File: secI4.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 (2080 lines) | stat: -rw-r--r-- 133,714 bytes parent folder | download
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
1361
1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384
1385
1386
1387
1388
1389
1390
1391
1392
1393
1394
1395
1396
1397
1398
1399
1400
1401
1402
1403
1404
1405
1406
1407
1408
1409
1410
1411
1412
1413
1414
1415
1416
1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
1422
1423
1424
1425
1426
1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437
1438
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
1465
1466
1467
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477
1478
1479
1480
1481
1482
1483
1484
1485
1486
1487
1488
1489
1490
1491
1492
1493
1494
1495
1496
1497
1498
1499
1500
1501
1502
1503
1504
1505
1506
1507
1508
1509
1510
1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517
1518
1519
1520
1521
1522
1523
1524
1525
1526
1527
1528
1529
1530
1531
1532
1533
1534
1535
1536
1537
1538
1539
1540
1541
1542
1543
1544
1545
1546
1547
1548
1549
1550
1551
1552
1553
1554
1555
1556
1557
1558
1559
1560
1561
1562
1563
1564
1565
1566
1567
1568
1569
1570
1571
1572
1573
1574
1575
1576
1577
1578
1579
1580
1581
1582
1583
1584
1585
1586
1587
1588
1589
1590
1591
1592
1593
1594
1595
1596
1597
1598
1599
1600
1601
1602
1603
1604
1605
1606
1607
1608
1609
1610
1611
1612
1613
1614
1615
1616
1617
1618
1619
1620
1621
1622
1623
1624
1625
1626
1627
1628
1629
1630
1631
1632
1633
1634
1635
1636
1637
1638
1639
1640
1641
1642
1643
1644
1645
1646
1647
1648
1649
1650
1651
1652
1653
1654
1655
1656
1657
1658
1659
1660
1661
1662
1663
1664
1665
1666
1667
1668
1669
1670
1671
1672
1673
1674
1675
1676
1677
1678
1679
1680
1681
1682
1683
1684
1685
1686
1687
1688
1689
1690
1691
1692
1693
1694
1695
1696
1697
1698
1699
1700
1701
1702
1703
1704
1705
1706
1707
1708
1709
1710
1711
1712
1713
1714
1715
1716
1717
1718
1719
1720
1721
1722
1723
1724
1725
1726
1727
1728
1729
1730
1731
1732
1733
1734
1735
1736
1737
1738
1739
1740
1741
1742
1743
1744
1745
1746
1747
1748
1749
1750
1751
1752
1753
1754
1755
1756
1757
1758
1759
1760
1761
1762
1763
1764
1765
1766
1767
1768
1769
1770
1771
1772
1773
1774
1775
1776
1777
1778
1779
1780
1781
1782
1783
1784
1785
1786
1787
1788
1789
1790
1791
1792
1793
1794
1795
1796
1797
1798
1799
1800
1801
1802
1803
1804
1805
1806
1807
1808
1809
1810
1811
1812
1813
1814
1815
1816
1817
1818
1819
1820
1821
1822
1823
1824
1825
1826
1827
1828
1829
1830
1831
1832
1833
1834
1835
1836
1837
1838
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
1844
1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850
1851
1852
1853
1854
1855
1856
1857
1858
1859
1860
1861
1862
1863
1864
1865
1866
1867
1868
1869
1870
1871
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
2072
2073
2074
2075
2076
2077
2078
2079
2080
<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 making
blue-prints 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>
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, <i>"[c]ommon to all Anarchists is the desire to free society of
all political and social coercive institutions which stand in the way of
the 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 assumptions as to the means of safeguarding a free
community. There will even probably be in the society of the future different
forms of economic cooperation existing side-by-side, since any social
progress must be associated with that free experimentation and practical
testing-out for which in a society of free communities there will be
afforded every opportunity."</i> [<b>Anarcho-Syndicalism</b>, p.16]
<p>
So, given the common aims of anarchists, its unsurprising that the economic
systems they suggest will have common features. For all anarchists, a 
<i>"voluntary association that will organise labour, and be the manufacturer and 
distributor of necessary commodities... <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>, page 25] Or, to bring this ideal up to day, as Chomsky 
put it, <i>"[t]he task for a modern industrial society is to achieve what is 
now technically realizable, 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>
<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 cooperation between equals, for while competition may 
be the "law" of the jungle, cooperation is the law of civilisation.
<p>
This cooperation is <b>not</b> based on "altruism," but self-interest As Proudhon 
argued, <i>"Mutuality, reciprocity exists when all the workers in an industry 
instead of working for an entrepreneur who pays them and keeps their products, 
work for one another and thus collaborate in the making of a common product 
whose profits they share amongst themselves. Extend the principle of reciprocity
as uniting the work of every group, to the Workers' Societies as units, and 
you have created a form of civilisation which from all points of view - 
political, economic and aesthetic - is radically different from all earlier 
civilisations."</i> [quoted by Martin Buber, <b>Paths in Utopia</b>, page 29-30]
In other words, solidarity and cooperation allows us time to enjoy life
and to gain the benefits of our labour ourselves - Mutual Aid 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>
Combined with this desire for free cooperation, is a desire to end centralised
systems. The opposition to centralisation is often framed in a distinctly
false manner. This can be seen when Alex Nove, a leading market socialist, 
argues that <i>"there are horizontal links (market), there are vertical links 
(hierarchy). What other dimension is there?"</i> [Alex Nove, <b>The Economics of 
Feasible Socialism</b>, p. 226] In other words, Nove states that to oppose
central planning means to embrace the market. This, however, is not true.
Horizontal links need not be market based any more than vertical links need
be hierarchical. But the core point in his argument is very true, an 
anarchist society must be based essentially on horizontal links between
individuals and associations, freely cooperating together as they (not a
central body) sees fit. This cooperation will be source of any "vertical" 
links in an anarchist economy. When a group of individuals or associations
meet together and discuss common interests and make common decisions they
will be bound by their own decisions. This is radically different from a
a central body giving out orders because those affected will determine
the content of these decisions. In other words, instead of decisions being
handed down from the top, they will be created from the bottom up. 
<p>
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. Bare in mind that this is just
a possible framework for a system which has few historical examples to draw
upon as evidence. This means that we can only indicate the general outlines 
of what an anarchist society could be like. Those seeking "recipes" 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. Lastly 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" capitalism with any system is a pointless task. 
<p>
<a name="seci41"><h2>I.4.1 What is the point of economic activity in anarchy?
</h2>
<p>
The basic point of economic activity is an anarchist society is to ensure
that we produce what we desire to consume and that our consumption is 
under our own control and not vice versa. The second point may seem strange,
how can consumption control us for we consume what we desire and no one
forces us to do so. However, this is not quite true under a capitalist
economy. Capitalism, in order to survive, <b>must</b> expand, <b>must</b> create more
and more profits. This leads to irrational side effects, for example, the
advertising industry. While it does without saying that producers need to
let consumers know what is available for consumption, capitalism ensures
advertising goes beyond this by creating needs that did not exist.
