File: secI3.html

package info (click to toggle)
anarchism 8.0-2
links: PTS
area: main
in suites: potato
size: 7,880 kB
ctags: 313
sloc: makefile: 40; sh: 8
file content (1191 lines) | stat: -rw-r--r-- 77,314 bytes
<HTML>
<HEAD>

<TITLE>I.3 What could the economic structure of an anarchist society look like? </TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<H1>I.3 What could the economic structure of an anarchist society look like? </h1>
<p>
Here we will examine a possible framework of a libertarian-socialist
economy. It should be kept in mind that in practice it is impossible to
separate the economic realm from the social and political realms, as there
are numerous interconnections between them. Also, by discussing the
economy first we are not implying that dealing with economic domination is
more important than dealing with other aspects of the total system of
domination, e.g. patricentric values, racism, etc. We follow this order of
exposition because of the need to present one thing at a time, but it
would have been equally easy to start with the social and political
structure of anarchy.
<p>
The aim of any anarchist society would be to maximize freedom and so
creative work. In the words of Noam Chomsky, <i>"[i]f it is correct, as I 
believe it is, that a fundamental element of human nature is the need for 
creative work or creative inquiry, for free creation without the arbitrary 
limiting effects of coercive institutions, then of course it will follow 
that a decent society should maximize the possibilities for this fundamental 
human characteristic to be realized. Now, a federated, decentralized system 
of free associations incorporating economic as well as social institutions 
would be what I refer to as anarcho-syndicalism. And it seems to me that 
it is the appropriate form of social organization for an advanced 
technological society, in which human beings do not have to be forced 
into the position of tools, of cogs in a machine."</i>
<p>
So, as one might expect, since the essence of anarchism is opposition to
hierarchical authority, anarchists totally oppose the way the current 
economy is organised. This is because authority in the economic sphere is 
embodied in centralized, hierarchical workplaces that give an elite class
(capitalists) dictatorial control over privately owned means of production,
turning the majority of the population into order takers (i.e. wage slaves). 
In constrast, the libertarian-socialist "economy" will be based on
decentralized, equalitarian workplaces (<I><b>"syndicates"</I></b>) in which workers
democratically self-manage <B>socially</B> owned means of production. Let's
begin with the concept of syndicates. 
<p>
The key principles of libertarian socialism are decentralization,
self-management by direct democracy, voluntary association, and
federation. These principles determine the form and function of both 
the economic and political systems. In this section we'll consider just the
economic system. Bakunin gives an excellent overview of such an economy
when he writes: <I>"The land belongs to only those who cultivate it with
their own hands; to the agricultural communes. The capital and all the
tools of production belong to the workers; to the workers' associations
. . . The future political organisation should be a free federation of
workers."</I> [<B>Bakunin on Anarchy</B>, p. 247]
<p>
The essential economic concept for libertarian socialists is <B>workers'
control</B>. However, this concept needs careful explanation, because, like
the terms <I>"anarchist"</I> and <I>"libertarian,"</I> <I>"workers' control"</I> is also is
being co-opted by capitalists. 
<p>
As anarchists use the term, workers'control means collective worker 
ownership and self-management of all aspects of production and distribution, 
through participatory-democratic workers' councils, agricultural syndicates, 
and people's financial institutions which perform all functions formerly 
reserved for capitalist owners, executives, and financiers. 
<p>
<I>"Workers' ownership"</I> in its most limited sense refers merely to the
ownership of individual firms by their workers. In such firms, surpluses
(profits) would be either equally divided between all full-time members of
the cooperative or divided unequally on the basis of the type of work
done, with the percentages allotted to each type being decided by
democratic vote, on the principle of one worker, one vote. 
<p>
Worker cooperatives of this type do have the virtue of preventing the
exploitation of wage labor by capital, since workers are not hired for
wages but, in effect, become partners in the firm, so that the value-added
that they produce is not appropriated by a privileged elite. However, this
does not mean that all forms of economic domination and exploitation would
be eliminated if worker ownership were confined merely to individual
firms. In fact, most social anarchists believe this type of system would
degenerate into a kind of <I>"petty-bourgeois cooperativism"</I> in which worker-owned
firms would act as syndicate capitalists and compete against each other in
the market as ferociously as the previously individual capitalists. This
would also lead to a situation where market forces ensured that the
workers involved made irrational decisions (from both a social and
individual point of view) in order to survive in the market. As these
problems were highlighted in section I.1.3 (<a HREF="secI1.html#seci13">"What's wrong with markets
anyway?"</a>), we will not repeat ourselves here.
<p>
For individualist anarchists, this <I>"irrationality of rationality"</I> is the
price to be paid for a free market and any attempt to overcome this
problem holds numerous dangers to freedom. 
<p>
Social anarchists disagree. They think cooperation between workplaces can 
increase, not reduce, freedom. Social anarchists' proposed solution is
<B>society-wide</B> ownership of the major means of production and distribution, 
based on the anarchist principle of voluntary federation, with confederal 
bodies or coordinating councils at two levels: first, between all firms in 
a particular industry; and second, between all industries, agricultural 
syndicates, and people's financial institutions throughout the society.
As Berkman put it, <I>"[a]ctual use will be considered the only title - not to 
ownership but to possession. The organisation of the coal miners, for example, 
will be in charge of the coal mines, not as owners but as the operating 
agency. Similarly will the railroad brotherhoods run the railroads, and so 
on. Collective possession, co-operatively managed in the interests of the 
community, will take the place of personal ownership privately conducted 
for profit."</I> [<B>ABC of Anarchism</B>, p. 69]
<p>
While, for many anarcho-syndicalists, this structure is seen as enough,
many communist-anarchists consider that the economic federation should be
held accountable to society as a whole (i.e. the economy must be
communalised). This is because not everyone in society is a worker (e.g.
the young, the old and infirm) nor will everyone belong to a syndicate 
(e.g. the self-employed), but as they also have to live with the results of
economic decisions, they should have a say in what happens. In other
words, in communist-anarchism, workers' make the day-to-day decisions 
concerning their work and workplaces, while the social criteria behind
these decisions are made by everyone.
<p>
In this type of economic system, workers' assemblies and councils would be
the focal point, formulating policies for their individual workplaces and
deliberating on industry-wide or economy-wide issues though general
meetings of the whole workforce in which everyone would participate in
decisionmaking. Voting in the councils would be direct, whereas in larger
confederal bodies, voting would be carried out by temporary, unpaid,
mandated, and instantly recallable delegates, who would resume their
status as ordinary workers as soon as their mandate had been carried out. 
<p>
<I>"Mandated"</I> here means that delegates from workers' councils to meetings 
of higher confederal bodies would be instructed, at every level of
confederation, by the workers they represent on how to deal with any
issue. The delegates would be given imperative mandates (binding
instructions) that committed them to a framework of policies within which
they would have to act, and they could be recalled and their decisions
revoked at any time for failing to carry out the mandates they were given.
Because of this right of mandating and recalling their delegates, workers'
councils would be the source of and final authority over policy for all
higher levels of confederal coordination of the economy. 
