Section I - What would an anarchist society look like? 

I.1	Isn't libertarian socialism an oxymoron? 
	I.1.1	Didn't Ludwig von Mises' "calculation argument" prove that 
	 	socialism can not work?
	I.1.2	Does Mises' argument mean libertarian communism is impossible? 
	I.1.3	What is wrong with markets anyway? 
	I.1.4	If capitalism is exploitative, then isn't socialism as well?

I.2	Is this a blueprint for an anarchist society?
	I.2.1	Why discuss what an anarchist society would be like at all? 
	I.2.2	Will it be possible to go straight to an anarchist society 
	 	from capitalism?
	I.2.3 How is the framework of an anarchist society created?

I.3	What could the economic structure of an anarchist society look like?
	I.3.1	What is a "syndicate"?
	I.3.2	What is workers' self-management?
	I.3.3	What role do collectives play in the "economy"? 
	I.3.4	What relations exist between individual syndicates?
	I.3.5	What would confederations of syndicates do? 
	I.3.6 What about competition between syndicates? 
	I.3.7	What about people who do not want to join a syndicate?
	I.3.8 Do anarchists seek "small autonomous communities, 
		devoted to small scale production"?

I.4	How would an anarchist economy function?
	I.4.1	What is the point of economic activity in anarchy? 
	I.4.2	Why do anarchists desire to abolish work? 
	I.4.3	How do anarchists intend to abolish work? 
	I.4.4 What economic decision making criteria could be 
		used in anarchy? 
	I.4.5	What about "supply and demand"?
	I.4.6 Surely communist-anarchism would just lead to demand 
		exceeding supply?
	I.4.7 What will stop producers ignoring consumers?
	I.4.8	What about investment decisions? 
	I.4.9	Should technological advance be seen as anti-anarchistic?  
	I.4.10 What would be the advantage of a wide basis of surplus 
	 	 distribution? 
	I.4.11 If libertarian socialism eliminates the profit motive, 
		 won't creativity suffer? 
	I.4.12 Won't there be a tendency for capitalist enterprise to 
	 	 reappear in any socialist society?
	I.4.13 Who will do the dirty or unpleasant work? 
	I.4.14 What about the person who will not work? 
	I.4.15 What will the workplace of tomorrow look like? 
	I.4.16 Won't a libertarian communist society be inefficient?

I.5	What would the social structure of anarchy look like? 
	I.5.1	What are participatory communities?  
	I.5.2	Why are confederations of participatory communities needed? 
	I.5.3	What will be the scales and levels of confederation? 
	I.5.4	How will anything ever be decided by all these meetings?
	I.5.5	Are participatory communities and confederations not just 
	 	new states?
	I.5.6	Won't there be a danger of a "tyranny of the majority" under 
		libertarian socialism? 
	I.5.7	What if I don't want to join a commune? 
	I.5.8	What about crime?
	I.5.9 What about Freedom of Speech under Anarchism?
	I.5.10 What about Political Parties?
	I.5.11 What about interest groups and other associations?
	I.5.12 Would an anarchist society provide health care and other 
	 	 public services?
	I.5.13 Won't an anarchist society be vulnerable to the 
		 power hungry?
	I.5.14 How could an anarchist society defend itself?

I.6	What about the "Tragedy of the Commons" and all that? Surely communal
	ownership will lead to overuse and environmental destruction? 
	I.6.1	But anarchists cannot explain how the use of property 'owned by 
	 	everyone in the world' will be decided?  
	I.6.2 Doesn't any form of communal ownership involve restricting 
	      individual liberty?

I.7	Won't Libertarian Socialism destroy individuality?
	I.7.1 Do tribal cultures indicate that communalism defends 
	      individuality?
	I.7.2 Is this not worshipping the past or the "noble savage"?
	I.7.3 Is the law required to protect individual rights?
	I.7.4 Does capitalism protect individuality?

I.8	Does revolutionary Spain show that libertarian socialism can work in 
 	practice? 
	I.8.1	Wasn't the Spanish Revolution primarily a rural phenomenon and 
	 	therefore inapplicable as a model for modern industrialised 	
		societies? 
	I.8.2	How were the anarchists able to obtain mass popular support in 
	 	Spain? 
	I.8.3 How were Spanish industrial collectives organised? 
	I.8.4 How were the Spanish industrial collectives co-ordinated? 
	I.8.5	How were the Spanish agricultural co-operatives organised and 
	 	co-ordinated? 
	I.8.6	What did the agricultural collectives accomplish?  
	I.8.7 I've heard that the rural collectives were created by force. 
		Is this true?
	I.8.8 But did the Spanish collectives innovate?
	I.8.9	Why, if it was so good, did it not survive? 
	I.8.10 Why did the C.N.T. collaborate with the state?
	I.8.11 Was the decision to collaborate a product of anarchist
       	 theory, so showing anarchism is flawed?
	I.8.12 Was the decision to collaborate imposed on the CNT's
             membership?
	I.8.13 What political lessons were learned from the revolution?
	I.8.14 What economic lessons were learned from the revolution?

Section I - What would an anarchist society look like? 

So far this FAQ has been largely critical, focusing on hierarchy, 
capitalism, the state and so on, and the problems to which they have 
led, as well as refuting some bogus "solutions" that have been offered 
by authoritarians of both the right and the left. It is now time to 
examine the constructive side of anarchism -- the libertarian-socialist 
society that anarchists envision. This is important because anarchism 
is essentially a *constructive* theory, in stark contradiction to the 
picture of usually painted of anarchism as chaos or mindless destruction. 

Therefore, in this section of the FAQ we will give a short outline of what

an anarchist society might look like. Such a society has basic features --
such as being non-hierarchical, decentralised and, above all else, 
spontaneous like life itself. To quote Glenn Albrecht, anarchists "lay 
great stress on the free unfolding of a spontaneous order without the
use of external force or authority." ["Ethics, Anarchy and Sustainable
Development", _Anarchist Studies_, vol.2, no.2, p. 110] This type of 
development implies that anarchist society would be organised from the
simple to the complex, from the individual upwards to the community, the
bio-region and, ultimately, the planet. The resulting complex and diverse
order, which would be the outcome of nature freely unfolding toward
greater diversity and complexity, is ethically preferable to any other
sort of order simply because it allows for the highest degree of organic
solidarity and freedom. Kropotkin described this vision of a truly free
society as follows:

"We foresee millions and millions of groups freely constituting themselves 
for the satisfaction of all the varied needs of human beings. . . All 
these will be composed of human beings who will combine freely. . . 
'Take pebbles,' said Fourier, 'put them in a box and shake them, and 
they will arrange themselves in a mosaic that you could never get by 
instructing to anyone the work of arranging them harmoniously.'" 
[_The Place of Anarchism in Socialistic Evolution_, pp. 11-12] 

Anarchist opposition to hierarchy is an essential part of a 
"spontaneously ordered" society, for authority stops the free
development and growth of the individual. From this natural growth
of individuals, groups and society as a whole anarchists expect a 
society which meets the needs of all (both for material goods and
individual and social freedom). In Proudhon's words, "liberty is the 
mother of order, not its daughter." Any attempt to force society
or individuals into a pre-determined structure which restricts their
liberty will produce dis-order as natural balances and development
is hindered and distorted in anti-social and destructive directions.
Thus an anarchist society must be a free society of free individuals,
associating within libertarian structures, rather than a series of
competing hierarchies (be they political or economical). Only in
freedom can society and individuals develop and create a just and
fair society. 

As the individual does not exist in a social vacuum, appropriate social
conditions are required for individual freedom (and so subjectivity, or
thought) to develop and blossom according to its full potential. The
theory of anarchism is built around the central assertion that individuals
and their organisations *cannot* be considered in isolation from each
other. As Carole Pateman points out, there is "the argument that there is
an interrelationship between the authority structures of institutions and
the psychological qualities and attitudes of individuals, and . . . the
related argument that the major function of participation is an educative
one." [_Participation and Democratic Theory_, p. 27] Anarchism presents
these arguments in their most coherent and libertarian form. In other words,
freedom is only sustained and protected by activity under conditions of
freedom, namely self-government. Freedom is the only precondition for
acquiring the maturity required for continued freedom.

As individual freedom can only be created, developed and defended 
by self-government and free association, a system which encourages 
individuality must be decentralised and participatory in order for 
people to develop a psychology that allows them to accept the 
responsibilities of self-management. Living under capitalism or 
any other authoritarian system produces a servile character, as 
the individual is constantly placed under hierarchical authority, 
which blunts their critical and self-governing abilities by lack 
of use. Such a situation cannot promote freedom. Looking at 
capitalism, we find that under wage labour, people sell their 
creative energy and control over their activity for a given 
period. The boss does not just take surplus value from the 
time employees sell, but the time itself -- their ability to make 
their own decisions, express themselves through work and with their 
fellow workers. Wage labour equals wage slavery. You sell your time 
and skills (i.e. liberty) everyday at work to someone else. You 
will never be able to buy that time back for yourself. Once it is 
gone; it is gone for good. This is why anarchists see the need to 
"create the situation where each person may live by working freely, 
without being forced to sell his [or her] work and his [or her] 
liberty to others who accumulate wealth by the labour of their 
serfs." [Kropotkin, _Words of a Rebel_, p. 208]

Anarchism is about changing society and abolishing all forms 
of authoritarian social relationship, putting life before the 
soul-destroying "efficiency" needed to survive under capitalism; 
for the anarchist "takes his stand on his positive right to life 
and all its pleasures, both intellectual, moral and physical. He 
loves life, and intends to enjoy it to the full." [Michael Bakunin, 
quoted by Brian Morris, _Bakunin: The Philosophy of Freedom_, p. 118] 

Anarchists think that the essential social values are human values, and
that society is a complex of associations held together by the wills of
their members, whose well-being is its purpose. They consider that it is
not enough that the forms of association should have the passive or
"implied" consent of their members, but that the society and the
individuals who make it up will be healthy only if it is in the full 
sense libertarian, i.e. self-governing, self-managed, and egalitarian.
This implies not only that all the members should have a "right" to
influence its policy if they so desire, but that the greatest possible
opportunity should be afforded for every person to exercise this right.
Anarchism involves an active, not merely passive, citizenship on the part
of society's members and holds that this principle is not only applied to
some "special" sphere of social action called "politics" but to any and
every form of social action, including economic activity.

So, as will be seen, the key concept underlying both the social/political 
and the economic structure of libertarian socialism is "self-management," 
a term that implies not only workers control of their workplaces 
but also citizens' control of their communities (where it becomes
"self-government"), through direct democracy and voluntary federation. 
Thus self-management is the positive implication of anarchism's 
"negative" principle of opposition to hierarchical authority. For through 
self-management, hierarchical authority is dissolved as self-managing
workplace and community assemblies/councils are decentralised, "horizontal"
organisations in which each participant has an equal voice in the
decisions that affect his or her life, instead of merely following orders
and being governed by others. Self-management, therefore, is the essential
condition for a world in which individuals will be free to follow their 
own dreams, in their own ways, co-operating together as equals without 
interference from any form of authoritarian power (such as government 
or boss).

Perhaps needless to say, this section is intended as a heuristic 
device *only*, as a way of helping readers envision how anarchist 
principles might be embodied in practice. They are not (nor are 
they intended to be, nor are they desired to be) a definitive 
statement of how they *must* be embodied. The idea that a few 
people could determine exactly what a free society would look 
like is contrary to the anarchist principles of free growth 
and thought, and is far from our intention. Here we simply try 
to indicate some of the structures that an anarchist society may 
contain, based on the what ideals and ideas anarchists hold and 
the few examples of anarchy in action that have existed and our 
critical evaluation of their limitations and successes. 

Of course, an anarchist society will not be created overnight 
nor without links to the past, and so it will initially include 
structures created in social struggle (i.e. created *within* 
but *against* capitalism and the state -- see section J.5) and 
will be marked with the ideas that inspired and developed within 
that struggle. For example, the anarchist collectives in Spain 
were organised in a bottom-up manner, similar to the way the 
C.N.T. (the anarcho-syndicalist labour union) was organised before 
the revolution. In this sense, anarchy is not some distant goal 
but rather an expression of working class struggle. The creation 
of alternatives to the current hierarchical, oppressive, exploitative 
and alienated society is a necessary part of the class struggle and 
the maintaining of your liberty and humanity in the insane world of 
hierarchical society. As such, an anarchist society will be the 
generalisation of the various types of "anarchy in action" created 
in the various struggles against all forms of oppression and 
exploitation (see section I.2.3).

This means that how an anarchist society would look like and work is not 
independent of the means used to create it. In other words, an anarchist 
society will reflect the social struggle which preceded it and the ideas 
which existed within that struggle as modified by the practical needs of
any given situation. Therefore the vision of a free society indicated in 
this section of the FAQ is not some sort of abstraction which will be 
created overnight. If anarchists did think that then we would rightly 
be called utopian. No, an anarchist society is the outcome of activity and 
social struggle, struggle which helps to create a mass movement which 
contains individuals who can think for themselves and are willing and able 
to take responsibility for their own lives (see section J - "What do 
anarchists do?"). 

So, when reading this section please remember that this is not a blueprint 
but only one possible suggestion of what anarchy would look like. It is
designed to provoke thought and indicate that an anarchist society is 
possible and that such a society is the product of our activity in the 
here and now. We hope that our arguments and ideas presented in this
section will inspire more debate and discussion of how a free society 
could work and, equally as important, help to inspire the struggle that
will create that society. After all, anarchists desire to build the new world
in the shell of the old. Unless we have some idea of what that new society
will be like it is difficult to pre-figure it in our activities today! A point
not lost on Kropotkin who argued that it is difficult to "build" "without
extremely careful consideration beforehand, based on the study of social
life, of *what* and *how* we want to build -- we must reject [Proudhon's] 
slogan [that "in demolishing we shall build"] . . . and declare: 'in building
we shall demolish.'" [_Conquest of Bread_, p. 173f] More recently, Noam 
Chomsky argued that "[a]lternatives to existing forms of hierarchy, domination, 
private power and social control certainly exist in principle. . . But to 
make them realistic will require a great deal of committed work, including 
the work of articulating them clearly." [Noam Chomsky, _Turning the Tide_, 
p. 250] This section of the FAQ can be considered as a contribution to
the articulating of libertarian alternatives to existing society, of want
we want to build for the future.

In other words, view this section of our FAQ as a guide. To use an
analogy, when going on holiday it is a good idea to have a map or
guidebook with you, otherwise you will not know where you are 
going and, indeed, will likely end up *in the wrong place.* Thus
the progress towards a free society is helped by anarchist ideas 
and visions, otherwise it may end up the opposite of what we desire. 
However, it us important that any such guide be discussed by everyone 
before hand, to ensure that it is a *useful* guide and one that
reflects everyone's interests and desires. Thus this section of
our FAQ is simply a contribution to this discussion, a contribution
inspired (in part) by previous contributions, visions and struggles.

We are not afraid that many will argue that much of the vision we present
in this section of the FAQ is utopian. Perhaps they are right, but, as 
Oscar Wilde once said:

"A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth glancing at,
for it leaves out the one country at which Humanity is always landing. And
when Humanity lands there, it looks out and, seeing a better country, sets
sail. Progress is the realisation of Utopias." [_The Soul of Man Under
Socialism_, p. 1184]

However, we have attempted to be a practical as we are visionary, presenting
realistic problems as well as presenting evidence for our solutions to these
problems (as well as our general ideas) from real life where possible, rather
than present a series of impossible assumptions which dismiss possible
problems by definition. After all, it is better to consider the worse 
possible cases for if they do not appear then nothing has been lost and 
if they do at least we have a starting point for possible solutions. So, 
all in all, we have tried to be practical utopians! 

We must stress, however, that anarchists do not want a "perfect" society 
(as is often associated with the term "utopia"). This would be as impossible
as the neo-classical vision of perfect competition. Rather we want a free
society and so one based on real human beings and so one with its 
own problems and difficulties. Our use of the word "utopia" should not
be taken to imply that anarchists assume away all problems and argue
that an anarchist society would be ideal and perfect. No society has ever
been perfect and no society ever will be. All we argue is that an anarchist
society will have fewer problems than those before and be better to live
within. Anyone looking for perfection should look elsewhere. Anyone
looking for a better, but still human, world may find in anarchism a
potential end for their quest.

One last point. We must point out here that we are discussing the social 
and economic structures of areas within which the inhabitants are 
predominately anarchists. It is obviously the case that areas in which 
the inhabitants are not anarchists will take on different forms depending 
upon the ideas that dominate there. Hence, assuming the end of the current 
state structure, we could see anarchist communities along with statist 
ones (capitalist or socialist) and these communities taking different 
forms depending on what their inhabitants want -- communist to individualist 
communities in the case of anarchist ones, state socialist to private state 
communities in the statist areas, ones based on religious sects and so
on. As Malatesta argued, anarchists "must be intransigent in our opposition
to all capitalist imposition and exploitation, and tolerant of all social
concepts which prevail in different human groupings, so long as they
do not threaten the equal rights and freedom of others." [_Life and Ideas_,
p. 174] Thus we respect the wishes of others to experiment and live
their own lives as they see fit, while encouraging those in capitalist
and other statist communities to rise in revolution against their masters
and join the free federation of communes of the anarchist community.
Needless to say, we do not discuss non-anarchist communities here as it 
is up to non-anarchists to present their arguments in favour of their 
kind of statism. We will concentrate on discussing anarchist ideas 
on social organisation here.

So, remember that we are not arguing that everyone will live in an 
anarchist way in a free society. Far from it. There will be pockets 
of unfreedom around, simply because the development of ideas varies 
from area to area. However, it would be a mistake to assume that just 
because there are many choices of community available that it automatically 
makes a society an anarchist one. For example, the modern world boasts 
over 200 different states. For most of them, individuals can leave and 
join another if it will let them. There is no world government as such. 
This does not make this series of states an anarchy. Similarly, a system 
of different company towns is not an anarchy either. The nature of the 
associations is just as important as their voluntary nature. As 
Kropotkin argued, the "communes of the next revolution will not only 
break down the state and substitute free federation for parliamentary 
rule; they will part with parliamentary rule within the commune 
itself . . . They will be anarchist within the commune as they 
will be anarchist outside it." [_The Commune of Paris_] Hence an 
anarchist society is one that is freely joined and left and is 
internally non-hierarchical. Thus anarchist communities may co-exist 
with non-anarchist ones but this does *not* mean the non-anarchist 
ones are in any way anarchistic or libertarian.

When reading this section of the FAQ remember three things. One,
an anarchist society will be created by the autonomous actions of
the mass of the population, not by anarchists writing books about
it. This means a real anarchist society will make many mistakes
and develop in ways we cannot predict. Two, that it is only a 
series of suggestions on how things *could* work in an anarchist 
society -- it is *not* a blueprint of any kind. Three, that we 
recognise that anarchist areas will probably co-exist with 
non-anarchist areas. This does not make the non-anarchist areas 
anarchist and it is up to supporters of hierarchy to present their 
own visions of the future. All anarchists can do is present what we 
believe and why we think such a vision is both desirable *and* viable.

We hope that our arguments and ideas presented in this section of the
FAQ will inspire more debate and discussion of how a free society 
would work. In addition, and equally as important, we hope it will
help inspire the struggle that will create that society. After all,
anarchists desire to build the new world in the shell of the old.
Unless we have some idea of what that new society will be like it
is difficult to create it in our activities in the here and now!

I.1 Isn't libertarian socialism an oxymoron? 

In a word, no. This question is often asked by those who have come 
across the so-called "libertarian" right. As discussed in section 
A.1.3, the word "libertarian" has been used by anarchists for far 
longer than the pro-free market right have been using it. Indeed, 
outside of North America "libertarian" is still essentially used 
as an equivalent of "anarchist" and as a shortened version of 
"libertarian socialist." 

This in itself does not, of course, prove that the term "libertarian 
socialist" is free of contradiction. However, as we will show below, 
the claim that the term is self-contradictory rests on the assumption 
that socialism requires the state in order to exist and that socialism 
is incompatible with liberty (and the equally fallacious claim that 
capitalism is libertarian and does not need the state). This assumption, 
as is often true of many objections to socialism, is based on a 
misconception of what socialism is, a misconception that many 
authoritarian socialists and the state capitalism of Soviet Russia 
have helped to foster. In reality it is the term "state socialism" 
which is the true oxymoron. 

Sadly many people take for granted the assertion of many on the right 
and left that socialism equals Leninism or Marxism and ignore the rich 
and diverse history of socialist ideas, ideas that spread from communist
and individualist-anarchism to Leninism. As Benjamin Tucker once noted,
"the fact that State Socialism . . . has overshadowed other forms of
Socialism gives it no right to a monopoly of the Socialistic idea."
[_Instead of a Book_, pp. 363-4] Unfortunately, many on the left 
combine with the right to do exactly that. Indeed, the right (and, of
course, many on the left) consider that, by definition, "socialism" 
*is* state ownership and control of the means of production, along 
with centrally planned determination of the national economy (and 
so social life). This definition has become common because many Social 
Democrats, Leninists, and other statists *call* themselves socialists. 
However, the fact that certain people call themselves socialists does 
not imply that the system they advocate is really socialism (Hitler, 
for example, called himself a "National Socialist" while, in practice, 
ensuring and enhancing the power and profits of capitalists). We need 
to analyse and understand the systems in question, by applying critical, 
scientific thought, in order to determine whether their claims to the 
socialist label are justified. As we will see, to accept the above 
definition one has to ignore the overall history of the socialist 
movement and consider only certain trends within it as representing 
the movement as a whole. 

Even a quick glance at the history of the socialist movement indicates
that the identification of socialism with state ownership and control is
not common. For example, Anarchists, many Guild Socialists, council
communists (and other libertarian Marxists), as well as followers of Robert
Owen, all rejected state ownership. Indeed, anarchists recognised that
the means of production did not change their form as capital when the
state took over their ownership nor did wage-labour change its nature
when it is the state employing labour (for example, Proudhon argued that
if the "State confiscate[d] the mines, canals and railways" it would
only "add to monarchy, and [create] more wage slavery." [_No Gods, No
Masters_, vol. 1, p. 62]). For anarchists state ownership of capital 
is not socialistic in the slightest but rather a tendency *within,* 
not *opposed* to, capitalism just as the growth of larger and larger 
companies does not imply in any way a tendency to socialism (regardless 
of what Lenin or Marx argued -- see section H.3.12 for more on this). 
Indeed, as Tucker was well aware, state ownership turned *everyone* 
into a proletarian (bar the state bureaucracy) -- hardly a desirable 
thing for a political theory aiming for the end of wage slavery!
  
So what *does* socialism mean?  And is it compatible with libertarian
ideals? What do the words "libertarian" and "socialism" actually mean?
It is temping to use dictionary definitions as a starting point, 
although we should stress that such a method holds problems as different 
dictionaries have different definitions and the fact that dictionaries
are rarely politically sophisticated. Use one definition, and someone 
else will counter with one more to their liking. For example, "socialism"
is often defined as "state ownership of wealth" and "anarchy" as "disorder."
Neither of these definitions are useful when discussing political ideas. 
Therefore, the use of dictionaries is not the end of a discussion
and often misleading when applied to politics. 

With that warning, what do we find?

_Webster's New International Dictionary_ defines a libertarian as
"one who holds to the doctrine of free will; also, one who upholds the
principles of liberty, esp. individual liberty of thought and action." 
As we discussed earlier (see section B.1, for example), capitalism denies 
liberty of thought and action within the workplace (unless one is the 
boss, of course). Therefore, *real* libertarian ideas *must* be 
based on workers self-management, i.e. workers must control and
manage the work they do, determining where and how they do it and 
what happens to the fruit of their labour, which in turn means 
the elimination of wage labour. The elimination of wage labour is the 
common theme of socialism (in theory at least, anarchist argue that 
state socialism does not eliminate wage labour, rather it universalises 
it). Or, to use Proudhon's words, the "abolition of the proletariat." 
[_Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon_, p. 179] It implies a 
classless and anti-authoritarian (i.e. libertarian) society in which 
people manage their own affairs, either as individuals or as part of 
a group (depending on the situation). In other words, it implies 
self-management in all aspects of life -- including work. It has 
always struck anarchists as somewhat strange and paradoxical (to say
the least) that a system of "natural" liberty (Adam Smith's term, 
misappropriated by supporters of capitalism) involves the vast 
majority having to sell that liberty in order to survive. 

According to the _American Heritage Dictionary_ "socialism" is "a social 
system in which the producers possess both political power and the means 
of producing and distributing goods." This definition fits neatly with
the implications of the word "libertarian" indicated above. In fact, it 
shows that socialism is *necessarily* libertarian, not statist. For if 
the state owns the workplace, then the producers do not, and so they will
not be at liberty to manage their own work but will instead be subject to
the state as the boss. Moreover, replacing the capitalist owning class
by  state officials in no way eliminates wage labour; in fact it makes it
worse in many cases. Therefore "socialists" who argue for nationalisation 
of the  means of production are *not* socialists (which means that the 
Soviet Union and the other 'socialist" countries are *not* socialist nor
are parties which advocate nationalisation socialist). 

Indeed, attempts to associate socialism with the state misunderstands
the nature of socialism. It is an essential principle of socialism that
(social) inequalities between individuals must be abolished to ensure
liberty for all (*natural* inequalities cannot be abolished, nor do 
anarchists desire to do so). Socialism, as Proudhon put it, "is egalitarian
above all else." [_No Gods, No Masters_, vol. 1, p. 57] This applies 
to inequalities of power as well, especially to *political* power. And
any hierarchical system (particularly the state) is marked by inequalities
of power -- those at the top (elected or not) have more power than 
those at the bottom. Hence the following comments provoked by the
expulsion of anarchists from the social democratic Second International:

"It could be argued. . . that we [anarchists] are the most logical and
most complete socialists, since we demand for every person not just
his entire measure of wealth of society, but also his portion of social
power, which is to say, the real ability to make his influence felt,
along with that of everybody else, in the administration of public
affairs." [_No Gods, No Masters_, vol. 2, p.20]
 
The election of someone to administer public affairs *for you* is not
having a portion of social power. It is, to use of words of Emile
Pouget (a leading French anarcho-syndicalist) "an act of abdication,"
the delegating of power into the hands of a few. [Op. Cit., p. 67] 
This means that "*[a]ll political power inevitably creates a privileged
situation* for the men who exercise it. Thus it violates, from the
beginning, the equalitarian principle." [Voline, _The Unknown 
Revolution_, p. 249]

From this short discussion we see the links between libertarian and
socialism. To be a true libertarian requires you to support workers'
control otherwise you support authoritarian social relationships. To
support workers' control, by necessity, means that you must ensure
that the producers own (and so control) the means of producing and 
distributing the goods they create (i.e. they must own/control what 
they use to produce goods). Without ownership, they cannot truly control 
their own activity or the product of their labour. The situation where 
workers possess the means of producing and distributing goods is
socialism. Thus to be a true libertarian requires you to be a
socialist.

Similarly, a true socialist must also support individual liberty of
thought and action, otherwise the producers "possess" the means 
of production and distribution in name only. If the state owns the 
means of life, then the producers do not and so are in no position
to manage their own activity. As the experience of Russia under
Lenin shows, state ownership soon produces state control and the
creation of a bureaucratic class which exploits and oppresses the 
workers even more so than their old bosses. Since it is an essential 
principle of socialism that inequalities between people must be 
abolished in order to ensure liberty, it makes no sense for a 
genuine socialist to support any institution based on inequalities 
of power. And as we discussed in section B.2, the state is just such 
an institution. To oppose inequality and not extend that opposition
to inequalities in power, especially *political* power, suggests
a lack of clear thinking. Thus to be a true socialist requires you 
to be a libertarian, to be for individual liberty and opposed to 
inequalities of power which restrict that liberty.

Therefore, rather than being an oxymoron, "libertarian socialism"
indicates that true socialism must be libertarian and that a libertarian
who is not a socialist is a phoney. As true socialists oppose wage 
labour, they must also oppose the state for the same reasons. Similarly,
libertarians must oppose wage labour for the same reasons they must 
oppose the state.

So, libertarian socialism rejects the idea of state ownership and 
control of the economy, along with the state as such. Through workers'
self-management it proposes to bring an end to authority, exploitation,
and hierarchy in production. This in itself will increase, not reduce,
liberty. Those who argue otherwise rarely claim that political democracy
results in less freedom than political dictatorship.

One last point. It could be argued that many social anarchists smuggle 
the state back in via communal ownership of the means of life. This, 
however, is not the case. To argue so confuses society with the state. 
The communal ownership advocated by collectivist and communist 
anarchists is not the same as state ownership. This is because it 
is based on horizontal relationships between the actual workers and 
the "owners" of social capital (i.e. the federated communities as a 
whole, which includes the workers themselves we must stress), not 
vertical ones as in nationalisation (which are between state 
bureaucracies and its "citizens"). Also, such communal ownership 
is based upon letting workers manage their own work and workplaces. 
This means that it is based upon, and does not replace, workers' 
self-management. In addition, all the members of a participatory 
anarchist community fall into one of three categories:  

	(1) producers (i.e. members of a collective or self-employed 
	    artisans); 
	(2) those unable to work (i.e. the  old, sick and so on, who 
	    *were* producers); or 
	(3) the young (i.e. those who *will be* producers).

Therefore, workers' self-management within a framework of communal
ownership is entirely compatible with libertarian and socialist ideas
concerning the possession of the means of producing and distributing 
goods by the producers themselves. 

Hence, far from there being any contradiction between libertarianism 
and socialism, libertarian ideals imply socialist ones, and vice versa. 
As Bakunin argued in 1867:

"We are convinced that freedom without Socialism is privilege and 
injustice, and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and 
brutality." [_Bakunin on Anarchism_, p. 127] 

History has proven him correct. 

I.1.1 Didn't Ludwig von Mises's "calculation argument" prove that 
	socialism can not work?

