, as long as they are 
not invasive about it the fact is that any economy is based on interactions
between individuals. The law of "supply and demand" easily, and often, makes
a mockery of the ideas that individuals can work as long as they like -
usually they end up working as long as required by market forces (i.e. the
actions of other individuals, but turned into a force outwith their control,
see <a href="secI1.html#seci13">section I.1.3</a>). 
This means that individuals do not work as long as 
they like, but as long as they have to in order to survive. Knowing that 
"market forces" is the cause of long hours of work hardly makes them any
nicer.
</p><p>
And it seems strange to the communist-anarchist that certain free 
agreements made between equals can be considered authoritarian while 
others are not. The individualist-anarchist argument that social 
co-operation to reduce labour is "authoritarian" while agreements 
between individuals on the market are not seems illogical to social 
anarchists. They cannot see how it is better for individuals to be 
pressured into working longer than they desire by "invisible hands" 
than to come to an arrangement with others to manage their own affairs 
to maximise their free time.
</p><p>
Therefore, free agreement between free and equal individuals is considered
the key to abolishing work, based upon decentralisation of power and
the use of appropriate technology.
</p>

<a name="seci44"><h2>I.4.4 What economic decision making criteria could 
be used in anarchy?</h2></a>

<p>
Firstly, it should be noted that anarchists do not have any set idea
about the answer to this question. Most anarchists are communists, 
desiring to see the end of money, but that does not mean they want 
to impose communism onto people. Far from it, communism can only be 
truly libertarian if it is organised from the bottom up. So, anarchists 
would agree with Kropotkin that it is a case of not <i>"determining in 
advance what form of distribution the producers should accept in 
their different groups -- whether the communist solution, or labour 
checks, or equal salaries, or any other method"</i> while considering a 
given solution best in their opinion. [<b>Anarchism</b>, p. 166] Free 
experimentation is a key aspect of anarchism.
</p><p>
While certain anarchists have certain preferences on the
social system they want to live in and so argue for that, they 
are aware that objective circumstances and social desires will
determine what is introduced during a revolution (for example,
while Kropotkin was a communist-anarchist and considered it
essential that a revolution proceed towards communism as quickly
as possible, he was aware that it was unlikely it would be
introduced fully immediately -- see <a href="secI2.html#seci22">section I.2.2</a> 
for details). However, we will outline some possible means of economic decision 
making criteria as this question is an important one and so we will indicate 
what possible solutions exist in different forms of anarchism.
</p><p>
In a mutualist or collectivist system, the answer is easy. Prices will exist 
and be used as a means of making decisions (although, as Malatesta suggested,
such non-communist anarchies would <i>"seek a way to ensure that money truly 
represents the useful work performed by its possessors"</i> rather than, as 
today, <i>"the means for living on the labour of others"</i> [<b>Errico Malatesta:
His Life and Ideas</b>, p. 101 and p. 100]). Mutualism will be more market 
orientated than collectivism, with collectivism being based on confederations 
of collectives to respond to changes in demand (i.e. to determine investment 
decisions and ensure that supply is kept in line with demand). Mutualism, 
with its system of market based distribution around a network of co-operatives 
and mutual banks, does not really need a further discussion as its basic 
operations are the same as in any non-capitalist market system. Collectivism 
and communism will have to be discussed in more detail. However, all systems 
are based on workers' self-management and so the individuals directly affected 
make the decisions concerning what to produce, when to do it, and how to do 
it. In this way workers retain control of the product of their labour. It 
is the social context of these decisions and what criteria workers use to 
make their decisions that differ between anarchist schools of thought.
</p><p>
Although collectivism promotes the greatest autonomy for worker associations, 
it should not be confused with a market economy as advocated by supporters
of mutualism or Individualist anarchism. The goods produced by the collectivised 
factories and workshops are exchanged not according to highest price that can 
be wrung from consumers, but according to their actual production costs. The 
determination of these honest prices would be made by a <i>"Bank of Exchange"</i> 
in each community (obviously an idea borrowed from Proudhon). These Banks 
would represent the various producer confederations and consumer/citizen groups 
in the community and would seek to negotiate these "honest" prices (which 
would, in all likelihood, include "hidden" costs like pollution). These 
agreements would be subject to ratification by the assemblies of those 
involved. 
</p><p>
As James Guillaume put it <i>"the value of the commodities having been 
established in advance by a contractual agreement between the regional 
co-operative federations and the various communes, who will also furnish 
statistics to the Banks of Exchange. The Bank of Exchange will remit to 
the producers negotiable vouchers representing the value of their products; 
these vouchers will be accepted throughout the territory included in the 
federation of communes."</i> These vouchers would be related to hours 
worked, for example, and when used as a guide for investment decisions could 
be supplemented with cost-benefit analysis of the kind possibly used in a 
communist-anarchist society (see below). Although this scheme bears a strong 
resemblance to Proudhonian <i>"People's Banks,"</i> it should be noted that 
the Banks of Exchange, along with a <i>"Communal Statistical Commission,"</i> 
are intended to have a planning function as well to ensure that supply meets 
demand. This does not imply a Stalinist-like command economy, but simple book 
keeping for <i>"each Bank of Exchange makes sure in advance that these products 
are in demand [in order to risk] nothing by immediately issuing payment vouchers 
to the producers."</i> [<i>"On Building the New Social Order"</i>, pp. 356-79, 
<b>Bakunin on Anarchism</b>, p. 366 and p. 367] The workers syndicates would 
still determine what orders to produce and each commune would be free to choose 
its suppliers.
</p><p>
As will be discussed in more depth later (see 
<a href="secI4.html#seci48">section I.4.8</a>) information 
about consumption patterns will be recorded and used by workers to inform
their production and investment decisions. In addition, we can imagine that
production syndicates would encourage communes as well as consumer groups and 
co-operatives to participate in making these decisions. This would ensure 
that produced goods reflect consumer needs. Moreover, as conditions permit, 
the exchange functions of the communal "banks" would (in all likelihood) be 
gradually replaced by the distribution of goods in accordance with the needs 
of the consumers. In other words, most supporters of collectivist anarchism 
see it as a temporary measure before anarcho-communism could develop. 
</p><p>
Communist anarchism would be similar to collectivism, i.e. a system of
confederations of collectives, communes and distribution centres (Communal
stores). However, in an anarcho-communist system, prices are not used. How 
will economic decision making be done? One possible solution is as follows:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"As to decisions involving choices of a general nature, such as what 
forms of energy to use, which of two or more materials to employ to 
produce a particular good, whether to build a new factory, there is 
a . . . technique . . . that could be [used] . . . 'cost-benefit 
analysis' . . . [I]n socialism a points scheme for attributing relative 
importance to the various relevant  considerations could be used . . . 
The points attributed to these considerations would be subjective, 
in the sense that this would depend on a deliberate social decision 
rather than some objective standard, but this is the case even under 
capitalism when a monetary value has to be attributed to some such 
'cost' or 'benefit' . . . In the sense that one of the aims of socialism
is precisely to rescue humankind from the capitalist fixation with 
production time/money, cost-benefit analyses, as a means of taking into
account other factors, could therefore be said to be more appropriate for
use in socialism than under capitalism. Using points systems to attribute
relative importance in this way . . . [is] simply to employ a technique to
facilitate decision-making in particular concrete cases."</i> [Adam Buick and 
John Crump, <b>State Capitalism: The Wages System Under New Management</b>, 
pp. 138-139]
</blockquote></p><p>
This points system would be the means by which producers and consumers
would be able to determine whether the use of a particular good is 
efficient or not. Unlike prices, this cost-benefit analysis system 
would ensure that production and consumption reflects social and 
ecological costs, awareness and priorities. Moreover, this analysis
would be a <b>guide</b> to decision making and not a replacement of human
decision making and evaluation. As Lewis Mumford argued:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"it is plain that in the decision as to whether to build a bridge
or a tunnel there is a human question that should outweigh the
question of cheapness or mechanical feasibility: namely the number
of lives that will be lost in the actual building or the advisability
of condemning a certain number of men [and women] to spend their
entire working days underground supervising tunnel traffic . . . 
Similarly the social choice between silk and rayon is not one that 
can be made simply on the different costs of production, or the 
difference in quality between the fibres themselves: there also 
remains, to be integrated in the decision, the question as to 
difference in working-pleasure between tending silkworms and 
assisting in rayon production. What the product contributes to 
the labourer is just as important as what the worker contributes 
to the product. A well-managed society might alter the process 
of motor car assemblage, at some loss of speed and cheapness, in 
order to produce a more interesting routine for the worker: 
similarly, it would either go to the expense of equipping 
dry-process cement making plants with dust removers -- or replace 
the product itself with a less noxious substitute. When none 
of these alternatives was available, it would drastically reduce 
the demand itself to the lowest possible level."</i> [<b>The
Future of Technics and Civilisation</b>, pp. 160-1]
</blockquote></p><p>
Obviously, today, we would include ecological issues as well as
human ones. Any decision making process which disregards the quality 
of work or the effect on the human and natural environment is a deranged 
one. However, this is how capitalism operates, with the market rewarding 
capitalists and managers who introduce de-humanising and ecologically 
harmful practices. Indeed, so biased against labour and the environment
is capitalism that many economists and pro-capitalists argue that 
reducing "efficiency" by such social concerns (as expressed by the
passing laws related to labour rights and environmental protection)
is actually <b>harmful</b> to an economy, which is a total reversal 
of common sense and human feelings (after all, surely the economy 
should satisfy human needs and not sacrifice those needs to the 
economy?). The argument is that consumption would suffer as resources 
(human and material) would be diverted from more "efficient" productive 
activities and so reduce, over all, our economic well-being. What this 
argument ignores is that consumption does not exist in isolation from 
the rest of the economy. What we want to consume is conditioned, in 
part, by the sort of person we are and that is influenced by the 
kind of work we do, the kinds of social relationships we have, 
whether we are happy with our work and life, and so on. If our 
work is alienating and of low quality, then so will our consumption 
decisions. If our work is subject to hierarchical control and
servile in nature then we cannot expect our consumption decisions
to be totally rational -- indeed they may become an attempt to find
happiness via shopping, a self-defeating activity as consumption
cannot solve a problem created in production. Thus rampant 
consumerism may be the result of capitalist "efficiency" and so
the objection against socially aware production is question
begging.
</p><p>
Of course, as well as absolute scarcity, prices under capitalism 
also reflect relative scarcity (while in the long term, market prices 
tend towards their production price plus a mark-up based on the
degree of monopoly in a market, in the short term prices can change 
as a result of changes in supply and demand). How a communist society 
could take into account such short term changes and communicate them 
through out the economy is discussed in 
<a href="secI4.html#seci45">section I.4.5</a>. 
Moreover, it is likely that they will factor in the desirability 
of the work performed to indicate the potential waste in human 
time involved in production (see 
<a href="secI4.html#seci413">section I.4.13</a> for a discussion
of how this could be done). The logic behind this is simple, a 
resource which people <b>like</b> to produce will be a better use 
of the scare resource of an individual's time than one people 
hate producing. Another key factor in making sensible decisions 
would be the relative scarcity of a good. After all, it would
make little sense when making a decision to use a good which is
in short supply over one which is much more abundant. Thus, 
while the cost-benefit points system would show absolute costs
(number of hours work required, energy use, pollution, etc.)
this would be complemented by information about how scare a 
specific good is and the desirability of the work required to 
produce it.
</p><p>
Therefore, a communist-anarchist society would be based around a network 
of syndicates who communicate information between each other. Instead of 
the price being communicated between workplaces as in capitalism, actual
physical data will be sent (the cost). This data is a summary of these 
(negative) use values of the good (for example resources, labour time 
and energy used to produce it, pollution details) as well as relative 
scarcity. With this information a cost-benefit analysis will be conducted 
to determine which good will be best to use in a given situation based 
upon mutually agreed common values. These will be used to inform the
decision on which goods to use, with how well goods meet the requirements 
of production (the positive use-value) being compared to their impact in 
terms of labour, resource use, pollution and so forth (the negative 
use-values) along with their relative availability.
</p><p>
The data for a given workplace could be compared to the industry as a 
whole (as confederations of syndicates would gather and produce such 
information -- see <a href="secI3.html#seci35">section I.3.5</a>) 
in order to determine whether a specific workplace will
efficiently produce the required goods (this system has the additional 
advantage of indicating which workplaces require investment to bring them
in line, or improve upon, the industrial average in terms of working 
conditions, hours worked and so on). In addition, common rules of thumb 
would possibly be agreed, such as agreements not to use scarce materials 
unless there is no alternative (either ones that use a lot of labour, 
energy and time to produce or those whose demand is currently exceeding 
supply capacity). 
</p><p>
Similarly, when ordering goods, the syndicate, commune or individual involved 
will have to inform the syndicate why it is required in order to allow the 
syndicate to determine if they desire to produce the good and to enable them 
to prioritise the orders they receive. In this way, resource use can be guided 
by social considerations and "unreasonable" requests ignored (for example, if
an individual states they "need" a ship-builders syndicate to build a ship for 
their personal use, the ship-builders may not "need" to build it and instead 
build ships for communal use, freely available for all to use in turn --
see <a href="secI4.html#seci46">section I.4.6</a>). However, in almost all cases 
of individual consumption, no such information will be needed as communal stores 
would order consumer goods in bulk as they do now. Hence the economy would be 
a vast network of co-operating individuals and workplaces and the dispersed 
knowledge which exists within any society can be put to good effect (<b>better</b> 
effect than under capitalism because it does not hide social and ecological 
costs in the way market prices do and co-operation will eliminate the business 
cycle and its resulting social problems).
</p><p>
Therefore, production units in a social anarchist society, by virtue of 
their autonomy within association, are aware of what is socially useful 
for them to produce and, by virtue of their links with communes, also 
aware of the social (human and ecological) cost of the resources they 
need to produce it. They can combine this knowledge, reflecting overall 
social priorities, with their local knowledge of the detailed circumstances 
of their workplaces and communities to decide how they can best use their 
productive capacity. In this way the division of knowledge within society 
can be used by the syndicates effectively as well as overcoming the 
restrictions within knowledge communication imposed by the price mechanism
(see <a href="secI1.html#seci12">section I.1.2</a>) 
and workplaces hierarchies within capitalism 
(see <a href="secI1.html#seci11">section I.1.1</a>).
</p><p>
Moreover, production units, by their association within confederations 
ensure that there is effective communication between them. This results 
in a process of negotiated co-ordination between equals (i.e. horizontal
links and agreements) for major investment decisions, thus bringing together 
supply and demand and allowing the plans of the various units to be 
co-ordinated. By this process of co-operation, production units can reduce 
duplicating effort and so reduce the waste associated with over-investment 
(and so the irrationalities of booms and slumps associated with the price 
mechanism, which does not provide sufficient information to allow
workplaces to efficiently co-ordinate their plans). 
</p><p>
When evaluating production methods we need to take into account 
as many social and ecological costs as possible and these have 
to be evaluated. Which costs will be taken into account, of 
course, be decided by those involved, as will how important 
they are relative to each other (i.e. how they are weighted).
What factors to take into account and how to weigh them in the 
decision making process will be evaluated and reviewed regularly
so to ensure that it reflects real costs and social concerns. As 
communist-anarchists consider it important to encourage all to 
participate in the decisions that affect their lives, it would be 
the role of communal confederations to determine the relative points 
value of given inputs and outputs. In this way, <b>all</b> individuals 
in a community determine how their society develops, so ensuring that 
economic activity is responsible to social needs and takes into account 
the desires of everyone affected by production. In this way consumption 
and production can be harmonised with the needs of individuals as members 
of society and the environment they live in. The industrial confederations
would seek to ensure that this information is recorded and communicated
and (perhaps) formulating industry-wide averages to aid decision-making
by allowing syndicates and communes to compare specific goods points 
to the typical value. 
</p><p>
So which factors are to be used to inform decision-making would be 
agreed and the information communicated between workplaces and
communes so that consumers of goods can evaluate their costs in
terms of ecological impact, use of resources and human labour.
Any agreed values for the Cost-Benefit analysis for inputs can be 
incorporated in the information associated with the outputs.
As such, a communist society would seek to base decisions on more
than one criteria, whether it is profits or (say) labour. The 
reasons for this should be obvious, as one criteria rarely allows
sensible decisions. Of course, to some degree people already do
this under capitalism but market forces and inequality limit this
ability (people will tend to buy cheaper products if they need
to make ends meet) while both the price mechanism and the 
self-interest of companies ensure information about costs are
hidden (for example, few companies publically acknowledge their
externalities and most spend vast sums on advertising to greenwash
their products).
</p><p>
In order to process the information on costs communicated in a
libertarian communist economy accounting tools can be created (such
as a spreadsheet or computer programme). These could take the decided 
factors as inputs and returns a cost benefit analysis of the choices 
available. So while these algorithmic procedures and guidelines can, 
and indeed should be, able to be calculated by hand, it is likely 
that computers will be extensively used to take input data and 
process it into a suitable format. Indeed, many capitalist companies
have software which records raw material inputs and finished
product into databases and spreadsheets. Such software could be
the basis of a libertarian communist decision making algorithm.
Of course, currently such data is submerged beneath money and
does not take into account externalities and the nature of the
work involved (as would be the case in an anarchist society).
However, this does not limit their potential or deny that 
communist use of such software can be used to inform decisions.
</p><p>
Therefore, the claim that communism cannot evaluate different
production methods due to lack of prices is inaccurate. Indeed,
a look at the actual capitalist market -- marked as it is by
differences in bargaining and market power, externalities 
and wage labour -- soon shows that the claims that prices
accurately reflect costs is simply not accurate. However, it 
may be such that objective circumstances preclude the immediate
introduction of libertarian communism (as discussed in 
<a href="secI2.html#seci22">section I.2.2</a>, many communist
anarchists consider this likely). As such, there could be a 
transitional period in which elements of mutualism, collectivism
and communism co-exist within a specific economy. It can easily 
be seen how a mutualist economy (the usual initial product of 
a social revolution) could evolve into a collectivist and then 
communist one. The market generated prices could initially
be complemented by the non-market information decided upon (for
objective costs and the scarcity index) and, overtime, replaced
by this data as the main decision making criteria by syndicates
and communes.
</p><p>
One final point on this subject. What methods are used, which 
criteria picked, which information is communicated and how it
is processed, will be the decision of a free people. This section
was merely a suggestion of one possibility of how a libertarian
communist economy could make informed decisions about production.
It is not meant as a blue-print nor is it set-in-stone.
</p>