<p>
A society-wide economic federation of this sort is clearly not the same
thing as a centralized state agency, as in the concept of nationalized or
state-owned industry. Rather, it is a decentralized, participatory-democratic 
organization whose members can secede at any time and in which all power and 
initiative arises from and flows back to the grassroots level. Thus
Kropotkin's summary of what anarchy would look like:
<p>
<i>"harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by 
obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the 
various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the 
sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the 
infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being. In a society 
developed on these lines. . . voluntary associations. . . would represent 
an interwoven network, composed of an infinite variety of groups and
federations of all sizes and degrees, local, regional, national and
international temporary or more or less permanent - for all possible
purposes: production, consumption and exchange, communications, sanitary
arrangements, education, mutual protection, defence of the territory, and so
on; and, on the other side, for the satisfaction of an ever-increasing
number of scientific, artistic, literary and sociable needs. Moreover, such
a society would represent nothing immutable. On the contrary - as is seen in
organic life at large - harmony would (it is contended) result from an
ever-changing adjustment and readjustment of equilibrium between the
multitudes of forces and influences, and this adjustment would be the easier
to obtain as none of the forces would enjoy a special protection from the
state."</i> [<i>"Anarchism"</i>, from <b>The Encyclopaedia Britannica</b>, 
1910]
<p>
If this type of system sounds "utopian" it should be kept in mind that it
was actually implemented and worked quite well in the collectivist economy
organized during the Spanish Revolution of 1936, despite the enormous
obstacles presented by an ongoing civil war as well as the relentless 
(and eventually successful) efforts of both the Stalinists and Fascists 
to crush it. (See Sam Dolgoff, <B>The Anarchist Collectives: Workers'
Self-management in the Spanish Revolution, 1936-1939</B>, New York: 
Free Life Editions, 1974).
<p>
As well as this (and other) examples of <B><I>"anarchy in action"</I></B> there have been
other libertarian socialist economic systems described in writing. All share 
the common features of workers' self-management, cooperation and
so on we discuss here and in <a HREF="secI4.html">section I.4</a>. These texts include <B>Syndicalism</B> 
by Tom Brown, <B>The Program of Anarcho-Syndicalism</B> by G.P. Maximoff, <B>Guild 
Socialism Restated</B> by G.D.H. Cole, <B>After the Revolution</B> by Abad de 
Santillan, <B>Anarchist Economics</B> and <B>Principles of Libertarian Economy</B> 
by Abraham Guillen, <B>Workers Councils and the Economics of a Self-Managed 
Society</B> by Cornelius Castoriadis among others. Also worth reading are
<B>The Political Economy of Participatory Economics</B> and <B>Looking Forward</B> 
by Micheal Albert and Robin Hanel which contain some useful ideas. Fictional accounts include William Morris' <B>News from Nowhere</B>, <B>The Dispossessed</B> by
Ursula Le Guin and <B>Women on the Edge of Time</B> by Marge Piercy.
<p>
<a name = "seci31"><h2>I.3.1 What is a "syndicate"?</h2>
<p>
As we will use the term, a <I><B>"syndicate"</I></B> (often called a <B><I>"producer
cooperative,"</I></B> or <B><I>"cooperative"</I></B> for short, sometimes <B><I>"collective"</I></B> or
<B><I>"association of producers"</I></B> or <B><I>"guild factory"</I></B> or <B><I>"guild workplace"</I></B>) is a
democratically self-managed productive enterprise whose productive assets
are either owned by its workers or by society as a whole. 
<p>
It is important to note that individuals who do not wish to join syndicates 
will be able to work for themselves. There is no "forced collectivization" 
under <B>any</B> form of libertarian socialism, because coercing people is 
incompatible with the basic principles of anarchism. Those who wish to be
self-employed will have free access to the productive assets they need,
provided that they neither attempt to monopolize more of those assets
than they and their families can use by themselves nor attempt to employ
others for wages (see <a HREF="secI3.html#seci37">section I.3.7</a>). 
<p>
In many ways a syndicate is similar to a cooperative under capitalism.
Indeed, Bakunin argued that anarchists are <I>"convinced that the cooperative
will be the preponderant form of social organisation in the future, in
every branch of labour and science"</I> [<B>Basic Bakunin</B>, p. 153]. Therefore, even from the limited examples of cooperatives functioning in 
the capitalist market, the essential features of a libertarian socialist
economy can be seen. The basic economic element, the workplace, will be a
free association of individuals, who will organise their joint work
cooperatively.
<p>
<I>"Cooperation"</I> in this context means that the policy decisions related to
their association will be based on the principle of <I>"one member, one
vote,"</I> with "managers" and other administrative staff elected and held
accountable to the workplace as a whole. Workplace self-management does
not mean, as many apologists of capitalism suggest, that knowledge and
skill will be ignored and <B>all</B> decisions made by everyone. 
<p>
This is an obvious fallacy, since engineers, for example, have a greater
understanding of their work than non-engineers and under workers'
self-management will control it directly. As G.D.H. Cole argues, <I>"we must
understand clearly wherein this Guild democracy consists, and especially
how it bears on relations between different classes of workers included in
a single Guild. For since a Guild includes <B>all</B> the workers by hand and
brain engaged in a common service, it is clear that there will be among
its members very wide divergences of function, of technical skill, and of
administrative authority. Neither the Guild as a whole nor the Guild
factory can determine all issues by the expedient of the mass vote, nor
can Guild democracy mean that, on all questions, each member is to count
as one and none more than one. A mass vote on a matter of technique
understood only by a few experts would be a manifest absurdity, and, even
if the element of technique is left out of account, a factory administered
by constant mass votes would be neither efficient nor at all a pleasant
place to work in. There will be in the Guilds technicians occupying
special positions by virtue of their knowledge, and there will be
administrators possessing special authority by virtue both of skill an
ability and of personal qualifications"</I> [G.D.H. Cole, <B>Guild Socialism
Restated</B>, pp. 50-51] 
<p>
The fact that decision-making powers would be delegated in this manner
sometimes leads people to ask whether a syndicate would not just be
another form of hierarchy. The answer is that it would not be
hierarchical because the workers' councils, open to all workers, would
decide what types of decision-making powers to delegate, thus ensuring
that ultimate power rests at the mass base. For example, if it turned out
that a certain type of delegated decision-making power was being abused,
it could be revoked by the whole workforce. Because of this grassroots
control, there is every reason to think that crucial types of
decision-making powers with the potential for seriously affecting all
workers' lives -- powers that are now exercised in an authoritarian manner
by managers under capitalism, such that of hiring and firing, introducing
new production methods or technologies, changing product lines, relocating
production facilities, etc. -- would not be delegated but would remain
with the workers' assemblies.
<p>
As Malatesta put it, <I>"of course in every large collective undertaking, a
division of labour, technical management, administration, etc. is
necessary. But authoritarians clumsily play on words to produce a <B>raison
d'etre</B> for government out of the very real need for the organisation of
work. . . [However] Government means the delegation of power, that is the
abdication of initiative and sovereignty of all into the hands of a few;
administration means the delegation of work, that is tasks given and
received, free exchange of services based on free agreement. . .let one
not confuse the function of government with that of an administration, for
they are essentially different, and if today the two are often confused,
it is only because of economic and political privilege"</I> [<B>Anarchy</B>, pp.
39-40].
<p>
What about entry into a syndicate? In the words of Cole, workers syndicates
are <i>"open associations which any man [or woman] may join"</i> but 
<i>"this does not mean, of course, that any person will be able to 
claim admission, as an absolute right, into the guild of his choice."</i> 
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 75] This means 
that there may be training requirements (for example) and obviously <i>"a man 
[or woman] clearly cannot get into a Guild [i.e. syndicate] unless it needs 
fresh recruits for its work. [The worker] will have free choice, but only 
of the available openings."</i> [<b>Ibib.</b>] Obviously, as in any society, 
an individual may not be able to pursue the work they are most interested 
(although given the nature of an anarchist society they would have the 
free time to pursue it as a hobby). However, we can imagine that an anarchist 
society would take an interest in ensuring a fair distribution of work and 
so would try to arrange work sharing if a given workplacement is popular.