<p>
Therefore, 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.  For anarchists, <i>"Real wealth
consists of things of utility and beauty, in things that help create strong,
beautiful bodies and surroundings inspiring to live in."</i> [Emma Goldman, 
<b>Red Emma Speaks</b>, p. 53]
<p>
This means that, in an anarchist society, economic activity is the process by 
which we produce what is both useful <b>and</b> beautiful in a way that empowers
the individual. As Oscar Wilde put it, individuals will produce what is
beautiful, based upon the <i>"study of the needs of mankind, and the means of 
satisfying them with the least possible waste of human energy"</i> [Peter 
Kropotkin, <b>The Conquest of Bread</b>, p. 175] This means that anarchist 
economic ideas are the same as what Political Economy should be, not what 
it actually is, namely the <i>"essential basis of all Political Economy, [is] 
the study of the most favourable conditions for giving society the greatest 
amount of useful products with the least waste of human energy"</i> and, we may 
add today, the least disruption of nature then capitalism is condemned. [<b>The 
Conquest of Bread</b>, p. 144] The anarchists charge capitalism with wasting 
human energy due to its irrational nature and workings, energy that could be
spent creating what is beautiful. 
<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 (or to <i>"create what is 
beautiful"</i>). 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. They share this desire with the classical Liberals
and agree totally with Humbolt's statement that <i>"the end of man  . . . is 
the highest and most harmonious development of his powers to a complete 
and consistent whole."</i> [cited by J.S. Mill in <b>On Liberty</b>, chapter III] 
<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>
[<b>The Political Economy of Participatory Economics</b>, p.9] 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 Hehnel 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>Op. Cit.</b>, p.9]
<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>
In a nutshell, 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>
<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" is one of the major
dangers to freedom we face. 
<p>
If by freedom we mean self-government, then its 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 practiced continually in order to remain at their full potential.
However, as well as hierarchy, the workplace environment created by these
power structures also helps to undermine these abilities. This was
recognised by Adam Smith:
<p>
<i>"The 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> [Adam Smith, quoted by Noam Chomsky, <b>Year 501</b>, p. 18] 
<p>
Smith's argument (usually ignored by those who claim to follow his ideas) 
is backed up by extensive evidence. The different types of authority
structures and different technologies have different effects on those who
work within them. Carole Pateman (in <b>Participation and Democratic Theory</b>)
notes that the evidence suggests that <i>"[o]nly certain work situations were
found to be conductive to the development of the psychological characteristics
[suitable for freedom, such as] . . . the feelings of personal confidence
and efficacy that underlay the sense of political efficacy."</i> [p. 51] Within
capitalist companies based upon highly rationalised work environment,
extensive division of labour and <i>"no control over the pace or technique
of his [or her] work, no room to exercise skill or leadership"</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
p.51] workers, 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> [p. 52] 
<p>
However, in workplaces where <i>"the worker has a high degree of personal
control over his work . . . and a very large degree of freedom from 
external control . . .[or has] collective responsibility of a crew of
employees . . .[who] had control over the pace and method of getting
the work done, and the work crews were largely internally self-disciplining"</i>
[p. 52] a different social character is seen. This was characterised by
<i>"a strong sense of individualism and autonomy, and a solid acceptance
of citizenship in the large society . . .[and] 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>
[p. 52]
<p>
She notes that R. Blauner (in <b>Alienation and Freedom</b>) states that 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>
[cited by Pateman, p. 52] As Bob Black argues:
<p>
<i>"You are what you do. If you do boring, stupid, monotonous work, chances 
are you'll end up boring, stupid, and monotonous. Work is a much better
explanation for the creeping cretinization all around us than even such
significant moronizing mechanisms as television and education. People who
are regimented all their lives, handed to work from school and bracketed by
the family in the beginning and the nursing home in the end, are habituated
to hierarchy and psychologically enslaved. Their aptitude for autonomy is so
atrophied that their fear of freedom is among their few rationally grounded
phobias. Their obedience training at work carries over into the families
they start, thus reproducing the system in more ways than one, and into
politics, culture and everything else. Once you drain the vitality from
people at work, they'll likely submit to hierarchy and expertise in
everything. They're used to it."</i> [<b>The Abolition of Work</b>]
<p>
For this reason anarchists desire, to use Bob Black's phrase, <i><b>"the
abolition of work."</i></b> "Work," in this context, does not mean any form of
productive activity. Far from it. "Work" (in the sense of doing necessary
things) will always be with us. There is no getting away from it, crops
need to be grow, schools built, houses 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>
A society based upon wage labour (i.e. a capitalist society) 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 to workers.  Capitalism is marked 
by an extreme division of labour, particularly between mental labour 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>
Capitalism bases its rationale for itself on consumption. However, 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
sg]hows the poverty of that system. As Alexander Berkman argues:
<p>
<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>ABC of Anarchism</b>, p. 15] 
<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 of religions, as individuals try to find meaning for
their lives and happiness, a meaning and happiness frustrated in wage
labour and hierarchy. 
<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] In 
other words, any system based in wage labour or hierarchical relationships in 
the workplace will result in a deadening of the individual and the creation 
of a "servile" character. This crushing of individuality springs <b>directly</b> 
from what Godwin called <i>"the third degree of property"</i> namely <i>"a system. . .
by which one man enters into the faculty of disposing of the produce of 
another man's industry"</i> in other words, capitalism. [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 129]
<p>
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>
<i>"Anarchism aims to strip labor of its deadening, dulling aspect, of its gloom 
and compulsion. It aims to make work an instrument of joy, of strength, of 
color, of real harmony, so that the poorest sort of a man should find in 
work both recreation and hope."</i>
<p>
Anarchists do not think that by getting rid of work we will not have to 
produce necessary goods and so on. 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 generalized joy and freely interdependent exuberance. Play isn't passive."</i>
[Bob Black, <b>Op. Cit.</b>]
<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 that a <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 empty time - so that they may fill it at will with 
'poetry' or the craving 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> [<b>Workers' Councils and the Economics of a Self-Managed Society</b>,
p. 14] Essentially, <i>"the problem is to put poetry into work."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
p. 15]
<p>
This is why anarchists desire to abolish "work" (i.e. wage labour), to ensure 
that whatever work (i.e. economic activity) is required to be done is
under the direct control of those who do it. In this way it can be liberated 
and so become a means of self-realization and not a form of self-negation.
In other words, anarchists want to abolish work because <i>"Life, the art of
living, has become a dull formula, flat and inert."</i> [A. Berkman, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
p. 27] Anarchists want to bring the spontaneity and joy of life back into
productive activity and save humanity from the dead hand of capital. 
<p>
All this does not imply that anarchists do 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. This 
"division of work" is common in humanity and can be seen under capitalism -
most children and teenagers pick a specific line of work because they are
interested, or at least desire to do a specific kind of work. This natural
desire to do what interests you and what you are good at will encouraged
in an anarchist society. The difference is that individuals will manage
all aspects of the "work" required (for example, engineers will also take
part in self-managing their workplaces) and the strict division of labour
of capitalism will be abolished (see section <a HREF="secI4.html#seci43">I.4.3</a>). In other words, 
anarchists want to replace the division of labour by the division of work.