<a name="seci45"><h2>I.4.5 What about <i>"supply and demand"</i>?</h2></a>

<p>
Anarchists do not ignore the facts of life, namely that at a given moment
there is so much a certain good produced and so much of it is desired to be
consumed or used. Neither do we deny that different individuals have different 
interests and tastes. However, this is not what is usually meant by <i>"supply 
and demand."</i> Often in general economic debate, this formula is given a 
certain mythical quality which ignores its underlying realities as well as 
some unwholesome implications of the theory (for example, as discussed in 
<a href="secC1.html#secc15">section C.1.5</a> the market can very
efficiently create famines by exporting food to areas where there is
demand for it). At the very least, the <i>"the law of supply and demand"</i> 
is not the "most efficient" means of distribution in an unequal society as 
decisions are skewed in favour of the rich.
</p><p>
As far as <i>"supply and demand"</i> in terms of allocating scare resources 
is concerned, anarchists are well aware of the need to create and distribute 
necessary goods to those who require them. The question is, in an anarchist 
society, how do you know that valuable labour and materials are not being 
wasted? How do people judge which tools are most appropriate? How do they 
decide among different materials if they all meet the technical specifications? 
How important are some goods than others? How important is cellophane compared 
to vacuum-cleaner bags and so which one should be produced?
</p><p>
It is answers like this that the supporters of the market claim that their
system answers. For individualist and mutualist anarchists, their non-capitalist 
market would indicate such information by differences between market price and 
cost price and individuals and co-operatives would react accordingly. For 
communist and collectivist anarchists, who reject even non-capitalist markets,
the answer is less simple. As discussed in <a href="secI1.html#seci13">section I.1.3</a>,
these anarchists argue that although the market does answer such questions it does so 
in irrational and dehumanising ways (while this is particularly the case under 
capitalism, it cannot be assumed this will disappear in a post-capitalist
market). The question is: can collectivist and communist anarchism answer 
such questions? Yes, they reply.
</p><p>
So collectivist and communist anarchists reject the market. This rejection often 
implies, to some, central planning. As the market socialist David Schweickart 
puts it, <i>"[i]f profit considerations do not dictate resource usage and 
production techniques, then central direction must do so. If profit is not the 
goal of a productive organisation, then physical output (use values) must be."</i> 
[<b>Against Capitalism</b>, p. 86] However, Schweickart is wrong. Horizontal links 
need not be market based and co-operation between individuals and groups need not 
be hierarchical. What is implied in this comment is that there is just two ways 
to relate to others -- either by prostitution (purely by cash) or by hierarchy 
(the way of the state, the army or capitalist workplace). But people relate to 
each other in other ways, such as friendship, love, solidarity, mutual aid and 
so on. Thus you can help or associate with others without having to be ordered 
to do so or by being paid cash to do so -- we do so all the time. You can work 
together because by so doing you benefit yourself and the other person. This is 
the <b>real</b> communist way, that of mutual aid and free agreement. 
</p><p>
So Schweickart is ignoring the vast majority of relations in any 
society. For example, love/attraction is a horizontal link between 
two autonomous individuals and profit considerations do not enter 
into the relationship. Thus anarchists argue that Schweickart's 
argument is flawed as it fails to recognise that resource usage 
and production techniques can be organised in terms of human need 
and free agreement between economic actors, without profits or 
central command. This system does not mean that we all have to
love each other (an impossible wish). Rather, it means that we
recognise that by voluntarily co-operating as equals we ensure
that we remain free individuals and that we can gain the 
advantages of sharing resources and work (for example, a reduced
working day and week, self-managed work in safe and hygienic 
working conditions and a free selection of the product of
a whole society). In other words, a self-interest which exceeds
the narrow and impoverished egotism of capitalist society.
</p><p>
Thus free agreement and horizontal links are not limited
to market transactions -- they develop for numerous reasons
and anarchists recognise this. As George Barrett argued:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Let us imagine now that the great revolt of the workers has 
taken place, that their direct action has made them masters of the
situation. It is not easy to see that some man in a street that
grew hungry would soon draw a list of the loaves that were needed,
and take it to the bakery where the strikers were in possession?
Is there any difficulty in supposing that the necessary amount
would then be baked according to this list? By this time the bakers 
would know what carts and delivery vans were needed to send the 
bread out to the people, and if they let the carters and vanmen 
know of this, would these not do their utmost to supply the vehicles 
. . . If . . . [the bakers needed] more benches [to make bread] . . . 
the carpenters would supply them [and so on] . . . So the endless 
continuity goes on -- a well-balanced interdependence of parts 
guaranteed, because <b>need</b> is the motive force behind it 
all . . . In the same way that each free individual has associated 
with his brothers [and sisters] to produce bread, machinery, and 
all that is necessary for life, driven by no other force than his 
desire for the full enjoyment of life, so each institution is free
and self-contained, and co-operates and enters into agreements
with other because by so doing it extends its own possibilities.
There is no centralised State exploiting or dictating, but the
complete structure is supported because each part is dependent
on the whole . . . It will be a society responsive to the wants
of the people; it will supply their everyday needs as quickly
as it will respond to their highest aspirations. Its changing
forms will be the passing expressions of humanity."</i> [<b>The
Anarchist Revolution</b>, pp. 17-19]
</blockquote></p><p>
To make productive decisions we need to know what others need and
information in order to evaluate the alternative options available
to us to satisfy that need. Therefore, it is a question of distributing 
information between producers and consumers, information which the market 
often hides (or actively blocks) or distorts due to inequalities in 
resources (i.e. need does not count in the market, <i>"effective demand"</i> 
does and this skews the market in favour of the wealthy). This information 
network has partly been discussed in the 
<a href="secI4.html#seci44">last section</a> where a method of 
comparison between different materials, techniques and resources based 
upon use value was discussed. In addition, the need to indicate the current 
fluctuations in stocks, production and consumption has also to be factored
in when making decisions.
</p><p>
To indicate the relative changes in scarcity of a given good it will be 
necessary to calculate what could be termed its <i>"scarcity index."</i> 
This would inform potential users of this good whether its demand is 
outstripping its supply so that they may effectively adjust their decisions 
in light of the decisions of others. This index could be, for example, a 
percentage figure which indicates the relation of orders placed for a good 
to the amount actually produced. For example, a good which has a demand 
higher than its supply would have an index value of 101% or higher. This 
value would inform potential users to start looking for substitutes for 
it or to economise on its use. Such a scarcity figure would exist for each 
syndicate as well as (possibly) a generalised figure for the industry as 
a whole on a regional, "national", etc. level. 
</p><p>
In this way, a specific good could be seen to be in high demand and 
so only those producers who <b>really</b> required it would place orders 
for it (so ensuring effective use of resources). Needless to say, 
stock levels and other basic book-keeping techniques would be 
utilised in order to ensure a suitable buffer level of a specific 
good existed. This may result in some excess supply of goods being 
produced and used as stock to handle unexpected changes in the 
aggregate demand for a good. Such a buffer system would work on an 
individual workplace level and at a communal level. Syndicates would 
obviously have their inventories, stores of raw materials and finished 
goods "on the shelf" which can be used to meet unexpected increases
in demand. Communal stores, hospitals and so on would have their stores 
of supplies in case of unexpected disruptions in supply. 
</p><p>
This is a common practice even in capitalism, with differences between 
actual demand and expected demand being absorbed by unintended stock 
changes. Firms today also have spare capacity in order to meet such 
upsurges in demand. Such policies of maintaining stocks and spare 
capacity will continue to the case under anarchism. It is assumed 
that syndicates and their confederations will wish to adjust capacity 
if they are aware of the need to do so. Hence, price changes in 
response to changes in demand would not be necessary to provide 
the information that such adjustments are required. This is because a 
<i>"change in demand first becomes apparent as a change in the quantity 
being sold at existing prices [or being consumed in a moneyless system] 
and is therefore reflected in changes in stocks or orders. Such 
changes are perfectly good indicators or signals that an imbalance between
demand and current output has developed. If a change in demand for its
products proved to be permanent, a production unit would find its stocks
being run down and its order book lengthening, or its stocks increasing and
orders falling . . . Price changes in response to changes in demand are 
therefore not necessary for the purpose of providing information about the 
need to adjust capacity."</i> [Pat Devine, <b>Democracy and Economic Planning</b>, 
p. 242] 
</p><p>
So syndicates, communes and their confederations will create buffer 
stocks of goods to handle unforeseen changes in demand and supply. 
This sort of inventory has also been used by capitalist countries like 
the USA to prevent changes in market conditions for agricultural 
products and other strategic raw materials producing wild spot-price 
movements and inflation. Post-Keynesian economist Paul Davidson
argued that the stability of commodity prices this produced <i>"was
an essential aspect of the unprecedented prosperous economic
growth of the world's economy"</i> between 1945 and 1972. US President
Nixon dismantled these buffer zone programmes, resulting in <i>"violent 
commodity price fluctuations"</i> which had serious negative economic 
effects. [<b>Controversies in Post-Keynesian Economics</b>, p. 114 and 
p. 115] Again, an anarchist society is likely to utilise this sort of buffer 
system to iron out short-term changes in supply and demand. By reducing 
short-term fluctuations of the supply of commodities, bad investment 
decisions would be reduced as syndicates would not be mislead, as is 
the case under capitalism, by market prices being too high or too low 
at the time when the decisions where being made (as discussed in
<a href="secI1.html#seci15">section I.1.5</a> such disequilibrium 
prices convey misinformation which causes very substantial economic 
distortions). 
</p><p>
This, combined with cost-benefit analysis described in 
<a href="secI4.html#seci44">section I.4.4</a>, 
would allow information about changes within a moneyless economy to rapidly 
spread throughout the whole system and influence all decision makers 
without the great majority knowing anything about the original causes 
of these changes. This would allow a syndicate to ascertain which good
used up least resources and therefore left the most over for other uses 
(i.e., relative costs or scarcity) as well as giving them information 
on what resources were used to create it (i.e., the absolute costs involved)
The relevant information is communicated to all involved, without having 
to be ordered by an "all-knowing" central body as in a Leninist centrally
planned economy. As argued in 
<a href="secI1.html#seci12">section I.1.2</a>, anarchists have long realised
that no centralised body could possibly be able to possess all the information 
dispersed throughout the economy to organise production and if such a body 
attempted to do so, the resulting bureaucracy would effectively reduce and 
impoverish the amount of information available to decision makers and so 
cause shortages and inefficiencies.
</p><p>
To get an idea how this system could work, let us take the example 
of a change in the copper industry. Let us assume that a source of 
copper unexpectedly fails or that the demand for copper increases. 
What would happen?
</p><p>
First, the initial difference would be a diminishing of stocks of copper 
which each syndicate maintains to take into account unexpected changes 
in requests. This would help buffer out short lived, changes in supply 
or requests. Second, naturally, there is an increase in demand for 
copper for those syndicates which are producing it. This immediately
increases the <b>scarcity index</b> of those firms and their product. 
For example, the index may rise from 95% (indicating a slight over-production 
in respect to current demand) to 115% (indicating that the demand for copper 
has risen in respect to the current level of production). This change in the 
<b>scarcity index</b> (combined with difficulties in finding copper producing 
syndicates which will accept their orders) enters into the decision making 
algorithms of other syndicates. This, in turn, results in changes in their 
plans. For example, the syndicates can seek out other suppliers who have a 
lower scarcity index or substitutes for copper may be used as they have 
become a more efficient resource to use.
</p><p>
In this way, requests for copper products fall and soon only reflect 
those requests that really need copper (i.e., do not have realistic 
substitutes available for it). This would result in the demand falling 
with respect to the current supply (as indicated by requests from other 
syndicates and to maintain buffer stock levels). Thus a general message 
has been sent across the economy that copper has become (relatively) 
scare and syndicate plans have changed in light of this information. 
No central planner made these decisions nor was money required to 
facilitate them. We have a decentralised, non-market system based on 
the free exchange of products between self-governing associations.
</p><p>
Looking at the wider picture, the question of how to response
to this change in supply/requests for copper presents itself.
The copper syndicate federation and cross-industry syndicate
federations have regular meetings and the question of the changes 
in the copper situation present themselves and they must consider 
how to response to these changes. Part of this is to determine
whether this change is likely to be short term or long term.
A short term change (say caused by a mine accident, for example)
would not need new investments to be planned. However, long 
term changes (say the new requests are due to a new product
being created by another syndicate or an existing mine becoming
exhausted) may need co-ordinated investment (we can expect 
syndicates to make their own plans in light of changes, for
example, by investing in new machinery to produce copper
more efficiently or to increase production). If the expected
changes of these plans approximately equal the predicted 
long term changes, then the federation need not act. However,
if they do then investment in new copper mines or large scale
new investment across the industry may be required. The
federation would propose such plans.
</p><p>
Needless to say, the future can be guessed, it cannot be accurately 
predicted. Thus there may be over-investment in certain industries 
as expected changes do not materialise. However, unlike capitalism, 
this would not result in an economic crisis (with over-investment 
within capitalism, workplaces close due to lack of profits, regardless 
of social need). All that would happen is that some of the goods
produced would not be used, some labour and resources would be wasted
and the syndicates would rationalise production, close down relatively 
inefficient plant and concentrate production in the more efficient ones. 
The sweeping economic crises of capitalism would be a thing of the past.
</p><p>
In summary, each syndicate receives its own orders and supplies and sends 
its own produce out to specific consumers. Similarly, communal distribution 
centres would order required goods from syndicates it determines. In this 
way consumers can change to syndicates which respond to their needs and so 
production units are aware of what it is socially useful for them to produce 
as well as the social cost of the resources they need to produce it. In this 
way a network of horizontal relations spread across society, with co-ordination 
achieved by equality of association and not the hierarchy of the corporate 
structure.
</p><p>
While anarchists are aware of the <i>"isolation paradox"</i> (see 
<a href="secB6.html">section B.6</a>) 
this does not mean that they think the commune should make decisions <b>for</b> 
people on what they were to consume. That would be a prison. No, all 
anarchists agree that is up to the individual to determine their own needs 
and for the collectives they join to determine social requirements like parks, 
infrastructure improvements and so on. However, social anarchists think that
it would be beneficial to discuss the framework around which these decisions
would be made. This would mean, for example, that communes would agree to 
produce eco-friendly products, reduce waste and generally make decisions
enriched by social interaction. Individuals would still decide which sort 
goods they desire, based on what the collectives produce but these goods 
would be based on a socially agreed agenda. In this way waste, pollution
and other <i>"externalities"</i> of atomised consumption could be reduced. For 
example, while it is rational for individuals to drive a car to work, 
collectively this results in massive <b>irrationality</b> (for example, traffic 
jams, pollution, illness, unpleasant social infrastructures). A sane society
would discuss the problems associated with car use and would agree to
produce a fully integrated public transport network which would reduce
pollution, stress, illness, and so on. 
</p><p>
Therefore, while anarchists recognise individual tastes and desires, 
they are also aware of the social impact of them and so try to create 
a social environment where individuals can enrich their personal 
decisions with the input of other people's ideas. 
</p><p>
On a related subject, it is obvious that different syndicates would 
produce slightly different goods, so ensuring that people have a choice. 
It is doubtful that the current waste implied in multiple products from 
different companies (sometimes the same multi-national corporation!) 
all doing the same job would be continued in an anarchist society. 
However, production will be <i>"variations on a theme"</i> in 
order to ensure consumer choice and to allow the producers to 
know what features consumers prefer. It would be impossible to 
sit down beforehand and make a list of what features a good 
should have -- that assumes perfect knowledge and that technology is 
fairly constant. Both these assumptions are of limited use in real life. 
Therefore, co-operatives would produce goods with different features and 
production would change to meet the demand these differences suggest (for 
example, factory A produces a new CD player, and consumption patterns 
indicate that this is popular and so the rest of the factories convert). 
This is in addition to R&D experiments and test populations. In this way 
consumer choice would be maintained, and enhanced as people would be 
able to influence the decisions of the syndicates as producers (in some 
cases) and through syndicate/commune dialogue.
</p><p>
Finally, it would be churlish, but essential, to note that capitalism 
only equates supply and demand in the fantasy world of neo-classical
economics. Any <b>real</b> capitalist economy, as we discussed in
<a href="secI1.html#seci15">section I.1.5</a> is marked by uncertainty 
and a tendency to over-produce in the response to the higher profits 
caused by previously under-producing goods, with resulting periods
of crisis in which falling effective demand sees a corresponding 
fall in supply. Not to the mention the awkward fact that real needs
(demand) are not met simply because people are too poor to pay for
the goods (i.e., no effective demand). As such, to suggest that
only non-market systems have a problem ensuring demand and supply
meet is mistaken.
</p><p>
To conclude, anarchists do not ignore <i>"supply and demand."</i> Instead, 
they recognise the limitations of the capitalist version of this truism and
point out that capitalism is based on <b>effective</b> demand which has no
necessary basis with efficient use of resources. Instead of the market, 
social anarchists advocate a system based on horizontal links between 
producers which effectively communicates information across society about 
the relative changes in supply and demand which reflect actual needs of
society and not bank balances. The investment response to changes in supply and
demand will be discussed in <a href="secI4.html#seci48">section I.4.8 </a>
while <a href="secI4.html#seci413">section I.4.13</a> will discuss the 
allocation of work tasks.
</p>

<a name="seci46"><h2>I.4.6 Surely anarchist-communism would just lead to 
demand exceeding supply?</h2></a>

<p>
While non-communist forms of anarchism relate consumption to work done, so
automatically relating demand to production, this is not the case in 
communist-anarchism. In that system, distribution is according to need, 
not deed. Given this, it is a common objection that libertarian communism 
would lead to people wasting resources by taking more than they need.
</p><p> 
Kropotkin, for example, stated that <i>"free communism . . . places the
product reaped or manufactured at the disposal of all, leaving to each 
the liberty to consume them as he pleases in his own home."</i> [<b>The 
Place of Anarchism in the Evolution of Socialist Thought</b>, p. 7] But, some 
argue, what if an individual says they "need" a luxury house or a personal 
yacht? Simply put, workers may not "need" to produce it. As Tom Brown put it, 
<i>"such things are the product of social labour . . . Under syndicalism . . . 
it is improbable that any greedy, selfish person would be able to kid a shipyard 
full of workers to build him a ship all for his own hoggish self. There would be 
steam luxury yachts, but they would be enjoyed in common."</i> [<b>Syndicalism</b>, 
p. 51]
</p><p>
Therefore, communist-anarchists are not blind to the fact that free access 
to products is based upon the actual work of real individuals -- "society" 
provides nothing, individuals working together do. This is reflected in 
the classic statement of communism: <i>"From each according to their ability, 
to each according to their needs."</i> This must be considered as a whole
as those producing have needs and those receiving have abilities. The needs 
of both consumer <b>and</b> producer have to be taken into account, and this
suggests that those producing have to feel the need to do so. This means 
that if no syndicate or individual desires to produce a specific order 
then this order can be classed as an "unreasonable" demand -- "unreasonable" 
in this context meaning that no one freely agrees to produce it. Of 
course, individuals may agree to barter services in order to get what 
they want produced if they <b>really</b> want something but such acts 
in no way undermines a communist society.
</p><p>
This also applies to the demand for goods which are scare and, as
a result, require substantial labour and resources to produce. In such 
circumstances, the producers (either as a specific syndicate or in their
confederations) would refuse to supply such a "need" or communes and 
their confederations would suggest that this would be waste of resources.
Ultimately, a free society would seek to avoid the irrationalities of
capitalism where the drive for profits results in production for the 
sake of production and consumption for the sake of consumption and the
many work longer and harder to meet the demands of a (wealthy) few. A free
people would evaluate the pros and cons of any activity before doing it.
As Malatesta put it:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"[A] communist society . . . is not, obviously, about an absolute right 
to satisfy <b>all</b> of one's needs, because needs are infinite . . . 
so their satisfaction is always limited by productive capacity; nor would 
it be useful or just that the community in order to satisfy excessive 
needs, otherwise called caprices, of a few individuals, should undertake 
work, out of proportion to the utility being produced . . . What we would
like is for everybody to live in the best possible way: so that everybody
with a minimum amount of effort will obtain maximum satisfaction."</i> 
[<b>At the Caf</b>, pp. 60-1]
</blockquote>
</p><p>
Communist-anarchists recognise that production, like consumption, must 
be based on freedom. However, it has been argued that free access would
lead to waste as people take more than they would if they had to pay for
it. This objection is not as serious as it first appears. There are plenty 
of examples within current society to indicate that free access will not 
lead to abuses. Let us take a few examples. In public libraries people 
are free to sit and read books all day but few, if any, actually do so. 
Neither do people always take the maximum number of books out at a time. 
No, they use the library as they need to and feel no need to maximise 
their use of the institution. Some people never use the library, although 
it is free. In the case of water supplies, it is clear that people do not 
leave taps on all day because water is often supplied freely or for
a fixed charge. Similarly with pavements, people do not walk everywhere
because to do so is free. In such cases individuals use the resource as 
and when they need to. Equally, vegetarians do not start eating meat when
they visit their friend's parties just because the buffet is free.
</p><p>
We can expect similar results as other resources become freely available. 
In effect, this argument makes as much sense as arguing that individuals will
travel to stops <b>beyond</b> their destination if public transport is based 
on a fixed charge! Obviously only an idiot would travel further than required 
in order to get "value for money." However, for many the world seems to be 
made up of such fools. Perhaps it would be advisable for such critics to
hand out political leaflets in the street. Even though the leaflets are
free, crowds rarely form around the person handing them out demanding
as many copies of the leaflet as possible. Rather, those interested in
what the leaflets have to say take them, the rest ignore them. If free
access automatically resulted in people taking more than they need then
critics of free communism would be puzzled by the lack of demand for what 
they were handing out!
</p><p>
Part of the problem is that capitalist economics has invented a
fictional type of person, <b>Homo Economicus,</b> whose wants are 
limitless: an individual who always wants more and so whose needs 
could only satisfied if resources were limitless too. Needless 
to say, such an individual has never existed. In reality, wants 
are not limitless -- people have diverse tastes and rarely want 
everything available nor want more of a good than that which
satisfies their need.
</p><p>
Communist Anarchists also argue that we cannot judge people's
buying habits under capitalism with their actions in a free
society. After all, advertising does not exist to meet people's
needs but rather to create needs by making people insecure about 
themselves. Simply put, advertising does not amplify existing 
needs or sell the goods and services that people already want. 
Advertising would not need to stoop to the level of manipulative 
adverts that create false personalities for products and provide 
solutions for problems that the advertisers themselves create if 
this were the case. Crude it may be, but advertising is based on 
the creation of insecurities, preying on fears and obscuring 
rational thought. In an alienated society in which people are 
subject to hierarchical controls, feelings of insecurity and 
lack of control and influence would be natural. It is these 
fears that advertising multiples -- if you cannot have real freedom, 
then at least you can buy something new. Advertising is the key means 
of making people unhappy with what they have and who they are. It 
is naive to claim that advertising has no effect on the psyche of the 
receiver or that the market merely responds to the populace and makes no
attempt to shape their thoughts. If advertising did not work, firms would
not spend so much money on it! Advertising creates insecurities about 
such matter-of-course things and so generates irrational urges to buy
which would not exist in a libertarian communist society. 
</p><p>
However, there is a deeper point to be made here about consumerism. 
Capitalism is based on hierarchy, not liberty. This leads to a 
weakening of individuality as well as a lose of self-identity and sense 
of community. Both these senses are a deep human need and consumerism 
is often a means by which people overcome their alienation from their 
selves and others (religion, ideology and drugs are other means of escape). 
Therefore the consumption within capitalism reflects <b>its</b> values, not 
some abstract "human nature." As such, because a firm or industry is
making a profit satisfying "needs" within capitalism, it does not follow
that people in a free society would have similar wants (i.e., "demand"
often does not exist independently of the surrounding society). As 
Bob Black argues:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"what we want, what we are capable of wanting is relative to the 
forms of social organisation. People 'want' fast food because they 
have to hurry back to work, because processed supermarket food 
doesn't taste much better anyway, because the nuclear family (for 
the dwindling minority who have even that to go home to) is too small
and too stressed to sustain much festivity in cooking and eating
-- and so forth. It is only people who can't get what they want who 
resign themselves to want more of what they can get. Since we cannot 
be friends and lovers, we wail for more candy."</i> [<b>Friendly Fire"</b>,
p. 57]
</blockquote></p><p>
Therefore, most anarchists think that consumerism is a product of a 
hierarchical society within which people are alienated from themselves 
and the means by which they can make themselves <b>really</b> happy (i.e. 
meaningful relationships, liberty, self-managed productive activity, and 
so on). Consumerism is a means of filling the spiritual hole capitalism 
creates within us by denying our freedom and violating equality. This 
means that capitalism produces individuals who define themselves by 
what they have, not who they are. This leads to consumption for the sake 
of consumption, as people try to make themselves happy by consuming more
commodities. But, as Erich Fromm pointed out, this cannot work for long
and only leads to even more insecurity (and so even more consumption):
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"<b>If I am what I have and if what I have is lost, who then am I?</b>
Nobody but a defeated, deflated, pathetic testimony to a wrong way 
of living. Because I <b>can</b> lose what I have, I am necessarily 
constantly worried that I <b>shall</b> lose what I have."</i> [<b>To Have 
Or To Be</b>, p. 111] 
</blockquote></p><p>
Such insecurity easily makes consumerism seem a "natural" way of life 
and so make communism seem impossible. However, rampant consumerism is 
far more a product of lack of meaningful freedom within an alienated 
society than a "natural law" of human existence. In a society that 
encouraged and protected individuality by non-hierarchical social 
relationships and organisations, individuals would have a strong 
sense of self and so be less inclined to mindlessly consume. As Fromm 
put it: <i>"If <b>I am what I am</b> and not what I have, nobody can 
deprive me of or threaten my security and my sense of identity. My 
centre is within myself."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 112] Such 
self-centred individuals do not have to consume endlessly to build a 
sense of security or happiness within themselves.
</p><p>
In other words, the well-developed individuality that an anarchist society
would develop would have less need to consume than the average person in a
capitalist one. This is not to suggest that life will be bare and without
luxuries in an anarchist society, far from it. A society based on the
free expression of individuality could be nothing but rich in wealth and
diverse in goods and experiences. What we are arguing here is that an 
anarchist-communist society would not have to fear rampant consumerism 
making demand outstrip supply constantly and always precisely because 
freedom will result in a non-alienated society of well developed 
individuals.
</p><p>
It should not be forgotten that communism has two conditions, distribution 
according to need <b>and</b> production according to ability. If the latter 
condition is not met, if someone does not contribute to the goods available 
in the libertarian communist society, then the former condition is not likely 
to be tolerated and they would be asked to leave so reducing demand for goods. 
The freedom to associate means being free <b>not</b> to associate. Thus a free 
communist society would see goods being supplied as well as demanded. As 
Malatesta argued:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Basic to the anarchist system, before communism or any other forms of 
social conviviality is the principle of the free compact; the rule of 
integral communism -- 'from each according to his [or her] ability, to 
each according to his [or her] need' -- applies only to those who accept it, 
including naturally the conditions which make it practicable."</i> [quoted by 
Camillo Berneri, <i>"The Problem of Work"</i>, pp. 59-82, <b>Why Work?</b>, 
Vernon Richards (ed.), p. 74]
</blockquote>
</p><p>
So, as Malatesta suggested, it should be noted that communist-anarchists 
are well aware that it is likely that free access to all goods and services 
cannot be done immediately (see <a href="secH2.html#sech25">section H.2.5</a> 
for details). As Alexander Berkman summarised, <i>"when the social revolution
attains the stage where it can produce sufficient for all, then is 
adopted the Anarchist principle of 'to each according to his [or her]
needs' . . . But until it is reached, the system of equal sharing . . .
is imperative as the only just method. It goes without saying, of 
course, that special consideration must be given to the sick and the
old, to children, and to women during and after pregnancy."</i> [<b>What
is Anarchism?</b>, p. 216] Another possibility was suggested by James
Guillaume who argued that as long as a product was <i>"in short supply
it will to a certain extent have to be rationed. And the easiest way to
do this would be to <b>sell</b> these scare products"</i> but as 
production grows then <i>"it will not be necessary to ration consumption.
The practice of selling, which was adopted as a sort of deterrent to
immoderate consumption, will be abolished"</i> and goods <i>"will be
distribute[d] . . . in accordance with the needs of the consumers."</i>
[<i>"On Building the New Social Order"</i>, pp. 356-79, <b>Bakunin on Anarchism</b>, 
p. 368] Other possibilities may include communes deciding that certain
scare goods are only available to those who do the unpleasant work 
(such as collecting the rubbish) or that people have equal access but 
the actual goods are shared and used for short periods of time (as is 
currently the case with public libraries). As Situationist Ken Knabb
suggests after usefully discussing <i>"just some of the possibilities"</i>: 
<i>"Experimenting with different methods, people will find out for
themselves what forms of ownership, exchange and reckoning are necessary."</i>
[<b>Public Secrets</b>, p. 73]
</p><p>
Whether or not full communism <b>can</b> be introduced instantly is a moot 
point amongst collectivist and communist anarchists, although most would 
like to see society develop towards a communist goal eventually. Of course, 
for people used to capitalism this may sound totally utopian. Possibly it is. 
However, as Oscar Wilde said, a map of the world without Utopia on it is not 
worth having. One thing is sure, if the developments we have outlined above fail
to appear and attempts at communism fail due to waste and demand exceeding
supply then a free society would make the necessary decisions and introduce
some means of limiting supply (such as, for example, labour notes, equal
wages, and so on). Rest assured, though, <i>"the difficulty will be solved 
and obstacles in the shape of making necessary changes in the detailed 
working of the system of production and its relation to consumption, will 
vanish before the ingenuity of the myriad minds vitally concerned in 
overcoming them."</i> [Charlotte M. Wilson, <b>Anarchist Essays</b>, p. 21]
</p>