<p>
Of course there may be the danger of a syndicate or guild trying to
restrict entry from an ulterior motive. The ulterior motive would, of
course, be the exploitation of monopoly power visavis other groups in
society. However, in an anarchist society individuals would be free to
form their own syndicates and so ensure that such activity is self-defeating. 
In addition, in a non-mutualist anarchist system, syndicates would be part
of a confederation (see section <a href="secI3.html#seci34">I.3.4</a>). It is a responsibility of the 
inter-syndicate congresses to assure that membership and employment in the 
syndicates is not restricted in any antisocial way. If an individual or 
group of individuals felt that they had been unfairly excluded from a 
syndicate then an investigation into the case would be organised at the 
congress. In this way any attempts to restrict entry would be reduced 
(assuming they occured to begin with). And, of course, individuals are 
free to form new syndicates or leave the confederation if they so desire 
(see section <a href="secI4.html#seci413">I.4.13</a> on the question of 
who will do unpleasant work in an anarchist society).
<p>
New syndicates will be created upon the initiative of individuals within 
communities. These may be the initiative of workers in an existing
syndicate who desire to expand production, or members of the local
community who see that the current syndicates are not providing adequately
in a specific area of life. Either way, the syndicate will be a voluntary
association for producing useful goods or services and would spring up
and disappear as required. Therefore, an anarchist society would see
syndicates developing spontaneously as individuals freely associate to 
meet their needs, with both local and confederal initatives taking place. 
(The criteria for investment decisions is discussed in <a HREF="secI4.html#seci47">section I.4.7</a>. 
<p>
To sum up, syndicates are voluntary associations of workers who manage
their workplace and their own work. Within the syndicate, the decisions
which affect how the workplace develops and changes are in the hands of
those who work there. In addition, it means that the each section of the
workforce manages its own activity and sections and that all workers
placed in administration tasks (i.e. "management") are subject to election
and recall by those who are affected by their decisions. (Workers'
self-management is discussed further in <a HREF="secI3.html#seci32">section I.3.2</a>). 
<p>
<a name = "seci32"><h2>I.3.2 What is workers' self-management?</h2>
<p>
Quite simply, <B><I>"workers' self-management"</I></B> (sometimes called <I><B>"workers'
control"</I></B>) means that all workers affected by a decision have an equal
voice in making it, on the principle of <I>"one worker, one vote."</I> As noted
earlier, however, we need to be careful when using the term "workers'
control," as the concept is currently being co-opted by the ruling elite,
which is to say that it is becoming popular among sociologists, industrial
managers, and social-democratic union leaders, and so is taking on an
entirely different meaning from the one intended by anarchists (who
originated the term).
<p>
In the hands of capitalists, "workers' control" is now referred to by such
terms as "participation," "democratization," "co-determination,"
"consensus," "empowerment", "Japanese-style management," etc. As Sam
Dolgoff notes, <I>"For those whose function it is solve the new problems of
boredom and alienation in the workplace in advanced industrial capitalism,
workers' control is seen as a hopeful solution. . . . a solution in which
workers are given a modicum of influence, a strictly limited area of
decision-making power, a voice at best secondary in the control of
conditions of the workplace. Workers' control, in a limited form
sanctioned by the capitalists, is held to be the answer to the growing
non-economic demands of the workers"</I> [<I>"Workers' Control"</I> in <B>The
Anarchist Collectives</B>, ed. Sam Dolgoff, Free Life Editions, 1974, p.
81].
<p>
The new managerial fad of "quality circles" -- meetings where workers are
encouraged to contribute their ideas on how to improve the company's
product and increase the efficiency with which it is made -- is an example
of "workers' control" as conceived by capitalists. However, when it comes
to questions such as what products to make, where to make them, and
(especially) how revenues from sales should be divided among the workforce
and invested, capitalists and managers don't ask for or listen to 
workers' "input." So much for "democratization," "empowerment," and
"participation!" In reality, capitalistic "workers control" is merely an
another insidious attempt to make workers more willing and "cooperative" 
partners in their own exploitation.
<p>
Hence we prefer the term <I><B>"workers' self-management"</I></B> -- a concept which
refers to the exercise of workers' power through collectivization and
federation (see below). Self-management in this sense <I>"is not a new form
of mediation between the workers and their capitalist bosses, but instead
refers to the very process by which the workers themselves <B>overthrow</B>
their managers and take on their own management and the management of
production in their own workplace. Self-management means the organization
of all workers . . . into a workers' council or factory committee (or
agricultural syndicate), which makes all the decisions formerly made by
the owners and managers"</I> [<B>Ibid.</B>, p. 81]. 
<p>
Therefore workers' self-management is based around general meetings of the 
whole workforce, held regularly in every industrial or agricultural syndicate. 
These are the source of and final authority over decisions affecting policy 
within the workplace as well as relations with other syndicates. These 
meeting elect workplace councils whose job is to implement the decisions of
these assemblies and to make the day to day administration decisions that
will crop up. These councils are directly accountable to the workforce and
its members subject to re-election and instant recall. It is also likely
that membership of these councils will be rotated between all members of
the syndicate to ensure that no one monopolises an administrative position.
In addition, smaller councils and assemblies would be organised for
divisions, units and work teams as circumstances dictate.
<p>
It is the face-to-face meetings that bring workers directly into the 
management process and give them power over the economic decisions that 
affect their lives. In social anarchism, since the means of production are 
owned by society as a whole, decisions on matters like how to apportion the 
existing means of production among the syndicates, how to distribute and 
reinvest the surpluses, etc. will be made by the grassroots <B>social</B> 
units, i.e. the community assemblies (see <a HREF="secI5.html#seci52">section I.5.2</a>), not by the workers' councils. This does not mean that workers will have no voice in decisions 
about such matters, but only that they will vote on them as citizens in their 
local community assemblies, not as workers in their local syndicates. As 
mentioned before, this is because not everyone will belong to a syndicate, 
yet everyone will still be affected by economic decisions of the above type. 
This is an example of how the social/political and economic structures of 
social anarchy are intertwined.
<p>
<a name="seci33"><h2>I.3.3 What role do syndicates play in the "economy"? </h2>
<p>
As we have seen, private ownership of the means of production is the
lynchpin of capitalism, because it is the means by which capitalists are
able to exploit workers by appropriating surplus value from them. To
eliminate such exploitation, anarchists propose that social capital --
productive assets such as factories and farmland -- be owned by society as
a whole and shared out among syndicates and self-employed individuals by
directly democratic methods, through face-to-face voting of the whole
electorate in local neighbourhood and community assemblies, which will be
linked together through voluntary federations. It does <B>not</B> mean that the
state owns the means of production, as under Marxism-Leninism or social
democracy, because there is no state under libertarian socialism. (For
more on neighbourhood and community assemblies, see sections <a HREF="secI5.html#seci52">I.5.2</a> and
<a HREF="secI5.html#seci53">I.5.3</a>).
<p>
Production for use rather than profit is the key concept that
distinguishes collectivist and communist forms of anarchism from market
socialism or from the competitive forms of mutualism advocated by
Proudhon and the individualist anarchists. Under mutualism, workers
organize themselves into syndicates, but ownership of a syndicate's
capital is limited to its workers rather than resting with the whole
society. Under most versions of market socialism, the state owns the
social capital but the syndicates use it to pursue profits, which are
retained by and divided among the members of the individual syndicates.