<p>
<a name="seci43"><h2>I.4.3 How do anarchists intent to abolish work?</h2>
<p>
Basically by workers' self-management of production and community control 
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 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. 40]
<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>
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 Ted Trainer argues:
 <p>
<i>"Two figures drive the point home. In the long term, productivity (i.e. 
output per hour of work) increases at about 2 percent per annum, meaning 
that each 35 years we could cut the work week by half while producing as 
much as we were at the beginning. A number of OECD. . . countries could 
actually have cut from a five-day work week to around a one-day work 
week in the last 25 years while maintaining their output at the same 
level. In this economy we must therefore double the annual amount we 
consume per person every 35 years just to prevent unemployment from 
rising and to avoid reduction in outlets available to OASK up investable 
capital.
<p>
"Second, according to the US Bureau for Mines, the amount of capital per
person available for investment in the United States will increase at 3.6 
percent per annum (i.e. will double in 20-year intervals). This indicates 
that unless Americans double the volume of goods and services they consume
every 20 years, their economy will be in serious difficulties" 
<p>
"Hence the ceaseless and increasing pressure to find more business 
opportunities"</i> [<i>"What is Development"</i>, p 57-90, <b>Society and Nature</b>, 
Issue No. 7, p.49]
<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, and so on. In addition, it does not
take into account the labour of those who do not actually produce
anything useful and so the level of production for useful goods would
be higher than Trainer indicates. In addition, 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.
<p>
The decentralisation of power will ensure that self-management becomes 
universal. This 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> [Peter
Kropotkin, <b>The Conquest of Bread</b>, p. 148] both inside and outside "work."
<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 section 
<a HREF="secI4.html#seci414">I.4.14</a> - What will the workplace of tomorrow be like?). This will
obviously apply to work conducted in the home as well, otherwise the <i>"half
of humanity subjected to the slavery of the hearth would still have to
rebel against the other half."</i> [Peter Kropotkin, <b>The Conquest of Bread</b>]
<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>  - the transformation of what economists call
production into productive play. [Bob Black, <b>Smokestack Lightning</b>]
<p>
In addition, a decentralised system will build up a sense of community and
trust between individuals and ensure the creation of an ethical economy, one
based on interactions between individuals and not commodities caught in the
flux of market forces. This ideal of a <i><b>"moral economy"</i></b> can be seen in both
social anarchists desire for the end of the market system and the 
individualists insistence that <b><i>"cost be the limit of price."</i></b> Anarchists
recognise that the <i>"traditional local market. . .is essentially different 
from the market as it developed in modern capitalism. Bartering on a local
market offered an opportunity to meet for the purpose of exchanging
commodities. Producers and customers became acquainted; they were relatively
small groups. . .The modern market is no longer a meeting place but a
mechanism characterized by abstract and impersonal demand. One produces
for this market, not for a known circle of customers; its verdict is based
on laws of supply and demand."</i> [<b>Man for Himself</b>, pp. 67-68]
<p>
Anarchists reject the capitalist notion that economic activity should be based 
on maximising profit as the be all and end all of such work (buying and
selling on the "impersonal market"). As markets only work through people, 
individuals, who buy and sell (but, in the end, control them - in "free 
markets" only the market is free) this means that for the market to be 
"impersonal" as it is in capitalism it implies that those involved have to 
be unconcerned about personalities, including their own. Profit, not ethics,
is what counts. The "impersonal" market suggests individuals who act
in an impersonal, and so unethical, manner. The morality of what they 
produce is irrelevant, as long as profits are produced. 
<p>
Instead, 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. Anarchists
think remember 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>
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 labor and a planned administration of 
things in the interest of the community."</i> [<b>Ibib.</b>] 
<p>
However, as things are produced by people, it could be suggested that a 
<i>"planned administration of things"</i> 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 false simply
because anarchism aims <i>"to reconstruct the economic life  of the peoples 
from the ground up and build it up in the spirit of Socialism."</i> [<b>Ibib.</b>] 
<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). Rocker emphasizes this 
point when he writes that
<p>
    <i>"Anarcho-syndicalists  are  convinced  that  a  Socialist economic
     order  cannot  be  created  by  the  decrees  and  statutes  of a
     government,  but  only  by  the  solidaric  collaboration  of the
     workers with hand and brain in each special branch of production;
     that  is, through the taking over of the management of all plants
     by  the  producers  themselves  under such form that the separate
     groups,  plants, and branches of industry are independent members
     of  the  general  economic  organism  and systematically carry on
     production  and  the distribution of the products in the interest
     of the community on the basis of free mutual agreements."</i> 
     [<b>Op. Cit.</b> p. 94]
<p>
In other words, the <i>"planned administration of things"</i> would be done
by the producers <b>themselves,</b> in independent groupings. This would likely
take the form (as we indicated in  section <a HREF="secI3.html">I.3</a>) of confederations of 
syndicates who communicate information between themselves and response to 
changes in the production and distribution of products by increasing or
decreasing the required means of production in a cooperative (i.e. "planned") 
fashion. No "central planning" or "central planners" governing the economy,
just workers cooperating together as equals.
<p>
Therefore, an anarchist society would abolish work by ensuring that
those who do the work actually control it. They would do so in a network
of self-managed associations, a society <i>"composed of a number of societies
banded together for everything that demands a common effort: federations
of producers for all kinds of production, of societies for consumption . . .
All these groups will unite their efforts through mutual agreement . . .
Personal initiative will be encouraged and every tendency to uniformity
and centralisation combated"</i> [Peter Kropotkin, quoted by Buber in <b>Paths
in Utopia</b>]
<p>
In response to consumption patterns, syndicates will have to expand or 
reduce production and will have to attract volunteers to go the necessary 
work. 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. Such 
a decentralisation of power would unleash a wealth of innovation and ensure 
that unpleasant work be minimalised and fairly shared (see section 
<a HREF="secI4.html#seci413">I.4.13</a>).
<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 cooperative ventures succeed. In other words, members of 
a cooperative commonwealth would have to make and keep to their agreements
between themselves. This means that syndicates 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 cooperation and agreement. Therefore, 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. How that minimum 
was actually organised would vary between workplace and commune, with 
worktimes, flexi-time, job rotation and so on determined by each syndicate
(for example, one syndicate may work 8 hours a day, another 4, one may 
use flexi-time, another more rigid starting and stopping times).
<p>
As Kropotkin argued, an anarchist-communist society would be based upon the 
following kind of "contract" between its members:
<p>
<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 organize 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."</i> 
[<b>The Conquest of Bread</b>, p. 153-4]
<p>
With such work "necessary to existence" 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 would 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>
Therefore, we can imagine a social anarchist society being based on two basic
arrangements -- firstly, an agreed minimum working week of, say, 20 hours,
in a syndicate of your choice, plus any amount of hours doing "work" which
you feel like doing - for example, art, experimentation, DIY, composing, 
gardening and so on. The aim of technological progress would be to reduce
the basic working week more and more until the very concept of necessary
"work" and free time enjoyments is abolished. In addition, in work considered
dangerous or unwanted, then volunteers could trade doing a few hours of
such activity for more free time (see section <a HREF="secI4.html#seci413">I.4.13</a> for more on this).