<a name="seci47"><h2>I.4.7 What will stop producers ignoring consumers?</h2></a>

<p>
It is often claimed that without a market producers would ignore the 
needs of consumers. Without the threat (and fear) of unemployment and 
destitution and the promise of higher profits, producers would turn out 
shoddy goods. The holders of this argument point to the example of the 
Soviet Union which was notorious for terrible goods and a lack of consumer 
commodities.
</p><p>
Capitalism, in comparison to the old Soviet block, does, to some 
degree, make the producers accountable to the consumers. If the
producer ignores the desires of the consumer then they will loose
business to those who do not and be forced, perhaps, out of
business (large companies, of course, due to their resources can
hold out far longer than smaller ones). Thus we have the carrot 
(profits) and the stick (fear of poverty) -- although, of course,
the carrot can be used as a stick against the consumer (no profit, 
no sale, no matter how much the consumer may need it). Ignoring the 
obvious objection to this analogy (namely we are human beings, <b>not</b> 
donkeys!) it does have contain an important point. What will ensure
that consumer needs are meet in an anarchist society?
</p><p>
In an Individualist or Mutualist anarchist system, as it is based on 
a market, producers would be subject to market forces and so have 
to meet consumers needs. Collectivist-anarchism meets consumer needs 
in a similar way, as producers would be accountable to consumers by 
the process of buying and selling between co-operatives. As James 
Guillaume put it, the workers associations would <i>"deposit their 
unconsumed commodities in the facilities provided by the [communal] 
Bank of Exchange . . . The Bank of Exchange would remit to the producers 
negotiable <b>vouchers</b> representing the value of their products"</i> 
(this value <i>"having been established in advance by a contractual 
agreement between the regional co-operative federations and the 
various communes"</i>). [<i>"On Building the New Social Order"</i>, 
pp. 356-79, <b>Bakunin on Anarchism</b>, pp. 366] If the goods are not 
in demand then the producer associations would not be able to sell the 
product of their labour to the Bank of Exchange (or directly to other
syndicates or communes) and so they would adjust their output accordingly. 
Of course, there are problems with these systems due to their basis in 
the market (as discussed in <a href="secI1.html#seci13">section I.1.3</a>), 
although these problems were recognised by Proudhon who argued for an 
agro-industrial federation to protect self-management from the negative 
effects of market forces (as noted in 
<a href="secI3.html#seci35">section I.3.5</a>).
</p><p>
While mutualist and collectivist anarchists can argue that producers
would respond to consumer needs otherwise they would not get an
income, communist-anarchists (as they seek a moneyless society)
cannot argue their system would reward producers in this way. So
what mechanism exists to ensure that <i>"the wants of all"</i> are, in
fact, met? How does anarcho-communism ensure that production
becomes <i>"the mere servant of consumption"</i> and <i>"mould itself on
the wants of the consumer, not dictate to him conditions"</i>? [Peter
Kropotkin, <b>Act for Yourselves</b>, p. 57] Libertarian communists 
argue that in a <b>free</b> communist society consumers' needs would 
be met. This is because of the decentralised and federal nature of 
such a society.
</p><p>
So what is the mechanism which makes producers accountable to consumers
in a libertarian communist society? Firstly, communes would practice
their power of <b><i>"exit"</i></b> in the distributive network. If a syndicate was 
producing sub-standard goods or refusing to change their output in
the face of changing consumer needs, then the communal stores would
turn to those syndicates which <b>were</b> producing the goods desired. The
original syndicates would then be producing for their own stocks, a
pointless task and one few, if any, would do. After all, people generally
desire their work to have meaning, to be useful. To just work, producing
something no-one wanted would be such a demoralising task that few, if
any, sane people would do it (under capitalism people put up with spirit
destroying work as some income is better than none, such an "incentive" 
would not exist in a free society).
</p><p>
As can be seen, <b><i>"exit"</i></b> would still exist in libertarian communism. 
However, it could be argued that unresponsive or inefficient 
syndicates would still exist, exploiting the rest of society by 
producing rubbish (or goods which are of less than average 
quality) and consuming the products of other people's labour, 
confident that without the fear of poverty and unemployment 
they can continue to do this indefinitely. Without the market, 
it is argued, some form of bureaucracy would be required (or 
develop) which would have the power to punish such syndicates. 
Thus the state would continue in "libertarian" communism, with 
the "higher" bodies using coercion against the lower ones to 
ensure they meet consumer needs or produced enough.
</p><p>
While, at first glance, this appears to be a possible problem on closer
inspection it is flawed. This is because anarchism is based not only
on <b><i>"exit"</i></b> but also <b><i>"voice"</i></b>. Unlike capitalism, libertarian communism
is based on association and communication. Each syndicate and commune
is in free agreement and confederation with all the others. Thus, is
a specific syndicate was producing bad goods or not pulling its
weight, then those in contact with them would soon realise this.
First, those unhappy with a syndicate's work would appeal to them 
directly to get their act together. If this did not work, then 
they would notify their disapproval by refusing to associate with
them in the future (i.e. they would use their power of <b><i>"exit"</i></b> as
well as refusing to provide the syndicate with any goods <b>it</b> 
requires). They would also let society as a whole know (via the
media) as well as contacting consumer groups and co-operatives
and the relevant producer and communal confederations which
they and the other syndicate are members of, who would, in turn,
inform their members of the problems (the relevant confederations
could include local and regional communal confederations, the
general cross-industry confederation, its own industrial/communal 
confederation and the confederation of the syndicate not pulling
its weight). In today's society, a similar process of "word of
mouth" warnings and recommendations goes on, along with consumer
groups and media. Our suggestions here are an extension of this
common practice (that this process exists suggests that the price
mechanism does not, in fact, provide consumers with all the 
relevant information they need to make decisions, but this is an
aside).
</p><p>
If the syndicate in question, after a certain number of complaints
had been lodged against it, still did not change its ways, then
it would suffer non-violent direct action. This would involve
the boycotting of the syndicate and (perhaps) its local commune
(such as denying it products and investment), so resulting in the 
syndicate being excluded from the benefits of association. The 
syndicate would face the fact that no one else wanted to associate 
with it and suffer a drop in the goods coming its way, including 
consumption products for its members. In effect, a similar process 
would occur to that of a firm under capitalism that looses its customers 
and so its income. However, we doubt that a free society would subject 
any person to the evils of destitution or starvation (as capitalism
does). Rather, a bare minimum of goods required for survival would 
still be available.
</p><p>
In the unlikely event this general boycott did not result in a change 
of heart, then two options are left available. These are either the
break-up of the syndicate and the finding of its members new work
places or the giving/selling of the syndicate to its current users
(i.e. to exclude them from the society they obviously do not want
to be part off). The decision of which option to go for would depend
on the importance of the workplace in question and the desires of the
syndicates' members. If the syndicate refused to disband, then option
two would be the most logical choice (unless the syndicate controlled
a scare resource). The second option would, perhaps, be best as this
would drive home the benefits of association as the expelled syndicate 
would have to survive on its own, subject to survival by selling the 
product of its labour and would soon return to the fold.
</p><p>
Kropotkin argued in these terms over 100 years ago:
</p><p>
<blockquote><i>
"When a railway company, federated with other companies, fails to 
fulfil its engagements, when its trains are late and goods lie 
neglected at the stations, the other companies threaten to cancel 
the contract, and that threat usually suffices.
</i></blockquote>
</p><p>
<blockquote><i>
"It is generally believed . . . that commerce only keeps to its 
engagements from fear of lawsuits. Nothing of the sort; nine times 
in ten the trader who has not kept his word will not appear before 
a judge . . . the sole fact of having driven a creditor to bring a 
lawsuit suffices for the vast majority of merchants to refuse for 
good to have any dealings with a man who has compelled one of them 
to go to law.
</i></blockquote>
</p><p>
<blockquote><i>
"This being so, why should means that are used today among . . .  
traders in the trade, and railway companies in the organisation of 
transport, not be made use of in a society based on voluntary work?"</i> 
[<b>The Conquest of Bread</b>, p. 153]
</blockquote>
</p><p>
Thus, to ensure producer accountability of production to consumption, 
no bureaucratic body is required in libertarian communism (or any other 
form of anarchism). Rather, communication and direct action by those 
affected by unresponsive producers would be an effective and efficient 
means of ensuring the accountability of production to consumption.
<p>

<a name="seci48"><h2>I.4.8 What about investment decisions?</h2></a>

<p>
Obviously, a given society needs to take into account changes in 
consumption and so invest in new means of production. An anarchist 
society is no different. As Guild Socialist G.D.H Cole points out, <i>"it 
is essential at all times, and in accordance with considerations which 
vary from time to time, for a community to preserve a balance between 
production for ultimate use and production for use in further production. 
And this balance is a matter which ought to be determined by and on behalf 
of the whole community."</i> [<b>Guild Socialism Restated</b>, p. 144]
</p><p>
How this balance is determined varies according to the school of 
anarchist thought considered. All agree, however, that such an 
important task should be under effective community control. 
</p><p>
The mutualists see the solution to the problems of investment as 
creating a system of mutual banks, which reduce interest rates to 
zero. This would be achieved <i>"[b]y the organisation of credit, on 
the principle of reciprocity or mutualism . . . In such an organisation 
credit is raised to the dignity of a social function, managed by 
the community; and, as society never speculates upon its members, 
it will lend its credit . . . at the actual cost of transaction."</i> 
[Charles A. Dana, <b>Proudhon and his <i>"Bank of the People"</i></b>, 
p. 36] Loans would be allocated to projects which the mutual banks 
considered likely to succeed and repay the original loan. In this 
way, the increase in the money supply implied by these acts of 
credit providing does not generate inflation for money is 
<b>not</b> created wantonly but rather is aimed at projects 
which are considered likely to <b>increase</b> the supply of goods and 
services in the economy (see <a href="secG3.html#secg36">section G.3.6</a>). 
Another key source of investment would be internal funds (i.e., 
retained savings) as is the case with co-operatives today: 
<i>"Worker-managers finance their new investments partly out of 
internal funds and partly from external loans . . . Entrepreneurial 
activity of worker-managers . . . generates profits and losses, i.e., 
higher or lower income per worker."</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. 21] As discussed in 
<a href="secI1.html#seci11">section I.1.1</a>, eliminating the 
stock market will not harm investment (almost all investment funds are 
from other sources) and will remove an important negative influence in 
economic activity.
</p><p>
Collectivist and communist anarchists recognise that credit is 
based on human activity, which is represented as money. As Cole 
pointed out, the <i>"understanding of this point [on investment] 
depends on a clear appreciation of the fact that all real additions 
to capital take the form of directing a part of the productive power 
of labour and using certain materials not for the manufacture of 
products and the rendering of services incidental to such manufacture 
for purposes of purposes of further production."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
p. 143] So collectivist and communist anarchists agree with their 
Mutualist cousins when they state that <i>"[a]ll credit presupposes 
labour, and, if labour were to cease, credit would be impossible"</i> 
and that the <i>"legitimate source of credit"</i> was <i>"the labouring 
classes"</i> who <i>"ought to control it"</i> and for <i>"whose benefit 
[it should] be used"</i>. [Dana, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 35]
</p><p>
Therefore, in collectivism, investment funds would exist for
syndicates, communes and their in community (<i>"People's"</i>) 
banks. These would be used to store depreciation funds and 
as well as other funds agreed to by the syndicates for investment 
projects (for example, confederations of syndicates may agree 
to allocate a certain percentage of their labour notes to 
a common account in order to have the necessary funds available 
for major investment projects). Similarly, individual syndicates 
and communes would also create a store of funds for their own 
investment projects. Moreover, the confederations of syndicates 
to which these <i>"People's Banks"</i> would be linked would 
also have a defined role in investment decisions to ensure that 
production meets demand by being the forum which decides which 
investment plans should be given funding (this, we stress, is 
hardly "central planning" as capitalist firms also plan future 
investments to meet expected demand). In this, collectivist 
anarchism is like mutualism and so we would also expect 
interest-free credit being arranged to facilitate investment. 
</p><p>
In a communist-anarchist society, things would be slightly different
as this would not have the labour notes used in mutualism and collectivism. 
This means that the productive syndicates would agree that a certain part 
of their total output and activity will be directed to investment projects. 
In effect, each syndicate is able to draw upon the resources approved of 
by the co-operative commonwealth in the form of an agreed claim on the 
labour power of society (investment <i>"is essentially an allocation of 
material and labour, and fundamentally, an allocation of human productive
power."</i> [Cole, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 144-5]). In this way, mutual aid 
ensures a suitable pool of resources for the future from which all benefit.
</p><p>
It should be remembered that savings are not required before credit 
can be issued. Under capitalism, for example, banks regularly
issue credit in excess of their actual reserves of cash (if they did
not then, one, they would not be very good capitalists and, two, the
economy would grind to a halt). Nor does the interest rate reflect
a preference for future goods (as discussed in 
<a href="secC2.html#secc26">section C.2.6</a> interest rates reflect
market power, the degree of monopoly in the credit industry, the social
and class position of individuals and a host of other factors). Moreover,
a developed economy replaces a process in time with a process in space. 
In peasant and tribal societies, individuals usually did have to spend 
time and energy making their own tools (the hunter had to stop hunting 
in order to create a new improved bow or spear). However, with a 
reasonably developed division of work then different people produce the 
tools others use and can do so at the same time as the others produce. If 
workers producing investment goods had to wait until sufficient savings 
had been gathered before starting work then it is doubtful that any 
developed economy could function. Thus the notion that "investment" 
needs saving is somewhat inappropriate, as different workplaces produce 
consumption goods and others produce investment goods. The issue becomes 
one of ensuring that enough people and resources go towards both activities. 
</p><p>
How would this work? Obviously investment decisions have
implications for society as a whole. The implementation of
these decisions require the use of <b>existing</b> capacity and
so must be the responsibility of the appropriate level of
the confederation in question. Investment decisions taken
at levels above the production unit become effective in the
form of demand for the current output of the syndicates which
have the capacity to produce the goods required. This would
require each syndicate to <i>"prepare a budget, showing
its estimate of requirements both of goods or services
for immediate use, and of extensions and improvements."</i> 
[Cole, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 145] These budgets and investment
projects would be discussed at the appropriate level of the 
confederation (in this, communist-anarchism would be similar 
to collectivist anarchism).
</p><p>
The confederation of syndicates/communes would be the ideal 
forum to discuss (communicate) the various investment plans 
required -- and to allocate scarce resources between different
ends. This would involve, possibly, dividing investment into two 
groups -- necessary and optional -- and using statistical techniques 
to consider the impact of an investment decision (for example, the 
use of input-output tables could be used to see if a given investment 
decision in, say, the steel industry would require investment in 
energy production). In this way social needs <b>and</b> social 
costs would be taken into account and ensure that investment decisions 
are not taken in isolation from one another, so causing bottle-necks 
and insufficient production due to lack of inputs from other industries.
</p><p>
Necessary investments are those which have been agreed upon by the 
appropriate confederation. It means that resources and productive 
capacity are prioritised towards them, as indicated in the agreed 
investment project. It will not be required to determine precisely 
<b>which</b> syndicates will provide the necessary goods for a given 
investment project, just that it has priority over other requests.
Under capitalism, when a bank gives a company credit, it rarely asks 
exactly which companies will be contracted with when the money is 
spent but, rather, it gives the company the power to command the 
labour of other workers by supplying them with credit/money. Similarly 
in an anarcho-communist society, except that the other workers have 
agreed to supply their labour for the project in question by designating 
it a <b><i>"necessary investment"</i></b>. This means when a request arrives
at a syndicate for a <b><i>"necessary investment"</i></b> a syndicate must try 
and meet it (i.e. it must place the request into its production schedule 
before <i>"optional"</i> requests, assuming that it has the capacity to 
meet it). A list of necessary investment projects, including what they 
require and if they have been ordered, will be available to all syndicates 
to ensure such a request is a real one. 
</p><p>
Optional investment is simply investment projects which have not been agreed 
to by a confederation. This means that when a syndicate or commune places 
orders with a syndicate they may not be met or take longer to arrive. The 
project may go ahead, but it depends on whether the syndicate or commune 
can find workers willing to do that work. This would be applicable for 
small scale investment decisions or those which other communes/syndicates 
do not think of as essential.
</p><p>
This we have two inter-related investment strategies. A communist-anarchist 
society would prioritise certain forms of investment by the use of 
<b><i>"necessary"</i></b> and <b><i>"optional"</i></b> investment projects. This 
socialisation of investment will allow a free society to ensure that 
social needs are meet while maintaining a decentralised and dynamic 
economy. Major projects to meet social needs will be organised 
effectively, but with diversity for minor projects. The tasks of
ensuring investment production, making orders for specific goods and
so forth, would be as decentralised as other aspects of a free economy
and so anarchism <i>"proposes . . . [t]hat usufruct of instruments of 
production -- land  included -- should be free to all workers, or groups 
of workers"</i>, that <i>"workers should group themselves, and arrange 
their work as their reason and inclination prompt"</i> and that <i>"the 
necessary connections between the various industries . . . should be 
managed on the same voluntary principle."</i> [Charlotte M. Wilson, 
<b>Anarchist Essays</b>, p. 21]
</p><p>
As for when investment is needed, it is clear that this will be 
based on the changes in demand for goods in both collectivist
and communist anarchism. As Guilliaume put it: <i>"By means 
of statistics gathered from all the communes in a region, 
it will be possible to scientifically balance production and 
consumption. In line with these statistics, it will also be 
possible to add more help in industries where production is 
insufficient and reduce the number of men where there is a 
surplus of production."</i> [<i>"On Building the New Social 
Order"</i>, pp. 356-79, <b>Bakunin on Anarchism</b>, p. 370] 
Obviously, investment in branches of production with a high 
demand would be essential and this would be easily seen from 
the statistics generated by the collectives and communes. Tom 
Brown made this obvious point:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Goods, as now, will be produced in greater variety, for workers 
like producing different kinds, and new models, of goods. Now if 
some goods are unpopular, they will be left on the shelves . . . 
Of other goods more popular, the shops will be emptied. Surely 
it is obvious that the [shop] assistant will decrease his order of 
the unpopular line and increase his order of the popular."</i> 
[<b>Syndicalism</b>, p. 55]
</blockquote></p><p>
As a rule of thumb, syndicates that produce investment goods would 
be inclined to supply other syndicates who are experiencing excess 
demand before others, all other things being equal. Because of such 
guidelines and communication between producers, investment would 
go to those industries that actually required them. In other words,
customer choice (as indicated by individuals choosing between
the output of different syndicates) would generate information
that is relevant to investment decisions. 
</p><p>
As production would be decentralised as far as it is sensible and
rational to do so, each locality/region would be able to understand 
its own requirements and apply them as it sees fit. This means that
large-scale planning would not be conducted (assuming that it
could work in practice, of course) simply because it would not
be needed. This, combined with an extensive communications network, 
would ensure that investment not only did not duplicate unused plant 
within the economy but that investments take into account the 
specific problems and opportunities each locality has. Of course, 
collectives would experiment with new lines and technology as well 
as existing lines and so invest in new technologies and products. 
As occurs under capitalism, extensive consumer testing would
occur before dedicating major investment decisions to new products. 
</p><p>
In addition, investment decisions would also require information 
which showed the different outcomes of different options. By this 
we simply mean an analysis of how different investment projects 
relate to each other in terms of inputs and outputs, compared to 
the existing techniques. This would be in the form of cost-benefit 
analysis (as outlined in 
<a href="secI4.html#seci44">section I.4.4</a>) 
and would show when it 
would make economic, social and ecological sense to switch 
industrial techniques to more efficient and/or more empowering 
and/or more ecologically sound methods. Such an evaluation would
indicate levels of inputs and compare them to the likely
outputs. For example, if a new production technique reduced
the number of hours worked in total (comparing the hours
worked to produce the machinery with that reduced in using
it) as well as reducing waste products for a similar output,
then such a technique would be implemented.
</p><p>
Similarly with communities. A commune will obviously have to 
decide upon and plan civic investment (e.g. new parks, housing 
and so forth). They will also have the deciding say in industrial 
developments in their area as it would be unfair for syndicate to 
just decide to build a cement factory next to a housing co-operative 
if they did not want it. There is a case for arguing that the local 
commune will decide on investment decisions for syndicates in its 
area (for example, a syndicate may produce X plans which will be 
discussed in the local commune and one plan finalised from the debate). 
Regional decisions (for example, a new hospital) could be decided at 
the appropriate level, with information fed from the health syndicate 
and consumer co-operatives. The actual location for investment decisions 
will be worked out by those involved. However, local syndicates must be 
the focal point for developing new products and investment plans in 
order to encourage innovation.
</p><p>
Therefore, under anarchism no capital market is required to 
determine whether investment is required and what form it would take. 
The work that apologists for capitalism claim currently is done by 
the stock market can be replaced by co-operation and communication 
between workplaces in a decentralised, confederated network. The 
relative needs of different consumers of a product can be evaluated 
by the producers and an informed decision reached on where it would 
best be used. Without private property, housing, schools, hospitals,
workplaces and so on will no longer be cramped into the smallest space 
possible. Instead, they will be built within a "green" environment. 
This means that human constructions will be placed within a natural 
setting and no longer stand apart from nature. In this way human life 
can be enriched and the evils of cramping as many humans and things 
into a small a space as is "economical" can be overcome.
</p><p>
Only by taking investment decisions away from "experts" and placing 
it in the hands of ordinary people will current generations be able 
to invest according to their, and future generations', benefit. 
It is hardly in our best interests to have a system whose aim is to 
make the wealthy even wealthier and on whose whims are dependent 
the lives of millions of people.
</p>