Thus both mutualism and market socialism are forms of "petty-bourgeois
cooperativism" in which the worker-owners of the cooperatives function 
as collective "capitalists", competing in the marketplace with other 
cooperatives for customers, profits, raw materials, etc. -- a situation
that gives rise to many of the same problems that arise under capitalism
(see <a HREF="secH4.html">section H.4</a>). 
<p>
In contrast, within anarcho-collectivism and anarcho-communism, society
as a whole owns the social capital, which allows for the elimination of
both competition for profits and the tendency for workers to develop a
proprietary interest the enterprises in which they work. This in turn
enables goods to be either sold at their production prices so as to
reduce their cost to consumers or distributed in accordance with
communist principles (namely free); it facilitates efficiency gains
through the consolidation of formerly competing enterprises; and it
eliminates the many problems due to the predatory nature of capitalist
competition, including the destruction of the environment through the
"grow or die" principle, the development of oligopolies from capital
concentration and centralization, and the business cycle, with its
periodic recessions and depressions.
<p>
For social anarchists, therefore, libertarian socialism is based on
decentralised decisionmaking within the framework of communally-owned but
independently-run and worker-self-managed syndicates (or cooperatives). 
<p>
In other words, the economy is communalised, with land and the means of 
production being turned into communal "property." The community
determines the social and ecological framework for production while the
workforce makes the day-to-day decisions about what to produce and how to
do it. This is because a system based purely on workplace assemblies
effectively disenfranchises those individuals who do not work but live with
the effects of production (e.g., ecological disruption). In Howard Harkins'
words, <I>"the difference between workplace and community assemblies is that
the internal dynamic of direct democracy in communities gives a hearing to
solutions that bring out the common ground and, when there is not
consensus, an equal vote to every member of the community."</I> [<I>"Community
Control, Workers' Control and the Cooperative Commonwealth"</I>, pp. 55-83, 
<B>Society and Nature</B> No. 3, p. 69]
<p>
This means that when a workplace joins a confederation, that workplace is
communalised as well as confederated. In this way, workers' control is
placed within the broader context of the community, becoming an aspect of
community control. This does not that workers' do not control what they
do or how they do it. Rather, it means that the framework within which
they make their decisions is determined by the community. For example,
the local community may decide that production should maximise recycling
and minimise pollution, and workers informed of this decision make
investment and production decisions accordingly. In addition, consumer
groups and cooperatives may be given a voice in the confederal congresses 
of syndicates or even in the individual workplaces (although it would
be up to local communities to decide whether this would be practical or
not).
<p>
Given the general principle of social ownership and the absence of a
state, there is considerable leeway regarding the specific forms that
collectivization might take -- for example, in regard to methods of
surplus distribution, the use or non-use of money, etc. -- as can be seen
by the different systems worked out in various areas of Spain during the
Revolution of 1936-39 (as described, for example, in Sam Dolgoff's <B>The
Anarchist Collectives</B>). 
<p>
Nevertheless, democracy is undermined when some communities are poor 
while others are wealthy. Therefore the method of surplus distribution must 
insure that all communities have an adequate share of pooled revenues and 
resources held at higher levels of confederation as well as guaranteed 
minimum levels of public services and provisions to meet basic human needs.
<p>
<a name="seci34"><h2>I.3.4 What relations would exist between individual syndicates?</h2>
<p>
Just as individuals associate together to work on and overcome common
problems, so would syndicates. Few, if any workplaces are totally
independent of others, but require raw materials as inputs and consumers
for their products. Therefore there will be links between different
syndicates. These links are twofold: firstly, free agreements between
individual syndicates, and secondly, confederations of syndicates (within
branches of industry and regionally). Let's consider free agreement
first.
<p>
Anarchists recognise the importance of letting people organise their own
lives. This means that they reject central planning and instead urge
direct links between workers' associations. Those directly involved in
production know their needs far better than any bureaucrat. Therefore
anarchists think that <I>"[i]n the same way that each free individual has
associated with his brothers [and sisters!] to produce . . .all that was 
necessary for life, driven by no other force than his desire for the full 
enjoyment of life, so each institution is free and self-contained, and 
cooperates and enters into agreements with others because by so doing it
extends its own possibilities."</I> [George Barret, <B>The Anarchist
Revolution</B>, p. 18] An example of one such agreement would be orders for
products and services.
<p>
This suggests a decentralised economy -- even more decentralised than
capitalism (which is "decentralized" only in capitalist mythology, as shown
by big business and transnational corporations, for example) -- one
<I>"growing ever more closely bound together and interwoven by free and
mutual agreements."</I> [<B>Ibid.</B>, p. 18] For social anarchists, this would take
the form of <I>"free exchange without the medium of money and without profit, 
on the basis of requirement and the supply at hand."</I> [Alexander Berkman,
<B>ABC of Anarchism</B>, p. 69]
<p>
Therefore, an anarchist economy would be based on spontaneous order as 
workers practiced mutual aid and free association. The anarchist economy 
<I>"starts from below, not from above. Like an organism, this free society 
grows 
into being from the simple unit  up to the complex structure. The need 
for . . . the individual struggle for life . . . is . . .sufficient to set 
the whole complex social machinery in motion. Society is the result of the 
individual struggle for existence; it is not, as many suppose, opposed to 
it."</I> [G. Barret, <B>Op. Cit.</B>, p. 18]
<p>
In other words, <i>"[t]his factory of ours is, then, to the fullest extent 
consistent with the character of its service, a self-governing unit, managing 
its own productive operations, and free to experiment to the heart's content 
in new methods, to develop new styles and products. . . This autonomy of 
the factory is the safeguard. . . against the dead level of medicocrity, 
the more than adequate substitute for the variety which the competitive 
motive was once supposed to stimulate, the guarantee of liveliness, and
of individual work and workmanship."</i> [G.D.H. Cole, <b>Guild Socialism 
Restated</b>, p. 59]
<p>
This brings us to the second form of relationships between syndicates,
namely confederations of syndicates. If individual or syndicate
activities spread beyond their initial locality, they would probably
reach a scale at which they would need to constitute a confederation. 
At this scale, industrial confederations of syndicates are necessary to
aid communication between workplaces who produce the same goods. No
syndicate exists in isolation, and so there is a real need for a means by
which syndicates can meet together to discuss common interests and act on
them.
<p>
A confederation of syndicates (called a <I>"guild"</I> by some libertarian
socialists, or <I>"industrial union"</I> by others) works on two levels: within
an industry and across industries. The basic operating principle of these
confederations is the same as that of the syndicate itself -- voluntary
cooperation between equals in order to meet common needs. In other words,
each syndicate in the confederation is linked by horizontal agreements
with the others, and none owe any obligations to a separate entity above
the group (see section A.11, <a HREF = "secA1.html#seca11">"Why are anarchists in favour of direct
democracy?"</a> for more on the nature of anarchist confederation).
<p>
As such, the confederations reflect anarchist ideas of free association
and decentralised organisation as well as concern for practical needs:
<p>
<i>"Anarchists are strenuously opposed to the authoritarian, centralist spirit
. . . So they picture a future social life in the basis of federalism, from
the individual to the municipality, to the commune, to the region, to the
nation, to the international, on the basis of solidarity and free agreement.