In 1920, the right-wing economist Ludwig von Mises declared socialism 
to be impossible. A leading member of the "Austrian" school of economics, 
he argued this on the grounds that without private ownership of the means 
of production, there cannot be a competitive market for production goods 
and without a market for production goods, it is impossible to determine 
their values. Without knowing their values, economic rationality is 
impossible and so a socialist economy would simply be chaos -- "the 
absurd output of a senseless apparatus." ["Economic Calculation in the 
Socialist Commonwealth", in _Collectivist Economic Planning_, F.A von 
Hayek (ed.), p.104] While applying his "calculation argument" to Marxist 
ideas of a future socialist society, his argument, it is claimed, is 
applicable to *all* schools of socialist thought, including libertarian 
ones. It is on the basis of his arguments that many right-wingers claim 
that libertarian (or any other kind of) socialism is impossible in 
principle.

As David Schweickart observes "[i]t has long been recognised that von 
Mises's argument is logically defective. Even without a market in 
production goods, their monetary values can be determined." [_Against 
Capitalism_, p. 88] In other words, economic calculation based on prices 
is perfectly possible in a libertarian socialist system. After all, to 
build a workplace requires so many tonnes of steel, of many bricks, so 
many hours of work and so on. If we assume a mutualist (i.e. market 
socialist/co-operative) libertarian socialist society, then the prices 
of these goods can be easily found as the co-operatives in question 
would be offer their services on the market. These commodities would 
be the inputs for the construction of production goods and so the 
latter's monetary values can be found (this does not address whether 
monetary values accurately reflect real costs, an issue we will discuss 
in the next section). 

Ironically enough, von Mises *did* mention the idea of such a 
mutualist system in his initial essay. He wrote of a system 
in which "the 'coal [miners'] syndicate' provides the 'iron 
[workers'] syndicate'" with goods and argued that "no price
can be formed, except when both syndicates are the owners of
the means of production employed in their business" (which
may come as a surprise to transnational companies whose
different workplaces sell each other their products!) Such
a system is dismissed: "This would not be socialisation
but workers' capitalism and syndicalism." [Op. Cit., p. 112]

However, his logic is flawed. Firstly, as we noted, modern
capitalism shows that workplaces owned by the same body
(in this case, a large company) can exchange goods via the
price form. That von Mises makes such a statement indicates
well the firm basis of his argument in reality. Secondly, 
such a system may be, as von Mises states, "syndicalism" (at 
least a form of syndicalism, as most syndicalists were and 
still are in favour of libertarian communism, a simple fact 
apparently unknown to von Mises) but it is not capitalist as
there is no wage labour involved as workers' own and control 
their own means of production. Indeed, von Mises ignorance
of syndicalist thought is striking. In _Human Action_ he
asserts that the "market is a consumers' democracy. The
syndicalists want to transform it into a producers' 
democracy." [p. 809] Most syndicalists, however, aim to
*abolish* the market and *all* aim for workers' control
of production to *complement* (not replace) consumer
choice. Syndicalists, like other anarchists, do not aim 
for workers' control of consumption as von Mises asserts.
Given that von Mises asserts that the market, in which one
person can have a thousand votes and another one, is a
"democracy" his ignorance of syndicalist ideas is perhaps
only one aspect of a general ignorance of reality.

Indeed, such an economy also strikes at the heart of von 
Mises' claims that socialism was "impossible." Given that
von Mises accepted that there may be markets, and hence
market prices, for consumer goods in a socialist economy
his claims of the impossibility of socialism seems unfounded.
For von Mises, the problem for socialism is that "because no 
production-good will ever become the object of exchange, it 
will be impossible to determine its monetary value." [Op. Cit., 
p. 92] The flaw in his argument is clear. Taking, for example,
coal, we find that it is both a means of production and of
consumption. If a market in consumer goods is possible for
a socialist system, then competitive prices for production
goods is also possible as syndicates producing production-goods
would also sell the product of their labour to other syndicates
or communes. Thus, when deciding upon a new workplace, railway 
or house, the designers in question do have access to competitive 
prices with which to make their decisions. Nor does his argument
work against communal ownership in such a system as the commune
would be buying products from syndicates in the same way as
one part of a multi-national company can buy products from 
another part of the same company under capitalism. That goods
produced by self-managed syndicates have prices does not
imply capitalism, regardless of von Mises' claims. 

Thus economic calculation based on competitive market prices 
is possible under a socialist system. Indeed, we see examples 
of this even under capitalism. For example, the Mondragon 
co-operative complex in the Basque Country indicate that a 
libertarian socialist economy can exist and flourish. There 
is no need for capital markets in a system based on mutual 
banks and networks of co-operatives (indeed, as we argue at 
the end of section I.4.8, capital markets *hinder* economic 
efficiency by generating a perverse set of incentives and 
misleading information flows and so their abolition would 
actually *aid* production and productive efficiency). 
Unfortunately, the state socialists who replied to Mises 
did not have such a libertarian economy in mind. 

In response to von Mises initial challenge, a number of economists 
pointed out that Pareto's disciple, Enrico Barone, had already, 
13 years earlier, demonstrated the theoretical possibility of a 
"market-simulated socialism." However, the principal attack on 
von Mises's argument came from Fred Taylor and Oscar Lange (for a 
collection of their main papers, see _On the Economic Theory of 
Socialism_, Benjamin Lippincott (ed.), University of Minnesota, 
1938). In light of their work, Frederick von Hayek shifted the 
question from theoretical impossibility to whether the theoretical
solution could be approximated in practice. Thus even von Hayek, a 
major free-market capitalist guru, seemed to think that von Mises's 
argument could not be defended.

Moreover, it should be noted that both sides of the argument accepted 
the idea of central planning of some kind or another. This means 
that many of von Mises's and von Hayek's arguments did not apply 
to libertarian socialism, which rejects central planning along with 
every other form of centralisation. This is a key point, as most 
members of the right seem to assume that "socialists" all agree 
with each other in supporting a centralised economic system. In 
other words, they ignore a large segment of socialist thought 
and history in order to concentrate on Social Democracy and 
Leninism. The idea of a network of "people's banks" and 
co-operatives working together to meet their common interests 
is ignored, although it has been a common feature in socialist 
thought since the time of Robert Owen. 

Nor was Taylor and Lange's response particularly convincing 
in the first place. This was because it was based far more on 
neo-classical capitalist economic theory than on an appreciation 
of reality. In place of the Walsrian "Auctioneer" (the "god in 
the machine" of general equilibrium theory which ensures that all 
markets clear) Taylor and Lange presented the Planning Authority (the 
"Central Planning Board"), whose job it was to adjust prices so that 
all markets cleared. Neo-classical economists who are inclined to 
accept Walrasian theory as an adequate account of a working capitalist 
economy will be forced to accept the validity of Taylor and Lange's 
version of "socialism." Little wonder Taylor and Lange were considered, 
at the time, the victors in the "socialist calculation" debate by most 
of the economics profession (with the collapse of the Soviet Union, 
this decision has been revised somewhat -- although we must point out 
that Taylor and Lange's model was not the same as the Soviet system, a 
fact conveniently ignored by commentators). 

Unfortunately, given that Walrasian theory has little bearing to 
reality, we must also come to the conclusion that the Taylor-Lange 
"solution" has about the same relevance (even ignoring its 
non-libertarian aspects, such as its basis in state-ownership, 
its centralisation, its lack of workers' self-management and so 
on). Many people consider Taylor and Lange as fore-runners of 
"market socialism." This is incorrect -- rather than being market 
socialists, they are in fact "neo-classical" socialists, building 
a "socialist" system which mimics capitalist economic *theory* 
rather than its *reality*. Replacing Walrus's mythical creation 
of the "Auctioneer" with a planning board does not really get 
to the heart of the problem! Nor does their vision of "socialism" 
have much appeal -- a re-production of capitalism with a planning 
board and a more equal distribution of money income. Anarchists 
reject such "socialism" as little more than a nicer version of 
capitalism, if that.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, it has been fashionable to 
argue that "von Mises was right" and that socialism is impossible
(of course, *during* the cold war such claims were ignored as
the Soviet threat had to boosted and used as a means of social
control and to justify state aid to capitalist industry). Nothing 
could be further from the truth. As we have argued in the 
previous section and elsewhere, these countries were not socialist 
at all and did not even approximate the (libertarian) socialist 
idea (which is the only true form of socialism). Obviously the 
Soviet Union and Eastern European countries had authoritarian 
"command economies" with central bureaucratic planning, and so 
their failure cannot be taken as proof that a decentralised, 
libertarian socialism cannot work. Nor can von Mises' and von 
Hayek's arguments against Taylor and Lange be used against a 
libertarian mutualist or collectivist system as such a system 
is decentralised and dynamic (unlike the "neo-classical" socialist 
model they proposed). Libertarian socialism of this kind did, 
in fact, work remarkably well during the Spanish Revolution in 
the face of amazing difficulties, with increased productivity and 
output in many workplaces as well as increased equality and liberty 
(see Sam Dolgoff, _The Anarchist Collectives_ or Gaston Leval's 
_Collectives in the Spanish Revolution_ as well as section I.8 of 
this FAQ).

Thus von Mises "calculation argument" does not prove that socialism is
impossible. The theoretical work of such socialists as David Schweickart
(see his _Against Capitalism_ for an extensive discussion of a dynamic,
decentralised market socialist system) and others on market socialism 
shows that von Mises was wrong in asserting that  "a socialist system 
with a market and market prices is as self-contradictory as is the notion 
of a triangular square." Indeed, by suppressing capital markets in favour
of simple commodity production, a mutualist system will improve upon
capitalism by removing an important source of perverse incentives
which hinder long term investment and social responsibility (see 
section I.4.8) in addition to reducing inequalities, increasing
freedom and improving general economic performance.

So far, most models of market socialism have not been fully 
libertarian, but instead involve the idea of workers' control 
within a framework of state ownership of capital (Engler in 
_Apostles of Greed_ is an exception to this, supporting 
community ownership). However, libertarian forms of market 
socialism are indeed possible and would be similar to 
Proudhon's mutualism. As anarchist Robert Graham points 
out, "Market socialism is but one of the ideas defended by Proudhon 
which is both timely and controversial. . . Proudhon's market socialism 
is indissolubly linked with his notions of industrial democracy and 
workers' self-management." ["Introduction", P-J Proudhon, _General Idea 
of the Revolution_, p. xxxii] His system of agro-industrial federations
can be seen as a non-statist way of protecting self-management, liberty
and equality in the face of market forces (as he argued in _The Principle
of Federation_, "[h]owever impeccable in its basic logic the federal
principle may be. . . it will not survive if economic factors tend 
persistently to dissolve it. In other words, political right requires
to be buttressed by economic right" and "in an economic context, 
confederation may be intended to provide reciprocal security in
commerce and industry. . . The purpose of such specific federal
arrangements is to protect the citizens. . . from capitalist and
financial exploitation. . . in their aggregate they form . . .
an *agro-industrial federation*" [_The Principle of Federation_,
p. 67 and p. 70]).

Indeed, some Leninist Marxists recognise the links between Proudhon 
and market socialism. For example, the unorthodox Trotskyite Hillel 
Ticktin argues that Proudhon, "the anarchist and inveterate foe of 
Karl Marx. . . put forward a conception of society, which is probably 
the first detailed exposition of a 'socialist market.'" ["The Problem 
is Market Socialism", in _Market Socialism: The Debate Among 
Socialists_, edited by Bertell Ollman, p. 56] In addition, see 
_Against the Market_ in which the author, Dave McNally, correctly 
argues that Proudhon was a precursor of the current market socialists.
Needless to say, these Leninists reject the idea of market socialism
as contradictory and, basically, not socialist (while, strangely
enough, acknowledging that the transition to Marxist-communism 
under the workers' state would use the market!).

Thus it is possible for a socialist economy to allocate resources 
using a competitive market. However, does von Mises's argument mean 
that a socialism that abolishes the market (such as libertarian 
communism) is impossible? Given that the vast majority of anarchists
seek a libertarian communist society, this is an important question.
We address it in the next section.

I.1.2 Does Mises' argument mean libertarian communism is impossible? 

In a word, no. While the "calculation argument" is often used by 
right-libertarian's as *the* "scientific" basis for the argument 
that communism (a moneyless society) is impossible, it is based 
on certain false ideas of what money does and how an anarchist 
society would function without it. This is hardly surprising, 
as Mises based his theory on the "subjective" theory of value 
and the Marxist social-democratic (and so Leninist) ideas of 
what a "socialist" economy would look like. As Libertarian 
Marxist Paul Mattick correctly argued:

"However divided the old [social-democratic] labour movement 
may be by disagreements on various topics, on the question of 
socialism it stands united. Hilferding's abstract 'General-Cartel',
Lenin's admiration for the German war socialism and the
German postal service. Kautsky's eternalisation of the
value-price-money economy (desiring to do consciously what
in capitalism is performed by blind market forces). Trotsky's
war communism equipped with supply and demand features, and
Stalin's institutional economics -- all these concepts have
at their base the continuation of the existing conditions
of production. As a matter of fact, they are mere reflections
of what is actually going on in capitalist society. Indeed,
such 'socialism' is discussed today by famous bourgeois
economists like Pigou, Hayek, Robbins, Keynes, to mention
only a few, and has created a considerable literature to
which the socialists now turn for their material." 
[_Anti-Bolshevik Communism_, pp. 80-1]

Therefore, there has been little discussion of what a true 
(i.e. libertarian) communist society would be like, one that 
utterly transformed the existing conditions of production by
workers' self-management and the abolition of both the wages 
system and money. However, it is useful here to indicate 
exactly why a moneyless (i.e. truly communist) "economy" 
would work and why the "calculation argument" is flawed as 
an objection to it. 

Mises argued that without money there was no way a socialist economy 
would make "rational" production decisions. Not even von Mises denied 
that a moneyless society could estimate what is likely to be needed 
over a given period of time (as expressed as physical quantities of 
definite types and sorts of objects). As he argued, "calculation *in 
natura* in an economy without exchange can embrace consumption-goods 
only." [_Collectivist Economic Planning_, F.A. Von Hayek (ed.), p. 104] 
Mises' argument is that the next step, working out which productive 
methods to employ, would not be possible, or at least would not be 
able to be done "rationally," i.e. avoiding waste and inefficiency. 
As he argues, the evaluation of producer goods "can only be done 
with some kind of economic calculation. The human mind cannot orient 
itself properly among the bewildering mass of intermediate products 
and potentialities without such aid. It would simply stand perplexed 
before the problems of management and location." [Op. Cit., p. 103] 
Mises' claimed that monetary calculation based on market prices is
the only solution.

This argument is not without its force. How can a producer be 
expected to know if tin is a better use of resources than iron 
when creating a product if all they know is that iron and tin
are available and suitable for their purpose? Or, if we have
a consumer good which can be made with A + 2B or 2A + B 
(where A and B are both input factors such as steel, oil
electricity, etc.) how can we tell which method is more efficient
(i.e. which one used least resources and so left the most
over for other uses)? With market prices, Mises' argued, it 
is simple. If the iron cost $5 and tin $4, then tin should be
used. Similarly, if A cost $10 and B $5, then clearly method
one would be the most efficient ($20 versus $25). Without
the market, von Mises argued, such a decision would be impossible
and so every decision would be a "leap in the dark."

However, Mises' argument is based on a number of flawed assumptions. 

Firstly, he assumes a centralised, planned economy. While this 
was a common idea in Marxian social democracy (and the Leninism 
that came from it), it is rejected by anarchism. No small body 
of people can be expected to know what happens in society ("No 
single brain nor any bureau of brains can see to this organisation," 
in the words of Issac Puente [_Libertarian Communism_, p. 29]). As 
Bakunin argued, it would lead in practice to "an extremely complex 
government. This government will not content itself with administering 
and governing the masses politically . . . it will also administer the 
masses economically, concentrating in the hands of the State [all 
economic and social activity] . . . All that will demand an immense 
knowledge and many heads 'overflowing with brains' in this government. 
It will be the reign of *scientific intelligence*, the most aristocratic, 
despotic, arrogant, and elitist of all regimes. There will be a new 
class, a new hierarchy . . . Such a regime will not fail to arouse 
very considerable discontent in the masses of the people, and in order 
to keep them in check . . .[a] considerable armed force [would be 
required]." [_Bakunin on Anarchism_, p. 319]  Hence anarchists can 
agree with Mises: central planning cannot work in practice. However, 
socialist ideas are not limited to Marxian Social Democracy, and so 
von Mises ignores far more socialistic ideas than he attacks. 

His next assumption is equally flawed. This is that without the market, 
no information is passed between producers beyond the final outcome of
production. In other words, he assumes that the final product is all that
counts in evaluating its use. Needless to say, it is true that without
more information than the name of a given product, it is impossible to
determine whether using it would be an efficient utilisation of resources.
But von Mises misunderstands the basic concept of use-value, namely the
utility of a good to the consumer of it. As Adam Buick and John Crump
point out, "at the level of the individual production unit or industry,
the only calculations that would be necessary in socialism would be
calculations in kind. On the one side would be recorded the resources
(materials, energy, equipment, labour) used up in production and on the
other the amount of good produced, together with any by-products. . . .
Socialist production is simply the production of use values from use
values, and nothing more." [_State Capitalism: The Wages System Under 
New Management_, p. 137]

The generation and communication of such information implies a 
decentralised, horizontal network between producers and consumers. 
This is because what counts as a use-value can only be determined
by those directly using it. Thus the production of use-values from
use-values cannot be achieved via central planning, as the central
planners have no notion of the use-value of the goods being used
or produced. Such knowledge lies in many hands, dispersed throughout 
society, and so socialist production implies decentralisation. 
Capitalist ideologues claim that the market allows the utilisation
of such dispersed knowledge, but as John O'Neil notes, "the market 
may be *one* way in which dispersed knowledge can be put to good 
effect. It is not . . . the only way." [_Ecology, Policy and 
Politics_, p. 118]

So, in order to determine if a specific good is useful to a person, that
person needs to know its "cost."  Under capitalism, the notion of cost has
been so associated with *price* that we have to put the word "cost" in
quotation marks. However, the real cost of, say, writing a book, is not 
a sum of money but so much paper, so much energy, so much ink, so much 
human labour. In order to make a rational decision on whether a given good 
is better for meeting a given need than another, the would-be consumer
requires this information. However, under capitalism this information 
is *hidden* by the price.

Moreover, a purely market-based system leaves out information on 
which to base rational resource allocations (or, at the very least, 
hides it). The reason for this is that a market system measures, at 
best, preferences of *individual* buyers among the *available* options. 
This assumes that all the pertinent use-values that are to be outcomes of 
production are things that are to be consumed by the individual, rather 
than use-values that are collectively enjoyed (like clean air). Prices 
in the market do not measure social costs or externalities, meaning 
that such costs are not reflected in the price and so you cannot have 
a rational price system. Similarly, if the market measures only 
preferences amongst things that can be monopolised and sold to 
individuals, as distinguished from values that are enjoyed 
collectively, then it follows that information necessary for 
rational decision-making in production is not provided by the market.

In other words, prices hide the actual costs that production involved 
for the individual, society, and the environment, and instead boils 
everything down into *one* factor, namely price. There is a lack of 
dialogue and information between producer and consumer. As John
O'Neil argues, "the market distributes a little information and
. . . blocks the distribution of a great deal [more]. . . The 
educative dialogue exists not through the market, but alongside 
of it." [_Ecology, Policy and Politics_, p. 143]

In the words of Joan Robinson:

"In what industry, in what line of business, are the true social
costs of the activity registered in its accounts? Where is the
pricing system that offers the consumer a fair choice between
air to breath and motor cars to drive about in?" [_Contribution
to Modern Economics_, p. 10]

Indeed, prices often *mis*-value goods as companies can gain a
competitive advantage by passing costs onto society (in the form
of pollution, for example, or de-skilling workers, increasing
job insecurity, and so on). This externalisation of costs is 
actually rewarded in the market as consumers seek the lowest
prices, unaware of the reasons *why* it is lower (such information
cannot be gathered from looking at the price). Even if we assume
that such activity is penalised by fines later, the damage is
still done and cannot be undone. Indeed, the company may be able
to weather the fines due to the profits it originally made by
externalising costs.

And do prices *actually* reflect costs, even assuming that they
accurately reflect social costs and externalities? The question 
of profit, the reward for owning capital and allowing others to 
use it, is hardly a cost in the same way as labour, resources and 
so on (attempts to explain profits as an equivalent sacrifice as 
labour have always been ridiculous and quickly dropped). When 
looking at prices to evaluate efficient use for goods, you cannot
actually tell by the price if this is so. Two goods may have 
the same price, but profit levels (perhaps under the influence 
of market power) may be such that one has a higher cost price 
than another. The price mechanism fails to indicate which uses 
least resources as it is influenced by market power. Indeed, 
as Takis Fotopoulos notes, "[i]f . . . both central planning 
and the market economy inevitably lead to concentrations of 
power, then neither the former nor the latter can produce the 
sort of information flows and incentives which are necessary 
for the best functioning of any economic system." [_Towards an 
Inclusive Democracy_, p. 252] Moreover, a good produced under 
a authoritarian state which represses its workforce would have 
a lower price than one produced in a country which allowed 
unions to organise and had basic human rights. The repression 
would force down the cost of labour, so making the good in 
question appear as a more "efficient" use of resources. In 
other words, the market can mask inhumanity as "efficiency" 
and actually reward that behaviour by market share.

Simply put, prices cannot be taken to reflect real costs
any more that they can reflect the social expression of
the valuation of goods. They are the result of a conflict
waged over these goods and those that acted as their inputs
(including, of course, labour). Market and social power,
much more than need or resource usage, decides the issue.
The inequality in the means of purchasers, in the market
power of firms and in the bargaining position of labour
and capital all play their part, so distorting any 
relationship a price may have to its costs in terms of
resource use. Prices are misshapen. Little wonder Kropotkin
asked whether "are we not yet bound to analyse that
compound result we call price rather than to accept
it as a supreme and blind ruler of our actions?" [_Fields,
Factories and Workshops Tomorrow_, p. 71]

Von Mises argued that anyone "who wished to make calculations 
in regard to a complicated process of production will 
immediately notice whether he has worked more economically
than others or not; if he finds, from reference to the
exchange values obtaining in the market, that he will not
be able to produce profitably, this shows that others 
understand how to make better use of the higher-order
goods in question." [Op. Cit., pp. 97-8] However, this only
shows whether someone has worked more *profitably* that
others, not whether it is more economical. Market power
automatically muddles this issue, as does the possibility
of reducing the monetary cost of production by recklessly
exploiting natural resources and labour, polluting, or
otherwise passing costs onto others. Similarly, the issue
of wealth inequality is important, for if the production 
of luxury goods proves more profitable than basic essentials
for the poor does this show that producing the former is
a better use of resources? And, of course, the key issue
of the relative strength of market power between workers
and capitalists plays a key role in determining "profitably."

Therefore, the claim that prices reflect real costs and so
efficiency can be faulted on two levels. Moreover, without
using another means of cost accounting instead of prices
how can supporters of capitalism know there is a correlation
between actual and price costs? One can determine whether
such a correlation exists by measuring one against the
other. If this cannot be done, then the claim that prices 
measure costs is a tautology (in that a price represents a
cost and we know that it is a cost because it has a price). 
If it can be done, then we can calculate costs in some other
sense than in market prices and so that argument that only
market prices represent costs falls.

Similarly, von Mises assumes that capitalism can accurately 
estimate the costs of investing. Using the example of a
new railroad, he asks "[s]hould it be built at all, and if
so, which out of the number of conceivable roads should be
built? In a competitive and monetary economy, this question
would be answered by monetary calculation. The new road
will render less expensive the transport of some goods,
and it may be possible to calculate whether this reduction
of expense transcends that involved in the building and
upkeep of the new line." [Op. Cit., pp. 108-9] However,
this is *not* the case. An investment decision is made
based on estimating *possible* future events. The new
line *may* reduce transportation costs but the expected
reduction may be relatively less that predicted, so causing
the investment to fail. Moreover, an investment may fail
while it meets a social need simply because people may
need the product but cannot afford to pay for it. In
other words, von Mises example hardly shows the superiority
of monetary calculation as the decision to invest under
capitalism is as much a leap in the dark as it would
be an a socialist system (the future is uncertain, in
other words).

Lastly, Mises assumes that the market is a rational system. As 
O'Neil points out, "Von Mises' earlier arguments against socialist 
planning turned on an assumption about commensurability. His central 
argument was that rational economic decision-making required a single 
measure on the basis of which the worth of alternative states of affairs 
could be calculated and compared." [Op. Cit., p. 115] This central 
assumption was unchallenged by Taylor and Lange in their defence of 
"socialism", meaning that from the start the debate against von Mises 
was defensive and based on the argument that socialist planning could 
mimic the market and produce results which were efficient from a 
capitalist point of view. Thus, no one challenged Mises' assumptions 
either about the centrally planned nature of socialism or about the 
market being a rational system. Little wonder that the debate put 
the state socialists on the defensive. As their system was little 
more than state capitalism, it is unlikely they would attack the 
fundamentals of capitalism (namely wage labour and centralisation). 

So, is capitalism rational? Well, it does exist, but that does not prove
that it is rational. The Catholic Church exists, but that shows nothing
about the rationality of the institution. To answer the question, we must
return to our earlier point that using prices means basing all decision
making on one criterion and ignoring all others. This has seriously
irrational effects, because the managers of capitalist enterprises are
obliged to choose technical means of production which produce the 
cheapest results. All other considerations are subordinate, in particular 
the health and welfare of the producers and the effects on the environment.
The harmful effects resulting from "rational" capitalist production
methods have long been pointed out. For example, speed-ups, pain, stress,
accidents, boredom, overwork, long hours and so on all harm the physical
and mental health of those involved, while pollution, the destruction of
the environment, and the exhaustion of non-renewable resources all have
serious effects on both the planet and those who live on it. As E. F.
Schumacher argued:

"But what does it *mean* when we say that something is uneconomic? . . .
[S]omething is uneconomic when it fails to earn an adequate profit in
terms of money. The method of economics does not, and cannot, produce
any other meaning. . . The judgement of economics . . . is an extremely
*fragmentary* judgement; out of the large number of aspects which in
real life have to be seen and judged together before a decision can
be taken, economics supplies only one -- whether a money profit 
accrues *to those who undertake it* or not." [_Small is Beautiful_,
pp. 27-8]

Schumacher stressed that "about the *fragmentary* nature of the 
judgements of economics there can be no doubt whatever. Even
with the narrow compass of the economic calculus, these 
judgements are necessarily and *methodically* narrow. For one
thing, they give vastly more weight to the short then to the
long term. . . [S]econd, they are based on a definition of
cost which excludes all 'free goods' . . . [such as the]
environment, except for those parts that have been privately
appropriated. This means that an activity can be economic 
although it plays hell with the environment, and that a
competing activity, if at some cost it protects and conserves
the environment, will be uneconomic." Moreover, "[d]o not overlook 
the words 'to those who undertake it.' It is a great error to
assume, for instance, that the methodology of economics is
normally applied to determine whether an activity carried
out by a group within society yields a profit to society
as a whole." [Op. Cit., p. 29] 

To claim that prices include all these "externalities" is 
nonsense. If they did, we would not see capital moving to 
third-world countries with few or no anti-pollution or 
labour laws. At best, the "cost" of pollution would only 
be included in a price if the company was sued successfully 
in court for damages -- in other words, once the damage is 
done. Ultimately, companies have a strong interest in buying 
inputs with the lowest prices, regardless of *how* they are 
produced. As Noam Chomsky points out, "[i]n a true capitalist 
society, . . . socially responsible behaviour would be
penalised quickly in that competitors, lacking such social 
responsibility, would supplant anyone so misguided as to be 
concerned with something other than private benefit." 
[_Language and Politics_, p. 301] It is reductionist 
accounting and its accompanying "ethics of mathematics" 
that produces the "irrationality of rationality" which 
plagues capitalism's exclusive reliance on prices (i.e. 
profits) to measure "efficiency." Moreover, the critique 
we have just sketched ignores the periodic crises that hit 
capitalist industry and economies to produce massive 
unemployment and social disruption -- crises that are 
due to subjective and objective pressures on the operation 
of the price mechanism (see section C.7 for details). 

Ironically enough, von Mises also pointed to the irrational nature
of the price mechanism. He states (correctly) that there are
"extra-economic" elements which "monetary calculation cannot
embrace" because of "its very nature." He acknowledges that
these "considerations themselves can scarcely be termed
irrational" and, as examples, lists "[i]n any place where
men regard as significant the beauty of a neighbourhood or
a building, the health, happiness and contentment of mankind,
the honour of individuals or nations." He states that "they are
just as much motive forces of rational conduct as are economic
factors" but they "do not enter into exchange relationships."
[von Mises, Op. Cit., p. 99] How rational is an economic system
which ignores the "health, happiness and contentment" of people?
Or the beauty of their surroundings? Which, moreover, penalises
those who take these factors into consideration? For anarchists,
von Mises comments indicate well the inverted logic of capitalism.
That von Mises can support a system which ignores the needs of
individuals, their happiness, health, surroundings, environment
and so on by "its very nature" says a lot (his suggestion
that we assign monetary values to such dimensions [p. 100] 
begs the question and has plausibility only if it assumes what
it is supposed to prove. Indeed, the person who would put
a price on friendship simply would have no friends. They
simply do not understand what friendship is and are thereby
excluded from much which is best in human life. Likewise
for other "extra-economic" goods that individual's value,
such as beautiful places, happiness, the environment and 
so on).

Under communist-anarchism, the decision-making system used to 
determine the best use of resources is not more or less "efficient" 
than market allocation, because it goes beyond the market-based 
concept of "efficiency." It does not seek to mimic the market but 
to do what the market fails to do. This is important, because the 
market is not the rational system its defenders often claim. While 
reducing all decisions to one common factor is, without a doubt, 
an easy method of decision making, it also has serious side-effects 
*because* of its reductionistic basis (as discussed further in the 
next section). As Einstein once pointed out, things should be made 
as simple as possible but not simplistic. The market makes decision 
making simplistic and generates a host of irrationalities and 
dehumanising effects. 