<p>
It can 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 defense of the free 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 (ie the
actions of other individuals, but turned into a force outwith their control,
see section <a HREF="secI1.html#seci13">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>
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 cooperation to reduce 
labour is "authoritarian" while agreements between individuals on the
market are not seems illogical to social anarchists. They cannot see
how its 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>
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>
<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 the wages system 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 labor checks, or equal salaries, 
or any other method"</i> [<b>Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets</b>, p. 166] 
while considering a given solution best in their opinion. Free experiment
is a key aspect of anarchism.
<p>
However, we will outline some possible means of economic decision making
criteria as this question is an important one (it is the crux of the 
"libertarian socialism is impossible" argument for example). Therefore,
we will indicate what possible solutions exist in different forms of
anarchism.
<p>
In a mutualist or collectivist system, the answer is easy. Prices will exist 
and be used as a means of making decisions. 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 is system of market based distribution around a network of cooperatives 
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>
Although collectivism promotes the greatest autonomy for worker associations, 
it should not be confused with a market economy as advocated by supporters
of mutualism (particularly in its Individualist form). The goods produced 
by the collectivized 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 is to be by a "Bank
of Exchange" 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 the those involved. 
<p>
As Guillaume puts it <i>"...the value of the commodities having been established 
in advance by a contractual agreement between the regional cooperative 
federations [i.e. confederations of syndicates] 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> [<b>Bakunin on Anarchism</b>, p. 366] These 
vouchers would 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).
<p>
Although this scheme bears a strong resemblance to Proudhonian "People's 
Banks," it should be noted that the Banks of Exchange, along with a "Communal 
Statistical Commission," are intended to have a "planning" function as well
to ensure that supply meets demand. This does not imply a "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> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 367] The workers syndicates
would still determine what orders to produce and each commune would be free
to choose its suppliers.
<p>
As will be discussed in more depth later (see section <a HREF="secI4.html#seci47">I.4.7</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 
cooperatives 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 has a temporary measure before anarcho-communism could develop. 
 <p>
Communist anarchism would be similar to collectivism, i.e. a system of
confederations of collectives, communes and distribution centers ("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>
<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'... in 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 would not be to recreate some universal
unit of evaluation and calculation, but simple 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]
<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. Of course, as well as absolute scarcity, prices
also reflect relative scarcity (while in the long term, market prices
tend towards their production price, in the short term prices can change
as a result of changes in supply and demand under capitalism). How a communist 
society could take into account such short term changes and communicate them 
through out the economy is discussed in section <a HREF="secI4.html#seci45">I.4.5</a> (What about "supply and 
demand"?). Needless to say, production and investment decisions based upon 
such cost-benefit analysis would take into account the current production 
situation and so the relative scarcity of specific goods.
<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. This data is a summary of the use values
of the good (for example labour time and energy used to produce it,
pollution details, relative scarcity and so forth). 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. 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
section <a HREF="secI3.html#seci35">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>
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 "needs" a ship-builders syndicate to build a ship for his 
personal use, the ship-builders may not "need" to build it and instead builds
ships for the transportation of freight). 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 cooperating 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 cooperation will eliminate the business 
cycle and its resulting social problems).
<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.
<p>
Moreover, production units, by their association within confederations 
(or Guilds) ensure that there is effective communication between them. This 
results in a process of negotiated coordination 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 
coordinated. 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 coordinate their plans - see section 
<a href="secC7.html#secc71">C.7.1</a>). 
<p>
One final point on this subject. As social 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 the problems associated with
the "Isolation Paradox" (see section <a HREF="secB6.html">B.6</a>) can be over come and so consumption 
and production can be harmonised with the needs of individuals as members 
of society and the environment they live in. 
<p>
<a name="seci45"><h2>I.4.5 What about "supply and demand"?</h2>
<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 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 "supply 
and demand." In often in general economic debate, this formula is given a 
certain mythical quality which ignores the underlying realities which it 
reflects as well as some unwholesome implications of the theory. So, before 
discussing "supply and demand" in an anarchist society, it is worthwhile to 
make a few points about the "law of supply and demand" in general.
<p>
Firstly, as E.P. Thompson argues, "supply and demand" promotes <i>"the notion
that high prices were a (painful) remedy for dearth, in drawing supplies to 
the afflicted region of scarcity. But what draws supply are not high prices
but sufficient money in their purses to pay high prices. A characteristic
phenomenon in times of dearth is that it generates unemployment and empty
pursues; in purchasing necessities at inflated prices people cease to be
able to buy inessentials [causing unemployment] . . . Hence the number of
those able to pay the inflated prices declines in the afflicted regions,
and food may be exported to neighbouring, less afflicted, regions where
employment is holding up and consumers still have money with which to pay.
In thus sequence, high prices can actually withdraw supply from the most
afflicted area."</i> [<b>Customs in Common</b>, pp. 283-4]
<p>
Therefore "the law of supply and demand" may not be the "most efficient"
means of distribution in a society based on inequality. This is clearly
reflected in the "rationing" by purse which this system is based on. While
in the economics books, price is the means by which scare resources are
"rationed" in reality this creates many errors. Adam Smith argued that
high prices discourage consumption, putting <i>"everybody more or less, but
particularly the inferior ranks of people, upon thrift and good management."</i>
[cited by Thompson, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 284] However, as Thompson notes, <i>"[h]owever
persuasive the metaphor, there is an elision of the real relationships
assigned by price, which suggests. . .ideological sleight-of-mind. Rationing
by price does not allocate resources equally among those in need; it 
reserves the supply to those who can pay the price and excludes those
who can't. . .The raising of prices during dearth could 'ration' them
[the poor] out of the market altogether."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 285]
<p>
In other words, the market cannot be isolated and abstracted from the network
of political, social and legal relations within which it is situated. This
means that all that "supply and demand" tells us is that those with money
can demand more, and be supplied with more, that those without. Whether this
is the "most efficient" result for society cannot be determined (unless, of
course, you assume that rich people are more valuable than working class
ones <b>because</b> they are rich). This has an obvious effect on production, with
"effective demand" twisting economic activity. As Chomsky notes, <i>"[t]hose 
who have more money tend to consume more, for obvious reasons.  So 
consumption is skewed towards luxuries for the rich, rather than necessities 
for the poor."</i> George Barret brings home of the evil of such a "skewed" form
of production:
<p>
<i>"To-day the scramble is to compete for the greatest profits. If there is 
more profit to be made in satisfying my lady's passing whim than there is 
in feeding hungry children, then competition brings us in feverish haste 
to supply the former, whilst cold charity or the poor law can supply the 
latter, or leave it unsupplied, just as it feels disposed. That is how it 
works out."</i> [<b>Objections to Anarchism</b>] 
 <p>
Therefore, as far as "supply and demand" is concerned, anarchists are well
aware of the need to create and distribute necessary goods to those who
require them. This, however, cannot be achieved under capitalism. In effect,
supply and demand under capitalism results in those with most money 
determining what is an "efficient" allocation of resources for if financial 
profit is the sole consideration for resource allocation, then the wealthy
can outbid the poor and ensure the highest returns. The less wealthy can
do without.