And it is natural that this ideal should be reflected also in the organisation
of production, giving preference as far as possible, to a decentralised
sort of organisation; but this does not take the form of an absolute
rule to be applied in every instance. A libertarian order would be in itself,
on the other hand, rule out the possibility of imposing such a unilateral
solution."</i> [Luigi Fabbri, <i>"Anarchy and 'Scientific Communism"</i>, 
pp. 13-49, <b>The Poverty of Statism</b>, Albert Meltzer (ed), p. 23]
<p>
As would be imagined, these confederations are voluntary associations and 
<i>"[j]ust as factory autonomy is vital in order to keep the Guild system alive 
and vigorous, the existance of varying democratic types of factories in
independence of the National Guilds may also be a means of valuable
experiment and fruitful initiative of individual minds. In insistently
refusing to carry their theory to its last 'logical' conclusion, the
Guildsman [and anarchists] are true to their love of freedom and varied 
social enterprise."</i> [G.D.H. Cole, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 65]
<p>
If a workplace agrees to confederate, then it gets to share in the
resources of the confederation and so gains the benefits of mutual aid. In
return for the benefits of confederal cooperation, the syndicate's tools
of production become the "property" of society, to be used but not owned
by those who work in them. This does not mean centralised control from the
top, for <I>"when we say that ownership of the tools of production, including
the factory itself, should revert to the corporation [i.e. confederation]
we do not mean that the workers in the individual workshops will be ruled
by any kind of industrial government having power to do what it pleases
with [them]. . . . No, the workers. . .[will not] hand over their hard-won
control. . . to a superior power. . . . What they will do is. . . to
guarantee reciprocal use of their tools of production and accord their
fellow workers in other factories the right to share their facilities [and
vice versa]. . .with [all] whom they have contracted the pact of
solidarity."</I> [James Guillaume, <B>Bakunin on Anarchism</B>, pp. 363-364] 
<p>
Facilitating this type of cooperation is the major role of
inter-industry confederations, which also ensure that when the members of
a syndicate change work to another syndicate in another (or the same)
branch of industry, they have the same rights as the members of their new
syndicate. In other words, by being part of the confederation, a worker
ensures that s/he has the same rights and an equal say in whatever
workplace is joined. This is essential to ensure that a cooperative
society remains cooperative, as the system is based on the principle of
<I>"one person, one vote"</I> by all those involved the work process.
<p>
So, beyond this reciprocal sharing, what other roles does the
confederation play? Basically, there are two. Firstly, the sharing and
coordination of information produced by the syndicates (as will be
discussed in <a HREF="secI3.html#seci35">section I.3.5</a>), and, secondly, determining the response to
the changes in production and consumption indicated by this information.
As the "vertical" links between syndicates are non-hierarchical, each
syndicate remains self-governing. This ensures decentralisation of power
and direct control, initiative, and experimentation by those involved in
doing the work. Hence, <I>"the internal organisation [of one syndicate] ...
need not be identical [to others]: Organisational forms and procedures
will vary greatly according to the preferences of the associated workers"</I>
[<B>Ibid.</B>, p. 361]. In practice, this would probably mean that each syndicate 
gets its own orders and determines the best way to satisfy them (i.e. 
manages its own work and working conditions). 
<p>
As indicated above, free agreement will ensure that customers would be 
able to choose their own suppliers, meaning that production units would 
know whether they were producing what their customers wanted, i.e.,
whether they were meeting social need as expressed through demand. If
they were not, customers would go elsewhere, to other production units
within the same branch of production. However, the investment response
to consumer actions would be coordinated by a confederation of syndicates
in that branch of production. By such means, the confederation can ensure
that resources are not wasted by individual syndicates over-producing
goods or over-investing in response to changes in production (see 
<a HREF="secI3.html#seci35">section
I.3.5</a>). 
<p>
It should be pointed out that these confederated investment decisions will
exist along with the investments associated with the creation of new
syndicates, plus internal syndicate investment decisions. We are not
suggesting that <B>every</B> investment decision is to be made by the
confederations. (This would be particularly impossible for <B>new</B>
industries, for which a confederation would not exist!) Therefore, in
addition to coordinated production units, an anarchist society would see
numerous small-scale, local activities which would ensure creativity,
diversity, and flexibility. Only after these activities had spread across
society would confederal coordination become necessary.
<p>
Thus, investment decisions would be made at congresses and plenums of 
the industry's syndicates, by a process of horizontal, negotiated 
coordination. This model combines "planning" with decentralisation. Major 
investment decisions are coordinated at an appropriate level, with each 
unit in the confederation being autonomous, deciding what to do with its 
own productive capacity in order to meet social demand. Thus we have 
self-governing production units coordinated by confederations (horizontal 
negotiation), which ensures local initiative (a vital source of
flexibility, creativity, and diversity) and a rational response to 
changes in social demand.
<p>
It should be noted that during the Spanish Revolution syndicates organised 
themselves very successfully as town-wide industrial confederations of 
syndicates. These were based on the town-level industrial confederation 
getting orders for products for its industry and allocating work between 
individual workplaces (as opposed to each syndicate receiving orders for 
itself). Gaston Leval noted that this form of organisation (with increased
responsibilities for the confederation) did not harm the libertarian 
nature of anarchist self-management:
<p>
<I>"Everything was controlled by the syndicates. But it must not therefore be
assumed that everything was decided by a few higher bureaucratic
committees without consulting the rank and file members of the union. 
Here libertarian democracy was practised. As in the CNT there was a
reciprocal double structure; from the grass roots at the base. . .
upwards, and in the other direction a reciprocal influence from the
federation of these same local units at all levels downwards, from the
source back to the source."</I> [<B>The Anarchist Collectives</B>, p. 105]
<p>
Such a solution, or similar ones, may be more practical in some situations 
than having each syndicate receive its own orders and so anarchists do not 
reject such confederal responsibilities out of hand (although the general 
prejudice is for decentralisation). This because we <i>"prefer decentralised 
management; but ultimately, in practical and technical problems, we defer 
to free experience."</i> [Luigi Fabbri, <b>Op. Cit.</b>,  p. 24] 
The specific form of 
organisation will obviously vary as required from industry to industry, 
area to area, but the underlying ideas of self-management and free association 
will be the same. Moreover, in the words of G.D.H Cole, the <i>"essential 
thing. . . is that its [the confederation or guild] function should be kept 
down to the minimum possible for each industry."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 61]
<p>
<a name = "seci35"><h2>I.3.5 What would confederations of syndicates do? </h2>
<p>
Voluntary confederation among syndicates is required in order to decide 
on the policies governing relations between syndicates and to coordinate
their activities. There are two basic kinds of confederation: within all
workplaces of a certain type, and within the whole economy (the federation
of all syndicates). Both would operate at different levels, meaning there
would be confederations for both industrial and inter-industrial 
associations at the local and regional levels and beyond. The basic aim
of this inter-industry and cross-industry networking is to ensure that
the relevant information is spread across the various elemental parts of
the economy so that each can effectively coordinate its plans with the
others. By communicating across workplaces, people can overcome the
barriers to coordinating their plans which one finds in market systems
(see <a HREF ="secC7.html#secc71">section C.7.1</a>) and so avoid the economic and social disruptions
associated with capitalism.