Sections I.4.4 and I.4.5 discusses one possible framework for a 
communist economic decision-making process. Such a framework is 
necessary because "an appeal to a necessary role for practical 
judgements in decision making  is *not* to deny any role to general 
principles. Neither . . . does it deny any place for the use of 
technical rules and algorithmic procedures . . . Moreover, there 
is a necessary role for rules of thumb, standard procedures, the 
default procedures and institutional arrangements that can be 
followed unreflectively  and which *reduce* the scope for *explicit* 
judgements comparing different  states of affairs. There are limits 
in time, efficient use of resources and the dispersal of knowledge 
which require rules and institutions. Such rules and institutions 
can fee us for space and time for reflective judgements where 
they matter most." [John O'Neil, Op. Cit., pp. 117-8]

While these algorithmic procedures and guidelines can, and indeed
should be, able to be calculated by hand, it is likely that 
computers will be extensively used to take input data and process
it into a suitable format. Indeed, many capitalist companies
have software which records raw material inputs and finished
product into databases and spreadsheets. Such software could be
the basis of a libertarian communist decision making algorithm.
Of course, currently such data is submerged beneath money and
does not take into account externalities and the nature of the
work involved (as would be the case in an anarchist society).
However, this does not limit their potential or deny that 
communist use of such software can be used to inform decisions.

This, we must note, indicates that communist society would
use various "aids to the mind" to help individuals and groups
to make economic decisions. This would reduce the complexity
of economic decision making, by allowing different options
and resources to be compared to each other. Hence the
complexity of economic decision making in an economy with
a multitude of goods can be reduced by the use of rational
algorithmic procedures and methods to aid the process. Such
tools would aid decision making, not dominate it as these
decisions affect humans and the planet and should never be
made automatically.

It is useful to remember that von Mises argued that it is 
the *complexity* of a modern economy that ensures money is 
required. As he put it, "[w]ithin the narrow confines of 
household economy, for instance, where the father can 
supervise the entire economic management, it is possible 
to determine the significance of changes in the processes 
of production, without such aids to the mind [as monetary 
calculation], and yet with more or less of accuracy." However, 
"the mind of one man alone -- be it ever so cunning, is too 
weak to grasp the importance of any single one among the
countlessly many goods of higher order. No single man
can ever master all the possibilities of production,
innumerable as they are, as to be in a position to make
straightway evident judgements of value without the aid
of some system of computation." [Op. Cit., p. 102]

That being the case, a libertarian communist society would 
quickly develop the means of comparing the real impact of
specific "higher order" goods in terms of their real costs
(i.e. the amount of labour, energy and raw materials used
plus any social and ecological costs). As we noted above, 
this essential decision making information would have to
be recorded and communicated in a communist society and used
to evaluate different options using an agreed methods of
comparison. This methods of comparison differs drastically
from the price mechanism as it recognises that mindless,
automatic calculation is impossible in social choices. Such 
choices have an unavoidable ethical and political dimension 
simply because they involve other human beings and the 
environment. As von Mises himself acknowledges, monetary 
calculation does not capture such dimensions. We, therefore, 
need to employ practical judgement in making choices aided 
by a full understanding of the *real* social and ecological 
costs involved using, of course, the appropriate "aids to 
the mind." 

In addition, a decentralised system will by necessity have
to compare less alternatives as local knowledge will eliminate
many of the options available. As von Mises acknowledged, 
a "household economy" *can* make economic decisions without
money. Being more decentralised than capitalism, a libertarian
communist economy will, therefore, be able to do so as well, 
particularly when it uses the appropriate "aids to the mind" 
to evaluate external resources versus locally produced ones. 
Given that an anarchist society would be complex and integrated, 
such aids would be essential but, due to its decentralised nature, 
it need not embrace the price mechanism. It can evaluate the
efficiency of its decisions by looking at the *real* costs 
involved to society rather than embrace the distorted system
of costing explicit in the price mechanism (as Kropotkin once
put it, "if we analyse *price*" we must "make a distinction 
between its different elements" in order to make rationale
allocation and investment decisions [Op. Cit., p. 72]).

Thus, anarchists argue that von Mises' claims were wrong. 
Communism is viable, but only if it is libertarian communism. 
Economic decision making in a moneyless "economy" is possible. 
Indeed, it could be argued that von Mises' argument exposes 
difficulties for capitalism rather than for anarchism. Capitalist 
"efficiency" is hardly rational and for a fully human and 
ecological efficiency, libertarian communism is required. As 
two libertarian socialists point out, "socialist society still 
has to be concerned with using resources efficiently and 
rationally, but the criteria of 'efficiency' and 'rationality' 
are not the same as they are under capitalism." [Buick and 
Crump, Op. Cit., p. 137] 

So, to claim that communism will be "more" efficient than 
capitalism or vice versa misses the point. Libertarian 
communism will be "efficient" in a totally different way 
and people will act in ways considered "irrational" only 
under the logic of capitalism.

I.1.3 What is wrong with markets anyway? 

A lot. Markets soon result in what are termed "market forces,"
"impersonal" forces which ensure that the people in the economy 
do what is required of them in order for the economy to function. 
The market system, in capitalist apologetics, is presented to appear 
as a regime of freedom where no one forces anyone to do anything, 
where we "freely" exchange with others as we see fit. However, the 
facts of the matter are somewhat different, since the market often 
ensures that people act in ways *opposite* to what they desire or 
forces them to accept "free agreements" which they may not actually 
desire. Wage labour is the most obvious example of this, for, as we 
indicated in section B.4, most people have little option but to agree 
to work for others. 

We must stress here that not all anarchists are opposed to the market.
Individualist anarchists favour it while Proudhon wanted to modify
it while retaining competition. For many, the market equals capitalism.
However, this is not the case as it ignores the fundamental issue of
(economic) class, namely who owns the means of production. Capitalism
is unique in that it is based on wage labour, i.e. a market for labour
as workers do not own their own means of production and have to sell
themselves to those who do. Thus it is entirely possible for a market 
to exist within a society and for that society *not* to be capitalist. 
For example, a society of independent artisans and peasants selling 
their product on the market would not be capitalist as workers would 
own and control their means of production and so wage labour (and so 
capitalism) would not exist. Similarly, Proudhon's competitive system 
of self-managed co-operatives and mutual banks would be non-capitalist
(and socialist) for the same reason. Anarchists object to capitalism
due to the quality of the social relationships it generates between
people (i.e. it generates authoritarian ones). If these relationships
are eliminated then the kinds of ownership which do so are anarchistic.
Thus the issue of ownership matters only in-so-far it generates 
relationships of the desired kind (i.e. those based on liberty,
equality and solidarity). To concentrate purely on "markets" or
"property" means to ignore social relationships and the key aspect
of capitalism, namely wage labour. That right-wingers do this is
understandable (to hide the authoritarian core of capitalism) but
why (libertarian or other) socialists should do so is less clear.

In this section of the FAQ we discuss anarchist objections to the
market *as such* rather than the capitalist market. The workings of
the market do have problems with them which are independent of, or 
made worse by, the existence of wage-labour. It is these problems
which make most anarchists hostile to the market and so desire a
communist-anarchist society.

So, even if we assume a mutualist or market-socialist system of
competing self-managed workplaces, it's clear that market forces 
would soon result in many irrationalities occurring. Most obviously, 
operating in a market means submitting to the profit criterion. This 
means that however much workers might want to employ social criteria, 
they cannot. To ignore profitability would cause their firm to go 
bankrupt. Markets therefore create conditions that compel workers 
and consumers to decide things which are not be in their interest, 
for example introducing deskilling or polluting technology, longer 
hours, and so on. We could also point to the numerous industrial 
deaths and accidents which are due to market forces making it 
unprofitable to introduce adequate safety equipment or working 
conditions, (conservative estimates for industrial deaths in the 
USA are between 14 000 and 25 000 per year plus over 2 million 
disabled), or to increased pollution and stress levels which 
shorten life spans. 

In addition, a market-based system can result in what we have 
termed "the ethics of mathematics," where things (particularly 
money) become more important than people. This can have a 
de-humanising effect, with people becoming cold-hearted 
calculators who put profits before people. This can be seen 
in capitalism, where economic decisions are far more important 
than ethical ones. And such an inhuman mentality can be
rewarded on the market. Merit does not "necessarily" breed 
success, and the successful do not "necessarily" have merit. 
The truth is that, in the words of Noam Chomsky, "wealth and 
power tend to accrue to those who are ruthless, cunning, 
avaricious, self-seeking, lacking in sympathy and compassion, 
subservient to authority and willing to abandon principle for
material gain, and so on. . . Such qualities might be just the
valuable ones for a war of all against all." [_For Reasons
of State_, pp. 139-140] Thorstein Veblen elaborated at length 
on this theme in _The Leisure Class_, a classic analysis of 
capitalist psychology. Needless to be said, if the market
does reward such people with success it can hardly be considered
as a *good* thing. A system which elevates making money to 
the position of the most important individual activity will 
obviously result in the degrading of human values and an 
increase in neurotic and psychotic behaviour. 

Little wonder, as Alfie Kohn has argued, competition can have 
serious negative effects on us outside of work, with it damaging 
both our personal psychology and our interpersonal relationships 
(see his excellent book _No Contest_ for details). The market can 
impoverish us as individuals, sabotaging self-esteem, promoting 
conformity, ruining relationships and making use less than what 
we could be. This is a problem of markets as such, not only 
capitalist ones.

Any market system is also marked by a continuing need to expand 
production and consumption. This means that market forces ensure 
that work continually has to expand, causing potentially destructive 
results for both people and the planet. Competition ensures that 
we can never take it easy, for as Max Stirner argued, "[r]estless 
acquisition does not let us take breath, take a calm *enjoyment*. 
We do not get the comfort of our possessions. . . Hence it is at 
any rate helpful that we come to an agreement about *human* labours 
that they may not, as under competition, claim all our time and toil." 
[_The Ego and Its Own_, p. 268]

Value needs to be created, and that can only be done by labour. It is
ironic that supporters of capitalism, while usually saying that "work" is
and always will be hell, support an economic system which must continually
expand that "work" (i.e. labour) while deskilling and automating it and
those who do it. Anarchists, in contrast, argue that work need not be
hell, and indeed, that when enriched by skills and self-management, can be
enjoyable. We go further and argue that work need not take all our time
and that *labour* (i.e. unwanted and boring work) can and must be
minimised. Hence, while the "anti-work" capitalist submits humanity to
more and more labour, the anarchist desires the liberation of "work" and
the end of "labour" as a way of life. 

In addition, market decisions are crucially conditioned by the purchasing
power of those income groups that can back their demands with money. The
market is a continuous bidding for goods, resources, and services, with
those who have the most purchasing power the winners. This means that the
market system is the worst one for allocating resources when purchasing
power is unequally distributed. This is why orthodox economists make the
convenient assumption of a "given distribution of income" when they try
to show that a market-based allocation of resources is the best one (for
example, "Pareto optimality"). While a mutualist system should reduce
inequality drastically, it cannot be assumed that inequalities will 
not increase over time. This is because inequalities in resources 
leads to inequalities of power on the market. Any trade or contract
will benefit the powerful more than the powerless, so re-enforcing
and potentially increasing the inequalities and power between the
parties. This could, over time, lead to a return to capitalism (as
Proudhon himself noted, the "original equality [between contractor
and workmen] was bound to disappear through the advantageous 
position of the master and the dependence of the wage-workers."
[_System of Economical Contradictions_, p. 201]).

With the means of life monopolised by one class, the effects of market
forces and unequal purchasing power can be terrible. As Allan Engler
points out, "[w]hen people are denied access to the means of livelihood,
the invisible hand of market forces does not intervene on their behalf.
Equilibrium between supply and demand has no necessary connection with
human need. For example, assume a country of one million people in which
900,000 are without means of livelihood. One million bushels of wheat are
produced. The entire crop is sold to 100,000 people at $10 a bushel.
Supply and demand are in equilibrium, yet 900 000 people will face
starvation." [_Apostles of Greed_, pp. 50-51] In case anyone thinks that
this just happens in theory, the example of African countries hit by
famine gives a classic example of this occurring in practice. There, rich
landowners grow cash crops and export food to the developed nations while
millions starve in their own. 

Lastly, there are the distributional consequences of the market system. 
As markets inform by 'exit' only -- some products find a market, others 
do not -- 'voice' is absent. The operation of 'exit' rather than 'voice'
leaves behind those without power in the marketplace. For example, the
wealthy do not buy food poisoned with additives, the poor consume it. This
means a division grows between two environments: one inhabited by those
with wealth and one inhabited by those without it. As can be seen from 
the current capitalist practice of "exporting pollution" to developing
countries, this problem can have serious ecological and social effects.
So, far from the market being a "democracy" based on "one dollar, 
one vote," it is an oligarchy in which, for example, the "79 000 
Americans who earned the minimum wage in 1987 have the same influence 
[or "vote"] as Michael Milken, who 'earned' as much as all of them 
combined." [Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel, _The Political Economy
of Participatory Economics_, p. 21]

In other words, markets are always biased in favour of effective demand, 
i.e. in favour of the demands of people with money. A market may be 
Pareto-optimal, but it can never (except in the imaginary abstractions 
of mathematical welfare economics) allocate the necessities of life to 
those who need them the most.

In addition, markets never internalise external costs. Two people
(or companies) who strike a market-rational bargain between themselves 
need not consider the consequences of their bargain for other people 
outside their bargain, nor the consequences for the earth. Thus 
market exchanges are never bilateral agreements as their effects
impact on the wider society (in terms of, say, pollution, inequality
and so on). The market also ignores the needs of future generations
as they always discount the value of the long term future. A payment 
to be made 1 000 years from now (a mere speck in geological time) has 
a market value of virtually zero according to any commonly used discount 
rate. Even 50 years in the future cannot be adequately considered as
competitive pressures force a short term perspective on people harmful
to present and future generations, plus the ecology of the planet.

Also, markets do not reflect the values of things we do not put a price
upon (as we argued in section B.5). It cannot protect wilderness, for 
example, simply because it requires people to turn it into property and 
sell it as a commodity. If you cannot afford to visit the new commodity, 
the market turns it into something else, no matter how much you value 
it. This ensures that the market cannot really provide the information
necessary for rational-decision making and so resources are inefficiently
allocated and we all suffer from the consequences of that.

Thus are plenty of reasons for concluding that efficiency and the 
market not only do not necessarily coincide, but, indeed, necessarily 
do not coincide. Indeed, rather than respond to individual needs,
the market responds to money (more correctly, profit), which by its 
very nature provides a distorted indication of individual preferences
(and does not take into account values which are enjoyed collectively,
such as clean air, or *potentially* enjoyed, such as the wilderness a 
person may never visit but desires to see exist and protected).

So, for all its talk of "invisible hands" and "individual freedom,"
capitalism ignores the actual living individual in the economy and
society. The "individual rights" on which capitalists' base their "free"
system are said to be "man's rights," on what "man needs." But "man,"
after all, is only an abstraction, not a real living being. By talking
about "man" and basing "rights" on what this abstraction is said to need,
capitalism and statism ignore the uniqueness of each person and the
conditions required to develop that uniqueness. As Max Stirner pointed
out, "[h]e who is infatuated with *Man* leaves persons out of account so
far as that infatuation exists, and floats in an ideal, sacred interest.
*Man*, you see, is not a person, but an ideal, a spook." [_The Ego and Its
Own_, p. 79] And like all spooks, it requires sacrifice -- the sacrifice
of individuality to hierarchy and authority. 

This anti-individual biases in capitalism can be seen by its top-down 
nature and the newspeak used to disguise its reality. For example, 
there is what is called "increasing flexibility of the labour market."
"Flexibility" sounds great: rigid structures are unappealing and hardly
suitable for human growth. In reality, as Noam Chomsky points out
"[f]lexibility means insecurity. It means you go to bed at night and don't
know if you have a job tomorrow morning. That's called flexibility of the
labour market, and any economist can explain that's a good thing for the
economy, where by 'the economy' now we understand profit-making. We 
don't mean by 'the economy' the way people live. That's good for the 
economy, and temporary jobs increase flexibility. Low wages also 
increase job insecurity. They keep inflation low. That's good for people 
who have money, say, bondholders. So these all contribute to what's called 
a 'healthy economy,' meaning one with very high profits. Profits are doing
fine. Corporate profits are zooming. But for most of the population, very
grim circumstances. And grim circumstances, without much prospect of a
future, may lead to constructive social action, but where that's lacking
they express themselves in violence." [_Keeping the Rabble in Line_, 
pp. 283-4]

This does not mean that social anarchists propose to "ban" the market --
far from it. This would be impossible. What we do propose is to convince
people that a profit-based market system has distinctly *bad* effects on
individuals, society and the planet's ecology, and that we can organise
our common activity to replace it with libertarian communism. As Max
Stirner argued, "competition. . .has a continued existence. . . [because]
all do not attend to *their* *affair* and come to an *understanding* 
with each other about it. . . .Abolishing competition is not equivalent 
to favouring the guild. The difference is this: In the *guild* baking, 
etc., is the affair of the guild-brothers; in *competition*, the affair 
of chance competitors; in the *union*, of those who require baked goods, 
and therefore my affair, yours, the affair of neither guildic nor the
concessionary baker, but the affair of the *united.*" [_Ego and Its Own_,
p. 275]

Therefore, social anarchists do not appeal to "altruism" in their 
struggle against the de-humanising effects of the market, but rather, 
to egoism: the simple fact that co-operation and mutual aid is in our 
best interests as individuals. By co-operating and controlling "the 
affairs of the united," we can ensure a free society which is worth 
living in, one in which the individual is not crushed by market forces 
and has time to fully develop his or her individuality and uniqueness:

"Solidarity is therefore the state of being in which Man attains the
greatest degree of security and wellbeing; and therefore egoism itself, 
that is the exclusive consideration of one's own interests, impels Man 
and human society towards solidarity." [Errico Malatesta, _Anarchy_, p. 28]

I.1.4 If capitalism is exploitative, then isn't socialism as well? 

Some "Libertarian" capitalists say yes to this question, arguing that 
the Labour Theory of Value (LTV) does not imply socialism but what they 
call "self-managed" capitalism. This, however, is not a valid inference. 
The LTV can imply both socialism (selling the product of ones labour) 
and communism (distribution according to need). The theory is a critique 
of capitalism, not necessarily the basis of a socialist economy, although 
it *can* be considered this as well. For example, Proudhon used the LTV 
as the foundation of his proposals for mutual banking and co-operatives, 
while Robert Owen used it as the basis of his system of labour notes. 
Marx, on the other hand, use the LTV purely as a critique of capitalism
while hoping for communism.

In other words, though a system of co-operative selling on the market 
(what is mistakenly termed "self-managed" capitalism by some) or exchanging 
labour-time values would not be communism, it is *not* capitalism. This
is because the workers are not separated from the means of production. 
Therefore, right-libertarians' attempts to claim that it is capitalism 
are false, an example of misinformed insistence that virtually *every* 
economic system, bar state socialism and feudalism, is capitalist. 
Some libertarian Marxists (as well as Leninists) claim, similarly, 
that non-communist forms of socialism are also just "self-managed" 
capitalism. Why libertarian Marxists desire to reduce the choices 
facing humanity to either communism or some form of capitalism is 
frankly strange, but also understandable because of the potential 
dehumanising effects of market systems seen under capitalism.

However, it could be argued that communism (based on free access and
communal ownership of resources) would mean that workers are exploited 
by non-workers (the young, the sick, the elderly and so on). While this 
may reflect the  sad lack of personal empathy (and so ethics) of the 
pro-capitalist defenders of this argument, it totally misses the point 
as far as communist anarchism goes. This is because of two reasons. 

Firstly, "anarchist communism . . . means voluntary communism, communism 
from free choice" [A. Berkman, _ABC of Anarchism_, p. 11], which means it 
is not imposed on anyone but is created and practised only by those who 
believe in it. Therefore it would  be up to the communities and syndicates 
to decide how they wish to distribute the products of their labour and 
individuals to join, or create, those that meet their ideas of right 
and wrong. Some may decide on equal pay, others on payment in terms 
of labour time, yet others on communistic associations (we have indicated 
elsewhere why most anarchists consider that communism would be in people's 
self-interest, so we will not repeat ourselves here). The important thing 
to realise is that co-operatives will decide what to do with their output, 
whether to exchange it or to distribute it freely. Hence, because it is
based on free agreement, anarchist communism cannot be exploitative. 
Members of a co-operative which is communistic are free to leave, after 
all. Needless to say, the co-operatives will usually distribute their 
product to others within their confederation and exchange with the 
non-communist ones in a different manner. We say "usually," for in 
the case of emergencies like earthquakes and so forth the situation 
would call for mutual aid. 

Secondly, the so-called "non-workers" have been, or will be, workers.
As the noted Spanish anarchist De Santillan pointed out, "[n]aturally,
children, the aged and the sick are not considered parasites. The 
children will be productive when they grow up. The aged have already 
made their contribution to social wealth and the sick are only 
temporarily unproductive." [_After the Revolution_, p. 20] In other 
words, over their life time, everyone contributes to society and 
it so using the "account book" mentality of capitalism misses the 
point.

The reason why capitalism is exploitative is that workers *have* to 
agree to give the product of their labour to another (the boss) in 
order to be employed in the first place (see section B.4). Capitalists 
would not remain capitalists if their capital did not produce a profit. 
In libertarian communism, by contrast, the workers themselves agree to 
distribute part of  their product to others (i.e. society as a whole, 
their neighbours, friends, and so forth). It is based on free agreement, 
while capitalism is marked by power, authority, and the firm hand of 
market forces. As resources are held in common, people have the option 
of working alone if they so desired. 

Similarly, capitalism by its very nature as a "grow or die" system, 
needs to expand into new areas, meaning that unlike libertarian 
socialism, it will attempt to undermine and replace other social 
systems (usually by force, if history is any guide). As freedom 
cannot be given, there is no reason for a libertarian-socialist 
system to expand beyond the effect of a "good example" on the 
oppressed of capitalist regimes.

I.2 Is this a blueprint for an anarchist society? 

No, far from it. There can be no such thing as a "blueprint" 
for a free society. All we can do here is indicate those general 
features that we believe a free society *must* have in order to 
qualify as truly libertarian. For example, a society based on 
hierarchical management in the workplace (like capitalism) would 
not be libertarian and would soon see private or public states 
developing to protect the power of those at the top hierarchical 
positions ("Anarchy without socialism. . . [is] impossible to
us, for in such case it could not be other than the domination
of the strongest, and would therefore set in motion right away
the organisation and consolidation of this domination, that is
to the constitution of government." [Errico Malatesta, _Life 
and Ideas_, p. 148]). Beyond such general considerations, however, 
the specifics of how to structure a non-hierarchical society 
must remain open for discussion and experimentation:

"Anarchism, meaning Liberty, is compatible with the most diverse 
economic [and social] conditions, on the premise that these cannot 
imply, as under capitalist monopoly, the negation of liberty." 
[D. A. de Santillan, _After the Revolution_, p. 95]

So, this section of the anarchist FAQ should not be regarded as a 
detailed plan. Anarchists have always been reticent about spelling 
out their vision of the future in too much detail for it would be 
contrary to anarchist principles to be dogmatic about the precise 
forms the new society must take. Free people will create their own 
alternative institutions in response to conditions specific to their 
area and it would be presumptuous of us to attempt to set forth 
universal policies in advance. In Kropotkin's words:

"Once expropriation [of social wealth by the masses] has been
carried through . . . then, after a period of grouping, there
will necessarily arise a new system of organising production and
exchange . . . and that system will be a lot more attuned to
popular aspirations and the requirements of co-existence and 
mutual relations than any theory, however splendid, devised
by the thinking and imagination of reformers. . ." [_No Gods,
No Masters_, vol. 1, p. 232]

This, however, did not stop him "predicting right now that 
[in some areas influenced by anarchists]. . . the foundations 
of the new organisation will be the free federation of producers' 
groups and the free federation of Communes and groups in independent
Communes." [Ibid.] This is because what we think now will influence 
the future just as real experience will influence and change how we 
think. Moreover, given the ways in which our own unfree society has 
shaped our ways of thinking, it is probably impossible for us to 
imagine what new forms will arise once humanity's ingenuity and 
creativity is unleashed by the removal of its present authoritarian 
fetters. Thus any attempts to paint a detailed picture of the future 
will be doomed to failure. Ultimately, anarchists think that "the
new society should be organised with the direct participation
of all concerned, from the periphery to the centre, freely and
spontaneously, at the prompting of the sentiment of solidarity
and under pressure of the natural needs of society." [E. Malatesta
and A. Hamon, _No Gods, No Masters_, vol. 2, p. 20]

Nevertheless, anarchists have been willing to specify some broad
principles indicating the general framework within which they expect 
the institutions of the new society to grow. It is important to 
emphasise that these principles are not the arbitrary creations of 
intellectuals in ivory towers. Rather, they are based on the actual 
political, social and economic structures that have arisen *spontaneously* 
whenever working class people have attempted to throw off its chains 
during eras of heightened revolutionary activity, such as the Paris 
Commune, the Russian Revolution, the Spanish Revolution, and the 
Hungarian uprising of 1956, to name just a few. Thus, for example, 
it is clear that self-managed, democratic workers' councils are 
basic libertarian-socialist forms, since they have appeared during 
all revolutionary periods -- a fact that is not surprising considering 
that they are rooted in traditions of communal labour, shared resources, 
and participatory decision making that stretch back tens of thousands 
of years, from the clans and tribes of prehistoric times through the 
"barbarian" agrarian village of the post-Roman world to the free 
medieval city, as Kropotkin documents in his classic study _Mutual Aid_.
Ultimately, such organisations are the only alternatives to government.
Unless we make our own decisions ourselves, someone else will.

So, when reading these sections, please remember that this is just an
attempt to sketch the outline of a possible future. It is in no way an
attempt to determine *exactly* what a free society would be like, for 
such a free society will be the result of the actions of all of society, 
not just anarchists. As Malatesta argued:

"None can judge with certainty who is right and who is wrong, who 
is nearest to the truth, or which is the best way to achieve the 
greatest good for each and everyone. Freedom, coupled by experience, 
is the only way of discovering the truth and what is best; and there 
is no freedom if there is a denial of the freedom to err." 
[_Life and Ideas_, p. 49]

And, of course, real life has a habit of over-turning even the
most realistic sounding theories, ideas and ideologies. Marxism, 
Leninism, Monetarism, laissez-faire capitalism (among others) have 
proven time and time again that ideology applied to real life has 
effects not predicted by the theory before hand (although in all 
four cases, their negative effects where predicted by others; in 
the case of Marxism and Leninism by anarchists). Anarchists are
aware of this, which is why we reject ideology in favour of theory
and why we are hesitant to create blue-prints for the future.
After all, history has proven Proudhon right when he stated that
"every society declines the moment it falls into the hands of the
ideologists." [_System of Economical Contradictions_, p. 115]

Only life, as Bakunin stressed, can create and so life must
inform theory -- and so if the theory is producing adverse
results it is better to revise the theory than deny reality
or justify the evil effects it creates on real people. Thus
this section of the FAQ is not a blue print, rather it is a
series of suggestions (suggestions drawn, we stress, from 
actual experiences of working class revolt and organisation).
These suggestions may be right or wrong and informed by 
Malatesta's comments that:

"We do not boast that we possess absolute truth, on the
contrary, we believe that *social truth* is not a fixed
quantity, good for all times, universally applicable or
determinable in advance, but that instead, once freedom
has been secured, mankind will go forward discovering and
acting gradually with the least number of upheavals and
with a minimum of friction. Thus our solutions always leave
the door open to different and, one hopes, better solutions."
[Op. Cit., p.21]

It is for this reason that anarchists, to quote Bakunin,
think that the "revolution should not only be made for
the people's sake; it should also be made by the people."
[_No Gods, No Masters_, vol. 1, p. 141] Social problems
will be solved in the interests of the working class only
if working class people solve them themselves. This applies
to a social revolution -- it will only liberate the working
class if working class people make it themselves, using 
their own organisations and power. Indeed, it is the course
of struggling for social change, to correct social problems,
by, say, strikes, occupations, demonstrations and other
forms of direct action, that people can transform their 
assumptions about what is possible, necessary and desirable. 
The necessity of organising their struggles and their 
actions ensures the development of assemblies and other
organs of popular power in order to manage their activity.
These create, potentially, an alternative means by which
society can be organised. As Kropotkin argued, "[a]ny strike
trains the participants for a common management of affairs."
[quoted by Caroline Cahm, _Kropotkin and the Rise of
Revolutionary Anarchism_, p. 233] The ability of people 
to manage their own lives, and so society, becomes increasingly
apparent and the existence of hierarchical authority, the state, 
the boss or a ruling class, becomes clearly undesirable and 
unnecessary. Thus the framework of the free society will be 
created by the very process of class struggle, as working class 
people create the organisations required to fight for improvements 
and change within capitalism (for more discussion, see section I.2.3).

Thus, the *actual* framework of an anarchist society and how it
develops and shapes itself is dependent on the needs and desires
of those who live in such a society or are trying to create one.
This is why anarchists stress the need for mass assemblies in
both the community and workplace and their federation from the
bottom up to manage common affairs. Anarchy can only be created
by the active participation of the mass of people. In the words 
of Malatesta, an anarchist society would be based on "decisions 
taken at popular assemblies and carried out by groups and 
individuals who have volunteered or are duly delegated." The 
"success of the revolution" depends on "a large number of 
individuals with initiative and the ability to tackle practical 
tasks: by accustoming the masses not to leave the common cause 
in the hands of a few, and to delegate, when delegation is 
necessary, only for specific missions and for limited duration."
[_Life and Ideas_, p. 129] This self-management would be the
basis on which an anarchist society would change and develop,
with the new society created by those who live within it. 
Thus Bakunin:

"revolution everywhere must be created by the people, and 
supreme control must always belong to people organised into 
a free federation of agricultural and industrial associations 
. . . organised from the bottom upwards by means of revolutionary 
delegation." [_Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings_, p. 172]

And, we must not forget that while we may be able to roughly
guess the way an anarchist society could start initially,
we cannot pretend to predict how it will develop in the long
term. A social revolution is just the beginning of a process 
that will soon lead to such a different society that we cannot 
predict how it will look. Unfortunately, we have to start where 
we are now, not where we hope to end up! Therefore our discussion 
will, by necessity, reflect the current society as this is the
society we will be transforming. While, for some, this outlook 
may not be of a sufficient qualitative break with the world we 
now inhabit, it is essential. We need to offer and discuss 
suggestions for action in the *here and now*, not for some 
future pie in the sky world which can only possibly exist
years, even decades, *after* a successful revolution. 