<a name="seci49"><h2>I.4.9 Should technological advance be seen as 
anti-anarchistic?</h2></a>

<p>
Not necessarily. This is because technology can allow us to "do more 
with less," technological progress can improve standards of living 
for all people, and technologies can be used to increase personal freedom: 
medical technology, for instance, can free people from the scourges of 
pain, illness, and a "naturally" short life span; technology can be used 
to free labour from mundane chores associated with production; advanced 
communications technology can enhance our ability to freely associate. 
The list is endless. So the vast majority of anarchists agree with Kropotkin's
comment that the <i>"development of [the industrial] technique at last 
gives man [sic!] the opportunity to free himself from slavish toil."</i> 
[<b>Ethics</b>, p. 2]
</p><p>
For example, increased productivity under capitalism usually 
leads to further exploitation and domination, displaced workers, 
economic crisis, etc. However, it does not have to so in an anarchist 
world. By way of example, consider a commune in which 5 people desire 
to be bakers (or 5 people are needed to work the communal bakery) and
20 hours of production per person, per week is spent on baking bread. 
Now, what happens if the introduction of automation, <b>as desired, 
planned and organised by the workers themselves</b>, reduces the amount 
of labour required for bread production to 15 person-hours per week? 
Clearly, no one stands to lose -- even if someone's work is "displaced" 
that person will continue to receive the same access to the means of 
life as before -- and they might even gain. This last is due to the fact 
that 5 person-hours have been freed up from the task of bread production, 
and those person-hours may now be used elsewhere or converted to leisure, 
either way increasing each person's standard of living. 
</p><p>
Obviously, this happy outcome derives not only from the technology 
used, but also (and critically) from its use in an equitable economic 
and social system: in the end, there is no reason why the use of 
technology cannot be used to empower people and increase their freedom! 
</p><p>
Of course technology can be used for oppressive ends. Human knowledge, 
like all things, can be used to increase freedom or to decrease it,
to promote inequality or reduce it, to aid the worker or to subjugate
them, and so on. Technology, as we argued in <a href="secD10.html">section D.10</a>, 
cannot be considered in isolation from the society it is created and 
used in. Most anarchists are aware that, to quote expert David Noble, 
<i>"Capital invested in machines that would re-enforce the system of 
domination [within the capitalist workplace], and this decision to 
invest, which might in the long run render the chosen technology 
economical, was not itself an economical decision but a political one, 
with cultural sanction."</i> [<b>Progress Without People</b>, p. 6] 
In a hierarchical society, technology will be introduced that serves 
the interests of the powerful and helps marginalise and disempower the 
majority (<i>"technology is political,"</i> to use Noble's expression). 
It does not evolve in isolation from human beings and the social 
relationships and power structures between them. 
</p><p>
It is for these reasons that anarchists have held a wide range of 
opinions concerning the relationship between human knowledge and 
anarchism. Some, such as Peter Kropotkin, were themselves scientists 
and saw great potential for the use of advanced technology to expand 
human freedom. Others have held technology at arm's length, concerned 
about its oppressive uses, and a few have rejected science and technology 
completely. All of these are, of course, possible anarchist positions. 
But most anarchists support Kropotkin's viewpoint, but with a healthy 
dose of practical Luddism when viewing how technology is (ab)used in 
capitalism (<i>"The worker will only respect machinery <b>in the day</b> when 
it becomes his friend, shortening his work, rather than as <b>today,</b> 
his enemy, taking away jobs, killing workers."</i> [Emile Pouget quoted 
by David Noble, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 15]). Vernon Richards stated the
obvious:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"We maintain that the term 'productivity' has meaning, or is socially 
important, only when all production serves a public need . . . </i>
</blockquote>
</p><p>
<blockquote><i>
"Productivity has meaning if it results both in a raising of living 
standards and an increase of leisure for all.</i>
</blockquote>
</p><p>
<blockquote><i>
"'Productivity' in the society we live in, because it is not a
means to a social end, but is the means whereby industrialists
hope to make greater profits for themselves and their shareholders,
should be resolutely resisted by the working people, for it 
brings them neither greater leisure nor liberation from 
wage-slavery. Indeed for many it means unemployment . . . </i>
</blockquote>
</p><p>
<blockquote><i>
"The attempts by managers and the technocrats to streamline 
industry are resisted intuitively by most work people even if
they haven't two political ideas in their heads to knock 
together, not because they are resistant to change <b>per se</b>
but because they cannot see that 'change' will do them any
good. And of course they are right! Such an attitude is 
nevertheless a negative one, and the task of anarchist 
propagandists should be to make them aware of this and 
point to the only alternative, which, in broad terms, is
that the producers of wealth must control it for the benefit
of all."</i> [<b>Why Work?</b>, Vernon Richards (ed.), p. 206]
</blockquote>
</p><p>
This means that in an anarchist society, technology would have 
to be transformed and/or developed which empowered those who used it, 
so reducing any oppressive aspects associated with it. As Kropotkin 
argued, we are (potentially) in a good position, because <i>"[f]or 
the first time in the history of civilisation, mankind has reached 
a point where the means of satisfying its needs are in excess of 
the needs themselves. To impose, therefore, as hitherto been done, the 
curse of misery and degradation upon vast divisions of mankind, in order 
to secure well-being and further development for the few, is needed no 
more: well-being can be secured for all, without placing on anyone the 
burden of oppressive, degrading toil and humanity can at last build its 
entire social life on the basis of justice."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 2] 
The question is, for most anarchists, how can we humanise and modify this 
technology and make it socially and individually liberatory, rather than 
destroying it (where applicable, of course, certain forms of technology 
and industry will be eliminated due to their inherently destructive nature).
</p><p>
For Kropotkin, like most anarchists, the way to humanise technology
and industry was for <i>"the workers [to] lay hands on factories, 
houses and banks"</i> and so <i>"present production would be completely 
revolutionised by this simple fact."</i> This would be the start
of a process which would <b>integrate</b> industry and agriculture,
as it was <i>"essential that work-shops, foundries and factories
develop within the reach of the fields."</i> [<b>The Conquest of Bread</b>,
p. 190] Such a process would obviously involve the transformation
of both the structure and technology of capitalism rather than
its simple and unthinking application. As discussed in 
<a href="secA3.html#seca39">section A.3.9</a>,
while a few anarchists do seek to eliminate all forms of technology,
most would agree with Bakunin when he argued that <i>"to destroy . . . 
all the instruments of labour . . . would be to condemn all humanity -- 
which is infinity too numerous today to exist . . . on the simple 
gifts of nature . . . -- to . . . death by starvation."</i> His solution 
to the question of technology was, like Kropotkin's, to place it 
at the service of those who use it, to create <i>"the intimate and 
complete union of capital and labour"</i> so that it would <i>"not . . . 
remain concentrated in the hands of a separate, exploiting class."</i> 
Only this could <i>"smash the tyranny of capital."</i> [<b>The Basic 
Bakunin</b>, pp. 90-1] So most anarchists seek to transform rather 
then eliminate technology and to do that we need to be in possession 
of the means of production before we can decide what to keep, what 
to change and what to throw away as inhuman. In other words, it is 
not enough to get rid of the boss, although this is a necessary 
first step!
</p><p>
Anarchists of all types recognise the importance of critically 
evaluating technology, industry and so on. The first step of any 
revolution will be the seizing of the means of production. The 
second <b>immediate</b> step will be the start of their radical
transformation by those who use them and are affected by them
(i.e. communities, those who use the products they produce and
so on). Few, if any, anarchists seek to maintain the current
industrial set-up or apply, unchanged, capitalist technology.
We doubt that many of the workers who use that technology and
work in industry will leave either unchanged. Rather, they will
seek to liberate the technology they use from the influences of
capitalism, just as they liberated themselves. 
</p><p>
This will, of course, involve the shutting down (perhaps 
instantly or over a period of time) of many branches of 
industry and the abandonment of such technology which 
cannot be transformed into something more suitable for 
use by free individuals. And, of course, many workplaces 
will be transformed to produce new goods required to meet 
the needs of the revolutionary people or close due to 
necessity as a social revolution will disrupt the market 
for their goods -- such as producers of luxury export goods 
or suppliers of repressive equipment for state security 
forces. Altogether, a social revolution implies the
transformation of technology and industry, just as it
implies the transformation of society.
</p><p>
This process of transforming work can be seen from the Spanish
Revolution. Immediately after taking over the means of production,
the Spanish workers started to transform it. They eliminated
unsafe and unhygienic working conditions and workplaces and
created new workplaces based on safe and hygienic working 
conditions. Working practices were transformed as those 
who did the work (and so understood it) managed it. Many
workplaces were transformed to create products required by
the war effort (such as weapons, ammunition, tanks and so on)
and to produce consumer goods to meet the needs of the local 
population as the normal sources of such goods, as Kropotkin
predicted, were unavailable due to economic disruption and
isolation. Needless to say, these were only the beginnings 
of the process but they clearly point the way any libertarian 
social revolution would progress, namely the total transformation 
of work, industry and technology. Technological change would 
develop along new lines, ones which will take into account
human and ecological needs rather the power and profits of 
a minority.
</p><p>
Explicit in anarchism is the believe that capitalist and
statist methods cannot be used for socialist and libertarian
ends. In our struggle for workers' and community self-management
is the awareness that workplaces are not merely sites of
production -- they are also sites of <b>re</b>production, the
reproduction of certain social relationships based on
specific relations of authority between those who give
orders and those who take them. The battle to democratise
the workplace, to place the collective initiative of the
direct producers at the centre of any productive activity,
is clearly a battle to transform the workplace, the nature
of work and, by necessity, technology as well. As Kropotkin 
argued:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"revolution is more than a mere change of the prevailing political 
system. It implies the awakening of human intelligence, the increasing 
of the inventive spirit tenfold, a hundredfold; it is the dawn of a 
new science . . . It is a revolution in the minds of men, as deep, 
and deeper still, than in their institutions . . . the sole fact of 
having laid hands on middle-class property will imply the necessity 
of completely re-organising the whole of economic life in the workplaces, 
the dockyards, the factories."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 192] 
</blockquote><p></p>
And some think that industry and technology will remain unchanged by such
a process and that workers will continue doing the same sort of work, in 
the same way, using the same methods! 
</p><p>
For Kropotkin <i>"all production has taken a wrong direction, as 
it is not carried on with a view to securing well-being for all"</i> 
under capitalism. [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 101] Well-being for all obviously 
includes those who do the producing and so covers the structure 
of industry and the technological processes used. Similarly, 
well-being also includes a person's environment and surroundings 
and so technology and industry must be evaluated on an ecological 
basis. Technological progress in an anarchist society, needless to 
say, will have to take into account these factors as well as others 
people think are relevant, otherwise the ideal of <i>"well-being for 
all"</i> is rejected (see <a href="secI4.html#seci415">section I.4.15</a>
for a discussion of what the workplace of the future could look like).
</p><p>
So, technology always partakes of and expresses the basic values of 
the social system in which it is embedded. If you have a system 
(capitalism) that alienates everything, it will naturally produce 
alienated forms of technology and it will orient those technologies 
so as to reinforce itself. Capitalists will select technology which 
re-enforces their power and profits and skew technological change in 
that direction rather than in those which empower individuals and make 
the workplace more egalitarian. 
</p><p>
All this suggests that technological progress is not neutral
but dependent on who makes the decisions. As David Noble argues,
<i>"[t]echnological determinism, the view that machines make history
rather than people, is not correct . . . If social changes now
upon us seem necessary, it is because they follow not from any
disembodied technological logic, but form a social logic."</i> 
Technology conforms to <i>"the interests of power"</i> but as 
<i>"technological process is a social process"</i> then <i>"it is,
like all social processes, marked by conflict and struggle,
and the outcome, therefore, is always ultimately indeterminate."</i> 
Viewing technological development <i>"as a social process rather
than as an autonomous, transcendent, and deterministic force
can be liberating . . . because it opens up a realm of
freedom too long denied. It restores people once again to
their proper role as subjects of the story, rather than mere
pawns of technology . . . And technological development itself,
now seen as a social construct, becomes a new variable rather
than a first cause, consisting of a range of possibilities and
promising a multiplicity of futures."</i> [<b>Forces of Production</b>,
pp. 324-5]
</p><p>
This does not mean that we have to reject all technology and industry
because it has been shaped by, or developed within, class society.
Certain technologies are, of course, so insanely dangerous that they
will no doubt be brought to a prompt halt in any sane society. Similarly,
certain forms of technology and industrial process will be impossible
to transform as they are inherently designed for oppressive ends. 
Many other industries which produce absurd, obsolete or superfluous
commodities will, of course, cease automatically with the disappearance 
of their commercial or social rationales. But many technologies, however 
they may presently be misused, have few if any inherent drawbacks. They
could be easily adapted to other uses. When people free themselves from 
domination, they will have no trouble rejecting those technologies that 
are harmful while adapting others to beneficial uses. 
</p><p>
Change society and the technology introduced and utilised will 
likewise change. By viewing technological progress as a new
variable, dependent on those who make the decisions and the
type of society they live in, allows us to see that technological
development is not inherently anti-anarchist. A non-oppressive,
non-exploitative, ecological society will develop non-oppressive, 
non-exploitative, ecological technology just as capitalism has 
developed technology which facilitates exploitation, oppression
and environmental destruction. Thus an anarchist questions 
technology: The best technology? Best for whom? Best for what? 
Best according to what criteria, what visions, according to 
whose criteria and whose visions?
</p><p>
Needless to say, different communities and different regions would 
choose different priorities and different lifestyles. As the CNT's Zaragoza 
resolution on libertarian communism made clear, <i>"those communes which 
reject industrialisation . . . may agree upon a different model of 
co-existence."</i> Using the example of <i>"naturists and nudists,"</i> 
it argued that they <i>"will be entitled to an autonomous administration 
released from the general commitments"</i> agreed by the communes and 
their federations and <i>"their delegates to congresses of the . . . 
Confederation of Autonomous Libertarian Communes will be empowered to 
enter into economic contacts with other agricultural and industrial 
Communes."</i> [quoted by Jose Peirats, <b>The CNT in the Spanish 
Revolution</b>, vol. 1, p. 106]
</p><p>
For most anarchists, though, technological advancement is important 
in a free society in order to maximise the free time available 
for everyone and replace mindless toil with meaningful work. The 
means of doing so is the use of <b>appropriate</b> technology (and 
<b>not</b> the worship of technology as such). Only by critically 
evaluating technology and introducing such forms which empower, 
are understandable and are controllable by individuals and 
communities as well as minimising ecological distribution can this 
be achieved. Only this critical approach to technology can do 
justice to the power of the human mind and reflect the creative 
powers which developed the technology in the first place. 
Unquestioning acceptance of technological progress is just 
as bad as being unquestioningly anti-technology.
</p>

<a name="seci410"><h2>I.4.10 What would be the advantage of a wide basis 
of surplus distribution?</h2></a>