<p>
However, it is essential to remember that each syndicate within the 
confederation is autonomous. The confederations seek to coordinate
activities of joint interest (in particular investment decisions for new
plant and the rationalisation of existing plant in light of reduced
demand). They do not determine what work a syndicate does or how they do
it. As Kropotkin argues (based on his firsthand experience of Russia under
Lenin), <I>"[n]o government would be able to organize production if the
workers themselves through their unions did not do it in each branch of
industry; for in all production there arise daily thousands of
difficulties which no government can solve or foresee. It is certainly
impossible to foresee everything. Only the efforts of thousands of
intelligences working on the problems can cooperate in the development of
a new social system and find the best solutions for the thousands of
local needs."</I> [<B>Revolutionary Pamphlets</B>, pp. 76-77] 
<p>
Thus Coles statement:
<p>
<i>"With the factory thus largely conducting its own concerns, the duties of
the larger Guild organisations [i.e confederations] would be mainly those 
of coordination, or regulation, and of representing the Guild in its 
external relations. They would, where it was necessary, co-ordinate 
the production of various factories, so as to make supply coincide 
with demand. . . they would organise research . . . This large Guild 
organisation. . . must be based directly on the various factories 
included in the Guild."</i> [<b>Guild Socialism Restated</b>, pp. 59-60]
<p>
So it is important to note that the lowest units of confederation -- the
workers' councils -- will control the higher levels, through their power 
to elect mandated and recallable delegates to meetings of higher
confederal units. "Mandated" means that the delegates will go to the
meeting of the higher confederal body with specific instructions on how
to vote on a particular issue, and if they do not vote according to that
mandate they will be recalled and the results of the vote nullified.
Delegates will be ordinary workers rather than paid representatives or
union leaders, and they will return to their usual jobs as soon as the
mandate for which they have been elected has been carried out. In this
way, decision-making power remains with the workers' councils and does not
become concentrated at the top of a bureaucratic hierarchy in an elite
class of professional administrators or union leaders. For the workers'
councils will have the final say on <B>all</B> policy decisions, being able to
revoke policies made by those with delegated decision-making power and to
recall those who made them:
<p>
<i>"When it comes to the material and technical method of production, anarchists
have no preconceived solutions or absolute prescriptions, and bow to what
experience and conditions in a free society recommend and prescribe. What
matters is that, whatever the type of production adopted, it should be the
free choice of the producers themselves, and cannot possibly be imposed,
any more than any form is possible of exploitations of another's labour
. . . Anarchists do not *a priori* exclude any practical solution and 
likewise concede that there may be a number of different solutions at 
different times. . ."</i> [Luigi Fabbri, <i>"Anarchy and 'Scientific 
Communism"</i>, pp. 13-49, <b>The Poverty of Statism</b>, 
Albert Meltzer (ed), p. 22]
<p>
Confederations (negotiated-coordination bodies) would, therefore, be
responsible for clearly defined branches of production, and in general,
production units would operate in only one branch of production. These
confederations would have direct links to other confederations and the
relevant communal confederations, which supply the syndicates with
guidelines for decision making (as will be discussed in <a HREF="secI4.html#seci44">section I.4.4</a>) 
and ensure that common problems can be highlighted and discussed. These 
confederations exist to ensure that information is spread between
workplaces and to ensure that the industry responds to changes in social
demand. In other words, these confederations exist to coordinate new 
investment decisions (i.e. if demand exceeds supply) and to determine how 
to respond if there is excess capacity (i.e. if supply exceeds demand). 
<p>
In this way, the periodic crises of capitalism based on over-investment
and over-production (followed by depression) and their resulting social
problems can be avoided and resources efficiently and effectively
utilised. In addition, production (and so the producers) can be freed
from the centralised control of both capitalist and state hierarchies.
<p>
However, it could again be argued that these confederations are still
centralised and that workers would still be following orders coming from
above. This is incorrect, for any decisions concerning an industry or plant
are under the direct control of those involved. For example, the steel
industry confederation may decide to rationalise itself at one of its
congresses. Murray Bookchin sketches the response to this situation as
follows: <I>"[L]et us suppose that a board of highly qualified technicians is
established [by this congress] to propose changes in the steel industry. 
This board. . . advances proposals to rationalise the industry by closing
down some plants and expanding the operation of others. . . . Is this a
'centralised' body or not? The answer is both yes and no. Yes, only in the
sense that the board is dealing with problems that concern the country as
a whole; no, because it can make no decision that <B>must</B> be executed for
the country as a whole. The board's plan must be examined by all the
workers in the plants [that are affected]. . . . The board itself has no
power to enforce 'decisions'; it merely makes recommendations.
Additionally, its personnel are controlled by the plant in which they work
and the locality in which they live"</I> [<B>Post Scarcity Anarchism</B>, p. 267]. 
<p>
Therefore, confederations would not be in positions of power over the 
individual syndicates. As Bookchin points out, <I>"They would have no 
decision-making powers. The adoption, modification or rejection of their 
plans would rest entirely with the communities involved."</I> [<B>Op. Cit.</B>, p.
267]. No attempt is made to determine which plants produce which steel
for which customers in which manner. Thus, the confederations of
syndicates ensure a decentralised, spontaneous economic order without the
negative side-effects of capitalism (namely power concentrations within
firms and in the market, periodic crises, etc.).
<p>
As one can imagine, an essential feature of these confederations will be 
the collection and processing of information in order to determine how an 
industry is developing. This does not imply bureaucracy or centralised 
control at the top. Taking the issue of centralisation first, the 
confederation is run by delegate assemblies, meaning that any officers 
elected at a congress only implement the decisions made by the delegates
of the relevant syndicates. It is in the congresses and plenums of the
confederation that new investment decisions, for example, are made. The
key point to remember is that the confederation exists purely to
coordinate joint activity and share information, it does not take an
interest in how a workplace is run or what orders from consumers it fills.
(Of course, if a given workplace introduces policies which other
syndicates disapprove of, it can be expelled). As the delegates to these
congresses and plenums are mandated and their decisions subject to
rejection and modification by each productive unit, the confederation is 
not centralised. 
<p>
As far as bureaucracy goes, the collecting and processing of information
does necessitate an administrative staff to do the work. However, this 
problem affects capitalist firms as well; and since syndicates are based
on bottom-up decision making, its clear that, unlike a centralised
capitalist corporation, administration would be smaller. 
<p>
In fact, it is likely that a fixed administration staff for the confederation 
would not exist in the first place! At the regular congresses, a particular 
syndicate may be selected to do the confederation's information processing, 
with this job being rotated regularly around different syndicates. In this 
way, a specific administrative body and equipment can be avoided and the 
task of collating information placed directly in the hands of ordinary 
workers. Further, it prevents the development of a bureaucratic elite by 
ensuring that <B>all</B> participants are versed in information-processing 
procedures.
<p>
Lastly, what information would be collected? That depends on the context.
Individual syndicates would record inputs and outputs, producing summary
sheets of information. For example, total energy input, in kilowatts and
by type, raw material inputs, labour hours spent, orders received, orders
accepted, output, and so forth. This information can be processed into
energy use and labour time per product (for example), in order to give an 
idea of how efficient production is and how it is changing over time. For
confederations, the output of individual syndicates can be aggregated and
local and other averages can be calculated. In addition, changes in demand
can be identified by this aggregation process and used to identify when 
investment will be needed or plants closed down. In this way the chronic
slumps and booms of capitalism can be avoided without creating a system
which is even more centralised than capitalism.
<p>
<a name="seci36"><h2>I.3.6 What about competition between syndicates? </h2>
<p>
This is a common question, particularly from defenders of capitalism.