For example, the ultimate goal of anarchism, we stress, is 
*not* the self-management of existing workplaces or industries.
However, a revolution will undoubtedly see the occupation
and placing under self-management much of existing industry
and we start our discussion assuming a similar set-up as
exists today. This does not mean that an anarchist society
will continue to be like this, we simply present the initial
stages using examples we are all familiar with. It is the 
simply the first stage of transforming industry into 
something more ecologically safe, socially integrated and
individually and collectively empowering for people.

These words of the strikers just before the 1919 Seattle
General Strike expresses this perspective well:

"Labour will not only SHUT DOWN the industries, but Labour 
will REOPEN, under the management of the appropriate trades, 
such activities as are needed to preserve public health and 
public peace. If the strike continues, Labour may feel led 
to avoid public suffering by reopening more and more activities, 

"UNDER ITS OWN MANAGEMENT. 

"And that is why we say that we are starting on a road that 
leads -- NO ONE KNOWS WHERE!" [quoted by Jeremy Brecher,
_Strike!_, p. 110]

Some people *seriously* seem to think that after a social revolution 
working people will continue using the same technology, in the same old
workplaces, in the same old ways and not change a single thing (except, 
perhaps, electing their managers). They simply transfer their own lack 
of imagination onto the rest of humanity. We have little doubt that
working people will quickly transform their work, workplaces and
society into one suitable for human beings, rejecting the legacy
of capitalism and create a society we simply cannot predict. The
occupying of workplaces is, we stress, simply the first stage of
the process of transforming them and the rest of society.

People's lives in a post-revolutionary society will not centre around 
fixed jobs and workplaces as they do now. Productive activity will
go on, but not in the alienated way it does today. Similarly, in
their communities people will apply their imaginations, skills and
hopes to transform them into better places to live (the beautification
of the commune, as the CNT put it). The first stage, of course, will
be to take over their existing communities and place them under
community control. Therefore, it is essential to remember that 
our discussion can only provide an indication on how an anarchist 
society will operate in the months and years after a successful 
revolution, an anarchist society still marked by the legacy of 
capitalism. However, it would be a great mistake to think that 
anarchists do not seek to transform all aspects of society to 
eliminate that legacy and create a society fit for unique 
individuals to live in. As an anarchist society develops it
will, we stress, transform society in ways we cannot guess at
now, based on the talents, hopes, dreams and imaginations of 
those living in it.

Lastly, it could be argued that we spend too much time discussing 
the "form" (i.e. the types of organisation and how they make 
decisions) rather than the "content" of an anarchist society 
(the nature of the decisions reached). Moreover, the implication 
of this distinction also extends to the organisations created in 
the class struggle that would, in all likelihood, become the 
framework of a free society. However, form is as, perhaps more, 
important than content. This is because "form" and "content" are 
inter-related -- a libertarian, participatory "form" of organisation 
allows the "content" of a decision, society or struggle to change. 
Self-management has an educational effect on those involved, as they 
are made aware of different ideas, think about them and decide between 
them (and, of course, formula and present their own ones). Thus the 
nature of these decisions can and will evolve. Thus form has a decisive 
impact on "content" and so we make no apologies for discussing the
form of a free society. As Murray Bookchin argues:

"To assume that the forms of freedom can be treated merely as forms
would be as absurd as to assume that legal concepts can be treated
merely as questions of jurisprudence. The form and content of
freedom, like law and society, are mutually determined. By the 
same token, there are forms of organisation that promote and
forms that vitiate the goal of freedom . . . To one degree or
another, these forms either alter the individual who uses them
or inhibit his [or her] further development." [_Post-Scarcity
Anarchism_, p. 147]

And the *content* of decisions are determined by the individuals
involved. Thus participatory, decentralised, self-managed organisations
are essential for the development of the content of decisions because
they develop the individuals who make them.

I.2.1 Why discuss what an anarchist society would be like at all? 

Partly, in order to indicate why people should become anarchists. Most
people do not like making jumps in the dark, so an indication of what
anarchists think a desirable society would look like may help those people
who are attracted intellectually by anarchism, inspiring them to become
committed to its practical realisation. Partly, it's a case of learning 
from past mistakes. There have been numerous anarchistic social 
experiments on varying scales, and its useful to understand what
happened, what worked and what did not. In that way, hopefully, we 
will not make the same mistakes twice. 

However, the most important reason for discussing what an anarchist
society would look like is to ensure that the creation of such a 
society is the action of as many people as possible. As Errico Malatesta 
indicated in the middle of the Italian revolutionary "Two Red Years" 
(see section A.5.5), "either we all apply our minds to thinking about 
social reorganisation, and right away, at the very same moment that 
the old structures are being swept away, and we shall have a more 
humane and more just society, open to future advances, or we shall 
leave such matters to the 'leaders' and we shall have a new government." 
[_The Anarchist Revolution_, p. 69] 

Hence the importance of discussing what the future will be like in the
here and now. The more people who have a fairly clear idea of what a free
society would look like the easier it will be to create that society and
ensure that no important matters are left to the "leaders" to decide for
us. The example of the Spanish Revolution comes to mind. For many years
before 1936, the C.N.T. and F.A.I. put out publications discussing what an
anarchist society would look like (for example, _After the Revolution_ 
by Diego Abel de Santillan and _Libertarian Communism_ by Isaac Puente). 
In fact, anarchists had been organising and educating in Spain for almost
seventy years before the revolution. When it finally occurred, the millions 
of people who participated already shared a similar vision and started to 
build a society based on it, thus learning firsthand where their books were 
wrong and which areas of life they did not adequately cover. 

So, this discussion of what an anarchist society might look like is 
not a drawing up of blueprints, nor is it an attempt to force the future 
into the shapes created in past revolts. It is purely and simply an 
attempt to start people discussing what a free society would be like 
and to learn from previous experiments. However, as anarchists recognise 
the importance of building the new world in the shell of the old, our 
ideas of what a free society would be like can feed into how we organise 
and struggle today. And vice versa; for how we organise and struggle today
will have an impact on the future.

As Malatesta pointed out, such discussions are necessary and essential,
for "[i]t is absurd to believe that, once government has been destroyed
and the capitalists expropriated, 'things will look after themselves'
without the intervention of those who already have an idea on what has 
to be done and who immediately set about doing it. . . . [for] social life,
as the life of individuals, does not permit of interruption." He stresses
that "[t]o neglect all the problems of reconstruction or to pre-arrange
complete and uniform plans are both errors, excesses which, by different
routes, would led to our defeat as anarchists and to the victory of
new or old authoritarian regime. The truth lies in the middle." 
[Op. Cit., p. 121] 

Moreover, the importance of discussing the future can help indicate
whether our activities are actually creating a better world. After all,
if Karl Marx had been more willing to discuss his vision of a socialist
society then the Stalinists would have found it much harder to claim
that their hellish system was, in fact, socialism. Unfortunately he
failed to understand this. Given that anarchists like Proudhon and 
Bakunin gave a board outline of their vision of a free society it
would have been impossible for anarchism to be twisted as Marxism was.

We hope that this Section of the FAQ, in its own small way, will encourage
as many people as possible to discuss what a libertarian society would be
like and use that discussion to bring it closer. 

I.2.2 Will it be possible to go straight to an anarchist society from
      capitalism?

Possibly, it depends what is meant by an anarchist society. 

If it is meant a fully classless society (what some people, 
inaccurately, would call a "utopia") then the answer is a clear 
"no, that would be impossible." Anarchists are well aware that 
"class difference do not vanish at the stroke of a pen whether
that pen belongs to the theoreticians or to the pen-pushers who 
set out laws or decrees. Only action, that is to say direct action 
(not through government) expropriation by the proletarians, 
directed against the privileged class, can wipe out class 
difference." [Luigi Fabbri, "Anarchy and 'Scientific' Communism", 
in _The Poverty of Statism_, pp. 13-49, Albert Meltzer (ed.), 
p. 30] 

For anarchists, a social revolution is a *process* and not an 
event (although, of course, a process marked by such events as 
general strikes, uprisings, insurrections and so on). As 
Kropotkin argued:

"It is a whole insurrectionary period of three, four, perhaps 
five years  that we must traverse to accomplish our revolution 
in the property system and in social organisation." 
[_Words of a Rebel_, p. 72]

His famous work _The Conquest of Bread_ aimed, to use his words, at 
"prov[ing] that communism -- at least partial -- has more chance of
being established than collectivism, especially in communes taking 
the lead . . . [and] tried . . . to indicate how, during a 
revolutionary period, a large city -- if its inhabitants have 
accepted the  idea -- could organise itself on the lines of free 
communism." [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_, p. 298] Indeed, 
he stresses in _The Conquest of Bread_ that anarchists "do not believe 
that in any country the Revolution will be accomplished at a stroke, 
in the twinkling of a eye, as some socialists dream." [_The Conquest 
of Bread_, p. 81] Indeed, he stressed that "[n]o fallacy more harmful
has ever been spread than the fallacy of a 'One-day Revolution.'"
[Op. Cit., p. 81f] The revolution, in other words, would progress 
towards communism after the initial revolt:

"we know that an *uprising* can overthrow and change a government
in one day, while a *revolution* needs three or four years of
revolutionary convulsion to arrive at tangible results . . . if 
we should expect the revolution, from its *earliest* insurrections,
to have a communist character, we would have to relinquish the
possibility of a revolution, since in that case there would be
need of a strong majority to agree on carrying through a change
in the direction of communism." [Kropotkin, quoted by Max Nettlau, 
_A Short History of Anarchism_, pp. 282-3]

In addition, different areas will develop in different speeds and 
in different ways, depending on the influences dominant in the 
area. "Side by side with the revolutionised communes," argued 
Kropotkin, "[other] places would remain in an expectant attitude, 
and would go on living on the Individualist system . . . revolution 
would break out everywhere, but revolution under different aspects; 
in one country State Socialism, in another Federation; everywhere 
more or less Socialism, not conforming to any particular rule." 
Thus "the Revolution will take a different character in each of 
the different European nations; the point attained in the 
socialisation of wealth will not be everywhere the same."
[_The Conquest of Bread_, pp. 81-2 and p. 81] In this, as we 
shall see, he followed Bakunin.

Kropotkin was also aware that a revolution would face many
problems, including the disruption of economic activity,
civil war and isolation. He argued that it was "certain that 
the coming Revolution . . . will burst upon us in the 
middle of a great industrial crisis . . . There are 
millions of unemployed workers in Europe at this moment. 
It will be worse when Revolution has burst upon us . . . 
The number of the out-of-works will be doubled as soon 
as barricades are erected in Europe and the United 
States . . . we know that in time of Revolution exchange 
and industry suffer most from the general upheaval . . . 
A Revolution in Europe means, then, the unavoidable 
stoppage of at least half the factories and workshops." 
He stressed that there would be "the complete 
disorganisation" of the capitalist economy and that 
during a revolution "[i]nternational commerce will come 
to a standstill" and "the circulation of commodities and 
of provisions will be paralysed." This would, of course, 
have an impact on the development of a revolution and so 
the "circumstances will dictate the measures." [Op. Cit., 
pp. 69-70, p. 191 and p. 79]

Thus we have anarcho-communism being introduced "during a 
revolutionary period" rather than instantly and the possibility 
that it will be "partial" in many, if not all areas, depending
on the "circumstances" encountered. Therefore the (Marxist 
inspired) claim that anarchists think a fully communist 
society is possible overnight is simply false -- we recognise 
that a social revolution takes time to develop after it 
starts. As Malatesta put it, "after the revolution, that
is after the defeat of the existing powers and the overwhelming
victory of the forces of insurrection, . . . then . . . 
gradualism really comes into operation. We shall have to study
all the practical problems of life: production, exchange, the
means of communication, relations between anarchist groupings
and those living under some kind of authority, between 
communist collectives and those living in an individualistic
way; relations between town and country . . . -- and so on."
[_Life and Ideas_, p. 173]

However, if by "anarchist society" it is meant a society that has
abolished the state and started the process of transforming society
from below then anarchists argue that such a society is not only
possible after a successful revolution, it is essential. Thus
the anarchist social revolution would be political (abolition
of the state), economic (abolition of capitalism) and social
(abolition of hierarchical social relationships). Or, more
positively, the introduction of self-management into every
aspect of life. In other words, "political transformation 
. . . [and] economic transformation . . . must be accomplished 
together and simultaneously." [Bakunin, _The Basic Bakunin_, 
p. 106] This transformation would be based upon the organisations
created by working class people in their struggle against
capitalism and the state (see next section). Thus the
framework of a free society would be created by the 
struggle for freedom itself, by the class struggle *within*
but *against* hierarchical society. This revolution would
come "from below" and would expropriate capital as well as
smash the state:

"the revolution must set out from the first to radically
and totally destroy the State . . . The natural and necessary 
consequence of this destruction will be . . . [among others, 
the] dissolution of army, magistracy, bureaucracy, police 
and priesthood. . . confiscation of all productive capital 
and means of production on behalf of workers' associations, 
who are to put them to use . . . the federative Alliance 
of all working men's associations . . . will constitute 
the Commune." [_Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings_, p. 170] 

As can be seen, anarchists have long argued that a social
revolution must be directed against both capitalism *and*
the state. Moreover, we have always stressed the key role
that workers' councils (or "soviets") would play in a 
socialist revolution as both a means of struggle and the
basis of a free society.

Such a society, as Bakunin argued, will not be "perfect" by any 
means:

"I do not say that the peasants [and workers], freely organised 
from the bottom up, will miraculously create an ideal organisation,
confirming in all respects to our dreams. But I am convinced
that what they construct will be living and vibrant, a thousands
times better and more just than any existing organisation.
Moreover, this . . . organisation, being on the one hand open
to revolutionary propaganda . . . , and on the other, not
petrified by the intervention of the State . . . will develop
and perfect itself through free experimentation as fully as
one can reasonably expect in our times.

"With the abolition of the State, the spontaneous self-organisation
of popular life . . . will revert to the communes. The development
of each commune will take its point of departure the actual
condition of its civilisation . . ." [_Bakunin on Anarchism_,
p. 207]

The degree which a society which has abolished the state can
progress towards free communism depends on objective conditions.
Bakunin and other collectivists doubted the possibility of 
introducing a communistic system instantly after a revolution. 
For Kropotkin and many other anarcho-communists, communistic 
anarchy can, and must, be introduced as far as possible and 
as soon as possible in order to ensure a successful revolution. 
We should mention here that some anarchists, like the 
individualists, do not support the idea of revolution 
and instead see anarchist alternatives growing within 
capitalism and slowly replacing it.

So, clearly, the idea of "one-day revolution" is one rejected as a 
harmful fallacy by anarchists. We are aware that revolutions are a 
*process* and not an event (or series of events). However, one thing 
that anarchists do agree on is that it's essential for both the state 
and capitalism to be undermined as quickly as possible. It is true 
that, in the course of social revolution, we anarchists may not be 
able to stop a new state being created or the old one from surviving. 
It all depends on the balance of support for anarchist ideas in the 
population and how willing people are to introduce them. There is no 
doubt, though, that for a social revolt to be fully anarchist, the 
state and capitalism must be destroyed and new forms of oppression 
and exploitation not put in their place. How quickly after such a 
destruction we move to a fully communist-anarchist society is a moot 
point, dependent on the conditions the revolution is facing and the 
ideas and wants of the people making it.

In other words anarchists agree that an anarchist society cannot be
created overnight, for to assume so would be to imagine that anarchists
could enforce their ideas on a pliable population. Libertarian socialism
can only be created from below, by people who want it and understand it,
organising and liberating themselves. "Communist organisations,"
argued Kropotkin, "must be the work of all, a natural growth, a 
product of the constructive genius of the great mass. Communism
cannot be imposed from above; it could not live even for a
few months if the constant and daily co-operation of all did not
uphold it. It must be free." [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_,
p. 140] The results of the Russian Revolution should have cleared 
away long ago any contrary illusions about how to create "socialist" 
societies. The lesson from every revolution is that the mistakes 
made by people in liberating themselves and transforming society 
are always minor compared to the results of creating authorities, 
who eliminate such "ideological errors" by destroying the freedom 
to make mistakes (and so freedom as such). Freedom is the only 
real basis on which socialism can be built ("Experience through 
freedom is the only means to arrive at the truth and the best 
solutions; and there is no freedom if there is not the freedom 
to be wrong." [Malatesta, _Life and Ideas_, p. 72]).

Therefore, most anarchists would support Malatesta's claim that "[t]o
organise a [libertarian] communist society on a large scale it would be
necessary to transform all economic life radically, such as methods of
production, of exchange and consumption; and all this could not be
achieved other than gradually, as the objective circumstances permitted
and to the extent that the masses understood what advantages could be
gained and were able to act for themselves." [_Malatesta: Life and Ideas_,
p. 36] 

This means that while the conditions necessary of a free society would 
be created in a broad way by a social revolution, it would be utopian
to imagine everything will be perfect immediately. Few anarchists
have argued that such a jump would be possible -- rather they have
argued that revolutions create the conditions for the evolution towards
an anarchist society by abolishing state and capitalism. "Besides,"
argued Alexander Berkman, "you must not confuse the social
revolution with anarchy. Revolution, in some of its stages, is
a violent upheaval; anarchy is a social condition of freedom and
peace. The revolution is the *means* of bringing anarchy about
but it is not anarchy itself. It is to pave the road to anarchy,
to establish conditions which will make a life of liberty possible."
However, "to achieve its purpose the revolution must be imbued with
and directed by the anarchist spirit and ideas. The end shapes the
means. . . the social revolution must be anarchist in method as 
in aim." [_The ABC of Anarchism_, p. 81] 

This means that while acknowledging the possibility of a transitional 
*society*, anarchists reject the notion of a transitional *state* as 
confused in the extreme (and, as can be seen from the experience of 
Marxism, dangerous as well). An anarchist society can only be achieved 
by anarchist means. Hence French Syndicalist Fernand Pelloutier's 
comments:

"Nobody believes or expects that the coming revolution . . . will
realise unadulterated anarchist-communism. . . it will erupt, no
doubt, before the work of anarchist education has been completed . . .
[and as] a result . . . , while we do preach perfect communism,
it is not in the certainty or expectation of [libertarian] communism's 
being the social form of the future: it is in order to further men's
[and women's] education . . . so that, by the time of the day of
conflagration comes, they will have attained maximum emancipation.
But must the transitional state to be endured necessarily or
inevitability be the collectivist [i.e. state socialist/capitalist]
jail? Might it not consist of libertarian organisation confined
to the needs of production and consumption alone, with all political
institutions having been done away with?" [_No Gods, No Masters_,
vol. 2, p. 55]

One thing *is* certain: an anarchist social revolution or mass movement
will need to defend itself against attempts by statists and capitalists 
to defeat it. Every popular movement, revolt, or revolution has had to 
face a backlash from the supporters of the status quo. An anarchist 
revolution or mass movement will face (and indeed has faced) such 
counter-revolutionary movements. However, this does not mean that 
the destruction of the state and capitalism need be put off until 
after the forces of reaction are defeated (as Marxists usually 
claim). For anarchists, a social revolution and free society can 
only be defended by anti-statist means, for example, by "arming
everyone . . . and of interesting the mass of the population in
the victory of the revolution." This would involve the "creation
of a voluntary militia, without powers to interfere as militia
in the life of the community, but only to deal with any armed
attacks by the forces of reaction to re-establish themselves,
or to resist outside intervention by countries as yet not in
a state of revolution." [Malatesta, _Life and Ideas_, p. 173 and
p. 166] For more discussion of this important subject see sections 
I.5.14 and J.7.6.

So, given an anarchist revolution which destroys the state, the type 
and nature of the economic system created by it will depend on local
circumstances and the level of awareness in society. The individualists
are correct in the sense that what we do now will determine how the future
develops. Obviously, any "transition period" starts in the *here and now,*
as this helps determine the future. Thus, while social anarchists usually
reject the idea that capitalism can be reformed away, we agree with the
individualists that it is essential for anarchists to be active today in
constructing the ideas, ideals and new liberatory institutions of the
future society within the current one. The notion of waiting for the
"glorious day" of total revolution is not one held by anarchists.

Thus, all the positions outlined at the start of this section have a grain
of truth in them. This is because, as Malatesta put it, "[w]e are, in any
case, only one of the forces acting in society, and history will advance,
as always, in the direction of the resultant of all the [social] forces."
[_Malatesta: Life and Ideas_, p. 109] This means that different areas will
experiment in different ways, depending on the level of awareness which
exists there -- as would be expected in a free society which is created by
the mass of the people.

Ultimately, the most we can say about the timing and necessary 
conditions of revolution is that an anarchist society can only 
come about once people liberate themselves (and this implies an 
ethical and psychological transformation), but that this does not 
mean that people need to be "perfect" nor that an anarchist society 
will come about "overnight," without a period of self-activity by 
which individuals reshape and change themselves as they are reshaping 
and changing the world about them.

I.2.3 How is the framework of an anarchist society created?

Anarchists do not abstractly compare a free society with the
current one. Rather, we see an *organic* connection between
what is and what could be. In other words, anarchists see the
initial framework of an anarchist society as being created
under statism and capitalism when working class people 
organise themselves to resist hierarchy. As Kropotkin argued:

"To make a revolution it is not . . . enough that there should 
be . . . [popular] risings . . . It is necessary that after the 
risings there should be something new in the institutions [that
make up society], which would permit new forms of life to be 
elaborated and established." [_The Great French Revolution_,
vol. 1, p. 200]

Anarchists have seen these new institutions as being linked
with the need of working class people to resist the evils
of capitalism and statism. In other words, as being the 
product of the class struggle and attempts by working class
people to resist state and capitalist authority. Thus the
struggle of working class people to protect and enhance
their liberty under hierarchical society will be the basis
for a society *without* hierarchy. This basic insight allowed
anarchists like Bakunin and Proudhon to predict future
developments in the class struggle such as workers'
councils (such as those which developed during the 1905
and 1917 Russian Revolutions). As Oskar Anweiler
notes in his definitive work on the Russian Soviets
(Workers' Councils):

"Proudhon's views are often directly associated with the
Russian councils . . . Bakunin . . ., much more than
Proudhon, linked anarchist principles directly to
revolutionary action, thus arriving at remarkable 
insights into the revolutionary process that contribute
to an understanding of later events in Russia . . .

"In 1863 Proudhon declared . . . 'All my economic ideas 
as developed over twenty-five years can be summed up in 
the words: agricultural-industrial federation. All my 
political ideas boil down to a similar formula: political 
federation or decentralisation.' . . . Proudhon's conception 
of a self-governing state [sic!] founded on producers'
corporations [i.e. federations of co-operatives], is
certainly related to the idea of 'a democracy of
producers' which emerged in the factory soviets. To
this extent Proudhon can be regarded as an ideological
precursor of the councils . . . 

"Bakunin . . . suggested the formation of revolutionary 
committees with representatives from the barricades, the 
streets, and the city districts, who would be given binding 
mandates, held accountable to the masses, and subject to 
recall. These revolutionary deputies were to form the 
'federation of the barricades,' organising a revolutionary 
commune to immediately unite with other centres of 
rebellion . . . 

"Bakunin proposed the formation of revolutionary committees
to elect communal councils, and a pyramidal organisation
of society 'through free federation from the bottom upward,
the association of workers in industry and agriculture --
first in the communities, then through federation of 
communities into districts, districts into nations, and
nations into international brotherhood.' These proposals 
are indeed strikingly similar to the structure of the
subsequent Russian system of councils . . .

"Bakunin's ideas about spontaneous development of the
revolution and the masses' capacity for elementary
organisation undoubtedly were echoed in part by the
subsequent soviet movement. . . Because Bakunin . . .
was always very close to the reality of social struggle,
he was able to foresee concrete aspects of the revolution.
The council movement during the Russian Revolution,
though not a result of Bakunin's theories, often
corresponded in form and progress to his revolutionary
concepts and predictions." [_The Soviets_, pp. 8-11]

Paul Avrich also notes this:

"As early as the 1860's and 1870's, the followers of Proudhon 
and Bakunin in the First International were proposing the 
formation of workers' councils designed both as a weapon of 
class struggle against capitalists and as the structural basis 
of the future libertarian society." [_The Russian Anarchists_, 
p. 73]

In this sense, anarchy is not some distant goal but rather an 
aspect of the current struggles against domination, oppression 
and exploitation (i.e. the class struggle, to use an all-embracing 
term, although we must stress that anarchists use this term to 
cover all struggles against domination). "Anarchism," argued
Kropotkin, "is not a mere insight into a remote future. Already 
now, whatever the sphere of action of the individual, he [or she] 
can act, either in accordance with anarchist principles or on an 
opposite line." It was "born among the people -- in the struggles
of real life" and "owes its origin to the constructive, creative
activity of the people." [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_, 
p. 75, p. 150 and p. 149] 

Thus, "Anarchism is not . . . a theory of the future to be
realised by divine inspiration. It is a living force in the 
affairs of our life, constantly creating new conditions." It 
"stands for the spirit of revolt" and so "[d]irect action 
against the authority in the shop, direct action against the 
authority of the law, of direct action against the invasive, 
meddlesome authority of our moral code, is the logical, 
consistent method of Anarchism." [Emma Goldman, _Anarchism 
and Other Essays_, p. 63 and p. 66]

Anarchism draws upon the autonomous self-activity and spontaneity 
of working class people in struggle to inform both its political 
theory and its vision of a free society. The struggle against 
hierarchy, in other words, teaches us not only how to be anarchists 
but also gives us a glimpse of what an anarchist society would be 
like, what its initial framework could be and the experience 
of managing our own activities which is required for such a 
society to function successfully. 

Therefore, as is clear, anarchists have long had a clear
vision of what an anarchist society would look like and,
equally as important, where such a society would spring
from. Which means, of course, that Lenin's assertion
in _The State and Revolution_ that anarchists "have 
absolutely no clear idea of *what* the proletariat will 
put in its [the states] place" is simply false. [_Essential 
Works of Lenin_, p. 358] Anarchists supported the idea
of a federation of workers' councils as the means to
destroy the state over 50 years before Lenin argued
that the soviets would be the basis of his "workers"
state.

It would, therefore, be useful to give a quick summary
of anarchist views on this subject.

Proudhon, for example, looked to the self-activity of 
French workers, artisans and peasants and used that as
the basis of his ideas on anarchism. While seeing such
activity as essentially reformist in nature, he saw the
germs of anarchy as being the result of "generating from 
the bowels of the people, from the depths of labour, a 
greater authority, a more potent fact, which shall envelop 
capital and the State and subjugate them" as "it is of no 
use to change the holders of power or introduce some variation 
into its workings: an agricultural and industrial combination 
must be found by means of which power, today the ruler of 
society, shall become its slave." [_System of Economical
Contradictions_, p. 399 and p. 398] What, decades later,
Proudhon called an "agro-industrial federation" in his
_Principle of Federation_.