<p>
However, the question remains of how, in an anarchist society, do you know 
that valuable labour and materials might be better employed elsewhere? How 
do workers 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?
<p>
It is answers like this that the supporters of the market claim that their
system answers. However, as indicated it does answer them in irrational and
dehumanising ways under capitalism but the question is can anarchism answer 
them? Yes, although the manner this is done varies between anarchist threads. 
In a mutualist economy, based on independent and cooperative labour, 
differences in wealth would be vastly reduced, so ensuring that irrational 
aspects of the market that exist within capitalism would be minimalised. 
The workings of supply and demand would provide a more just result than 
under the current system.
<p>
However, collectivist, syndicalist 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]
<p>
However, Schweickart is wrong. Horizontal links need not be market based
and cooperation between individuals and groups need not be hierarchical.
Therefore, it is a question of distributing information between producers
and consumers, information which the market often hides or activity blocks.
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. However, the need to indicate
the current fluctuations in production and consumption needs to be indicated
which complements that method.
<p>
In a non-Mutualist anarchist system it is assumed that confederations of
collectives will wish to adjust they 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 changes 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>
Therefore, to indicate the relative changes in scarcity of a given good
it will be necessary to calculate a <b><i>"scarcity index."</i></b> This would inform 
potential users of this good so that they may effectively adjust their 
decisions in light of the decisions of others. This index could be, for
example, a percentage value which indicates the relation of orders placed
for a commodity 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 collective as well as (possibly) a generalised figure for
the industry as a whole on a regional, "national," etc. level. 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 to take into account unexpected
changes in consumption. This may result in some excess supply of goods 
being produced and used as used as stock to buffer out unexpected changes
in the aggregate demand for a good.
<p>
This, combined with cost-benefit analysis described in section <a HREF="secI4.html#seci44">I.4.4</a>, would
allow information about changes within the "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 (which rest in the decisions of those directly affected). The
relevant information is communicated to all involved, without having to
be order by an "all-knowing" central body as in a Leninist centrally
planned economy. As argued in section <a HREF="secI1.html#seci12">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 and if such a body attempted
to do so, the resulting bureaucracy would effectively reduce the amount of
information available to society and so cause shortages and inefficiencies.
<p>
Therefore, each syndicate receives its own orders and supplies and sends 
its own produce out. Similarly, communal distribution centers 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 coordination achieved 
by equality of association and not the hierarchy of the corporate structure.
This system ensures a cooperative response to changes in supply and
demand and so reduces the communication problems associated with the 
market which help causes periods of unemployment and economic downturn 
(see section <a HREF="secC7.html#secc71">C.7.1</a>).
<p>
While anarchists are aware of the "isolation paradox" (see section <a HREF="secB6.html">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. This 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 "externalities" 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 infrastuctures). 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>
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>
On a related subject, it is obvious that different collectives 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 company) all doing the same job would be
continued in an anarchist. 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 before hand 
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, cooperatives 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 consumers would be able to influence the decisions of the syndicates 
as producers (in some cases) and through syndicate/commune dialogue.
<p>
Therefore, anarchists do not ignore "supply and demand." 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 response to changes in supply and
demand will be discussed in section <a HREF="secI4.html#seci47">I.4.7</a> (What are the criteria for 
investment decisions?) and section <a HREF="secI4.html#seci413">I.4.13</a> ( Who will do the dirty or 
unpleasant work?) 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>
<p>
Its a common objection that free communism would lead to people wasting 
resources by taking more than they need. This is because <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> [Peter Kropotkin, <b>The Place of Anarchism in the Evolution of Socialist Thought</b>, p. 7] Without wages, it is claimed, resources would be wasted.
<p>
Indeed, some argue, what if an individual says they "need" a luxury house or
a personal yacht? Simply put, workers may not "need" to produce for that
need. As Tom Brown puts 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>
So 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> Therefore, the needs of both consumer 
<b>and</b> producer are taken into account. This means that if no syndicate or 
individual desires to produce a specific order an 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>
Therefore, communist-anarchist 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 under capitalism. 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 three examples, public libraries, water and pavements. In public 
libraries people are free to sit and read books all day. However, 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, its 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 both cases individuals use the resource as and
when they need to. 
<p>
We can expect a similar effect 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! And only an idiot would travel further than required in 
order to get "value for money."
<p>
However, there is a deeper point to be made here about consumerism. Capitalism
is based on hierarchy and not liberty. This leads to a weakening of 
individuality and 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 Bob Black argues:
<p>
    <i>"what we want, what we are capable of wanting is relative to the forms 
     of social organization. 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>Smokestack Lightning</b>]
<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, work, and experiences). Consumerism is 
a means of filling the spiritual hole capitalism creates within us by denying 
our freedom.
<p>
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 points out, this cannot work for and only 
leads to even more insecurity (and so even more consumption):
<p>
<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] 
<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 puts 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 (a sense which can never actually be created by those means).
<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. An society based on the
free expression of individuality could be nothing but rich in wealth and
diverse in goods and experiences. What we 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>
Of course, 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). Whether or not full communism <b>can</b> be introduced instantly
is a moot point amongst anarchists, although most would like to see society
develop towards a communist goal eventually.
<p>
<a name="seci47"><h2>
I.4.7 What are the criteria for investment decisions?</h2>
<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 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>
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. 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 "Bank of the People"</b>, p. 36] This would allow money to 
be made available to those who needed it and so break the back of the 
capitalist business cycle (i.e. credit would be available as required, 
not when it was profitable for bankers to supply it) as well as capitalist
property relations. Under a mutualist regime, credit for investment would 
be available from two sources. Firstly, an individual's or cooperatives own
saved funds and, secondly, as zero interest loans from mutual banks, credit 
unions and other forms of credit associations. Loans would be allocated to
projects which the mutual banks considered likely to succeed and repay the
original loan.
<p>
Collectivist and communist anarchists recognise that credit is based on 
human activity, which is represented as money. As the Guild Socialist G.D.H.
Cole pointed out, <i>"The 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>Guild Socialism Restated</b>, p. 143] 
Collectivist and Communist anarchists agree with their Mutualist cousins
when they state that <i>"[a]ll credit presupposes labor, and, if labor 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 <i>"whose
benefit [it should] be used"</i> [Charles A. Dana, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 35]
<p>
Therefore, in collectivism, investment funds would exist in the confederations 
of collectives, community "banks" and other such means by which depreciation 
funds could be stored and as well as other funds agreed to by the collectives 
(for example, collectives may agree to allocate a certain percentage of their 
labour notes to a common account in order to have the necessary funds available 
for new investment). In a communist-anarchist society, the collectives would 
agree that a certain part of their output and activity will be directed to 
new means of production. In effect, each collective is able to draw upon the 
sums approved of by the Commune in the form of an agreed claim on the labour
power of all the collectives. In this way, mutual aid ensures a suitable 
pool of resources for the future from which all benefit.