They argue that syndicates will not cooperate together unless forced to
do so, but will compete against each other for raw materials, skilled
workers, and so on. The result of this process, it is claimed, will be
rich and poor syndicates, inequality within society and within the
workplace, and (possibly) a class of unemployed workers from unsuccessful
syndicates who are hired by successful ones. In other words, they argue
that libertarian socialism will need to become authoritarian to prevent
competition, and that if it does not do so or will become capitalist very
quickly.
<p>
For individualist anarchists and mutualists, competition is not viewed as
a problem. They think that competition, based around cooperatives and
mutual banks, would minimise economic inequality, as the credit structure
would eliminate unearned income such as profit, interest and rent and give
workers enough bargaining power to eliminate exploitation. Other
anarchists think that whatever gains might accrue from competition would
be more than offset by its negative effects, which are outlined in <a HREF= "secI1.html#seci13">section
I.1.3</a>. It is to these anarchists that the question is usually asked.
<p>
Before continuing, we would like to point out that individuals trying to
improve their lot in life is not against anarchist principles. How could
it be? What <B>is</B> against anarchist principles is centralized power,
oppression, and exploitation, all of which flow from large inequalities
of income. This is the source of anarchist concern about equality --
concern that is not based on some sort of "politics of envy." Anarchists
oppose inequality because it soon leads to the few oppressing the many (a 
relationship which distorts the individuality and liberty of all involved
as well as the health and very lives of the oppressed). 
<p>
Anarchists desire to create a society in which such relationships are 
impossible, believing that the most effective way to do this is by 
empowering all, by creating an egoistic concern for liberty and equality 
among the oppressed, and by developing social organisations which encourage 
self-management. As for individuals' trying to improve their lot, anarchists 
maintain that cooperation is the best means to do so, <B>not</B> competition. 
<p>
Robert Axelrod, in his book, <B>The Evolution of Cooperation</B> agrees and 
presents abundant evidence that cooperation is in our long term interests
(i.e. it provides better results than short term competition). This suggests 
that, as Kropotkin argued, mutual aid, not mutual struggle, will be in an 
individual's self-interest and so competition in a free, sane, society would 
be minimalised and reduced to sports and other individual past-times.
<p>
Now to the "competition" objection, which we'll begin to answer by noting
that it ignores a few key points. Firstly, the assumption that
libertarian socialism would "become capitalist" in the absence of a
<B>state</B> is obviously false. If competition did occur between collectives
and did lead to massive wealth inequalities, then the newly rich would
have to create a state to protect their private property (means of
production) against the dispossessed. 
<p>
Secondly, as noted in <a HREF="secA2.html#seca25">section A.2.5</a>, anarchists do not consider <i>"equal"</i> 
to mean <i>"identical."</i> Therefore, to claim that wage differences mean
inequality makes sense only if one thinks that "equality" means everyone
getting <B>exactly</B> equal shares. As anarchists do not hold such an idea,
wage differences in an otherwise anarchistically organised syndicate do
not indicate a lack of equality. How the syndicate is <B>run</B> is of far
more importance, because the most pernicious type of inequality from the
anarchist standpoint is inequality of <B>power</B>, i.e. unequal influence on
political and economic decision making. 
<p>
Under capitalism, wealth inequality translates into such an inequality of
power, and vice versa, because wealth can buy private property (and state
protection of it), which gives owners authority over that property and those 
hired to produce with it; but under libertarian socialism, minor or even 
moderate differences in income among otherwise equal workers would not lead 
to this kind of power inequality, because direct democracy, social ownership 
of capital, and the absence of a state severs the link between wealth and
power (see further below). 
<p>
Thirdly, anarchists do not pretend that an anarchist society will be
"perfect." Hence there may be periods, particularly just after capitalism
has been replaced by self-management, when differences in skill, etc.,
leads to a few people exploiting their fellow workers and getting more
wages, better hours and conditions, and so forth. This problem existed in
the industrial collectives in the Spanish Revolution. As Kropotkin
pointed out, <I>"But, when all is said and done, some inequalities, some
inevitable injustice, undoubtedly will remain. There are individuals in
our societies whom no great crisis can lift out of the deep mire of egoism
in which they are sunk. The question, however, is not whether there will
be injustices or no, but rather how to limit the number of them."</I> [<B>The
Conquest of Bread</B>, p. 110] 
<p>
In other words, these problems will exist, but there are a number of
things that anarchists can do to minimise their impact. Primarily there
must be a "gestation period" before the birth of an anarchist society, in
which social struggle, new forms of education and child-rearing, and other
methods of consciousness-raising increase the number of anarchists and
decrease the number of authoritarians. 
<p>
The most important element in this gestation period is social struggle. 
Such self-activity will have a major impact on those involved in it
(see <a HREF="secJ2.html">section J.2</a>). By direct action and solidarity, those involved develop 
bounds of friendship and support with others, develop new forms of ethics 
and new ideas and ideal. This radicalisation process will help to ensure that 
any differences in education and skill do not develop into differences in 
power in an anarchist society. 
<p>
In addition, education within the anarchist movement should aim, among other 
things, to give its members familiarity with technological skills so that they 
are not dependent on "experts" and can thus increase the pool of skilled 
workers who will be happy working in conditions of liberty and equality. 
This will ensure that differentials between workers can be minimised. 
<p>
In the long run, however, popularisation of non-authoritarian methods of child-rearing and education are particularly important, because as we have 
seen, secondary drives such as greed and the desire the exercise power over 
others are products of authoritarian upbringing based on punishments and fear 
(See sections B.1.5, <a HREF="secB1.html#secb15">"What is the mass-psychological basis for authoritarian 
civilization?"</a> and J.6, <a HREF="secJ6.html">"What methods of child rearing do anarchists 
advocate?"</a>). Only if the prevalence of such drives is reduced among the 
general population can we be sure that an anarchist revolution will not 
degenerate into some new form of domination and exploitation. 
<p>
However, there are other reasons why economic inequality -- say, in
differences of income levels or working conditions, which may arise from
competition for "better" workers -- would be far less severe under any form 
of anarchist society than it is under capitalism. Firstly, the syndicates
would be democratically managed. This would result in much smaller wage
differentials, because there is no board of wealthy directors setting
wage levels for their own gain and who think nothing of hierarchy and 
having elites. The decentralisation of power in an anarchist society will 
ensure that there would no longer be wealthy elites paying each other vast amounts of money. This can be seen from the experience of the Mondragon 
cooperatives, where the wage difference between the highest paid and lowest 
paid worker was 4 to 1. This was only increased recently when they had to 
compete with large capitalist companies, and even then the new ratio of 9 
to 1 is <B>far</B> smaller than those in American or British companies (in 
America, for example, the ratio is even as high at 200 to 1 and beyond!).
<p>
It is a common myth that managers, executives and so on are "rugged 
individuals" and are paid so highly because of their unique abilities. 
Actually, they are so highly paid because they are bureaucrats in command 
of large hierarchical institutions.  It is the hierarchical nature of the 
capitalist firm that ensures inequality, <B>not</B> exceptional skills. Even 
euthusiastic supporters of capitalism provide evidence to support this claim. 
Peter Drucker (in <B>Concept of the Corporation</B>) brushed away the claim that 
corporate organisation bringsmanagers with exceptional ability to the top 
when he noted that <I>"[n]o institition can possibly survive if it needs geniuses 
or supermen to manage it. It must be organised in such a way as to be able to 
get along under a leadership of average human beings."</I> [p. 35] For Drucker, 
<I>"the things that really count are not the individual members but the relations 
of command and responsibility among them."</I> [p. 34] 
<p>
Anarchists argue that high wage differences are the result of how capitalism 
is organised and that capitalist economics exists to justify these results by 
assuming company hierarchy and capitalist ownership evolved naturally (as
opposed to being created by state action and protection). The end of
capitalist hierarchy would also see the end of vast differences of income
because decision making power would be decentralised back into the hands of 
those affected by those decisions. 