<p>
We noted earlier (in <a href="secI3.html#seci31">section I.3.1</a>) that 
competition between syndicates could lead to <i>"co-operative egotism"</i> 
(to use Kropotkin's term) and that to eliminate this problem, the basis 
of collectivisation needs to be widened so that production is based on
need and, as a result, surpluses are distributed society-wide. The 
advantage of a wide surplus distribution is that it allows all to
have a decent life and stop market forces making people work harder
and longer to survive in the economy (see <a href="secI1.html#seci13">section I.1.3</a>).
The consolidation of syndicates that would otherwise compete will, it
is hoped, lead to a more efficient allocation of resources and technical 
improvements so allowing the transformation of work and reduction of the 
time we need to spend in production. We will back up this claim with 
illustrations from the Spanish Revolution as well as from today's system. 
</p><p>
Collectivisation in Catalonia embraced not only major industries like
municipal transportation and utilities, but smaller establishments as
well: small factories, artisan workshops, service and repair shops, etc. 
Augustin Souchy describes the process as follows:  
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"The artisans and small workshop owners, together with their employees 
and apprentices, often joined the union of their trade. By consolidating 
their efforts and pooling their resources on a fraternal basis, the shops 
were able to undertake very big projects and provide services on a much 
wider scale . . . The collectivisation of the hairdressing shops provides 
an excellent example of how the transition of a small-scale manufacturing 
and service industry from capitalism to socialism was achieved . . .</i> 
</blockquote></p>
<p><blockquote>
<i>"Before July 19th, 1936 [the date of the Revolution], there were 1,100
hairdressing parlours in Barcelona, most of them owned by poor wretches 
living from hand to mouth. The shops were often dirty and ill-maintained. 
The 5,000 hairdressing assistants were among the most poorly paid 
workers . . . Both owners and assistants therefore voluntarily decided 
to socialise all their shops.</i>
</blockquote> </p>
<p><blockquote>
<i>"How was this done?  All the shops simply joined the union. At a general
meeting they decided to shut down all the unprofitable shops. The 1,100
shops were reduced to 235 establishments, a saving of 135,000 pesetas 
per month in rent, lighting, and taxes. The remaining 235 shops were
modernised and elegantly outfitted. From the money saved, wages were 
increased by 40%. Everyone having the right to work and everyone
received the same wages. The former owners were not adversely affected 
by socialisation. They were employed at a steady income. All worked 
together under equal conditions and equal pay. The distinction 
between employers and employees was obliterated and they were 
transformed into a working community of equals -- socialism from 
the bottom up."</i> [<b>The Anarchist Collectives</b>, Sam Dolgoff (ed.), 
pp. 93-94]
</blockquote></p><p>
The collectives, as well as improving working conditions, also ensured
access to other goods and services which market forces had previously
denied working class people. Across Republican Spain collectives in towns 
and villages organised health care. For example, in the village of Magdalena 
de Pulpis housing <I>"was free and completely socialised, as was medical care 
. . . Medicines, supplies, transfer to hospitals in Barcelona or Castellon, 
surgery, services of specialists -- all was paid for by the collective."</i> 
This was also done for education, with collectives forming and running schools, 
colleges and universities. For example, Regional Peasant Federation of
Levant saw each collective organise <i>"one or two free schools for the
children"</i> and <i>"almost wiped out illiteracy"</i> (over 70% of rural
Spain was literate before the Civil War). It also organised a <i>"University
of Moncada"</i> which <i>"gave courses in animal husbandry, poultry raising.
animal breeding, agriculture, tree science, etc."</i> [Gaston Leval, 
<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 156 and p. 125] 
</p><p>
These examples, social anarchists argue, show that co-operation ensures that 
resources are efficiently allocated and waste is minimised by cutting down 
needless competition. It also ensures that necessary goods and services
which meet vital areas for human well-being and development are available
for all rather than the few. Rather than reduce choice, such co-operation
increased it by making such things available to all (and as consumers
have choices in which syndicate to consume from as well as having direct
communication between consumer co-operatives and productive units, there
is little danger that rationalisation in production will hurt the interests
of the consumer).
</p><p>
Another way in which wide distribution of surplus can be advantageous
is in Research and Development (R&D). By creating a fund for
research and development which is independent of the fortunes of
individual syndicates, society as a whole can be improved by access
to useful new technologies and processes. Therefore, in a libertarian
socialist society, people (both within the workplace and in communities) 
are likely to decide to allocate significant amounts of resources for 
basic research from the available social output. This is because the 
results of this research would be freely available to all and so 
would aid everyone in the long term. In addition, because workers 
directly control their workplace and the local community effectively 
"owns" it, all affected would have an interest in exploring research 
which would reduce labour, pollution, waste and so on or increase 
output with little or no social impact.
</p><p>
It should also be mentioned here that research would be pursued more and
more as people take an increased interest in both their own work and 
education. As people become liberated from the grind of everyday life,
they will explore possibilities as their interests take them and so
research will take place on many levels within society - in the workplace,
in the community, in education and so on.
</p><p>
This means that research and innovation would be in the direct interests of
everyone involved and that all would have the means to do it. Under capitalism, 
this is not the case. Most research is conducted in order to get an edge in the 
market by increasing productivity or expanding production into new (previously 
unwanted) areas. Any increased productivity often leads to unemployment, 
deskilling and other negative effects for those involved. Libertarian socialism 
will not face this problem. Moreover, it should be stressed that basic research is 
not something which free-market capitalism does well. As Doug Henwood notes, 
basic science research <i>"is heavily funded by the public sector and non-profit 
institutions like universities."</i> The internet and computer, for example, 
were both projects for the Pentagon and <i>"the government picked up the basic 
R&D tab for decades, when neither Wall Street nor private industry showed any 
interest. In fact, capital only became interested when the start-up costs had 
all been borne by the public sector and there were finally profits to be made 
. . . good American individualists don't like to talk about the public sector, 
since their hero is the plucky entrepreneur."</i> [<b>After the New Economy</b>, 
p. 196 and p. 6] The rise of such systems across the world indicates that basic 
research often needs public support in order to be done. Even such a leading 
neo-classical economist as Kenneth Arrow had to admit in the 1960s that market 
forces are insufficient:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"basic research, the output of which is only used as an informational
input into other inventive activities, is especially unlikely to be rewarded. 
In fact, it is likely to be of commercial value to the firm undertaking it 
only if other firms are prevented from using the information. But such 
restriction reduces the efficiency of inventive activity in general, and 
will therefore reduce its quantity also."</i> [quoted by David Schweickart, 
<b>Against capitalism</b>, p. 132]
</blockquote></p><p>
Nothing has changed since. Would modern society have produced so many
innovations if it had not been for the Pentagon system, the space race 
and so on? Take the Internet, for example -- it is unlikely that this 
would have got off the ground if it had not been for public funding. Needless 
to say, of course, much of this technology has been developed for evil 
reasons and purposes and would be in need of drastic change (or, in many 
some, abolition) before it could be used in a libertarian society. However, 
the fact remains that it is unlikely that a pure market based system could 
have generated most of the technology we take for granted. As Noam Chomsky 
argues:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"[Alan] Greenspan [then head of the US Federal Reserve] gave a 
talk to newspaper editors in the US. He spoke passionately about the
miracles of the market, the wonders brought by consumer choice,
and so on. He also gave examples: the Internet, computers, 
information processing, lasers, satellites, transistors. It's
an interesting list: these are textbook examples of creativity
and production in the public sector. In the case of the Internet,
for 30 years it was designed, developed and funded primarily
in the public sector, mostly the Pentagon, then the National
Science Foundation -- that's most of the hardware, the software,
new ideas, technology, and so on. In just the last couple of
years it has been handed over to people like Bill Gates . . .
In the case of the Internet, consumer choice was close to
zero, and during the crucial development stages that same was
true of computers, information processing, and all the rest . . .
</p><p>
"In fact, of all the examples that Greenspan gives, the only
one that maybe rises above the level of a joke is transistors,
and they are an interesting case. Transistors, in fact, were 
developed in a private laboratory -- Bell Telephone Laboratories
of AT&T -- which also made major contributions to solar cells,
radio astronomy, information theory, and lots of other
important things. But what is the role of markets and
consumer choice in that? Well, again, it turns out, zero.
AT&T was a government supported monopoly, so there was no
consumer choice, and as a monopoly they could charge high
prices: in effect a tax on the public which they could use
for institutions like Bell Laboratories . . . So again, it's
publicly subsidised. As if to demonstrate the point, as
soon as the industry was deregulated, Bell Labs went out of
existence, because the public wasn't paying for it any more
. . . But that's only the beginning of the story. True,
Bell invented transistors, but they used wartime technology,
which, again, was publicly subsidised and state-initiated.
Furthermore, there was nobody to buy transistors at that
time, because they were very expensive to produce. So, for
ten years the government was the major procurer . . .
Government procurement provided entrepreneurial initiatives
and guided the development of the technology, which could
then be disseminated to industry."</i> [<b>Rogue States</b>, 
pp. 192-3]
</blockquote></p><p>
The free market can also have a negative impact on innovation.
This is because, in order to please shareholders with higher 
share prices, companies may reduce funds available for real 
investment as well as R&D which would also depress growth 
and employment in the long term. What shareholders might 
condemn as "uneconomic" (investment projects and R&D) can, 
and does, make society as a whole better off. However, these 
gains are over the long term and, within capitalism, it is 
short-term gains which count. Higher share prices in the here 
and now are essential in order to survive and so see the long-run.
</p><p>
A socialised economy with a wide-scale sharing of surpluses and 
resources could easily allocate resources for R&D, long term 
investment, innovation and so on. Via the use of mutual banks or 
confederations of syndicates and communes, resources could be 
allocated which take into account the importance of long-term 
priorities, as well as social costs, which are not taken into 
account (indeed, are beneficial to ignore) under capitalism. 
Rather than penalise long term investment and research and 
development, a socialised economy would ensure that adequate 
resources are available, something which would benefit 
everyone in society in some way.
</p><p>
If we look at vocational training and education, a wide basis
of surplus distribution would aid this no end. Under free market
capitalism, vocational training suffers for profit seeking firms 
will not incur costs that will be enjoyed by others. This means 
that firms will be reluctant to spend money on training if they 
fear that the trained workers will soon be poached by other firms 
which can offer more money because they had not incurred the cost 
of providing training. As a result few firms will provide the 
required training as they could not be sure that the trained 
workers will not leave for their competitors (and, of course, a 
trained work force also, due to their skill, have more workplace 
power and are less replaceable). So as well as technological 
developments, a wide basis of surplus distribution would help 
improve the skills and knowledge of the members of a community. 
As Keynesian economist Michael Stewart points out, <i>"[t]here 
are both theoretical and empirical reasons to suppose that market 
forces under-provide research and development expenditures, as 
well as both education and training."</i> [<b>Keynes in the 
1990s</b>, p. 77]
</p><p>
By socialising training via confederations of workplaces,
syndicates could increase productivity via increasing the
skill levels of their members. Higher skill levels will
also tend to increase innovation and enjoyment at "work" 
when combined with workers' self-management. This is because
an educated workforce in control of their own time will be
unlikely to tolerate mundane, boring, machine-like work
and seek ways to eliminate it, improve the working environment
and increase productivity to give them more free time.
</p><p>
In addition to work conducted by syndicates, education establishments,
communes and so on, it would be essential to provide resources
for individuals and small groups to pursue "pet projects." Of
course, syndicates and confederations will have their own research 
institutions but the innovatory role of the interested "amateur" 
cannot be over-rated. As Kropotkin argued:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"What is needed to promote the spirit of innovation is . . . 
the awakening of thought, the boldness of conception, which our
entire education causes to languish; it is the spreading of a
scientific education, which would increase the numbers of
inquirers a hundred-fold; it is faith that humanity is going to
take a step forward, because it is enthusiasm, the hope of doing
good, that has inspired all the great inventors. The Social
Revolution alone can give this impulse to thought, this boldness,
this knowledge, this conviction of working for all.</i>
</blockquote></p>
<p><blockquote><i>
"Then we shall have vast institutes . . . immense industrial
laboratories open to all inquirers, where men will be able to
work out their dreams, after having acquitted themselves of
their duty towards society; . . . where they will make their
experiments; where they will find other comrades, experts in
other branches of industry, likewise coming to study some
difficult problem, and therefore able to help and enlighten
each other -- the encounter of their ideas and experiences
causing the longed-for solution to be found."</i> [<b>The 
Conquest of Bread</b>, p. 117]
</blockquote></p><p>
The example of free software (operating systems, programming
languages, specific packages and code) today show the potential 
this. Thus socialisation would aid innovation and scientific 
development by providing the necessary resources (including free
time) for such work. Moreover, it would also provide the community 
spirit required to push the boundaries of science forward. As 
John O'Neil argues:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"There is, in a competitive market economy, a disincentive to
communicate information. The market encourages secrecy, which
is inimical to openness in science. It presupposes a view of
property in which the owner has rights to exclude others. In 
the sphere of science, such rights of exclusion place limits 
on the communication of information and theories which are
incompatible with the growth of knowledge . . . science tends 
to grow when communication is open. . . [In addition a] necessary
condition for the acceptability of a theory or experimental
result is that it pass the public, critical scrutiny of
competent scientific judges. A private theory or result 
is one that is shielded from the criteria of scientific 
acceptability."</i> [<b>The Market</b>, p. 153]  
</blockquote></p><p>
Today inventors often <i>"carefully hide their inventions from 
each other, as they are hampered by patents and Capitalism -- 
that bane of present society, that stumbling-block in the path 
of intellectual and moral progress."</i> In a free society, 
socialisation would ensure that inventors will be able to build upon 
the knowledge of everyone, including past generations. Rather than 
hide knowledge from others, in case they get a competitive advantage, 
knowledge would be shared, enriching all involved as well as the rest 
of society. Thus the <i>"spreading of a scientific education, which
would increase the number of inquirers"</i>, <i>"faith that humanity
is going to take a step forward"</i> and the <i>"enthusiasm, the
hope of doing good, that has inspired all the great inventors"</i> 
will be maximised and innovation increased. [Kropotkin, <b>Op. Cit.</b>,
p. 117 and pp. 116-7] 
</p><p>
Social anarchists would also suggest that socialisation would produce
more benefits by looking at existing societies. The evidence from 
the UK, USA, Australia, New Zealand and China shows that privatisations 
of nationalised industries associated with neo-liberalism failed in its 
stated aims of cheaper and better services while more than succeeding in 
their unstated aim of redistributing wealth upwards (for details see <b>In 
Government we Trust: Market Failure and the delusions of privatisation</b>
by Warrick Funnell, Robert Jupe and Jane Andrew). The examples of railway
and utility privatisation, the energy crisis in California (with companies
like Enron reaping huge speculative profits while consumers faced blackouts) 
and the Sydney water treatment scandal in Australia are sadly all too typical. 
Ironically, in the UK after 30 years of Thatcherite policies (first under 
the Tories and then New Labour) the readers of the right-wing press who 
supported it are subjected to article after article complaining about 
<i>"Rip off Britain"</i> and yet more increases in the prices charged 
for privatised utilities, services and goods. This, it must be stressed,
if not to suggest that anarchists aim for nationalisation (we do not,
we aim for socialisation and workers' self-management) but rather
to indicate that privatising resources does not benefit the majority
of people in a given society. 
</p><p>
It should also be noted that more unequal societies are bad for almost 
everyone within them. Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett in their 
book <b>The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do 
Better</b> show that almost every modern social and environmental 
problem (including ill-health, lack of community life, violence, 
drugs, obesity, mental illness, long working hours, big prison 
populations) is more likely to occur in an unequal society than a
more equal one. Based on thirty years of research, it shows that 
inequality, as anarchists have long argued, is bad for us. As such,
socialisation of wealth would benefit us all.
</p><p>
Lastly, there is the issue of those who cannot work and the general 
provision of public goods. With a wide distribution to surplus, communal 
hospitals, schools, universities and so on can be created. The simple 
fact is that any society has members who cannot (indeed, should not) 
work unless they want to, such as the young, the old and the sick. In 
an Individualist Anarchist society, there is no real provision for these 
individuals unless someone (a family member, friend or charity) provides 
them with the money required for hospital fees and so on. For most
anarchists, such a situation seems far too much like the system we are
currently fighting against to be appealing. As such, social anarchists
argue that everyone deserves an education, health care and so on as a 
right and so be able live a fully human life as a right, rather than a 
privilege to be paid for. A communal basis for distribution would ensure 
that every member of the commune can receive such things automatically, 
as and when required. The removal of the worry that, for example, privatised 
health care produces can be seen as a benefit of socialisation which cannot
be reflected in, say, GDP or similar economic measures (not to mention the
ethical statement it makes). 
</p><p>
Significantly, though, non-privatised system of health care are more
efficient. Competition as well as denying people treatment also leads 
to inefficiencies as prices are inflated to pay for advertising, 
competition related administration costs, paying dividends to 
share-holders and so on. This drives up the cost for those lucky
enough to be covered, not to mention the stress produced by the 
constant fear of losing insurance or being denying payment due to
the insurance company deciding against the patient and their doctor.
For example, in 1993, Canada's health plans devoted 0.9% of spending 
to overhead, compared to U.S. figures of 3.2% for Medicare and 12% 
for private insurers. In addition, when Canada adopted its publicly 
financed system in 1971, it and the U.S. both spent just over 7% 
of GDP on health care. By 1990, the U.S. was up to 12.3%, verses 
Canada's 9%. Since then costs have continued to rise and rise, 
making health-care reform of key interest to the public who are
suffering under it (assuming they are lucky enough to have private
insurance, of course).
</p><p>
The madness of private health-care shows the benefits of a society-wide
distribution of surpluses. Competition harms health-care provision and,
as a result, people. According to Alfie Kohn:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"More hospitals and clinics are being run by for-profit 
corporations; many institutions, forced to battle for 'customers,' 
seem to value a skilled director of marketing more highly than a 
skilled caregiver. As in any other economic sector, the race for 
profits translates into pressure to reduce costs, and the easiest 
way to do it here is to cut back on services to unprofitable 
patients, that is, those who are more sick than rich . . . 
The result: hospital costs are actually <b>higher</b> in areas 
where there is more competition for patients."</i> [<b>No Contest</b>, 
p. 240]
</blockquote></p><p>
American Liberal Robert Kuttner concurs: 
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"The American health-care system is a tangle of inequity and 
inefficiency -- and getting worse as private-market forces 
seek to rationalise it. A shift to a universal system 
of health coverage would cut this Gordian knot at a stroke. 
It would not only deliver the explicitly medical aspects 
of health more efficiently and fairly, but, by socialising 
costs of poor health, it would also create a powerful 
financial incentive for society as a whole to stress primary 
prevention. . . every nation with a universal system
spends less of its GDP on health care than the United States
. . . And nearly every other nation with a universal system
has longer life spans from birth (though roughly equivalent
life spans from adulthood) . . . most nations with universal
systems also have greater patient satisfaction.</i>
</blockquote></p>
<p><blockquote>
<i>"The reasons . . . should be obvious. By their nature, universal
systems spend less money on wasteful overhead, and more on
primary prevention. Health-insurance overhead in the United 
States alone consumes about 1 percent of the GDP, compared
to 0.1 percent in Canada. Though medical inflation is a
problem everywhere, the universal systems have had far
lower rates of cost inflation . . . In the years between
1980 and 1987, total health costs in the United States
increased by 2.4 times the rate of GDP growth. In nations
with universal systems, they increased far more slowly.
The figures for Sweden, France, West Germany, and Britain
were 1.2, 1.6, 1.8, and 1.7 percent, respectively . . .</i>
</blockquote></p>
<p><blockquote>
<i>"Remarkably enough, the United States spends most money 
on health care, but has the fewest beds per thousand in
population, the lowest admission rate, and the lowest
occupancy rate -- coupled with the highest daily cost,
highest technology-intensiveness, and greatest number
of employees per bed."</i> [<b>Everything for Sale</b>, pp. 155-6]
</blockquote></p><p>
In 1993, the US paid 13.4% of its GDP towards health care,
compared to 10% for Canada, 8.6% for Sweden and Germany,
6.6% for Britain and 6.8% for Japan. Only 40% of the US
population was covered by public health care and over 35 
million people, 14% of the population, went without health 
insurance for all of 1991, and about twice that many were 
uninsured for some period during the year. In terms of
health indicators, the US people are not getting value
for money. Life expectancy is higher in Canada, Sweden,
Germany, Japan and Britain. The USA has the highest levels
of infant mortality and is last in basic health indicators
as well as having fewer doctors per 1,000 people than the 
OECD average. All in all, the US system is miles begin the
universal systems of other countries.
</p><p>
Of course, it will be argued that the USA is not a pure "free 
market" and so comparisons are pointless. However, it seems 
strange that the more competitive system, the more privatised 
system, is less efficient and less fair than the universal systems. 
It also seems strange that defenders of competition happily use 
examples from "actually existing" capitalism to illustrate
their politics but reject negative examples as being a product
of an "impure" system. They want to have their cake and eat
it to.
</p><p>
Significantly, we should note that the use of surplus for communal 
services (such as hospitals and education) can be seen from the
Spanish Revolution. Many collectives funded new hospitals and colleges 
for their members, providing hundreds of thousands with services they 
could never have afforded by their own labour. This is a classic example 
of co-operation helping the co-operators achieve far more than they could
by their own isolated activities. This libertarian health system was run
and how other public services would be organised in a free society are 
discussed in <a href="secI5.html#seci512">section I.5.12</a>.
</p><p>
So we can generalise from our experiences of different kinds of 
capitalism. If you want to live in a society of well-educated people, 
working today as equals in pleasant surroundings with more than 
ample leisure time to pursue their own projects and activities, 
then a wide sharing of the social surplus is required. Otherwise, 
you could live in a society where people work long and hard to 
survive on the market, without the time or opportunity for 
education and leisure, and be bossed about for most of their waking
hours to enrich the wealthy few so that they can live a life of 
leisure (which, in turn, will inspire you to be work harder in spite
of the fact that such high inequality produces low social mobility). 
The first society, according to some, would be one of self-sacrificing 
altruism and "collectivism" while the latter is, apparently, one based 
on "individualism" and self-interest...
</p>