<p>
As to when investment is needed, its clear that this will be based on the
changes in demand for goods. As Guilliame points it, <i>"[b]y 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> [<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 states this obvious point:
<p>
<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 
assistant will decrease his order of the unpopular line and increase his
order of the popular."</i> [<b>Syndicalism</b>, p. 55]
<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. Such guidelines and 
communication between producers, investment would go to those industries 
that actually required them. 
<p>
As production would be decentralised as far as possible, each locality would
be able to understand its own requirements and apply them as it sees fit.
<p>
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. In the
case of new technology and plant, cost benefit analysis (as outlined in
section <a HREF="secI4.html#seci44">I.4.4</a>) would be used to determine which technology would produce
the best results and whether changes should be made in plant stock.
<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 cooperative 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 1 plan finalised from the debate). For
regional decisions (for example, a new hospital) would be decided at the 
appropriate level, with information fed from the health syndicate and 
consumer cooperatives. 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>
Therefore, under social 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 cooperation 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. 
<p>
Without a capital market, housing, workplaces and so on will no longer
be cramped into the smallest space possible. Instead, housing, schools,
hospitals, workplaces and so on will be built within a "green" environment.
This means that human constructions will be placed within a natural 
environment and no longer stand apart from it. 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>
In addition, the stock market is hardly the means by which capital is
actually raised within capitalism. As Engler points out, <i>"Supporters of the 
system... claim that stock exchanges mobilise funds for business. Do they? 
When people buy and sell shares, 'no investment goes into company treasuries... 
Shares simply change hands for cash in endless repetition.' Company 
treasuries get funds only from new equity issues. These accounted for an 
average of a mere 0.5 per cent of shares trading in the US during the 
1980s."</i> [<b>Apostles of Greed</b>, pp. 157-158] And it hardly needs to be repeated
that capitalism results in production being skewed away from the working 
class and that the "efficiency" of market allocation is highly suspect.
<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, self-interest. It is hardly in 
our interest to have a institution whose aim is to make the wealthy even 
wealthier and on whose whims are dependent the lives of millions of people.
<p>
<a name="seci48"><h2>I.4.8 What about funding for basic research? </h2>
<p>
In a libertarian-socialist society, people are likely to "vote" 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 enterprises 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, raw materials
and so on or increase output with little or no social impact.
<p>
This means that research and innovation would be in the direct interests of
everyone involved. 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.
<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>
In addition, it should be noted that basic research is not something which
capitalism does well. The rise of the Pentagon system in the USA indicates 
that basic research often needs state support in order to be successful. As
Kenneth Arrow noted over thirty years ago that market forces are 
insufficient to promote basic research:
<p>
<i>"Thus 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>
[<i>"Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Inventiveness,"
</i> in
National Bureau of Economic Research, <b>The Rate and Direction of
Inventive Activity</b>, Princeton Univ. Press, 1962, p. 618].
<p>
Would modern society have produced so many innovations if it had not
been for the Pentagon system, the space race and so on? Taking the
Internet, for example, it is unlikely that this would have got off the
ground if it had not been for the state.
<p>
<a name="seci49"><h2>I.4.9 Should technological advance be seen as anti-anarchistic?</h2>
<p>
Not necessarily.  Because technology allows 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 lifespan; agricultural technology can be used to free
labor from the mundane chore of food production; advanced communications
technology can enhance our ability to freely associate.  The list goes on
and on. However, most anarchists agree with Kropotkin when he pointed
out 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>
Of course technology be used for oppressive ends, as indicated in section 
<a HREF="secD10.html">D.10</a>. Human knowledge, like all things, can be used to increase freedom or 
to decrease it.  Technology is neither "good," nor "bad" per se, but may be 
used for either. What can be said is that in a hierarchical society, 
technology will be introduced by serves the interests of the powerful and
helps marginalise and disempower the majority. This means that in an
anarchist society, technology would be developed which empowered those who
used it, so reducing any oppressive aspects of it, and, in the words of
Cornelius Castoriadais, the <i>"conscious transformation of technology will
. . .be a central task of a society of free workers."</i> [<b>Workers' Councils
and the Economics of a Self-Managed Society</b>, p. 13]
<p>
For example, increased productivity under capitalism usually leads to 
further exploitation, displaced workers, etc. But it doesn't have to in
an anarchist world.  By way of example, consider a small, self-sufficient 
group in which all resources are distributed equally amongst the members.  
Let's say that this group has 5 people and, for the sake of argument, 20 
man-hours of production per week is spent on baking bread for the group.  
Now, what happens if the introduction of automation reduces the
amount of labor required for bread production to 5 man-hours per week? 
Clearly, no one stands to lose - even if someone's work is "displaced", that
person will continue to receive the same resource income as before - and
they might even gain.  This last is due to the fact that 15 man-hours have
been freed up from the task of bread production, and those man-hours may now
be used elsewhere or converted to leisure, either way increasing each
person's standard of living.  
<p>
Obviously, this happy outcome derives not only from the technology,
but from its use in an equitable economic system.  Certainly, a wide variety
of outcomes would be possible under alternative allocations. Yet, we have
managed to prove our point: in the end, there's no reason why increases in
productivity need lead to a lower standard of living! Therefore, <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 bases of justice"</i> [<b>Ethics</b>, p. 2]
<p>
Its 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.
<p>
So 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 so doing 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 (in other
words, what is termed appropriate technology) 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 unquestioning anti-technology.
<p>
So whether technological advance is a good thing or sustainable depends on 
the choices we make, and on the social, political, and economic systems we 
use.  We live in a universe which contains effectively infinite resources 
of matter and energy, yet at the moment we are stuck on a planet whose 
resources can only be stretched so far.  Anarchists (and others) differ as 
to their assessments of how much development the earth can take, and of the 
best course for future development, but there's no reason to believe that
advanced technological societies per se cannot be sustained into the 
foreseeable future if they are structured and used properly. 
<p>
<a name="seci410"><h2>I.4.10 What would be the advantage of a wide basis of surplus distribution? </h2>
<p>
We noted earlier (<a href="secH4.html">H.4</a>) that competition between syndicates can lead to
"petty-bourgeois cooperativism," and that to eliminate this problem, the basis
of collectivisation needs to be widened so that surpluses are distributed
industry-wide or even society-wide. We also pointed out another advantage
of a wide surplus distribution:  that it allows for the consolidation of
enterprises that would otherwise compete, leading to a more efficient
allocation of resources and technical improvements.   Here we will back up
this claim with illustrations from the Spanish Revolution.  
<p>
Collectivization 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:  <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." 
<p>
"Before July 19th, 1936 [the date of the Revolution], there were 1,100
hairdressing parlors 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 
socialize all their shops. 
<p>
"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
modernized and elegantly outfitted."</i>  From the money saved, income per
worker was increased by 40 percent, with everyone having the right to work
and all earning the same amount.  <i>"The former owners were not adversely
affected by socialization.  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>
[<i>"Collectivisation in Catalonia,"</i> in Dolgoff, <b>The Anarchist Collectives</b>, 
pp. 93-94].