He argued that workers should follow the example of those 
already creating Mutual Banks and co-operatives. He stressed
the importance of co-operatives:

"Do not the workmen's unions at this moment serve as the
cradle for the social revolution, as the early Christian
communities served as the cradle of Catholicity? Are they
not always the open school, both theoretical and practical,
where the workman learns the science of the production and
distribution of wealth, where he studies, without masters
and without books, by his own experience solely, the laws
of that industrial organisation, which was the ultimate
aim of the Revolution of '89 . . . ?" [_The General Idea
of the Revolution_, p. 78] 

Proudhon linked his ideas to what working people were already
doing:

"labour associations . . . hav[e] grasped spontaneously . . . 
[that] merely by liasing with one another and making loans to 
one another, [they] have organised labour . . . So that, 
organisation of credit and organisation of labour amount 
to one and the same. It is no school and no theoretician 
that is saying this: the proof of it, rather, lies in current 
practice, revolutionary practice . . . If it were to come 
about that the workers were to come to some arrangement
throughout the Republic and organise themselves along 
similar lines, it is obvious that, as masters of labour, 
constantly generating fresh capital through work, they 
would soon have wrested alienated capital back again, 
through their organisation and competition . . . We want
the mines, canals, railways handed over to democratically 
organised workers' associations . . . We want these 
associations to be models for agriculture, industry 
and trade, the pioneering core of that vast federation 
of companies and societies woven into the common cloth 
of the democratic social Republic." [_No Gods, No Masters_, 
vol. 1, pp. 59-61]

This linking of the present and the future through the
self-activity and self-organisation of working class people
is also found in Bakunin. Unlike Proudhon, Bakunin stressed
*revolutionary* activity and so he saw the militant labour 
movement, and the revolution itself, as providing the basic
structure of a free society. As he put it, "the organisation 
of the trade sections and their representation in the Chambers 
of Labour . . . bear in themselves the living seeds of the new 
society which is to replace the old one. They are creating not
only the ideas, but also the facts of the future itself."
[_Bakunin on Anarchism_, p. 255]

The needs of the class struggle would create the framework of 
a new society, a federation of workers councils, as "strikes 
indicate a certain collective strength already, a certain 
understanding among the workers . . . each strike becomes 
the point of departure for the formation of new groups."
[_The Basic Bakunin_, pp. 149-50] This pre-revolutionary
development would be accelerated by the revolution itself:

"the federative alliance of all working men's associations . . . 
[will] constitute the Commune . . . [the] Communal Council [will 
be] composed of . . . delegates  . . . vested with plenary but
accountable and removable mandates. . . all provinces, communes 
and associations . . . by first reorganising on revolutionary lines 
. . . [will] constitute the federation of insurgent associations, 
communes and provinces . . . [and] organise a revolutionary force 
capable defeating reaction . . . [and for] self-defence . . . 
[The] revolution everywhere must be created by the people, and 
supreme control must always belong to the people organised into a 
free federation of agricultural and industrial associations . . . 
organised from the bottom upwards by means of revolutionary 
delegation. . ." [_Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings_, 
pp. 170-2]

Like Bakunin, Kropotkin stressed that revolution transformed
those taking part in it. As he noted in his classic account
of the French Revolution, "by degrees, the revolutionary
education of the people was being accomplished by the
revolution itself." [Op. Cit., vol. 1, p. 261] Part of
this process involved creating new organisations which
allowed the mass of people to take part in the decision
making of the revolution. He pointed to "the popular Commune,"
arguing that "the Revolution began by creating the Commune . . . 
and through this institution it gained . . . immense power." 
He stressed that it was "by means of the 'districts' [of the 
Communes] that . . . the masses, accustoming themselves to 
act without receiving orders from the national representatives, 
were practising what was to be described later as Direct
Self-Government." Such a system did not imply isolation,
for while "the districts strove to maintain their own 
independence" they also "sought for unity of action,
not in subjection to a Central Committee, but in a
federative union." The Commune "was thus made *from below
upward*, by the federation of the district organisations;
it spring up in a revolutionary way, from popular initiative."
[Op. Cit., p. 200 and p. 203]

Thus the process of class struggle, of the needs of the 
fighting against the existing system, generated the framework 
of an anarchist society -- "the districts of Paris laid the 
foundations of a new, free, social organisation." Little wonder 
he argued that "the principles of anarchism . . . already dated 
from 1789, and that they had their origin, not in theoretical 
speculations, but in the *deeds* of the Great French Revolution" 
and that "the libertarians would no doubt do the same to-day."
[Op. Cit., p. 206, p. 204 and p. 206] 

Similarly, we discover him arguing in _Mutual Aid_ that strikes 
and labour unions were an expression of mutual aid in capitalist 
society and of "the worker's need of mutual support." [_Mutual 
Aid_, p. 213] Elsewhere Kropotkin argued that "labour combinations" 
like the "Sections" of French revolution were one of the "main 
popular anarchist currents" in history, expressing the "same 
popular resistance to the growing power of the few." 
[_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_, p. 159] For Kropotkin,
like Bakunin, libertarian labour unions were "natural organs
for the direct struggle with capitalism and for the composition
of the future social order." [quoted by Paul Avrich, _The
Russian Anarchists_, p. 81]

As can be seen, the major anarchist thinkers pointed to
forms of organisation autonomously created and managed by
the working class as the framework of an anarchist society.
Both Bakunin and Kropotkin pointed to militant, direct
action based labour unions while Proudhon pointed towards
workers' experiments in co-operative production and mutual
credit.

Later anarchists followed them. The anarcho-syndicalists,
like Bakunin and Kropotkin, pointed to the developing labour 
movement as the framework of an anarchist society, as providing 
the basis for the free federation of workers' associations 
which would constitute the commune. Others, such as the Russians 
Maximov, Arshinov, Voline and Makhno, saw the spontaneously 
created workers' councils (soviets) of 1905 and 1917 as the 
basis of a free society, as another example of Bakunin's 
federation of workers' associations. 

Thus, for all anarchists, the structural framework of an
anarchist society was created by the class struggle, by
the needs of working class people to resist oppression,
exploitation and hierarchy. As Kropotkin stressed, 
"[d]uring a revolution new forms of life will always 
germinate on the ruins of the old forms . . . It is 
impossible to legislate for the future. All we can 
do is vaguely guess its essential tendencies and clear 
the road for it." [_Evolution and Environment_, pp. 101-2]

These essential tendencies were discovered, in practice,
by the needs of the class struggle. The necessity of 
practising mutual aid and solidarity to survive under 
capitalism (as in any other hostile environment) makes 
working people and other oppressed groups organise together to 
fight their oppressors and exploiters. Thus the co-operation 
necessary for a libertarian socialist society, like its 
organisational framework, would be generated by the need to 
resist oppression and exploitation under capitalism. The 
process of resistance produces organisation on a wider and 
wider scale which, in turn, can become the framework of a free 
society as the needs of the struggle promote libertarian forms 
of organisation such as decision making from the bottom
up, autonomy, federalism, delegates subject to instant
recall and so on. 

For example, a strikers' assembly would be the basic 
decision-making forum in a struggle for improved wages 
and working conditions. It would create a strike committee 
to implement its decisions and send delegates to spread the 
strike. These delegates inspire other strikes, requiring
a new organisation to co-ordinate the struggle. This 
results in delegates from all the strikes meeting and 
forming a federation (i.e. a workers' council). The
strikers decide to occupy the workplace and the strike 
assemblies take over the means of production. The strike
committees becomes the basis for factory committees which
could administer the workplaces, based on workers'
self-management via workplace assemblies (the former
strikers' assemblies). The federation of strikers' delegates
becomes the local communal council, replacing the existing
state with a self-managed federation of workers' associations.
In this way, the class struggle creates the framework of
a free society.

This, obviously, means that any suggestions of how an anarchist
society would look like are based on the fact that the *actual* 
framework of a free society will be the product of *actual* 
struggles. This means that the form of the free society will 
be shaped by the process of social change and the organs 
it creates. This is an important point and worth repeating.

So, as well as changing themselves while they change the world,
a people in struggle also create the means by which they
can manage society. By having to organise and manage their 
struggles, they become accustomed to self-management and 
self-activity and create the possibility of a free society 
and the organisations which will exist within it. Thus
the framework of an anarchist society comes from the class
struggle and the process of revolution itself. Anarchy is
not a jump into the dark but rather a natural progression
of the struggle for freedom in an unfree society. The
contours of a free society will be shaped by the process
of creating it and, therefore, will not be an artificial
construction imposed on society. Rather, it will be created
from below up by society itself as working class people
start to break free of hierarchy. The class struggle thus
transforms those involved as well as society *and* creates
the organisational structure and people required for a
libertarian society.

This clearly suggests that the *means* anarchists support
are important as they are have a direct impact on the ends
they create. In other words, means influence ends and so
our means must reflect the ends we seek and empower those
who use them. In the words of Malatesta:

"In our opinion all action which is directed toward the
destruction of economic and political oppression, which
serves to raise the moral and intellectual level of the
people; which gives them an awareness of their individual
rights and their power, and persuades them themselves to
act on their own behalf . . . brings us closer to our
ends and is therefore a good thing. On the other hand
all activity which tends to preserve the present state
of affairs, that tends to sacrifice man against his will
for the triumph of a principle, is bad because it is a
denial of our ends." [_Life and Ideas_, p. 69]

The present state of affairs is based on the oppression,
exploitation and alienation of the working class. This means
that any tactics used in the pursuit of a free society
must be based on resisting and destroying those evils. 
This is why anarchists stress tactics and organisations
which increase the power, confidence, autonomy, initiative,
participation and self-activity of oppressed people. As
we indicate in section J ("What Do Anarchists Do?") this
means supporting direct action, solidarity and self-managed 
organisations built and run from the bottom-up. Only by
fighting our own battles, relying on ourselves and our own
abilities and power, in organisations we create and run 
ourselves, can we gain the power and confidence and experience 
needed to change society for the better and, hopefully, create 
a new society in place of the current one.

Needless to say, a revolutionary movement will never, at
its start, be purely anarchist:

"All of the workers' and peasants' movements which have
taken place . . . have been movements within the limits
of the capitalist regime, and have been more of less
tinged with anarchism. This is perfectly natural and
understandable. The working class do not act within a
world of wishes, but in the real world where they are
daily subjected to the physical and psychological blows
of hostile forces . . . the workers continually feel
the influence of all the real conditions of the
capitalist regime and of intermediate groups . . . 
Consequently it is natural that the struggle which
they undertake inevitably carries the stamp of various
conditions and characteristics of contemporary society.
The struggle can never be born in the finished and
perfected anarchist form which would correspond to
all the requirements of the ideas . . . When the
popular masses engage in a struggle of large dimensions,
they inevitably start by committing errors, they
allow contradictions and deviations, and only through
the process of this struggle do they direct their 
efforts in the direction of the ideal for which they
are struggling." [Peter Arshinov, _The History of
the Makhnovist Movement_, pp. 239-40]

The role of anarchists is "to help the masses to take
the right road in the struggle and in the construction
of the new society" and "support their first constructive
efforts, assist them intellectually." However, the 
working class "once it has mastered the struggle and
begins its social construction, will no longer surrender
to anyone the initiative in creative work. The working
class will then direct itself by its own thought; it
will create its society according to its own plans."
[Arshinov, Op. Cit., pp. 240-1] All anarchists can do 
is help this process by being part of it, arguing our 
case and winning people over to anarchist ideas (see 
section J.3 for more details). Thus the process of
struggle and debate will, hopefully, turn a struggle
*against* capitalism and statism into one *for* 
anarchism. In other words, anarchists seek to 
preserve and extend the anarchistic elements that
exist in every struggle and to help them become 
consciously libertarian by discussion and debate
as members of those struggles.

Lastly, we must stress that it is only the *initial* framework
of a free society which is created in the class struggle. As
an anarchist society develops, it will start to change and
develop in ways we cannot predict. The forms in which people
express their freedom and their control over their own lives
will, by necessity, change as these requirements and needs
change. As Bakunin argued:

"Even the most rational and profound science cannot divine
the form social life will take in the future. It can only
determine the *negative* conditions, which follow logically
from a rigorous critique of existing society. Thus, by means
of such a critique, social and economic science rejected
hereditary individual property and, consequently, took the
abstract and, so to speak, *negative* position of collective
property as a necessary condition of the future social 
order. In the same way, it rejected the very idea of the
state or statism, meaning government of society from above
downward . . . Therefore, it took the opposite, or 
negative, position: anarchy, meaning the free and 
independent organisation of all the units and parts of
the community and their voluntary federation from below
upward, not by the orders of any authority, even an
elected one, and not by the dictates of any scientific
theory, but as the natural development of all the
varied demands put forth by life itself.

"Therefore no scholar can teach the people or even define
for himself how they will and must life on the morrow of
the social revolution. That will be determined first by
the situation of each people, and secondly  by the desires
that manifest themselves and operate most strongly within
them." [_Statism and Anarchy_, pp. 198-9]

Therefore, while it will be reasonable to conclude that, for
example, the federation of strike/factory assemblies and their
councils/committees will be the framework by which production
will initially be organised, this framework will mutate to
take into account changing production and social needs. The
actual structures created will, by necessity, will be 
transformed as industry is transformed from below upwards
to meet the real needs of society and producers. As Kropotkin
argued, "the 'concentration' [of capital into bigger and
bigger units] so much spoken of is often nothing but an
amalgamation of capitalists for the purpose of *dominating
the market,* not for cheapening the technical process."
[_Fields, Factories and Workshops Tomorrow_, p. 154] This
means that the first task of any libertarian society will 
be to transform both the structure and nature of work and 
industry developed under capitalism. 

Anarchists have long argued that that capitalist methods 
cannot be used for socialist ends. In our battle to democratise 
the workplace, in our awareness of the importance of collective 
initiatives by the direct producers in transforming the work 
situation and the economic infrastructure, we show that 
factories are not merely sites of production, but also of 
reproduction -- the reproduction of a certain structure of 
social relations based on the division between those who give 
orders and those who take them, between those who direct and 
those who execute. Therefore, under workers' self-management
industry, work and the whole structure and organisation of
production will be transformed in ways we can only guess at
today. We can point the general direction (i.e. self-managed,
ecologically balanced, decentralised, federal, empowering, 
creative and so on) but that is all. 

Similarly, as cities and towns are transformed into ecologically
integrated communes, the initial community assemblies and their
federations will transform along with the transformation of our
surroundings. What they will evolve into we cannot predict, but
their fundamentals of instant recall, delegation over representation,
decision making from the bottom up, and so on will remain.

So, while anarchists see "the future in the present" as the initial
framework of a free society, we recognise that such a society will
evolve and change. However, the fundamental principles of a free
society will not change and so it is useful to present a summary
of how such a society could work, based on these principles. 

I.3 What could the economic structure of anarchy look like? 

Here we will examine possible frameworks of a libertarian-socialist
economy. We stress that it is *frameworks* rather than framework 
because it is likely that any anarchist society will see a diverse 
number of economic systems co-existing in different areas, 
depending on what people in those areas want. "In each locality," 
argued Spanish anarchist Diego Abad de Santillan, "the degree of 
communism, collectivism or mutualism will depend on the conditions 
prevailing. Why dictate rules? We who make freedom our banner, cannot 
deny it in economy. Therefore there must be free experimentation, 
free show of initiative and suggestions, as well as the freedom of 
organisation." [_After the Revolution_, p. 97] 

In general we will highlight and discuss the four major schools of 
anarchist economic thought: Individualist anarchism, mutualism, 
collectivism and communism. It is up to the reader to evaluate 
which school best maximises individual liberty and the good life. 
There may, of course, be other economic practices but these may 
not be libertarian. In Malatesta's words:

"Admitted the basic principle of anarchism -- which is that no-one
should wish or have the opportunity to reduce others to a state
of subjection and oblige them to work for him -- it is clear that
all, and only, those ways of life which respect freedom, and
recognise that each individual has an equal right to the means
of production and to the full enjoyment of the product of his
own labour, have anything in common with anarchism." [_Life and
Ideas_, p. 33]

In addition, it should be kept in mind that in practice it is 
impossible to separate the economic realm from the social and 
political realms, as there are numerous interconnections between 
them. Indeed, as we well see, anarchist thinkers like Bakunin 
argued that the "political" institutions of a free society would
be based upon workplace associations while Kropotkin placed
the commune at the heart of his vision of a communist-anarchist
economy and society. Thus the division between social and economic
forms is not clear cut in anarchist theory -- as it should be
as society is not, and cannot be, considered as separate from
or inferior to the economy. An anarchist society will try to
integrate the social and economic, embedding the latter in the
former in order to stop any harmful externalities associated
economic activity being passed onto society. As Karl Polanyi
argued, capitalism "means no less than the running of society
as an adjunct to the market. Instead of the economy being  
being embedded in social relations, social relations are
embedded in the economic system." [_The Great Transformation_,
p. 57] Given the negative effects of such an arrangement,
little wonder that anarchism seeks to reverse it.

Also, by discussing the economy first we are not implying that 
dealing with economic domination or exploitation is more important 
than dealing with other aspects of the total system of domination, 
e.g. social hierarchies, patriarchal values, racism, etc. We follow 
this order of exposition because of the need to present one thing 
at a time, but it would have been equally easy to start with the 
social and political structure of anarchy. However, Rudolf Rocker
is correct to argue that an economic transformation in the
economy is an essential aspect of a social revolution. In his
words:

"[A] social development in this direction [i.e. a stateless
society] was not possible without a fundamental revolution in 
existing economic arrangements; for tyranny and exploitation
grow on the same tree and are inseparably bound together. The
freedom of the individual is secure only when it rests on
the economic and social well-being of all . . . The personality
of the individual stands the higher, the more deeply it is
rooted in the community, from which arise the richest sources
of its moral strength. Only in freedom does there arise in
man the consciousness of responsibility for his acts and
regard for the rights of others; only in freedom can there
unfold in its full strength that most precious of social
instinct: man's sympathy for the joys and sorrows of his
fellow men and the resultant impulse toward mutual aid
and in which are rooted all social ethics, all ideas of 
social justice." [_Nationalism and Culture_, pp. 147-8]

The aim of any anarchist society would be to maximise freedom 
and so creative work. In the words of Noam Chomsky: 

"If it is correct, as I believe it is, that a fundamental element of 
human nature is the need for creative work or creative inquiry, for 
free creation without the arbitrary limiting effects of coercive 
institutions, then of course it will follow that a decent society 
should maximise the possibilities for this fundamental human 
characteristic to be realised. Now, a federated, decentralised 
system of free associations incorporating economic as well as 
social institutions would be what I refer to as anarcho-syndicalism. 
And it seems to me that it is the appropriate form of social 
organisation for an advanced technological society, in which 
human beings do not have to be forced into the position of tools, 
of cogs in a machine."

So, as one might expect, since the essence of anarchism is opposition 
to hierarchical authority, anarchists totally oppose the way the current 
economy is organised. This is because authority in the economic sphere 
is embodied in centralised, hierarchical workplaces that give an elite 
class (capitalists) dictatorial control over privately owned means of 
production, turning the majority of the population into order takers 
(i.e. wage slaves). In contrast, the libertarian-socialist "economy" 
will be based on decentralised, egalitarian workplaces ("syndicates") 
in which workers democratically self-manage *socially* owned means of 
production. Let us begin with the concept of syndicates. 

The key principles of libertarian socialism are decentralisation,
self-management by direct democracy, voluntary association, and
federation. These principles determine the form and function of both 
the economic and political systems. In this section we will consider 
just the economic system. Bakunin gives an excellent overview of 
such an economy when he writes: 

"The land belongs to only those who cultivate it with their own 
hands; to the agricultural communes. The capital and all the
tools of production belong to the workers; to the workers' 
associations . . . The future political organisation should be 
a free federation of workers." [_Bakunin on Anarchy_, p. 247]

The essential economic concept for libertarian socialists is *workers'
self-management* (sometimes termed  workers' control). This is
essential to ensure "a society of equals, who will not be
compelled to sell their hands and their brains to those who
choose to employ them . . . but who will be able to apply their
knowledge and capacities to production, in an organism so 
constructed as to combine all the efforts for procuring the
greatest possible well-being for all, while full, free scope
will be left for every individual initiative." [Kropotkin,
_Kropotkin: Selections from his Writings_, pp. 113-4] 

However, this concept of self-management needs careful explanation, 
because, like the terms "anarchist" and "libertarian," "workers' 
control" is also is being co-opted by capitalists to describe 
schemes in which workers' have more say in how their workplaces 
are run while maintaining wage slavery (i.e. capitalist ownership,
power and ultimate control). Needless to say, such schemes are
phoney as they never place *real* power in the hands of workers. 
In the end, the owners and their managers have the final say (and
so hierarchy remains) and, of course, profits are still extracted 
from the workforce. 

As anarchists use the term, workers' self-management/control 
means collective worker ownership, control and self-management 
of all aspects of production and distribution. This is achieved 
through participatory-democratic workers' assemblies, councils
and federations, in both agriculture and industry. These bodies
would perform all the functions formerly reserved for capitalist
owners, managers. executives and financiers where these activities
actually related to productive activity rather than the needs
to maximise minority profits and power. These workplace assemblies
will be complemented by people's financial institutions or 
federations of syndicates which perform all functions formerly 
reserved for capitalist owners, executives, and financiers in
terms of allocating investment funds or resources.

This means that an anarchist society is based on "workers'
ownership" of the means of production. 

"Workers' ownership" in its most limited sense refers merely to 
the ownership of individual firms by their workers. In such firms, 
surpluses (profits) would be either equally divided between all 
full-time members of the co-operative or divided unequally on the 
basis of the type of work done, with the percentages allotted to 
each type being decided by democratic vote, on the principle of 
one worker, one vote. However, such a limited form of workers'
ownership is rejected by most anarchists. Social anarchists argue
that this is but a step in the right direction and the ultimate
aim is *social* ownership of all the means of life. This is
because of the limitations of firms being owned solely by their
workers (as in a modern co-operative).

Worker co-operatives of this type do have the virtue of preventing 
the exploitation and oppression of labour by capital, since workers 
are not hired for wages but, in effect, become partners in the firm.
This means that the workers control both the product of their labour
(so that the value-added that they produce is not appropriated by a 
privileged elite) and the work process itself (and so they no longer
sell their liberty to others). However, this does not mean that all 
forms of economic domination and exploitation would be eliminated if 
worker ownership were confined merely to individual firms. In fact, 
most social anarchists believe this type of system would degenerate 
into a kind of "petit-bourgeois co-operativism" in which worker-owned 
firms would act as collective "capitalists" and compete against each 
other in the market as ferociously as the real capitalists used to. 
This would also lead to a situation where market forces ensured that 
the workers involved made irrational decisions (from both a social 
and individual point of view) in order to survive in the market. As 
these problems were highlighted in section I.1.3 ("What's wrong with 
markets anyway?"), we will not repeat ourselves here.

For individualist anarchists, this "irrationality of rationality" is 
the price to be paid for a free market and any attempt to overcome this
problem holds numerous dangers to freedom. Social anarchists disagree. 
They think co-operation between workplaces can increase, not reduce, 
freedom. Social anarchists' proposed solution is *society-wide* ownership 
of the major means of production and distribution, based on the anarchist 
principle of voluntary federation, with confederal bodies or co-ordinating 
councils at two levels: first, between all firms in a particular industry; 
and second, between all industries, agricultural syndicates, and people's 
financial institutions throughout the society. As Berkman put it:

"Actual use will be considered the only title [in communist anarchism] -- 
not to ownership but to possession. The organisation of the coal miners, 
for example, will be in charge of the coal mines, not as owners but as 
the operating agency. Similarly will the railroad brotherhoods run the 
railroads, and so on. Collective possession, co-operatively managed in 
the interests of the community, will take the place of personal ownership 
privately conducted for profit." [_ABC of Anarchism_, p. 69]

While, for many anarcho-syndicalists, this structure is seen as enough,
most communist-anarchists consider that the economic federation should 
be held accountable to society as a whole (i.e. the economy must be
communalised). This is because not everyone in society is a worker (e.g.
the young, the old and infirm) nor will everyone belong to a syndicate 
(e.g. the self-employed), but as they also have to live with the results 
of economic decisions, they should have a say in what happens. In other
words, in communist-anarchism, workers make the day-to-day decisions 
concerning their work and workplaces, while the social criteria behind
these decisions are made by everyone.

In this type of economic system, workers' assemblies and councils 
would be the focal point, formulating policies for their individual 
workplaces and deliberating on industry-wide or economy-wide issues 
through general meetings of the whole workforce in which everyone 
would participate in decision making. Voting in the councils would 
be direct, whereas in larger confederal bodies, voting would be 
carried out by temporary, unpaid, mandated, and instantly recallable 
delegates, who would resume their status as ordinary workers as soon 
as their mandate had been carried out. 

"Mandated" here means that the delegates from workers' assemblies and
councils to meetings of higher confederal bodies would be instructed, 
at every level of confederation, by the workers who elected them on 
how to deal with any issue. The delegates would be given imperative 
mandates (binding instructions) that committed them to a framework of 
policies within which they would have to act, and they could be recalled 
and their decisions revoked at any time for failing to carry out the 
mandates they were given (this support for mandated delegates has
existed in anarchist theory since at least 1848, when Proudhon 
argued that it was "a consequence of universal suffrage" to ensure
that "the people . . . do not . . . abjure their sovereignty."
[_No Gods, No Masters_, vol. 1, p. 63]). Because of this right of 
mandating and recalling their delegates, workers' councils would 
be the source of and final authority over policy for all higher 
levels of confederal co-ordination of the economy. 

A society-wide economic federation of this sort is clearly not 
the same thing as a centralised state agency, as in the concept 
of nationalised or state-owned industry. As Emma Goldman argued,
there is a clear difference between socialisation and 
nationalisation. "The first requirement of Communism," she 
argued, "is the socialisation of the land and of the machinery 
of production and distribution. Socialised land and machinery 
belong to the people, to be settled upon and used by individuals 
and groups according to their needs." Nationalisation, on the 
other hand, means that a resource "belongs to the state; that is, 
the government has control of it and may dispose of it according
to its wishes and views." She stressed that "when a thing is
socialised, every individual has free access to it and may
use it without interference from anyone." When the state
owned property, "[s]uch a state of affairs may be called
state capitalism, but it would be fantastic to consider it
in any sense communistic." [_Red Emma Speaks_, pp.360-1]

Clearly, an anarchist society is based on free access and a
resource is controlled by those who use it. It is a decentralised, 
participatory-democratic (i.e. self-managed) organisation whose 
members can secede at any time and in which all power and initiative 
arises from and flows back to the grassroots level (see section
I.6 for a discussion on how social ownership would work in
practice). Anarchists reject the Leninist idea that state 
property means the end of capitalism as simplistic and confused. 
Ownership is a juridical relationship. The *real* issue is one of 
management. Do the users of a resource manage it? If so, then we 
have a real (i.e. libertarian) socialist society. If not, we have 
some form of class society (for example, in the Soviet Union
the state replaced the capitalist class but workers still 
had no official control over their labour or the product of 
that labour).

A social anarchist society combines free association, federalism and 
self-management with communalised ownership. Free labour is its basis 
and socialisation exists to complement and protect it. 

Regardless of the kind of anarchy desired, anarchists all agree 
on the importance of decentralisation, free agreement and free 
association. Kropotkin's summary of what anarchy would look like 
gives an excellent feel of what sort of society anarchists desire:

"harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by 
obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the 
various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the 
sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the 
infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilised being. 

"In a society developed on these lines . . . voluntary associations . . . 
would represent an interwoven network, composed of an infinite variety of 
groups and federations of all sizes and degrees, local, regional, national 
and international temporary or more or less permanent -- for all possible
purposes: production, consumption and exchange, communications, sanitary
arrangements, education, mutual protection, defence of the territory, and 
so on; and, on the other side, for the satisfaction of an ever-increasing
number of scientific, artistic, literary and sociable needs. 

"Moreover, such a society would represent nothing immutable. On the 
contrary -- as is seen in organic life at large - harmony would (it 
is contended) result from an ever-changing adjustment and readjustment 
of equilibrium between the multitudes of forces and influences, and 
this adjustment would be the easier to obtain as none of the forces 
would enjoy a special protection from the State." [_Kropotkin's 
Revolutionary Pamphlets_, p. 284]

If this type of system sounds "utopian" it should be kept in mind 
that it was actually implemented and worked quite well in the 
collectivist economy organised during the Spanish Revolution of 
1936, despite the enormous obstacles presented by an ongoing civil 
war as well as the relentless (and eventually successful) efforts 
of Republicans, Stalinists and Fascists to crush it (see Sam 
Dolgoff's _The Anarchist Collectives: Workers' Self-management 
in the Spanish Revolution, 1936-1939_ for an excellent introduction).

As well as this (and other) examples of "anarchy in action" there 
have been other libertarian socialist economic systems described in 
writing. All share the common features of workers' self-management, 
co-operation and so on we discuss here and in section I.4. These texts 
include _Syndicalism_ by Tom Brown, _The Program of Anarcho-Syndicalism_ 
by G.P. Maximoff, _Guild Socialism Restated_ by G.D.H. Cole, _After 
the Revolution_ by Diago Abad de Santillan, _Anarchist Economics_ and 
_Principles of Libertarian Economy_ by Abraham Guillen, _Workers 
Councils and the Economics of a Self-Managed Society_ by Cornelius 
Castoriadis among others. A short summary of Spanish Anarchist visions
of the free society can be found in chapter 3 of Robert Alexander's
_The Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War_ (vol. 1). Also worth reading 
are _The Political Economy of Participatory Economics_ and _Looking 
Forward: Participatory Economics for the Twenty First Century_ by 
Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel which contain some useful ideas. 

Fictional accounts include William Morris' _News from Nowhere_, 
_The Dispossessed_ by Ursula Le Guin, _Women on the Edge of Time_ 
by Marge Piercy and _The Last Capitalist_ by Steve Cullen.

I.3.1 What is a "syndicate"?

As we will use the term, a "syndicate" (often called a "producer
co-operative," or "co-operative" for short, sometimes "collective" 
or "producers' commune" or "association of producers" or "guild 
factory" or "guild workplace") is a democratically self-managed 
productive enterprise whose productive assets are either owned by 
its workers or by society as a whole. It is a useful generic term 
to describe the situation aimed at by anarchists where "associations 
of men and women who . . . work on the land, in the factories, in the 
mines, and so on, [are] themselves the managers of production." [Peter
Kropotkin, _Evolution and Environment_, p. 78] 

It is important to note that individuals who do not wish to join 
syndicates will be able to work for themselves. There is no "forced 
collectivisation" under *any* form of libertarian socialism, because 
coercing people is incompatible with the basic principles of anarchism. 
Those who wish to be self-employed will have free access to the productive 
assets they need, provided that they neither attempt to monopolise more 
of those assets than they and their families can use by themselves nor 
attempt to employ others for wages (see section I.3.7). 