<a name="seci411"><h2>
I.4.11 If socialism eliminates the profit motive, won't performance suffer?</h2>
</a>

<p>
Firstly, just to be totally clear, by the profit motive we mean
money profit. As anarchists consider co-operation to be in our
self-interest -- i.e. we will "profit" from it in the widest 
sense possible -- we are <b>not</b> dismissing the fact people usually
act to improve their own situation. However, money profit is a <b>very</b>
narrow form of "self-interest," indeed so narrow as to be positively
harmful to the individual in many ways (in terms of personal 
development, interpersonal relationships, economic and social
well-being, and so on). In other words, do not take our discussion
here on the "profit motive" to imply a denial of self-interest, 
quite the reverse. Anarchists simply reject the <i>"narrow concept 
of life which consist[s] in thinking that <b>profits</b> are the 
only leading motive of human society."</i> [Peter Kropotkin,
<b>Fields, Factories and Workshops Tomorrow</b>, p. 25]
</p><p>
Secondly, we cannot hope to deal fully with the harmful effects
of competition and the profit motive. For more information, we
recommend Alfie Kohn's <b>No Contest: The Case Against Competition</b>
and <b>Punished by Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive
Plans, A's, Praise and Other Bribes</b>. He documents the extensive
evidence accumulated that disproves the "common sense" of
capitalism that competition and profits are the best way to
organise a society.
</p><p>
According to Kohn, a growing body of psychological research 
suggests that rewards can lower performance levels, especially 
when the performance involves creativity. His books summarise the
related series of studies shows which show that intrinsic interest 
in a task -- the sense that something is worth doing for its own 
sake -- typically declines when someone is rewarded for doing it.
Much of the research on creativity and motivation has been 
performed by Theresa Amabile, associate professor of psychology 
at Brandeis University and she has found consistently that those
were promised rewards did the least creative work. Thus <i>"rewards
killed creativity, and this was true regardless of the type of
task, the type of reward, the timing of the reward or the age of
the people involved."</i> [<b>Punished by Rewards</b>, p. 45]
Such research casts doubt on the claim that financial reward 
is the only effective way -- or even the best way -- to motivate 
people. They challenge the behaviourist assumption that any activity 
is more likely to occur or be better in terms of outcome if it is 
rewarded.
</p><p>
These findings re-enforce the findings of other scientific fields. 
Biology, social psychology, ethnology and anthropology all present 
evidence that support co-operation as the natural basis for human 
interaction. For example, ethnological studies indicate that 
virtually all indigenous cultures operate on the basis of highly 
co-operative relationships and anthropologists have presented evidence 
to show that the predominant force driving early human evolution was 
co-operative social interaction, leading to the capacity of hominids 
to develop culture. This is even sinking into capitalism, with 
industrial psychology now promoting "worker participation" and 
team functioning because it is decisively more productive than 
hierarchical management. More importantly, the evidence shows 
that co-operative workplaces are more productive than those 
organised on other principles. All other things equal, producers' 
co-operatives will be more efficient than capitalist or state 
enterprises, on average. Co-operatives can often achieve higher 
productivity even when their equipment and conditions are worse. 
Furthermore, the better the organisation approximates the co-operative 
ideal, the better the productivity.
</p><p>
All this is unsurprising to social anarchists (and it should make 
individualist anarchists reconsider their position). Peter Kropotkin 
argued that, <i>"[i]f we . . . ask Nature: 'Who are the fittest: those 
who are continually at war with each other, or those who support one 
another?' we at once see that those animals which acquire habits of 
mutual aid are undoubtedly the fittest. They have more chances to 
survive, and they attain, in their respective classes, the highest 
development of intelligence and bodily organisation."</i> [<b>Mutual 
Aid</b>, p. 24] 
</p><p>
It should be noted that, as one biologist points out, <i>"Kropotkin's 
ideas, though unorthodox, were scientifically respectable, and indeed 
the contention that mutual aid can be a means of increasing fitness 
had become a standard part of modern sociobiology."</i> [Douglas H. 
Boucher, <i>"The Idea of Mutualism, Past and Future"</i>, pp. 1-28, 
<b>The Biology of Mutualism: Biology and Evolution</b>, Douglas H. 
Boucher (ed.), p. 17] Frans de Waal (a leading primatologist) and 
Jessica C. Flack argue that Kropotkin is part of a wider tradition 
<i>"in which the view has been that animals assist each other precisely 
because by doing so they achieve long term, collective benefits of 
greater value than the short term benefits derived from straightforward 
competition."</i> They summarise that the <i>"basic tenet of [Kropotkin's] 
ideas was on the mark. Almost seventy years later, in an article entitled 
'The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism', [Robert] Trivers refined the 
concepts Kropotkin advanced and explained how co-operation and, more 
importantly, a system of reciprocity (called 'reciprocal altruism' by 
Trivers) could have evolved."</i> [<i>"'Any Animal Whatever': Darwinian 
Building Blocks of Morality in Monkeys and Apes"</i>, pp. 1-29, <b>Journal 
of Consciousness Studies</b>, Vol. 7, No. 1-2, p. 4] 
</p><p>
So modern research has reinforced Kropotkin's argument. This applies
to both human and non-human animals. For the former, the evidence is
strong that we have intrinsic abilities and needs to co-operate 
as well as an intrinsic senses of fairness and ethics. This suggests
that co-operation is part of "human nature" and so studies which show
that such behaviour is more productive than competition should come
as no surprise -- and the evidence is impressive. As noted, Alfie Kohn 
is also the author of <b>No Contest: The Case Against Competition</b> 
and he spent seven years reviewing more than 400 research studies 
dealing with competition and co-operation. According to Kohn, there 
are three principle consequences of competition:
</p><p>
Firstly, it has a negative effect on productivity and excellence. 
This is due to increased anxiety, inefficiency (as compared to 
co-operative sharing of resources and knowledge), and the 
undermining of inner motivation. Competition shifts the focus 
to victory over others, and away from intrinsic motivators 
such as curiosity, interest, excellence, and social interaction. 
Studies show that co-operative behaviour, by contrast, consistently
produces good performance -- a finding which holds true under a wide 
range of subject variables. Interestingly, the positive benefits 
of co-operation become more significant as tasks become more 
complex, or where greater creativity and problem-solving 
ability is required.
</p><p>
Secondly, competition lowers self-esteem and hampers the 
development of sound, self-directed individuals. A strong 
sense of self is difficult to attain when self-evaluation 
is dependent on seeing how we measure up to others. On the 
other hand, those whose identity is formed in relation to 
how they contribute to group efforts generally possess greater 
self-confidence and higher self-esteem.
</p><p>
Thirdly, competition undermines human relationships. Humans are 
social beings; we best express our humanness in interaction with 
others. By creating winners and losers, competition is destructive 
to human unity and prevents close social feeling. 
</p><p>
Social Anarchists have long argued these points. In the competitive 
mode, people work at cross purposes, or purely for (material) 
personal gain. This leads to an impoverishment of society as well 
as hierarchy, with a lack of communal relations that result in an 
impoverishment of all the individuals involved (mentally, 
spiritually, ethically and, ultimately, materially). This not 
only leads to a weakening of individuality and social disruption, 
but also to economic inefficiency as energy is wasted in class 
conflict and invested in building bigger and better cages to 
protect the haves from the have-nots. Instead of creating useful 
things, human activity is spent in useless toil reproducing an 
injustice and authoritarian system.
</p><p>
All in all, the results of competition (as documented by a host of 
scientific disciplines) show its poverty as well as indicating that 
co-operation is the means by which the fittest survive.
</p><p>
Moreover, the notion that material rewards result in better work is
simply not true. Basing itself on simple behaviourist psychology, such 
arguments fail to meet the test of long-term success (and, in fact, 
can be counter-productive). Indeed, it means treating human beings 
as little better that pets or other animals (Kohn argues that it is 
<i>"not an accident that the theory behind 'Do this and you'll get 
that' derives from work with other species, or that behaviour management
is frequently described in words better suited to animals."</i>)
In other words, it <i>"is by its very nature dehumanising."</i> 
Rather than simply being motivated by outside stimuli like
mindless robots, people are not passive. We are <i>"beings who 
possess natural curiosity about ourselves and our environment, who 
search for and overcome challenges, who try and master skills and 
attain competence, and who seek new levels of complexity in what 
we learn and do . . . in general we act on the environment as much 
as we are acted on by it, and we do not do so simply in order to
receive a reward."</i> [<b>Punished by Rewards</b>, p. 24 and p. 25]
</p><p>
Kohn presents extensive evidence to back upon his case that
rewards harm activity and individuals. We cannot do justice
to it here so we will present a few examples. One study with
college students showed that those paid to work on a puzzle
<i>"spent less time on it than those who hadn't been paid"</i> 
when they were given a choice of whether to work on it or not.
<i>"It appeared that working for a reward made people less
interested in the task."</i> Another study with children
showed that <i>"extrinsic rewards reduce intrinsic motivation."</i> 
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 70 and p. 71] Scores of other studies 
confirmed this. This is because a reward is effectively saying 
that a given activity is not worth doing for its own sake -- and 
why would anyone wish to do something they have to be bribed to do?
</p><p>
In the workplace, a similar process goes on. Kohn presents
extensive evidence to show that extrinsic motivation also fails 
even there. Indeed, he argues that <i>"economists have it 
wrong if they think of work as a 'disutility' -- something 
unpleasant we must do in order to be able to buy what we 
need, merely a means to an end."</i> Kohn stresses that 
<i>"to assume that money is what drives people is to 
adopt an impoverished understanding of human motivation."</i> 
Moreover, <i>"the risk of <b>any</b> incentive or 
pay-for-performance system is that it will make people less 
interested in their work and therefore less likely to approach 
it with enthusiasm and a commitment to excellence. Furthermore, 
<b>the more closely we tie compensation (or other rewards) to 
performance, the most damage we do.</b>"</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
p. 131, p. 134 and p. 140]
</p><p>
Kohn argues that the idea that humans will only work for profit
or rewards <i>"can be fairly described as dehumanising"</i> if
<i>"the capacity for responsible action, the natural love of
learning, and the desire to do good work are already part
of who we are."</i> Also, it is <i>"a way of trying to control
people"</i> and so to <i>"anyone who is troubled by a model of
human relationships founded principally on the idea of
one person controlling another must ponder whether rewards
are as innocuous as they are sometimes made out to be"</i>. 
So <i>"there is no getting around the fact that 'the basic purpose 
of merit pay is manipulative.' One observer more bluntly 
characterises incentives as 'demeaning' since the message they 
really convey is, 'Please big daddy boss and you will receive the
rewards that the boss deems appropriate.'"</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
p. 26]
</p><p>
Given that much work is controlled by others and can
be a hateful experience under capitalism does not mean
that it has to be that way. Clearly, even under wage
slavery most workers can and do find work interesting
and seek to do it well -- not because of possible rewards
or punishment but because we seek meaning in our activities
and try and do them well. Given that research shows that
reward orientated work structures harm productivity and
excellence, social anarchists have more than just hope
to base their ideas. Such research confirms Kropotkin's
comments:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Wage-work is serf-work; it cannot, it must not, produce 
all it could produce. And it is high time to disbelieve
the legend which presents wagedom as the best incentive
to productive work. If industry nowadays brings in a 
hundred times more than it did in the days of our
grandfathers, it is due to the sudden awakening of
physical and chemical sciences towards the end of the
[18th] century; not to the capitalist organisation of
wagedom, but <b>in spite</b> of that organisation."</i> 
[<b>The Conquest of Bread</b>, p. 150]
</blockquote></p><p>
For these reasons, social anarchists are confident that the 
elimination of the profit motive within the context of 
self-management will not harm productivity and creativity, 
but rather <b>enhance</b> them (within an authoritarian system 
in which workers enhance the power and income of bureaucrats, 
we can expect different results). With the control of their
own work and workplaces ensured, all working people can
express their abilities to the full. This will see an
explosion of creativity and initiative, not a reduction.
</p>

<a name="seci412">
<h2>I.4.12 Won't there be a tendency for capitalist enterprise to reappear?</h2>
</a>