<p>
Therefore, cooperation ensures that resources are efficiently allocated
and waste is minimised by cutting down needless competition. As consumers
have choices in which syndicate to consume from as well as having direct
communication between consumer cooperatives and productive units, there
is little danger that rationalisation in production will hurt the interests
of the consumer.
<p>
<a name="seci411"><h2>I.4.11 If libertarian socialism eliminates the profit motive, won't creativity and performance suffer?</h2>
<p>
According to Alfie Kohn, a growing body of psychological research suggests
that rewards can lower performance levels, especially when the performance
involves creativity [<i>"Studies Find Reward Often No Motivator,"</i> <b>Boston
Globe</b>, Monday 19 January 1987].  Kohn notes that <i>"a related series of
studies shows 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."</i>  
<p>
Much of the research on creativity and motivation has been performed by
Theresa Amabile, associate professor of psychology at Brandeis
University.  One of her recent experiments involved asking elementary
school and college students to make "silly" collages. The young children
were also asked to invent stories.  Teachers who rated the projects found
that those students who had contracted for rewards did the least creative
work.  <i>"It may be that commissioned work will, in general, be less
creative than work that is done out of pure interest,"</i> Amabile says.
<p>
In 1985, Amabile asked 72 creative writers at Brandeis and at Boston
University to write poetry.  <i>"Some students then were given a list of
extrinsic (external) reasons for writing, such as impressing teachers,
making money and getting into graduate school, and were asked to think
about their own writing with respect to these reasons.  Others were given
a list of intrinsic reasons:  the enjoyment of playing with words,
satisfaction from self-expression, and so forth.  A third group was not
given any list.  All were then asked to do more writing.
<p>
"The results were clear.  Students given the extrinsic reasons not only
wrote less creatively than the others, as judged by 12 independent poets,
but the quality of their work dropped significantly.  Rewards, Amabile
says, have this destructive effect primarily with creative tasks,
including higher-level problem-solving.  'The more complex the activity,
the more it's hurt by extrinsic reward, she said'"</i> [<b>Ibib.</b>].
<p>
In another study, by James Gabarino of Chicago's Erikson Institute for
Advanced Studies in Child Development, it was found that girls in the
fifth and sixth grades tutored younger children much less effectively if
they were promised free movie tickets for teaching well.  <i>"The study,
showed that tutors working for the reward took longer to communicate
ideas, got frustrated more easily, and did a poorer job in the end than
those who were not rewarded"</i> [<b>Ibib.</b>]
<p>
Such studies cast doubt on the claim that financial reward is the only
effective way -- or even the best way -- to motivate people.  As Kohn
notes, <i>"[t]hey also challenge the behaviorist assumption that any activity
is more likely to occur if it is rewarded."</i>   Amabile concludes that her
research <i>"definitely refutes the notion that creativity can be operantly
conditioned."</i>
<p>
Such studies cast doubt on the claim that financial reward is the only
effective way -- or even the best way -- to motivate people.  As Kohn
notes, <i>"[t]hey also challenge the behaviorist assumption that any activity
is more likely to occur if it is rewarded."</i>   Amabile concludes that her
research <i>"definitely refutes the notion that creativity can be operantly
conditioned."</i>
<p>
These findings re-inforce the findings of other scientific fields. Biology,  social psychology, ethnology and anthropology all present evidence that 
support cooperation as the natural basis for human interaction. For
example, ethnological studies indicate that virtually all indigenous
cultures operate on the basis of highly cooperative relationships and 
anthropologist's have presented evidence to show that the predominant 
force driving early human evolution was cooperative 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 cooperative workplaces are more productive than those organized 
on other principles. All other things equal, producers' cooperatives will 
be more productive than capitalist or state enterprises, on average. 
Cooperatives can often achieve higher productivity even when their equipment 
and conditions are worse. Furthermore, the better the organization 
approximates the cooperative ideal, the better the productivity.
<p>
All this is unsurprising to social anarchists (and it should make 
individualist anarchists reconsider their position). Peter Kropotkin 
(in <b>Mutual Aid</b>) asserted 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 organization."</i> From his observation 
that mutual aid gives evolutionary advantage to living beings, he derived 
his political philosophy--a philosophy which stressed community and 
cooperative endeavor.
<p>
Modern research has reinforced his argument. For example, 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 cooperation. Prior to his investigation, he 
believed that <i>"competition can be natural and appropriate and healthy."</i> 
After reviewing research findings, he radically revised this opinion, 
concluding that, <i>"The ideal amount of competition . . . in any environment, 
the classroom, the workplace, the family, the playing field, is none . . .  [Competition] is always destructive."</i> [<b>Noetic Sciences Review</b>, 
Spring 1990]
<p>
Here was present a very short summary of his findings. According to Kohn, 
there are three principle consequences of competition:

Firstly, it has a negative effect on productivity and excellence. This is 
due to increased anxiety, inefficiency (as compared to cooperative 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 cooperative behaviour, by contrast, consistantly
predicts good performance--a finding which holds true under a wide range of 
subject variables. Interestingly, the positive benefits of cooperation 
become more significant as tasks become more complex, or where greater 
creativity and problem-solving ability is required (as indicated above).
<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>
Finally, 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>
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 and 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 unjustice and authoritarian system.
<p>
All in all, the results of competition (as documented by a host of 
scientific disciplines) shows its poverty as well as indicating that 
cooperation is the means by which the fittest survive.
<p>
<a name="seci412"><h2>I.4.12 Won't there be a tendency for capitalist enterprise to reappear in any socialist society? </h2>
<p>
This is a common right-libertarian objection.  Robert Nozick, for example,
imagines the following scenario:  <i>"[S]mall 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."</i>   Hence Nozick claims that <i>"the socialist society will
have to forbid capitalist acts between consenting adults."</i> [<b>Anarchy, State
and Utopia</b>, pp. 162-3]
<p>
As Jeff Stein points out, however, <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>, a review of  <b>A Structured Anarchism : An Overview of
Libertarian Theory and Practice</b> by John Griffin, <b>Libertarian Labor
Review</b> #13, Winter 1992-93, pp. 33-39]. 
<p>
In an anarchist society, there is no need for anyone to "forbid"
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">B.3</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" 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) 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>
It should 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 "natural" law of property. As J.S. 
Mill points out, <i>"powers of exclusive use and control are very various, and 
differ greatly in different countries and in different states of society."</i>
[<i>"Chapters on Socialism,"</i> <b>John Stuart Mill on Politics and Society</b>, p. 354] 
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 private property (like those he, and other supporters 
of capitalism, believes in) along with the wealth. 