In many ways a syndicate is similar to a co-operative under capitalism.
Indeed, Bakunin argued that anarchists are "convinced that the co-operative
will be the preponderant form of social organisation in the future, in
every branch of labour and science." [_Basic Bakunin_, p. 153] Therefore, 
even from the limited examples of co-operatives functioning in the 
capitalist market, the essential features of a libertarian socialist
economy can be seen. The basic economic element, the workplace, will be a
free association of individuals, who will organise their joint work
co-operatively. To quote Bakunin again, "[o]nly associated labour,
that is, labour organised upon the principles of reciprocity and
co-operation, is adequate to the task of maintaining . . . civilised
society." [_The Political Philosophy of Bakunin_, p. 341]

"Co-operation" in this context means that the policy decisions related to
their association will be based on the principle of "one member, one
vote," with "managers" and other administrative staff elected and held
accountable to the workplace as a whole. Workplace self-management does
not mean, as many apologists of capitalism suggest, that knowledge and
skill will be ignored and *all* decisions made by everyone. This is 
an obvious fallacy, since engineers, for example, have a greater
understanding of their work than non-engineers and under workers'
self-management will control it directly. As G.D.H. Cole argues:

"we must understand clearly wherein this Guild democracy consists, 
and especially how it bears on relations between different classes 
of workers included in a single Guild. For since a Guild includes 
*all* the workers by hand and brain engaged in a common service, 
it is clear that there will be among its members very wide 
divergences of function, of technical skill, and of administrative 
authority. Neither the Guild as a whole nor the Guild factory 
can determine all issues by the expedient of the mass vote, nor
can Guild democracy mean that, on all questions, each member is to 
count as one and none more than one. A mass vote on a matter of 
technique understood only by a few experts would be a manifest 
absurdity, and, even if the element of technique is left out of 
account, a factory administered by constant mass votes would be 
neither efficient nor at all a pleasant place to work in. There 
will be in the Guilds technicians occupying special positions by 
virtue of their knowledge, and there will be administrators 
possessing special authority by virtue both of skill an
ability and of personal qualifications." [G.D.H. Cole, 
_Guild Socialism Restated_, pp. 50-51] 

The fact that some decision-making has been delegated in this 
manner sometimes leads people to ask whether a syndicate would not 
just be another form of hierarchy. The answer is that it would not be
hierarchical because the workers' assemblies and their councils, open 
to all workers, would decide what types of decision-making to delegate, 
thus ensuring that ultimate power rests at the mass base. Moreover,
*power* would not be delegated. Malatesta clearly indicates the 
difference between administrative decisions and policy decisions:

"Of course in every large collective undertaking, a division of 
labour, technical management, administration, etc. is necessary. 
But authoritarians clumsily play on words to produce a *raison d'etre* 
for government out of the very real need for the organisation of work. 
Government, it is well to repeat, is the concourse of individuals
who have had, or seized, the right and the means to make laws and to
oblige people to obey; the administrator, the engineer, etc., instead
are people who are appointed or assume the responsibility to carry out
a particular job and so on. Government means the delegation of power, 
that is the abdication of initiative and sovereignty of all into the 
hands of a few; administration means the delegation of work, that is 
tasks given and received, free exchange of services based on free 
agreement . . . Let one not confuse the function of government with 
that of an administration, for they are essentially different, and if 
today the two are often confused, it is only because of economic and 
political privilege." [_Anarchy_, pp. 39-40]

Given that power remains in the hands of the workplace assembly, it
is clear that the organisation required for every collective endeavour
cannot be equated with government. Also, never forget that administrative
staff are elected by and accountable to the rest of an association.
If, for example, it turned out that a certain type of delegated 
decision-making activity was being abused, it could be revoked by 
the whole workforce. Because of this grassroots control, there is 
every reason to think that crucial types of decision-making activity
which could become a source of power (and so with the potential for 
seriously affecting all workers' lives) would not be delegated 
but would remain with the workers' assemblies. For example, powers 
that are now  exercised in an authoritarian manner by managers 
under capitalism, such as those of hiring and firing, introducing 
new production methods or technologies, changing product lines, 
relocating production facilities, determining the nature, pace 
and rhythm of productive activity and so on would remain in the
hands of the associated producers and *not* be delegated to anyone.

New syndicates will be created upon the initiative of individuals within 
communities. These may be the initiative of workers in an existing
syndicate who desire to expand production, or members of the local
community who see that the current syndicates are not providing adequately
in a specific area of life. Either way, the syndicate will be a voluntary
association for producing useful goods or services and would spring up
and disappear as required. Therefore, an anarchist society would see
syndicates developing spontaneously as individuals freely associate to 
meet their needs, with both local and confederal initiatives taking place. 
(The criteria for investment decisions is discussed in section I.4.8).

What about entry into a syndicate? In the words of Cole, workers syndicates
are "open associations which any man [or woman] may join" but "this does not 
mean, of course, that any person will be able to claim admission, as an 
absolute right, into the guild of his choice." [Op. Cit., p. 75] This means 
that there may be training requirements (for example) and obviously "a man 
[or woman] clearly cannot get into a Guild [i.e. syndicate] unless it needs 
fresh recruits for its work. [The worker] will have free choice, but only 
of the available openings." [Ibid.] Obviously, as in any society, an 
individual may not be able to pursue the work they are most interested 
(although given the nature of an anarchist society they would have the 
free time to pursue it as a hobby). However, we can imagine that an anarchist 
society would take an interest in ensuring a fair distribution of work and 
so would try to arrange work sharing if a given work placement is popular.

Of course there may be the danger of a syndicate or guild trying to
restrict entry from an ulterior motive. The ulterior motive would, of
course, be the exploitation of monopoly power vis-a-vis other groups in
society. However, in an anarchist society individuals would be free to
form their own syndicates and this would ensure that such activity is 
self-defeating. In addition, in a non-mutualist anarchist system, 
syndicates would be part of a confederation (see section I.3.4). It 
is a responsibility of the inter-syndicate congresses to assure that 
membership and employment in the syndicates is not restricted in any 
anti-social way. If an individual or group of individuals felt that 
they had been unfairly excluded from a syndicate then an investigation 
into the case would be organised at the congress. In this way any 
attempts to restrict entry would be reduced (assuming they occurred 
to begin with). And, of course, individuals are free to form new 
syndicates or leave the confederation if they so desire (see section 
I.4.13 on the question of who will do unpleasant work, and for more 
on work allocation generally, in an anarchist society).

To sum up, syndicates are voluntary associations of workers who manage
their workplace and their own work. Within the syndicate, the decisions
which affect how the workplace develops and changes are in the hands of
those who work there. In addition, it means that each section of the
workforce manages its own activity and sections and that all workers
placed in administration tasks (i.e. "management") are subject to 
election and recall by those who are affected by their decisions. 
(Workers' self-management is discussed further in section I.3.2 -- 
"What is workers' self-management?"). 

I.3.2 What is workers' self-management?

Quite simply, workers' self-management (sometimes called "workers'
control") means that all workers affected by a decision have an equal
voice in making it, on the principle of "one worker, one vote." That
is, workers "ought to be the real managers of industries." [Peter
Kropotkin, _Fields, Factories and Workshops Tomorrow_, p. 157] As noted
earlier, however, we need to be careful when using the term "workers'
control," as the concept is currently being co-opted by the ruling elite,
which is to say that it is becoming popular among sociologists, industrial
managers, and social-democratic union leaders, and so is taking on an
entirely different meaning from the one intended by anarchists (who
originated the term).

In the hands of capitalists, "workers' control" is now referred to by 
such terms as "participation," "democratisation," "co-determination,"
"consensus," "empowerment", "Japanese-style management," etc. As Sam
Dolgoff notes, "[f]or those whose function it is solve the new problems of
boredom and alienation in the workplace in advanced industrial capitalism,
workers' control is seen as a hopeful solution. . . . a solution in which
workers are given a modicum of influence, a strictly limited area of
decision-making power, a voice at best secondary in the control of
conditions of the workplace. Workers' control, in a limited form
sanctioned by the capitalists, is held to be the answer to the growing
non-economic demands of the workers." ["Workers' Control" in _The
Anarchist Collectives_, p. 81]

The new managerial fad of "quality circles" -- meetings where workers 
are encouraged to contribute their ideas on how to improve the company's
product and increase the efficiency with which it is made -- is an example
of "workers' control" as conceived by capitalists. However, when it comes
to questions such as what products to make, where to make them, and
(especially) how revenues from sales should be divided among the workforce
and invested, capitalists and managers don't ask for or listen to 
workers' "input." So much for "democratisation," "empowerment," and
"participation!" In reality, capitalistic "workers control" is merely an
another insidious attempt to make workers more willing and "co-operative" 
partners in their own exploitation.

Hence we prefer the term "workers' self-management" -- a concept which
refers to the exercise of workers' power through collectivisation and
federation (see below). Self-management in this sense "is not a new form
of mediation between the workers and their capitalist bosses, but instead
refers to the very process by which the workers themselves *overthrow*
their managers and take on their own management and the management of
production in their own workplace. Self-management means the organisation
of all workers . . . into a workers' council or factory committee (or
agricultural syndicate), which makes all the decisions formerly made by
the owners and managers." [Dolgoff, Op. Cit., p. 81] As such, it means 
"a transition from private to collective ownership" which, in turn, 
"call[s] for new relationships among the members of the working 
community." [Abel Paz, _The Spanish Civil War_, p. 55] Self-management 
means the end of hierarchy and authoritarian social relationships in 
workplace and their replacement by free agreement, collective 
decision-making, direct democracy, social equality and libertarian 
social relationships. 

Therefore workers' self-management is based around general meetings 
of the whole workforce, held regularly in every industrial or agricultural 
syndicate. These are the source of and final authority over decisions 
affecting policy within the workplace as well as relations with other 
syndicates. These meeting elect workplace councils whose job is to 
implement the decisions of these assemblies and to make the day to day 
administration decisions that will crop up. These councils are directly 
accountable to the workforce and its members subject to re-election and 
instant recall. It is also likely that membership of these councils will 
be rotated between all members of the syndicate to ensure that no one 
monopolises an administrative position. In addition, smaller councils 
and assemblies would be organised for divisions, units and work teams 
as circumstances dictate. 

In this way, workers would manage their own collective affairs
together, as free and equal individuals. They would associate
together to co-operate without subjecting themselves to an 
authority over themselves. Their collective decisions would
remain under their control and power. This means that 
self-management creates "an organisation so constituted that 
by affording everyone the fullest enjoyment of his [or her] 
liberty, it does not permit anyone to rise above the others
nor dominate them in any way but through the natural influence
of the intellectual and moral qualities which he [or she]
possesses, *without this influence ever being imposed as
a right and without leaning upon any political institution
whatever.*" [_The Political Philosophy of Bakunin_, p. 271]
Only by convincing your fellow associates of the soundness
of your ideas can those ideas become the agreed plan of the
syndicate. No one is in a position to impose their ideas 
simply because of the post they hold or the work they do.

Most anarchists think that it is likely that purely administrative 
tasks and decisions would be delegated to elected individuals in
this way, freeing workers and assemblies to concentrate on important 
activities and decisions rather than being bogged down in trivial 
details. As Bakunin put it:

"Is not administrative work just as necessary to production as
is manual labour -- if not more so? Of course, production would
be badly crippled, if not altogether suspended, without efficient
and intelligent management. But from the standpoint of elementary
justice and even efficiency, the management of production need
not be exclusively monopolised by one or several individuals.
And managers are not at all entitled to more pay. The co-operative
workers associations have demonstrated that the workers themselves,
choosing administrators from their own ranks, receiving the same
pay, can efficiency control and operate industry. The monopoly
of administration, far from promoting the efficiency of production,
on the contrary only enhances the power and privileges of the
owners and their managers." [_Bakunin on Anarchism_, p. 424]

What is important is that what is considered as important or trivial, 
policy or administration rests with the people affected by the decisions 
and subject to their continual approval. Anarchists do not make a 
fetish of direct democracy and recognise that there is more important
things in life than meetings and voting! While workers' assemblies
play the key role in self-management, it is not the focal point
of *all* decisions. Rather it is the place where all the important
policy decisions are made, administrative decisions are ratified
or rejected and what counts as a major decision determined. Needless
to say, what is considered as important issues will be decided
upon by the workers themselves in their assemblies.

A self-managed workplace, like a self-managed society in general,
does not mean that specialised knowledge (where it is meaningful)
will be neglected or not taken into account. Quite the opposite.
Specialists (i.e. workers who are interested in a given area of
work and gain an extensive understanding of it) are part of the
assembly of the workplace, just like other workers. They can
and have to be listened to, like anyone else, and their expert
advice included in the decision making process. Anarchists do
not reject the idea of expertise nor the rational authority 
associated with it. As we indicated in section B.1, anarchists 
recognise the difference between being *an* authority (i.e. 
having knowledge of a given subject) and being *in* authority 
(i.e. having power over someone else). We reject the latter
and respect the former:

"Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such
a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority
of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads,
I consult that of architect or engineer. For such or such
special knowledge I apply to such or such a *savant*. But I
allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect  nor the 
*savant* to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them
freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence,
their character, their knowledge, reserving always my
incontestable right of criticism and censure. . . If I
bow before the authority of specialists and avow a readiness
to follow, to a certain extent and as long as may seem to
me necessary, their indications and even their directions,
it is because their authority is imposed upon me by no
one, neither men nor by God . . . I bow before the authority
of special men [and women] because it is imposed upon me
by my own reason." [Bakunin, _God and the State_, pp. 32-3]

However, specialisation does not imply the end of self-management,
but rather the opposite. "The greatest intelligence," Bakunin
argued, "would not be equal to a comprehension of the whole.
Thence results, for science as well as industry, the necessity
of the division and association of labour." [Op. Cit., p. 33]
Thus specialised knowledge is part of the associated workers
and not placed above them in positions of power. The other
workers in a syndicate can compliment the knowledge of the 
specialists with the knowledge of the work process they have 
gained by working and so enrich the decision. Knowledge is 
distributed throughout society and only a society of free 
individuals associated as equals and managing their own 
activity can ensure that it is applied effectively (part of
the inefficiency of capitalism results from the barriers to
knowledge and information flow created by the hierarchical
workplace).

A workplace assembly is perfectly able to listen to an engineer,
for example, who suggests various ways of reaching various goals
(i.e. if you want X, you would have to do A or B. If you
do A, then C, D and E is required. If B is decided upon, then
F, G, H and I are entailed). But it is the assembly, *not* the 
engineer, that decides what goals and methods to be implemented.
As Cornelius Castoriadis puts it, "[w]e are not saying: people
will have to decide *what* to do, and then technicians will
tell them *how* to do it. We say: after listening to technicians, 
people will decide what to do *and* how to do it. For the *how* 
is not neutral -- and the *what* is not disembodied. What and 
how are neither *identical*, nor *external* to each other. A
'neutral' technique is, of course, an illusion. A conveyor
belt is linked to a type of product *and* a type of producer
-- and vice versa." [_Social and Political Writings_, vol. 3,
p. 265]

However, we must stress that while an anarchist society would
"inherit" a diverse level of expertise and specialisation
from class society, it would not take this as unchangeable.
Anarchists argue for "all-round" (or integral) education as
a means of ensuring that everyone has a basic knowledge or
understanding of science, engineering and other specialised
tasks. As Bakunin argued, "in the interests of both labour
and science . . . there should no longer be either workers
or scholars but only human beings." Education must "prepare
every child of each sex for the life of thought as well as
for the life of labour." [_The Basic Bakunin_, p. 116 and
p. 119] This does not imply the end of all specialisation 
(individuals will, of course, express their individuality 
and know more about certain subjects than others) but it 
does imply the end of the artificial specialisation developed 
under capitalism which tries to deskill and disempower the 
wage worker by concentrating knowledge into hands of management.

And, just to state the obvious, self-management does not imply
that the mass of workers decide on the application of specialised
tasks. Self-management implies the autonomy of those who do the 
work as well as collective decision making on collective issues.
For example, in a self-managed hospital the cleaning staff
would not have a say in the doctors' treatment of patients just
as the doctors would not tell the cleaners how to do their work
(of course, it is likely that an anarchist society will *not*
have people whose work is simply to clean and nothing else, 
we just use this as an example people will understand). All
members of a syndicate would have a say in what happens in the 
workplace as it affects them collectively, but individual workers
and groups of workers would manage their own activity within that 
collective.

Needless to say, self-management abolishes the division of labour
inherent in capitalism between order takers and order givers. It
integrates (to use Kropotkin's words) brain work and manual work
by ensuring that those who do the work also manage it and that a
workplace is managed by those who use it. Such an integration of
labour will, undoubtedly, have a massive impact in terms of
productivity, innovation and efficiency. As Kropotkin argued,
the capitalist firm has a negative impact on those subject
to its hierarchical and alienating structures:

"The worker whose task has been specialised by the permanent
division of labour has lost the intellectual interest in his
[or her] labour, and it is especially so in the great
industries; he has lost his inventive powers. Formerly, he
[or she] invented very much . . . But since the great factory
has been enthroned, the worker, depressed by the monotony of
his [or her] work, invents no more." [_Fields, Factories and
Workshops Tomorrow_, p. 171]

Must all the skills, experience and intelligence that very 
one has be swept away or crushed by hierarchy? Or could it 
not become a new fertile source of progress under a better
organisation of production? Self-management would ensure
that the independence, initiative and inventiveness of 
workers (which disappears under wage slavery) comes to the
fore and is applied. Combined with the principles of 
"all-round" (or integral) education (see section J.5.13)
who can deny that working people could transform the
current economic system to ensure "well-being for all"?
And we must stress that by "well-being" we mean well-being 
in terms of meaningful, productive activity in humane 
surroundings and using appropriate technology, in terms 
of goods of utility and beauty to help create strong, 
healthy bodies and in terms of surroundings which are 
inspiring to live in and ecologically integrated.

Little wonder Kropotkin argued that self-management and the 
"erasing [of] the present distinction between the brain workers 
and manual worker" would see "social benefits" arising from "the 
concordance of interest and harmony so much wanted in our times 
of social struggles" and "the fullness of life which would result 
for each separate individual, if he [or she] were enabled to enjoy 
the use of both . . .  mental and bodily powers." This is in 
addition to the "increase of wealth which would result from 
having . . . educated and well-trained producers." [_Fields, 
Factories and Workshops Tomorrow_, p. 180]

It is the face-to-face meetings that bring workers directly into the 
management process and give them power over the economic decisions that 
affect their lives. In social anarchism, since the means of production 
are owned by society as a whole, decisions on matters like how to 
apportion the existing means of production among the syndicates, 
how to distribute and reinvest the surpluses, etc. will be made 
by the grassroots *social* units, i.e. the community assemblies 
(see section I.5.2), not by the workers' councils. This does not 
mean that workers will have no voice in decisions about such matters, 
but only that they will vote on them as "citizens" in their local 
community assemblies, not as workers in their local syndicates. As 
mentioned before, this is because not everyone will belong to a 
syndicate, yet everyone will still be affected by economic decisions 
of the above type. This is an example of how the social/political 
and economic structures of social anarchy are intertwined.

Lastly, the introduction of workers' self-management will be a product 
of two processes. 

Firstly, the class struggle will help workers gain experience of managing 
their own affairs. Struggles to resist oppression and exploitation in the 
workplace will mean that workers will have to organise themselves to manage those struggles. This will be an important means of accustoming them to 
make their own decisions. By participating in the structures created to 
conduct the class war, they will gain the skills and experience needed 
to go beyond class society. The process of struggle will ensure we can
manage our own working time when we take over the means of life and 
abolish wage slavery.

Secondly, today workers *do* manage their own working time to a considerable
extent. As we have argued before, the capitalist may buy a hour of a 
workers' time but they have to ensure that the worker follows their
orders during that time. Workers resist this imposition and this results
in considerable shop-floor conflict. Frederick Talyor, for example,
introduced his system of "scientific management" in part to try and
stop workers managing their own working activity. As David Noble notes,
workers "paced themselves for many reason: to keep time for themselves,
to avoid exhaustion, to exercise authority over their work, to avoid
killing so-called gravy piece-rate jobs by overproducing and risking
a pay cut, to stretch out available work for fear of layoffs, to
exercise their creativity, and, last but not least, to express their
solidarity and their hostility to management." These were "[c]oupled 
with collective co-operation with their fellows on the floor" and 
"labour-prescribed norms of behaviour" to achieve "shop floor control
over production." [_Forces of Production_, p. 33] In other words,
workers naturally tend towards self-management anyway and it is this
natural movement towards liberty during work hours which is combated
by bosses (who wins, of course, depends on objective and subjective
pressures which swing the balance of power towards labour or capital).

Self-management will built upon this already existing unofficial
workers control over production and, of course, our knowledge of
the working process which actually doing it creates. The conflict 
over who controls the shop floor -- either those who do the work or 
those who give the orders -- creates two processes that not only
show that self-management is *possible* but also show how it can
come about.

I.3.3 What role do syndicates play in the "economy"? 

As we have seen, private ownership of the means of production is the
lynchpin of capitalism, because it is the means by which capitalists 
are able to exploit workers by appropriating surplus value from them. 
To eliminate such exploitation, social anarchists propose that social 
capital -- productive assets such as factories and farmland -- be owned 
by society as a whole and shared out among syndicates and self-employed 
individuals by directly democratic methods, through face-to-face voting 
of the whole community in local neighbourhood and confederal assemblies, 
which will be linked together through voluntary federations. It does 
*not* mean that the state owns the means of production, as under 
Marxism-Leninism or social democracy, because there is no state 
under libertarian socialism. (For more on neighbourhood and community 
assemblies, see sections I.5.1 and I.5.2).

Production for use rather than profit/money is the key concept that
distinguishes collectivist and communist forms of anarchism from market
socialism or from the competitive forms of mutualism advocated by
Proudhon and the Individualist Anarchists. Under mutualism, workers
organise themselves into syndicates, but ownership of a syndicate's
capital is limited to its workers rather than resting with the whole
society. The workers' in each co-operative/syndicate share in the
gains and losses of workplace. There is no profit as such, for in
"the labour-managed firm there is no profit, only income to be
divided among members. Without employees the labour-managed firm
does not have a wage bill, and labour costs are not counted among
the expenses to the subtracted from profit, as they are in the
capitalist firm. . . [T]he labour-managed firm does not hire labour.
It is a collective of workers that hires capital and necessary
materials." [Christopher Eaton Gunn, _Workers' Self-Management in
the United States_, pp. 41-2] 

Thus mutualism eliminates wage labour and unites workers with the
means of production they use. Such a system is socialist as it
is based on self-management and workers' control/ownership of
the means of production. However, social anarchists argue that
such a system is little more than "petit-bourgeois co-operativism" 
in which the worker-owners of the co-operatives compete in the 
marketplace with other co-operatives for customers, profits, raw 
materials, etc. -- a situation that could result in many of the 
same problems that arise under capitalism (see section I.3). 
Moreover, social anarchists argue, such a system can easily 
degenerate back into capitalism as any inequalities that
exist between co-operatives would be increased by competition,
forcing weaker co-operatives to fail and so creating a pool
of workers with nothing to sell but their labour. The successful
co-operatives could then hire those workers and so re-introduce
wage labour.

Some Mutualists recognise this danger. Proudhon, for example,
argued for an "ago-industrial federation" which would "provide
reciprocal security in commerce and industry" and "protect the
citizens . . . from capitalist and financial exploitation." In
this way, the "agro-industrial federation. . . will tend to
foster increasing equality . . . through mutualism in credit
and insurance . . . guaranteeing the right to work and to
education, and an organisation of work which allows each
labourer to become a skilled worker and an artist, each
wage-earner to become his own master." Thus mutualism sees
"all industries guaranteeing one another mutually" and
"the conditions of common prosperity." [_The Principle of
Federation_, p. 70, p. 71 and p. 72] It seems likely that
this agro-industrial federation would be the body which
would fix "after amicable discussion of a *maximum* and
*minimum* profit margin" and "the organising of regulating
societies. . . to regulate the market." [_Selected Writings
of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon_, p. 70]

Thus, some Mutualists are aware of the dangers associated with
even a self-managed, socialistic market and create support
structures to defend workers' self-management. Moreover, it 
is likely that industrial syndicates would be linked to mutual
banks (a credit syndicate). Such syndicates would exist to
provide interest-free credit for self-management, new syndicate
expansion and so on. And if the experience of capitalism is
anything to go by, mutual banks will also reduce the Business
cycle as its effects as "[c]ountries like Japan and Germany
that are usually classifies as bank-centred -- because banks
provide more outside finance than markets, and because more
firms have long-term relationships with their banks -- 
show greater growth in and stability of investment over time
than the market-centred ones, like the US and Britain. . .
Further, studies comparing German and Japanese firms with
tight bank ties to those without them also show that firms
with bank ties exhibit greater stability in investment over
the business cycle." [Doug Henwood, _Wall Street_, pp. 174-5]

In addition, supporters of mutualism can point to the fact that 
existing co-operatives rarely fire their members and are far more 
egalitarian in nature than corresponding capitalist firms. This 
they argue will ensure that mutualism will remain socialist, with 
easy credit available to those who are made unemployed to start 
their own businesses again.

In contrast, within anarcho-collectivism and anarcho-communism, 
society as a whole owns the social capital, which allows for the 
elimination of both competition for survival and the tendency for 
workers to develop a proprietary interest the enterprises in which 
they work. As Kropotkin argued, "[t]here is no reason why the 
factory . . . should not belong to the community. . . It is evident 
that now, under the capitalist system, the factory is the curse of 
the village, as it comes to overwork children and to make paupers 
of its male inhabitants; and it is quite natural that it should be 
opposed by all means by the workers. . . But under a more rational 
social organisation, the factory would find no such obstacles; it 
would be a boon to the village." Needless to say, such a workplace 
would be based on workers' self-management, as "the workers . . . 
ought to be the real managers of industries." [_Fields, Factories 
and Workshops Tomorrow_, p. 152 and p. 157] This "socially organised 
industrial production" (to use Kropotkin's term) would ensure a 
decent standard of living without the problems associated with a 
market, even a non-capitalist one. It would enable goods to be either 
sold at their production prices (or labour-cost) so as to reduce 
their cost to consumers or distributed in accordance with communist 
principles (namely free); it facilitates efficiency gains through 
the consolidation of formerly competing enterprises; and it eliminates 
the many problems due to the predatory nature of competition, including 
the destruction of the environment through the "grow or die" principle, 
the development of oligopolies from capital concentration and 
centralisation, and the business cycle, with its periodic recessions 
and depressions, and the turning of free people into potential
wage slaves.

For social anarchists, therefore, libertarian socialism is based 
on decentralised decision making within the framework of 
communally-owned but independently-run and worker-self-managed 
syndicates (or co-operatives):

"[T]he land, the instruments of work and all other capital may
become the collective property of the whole of society and be
utilised only by the workers, on other words, by the agricultural
and industrial associations." [Bakunin, _Michael Bakunin: Selected 
Writings_, p. 174]

In other words, the economy is communalised, with land and the means 
of production being turned into communal "property." The community
determines the social and ecological framework for production while the
workforce makes the day-to-day decisions about what to produce and how 
to do it. This is because a system based purely on workplace assemblies
effectively disenfranchises those individuals who do not work but live with
the effects of production (e.g., ecological disruption). In Howard Harkins'
words, "the difference between workplace and community assemblies is that
the internal dynamic of direct democracy in communities gives a hearing 
to solutions that bring out the common ground and, when there is not
consensus, an equal vote to every member of the community." ["Community
Control, Workers' Control and the Co-operative Commonwealth", pp. 55-83, 
_Society and Nature_ No. 3, p. 69]

This means that when a workplace joins a confederation, that workplace is
communalised as well as confederated. In this way, workers' control is
placed within the broader context of the community, becoming an aspect of
community control. This does not mean that workers' do not control what 
they do or how they do it. Rather, it means that the framework within which
they make their decisions is determined by the community. For example,
the local community may decide that production should maximise recycling
and minimise pollution, and workers informed of this decision make
investment and production decisions accordingly. In addition, consumer
groups and co-operatives may be given a voice in the confederal congresses 
of syndicates or even in the individual workplaces (although it would
be up to local communities to decide whether this would be practical or
not). In these ways, consumers could have a say in the administration
of production and the type and quality of the product, adding their
voice and interests in the creation as well as the consumption of
a product.

Given the general principle of social ownership and the absence of a
state, there is considerable leeway regarding the specific forms that
collectivisation might take -- for example, in regard to methods of
surplus distribution, the use or non-use of money, etc. -- as can be seen
by the different systems worked out in various areas of Spain during the
Revolution of 1936-39 (as described, for example, in Sam Dolgoff's _The
Anarchist Collectives_). 

Nevertheless, democracy is undermined when some communities are poor 
while others are wealthy. Therefore the method of surplus distribution 
must insure that all communities have an adequate share of pooled revenues 
and resources held at higher levels of confederation as well as guaranteed 
minimum levels of public services and provisions to meet basic human needs.

I.3.4 What relations would exist between individual syndicates?

Just as individuals associate together to work on and overcome common
problems, so would syndicates. Few, if any, workplaces are totally
independent of others. They require raw materials as inputs and consumers
for their products. Therefore there will be links between different
syndicates. These links are twofold: firstly, free agreements between
individual syndicates, and secondly, confederations of syndicates (within
branches of industry and regionally). Let's consider free agreement
first.

Anarchists recognise the importance of letting people organise their own
lives. This means that they reject central planning and instead urge
direct links between workers' associations. In the words of Kropotkin,
"[f]ree workers would require a free organisation, and this cannot
have any other basis than free agreement and free co-operation, without
sacrificing the autonomy of the individual." [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary
Pamphlets_, p. 52] Those directly involved in production (and in
consumption) know their needs far better than any bureaucrat. Thus
voluntary agreement is the basis of a free economy, such agreements
being "entered by free consent, as a free choice between different
courses equally open to each of the agreeing parties." [Peter
Kropotkin, _Anarchism and Anarchist Communism_, p. 52] Without the
concentration of wealth and power associated with capitalism,
free agreement will become real and no longer a mask for hierarchy. So
anarchists think that "[i]n the same way that each free individual has
associated with his brothers [and sisters!] to produce . . . all that 
was necessary for life, driven by no other force than his desire for 
the full enjoyment of life, so each institution is free and self-contained, 
and co-operates and enters into agreements with others because by so 
doing it extends its own possibilities." [George Barrett, _The Anarchist
Revolution_, p. 18] An example of one such agreement would be orders for
products and services.