<p>
This is a common right-wing "libertarian" objection. Robert Nozick, for 
example, imagined the following scenario:  
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"small factories would spring up in a socialist society, unless 
forbidden. I melt some of my personal possessions and build a machine 
out of the material. I offer you and others a philosophy lecture once 
a week in exchange for yet other things, and so on . . . some persons 
might even want to leave their jobs in socialist industry and work 
full time in this private sector . . . [This is] how private property 
even in means of production would occur in a socialist society . . .
[and so] the socialist society will have to forbid capitalist acts 
between consenting adults."</i> [<b>Anarchy, State and Utopia</b>, 
pp. 162-3]   
</blockquote></p><p>
There are numerous flawed assumptions in this argument and we will 
discuss them here. The key flaws are the confusion of exchange
with capitalism and the typically impoverished propertarian vision that
freedom is, essentially, the freedom to sell your liberty, to become a
wage slave and so unfree. Looking at history, we can say that both these
assumptions are wrong. Firstly, while markets and exchange have existed
for thousands of years capitalism has not. Wage-labour is a relatively
recent development and has been the dominant mode of production for, at
best, a couple of hundred years. Secondly, few people (when given the 
choice) have freely become wage-slaves. Just as the children of slaves
often viewed slavery as the "natural" order, so do current workers. Yet,
as with chattel slavery, substantial state coercion was required to 
achieve such a "natural" system. 
</p><p>
As discussed in 
<a href="secF8.html">section F.8</a>, actually existing capitalism was
<b>not</b> created by Nozick's process -- it required substantial state 
intervention to separate workers from the means of production they used 
and to ensure, eventually, that the situation in which they sold their 
liberty to the property owner was considered "natural." Without that 
coercion, people do <b>not</b> seek to sell their liberty to others. 
Murray Bookchin summarised the historical record by noting that 
in <i>"every precapitalist society, countervailing forces . . . 
existed to restrict the market economy. No less significantly, many 
precapitalist societies raised what they thought were insuperable
obstacles to the penetration of the State into social life."</i> 
He pointed to <i>"the power of village communities to resist the 
invasion of trade and despotic political forms into society's abiding 
communal substrate." </i> [<b>The Ecology of Freedom</b>, pp. 207-8]
Anarchist anthropologist David Graeber notes that in the ancient 
Mediterranean world <i>"[w]hile one does periodically run into 
evidence of arrangements which to the modern eye look like 
wage-labour contracts, on closer examination they almost always 
actually turn out to be contracts to rent slaves . . . Free men 
and women thus avoided anything remotely like wage-labour, seeing 
it as a matter, effectively, of slavery, renting themselves out."</i> 
This means that wage labour <i>"(as opposed to, say, receiving fees 
for professional services) involves a degree of subordination: a 
labourer has to be to some degree at the command of his or her 
employer. This is exactly why, through most of history, free men 
and women tended to avoid wage-labour, and why, for most of history, 
capitalism . . . never emerged."</i> [<b>Possibilities</b>, p. 92]
</p><p>
Thus while the idea that people will happily become wage slaves may 
be somewhat common place today (particularly with supporters of capitalism)
the evidence of history is that people, given a choice, will prefer
self-employment and <b>resist</b> wage labour (often to the death). 
As E. P. Thompson noted, for workers at the end of the 18th and 
beginning of the 19th centuries, the <i>"gap in status between a 
'servant,' a hired wage-labourer subject to the orders and discipline 
of the master, and an artisan, who might 'come and go' as he pleased, 
was wide enough for men to shed blood rather than allow themselves to 
be pushed from one side to the other. And, in the value system of the
community, those who resisted degradation were in the right."</i> 
[<b>The Making of the English Working Class</b>, p. 599] Over one 
hundred years later, the rural working class of Aragon showed the 
same dislike of wage slavery. After Communist troops destroyed their
self-managed collectives, the <i>"[d]ispossessed peasants, intransigent 
collectivists, refused to work in a system of private property, and 
were even less willing to rent out their labour."</i> [Jose Peirats, 
<b>Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution</b>, p. 258] The rural economy
collapsed as the former collectivists refused to be the servants of
the few.
</p><p>
People who have tasted freedom are unlikely to go back to oppression.
Therefore, any perception that people will become wage-slaves through 
choice in a free society is based on the assumption what people accept 
through necessity under capitalism will pass over, without change, into 
a free one. This assumption is unfounded and anarchists expect that once 
people struggle for freedom and taste the pleasures of freedom they will 
not freely accept a degradation back to having a master -- and as history 
shows, we have some evidence to support our argument. It seems a strangely
debased perspective on freedom to ponder whether people will be "free"
to alienate their freedom -- it is a bit like proclaiming it a restriction
of freedom to <i>"forbid"</i> owning slaves (and, as noted in 
<a href="secF2.html#secf22">section F.2.2</a>, Nozick did support
voluntary slave contracts). 
</p><p>
So anarchists think Nozick's vision of unfreedom developing from freedom is 
unlikely. As anarcho-syndicalist Jeff Stein points out <i>"the only reason 
workers want to be employed by capitalists is because they have no other means 
for making a living, no access to the means of production other than by 
selling themselves. For a capitalist sector to exist there must be some 
form of private ownership of productive resources, and a scarcity of 
alternatives. The workers must be in a condition of economic desperation 
for them to be willing to give up an equal voice in the management of 
their daily affairs and accept a boss."</i> [<i>"Market Anarchism? 
Caveat Emptor!"</i>, <b>Libertarian Labour Review</b>, no. 13] 
</p><p>
In an anarchist society, there is no need for anyone to <i>"forbid"</i> 
capitalist acts. All people have to do is <b>refrain</b> from helping 
would-be capitalists set up monopolies of productive assets. 
This is because, as we have noted in 
<a href="secB3.html#secb32">section B.3.2</a>, capitalism 
cannot exist without some form of state to protect such monopolies. 
In a libertarian-socialist society, of course, there would be no 
state to begin with, and so there would be no question of it 
"refraining" people from doing anything, including protecting 
would-be capitalists' monopolies of the means of production. In 
other words, would-be capitalists would face stiff competition for 
workers in an anarchist society. This is because self-managed 
workplaces would be able to offer workers more benefits (such 
as self-government, better working conditions, etc.) than the 
would-be capitalist ones. The would-be capitalists would have 
to offer not only excellent wages and conditions but also, in 
all likelihood, workers' control and hire-purchase on capital 
used. The chances of making a profit once the various monopolies 
associated with capitalism are abolished are slim.
</p><p>
Thus the would-be capitalist would <i>"not [be] able to obtain 
assistance or people to exploit"</i> and <i>"would find none 
because nobody, having a right to the means of production and 
being free to work on his own or as an equal with others in 
the large organisations of production would want to be exploited 
by a small employer"</i>. [Malatesta, <b>Errico Malatesta: His Life 
and Ideas</b>, pp. 102-103] So where would the capitalist wannabe 
find people to work for him? As Kropotkin argued:
<blockquote></p><p>
<i>"Everywhere you will find that the wealth of the wealthy springs
from the poverty of the poor. That is why an anarchist society
need not fear the advent of a [millionaire] who would settle in 
its midst. If every member of the community knows that after a 
few hours of productive toil he [or she] will have a right to 
all the pleasures that civilisation procures, and to those deeper 
sources of enjoyment which art and science offer to all who seek 
them, he [or she] will not sell his strength . . . No one will 
volunteer to work for the enrichment of your [millionaire]."</i> 
[<b>Conquest of Bread</b>, p. 61]
</blockquote></p><p>
However, let us suppose there is a self-employed inventor, Ferguson, who
comes up with a new innovation without the help of the socialised sector.
Would anarchists steal his idea? Not at all. The syndicates, which by
hypothesis have been organised by people who believe in giving producers
the full value of their product, would pay Ferguson an equitable amount
for his idea, which would then become common across society. However, 
if he refused to sell his invention and instead tried to claim a patent
monopoly on it in order to gather a group of wage slaves to exploit, no
one would agree to work for him unless they got the full control over 
both the product of their labour and the labour process itself. And, 
assuming that he did find someone willing to work for him (and so 
be governed by him), the would-be capitalist would have to provide 
such excellent conditions and pay such good wages as to reduce his 
profits to near zero. Moreover, he would have to face workers whose 
neighbours would be encouraging them to form a union and strike for 
even <b>better</b> conditions and pay, including workers' control and 
so on. Such a militant workforce would be the last thing a capitalist
would desire. In addition, we would imagine they would also refuse to 
work for someone unless they also got the capital they used at the end 
of their contract (i.e. a system of "hire-purchase" on the means of 
production used). In other words, by removing the statist supports of 
capitalism, would-be capitalists would find it hard to "compete" with 
the co-operative sector and would not be in a position to exploit others' 
labour. 
</p><p>
With a system of communal production (in social anarchism) and mutual
banks (in individualist anarchism), <b>usury</b> -- i.e. charging a 
use-fee for a monopolised item, of which patents are an instance -- would 
no longer be possible and the inventor would be like any other worker, 
exchanging the product of his or her labour. As Benjamin Tucker argued, 
<i>"the patent monopoly . . . consists in protecting inventors and authors 
against competition for a period of time long enough for them to extort 
from the people a reward enormously in excess of the labour measure of 
their services -- in other words, in giving certain people a right of 
property for a term of years in laws and facts of nature, and the power 
to extract tribute from others for the use of this natural wealth, which 
should be open to all. The abolition of this monopoly would fill its 
beneficiaries with a wholesome fear of competition which should cause 
them to be satisfied with pay for their services equal to that which 
other labourers get for theirs, and secure it by placing their products 
and works on the market at the outset at prices so low that their lines 
of business would be no more tempting to competitors than any other 
lines."</i> [<b>The Anarchist Reader</b>, pp. 150-1]
</p><p>
So, if someone has labour to sell then they deserve a free society 
to do it in -- as Tucker once pointed out. Such an environment would 
make the numbers seeking employment so low as to ensure that the rate 
of exploitation would be zero. Little wonder that, when faced with a 
self-employed, artisan workforce, capitalists have continually turned 
to the state to create the "correct" market forces. So without statism 
to back up various class-based monopolies of capitalist privilege, 
capitalism would not have become dominant. 
</p><p>
It should also be noted that Nozick makes a serious error in his case. 
He assumes that the "use rights" associated with an anarchist (i.e. 
socialist) society are identical to the "property rights" of a 
capitalist one. This is <b>not</b> the case, and so his argument is 
weakened and loses its force. Simply put, there is no such thing 
as an absolute or <i>"natural"</i> law of property. As John Stuart Mill 
pointed out, <i>"powers of exclusive use and control are very various, 
and differ greatly in different countries and in different states of 
society."</i> Therefore, Nozick slips an ideological ringer into his example 
by erroneously interpreting socialism (or any other society for that 
matter) as specifying a distribution of capitalist property rights  
along with the wealth. As Mill argued: <i>"One of the mistakes oftenest 
committed, and which are the sources of the greatest practical errors 
in human affairs, is that of supposing that the same name always stands 
for the same aggregation of ideas. No word has been subject of more of
this kind of misunderstanding that the word property."</i> [<i>"Chapters 
on Socialism,"</i> <b>Principles of Political Economy</b>, p. 432] 
</p><p>
In other words, Nozick assumes that in <b>all</b> societies capitalist 
property rights are distributed along with consumption <b>and</b> 
production goods. As Cheyney C. Ryan comments <i>"[d]ifferent conceptions 
of justice differ not only in how they would apportion society's holdings 
but in what rights individuals have over their holdings once they have 
been apportioned."</i> [<i>"Property Rights and Individual Liberty"</i>,
pp. 323-43, <b>Reading Nozick</b>, Jeffrey Paul (Ed.), p. 331] This means 
that when goods are distributed in a libertarian socialist society 
the people who receive or take them have specific (use) rights to them.
As long as an individual remained a member of a commune and abided 
by the rules they helped create in that commune then they would 
have full use of the resources of that commune and could use their 
possessions as they saw fit (even <i>"melt them down"</i> to create a 
new machine, or whatever). If they used those goods to create an enterprise
to employ (i.e., exploit and oppress) others then they have, in effect,
announced their withdrawal from civilised society and, as a result, 
would be denied the benefits of co-operation. They would, in effect,
place themselves in the same situation as someone who does not wish
to join a syndicate (see 
<a href="secI3.html#seci37">section I.3.7</a>). If an individual did 
desire to use resources to employ wage labour then they would have 
effectively removed themselves from <i>"socialist society"</i> and so
that society would bar them from using <b>its</b> resources (i.e. they would
have to buy access to all the resources they currently took for granted).
</p><p>
Would this be a restriction of freedom? While it may be considered so
by the impoverished definitions of capitalism, it is not. In fact, it
mirrors the situation within capitalism as what possessions someone 
holds are <b>not</b> his or her property (in the capitalist sense) 
any more than a company car is currently the property of the employee 
under capitalism. While the employee can use the car outside of work, they
lack the "freedom" to sell it or melt it down and turn it into machines.
Such lack of <b>absolute</b> "ownership" in a free society does not reduce 
liberty any more than in this case.
</p><p>
This point highlights another flaw in Nozick's argument. If his argument
were true, then it applies equally to capitalist society. For 40 hours plus a
week, workers are employed by a boss. In that time they are given resources
to use and they are most definitely <b>not</b> allowed to melt down these 
resources to create a machine or use the resources they have been given
access to further their own plans. This can apply equally to rented 
accommodation as well, for example when landlords ban working from home 
or selling off the furniture that is provided. Thus, ironically, <i>"capitalist 
society will have to forbid capitalist acts between consenting adults"</i> --
and does so all the time.
</p><p>
Moreover, it must be stressed that as well as banning capitalist acts between 
consenting adults, capitalism involves the continual banning of socialist acts 
between consenting adults. For example, if workers agree to form a union, then 
the boss can fire them. If they decide to control their own work, the boss can 
fire them for not obeying orders. Thus capitalism forbids such elemental freedoms
as association and speech -- at least for the majority, for the wage slaves. Why 
would people seek such "freedom" in a free society?
</p><p>
Of course, Nozick's reply to this point would be that the individual's involved
have "consented" to these rules when they signed their contract. Yet the same
can be said of an anarchist society -- it is freely joined and freely left. 
To join a communist-anarchist society it would simply be a case of agreeing 
to "exchange" the product of ones labour freely with the other members of 
that society and not to create oppressive or exploitation social relationships
within it. If this is "authoritarian" then so is capitalism -- and we must 
stress that at least anarchist associations are based on self-management and 
so the individuals involved have an equal say in the obligations they live under.
</p><p>
Notice also that Nozick confused exchange with capitalism (<i>"I offer you a
lecture once a week in exchange for other things"</i>). This is a telling
mistake by someone who claims to be an expert on capitalism, because the
defining feature of capitalism is not exchange (which obviously took place
long before capitalism existed) but labour contracts involving wage labour. 
Nozick's example is merely a direct labour contract between the producer 
and the consumer. It does not involve wage labour, what makes capitalism 
capitalism. It is only this latter type of transaction that libertarian 
socialism prevents -- and not by "forbidding" it but simply by refusing 
to maintain the conditions necessary for it to occur, i.e. protection of 
capitalist property.
</p><p>
In addition, we must note that Nozick also confused <i>"private property in
the means of production"</i> with capitalism. Liberation socialism can be
easily compatible with <i>"private property in the means of production"</i> 
when that <i>"private property"</i> is limited to what a self-employed 
worker uses rather than capitalistic property (see 
<a href="secG2.html#secg21">section G.2.1</a>). Nozick, in other words, 
confused pre-capitalist forms of production with capitalist ones (see 
<a href="secG1.html#secg12">section G.1.2</a>). Thus possession of the 
means of production by people outside of the free commune is perfectly 
acceptable to social anarchists (see 
<a href="secI6.html#seci62">section I.6.2</a>).
</p><p>
Thus an anarchist society would have a flexible approach to Nozick's
(flawed) argument. Individuals, in their free time, could <i>"exchange"</i> 
their time and possessions as they saw fit. These are <b>not</b> <i>"capitalist 
acts"</i> regardless of Nozick's claims. However, the moment an individual 
employs wage labour then, by this act, they have broken their agreements 
with their fellows and, therefore, no longer part of <i>"socialist society."</i> 
This would involve them no longer having access to the benefits of communal 
life and to communal possessions. They have, in effect, placed themselves 
outside of their community and must fair for themselves. After all, if they 
desire to create <i>"private property"</i> (in the capitalist sense) then 
they have no right of access to communal possessions without paying for that 
right. For those who become wage slaves, a socialist society would, probably, 
be less strict. As Bakunin argued:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Since the freedom of every individual is inalienable, society shall
never allow any individual whatsoever legally to alienate his [or
her] freedom or engage upon any contract with another on any footing
but the utmost equality and reciprocity. It shall not, however, have
the power to disbar a man or woman so devoid of any sense of personal
dignity as to contract a relationship of voluntary servitude with
another individual, but it will consider them as living off private
charity and therefore unfit to enjoy political rights <b>throughout 
the duration of that servitude.</b>"</i> [<b>Michael Bakunin: Selected 
Writings</b>, pp. 68-9]
</blockquote></p><p>
Lastly, we must also note that Nozick also ignored the fact that acquisition 
<b>must</b> come before transfer, meaning that before "consenting" capitalist 
acts  occur, individual ones must precede it. As argued in 
<a href="secB3.html#secb34">section B.3.4</a>, Nozick provided no convincing
arguments why natural resources held in common can be appropriated by 
individuals. This means that his defence of transferring absolute capitalist 
property rights in goods is without foundations. Moreover, his argument in 
favour of such appropriations ignore that liberties are very definitely 
restricted by private property (and it should be keep in mind that 
the destruction of commonly held resources, such as village commons, 
was imposed by the state -- see <a href="secF8.html#secf83">section F.8.3</a>). 
As pointed out in <a href="secF2.html">section F.2</a>, right-wing
"libertarians" would better be termed <i>"Propertarians"</i> (why is liberty 
according a primary importance when arguing against socialism but not when 
private property restricts liberty?). As Cheyney C. Ryan points out, Nozick 
<i>"invoke[s] personal liberty as the decisive ground for rejecting 
patterned principles of justice [such as socialism] and restrictions 
on the ownership of capital . . . [b]ut where the rights of private 
property admittedly restrict the liberties of the average person, he 
seems perfectly happy to <b>trade off</b> such liberties against material 
gain for society as a whole."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 339] This can be 
seen by his lack of comment on how capitalism forbids socialist acts 
between consenting adults, not to mention quite a few numerous capitalist 
acts for good measure.
</p><p>
Thus Nozick's acquisition of resources is based on the would-be capitalist 
stealing communally owned resources and barring others from using them. 
This obviously would restrict the liberty of those who currently used them 
and so be hotly opposed by members of a community. As Murray Bookchin noted, 
a free society is based on <i>"the practice of <b>usufruct</b>, the 
freedom of individuals in a community to appropriate resources merely 
by virtue of the fact that they are using them. Such resources belong 
to the user as long as they are being used."</i> [<b>The Ecology of 
Freedom</b>, p. 116] As the would-be capitalist is not actually using 
the machines they have created, they would be in constant worry that their 
wage-slaves would simply expropriate them -- with the full backing of
the local commune and its federations.
</p><p>
So, to conclude, this question involves some strange logic (and many
question begging assumptions) and ultimately fails in its attempt to prove 
libertarian socialism must <i>"forbid capitalistic acts between individuals."</i> 
In addition, Nozick cannot support the creation of private property out of 
communal property in the first place. It also undermines capitalism because 
that system must forbid socialistic acts by and between individuals. Thus 
Nozick's society would forbid squatting unused property or trespassing 
on private property as well as, say, the formation of unions against the 
wishes of the property owner (who is sovereign over their property and those 
who use it) or the use of workplace resources to meet the needs of the 
producer rather than the owner. As such, Nozick exposes how capitalism's 
hierarchical nature means that capitalist society <i>"forbids socialist 
acts between consenting adults."</i>
</p>

<a name="seci413"><h2>I.4.13 Who will do the dirty or unpleasant work?</h2></a>

<p>
This problem affects every society, including capitalism of course.
Under capitalism, this problem is "solved" by ensuring that such 
jobs are done by those at the bottom of the social pile. In other
words, it does not really solve the problem at all -- it just
ensures that some people are subject to this work the bulk of 
their working lives. Most anarchists reject this flawed solution 
in favour of something better, one that shares the good
with the bad and so ensure everyone's life is better. How this 
would be done depends on the kind of libertarian community you 
are a member of. 
</p><p>
Obviously, few would argue against the idea that individuals will 
voluntarily work at things they enjoyed doing. However there are 
some jobs that few, if any, would enjoy (for example, collecting 
rubbish, processing sewage, dangerous work, etc.). So how would an 
anarchist society deal with it?
</p><p>
It is obvious that not all "jobs" are equal in interest or enjoyment. 
It is sometimes argued that people would start to join or form syndicates 
which are involved in more fun activities. By this process excess workers 
would be found in the more enjoyable "jobs" while the boring and dangerous 
ones would suffer from a scarcity of willing workers. Hence, so the argument
goes, a socialist society would have to force people to do certain jobs
and that requires a state. Obviously, this argument ignores the fact that
under capitalism usually it is the boring, dangerous work which is the least
well paid with the worse working conditions. In addition, this argument 
ignores the fact that under workers self-management boring, dangerous work 
would be minimised and transformed as much as possible. Only under capitalist
hierarchy are people in no position to improve the quality of their work and 
working environment. As George Barrett argued:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Now things are so strangely organised at present that it is just the 
dirty and disagreeable work that men will do cheaply, and consequently
there is no great rush to invent machines to take their place. In a free
society, on the other hand, it is clear that the disagreeable work will be
one of the first things that machinery will be called upon to eliminate. It
is quite fair to argue, therefore, that the disagreeable work will, to a
large extent, disappear in a state of anarchism."</i> [<b>Objections to 
Anarchism</b>, p. 361]
</blockquote></p><p>
Moreover, most anarchists would think that the argument that there would
be a flood of workers taking up "easy" work placements is abstract and
ignores the dynamics of a real society. While many individuals would
try to create new productive syndicates in order to express themselves
in innovative work outwith the existing research and development going
on within existing syndicates, the idea that the majority of individuals
would leave their current work at a drop of a hat is crazy. A workplace
is a community and part of a community and people would value the links 
they have with their fellow workers. As such they would be aware of the
impacts of their decisions on both themselves and society as a whole. So, 
while we would expect a turnover of workers between syndicates, the mass 
transfers claimed in this argument are unlikely. Most workers who did want 
to try their hand at new work would apply for work places at syndicates 
that required new people, not create their own ones. Because of this, work 
transfers would be moderate and easily handled. 
</p><p>
However, the possibility of mass desertions does exist and so must be
addressed. So how would a libertarian socialist society deal with a 
majority of its workers deciding to all do interesting work, leaving 
the boring and/or dangerous work undone? It, of course, depends on the 
type of anarchism in question and each offers alternative ways to 
ensure that individual preferences for certain types of work matches 
the requirements of social demand for labour.
</p><p>
Under individualist anarchism and mutualism, those who desired a certain 
form of work done would reach an agreement with workers or a co-operative 
and pay them to do the work in question. Within a co-operative, as 
Proudhon argued, a person's <i>"education, instruction, and apprenticeship 
should . . . be so directed that, while permitting him to do his share of 
unpleasant and disagreeable tasks, they may also give variety of work and 
knowledge, and may assure him . . . an encyclopaedic attitude and a 
sufficient income."</i> [<b>General Idea of the Revolution</b>, p. 222]
In terms of unpleasant tasks for other people (for example, collecting
and processing a community's rubbish) then individuals would form 
co-operatives which would have to find their place on the market and 
this would ensure that such work was done as they would contract with
others to provide the appropriate services. However, this could lead 
to some people doing unpleasant work all the time and so is hardly a 
solution. As in capitalism, we may see some people doing terrible work 
because it is better than no work at all. This is a solution few anarchists 
would support.
</p><p>
In a collectivist or communist anarchist society, such an outcome would 
be avoided as far as possible. Noam Chomsky points to two possible 
alternatives, one <i>"in which the undesired work, after the best 
efforts to make it meaningful, is shared"</i> and another one <i>"where 
the undesired work receives high extra pay, so that individuals voluntarily 
choose to do it."</i> Such schemes are <i>"consistent with . . . anarchist 
principles"</i> unlike the current situation where <i>"the undesired work is
given to wage-slaves."</i> [<b>Radical Priorities</b>, p. 220] Another
way, somewhat complementary to these two, would be to take a leaf from 
<i>"peasant attitudes toward labour"</i> and their <i>"most striking 
feature"</i>, the extent <i>"to which any kind of communal toil, however 
onerous, can be transformed by the workers themselves into festive occasions
that serve to reinforce community ties."</i> [<b>The Ecology of Freedom</b>,
p. 342]
</p><p>
It would be easy to imagine a free community sharing such tasks as fairly as 
possible between a community's members by, for example, allocating a few days 
a month to all fit members of a community to do work which no one volunteers 
to do. This would soon ensure that it would be done, particularly if it were
part of a festival or before a party. In this way, every one shares in 
the unpleasant as well as pleasant tasks (and, of course, minimises the 
time any one individual has to spend on it). Or, for tasks which are 
very popular, individuals would also have to do unpleasant tasks as well. 
In this way, popular and unpopular tasks could balance each other out. Or such
tasks could be rotated randomly by lottery. The possibilities are many and,
undoubtedly, a free people will try many different ones in different areas.
</p><p>
Another possible solution could be to follow the ideas of Josiah 
Warren and take into account the undesirability of the work when 
considering the level of labour notes received or communal hours worked.
In other words, in a collectivist society the individuals who do unpleasant
work may be "rewarded" (along with social esteem) with a slightly higher
pay -- the number of labour notes, for example, for such work would be
a multiple of the standard amount, the actual figure being related to
how much supply exceeds demand (in a communist society, a similar solution 
could be possible, with the number of necessary hours required by an individual 
being reduced by an amount that corresponds to the undesirability of the 
work involved). The actual levels of "reward" would be determined by 
agreements between the syndicates. For example, if a given type of work 
has 50% more people wanting to do it than actually required, then the 
labour value for one hours work in this industry would correspondingly 
be less than one hour. If fewer people applied than required, then the 
labour value would increase, as would holiday time, etc. For "work" 
placements in which supply exceeded demand, it would be easy to arrange 
a work share scheme to ensure that most people get a chance to do that 
kind of work (along with such methods as increasing the value of an
hour's labour, reducing holiday allocations and such like).
</p><p>
In this way, "supply and demand" for workers would soon approximate each 
other. In addition, a collectivist society would be better placed than the
current system to ensure work-sharing and other methods to spread unpleasant 
and pleasant tasks equally around society due to its organs of self-management
and the rising social awareness via participation and debate within those
organs.
</p><p>
A communist-anarchist society's solution would be similar to the collectivist
one. There would still be basic agreements between its members for work done 
and so for work placements with excess supply of workers the amount of hours 
necessary to meet the agreed minimum would correspondingly increase. For 
example, an industry with 100% excess supply of volunteers would see 
its minimum requirement increase from (say) 20 hours a week to 30 hours. 
An industry with less applicants than required would see the number of 
required hours decrease, plus increases in holiday time and so on. As 
G.D.H. Cole argued in respect of this point:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Let us first by the fullest application of machinery and scientific 
methods eliminate or reduce . . . 'dirty work' that admit to such 
treatment. This has never been tried . . . under capitalism . . . It is 
cheaper to exploit and ruin human beings . . . Secondly, let us see what 
forms of 'dirty work' we can do without . . . [and] if any form of work 
is not only unpleasant but degrading, we will do without it, whatever 
the cost. No human being ought to be allowed or compelled to do work 
that degrades. Thirdly, for what dull or unpleasant work remains, let 
us offer whatever special conditions are required to attract the necessary 
workers, not in higher pay, but in shorter hours, holidays extending over 
six months  in the year, conditions attractive enough to men who have 
other uses for their time or attention to being the requisite number 
to undertake it voluntarily."</i> [<b>Guild Socialism Restated</b>, p. 76]
</blockquote></p><p>
By these methods a balance between industrial sectors would be achieved 
as individuals would balance their desire for interesting work with their
desires for free time. Over time, by using the power of appropriate 
technology, even such time keeping would be minimised or even got 
eliminated as society developed freely. Until such time as it can be 
automated away, a free society will have to encourage people to 
volunteer for "work" placements they do not particularly want to do
by these and other methods. 
</p><p>
It will be clear what is considered unpleasant work in any society -- 
few people (if any) will volunteer to do it. As in any advanced society,
communities and syndicates who required extra help would inform others
of their need by the various form of media that existed. In addition, it
would be likely that each community would have a <i>"division of activity"</i> 
syndicate whose work would be to distribute information about these
posts and to which members of a community would go to discover what 
placements existed for the line of "work" they were interested in.
So we have a means by which syndicates and communes can ask for new 
associates and the means by which individuals can discover these placements. 
Obviously, some tasks will still require qualifications and that will 
be taken into account when syndicates and communes "advertise" for help.
</p><p>
And it is important to remember that the means of production required by
new syndicates do not fall from the sky. Other members of society will
have to work to produce the required goods. Therefore it is likely that
the syndicates and communes would agree that only a certain (maximum) 
percentage of production would be allocated to start-up syndicates (as
opposed to increasing the resources of existing confederations). Such a
figure would obviously be revised periodically in order to take into
account changing circumstances. Members of the community who decide to 
form syndicates for new productive tasks or syndicates which do the same
work but are independent of existing confederations would have to get the 
agreement of other workers to supply them with the necessary means of 
production (just as today they have to get the agreement of a bank to
receive the necessary credit to start a new business). By budgeting the 
amounts available, a free society can ensure that individual desires for 
specific kinds of work can be matched with the requirements of society for 
useful production. 
</p><p>
And we must point out (just to make sure we are not misunderstood) that 
there will be no group of "planners" deciding which applications for 
resources get accepted. Instead, individuals and associations would apply 
to different production units for resources, whose workers in turn decide 
whether to produce the goods requested. If it is within the syndicate's 
agreed budget then it is likely that they will produce the required materials. 
In this way, a communist-anarchist society will ensure the maximum amount 
of economic freedom to start new syndicates and join existing ones plus 
ensure that social production does not suffer in the process.
</p><p>
Of course, no system is perfect -- we are sure that not everyone will be
able to do the work they enjoy the most (this is also the case under 
capitalism, we may add). In an anarchist society every method of ensuring 
that individuals pursue the work they are interested in would be
investigated. If a possible solution can be found, we are sure that it will.
What a free society would make sure of was that neither the capitalist
market redeveloped (which ensures that the majority are marginalised into
wage slavery) or a state socialist <i>"labour army"</i> type allocation process 
developed (which would ensure that free socialism did not remain free or
socialist for long).
</p><p>
In this manner, anarchism will be able to ensure the principle of 
voluntary labour and free association as well as making sure that 
unpleasant and unwanted "work" is done. Moreover, most anarchists are
sure that in a free society such requirements to encourage people to
volunteer for unpleasant work will disappear over time as feelings
of mutual aid and solidarity become more and more common place. Indeed, 
it is likely that people will gain respect for doing jobs that others 
might find unpleasant and so it might become "glamorous" to do such 
activity. Showing off to friends can be a powerful stimulus in doing 
any activity. So anarchists would agree with Albert and Hahnel when 
they say that:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"In a society that makes every effort to depreciate the esteem that derives
from anything other than conspicuous consumption, it is not surprising that 
great income differentials are seen as necessary to induce effort. But to
assume that only conspicuous consumption can motivate people because under
capitalism we have strained to make it so is unwarranted. There is plenty
of evidence that people can be moved to great sacrifices for reasons other
than a desire for personal wealth . . . there is good reason to believe that 
for nonpathological people wealth is generally coveted only as a <b>means</b> 
of attaining other ends such as economic security, comfort, social esteem,
respect, status, or power."</i> [<b>The Political Economy of Participatory 
Economics</b>, p. 52]
</blockquote></p><p>
We should note here that the education syndicates would obviously take
into account the trends in "work" placement requirements when deciding
upon the structure of their classes. In this way, education would 
respond to the needs of society as well as the needs of the individual
(as would any productive syndicate).