<p>
Secondly, corporations would not exist. A network of workplaces coordinated 
by confederal committees would not have the resources available to pay 
exhorbitant wages. Unlike a capitalist company, power is decentralised in
a confederation of syndicates and wealth does not flow to the top. This
means that there is no elite of executives who control the surplus made
from the company's workers and can use that surplus to pay themselves
high wages while ensuring that the major shareholders receive high enough
dividends not to question their activities (or their pay). 
<p>
Thirdly, management positions would be rotated, ensuring that everyone gets experience of the work, thus reducing the artificial scarcity created by the 
division of labour. Also, education would be extensive, ensuring that 
engineers, doctors, and other skilled workers would do the work because 
they <B>enjoyed</B> doing it and not for financial reward. And lastly, we should 
like to point out that people work for many reasons, not just for high wages. 
Feelings of solidarity, empathy, friendship with their fellow workers would 
also help reduce competition between syndicates for workers. Of course, having 
no means of unearned income (such as rent and interest), social anarchism
will reduce income differentials even more.
<p>
Of course, the "competition" objection assumes that syndicates and members
of syndicates will place financial considerations above all else. This is
not the case, and few individuals are the economic robots assumed in
capitalist dogma. Since syndicates are <B>not</B> competing for market share,
it is likely that new techniques would be shared between workplaces and
skilled workers might decide to rotate their work between syndicates in
order to maximise their working time until such time as the general skill
level in society increases. 
<p>
So, while recognising that competition for skilled workers could exist, 
anarchists think there are plenty of reasons not to worry about massive
economic inequality being created, which in turn would re-create the
state. The apologists for capitalism who put forward this argument forget
that the pursuit of self-interest is universal, meaning that everyone
would be interesting in maximising his or her liberty, and so would be
unlikely to allow inequalities to develop which threatened that liberty. 
<p>
As for competition for scarce resources, its clear that it would in the
interests of communes and syndicates which have them to share them with
others instead of charging high prices for them. This is for two reasons. 
Firstly, they may find themselves boycotted by others, and so they would be
denied the advantages of social cooperation. Secondly, they may be subject
to such activities themselves at a future date and so it would wise for
them to remember to <I>"treat others as you would like them to treat you 
under similar circumstances."</I> As anarchism will never come about unless
people desire it and start to organise their own lives, it's clear that 
an anarchist society would be inhabited by individuals who followed
that ethical principle. 
<p>
It is doubtful that people inspired by anarchist ideas would start to
charge each other high prices, particularly since the syndicates and
community assemblies are likely to vote for a wide basis of surplus
distribution, precisely to avoid this problem and to ensure that
production will be for use rather than profit (see section I.4.9, <a HREF=
"secI4.html#seci49">"What
would be the advantage of a wide basis of surplus distribution?"</a>). In
addition, as other communities and syndicates would likely boycott any
syndicate or commune that was acting in non-cooperative ways, it is
likely that social pressure would soon result in those willing to exploit
others rethinking their position. Cooperation does not imply a willingness
to tolerate with those who desire to take advantage of you.
<p>
Examples of anarchism in action show that there is frequently a
spontaneous tendency towards charging cost prices for goods, as well as
attempts to work together to reduce the dangers of isolation and
competition. One thing to remember is that anarchy will not be created
"overnight," and so potential problems will be worked out over time.
Underlying all these kinds of objections is the assumption that 
cooperation will <B>not</B> be more beneficial to all involved than
competition. However, in terms of quality of life, cooperation will soon
be seen to be the better system, even by the most highly paid workers.
There is far more to life than the size of one's pay packet, and anarchism
exists in order to ensure that life is far more than the weekly grind of
boring work and the few hours of hectic consumption in which people
attempt to fill the "spiritual hole" created by a way of life which places
profits above people.
<p>
<a name="seci37"><h2>I.3.7 What about people who do not want to join a syndicate? </h2>
<p>
In this case, they are free to work alone, by their own labour. Anarchists
have no desire to force people to join a syndicate, for as Malatesta
argued, <I>"what has to be destroyed at once. . . is <B>capitalistic property</B>,
that is, the fact that a few control the natural wealth and the instruments 
of production and can thus oblige others to work for them . . . [but one 
must have a] right and the possibility to live in a different regime, 
collectivist, mutualist, individualist -- as one wishes, always on the 
condition that there is no oppression or exploitation of others."</I> 
[<B>Malatesta: Life and Ideas</B>, p. 102]
<p>
In other words, different forms of social life will be experimented with,
depending on what people desire. Of course some people (particularly
right-wing "libertarians") ask how anarchists can reconcile individual
freedom with expropriation of capital. All we can say is that these
critics subscribe to the idea that one should not interfere with the
"individual freedom" of those in positions of authority to oppress others,
and that this premise turns the concept of individual freedom on its head,
making oppression a "right!"
<p>
However, right-wing "libertarians" do raise a valid question when they ask
if anarchism would result in self-employed people being forced into
cooperatives as the result of a popular movement. The answer is no,
because the destruction of title deeds would not harm the independent
worker, whose real title is possession and the work done. What anarchists
want to eliminate is not possessions but capitalist "property" -- namely
<I>"the destruction of the titles of the proprietors who exploit the labour
of others and, above all, of expropriating them in fact in order to put 
. . . all the means of production at the disposal of those who do the work."</I>
[<B>Op. Cit.</B>, p. 103]
<p>
This means that independent producers will still exist within an anarchist
society, and some workplaces -- perhaps whole areas -- will not be part of
a confederation. This is natural in a free society, for different people
have different ideas and ideals. Of course, some people may desire to
become capitalists, and they may offer to employ people and pay them wages.
However, such a situation would be unlikely. Simply put, why would anyone
desire to work for the would-be employer? Malatesta makes this point as
follows: 
<p>
<I>"It remains to be seen whether not being able to obtain assistance or
people to exploit -- and he [the would-be capitalist] 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 -- . . . it
remains to be seen whether these isolated workers would not find it more
convenient to combine with others and voluntarily join one of the existing
communities"</I> [<B>Op. Cit.</B>, p. 102-103].
<p>
So where would the capitalist wannabe find people to work for him? 
<p>
However, let us suppose there is a self-employed inventor, Ferguson, who
comes up with a new innovation without the help of the cooperative sector.
Would anarchists steal his idea? Not at all. The cooperatives, which by
hypothesis have been organized 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.
<p>
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 cooperative sector
and would not be in a position to exploit others' labour.
<p>
With a system of communal production (in social anarchism) and mutual
banks (in individualist anarchism), <i>"usury"</I> -- i.e. charging a use-fee for
a monopolized 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 Ben 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>, p. 150-1].
<p>
In other words, with the end of capitalism and statism, a free society has
no fear of capitalist firms being created or growing again, because it
rejects the idea that everyone must be in a syndicate. Without statism to
back up various class-based monopolies of capitalist privilege, capitalism
could not become dominant. In addition, the advantages of cooperation
between syndicates would exceed whatever temporary advantages existed for
syndicates to practice commodity exchange in a mutualist market.
<p>

</BODY>
</HTML>