This suggests a decentralised economy -- even more decentralised than
capitalism (which is "decentralised" only in capitalist mythology, as 
shown by big business and transnational corporations, for example) -- 
one "growing ever more closely bound together and interwoven by free and
mutual agreements." [Ibid., p. 18] For social anarchists, this would take
the form of "free exchange without the medium of money and without profit, 
on the basis of requirement and the supply at hand." [Alexander Berkman,
_ABC of Anarchism_, p. 69]

Therefore, an anarchist economy would be based on spontaneous order as 
workers practised mutual aid and free association. The anarchist economy 
"starts from below, not from above. Like an organism, this free society grows 
into being from the simple unit  up to the complex structure. The need 
for . . . the individual struggle for life . . . is . . .sufficient to set 
the whole complex social machinery in motion. Society is the result of the 
individual struggle for existence; it is not, as many suppose, opposed to 
it." [George Barrett, Op. Cit., p. 18]

In other words, "[t]his factory of ours is, then, to the fullest extent 
consistent with the character of its service, a self-governing unit, managing 
its own productive operations, and free to experiment to the heart's content 
in new methods, to develop new styles and products. . . This autonomy of 
the factory is the safeguard. . . against the dead level of mediocrity, 
the more than adequate substitute for the variety which the competitive 
motive was once supposed to stimulate, the guarantee of liveliness, and
of individual work and workmanship." [G.D.H. Cole, _Guild Socialism 
Restated_, p. 59]

This brings us to the second form of relationships between syndicates,
namely confederations of syndicates. If individual or syndicate
activities spread beyond their initial locality, they would probably
reach a scale at which they would need to constitute a confederation. 
At this scale, industrial confederations of syndicates are necessary to
aid communication between workplaces who produce for a large area. No
syndicate exists in isolation, and so there is a real need for a means by
which syndicates can meet together to discuss common interests and act on
them. Thus confederations are complementary to free agreement. Bakunin's 
comments are very applicable here:

"[A] truly popular organisation begins from below, from the association,
from the commune. Thus starting out with the organisation of the lowest
nucleus and proceeding upward, federalism becomes a political institution
of socialism, the free and spontaneous organisation of popular life."
[_The Political Philosophy of Bakunin_, pp. 273-4]

Given that Bakunin, like many anarchists, considered that "the
federative Alliance of all working men's [sic!] associations . . .
[would] constitute the Commune," the political institutions
of anarchy would be similar to its economic institutions. Indeed,
Bakunin argued for a "free federation of agricultural and industrial
associations . . . organised from the bottom upwards" to be the
basis of a revolution (in 1905 and in 1917, revolutionary workers
and peasants did exactly that, we should note, when they created
*soviets* -- Russian for councils -- during their revolutions).
Hence Bakunin's comments on "political" institutions and
federalism are applicable to a discussion of economic institutions.
[_Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings_, p. 170 and p. 172]

A confederation of syndicates (called a "guild" by some libertarian
socialists, or "industrial union" by others) works on two levels: within
an industry and across industries. The basic operating principle of these
confederations is the same as that of the syndicate itself -- voluntary
co-operation between equals in order to meet common needs. In other words,
each syndicate in the confederation is linked by horizontal agreements
with the others, and none owe any obligations to a separate entity above
the group (see section A.2.11, "Why are anarchists in favour of direct
democracy?" for more on the nature of anarchist confederation). 

Kropotkin's comments on federalism between communes indicate this
(a syndicate can be considered as a producers' commune):

"The Commune of tomorrow will know that it cannot admit any higher
authority; above it there can only be the interests of the Federation,
freely accepted by itself as well as other communes. . ." [_Words of 
a Rebel_, p. 83]

Nor need federalism conflict with autonomy, as each member would
have extensive freedom of action within its boundaries:

"The Commune will be absolutely free to adopt all the institutions
it wishes and to make all the reforms and revolutions it finds
necessary." [Op. Cit., p. 83]

Moreover, these federations would be diverse and functional. Economic
federation would a produce a complex inter-networking between
associations and federations. In Kropotkin's words:

"Our needs are in fact so various, and they emerge with such rapidity,
that soon a single federation will not be sufficient to satisfy them
all. The Commune will then feel the need to contract other alliances,
to enter into other federations. Belonging to one group for the
acquisition of food supplies, it will have to join a second group
to obtain other goods, such as metals, and then a third and a fourth
group for textiles and works of art." [Op. Cit., p. 87] 

As such, the confederations reflect anarchist ideas of free association
and decentralised organisation as well as concern for practical needs:

"Anarchists are strenuously opposed to the authoritarian, centralist 
spirit . . . So they picture a future social life in the basis of 
federalism, from the individual to the municipality, to the commune, 
to the region, to the nation, to the international, on the basis of 
solidarity and free agreement. And it is natural that this ideal 
should be reflected also in the organisation of production, giving 
preference as far as possible, to a decentralised sort of organisation; 
but this does not take the form of an absolute rule to be applied in 
every instance. A libertarian order would be in itself, on the other 
hand, rule out the possibility of imposing such a unilateral solution." 
[Luigi Fabbri, "Anarchy and 'Scientific Communism", pp. 13-49, _The 
Poverty of Statism_, Albert Meltzer (ed.), p. 23]

Therefore, a confederation of syndicates would be adaptive to its members
needs. As Tom Brown argued, the "syndicalist mode of organisation is 
extremely elastic, therein is its chief strength, and the regional 
confederations can be formed, modified, added to or reformed according 
to local conditions and changing circumstances." [_Syndicalism_, p. 58]

As would be imagined, these confederations are voluntary associations and 
"[j]ust as factory autonomy is vital in order to keep the Guild system alive 
and vigorous, the existence of varying democratic types of factories in
independence of the National Guilds may also be a means of valuable
experiment and fruitful initiative of individual minds. In insistently
refusing to carry their theory to its last 'logical' conclusion, the
Guildsmen [and anarchists] are true to their love of freedom and varied 
social enterprise." [G.D.H. Cole, Op. Cit., p. 65]

As we noted, in the last section, inter-workplace federations are not
limited to collectivist, syndicalist and communist anarchists. Proudhon,
for example, suggested an "agro-industrial federation" as the structural
support organisation for his system of self-managed co-operatives. As
the example many isolated co-operatives have shown, support networks
are essential for co-operatives to survive under capitalism. It is no
co-incidence that the Mondragon co-operative complex in the Basque
region of Spain has a credit union and mutual support networks between
its co-operatives and is by far the most successful co-operative
system in the world.

If a workplace agrees to confederate, then it gets to share in the
resources of the confederation and so gains the benefits of mutual aid. In
return for the benefits of confederal co-operation, the syndicate's tools
of production become the "property" of society, to be used but not owned
by those who work in them. This does not mean centralised control from the
top, for "when we say that ownership of the tools of production, including
the factory itself, should revert to the corporation [i.e. confederation]
we do not mean that the workers in the individual workshops will be ruled
by any kind of industrial government having power to do what it pleases
with [them]. . . . No, the workers. . .[will not] hand over their hard-won
control. . . to a superior power. . . . What they will do is. . . to
guarantee reciprocal use of their tools of production and accord their
fellow workers in other factories the right to share their facilities [and
vice versa]. . .with [all] whom they have contracted the pact of
solidarity." [James Guillaume, _Bakunin on Anarchism_, pp. 363-364] 

Facilitating this type of co-operation is the major role of
inter-industry confederations, which also ensure that when the members of
a syndicate change work to another syndicate in another (or the same)
branch of industry, they have the same rights as the members of their new
syndicate. In other words, by being part of the confederation, a worker
ensures that s/he has the same rights and an equal say in whatever
workplace is joined. This is essential to ensure that a co-operative
society remains co-operative, as the system is based on the principle of
"one person, one vote" by all those involved the work process.

So, beyond this reciprocal sharing, what other roles does the
confederation play? Basically, there are two. Firstly, the sharing and
co-ordination of information produced by the syndicates (as will be
discussed in section I.3.5), and, secondly, determining the response to
the changes in production and consumption indicated by this information.
As the "vertical" links between syndicates are non-hierarchical, each
syndicate remains self-governing. This ensures decentralisation of power
and direct control, initiative, and experimentation by those involved in
doing the work. Hence, "the internal organisation [of one syndicate] . . .
need not be identical [to others]: Organisational forms and procedures
will vary greatly according to the preferences of the associated workers."
[Ibid., p. 361] In practice, this would probably mean that each syndicate 
gets its own orders and determines the best way to satisfy them (i.e. 
manages its own work and working conditions). 

As indicated above, free agreement will ensure that customers would be 
able to choose their own suppliers, meaning that production units would 
know whether they were producing what their customers wanted, i.e.,
whether they were meeting social need as expressed through demand. If
they were not, customers would go elsewhere, to other production units
within the same branch of production. We should stress that in addition
to this negative check (i.e. "exit" by consumers) it is likely, via
consumer groups and co-operatives as well as communes, that workplaces
will be subject to positive checks on what they produced. Consumer
groups, by formulating and communicating needs to producer groups,
will have a key role in ensuring the quality of production and goods
and that it satisfies their needs (see section I.4.7 for more details
of this).

However, while production will be based on autonomous networking, the 
investment response to consumer actions would, to some degree, be 
co-ordinated by a confederation of syndicates in that branch of 
production. By such means, the confederation can ensure that resources 
are not wasted by individual syndicates over-producing goods or 
over-investing in response to changes in production (see the next
section). 

I.3.5 What would confederations of syndicates do? 

Voluntary confederation among syndicates is required in order to decide 
on the policies governing relations between syndicates and to co-ordinate
their activities. There are two basic kinds of confederation: within all
workplaces of a certain type, and within the whole economy (the federation
of all syndicates). Both would operate at different levels, meaning there
would be confederations for both industrial and inter-industrial 
associations at the local and regional levels and beyond. The basic aim
of this inter-industry and cross-industry networking is to ensure that
the relevant information is spread across the various elemental parts of
the economy so that each can effectively co-ordinate its plans with the
others. By communicating across workplaces, people can overcome the
barriers to co-ordinating their plans which one finds in market systems
(see section C.7.2) and so avoid the economic and social disruptions
associated with capitalism.

However, it is essential to remember that each syndicate within the 
confederation is autonomous. The confederations seek to co-ordinate
activities of joint interest (in particular investment decisions for new
plant and the rationalisation of existing plant in light of reduced
demand). They do not determine what work a syndicate does or how 
they do it. As Kropotkin argued (based on his firsthand experience of 
Russia under Lenin):

"No government would be able to organise production if the workers 
themselves through their unions did not do it in each branch of
industry; for in all production there arise daily thousands of
difficulties which no government can solve or foresee. It is certainly
impossible to foresee everything. Only the efforts of thousands of
intelligences working on the problems can co-operate in the development 
of a new social system and find the best solutions for the thousands of
local needs." [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_, pp. 76-77] 

Thus Cole's statement:

"With the factory thus largely conducting its own concerns, the duties 
of the larger Guild organisations [i.e. confederations] would be mainly 
those of co-ordination, or regulation, and of representing the Guild in 
its external relations. They would, where it was necessary, co-ordinate 
the production of various factories, so as to make supply coincide 
with demand. . . they would organise research . . . This large Guild 
organisation. . . must be based directly on the various factories 
included in the Guild." [_Guild Socialism Restated_, pp. 59-60]

So it is important to note that the lowest units of confederation -- the
workers' councils -- will control the higher levels, through their power 
to elect mandated and recallable delegates to meetings of higher
confederal units. "Mandated" means that the delegates will go to the
meeting of the higher confederal body with specific instructions on how
to vote on a particular issue, and if they do not vote according to that
mandate they will be recalled and the results of the vote nullified.
Delegates will be ordinary workers rather than paid representatives or
union leaders, and they will return to their usual jobs as soon as the
mandate for which they have been elected has been carried out. In this
way, decision-making power remains with the workers' councils and 
does not become concentrated at the top of a bureaucratic hierarchy in 
an elite class of professional administrators or union leaders. For the 
workers' councils will have the final say on *all* policy decisions, 
being able to revoke policies made by those with delegated 
decision-making power and to recall those who made them:

"When it comes to the material and technical method of production, anarchists
have no preconceived solutions or absolute prescriptions, and bow to what
experience and conditions in a free society recommend and prescribe. What
matters is that, whatever the type of production adopted, it should be the
free choice of the producers themselves, and cannot possibly be imposed,
any more than any form is possible of exploitations of another's labour. . . 
Anarchists do not *a priori* exclude any practical solution and likewise 
concede that there may be a number of different solutions at different 
times." [Luigi Fabbri, "Anarchy and 'Scientific' Communism", pp. 13-49, 
_The Poverty of Statism_, Albert Meltzer (ed.), p. 22]

Confederations (negotiated-co-ordination bodies) would, therefore, be
responsible for clearly defined branches of production, and in general,
production units would operate in only one branch of production. These
confederations would have direct links to other confederations and the
relevant communal confederations, which supply the syndicates with
guidelines for decision making (as will be discussed in section I.4.4) 
and ensure that common problems can be highlighted and discussed. These 
confederations exist to ensure that information is spread between
workplaces and to ensure that the industry responds to changes in social
demand. In other words, these confederations exist to co-ordinate major
new investment decisions (i.e. if demand exceeds supply) and to determine 
how to respond if there is excess capacity (i.e. if supply exceeds demand). 

It should be pointed out that these confederated investment decisions 
will exist along with the investments associated with the creation of 
new syndicates, plus internal syndicate investment decisions. We are 
not suggesting that *every* investment decision is to be made by the
confederations. (This would be particularly impossible for *new*
industries, for which a confederation would not exist!) Therefore, in
addition to co-ordinated production units, an anarchist society would see
numerous small-scale, local activities which would ensure creativity,
diversity, and flexibility. Only after these activities had spread across
society would confederal co-ordination become necessary.

Thus, major investment decisions would be made at congresses and plenums 
of the industry's syndicates, by a process of horizontal, negotiated 
co-ordination. This model combines "planning" with decentralisation. Major 
investment decisions are co-ordinated at an appropriate level, with each 
unit in the confederation being autonomous, deciding what to do with its 
own productive capacity in order to meet social demand. Thus we have 
self-governing production units co-ordinated by confederations (horizontal 
negotiation), which ensures local initiative (a vital source of
flexibility, creativity, and diversity) and a rational response to 
changes in social demand.

It should be noted that during the Spanish Revolution syndicates organised 
themselves very successfully as town-wide industrial confederations of 
syndicates. These were based on the town-level industrial confederation 
getting orders for products for its industry and allocating work between 
individual workplaces (as opposed to each syndicate receiving orders for 
itself). Gaston Leval noted that this form of organisation (with increased
responsibilities for the confederation) did not harm the libertarian 
nature of anarchist self-management:

"Everything was controlled by the syndicates. But it must not therefore 
be assumed that everything was decided by a few higher bureaucratic
committees without consulting the rank and file members of the union. 
Here libertarian democracy was practised. As in the C.N.T. there was a
reciprocal double structure; from the grass roots at the base . . .
upwards, and in the other direction a reciprocal influence from the
federation of these same local units at all levels downwards, from the
source back to the source." [_The Anarchist Collectives_, p. 105]

Such a solution, or similar ones, may be more practical in some situations 
than having each syndicate receive its own orders and so anarchists do not 
reject such confederal responsibilities out of hand (although the general 
prejudice is for decentralisation). This is because we "prefer decentralised 
management; but ultimately, in practical and technical problems, we defer 
to free experience." [Luigi Fabbri, Op. Cit., p. 24] The specific form of 
organisation will obviously vary as required from industry to industry, 
area to area, but the underlying ideas of self-management and free association 
will be the same. Moreover, in the words of G.D.H Cole, the "essential 
thing . . . is that its [the confederation or guild] function should be 
kept down to the minimum possible for each industry." [Op. Cit., p. 61]

In this way, the periodic crises of capitalism based on over-investment
and over-production (followed by depression) and their resulting social
problems can be avoided and resources efficiently and effectively
utilised. In addition, production (and so the producers) can be freed
from the centralised control of both capitalist and state hierarchies.

Another important role for inter-syndicate federations is to even
out natural inequalities. After all, each commune will not be 
identical in terms of natural resources, quality of land, 
situation, accessibility, and so on. Simply put, social
anarchists "believe that because of natural differences in
fertility, health and location of the soil it would be
impossible to ensure that every individual enjoyed equal
working conditions." Under such circumstances, it would be
"impossible to achieve a state of equality from the beginning"
and so "justice and equity are, for natural reasons, 
impossible to achieve . . . and that freedom would thus
also be unachievable." [Malatesta, _The Anarchist Revolution_,
p. 16 and p. 21] By federating together, workers can ensure 
that "the earth will . . . be an economic domain available 
to everyone, the riches of which will be enjoyed by all 
human beings." [Malatesta, _Life and Ideas_, p. 93] Local
deficiencies of raw materials, in the quality of land,
and, therefore, supplies would be compensated from outside,
by the socialisation of production and consumption. This
would allow all of humanity to share and benefit from economic 
activity, so ensuring that well-being for all is possible.

Federation would eliminate the possibility of rich and
poor collectives and syndicates co-existing side by side.
As Kropotkin argued, "[c]ommon possession of the necessities
for production implies the common enjoyment of the fruits
of common production . . . when everybody, contributing
for the common well-being to the full extent of his
[or her] capacities, shall enjoy also from the common
stock of society to the fullest possible extent of his
[or her] needs." [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_,
p. 59]

Hence we find the CNT, arguing in its 1936 resolution on
libertarian communism, that "[a]s far as the interchange
of produce between communes is concerned, the communal 
councils are to liase with the regional federations of 
communes and with the confederal council of production 
and distribution, applying for whatever they may need and 
[giving] any available surplus stocks." [quoted by Jose 
Peirats, _The CNT in the Spanish Revolution_, vol. 1, 
p. 107] This clearly followed Kropotkin's comments that 
the "socialising of production, consumption, and exchange" 
would be based on workplaces "belong[ing] to federated 
Communes." [_The Conquest of Bread_, p. 136]

The legacy of capitalism, with its rich and poor areas, its
rich and poor workplaces, will be a problem any revolution
will face. The inequalities produced by centuries will take
time to change. This is one of the tasks of the federation, to 
ensure the socialisation of both production and consumption
so that people are not penalised for the accidents of history
and that each commune can develop itself to an adequate level. 
In the words of the CNT during the Spanish Revolution:

"Many arguments are used against the idea of socialisation; 
one of these -- the most delightful -- says that by socialising 
an industry we simply take it over and run it with the consequence 
that we have flourishing industries where the workers are privileged, 
and unfortunate industries where the workers get less benefits but 
have to work harder than workers elsewhere . . . There are 
differences between the workers in prosperous industries and
those which barely survive. . . Such anomalies, which we don't
deny exist, are attributed to the attempts at socialisation. We 
firmly assert that the opposite is true; such anomalies are the 
logical result of the absence of socialisation. 

"The socialisation which we propose will resolve these problems which 
are used to attack it. Were Catalan industry socialised, everything 
would be organically linked -- industry, agriculture, and the trade 
union organisations, in accordance with the council for the economy. 
They would become normalised, the working day would become more equal 
or what comes to the same thing, the differences between workers of 
different activities would end . . .

"Socialisation is -- and let its detractors hear it -- the genuine 
authentic organisation of the economy. Undoubtedly the economy has 
to be organised; but not according to the old methods, which are 
precisely those which we are destroying, but in accordance with 
new norms which will make our people become an example to the 
world proletariat." [_Solidaridad Obrera_, 30 April 1937, p. l2]

However, it could again be argued that these confederations are still
centralised and that workers would still be following orders coming from
above. This is incorrect, for any decisions concerning an industry or plant
are under the direct control of those involved. For example, the steel
industry confederation may decide to rationalise itself at one of its
congresses. Murray Bookchin sketches the response to this situation as
follows: 

"[L]et us suppose that a board of highly qualified technicians is
established [by this congress] to propose changes in the steel 
industry. This board. . . advances proposals to rationalise the 
industry by closing down some plants and expanding the operation 
of others . . . Is this a 'centralised' body or not? The answer 
is both yes and no. Yes, only in the sense that the board is 
dealing with problems that concern the country as a whole; no, 
because it can make no decision that *must* be executed for
the country as a whole. The board's plan must be examined by 
all the workers in the plants [that are affected]. . . . The 
board itself has no power to enforce 'decisions'; it merely 
makes recommendations. Additionally, its personnel are controlled 
by the plant in which they work and the locality in which they 
live." [_Post Scarcity Anarchism_, p. 267]

Therefore, confederations would not be in positions of power over the 
individual syndicates. As Bookchin points out, "[t]hey would have no 
decision-making powers. The adoption, modification or rejection of their 
plans would rest entirely with the communities involved." [Op. Cit., 
p. 267] No attempt is made to determine which plants produce which 
steel for which customers in which manner. Thus, the confederations of
syndicates ensure a decentralised, spontaneous economic order without 
the negative side-effects of capitalism (namely power concentrations 
within firms and in the market, periodic crises, etc.).

It should be pointed out that these confederated investment decisions 
will exist along with the investments associated with the creation of 
new syndicates, plus internal syndicate investment decisions. We are 
not suggesting that *every* investment decision is to be made by the
confederations. (This would be particularly impossible for *new*
industries, for which a confederation would not exist!) Therefore, in
addition to co-ordinated production units, an anarchist society would 
see numerous small-scale, local activities which would ensure creativity,
diversity, and flexibility. Only after these activities had spread across
society would confederal co-ordination become necessary.

As one can imagine, an essential feature of these confederations will be 
the collection and processing of information in order to determine how an 
industry is developing. This does not imply bureaucracy or centralised 
control at the top. Taking the issue of centralisation first, the 
confederation is run by delegate assemblies, meaning that any officers 
elected at a congress only implement the decisions made by the delegates
of the relevant syndicates. It is in the congresses and plenums of the
confederation that new investment decisions, for example, are made. The
key point to remember is that the confederation exists purely to
co-ordinate joint activity and share information, it does not take an
interest in how a workplace is run or what orders from consumers it fills.
(Of course, if a given workplace introduces policies which other
syndicates disapprove of, it can be expelled). As the delegates to these
congresses and plenums are mandated and their decisions subject to
rejection and modification by each productive unit, the confederation is 
not centralised. 

As far as bureaucracy goes, the collecting and processing of information
does necessitate an administrative staff to do the work. However, this 
problem affects capitalist firms as well; and since syndicates are based
on bottom-up decision making, its clear that, unlike a centralised
capitalist corporation, administration would be smaller. 

In fact, it is likely that a fixed administration staff for the confederation 
would not exist in the first place! At the regular congresses, a particular 
syndicate may be selected to do the confederation's information processing, 
with this job being rotated regularly around different syndicates. In this 
way, a specific administrative body and equipment can be avoided and the 
task of collating information placed directly in the hands of ordinary 
workers. Further, it prevents the development of a bureaucratic elite by 
ensuring that *all* participants are versed in information-processing 
procedures.

Lastly, what information would be collected? That depends on the context.
Individual syndicates would record inputs and outputs, producing summary
sheets of information. For example, total energy input, in kilowatts and
by type, raw material inputs, labour hours spent, orders received, orders
accepted, output, and so forth. This information can be processed into
energy use and labour time per product (for example), in order to give an 
idea of how efficient production is and how it is changing over time. For
confederations, the output of individual syndicates can be aggregated and
local and other averages can be calculated. In addition, changes in demand
can be identified by this aggregation process and used to identify when 
investment will be needed or plants closed down. In this way the chronic
slumps and booms of capitalism can be avoided without creating a system
which is even more centralised than capitalism.

I.3.6 What about competition between syndicates? 

This is a common question, particularly from defenders of capitalism.
They argue that syndicates will not co-operate together unless forced to
do so, but will compete against each other for raw materials, skilled
workers, and so on. The result of this process, it is claimed, will be
rich and poor syndicates, inequality within society and within the
workplace, and (possibly) a class of unemployed workers from unsuccessful
syndicates who are hired by successful ones. In other words, they argue
that libertarian socialism will need to become authoritarian to prevent
competition, and that if it does not do so it will become capitalist very
quickly.

For individualist anarchists and mutualists, competition is not viewed 
as a problem. They think that competition, based around co-operatives and
mutual banks, would minimise economic inequality, as the new economic 
structure based around free credit and co-operation would eliminate 
non-labour (i.e. unearned) income such as profit, interest and rent and 
give workers enough bargaining power to eliminate exploitation. For
these anarchists it is a case of capitalism perverting competition
and so are not against competition itself (see Proudhon's _General
Idea of the Revolution_, pages 50-1 for example). Other anarchists 
think that whatever gains might accrue from competition (assuming
there are, in fact, any) would be more than offset by its negative 
effects, which are outlined in section I.1.3. It is to these anarchists 
that the question is usually asked.

Before continuing, we would like to point out that individuals trying to
improve their lot in life is not against anarchist principles. How could
it be? What *is* against anarchist principles is centralised power,
oppression, and exploitation, all of which flow from large inequalities
of income. This is the source of anarchist concern about equality --
concern that is not based on some sort of "politics of envy." Anarchists
oppose inequality because it soon leads to the few oppressing the many (a 
relationship which distorts the individuality and liberty of all involved
as well as the health and very lives of the oppressed). 

Anarchists desire to create a society in which such relationships are 
impossible, believing that the most effective way to do this is by 
empowering all, by creating an egoistic concern for liberty and equality 
among the oppressed, and by developing social organisations which encourage 
self-management. As for individuals' trying to improve their lot, anarchists 
maintain that co-operation is the best means to do so, *not* competition. 
And there is substantial evidence to support this claim (see, for example,
Alfie Kohn's _No Contest: The Case Against Competition_).

Robert Axelrod, in his book, _The Evolution of Co-operation_ agrees and 
presents abundant evidence that co-operation is in our long term interests
(i.e. it provides better results than short term competition). This suggests 
that, as Kropotkin argued, mutual aid, not mutual struggle, will be in an 
individual's self-interest and so competition in a free, sane society would 
be minimised and reduced to sports and other individual pastimes. As Stirner
argued, co-operation is just as egoistic as competition (a fact sometimes
lost on many due to the obvious ethical superiority of co-operation):

"But should competition some day disappear, because concerted effort
will have been acknowledged as more beneficial than isolation, then
will not every single individual inside the associations be equally
egoistic and out for his own interests?" [_No Gods, No Masters_, vol. 1,
p. 22]

Now to the "competition" objection, which we'll begin to answer by 
noting that it ignores a few key points. Firstly, the assumption that
libertarian socialism would "become capitalist" in the absence of a
*state* is obviously false. If competition did occur between collectives
and did lead to massive wealth inequalities, then the newly rich would
have to create a state to protect their private property (means of
production) against the dispossessed. So inequality, not equality,
leads to the creation of states. It is no co-incidence that the
anarchic communities that existed for millennia were also egalitarian.

Secondly, as noted in section A.2.5, anarchists do not consider "equal" 
to mean "identical." Therefore, to claim that wage differences mean
inequality makes sense only if one thinks that "equality" means everyone
getting *exactly* equal shares. As anarchists do not hold such an idea,
wage differences in an otherwise anarchistically organised syndicate do
not indicate a lack of equality. How the syndicate is *run* is of far
more importance, because the most pernicious type of inequality from the
anarchist standpoint is inequality of *power,* i.e. unequal influence on
political and economic decision making. 

Under capitalism, wealth inequality translates into such an inequality of
power, and vice versa, because wealth can buy private property (and state
protection of it), which gives owners authority over that property and those 
hired to produce with it; but under libertarian socialism, minor or even 
moderate differences in income among otherwise equal workers would not lead 
to this kind of power inequality, because direct democracy, social ownership 
of capital, and the absence of a state severs the link between wealth and
power (see further below). Empirical evidence supports anarchist claims
as co-operatives have a more egalitarian wage structure than corresponding
capitalist firms.

Thirdly, anarchists do not pretend that an anarchist society will be
"perfect." Hence there may be periods, particularly just after capitalism
has been replaced by self-management, when differences in skill, etc.,
leads to a few people exploiting their fellow workers and getting more
wages, better hours and conditions, and so forth. This problem existed in
the industrial collectives in the Spanish Revolution. As Kropotkin
pointed out, "[b]ut, when all is said and done, some inequalities, some
inevitable injustice, undoubtedly will remain. There are individuals in
our societies whom no great crisis can lift out of the deep mire of egoism
in which they are sunk. The question, however, is not whether there will
be injustices or no, but rather how to limit the number of them." [_The
Conquest of Bread_, p. 94] 

In other words, these problems will exist, but there are a number of
things that anarchists can do to minimise their impact. Primarily there
must be a "gestation period" before the birth of an anarchist society, in
which social struggle, new forms of education and child-rearing, and other
methods of consciousness-raising increase the number of anarchists and
decrease the number of authoritarians. 

The most important element in this gestation period is social struggle. 
Such self-activity will have a major impact on those involved in it
(see section J.2). By direct action and solidarity, those involved develop 
bounds of friendship and support with others, develop new forms of ethics 
and new ideas and ideal. This radicalisation process will help to ensure that 
any differences in education and skill do not develop into differences in 
power in an anarchist society. 

In addition, education within the anarchist movement should aim, among other 
things, to give its members familiarity with technological skills so that they 
are not dependent on "experts" and can thus increase the pool of skilled 
workers who will be happy working in conditions of liberty and equality. 
This will ensure that differentials between workers can be minimised. 

In the long run, however, popularisation of non-authoritarian methods of 
child-rearing and education are particularly important because, as we have 
seen, secondary drives such as greed and the desire the exercise power over 
others are products of authoritarian upbringing based on punishments and fear 
(See sections B.1.5, "What is the mass-psychological basis for authoritarian 
civilisation?" and J.6, "What methods of child rearing do anarchists 
advocate?"). Only if the prevalence of such drives is reduced among the 
general population can we be sure that an anarchist revolution will not 
degenerate into some new form of domination and exploitation. 

However, there are other reasons why economic inequality -- say, in
differences of income levels or working conditions, which may arise from
competition for "better" workers -- would be far less severe under any form 
of anarchist society than it is under capitalism. Firstly, the syndicates
would be democratically managed. This would result in much smaller wage
differentials, because there is no board of wealthy directors setting
wage levels for their own gain and who think nothing of hierarchy and 
having elites. The decentralisation of power in an anarchist society will 
ensure that there would no longer be wealthy elites paying each other vast 
amounts of money. This can be seen from the experience of the Mondragon 
co-operatives, where the wage difference between the highest paid and lowest 
paid worker was 4 to 1. This was only increased recently when they had to 
compete with large capitalist companies, and even then the new ratio of 9 
to 1 is *far* smaller than those in American or British companies (in 
America, for example, the ratio is even as high at 200 to 1 and beyond!).
Thus, even under capitalism "[t]here is evidence that the methods of 
distribution chosen by worker-controlled or self-managed firms are more 
egalitarian than distribution according to market precepts." [Christopher
Eaton Gunn, _Workers' Self-Management in the United States_, p. 45] Given 
that market precepts fail to take into account power differences, this is
unsurprising. Thus we can predict that a fully self-managed economy 
would be just, if not, more egalitarian as differences in power would
be eliminated, as would unemployment (James K. Galbraith, in his book
_Created Unequal_, has presented extensive evidence that unemployment
increases inequality, as would be expected).