<p>
In other words, Nozick assumes that in <b>all</b> societies property rights must 
replace use rights in both consumption <b>and</b> production (an assumption that 
is ahistorical in the extreme). As Cheyney C. Ryan comments, <i>"Different 
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>, in 
<b>Reading Nozack</b>, p. 331]  
<p>
In effect, what possessions someone holds within a libertarian 
socialist society will not be his or her property (in the capitalist sense) 
any more than a company car is the property of the employee under 
capitalism. This means that as long as an individual remained a member of
a commune then they would have full use of the resources of that commune
and could use their possessions as they saw fit. Such lack of <b>absolute</b>
"ownership" not reduce liberty any more than the employee and the company
car he or she uses (bar destruction, the employee can use it as they see
fit).
<p>
Notice also that Nozick confuses 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 labor contracts involving capitalist
middlemen who appropriate a portion of the value produced by workers - in
other words, wage labour. Nozick's example is merely a direct labor contract 
between the producer and the consumer.  It does not involve any capitalist 
intermediary taking a percentage of the value created by the producer.  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>
Lastly, we must also note that Nozick also ignores the fact that acquisition 
<b>must</b> come before transfer, meaning that before "consenting" capitalist acts 
occur, individual ones must precede it. As argued above, for this to happen 
the would-be capitalist must steal communally owned resources by 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. 
If an individual did desire to use resources to employ wage labour then they
would have effectively removed themselves from "socialist society" 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>
It should also be noted here that Nozick's theory does not provide any support
for such appropriation of commonly held resources, meaning that his
(right) libertarianism is totally without foundations. His argument in
favour of such appropriations recognises that certain 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, 
were enforced by the state - see section <a HREF="secF8.html#secf83">F.8.3</a>). 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> [<i>"Property Rights and Individual Liberty"</i>, 
in <b>Reading Nozack</b>, p. 339]
<p>
Again, as pointed out in section <a HREF="secF2.html">F.2</a> (What do "anarcho"-capitalists mean 
by "freedom?") right-libertarians would better be termed "Propertarians." 
Why is liberty according a primary importance when arguing against socialism
but not private property restricts liberty? Obviously, Nozick considers
the liberties associated with private property as more important than 
liberty <b>in general.</b> Likewise, capitalism must forbid corresponding 
socialist acts by individuals (for example, squatting unused property) and
often socialist acts between consenting individuals (i.e. the formation of
unions). 
<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 "ban" "capitalistic acts between individuals." 
In addition, the objection undermines capitalism because it cannot support 
the creation of private property out of communal property in the first 
place.
<p>
<a name="seci413"><h2>I.4.13  Who will do the dirty or unpleasant work? </h2>
<p>
That depends on the kind of community you are a member of. 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>
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 hands 
and the means by which individuals can discover these placements. Obviously, 
some work will still require qualifications and that will be taken into 
account when syndicates and communes "advertise" for help.
<p>
For "work" placements that 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 (see below for a discussion of what could happen if the 
numbers applying for a certain form of work were too high for this to work). 
When such placements are marked by an excess of demand by supply, its obvious 
that the activity in question is not viewed as pleasant or desirable. 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. 
<p>
So, 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 so that requires a state. Obviously this argument ignores the fact that
under capitalism usually its 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 Barret argues:
<p>
<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>
Moreover, most anarchists would think that the argument that there would
be a flood of workers taking up "easy" workplacements 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 turn over of workers between syndicates, the mass 
transfers claimed in this argument are unlikely. Most workers who did want 
to try their hand a 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>
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 is directly related to the question of who
will do the "dirty work" in an anarchist society. So, how will an anarchist
society ensure that individual perferences for certain types of work
matches the requirements of social demand for labour?
<p>
Under mutualism, those who desired a certain form of work done would
reach an agreement with a workers or a cooperative and pay them to do
the work in question. Individuals would form cooperatives with each 
cooperative would have to find its place on the market and so this
would ensure that work was spread across society as required. Individuals 
desiring to form a new cooperative would either provide their own start 
up credit or arrange a interest free loan from a mutual bank. 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>
In a collectivist or communist anarchist society, such an outcome would 
be avoided by sharing such tasks as fairly as possible between a community's 
members. For example, by allocating one day in a month to all fit members 
of a community to do work which no one volunteers to do, it would soon be 
done. This, however, may not prove to a possible in some "work" placements. 
Possible solutions could be to take into account the undesirability of the 
work when considering the level of labour notes received or communal 
hours worked.
<p>
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, the number of
necessary hours required by an individual would be 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.
<p>
To be more precise, in a collectivist society, individuals would either 
use their own savings and/or arrange loans of community labour banks 
for credit in order to start up a new syndicate. This will obviously
restrict the number of new syndicates being formed. In the case of individuals 
joining existing syndicates, the labour value of the work done would be 
related to the number of people interested in doing that work. 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 it is in excess, then the labour 
value would increase, as would holiday time, etc.
<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.
<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 workplacements with excess supply of workers the amount of hours 
necessary to meet the confederations 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 of "work" decrease, plus increases in holiday time and
so on.  As G.D.H. Cole argues in respect of this point:
<p>
<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]
<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 rid of
as society developed freely.
<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>
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>
Of course, no system is perfect - we are sure that not everyone will be
able to do the work they enjoy the most (and that is the case under 
capitalism we may add). In an anarchist society ever 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 "labour army" type allocation process 
developed (which would ensure that free socialism did not remain free or
socialist for long).
<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 "glamourous" 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>
<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]
<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 
response 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>
<p>
Anarchism is based on voluntary labour. If people do not desire to work
then they cannot (must not) be forced to. However, this does not mean that
an anarchist society will continue to feed, clothe, house someone who can
produce but refuses to. As Camillo Berneri points out, anarchism is
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>, in <b>Why Work?</b> ed. 
Vernon Richards, p. 74]
<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 by their friends and family. As child rearing will 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>
So, in an anarchist society, individual's have two options, either they
can join a commune and work together as equals, or they can work as an
individual or independent cooperative 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.
<p>
So people will have to work, but how they do so will be voluntary. If 
people didn't work society would obviously fall apart and to let some live 
off the labour of those who do work would be a reversion to capitalism. 
However, most social anarchists think that the problem of people trying 
not to work would be a very minor one in an anarchist society. This is 
because work is part of human life 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 work. It is the 
nature of employment under capitalism that makes it "work" instead of 
pleasure. Work need not be a part of the day that we wish would end. 
<p>
This, combined with the workday being shortened, will help ensure
that only an idiot would desire to work alone. 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>
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.
<p>
<a name="seci415"><h2>I.4.15 What will the workplace of tomorrow look like?</h2>
<p>
Given the anarchist desire to liberate the artist in all of us, we can 
easily imagine that a free society would transform totally 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.
<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]
<p>
Therefore the workplace would be expanded to include education and
classes in individual development. 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>
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. Buildings would be
designed to maximise space and allow individual expression within them.
Outside the workplace, we can imagine it surrounded by gardens and allotments
which were tended by workers themselves, giving a pleasant surrounding
to the workplace.
<p>
Therefore 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.
Such a vision is possible and is only held back by capitalism which 
denounces such visions of freedom as "uneconomic" However, as William
Morris points out:
<p>
<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> [<b> A Factory as It Might Be</b>, 
pp. 7-8]
<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.
<p>

</BODY>
</HTML>