<p>
<a name="seci414"><h2>I.4.14 What about the person who will not work?</h2></a>

<p>
Anarchism is based on voluntary labour. If people do not desire to work
then they cannot (must not) be forced to by means of physical coercion. 
This makes some wonder what happens if someone refuses to work in a
libertarian society.
</p><p>
In terms of a mutualist or collectivist anarchy, this question is easy 
to answer for goods are distributed according to work done and so if 
people do not work then they are left dependent on the charity of those
who do (exceptions for the young, old and ill would apply, of course).
</p><p>
So this question is directed towards communist-anarchists, with many 
people arguing that communism is impossible because people simply
would not work unless they get paid. This ignores the many people who
do volunteer work (often in addition to their "real jobs"). It also
ignores those who spend their time contributing to projects they are
interested in (such as fan journals) which would be considered work
in other contexts. A classic example of this is the internet, 
particularly webpages like Wikipedia and software projects like 
php. Then there is the activity of the pro-capitalists themselves, 
often fanatical anti-communists (which they almost always equate to 
Stalinism), who spend their free time working on wikipedia, newsgroups, 
webpages and journals explaining how communism could not work because 
people would never voluntarily contribute to society! It is one of the 
great ironies of life that those who hate communism the most often, by 
their actions, prove its viability. 
</p><p>
So, communist-anarchists argue, in a society based on self-managed work
in pleasant surroundings and a reduction of the working week to a minimum,
there would be few people who refuse to do any kind of productive activity.
The question arises of what to do with those (a small minority, to be sure) 
who refuse to work.
</p><p>
On this question there is some disagreement. Some anarchists argue that 
the lazy should not be deprived of the means of life. Social pressure, 
they argue, would ensure those who take from, but do not contribute, 
to the community to listen to their conscience and start producing 
for the community that supports them. If this did not happen, then 
the person who refused to contribute would be asked to leave (freedom 
of association means the freedom <b>not</b> to associate).
As Kropotkin argued;
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"First of all, is it not evident that if a society, founded on
the principle of free work, were really menaced by loafers, it
could protect itself without the authoritarian organisation we have 
nowadays, and without having recourse to wagedom [i.e., payment by 
deeds]?
</i></blockquote>
</p><p>
<blockquote><i>
"Let us take a group of volunteers, combining for some particular
enterprise. Having its success at heart, they all work with a will,
save one of the associates, who is frequently absent from his post 
. . . some day the comrade who imperils their enterprise will be
told: 'Friend, we should like to work with you; but as you are
often absent from your post, and you do your work negligently,
we must part. Go and find other comrades who will put up with
your indifference!'
</i></blockquote>
</p><p>
<blockquote><i>
"This is so natural that it is practised everywhere, even nowadays,
in all industries . . . [I]f [a worker] does his work badly, if he 
hinders his comrades by his laziness or other defects, if he is 
quarrelsome, there is an end of it; he is compelled to leave the 
workshop.
</i></blockquote>
</p><p>
<blockquote><i>
"Authoritarians pretend that it is the almighty employer and his 
overseers who maintain regularity and quality of work in factories. 
In reality . . . it is the factory itself, the workmen [and women] 
who see to the good quality of the work."</i> [<b>The Conquest of 
Bread</b>, pp. 152-3]
</blockquote>
</p><p>
Most anarchists agree with Camillo Berneri when he argued that anarchism 
should be based upon <i>"no compulsion to work, but no duty towards those 
who do not want to work."</i> [<i>"The Problem of Work"</i>, pp. 59-82, 
<b>Why Work?</b>, Vernon Richards (ed.), p. 74] This means that an anarchist 
society will not continue to feed, clothe, house someone who can produce 
but refuses to. Anarchists have had enough of the wealthy under capitalism 
consuming but not producing and do not see why they should support a new 
group of parasites after the revolution.
</p><p>
Obviously, there is a difference between not wanting to work and being 
unable to work. The sick, children, the old, pregnant women and so on 
will be looked after in libertarian communism. As child rearing would be 
considered "work" along with other more obviously economic tasks, mothers 
and fathers will not have to leave their children unattended and work to 
make ends meet. Instead, consideration will be given to the needs of 
both parents and children as well as the creation of community 
nurseries and child care centres.
</p><p>
We have to stress here that an anarchist society will not deny anyone
the means of life. This would violate the voluntary labour which is at
the heart of all schools of anarchism. Unlike capitalism, the means of
life will not be monopolised by any group -- including the commune. This
means that someone who does not wish to join a commune or who does not
pull their weight within a commune and are expelled or choose to leave 
will have access to the means of making a living. 
</p><p>
We stated that we stress this fact as many supporters of capitalism
seem to be unable to understand this point (or prefer to ignore it and
so misrepresent the anarchist position). In an anarchist society, no
one will be forced to join a commune simply because they do not have
access to the means of production and/or land required to work alone. 
Unlike capitalism, where access to these essentials of life is dependent
on buying access to them from the capitalist class (and so, effectively,
denied to the vast majority), an anarchist society will ensure that all
have access and have a real choice between living in a commune and
working independently. This access is based on the fundamental difference
between possession and property -- the commune possesses as much land
as it needs, as do non-members. The resources used by them are subject
to the usual possession rationale -- they possess it only as long as
they use it and cannot bar others using it if they do not (i.e., it is
not property).
</p><p>
Thus an anarchist commune remains a voluntary association and ensures
the end of all forms of domination. The member of the commune has 
the choice of working as part of a community, giving according to 
their abilities and taking according to their needs (or some other 
means of organising production and consumption such as equal income 
or receiving labour notes, and so on), or working independently and 
so free of communal benefits as well as any commitments (bar those 
associated with using communal resources such as roads and so on). 
</p><p>
So, in most, if not all, anarchist communities, individuals have two 
options, either they can join a commune and work together as equals, or 
they can work as an individual or independent co-operative and exchange 
the product of their labour with others. If an individual joins a commune 
and does not carry their weight, even after their fellow workers ask them 
to, then that person will possibly be expelled and given enough land, tools 
or means of production to work alone. Of course, if a person is depressed, 
run down or otherwise finding it hard to join in communal responsibilities 
then their friends and fellow workers would do everything in their power 
to help and be flexible in their approach to the problem. What method a 
community would use would depend on what people in that community thought
was best.
</p><p>
However, most social anarchists think that the problem of people trying 
not to work would be a very minor one in a free society. This is 
because productive activity is part of human life and an essential way 
to express oneself. With work being voluntary and self-managed, it will 
become like current day hobbies and many people work harder at their 
hobbies than they do at "real" work (this FAQ can be considered as 
an example of this!). How long this takes to organise fully is, of 
course, unknown but one of the most important tasks of a free society 
will be to ensure work is transformed and the burden of what remains 
is shared in order to reduce toil to a minimum.
</p><p>
It is the nature of employment under capitalism, the hierarchical nature
of its workplace, that makes it "work" instead of pleasure. Work need not 
be a part of the day that we wish would end. It is <b>not</b> work that 
people hate. Rather it is <b>over</b>-work, in unpleasant circumstances 
and under the control of others that people hate. Reduce the hours of 
labour, improve the working conditions and place the work under 
self-management and work will stop being a hated thing. All these will 
help ensure that only an idiot would desire to work alone for, as 
Malatesta argued, the <i>"individual who wished to supply his own material 
needs by working alone would be the slave of his labours."</i> [<b>The 
Anarchist Revolution</b>, p. 15]
</p><p>
So, enlightened self-interest would secure the voluntary labour and 
egalitarian distribution anarchists favour in the vast majority of the
population. The parasitism associated with capitalism would be a thing 
of the past. Thus the problem of the "lazy" person fails to understand
the nature of humanity nor the revolutionising effects of freedom on the 
nature and content of work.
</p>

<a name="seci415"><h2>I.4.15 What will the workplace of tomorrow look like?</h2></a>

<p>
Given the anarchist desire to liberate the artist in all of us, we can 
easily imagine that a free society would totally transform the working
environment. No longer would workers be indifferent to their workplaces,
but they would express themselves in transforming them into pleasant 
places, integrated into both the life of the local community and into
the local environment. After all, <i>"no movement that raises the demand
for workers' councils can be regarded as revolutionary unless it tries to 
promote sweeping transformations in the environment of the work place."</i> 
[Murray Bookchin, <b>Post-Scarcity Anarchism</b>, p. 88]
</p><p>
A glimpse of the future workplace can been seen from the actual class
struggle. In the 40 day sit-down strike at Fisher Body plant #1 in Flint,
Michigan in 1936, <i>"there was a community of two thousand strikers . . .
Committees organised recreation, information, classes, a postal service,
sanitation . . . There were classes in parliamentary procedure, public
speaking, history of the labour movement. Graduate students at the
University of Michigan gave courses in journalism and creative writing."</i>
[Howard Zinn, <b>A People's History of the United States</b>, p. 391] In
the same year, during the Spanish Revolution, collectivised workplaces
also created libraries and education facilities as well as funding
schools, health care and other social necessities (a practice, we
must note, that had started before the revolution when anarchist unions
had funded schools, social centres, libraries and so on). 
</p><p>
The future workplace would be expanded to include education and
classes in individual development. This follows Proudhon's suggestion 
made during the 1848 revolution that we should <i>"[o]rganise 
association, and by the same token, every workshop becoming a school, 
every worker becomes a master, every student an apprentice."</i> [<b>No 
Gods, No Masters</b>, vol. 1, pp. 62-3] This means that in a free 
society <i>"Workers' associations have a very important role to play 
. . . Linked to the system of public education, they will become 
both centres of production and centres and for education . . . The 
working masses will be in daily contact with the youthful army of 
agricultural and industrial workers. Labour and study, which have for 
so long and so foolishly been kept apart, will finally emerge side by 
side in their natural state of union. Instead of being confined to 
narrow, specialised fields, vocational education will include a variety 
of different types of work which, taken as a whole, will insure that each 
student becomes an all-round worker."</i> [Proudhon, <b>Selected Writings
of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon</b>, p. 87]
</p><p>
This would allow work to become part of a wider community, drawing in 
people from different areas to share their knowledge and learn new 
insights and ideas. In addition, children would have part of their 
school studies with workplaces, getting them aware of the practicalities 
of many different forms of work and so allowing them to make informed 
decisions in what sort of activity they would be interested in pursuing 
when they were older.
</p><p>
Obviously, a workplace managed by its workers would also take care to make
the working environment as pleasant as possible. No more "sick building
syndrome" or unhealthy and stressful work areas for <i>"can we doubt that 
work will become a pleasure and a relaxation in a society of equals, in 
which 'hands' will not be compelled to sell themselves to toil, and to 
accept work under any conditions Repugnant tasks will disappear, because 
it is evident that these unhealthy conditions are harmful to society as a 
whole. Slaves can submit to them, but free  men [and women] will create 
new conditions, and their work will be pleasant and infinitely more 
productive."</i> [Kropotkin, <b>The Conquest of Bread</b>, p. 123]
Workplaces would be designed to maximise space and allow individual 
expression within them. We can imagine such places surrounded by gardens 
and allotments which were tended by workers themselves, giving a pleasant 
surrounding to the workplace. There would, in effect, be a break down of 
the city/rural divide -- workplaces would be placed next to fields and 
integrated into the surroundings:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Have the factory and the workshop at the gates of your fields and
gardens, and work in them. Not those large establishments, of course,
in which huge masses of metals have to be dealt with and which are
better placed at certain spots indicated by Nature, but the countless
variety of workshops and factories which are required to satisfy
the infinite diversity  of tastes among civilised men [and women] . . .
factories and workshops which men, women and children will not be
driven by hunger, but will be attracted by the desire of finding an
activity suited to their tastes, and where, aided by the motor and
the machine, they will choose the branch of activity which best 
suits their inclinations."</i> [Kropotkin, <b>Fields, Factories
and Workshops Tomorrow</b>, p. 197]
</blockquote></p><p>
This vision of rural and urban integration is just part of the
future anarchists see for the workplace. As Kropotkin argued,
<i>"[w]e proclaim <b>integration</b>. . . a society of integrated,
combined labour. A society where each individual is a producer 
of both manual and intellectual work; where each able-bodied
human being is a worker, and where each worker works both in 
the field and the industrial workshop; where every aggregation
of individuals, 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> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 26]
</p><p>
The future workplace would be an expression of the desires of 
those who worked there. It would be based around a pleasant working
environment, within gardens and with extensive library, resources 
for education classes and other leisure activities. All this, and 
more, will be possible in a society based upon self-realisation and 
self-expression and one in which individuality is not crushed by 
authority and capitalism. To quote Kropotkin, the future workplace
would be <i>"airy and hygienic, and consequently economical, factories 
in which human life is of more account than machinery and the making 
of extra profits."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 197] For, obviously, <i>"if 
most of the workshops we know are foul and unhealthy, it is because 
the workers are of no account in the organisation of factories"</i>. 
[<b>The Conquest of Bread</b>, p. 121] 
</p><p>
<i>"So in brief,"</i> argued William Morris, <i>"our buildings will be 
beautiful with their own beauty of simplicity as workshops"</i> and 
<i>"besides the mere workshops, our factory will have other buildings 
which may carry ornament further than that, for it will need dinning-hall,
library, school, places for study of different kinds, and other such
structures."</i> [<b>A Factory as It Might Be</b>, p. 9] This is 
possible and is only held back by capitalism which denounces such visions 
of freedom as "uneconomic." Yet such claims ignore the distribution
of income in class society:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Impossible I hear an anti-Socialist say. My friend, please to remember 
that most factories sustain today large and handsome gardens, and not seldom 
parks . . . <b>only</b> the said gardens, etc. are twenty miles away from 
the factory, <b>out of the smoke,</b> and are kept up for <b>one member of the 
factory only,</b> the sleeping partner to wit."</i> [Morris, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
pp. 7-8]
</blockquote></p><p>
Pleasant working conditions based upon the self-management of work can 
produce a workplace within which economic "efficiency" can be achieved
without disrupting and destroying individuality and the environment
(also see <a href="secI4.html#seci49">section I.4.9</a> 
for a fuller discussion of anarchism and technology).
</p>

<a name="seci416"><h2>I.4.16 Won't a libertarian communist society be inefficient?</h2></a>

<p>
It is often argued that anarcho-communism and other forms of
non-market libertarian-socialism would promote inefficiency and 
unproductive work. The basis of this argument is that without market 
forces to discipline workers and the profit motive to reward them, 
workers would have no incentive to work in a way which minimises 
time or resources. The net effect of this would be inefficient
use of recourses, particularly an individual's time.
</p><p>
This is a valid point in some ways; for example, a society can
(potentially) benefit from increasing productivity as the less 
time and resources it takes to produce a certain good, the more of 
both it gains for other activities (although, of course, in a class 
society the benefits of increased productivity generally accrue to,
first and foremost, those at the top and, for the rest, the
"other activities" mean more work). Indeed, for an individual, 
a decent society depends on people having time available for 
them to do what they want, to develop themselves in whatever 
way they want, to enjoy themselves. In addition, doing more 
with less can have a positive environment impact as well. It 
is for these reasons that an anarchist society would be 
interested in promoting efficiency and productiveness during 
production.
</p><p>
A free society will undoubtedly create new criteria for what 
counts as an efficient use of resources and time. What passes 
for "efficient" use capitalism often means what is efficient 
in increasing the power and profits of the few, without regard 
to the wasteful use of individual time, energy and potential
as well as environmental and social costs. Such a narrow
criteria for decision making or evaluating efficient production 
will not exist in an anarchist society (see our discussion
of the irrational nature of the price mechanism in 
<a href="secI1.html#seci12">section I.1.2</a>, for example). 
When we use the term efficiency 
we mean the dictionary definition of efficiency (i.e. reducing
waste, maximising use of resources) rather than what the 
capitalist market distorts this into (i.e. what creates most
profits for the boss).
</p><p>
While capitalism has turned improvements in productivity as 
a means of increasing work, enriching the few and generally 
proletarianising the working class, a free society would take
a different approach to the problem. As argued in 
<a href="secI4.html#seci43">section I.4.3</a>,
a communist-anarchist society would be based upon the principle
of <i>"<b>for some much per day</b> (in money today, in labour tomorrow)
<b>you are entitled to satisfy -- luxury excepted -- this or the other 
of your wants</b>."</i> [Peter Kropotkin, <b>Small Communal Experiments 
and why the fail</b>, p. 8] Building upon this, we can imagine a 
situation where the average output for a given industry in a given 
amount of time is used to encourage efficiency and productivity. If
a given syndicate can produce this average output with at
least average quality in less time than the agreed 
average/minimum (and without causing ecological or social 
externalities, of course) then the members of that 
syndicate can and should have that time off. 
</p><p>
This would be a powerful incentive to innovate, improve
productivity, introduce new machinery and processes as
well as work efficiently without reintroducing the profit
motive and material inequality. With the possibility of
having more time available for themselves and their own
projects, people involved in productive activities would
have a strong interest in being efficient. Of course, if
the work in question is something they enjoy then any
increases in efficiency would <b>enhance</b> what makes their
work enjoyable and not eliminate it. 
</p><p>
Rewarding efficiency with free time would also be an 
important means to ensure efficient use of resources
as well as a means of reducing time spent in productive
activity which was considered as boring or otherwise
undesirable. The incentive of getting unpleasant tasks 
over with as quickly as possible would ensure that the
tasks were done efficiently and that innovation was 
directed towards them. Moreover, when it came to major 
investment decisions, a syndicate would be more likely to 
get others to agree to its plans if the syndicate had 
a reputation of excellence. This, again, would encourage 
efficiency as people would know that they could gain 
resources for their communities and workplaces 
(i.e. themselves) more easily if their work is 
efficient and reliable. This would be a key means of
encouraging efficient and effective use of resources.
</p><p>
Similarly, an inefficient or wasteful syndicate would have 
negative reactions from their fellow workers. As we argued 
in <a href="secI4.html#seci47">section I.4.7</a>, a libertarian 
communist economy would be based on free association. If a 
syndicate or community got a reputation for being inefficient 
with resources then others would not associate with them (i.e.
they would not supply them with materials, or place them
at the end of the queue when deciding which production
requests to supply, and so on). As with a syndicate which 
produced shoddy goods, the inefficient syndicate would also 
face the judgement of its peers. This will produce an
environment which will encourage efficient use of resources
and time. 
</p><p>
All these factors, the possibility of increased free time, 
the respect and resources gained for an efficient and excellent
work and the possibility of a lack of co-operation with others
for inefficient use of resources, would ensure that an 
anarchist-communist or anarchist-collectivist society would
have no need to fear inefficiency. Indeed, by placing the benefits
of increased efficiency into the hands of those who do the work, 
efficiency will no doubt increase.
</p><p>
With self-management, we can soon see time and resources being 
used efficiently and productively simply because those doing the 
work would have a direct and real interest in it. Rather than 
alienate their liberty, as under capitalism, they would apply 
their creativity and minds to transforming their productive
activity in such a way as to make it enjoyable and not
a waste of their time.
</p><p>
Little wonder Kropotkin argued that modern knowledge could be
applied to a society in which people, <i>"with the work of
their own hands and intelligence, and by the aid of the
machinery already invented and to be invented, should
themselves create all imaginable riches. Technics and
science will not be lagging behind if production takes
such a direction. Guided by observation, analysis and
experiment, they will answer all possible demands. They
will reduce the time required for producing wealth to any
desired amount, so as to leave to everyone as much
leisure as he or she may ask for . . . they guarantee
. . . the happiness that can be found in the full and 
varied exercise of the different capacities of the
human being, in work that need not be overwork."</i> 
[<b>Fields, Factories and Workshops Tomorrow</b>, 
pp. 198-9] 
</p>

</body>
</html>