It is a common myth that managers, executives and so on are "rugged 
individuals" and are paid so highly because of their unique abilities. 
Actually, they are so highly paid because they are bureaucrats in 
command of large hierarchical institutions. It is the hierarchical 
nature of the capitalist firm that ensures inequality, *not* 
exceptional skills. Even enthusiastic supporters of capitalism 
provide evidence to support this claim. Peter Drucker (in _Concept 
of the Corporation_) brushed away the claim that corporate organisation 
brings managers with exceptional ability to the top when he noted that 
"[n]o institution can possibly survive if it needs geniuses or 
supermen to manage it. It must be organised in such a way as to 
be able to get along under a leadership of average human beings." 
[p. 35] For Drucker, "the things that really count are not the 
individual members but the relations of command and responsibility 
among them." [p. 34] 

Anarchists argue that high wage differences are the result of how capitalism 
is organised and that capitalist economics exists to justify these results by 
assuming company hierarchy and capitalist ownership evolved naturally (as
opposed to being created by state action and protection). The end of
capitalist hierarchy would also see the end of vast differences of income
because decision making power would be decentralised back into the hands of 
those affected by those decisions. 

Secondly, corporations would not exist. A network of workplaces co-ordinated 
by confederal committees would not have the resources available to pay 
exorbitant wages. Unlike a capitalist company, power is decentralised in
a confederation of syndicates and wealth does not flow to the top. This
means that there is no elite of executives who control the surplus made
from the company's workers and can use that surplus to pay themselves
high wages while ensuring that the major shareholders receive high enough
dividends not to question their activities (or their pay). 

Thirdly, management positions would be rotated, ensuring that everyone 
gets experience of the work, thus reducing the artificial scarcity 
created by the division of labour. Also, education would be extensive, 
ensuring that engineers, doctors, and other skilled workers would do 
the work because they *enjoyed* doing it and not for financial reward. 
And lastly, we should like to point out that people work for many reasons, 
not just for high wages. Feelings of solidarity, empathy, friendship with 
their fellow workers would also help reduce competition between syndicates 
for workers. Of course, having no means of unearned income (such as rent 
and interest), social anarchism will reduce income differentials even more.

Of course, the "competition" objection assumes that syndicates and 
members of syndicates will place financial considerations above all 
else. This is not the case, and few individuals are the economic robots 
assumed in capitalist dogma. Indeed, the evidence from co-operatives 
refutes such claims (ignoring, for the moment, the vast evidence of 
our own senses and experiences with real people rather than the insane 
"economic man" of capitalist economic ideology). Neo-classical 
economic theory, deducting from its basic assumptions, argues 
that members of co-operatives will aim to maximise profit per 
worker and so, perversely, fire their members during good times. 
Reality contradicts these claims, with the "empirical evidence" 
showing that there "has been no tendency for workers to lay-off 
co-workers when times are good, neither in Mondragon nor in [the 
former] Yugoslavia. Even in bad times, layoffs are rare." [David
Schweickart, _Against Capitalism_, p. 92] The experience of 
self-managed collectives during the Spanish Revolution also 
confirms this, with collectives sharing work equitably in order
to avoid laying people off during the harsh economic conditions
caused by the Civil War. In other words, the underlying assumption
that people are economic robots cannot be maintained -- there
is extensive evidence pointing to the fact that different forms
of social organisation produce different considerations and 
people who are motivated by different considerations.

Also, we must remember that the syndicates are *not* competing for 
market share, and so it is likely that new techniques would be shared 
between workplaces and skilled workers might decide to rotate their 
work between syndicates in order to maximise the effectiveness of
their working time until such time as the general skill level in 
society increases. 

So, while recognising that competition for skilled workers could exist, 
anarchists think there are plenty of reasons not to worry about massive
economic inequality being created, which in turn would re-create the
state. The apologists for capitalism who put forward this argument forget
that the pursuit of self-interest is universal, meaning that everyone
would be interested in maximising his or her liberty, and so would be
unlikely to allow inequalities to develop which threatened that liberty. 

As for competition for scarce resources, it is clear that it would be in 
the interests of communes and syndicates which have them to share them with
others instead of charging high prices for them. This is for two reasons. 
Firstly, they may find themselves boycotted by others, and so they would be
denied the advantages of social co-operation. Secondly, they may be subject
to such activities themselves at a future date and so it would wise for
them to remember to "treat others as you would like them to treat you 
under similar circumstances." As anarchism will never come about unless
people desire it and start to organise their own lives, it's clear that 
an anarchist society would be inhabited by individuals who followed
that ethical principle. 

So it is doubtful that people inspired by anarchist ideas would start 
to charge each other high prices, particularly since the syndicates and
community assemblies are likely to vote for a wide basis of surplus
distribution, precisely to avoid this problem and to ensure that
production will be for use rather than profit (see section I.4.10, "What
would be the advantage of a wide basis of surplus distribution?"). In
addition, as other communities and syndicates would likely boycott any
syndicate or commune that was acting in non-co-operative ways, it is
likely that social pressure would soon result in those willing to exploit
others rethinking their position. Co-operation does not imply a willingness
to tolerate those who desire to take advantage of you.

Moreover, given the experience of the period between the 1960s and 1990s
(with rising inequality marked by falling growth, lower wage growth,
rising unemployment and increased economic instability) the impact of
increased competition and inequality harms the vast majority. It is
doubtful that people aware of these tendencies (and that, as we
argued in section F.3, "free exchange" in an unequal society tends to
*increase*, not decrease, inequality) would create such a regime.

Examples of anarchism in action show that there is frequently a
spontaneous tendency towards charging cost prices for goods, as 
well as attempts to work together to reduce the dangers of isolation 
and competition. One thing to remember is that anarchy will not be 
created "overnight," and so potential problems will be worked out 
over time. Underlying all these kinds of objections is the assumption 
that co-operation will *not* be more beneficial to all involved than
competition. However, in terms of quality of life, co-operation will 
soon be seen to be the better system, even by the most highly paid 
workers. There is far more to life than the size of one's pay packet, 
and anarchism exists in order to ensure that life is far more than 
the weekly grind of boring work and the few hours of hectic consumption 
in which people attempt to fill the "spiritual hole" created by a way 
of life which places profits above people.

I.3.7 What about people who do not want to join a syndicate? 

In this case, they are free to work alone, by their own labour. 
Anarchists have no desire to force people to join a syndicate. 
As Kropotkin argued:

"Communist organisations . . . must be the work of all, a natural
growth, a product of the constructive genius of the great mass. 
Communism cannot be imposed from above; it could not live even
for a few months if the constant and daily co-operation of all
did not uphold it. It must be free." [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary
Pamphlets_, p. 140]

Therefore, the decision to join a commune will be a free one, with
the potential for living outside it guaranteed for non-exploitative
and non-oppressive individuals and groups. Malatesta stressed this 
when he argued that in an anarchist revolution "what has to be 
destroyed at once . . . is *capitalistic property,* that is, the 
fact that a few control the natural wealth and the instruments 
of production and can thus oblige others to work for them . . . 
[but one must have a] right and the possibility to live in a 
different regime, collectivist, mutualist, individualist -- as 
one wishes, always on the condition that there is no oppression 
or exploitation of others." [_Malatesta: Life and Ideas_, p. 102]

In other words, different forms of social life will be experimented 
with, depending on what people desire. Of course some people 
(particularly right-wing "libertarians") ask how anarchists can 
reconcile individual freedom with expropriation of capital. All 
we can say is that these critics subscribe to the idea that one 
should not interfere with the "individual freedom" of those in 
positions of authority to oppress others, and that this premise 
turns the concept of individual freedom on its head, making 
oppression a "right" and the denial of freedom a form of it!

However, right-wing "libertarians" do raise a valid question 
when they ask if anarchism would result in self-employed people 
being forced into co-operatives, syndicates or collectives as 
the result of a popular movement. The answer is no. This is 
because the destruction of title deeds would not harm the 
independent worker, whose real title is possession and the 
work done. What anarchists want to eliminate is not possessions 
but capitalist *property.*

As Peter Kropotkin made clear:

"when we see a peasant, who is in possession of just amount of land
he can cultivate, we do not think it reasonable to turn him off his
little farm. He exploits nobody, and nobody would have the right
to interfere with his work. . . [W]hen we see a family inhabiting a
house which affords them just as much space as . . . are considered
necessary for that number of people, why should we interfere with
that family and turn them out their house? . . . And finally, when
we see a . . . cutler, or a . . . clothier working with their own
tools or handloom, we see no use in taking the tools or handloom
to give to another workers. The clothier or cutler exploit nobody." 
[_Act for Yourselves_, pp. 104-5] 

This means that independent producers will still exist within 
an anarchist society, and some workplaces -- perhaps whole 
areas -- will not be part of a confederation. This is natural 
in a free society, for different people have different ideas 
and ideals. Nor does such independent producers imply a 
contradiction with libertarian socialism, for "[w]hat we 
concerned with is the destruction of the titles of 
proprietors who exploit the labour of others and, above 
all, of expropriating them in fact in order to put . . .
all the means of production at the disposal of those 
who do the work." [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 103] 

Of course, some people may desire to become capitalists, and 
they may offer to employ people and pay them wages. However, 
such a situation would be unlikely. Simply put, why would 
anyone desire to work for the would-be employer? Malatesta 
makes this point as follows: 

"It remains to be seen whether not being able to obtain 
assistance or people to exploit -- and he [the would-be 
capitalist] would find none because nobody, having a right 
to the means of production and being free to work on his 
own or as an equal with others in the large organisations
of production would want to be exploited by a small 
employer -- . . . it remains to be seen whether these 
isolated workers would not find it more convenient to 
combine with others and voluntarily join one of the 
existing communities." [Op. Cit., pp. 102-103]

So where would the capitalist wannabe find people to work 
for him? As Kropotkin argued:

"Everywhere you will find that the wealth of the wealthy springs
from the poverty of the poor. That is why an anarchist society
need not fear the advent of a Rothschild [or any other millionaire]
who would settle in its midst. If every member of the community
knows that after a few hours of productive toil he [or she] will
have a right to all the pleasures that civilisation procures, and
to those deeper sources of enjoyment which art and science offer
to all who seek them, he [or she] will not sell his strength . . .
No one will volunteer to work for the enrichment of your Rothschild."
[Op. Cit., p. 61]

And, assuming that he did find someone willing to work for him (and
so be governed by him), the would-be capitalist would have to provide 
such excellent conditions and pay such good wages as to reduce his 
profits to near zero. Moreover, he would have to face workers whose 
neighbours would be encouraging them to form a union and strike for 
even *better* conditions and pay, including workers' control and so 
on. Such a militant workforce would be the last thing a capitalist
would desire.

However, let us suppose there is a self-employed inventor, Ferguson, who
comes up with a new innovation without the help of the co-operative sector.
Would anarchists steal his idea? Not at all. The co-operatives, which by
hypothesis have been organised by people who believe in giving producers
the full value of their product, would pay Ferguson an equitable amount
for his idea, which would then become common across society. However, 
if he refused to sell his invention and instead tried to claim a patent
monopoly on it in order to gather a group of wage slaves to exploit, no
one would agree to work for him unless they got the full control over 
both the product of their labour and the labour process itself.

In addition, we would imagine they would also refuse to work for someone
unless they also got the capital they used at the end of their contract
(i.e. a system of "hire-purchase" on the means of production used). In
other words, by removing the statist supports of capitalism, would-be
capitalists would find it hard to "compete" with the co-operative sector
and would not be in a position to exploit others' labour. 

With a system of communal production (in social anarchism) and mutual
banks (in individualist anarchism), "usury" -- i.e. charging a use-fee for
a monopolised item, of which patents are an instance -- would no longer be
possible and the inventor would be like any other worker, exchanging the
product of his or her labour. As Ben Tucker argued, "the patent monopoly
. . . consists in protecting inventors and authors against competition for 
a period of time long enough for them to extort from the people a reward
enormously in excess of the labour measure of their services -- in other
words, in giving certain people a right of property for a term of years in
laws and facts of nature, and the power to extract tribute from others for
the use of this natural wealth, which should be open to all. The abolition
of this monopoly would fill its beneficiaries with a wholesome fear of
competition which should cause them to be satisfied with pay for their
services equal to that which other labourers get for theirs, and secure 
it by placing their products and works on the market at the outset at 
prices so low that their lines of business would be no more tempting to
competitors than any other lines." [_The Anarchist Reader_, pp. 150-1]

So, if someone has labour to sell then they deserve a free society 
to do it in -- as Tucker once pointed out. Such an environment would 
make the numbers seeking employment so low as to ensure that the rate 
of exploitation would be zero. Little wonder that, when faced with a 
self-employed, artisan workforce, capitalists have continually turned 
to the state to create the "correct" market forces (see section F.8).

Thus while the idea that people will happily become wage slaves may 
be somewhat common place (particularly with supporters of capitalism)
the evidence of history is that people, given a choice, will prefer
self-employment and *resist* wage labour (often to the death). As
E. P. Thompson notes, for workers at the end of the 18th and 
beginning of the 19th centuries, the "gap in status between a 
'servant,' a hired wage-labourer subject to the orders and discipline 
of the master, and an artisan, who might 'come and go' as he pleased, 
was wide enough for men to shed blood rather than allow themselves to 
be pushed from one side to the other. And, in the value system of the
community, those who resisted degradation were in the right." [_The
Making of the English Working Class_, p. 599] Over one hundred
years later, the rural working class of Aragon showed the same
dislike of wage slavery. After Communist troops destroyed their
self-managed collectives, the "[d]ispossessed peasants, intransigent 
collectivists, refused to work in a system of private property, and 
were even less willing to rent out their labour." [Jose Peirats, 
_Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution_, p. 258] The rural economy
collapsed (see section I.8.7 for more details).

Therefore, any perception that people will become wage-labourers 
through choice in a free society is based on the assumption what
people accept through necessity under capitalism will pass over, 
without change, into a free one. This assumption is unfounded 
and anarchists expect that once people struggle for freedom and 
taste the pleasures of freedom they will not freely accept a 
degradation back to having a master -- and as history shows, 
we have some evidence to support our argument.

In other words, with the end of capitalism and statism, a free society 
has no fear of capitalist firms being created or growing again because 
it rejects the idea that everyone must be in a syndicate. Few, if any, 
people would desire to have bosses when they have the choice of being
free (to use an analogy, few people prefer dictatorship to democracy
once the former has been overthrown). Also, without statism to back up 
various class-based monopolies of capitalist privilege, capitalism
could not become dominant. In addition, the advantages of co-operation
between syndicates would exceed whatever temporary advantages existed for
syndicates to practice commodity exchange in a mutualist market.

I.3.8 Do anarchists seek "small autonomous communities, devoted 
to small scale production"?

As we indicated at the start of this section, anarchists see a
free society's productive activity centred around federations of
syndicates. This showes that anarchism rejects the idea of 
isolated communes. Rather, we argue that communes and syndicates
would work together in a federal structure. This would, as
we argue in section I.3.5, necessitate confederations to
help co-ordinate economic activity and, as indicated in
section I.3.4, involve extensive links between productive
syndicates and the communes they are part of.

The idea that anarchism aims for small, self-sufficient, communes 
is a Leninist slander. They misrepresent anarchist ideas on this 
matter, suggesting that anarchists seriously want society based 
on "small autonomous communities, devoted to small scale 
production." In particular, they point to Kropotkin, arguing
that he "looked backwards for change" and "witnessed such 
communities among Siberian peasants and watchmakers in the 
Swiss mountains." [Pat Stack, "Anarchy in the UK?", _Socialist
Review_, no. 246, November 2000] 

While it may be better to cover this issue in section H.2 ("What 
parts of anarchist theory do Marxists particularly misrepresent?")
we discuss it here simply because, firstly, it seems to be
a depressingly common assertion and, secondly, it relates
directly to what an anarchist society could look like. Hence
our discussion of these assertions in this section of the FAQ.
Also, it allows us to fill in more of the picture of what a
free society could look like.

So what do anarchists make of the assertion that we aim for
"small autonomous communities, devoted to small scale 
production"? Simply put, we think it is nonsense (as would be 
quickly obvious from reading anarchist theory). Indeed, it is 
hard to know where this particular anarchist "vision" comes 
from. As Luigi Fabbri noted, in his reply to an identical 
assertion by the leading Bolshevik Nikolai Bukharin, "[i]t 
would be interesting to learn in what anarchist book, pamphlet 
or programme such an 'ideal' is set out, or even such a hard
and fast rule!" ["Anarchy and 'Scientific' Communism", 
pp. 13-49, _The Poverty of Statism_, Albert Meltzer (ed.), 
p. 21]

If we look at, say, Proudhon, we soon see no such argument
for "small scale" production. He argued for "the mines, canals, 
railways [to be] handed over to democratically organised workers' 
associations . . . We want these associations to be models for 
agriculture, industry and trade, the pioneering core of that vast 
federation of companies and societies woven into the common cloth 
of the democratic social Republic." [_No Gods, No Masters_, vol. 1, 
p. 62] Similarly, rather than dismiss the idea of large-scale 
industry Proudhon argued that "[l]arge industry . . . come 
to us by big monopoly and big property: it is necessary in the 
future to make them rise from the [labour] association." [quoted
by K. Steven Vincent, _Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican 
Socialism_, p. 156] As Vincent correctly summarises:

"On this issue, it is necessary to emphasise that, contrary to the
general image given on the secondary literature, Proudhon was not
hostile to large industry. Clearly, he objected to many aspects of
what these large enterprises had introduced into society. For
example, Proudhon strenuously opposed the degrading character of
. . . work which required an individual to repeat one minor
function continuously. But he was not opposed in principle to 
large-scale production. What he desired was to humanise such
production, to socialise it so that the worker would not be the
mere appendage to a machine. Such a humanisation of large 
industries would result, according to Proudhon, from the
introduction of strong workers' associations. These associations
would enable the workers to determine jointly by election how
the enterprise was to be directed and operated on a day-to-day
basis." [Op. Cit., p. 156]

Moreover, Proudhon did not see an anarchist society as one
of isolated communities or workplaces. Instead, he saw the
need for workplace and community federations to co-ordinate
joint activities and interests. Economically, there would
be an "agro-industrial federation" would "tend to foster
increasing equality, by organising all public services
in an economical fashion and in hands other than the
state's, through mutualism in credit and insurance . . .
guaranteeing the right to work and to education, and
an organisation of work which allows each labourer to
become a skilled worker and an artist, each wage-earner
to become his own master." This would end "industrial
and financial feudalism" and "wage-labour or economic
servitude." [_The Principle of Federation_, pp. 70-1]

The need for economic federation was also required due
to differences in raw materials, quality of land and 
so on. Proudhon argued that a portion of income from 
agricultural produce be paid into a central fund which 
would be used to make equalisation payments to compensate 
farmers with less favourably situated or less fertile land. 
As he put it, economic rent "in agriculture has no other 
cause than the inequality in the quality of land . . . if 
anyone has a claim on account of this inequality . . . 
[it is] the other land workers who hold inferior land. That 
is why in our scheme for liquidation [of capitalism] we 
stipulated that every variety of cultivation should pay 
a proportional contribution, destined to accomplish a 
balancing of returns among farm workers and an assurance 
of products." [_The General Idea of the Revolution_, p. 209]

This vision of a federation of workplaces can also be found 
in Bakunin's writings. As he put it, the "future organisation
of society must proceed from the bottom up only, through
free association or federations of the workers, into
their associations to begin with, then into communes,
regions, nations and, finally, into a great international
and universal federation." [_No Gods, No Masters_, vol. 1,
p. 176] Bakunin, like Proudhon, considered that "[i]ntelligent
free labour will necessarily be associated labour" as
under capitalism the worker "works for others" and her
labour is "bereft of liberty, leisure and intelligence."
Under anarchism, "the free productive associations"
would become "their own masters and the owners of the
necessary capital" and "amalgamate among themselves"
and "sooner or later" will "expand beyond national
frontiers" and "form one vast economic federation."
[_Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings_, pp. 81-3]

Neither can such a vision be attributed to Kropotkin. While,
of course, supporting decentralisation of power and decision
making as did Proudhon and Bakunin, he did not reject the
necessity of federations to co-ordinate activity. As he
put it, the "commune of tomorrow will know that it cannot
admit any higher authority; above it there can only be the
interests of the Federation, freely accepted by itself
as well as the other communes . . . The Commune will
know that it must break the State and replace it by the 
Federation." For anarchists the commune "no longer means
a territorial agglomeration; it is rather a generic name,
a synonym for the grouping of equals which knows neither
frontiers nor walls . . . Each group in the Commune will
necessarily be drawn towards similar groups in other
communes; they will come together and the links that 
federate them will be as solid as those that attach 
them to their fellow citizens." [_Words of a Rebel_, 
p. 83 and p. 88]

Nor did he see an anarchist society as one with an economy 
based purely around the small commune or community. He took 
the basic unit of a free society as one "large enough to 
dispose of a certain variety of natural resources -- it may 
be a nation, or rather a region -- produces and itself
consumes most of its own agricultural and manufactured
produce." Such a region would "find the best means of
combining agriculture with manufacture -- the work in
the field with a decentralised industry." Moreover,
he recognised that the "geographical distribution of
industries in a given country depends . . . to a 
great extent upon a complexus of natural conditions;
it is obvious that there are spots which are best
suited for the development of certain industries
. . . The[se] industries always find some advantages
in being grouped, to some extent, according to the
natural features of separate regions." [_Fields, 
Factories and Workshops Tomorrow_, p. 26, p. 27 and 
pp. 154-5]

Kropotkin stressed that agriculture "cannot develop without
the aid of machinery and the use of a perfect machinery
cannot be generalised without industrial surroundings.
. . . The village smith would not do."  Thus he supported 
the integration of agriculture and industry, with "the 
factory and workshop at the gates of your fields and 
gardens." These factories would be "airy and hygienic, 
and consequently economical, factories in which human 
life is of more account than machinery and the making 
of extra profits." A "variety of agricultural, 
industrial and intellectual pursuits are combined 
in each community" to ensure "the greatest sum total
of well-being." He thought that "large establishments" 
would still exist, but these would be "better placed at 
certain spots indicated by Nature." He stressed that
it "would be a great mistake to imagine industry ought
to return to its hand-work stage in order to be combined
with agriculture. Whenever a saving of human labour
can be obtained by means of a machine, the machine is
welcome and will be resorted to; and there is hardly
one single branch of industry into which machinery
work could not be introduced with great advantage,
at least at some of the stages of the manufacture . . .
The machine will supersede hand-work in the manufacture
of plain goods. But at the same time, hand-work very
probably will extend its domain in the artistic finishing
of many things which are now made entirely in the
factory." [Op. Cit., p. 156, p. 197, p. 18, pp. 154-5 
and pp. 151-2]

Clearly Kropotkin was *not* opposed to large-scale
industry as such. As he put it, "if we analyse the
modern industries, we soon discover that for some of
them the co-operation of hundred, even thousands, of
workers gathered at the same spot is really necessary.
The great iron works and mining enterprises decidedly
belong to that category; oceanic steamers cannot be
built in village factories." However, he stressed that
this is objective necessity was not the case in many
other industries and centralised production existed
in these purely to allow capitalists "to hold command 
of the market." Once we consider the "moral and physical 
advantages which man would derive from dividing his work 
between field and the workshop" we must automatically 
evaluate the structure of modern industry with the 
criteria of what is best for the worker (and society 
and the environment) rather than what was best for 
capitalist profits and power. [Op. Cit., p. 153]

Clearly, Leninist summaries of Kropotkin's ideas on 
this subject are nonsense. Rather than seeing 
"small-scale" production as the basis of his vision
of a free society, he saw production as being geared
around the economic unit of a nation or region ("Each
region will become its own producer and its own
consumer of manufactured goods . . . [and] its own
producer and consumer of agricultural produce."
[Op. Cit., p. 40]). Industry would come to the 
village "not in its present shape of a capitalist 
factory" but "in the shape of a socially organised 
industrial production, with the full aid of 
machinery and technical knowledge." [Op. Cit.,
p. 151] 

Industry would be decentralised and integrated with
agriculture and based around communes, but these
communes would be part of a federation and so 
production would be based around meeting the needs
of these federations. A system of rational 
decentralisation would be the basis of Kropotkin's
communist-anarchism, with productive activity and
a free society's workplaces geared to the appropriate 
level. For those forms of industry which would be
best organised on a large-scale would continue to
be so organised, but for those whose current (i.e.
capitalist) structure had no objective need to be
centralised would be broken up to allow the 
transformation of work for the benefit of both
workers and society.

Thus we would see a system of workplaces geared to 
local and district needs complementing larger 
factories which would meet regional and wider needs.
Kropotkin was at pains to show that such a system
would be economical, stressing that "[t]his is why 
the 'concentration' so much spoken of is often nothing 
but an amalgamation of capitalists for the purpose of 
*dominating the market*, not for cheapening the technical 
process." [Op. Cit., p. 154] In other words, that
the structure of modern industry was skewed by the
needs of capitalist profit and power and so it cannot
be assumed that what is "efficient" under a capitalist
criteria is necessarily the best for a free society.

Kropotkin was well aware that modern industry was shaped
"to suit the temporary interests of the few -- by
no means those of the nation." [Op. Cit., p. 147]
Therefore he made a clear division between economic
tendencies which existed to aid the capitalist to
dominate the market and enhance their profits and
power and those which indicated a different kind of
future. He placed the tendency of industry to spread
across the world, to decentralise itself into all
nations and regions, as a tendency of the second
kind (one often swallowed up by the first, of course). 
As such, he looked at and analysed existing society
and its tendencies. Therefore it cannot be said that 
Kropotkin based this analysis on "look[ing] backwards 
for change." Indeed, the opposite was obviously the 
case. He continually stressed that "the present 
tendency of humanity is to have the greatest possible
variety of industries gathering in each country." 
[Op. Cit., pp. 25-6] 

Kropotkin backed this claim, as all the claims in his work, 
with extensive empirical evidence and research. In other 
words, he clearly looked to the present for change, charting 
tendencies within modern society which pointed in a
libertarian direction and backing up his arguments
with extensive and recent research. To state otherwise
simply shows an unfamiliarity with Kropotkin's work.

The obvious implication of Leninist comments arguments
against anarchist ideas on industrial transformation 
after a revolution is that they think that a socialist 
society will basically be the same as capitalism,
using the technology, industrial structure and industry 
developed under class society without change. After all, 
did Lenin not argue that "Socialism is nothing but the 
next step forward from state capitalist monopoly . . . 
Socialism is merely state capitalist monopoly *made to 
benefit the whole people*"? [_The Threatening Catastrophe
and how to avoid it_, p. 37] Needless to say, capitalist 
industry, as Kropotkin was aware, has not developed neutrally 
nor purely because of technical needs. Rather it has been 
distorted by the twin requirements to maintain capitalist 
profits and power. The one of the first tasks of a social 
revolution will be to transform the industrial structure, 
not keep it as it is. You cannot use capitalist means for 
socialist ends. As Alexander Berkman correctly argued:

"The role of industrial decentralisation in the revolution
is unfortunately too little appreciated. . . Most people
are still in the thraldom of the Marxian dogma that
centralisation is 'more efficient and economical.' They
close their eyes to the fact that the alleged 'economy'
is achieved at the cost of the workers' limb and life,
that the 'efficiency' degrades him to a mere industrial
cog, deadens his soul, kills his body. Furthermore, in 
a system of centralisation the administration of industry
becomes constantly merged in fewer hands, producing a
powerful bureaucracy of industrial overlords. It would
indeed be the sheerest irony if the revolution were to
aim at such a result. It would mean the creation of
a new master class." [_The ABC of Anarchism_, pp. 80-1]

In other words, it would be a new bureaucracy exploiting and 
oppressing those who do the actual work -- as in private 
capitalism -- simply because capitalist economic structures 
are designed to empower the few over the many. Like the 
capitalist state, they cannot be used by the working class 
to achieve their liberation (they are not created for the 
mass participation that real socialism requires, quite the 
reverse in fact!). While we will "inherent" an industrial
structure from capitalism it would be the greatest possible
error to leave it unchanged and an even worse one to 
accelerate the processes by which capitalists maintain and
increase their power (i.e. centralisation and concentration)
in the name of "socialism."

One last factor should be mentioned with regards to the
issue of decentralising production. Kropotkin, as well as 
thinking that "a country with no large factories to bring 
steel to a finished condition is doomed to be backward in 
all other industries," also saw that a society in
revolution would be thrust back on its own resources
as "[i]nternational commerce will come to a standstill"
and the economy would be "paralysed." This would force
a revolutionary people if "cut off from the world for
a year or two by the supporters of middle-class rule"
to "provide for itself, and to reorganise its production,
so as satisfy its own needs. If it fails to do so, it
is death. If it succeeds, it will revolutionise the 
economic life of the country." This would involve
"the necessity of cultivating the soil, of combining
agricultural production with industrial production
in the suburbs of [cities] and its environs." Thus
the danger of the initial isolation of a revolution
was a factor in Kropotkin's ideas on this issue. [_The 
Conquest of Bread_, p. 190, p. 191, p. 192 and p. 191]

We are sorry to have laboured this point, but this issue
is one which arises with depressing frequency in Marxist
accounts of anarchism. It is best that we indicate that
those who make the claim that anarchists seek "small
scale" production geared for "small autonomous communities"
simply show their ignorance of the source material. In
actually, anarchists see production as being geared to
whatever makes most social, economic and ecological sense.
Some production and workplaces will be geared to the local 
commune, some will be geared to the district federation,
some to the regional federation, and so on. It is for
this reason anarchists support the federation of workers'
associations as the means of combining local autonomy
with the needs for co-ordination and joint activity.
To claim otherwise is simply to misrepresent anarchist
theory.

I.4 How could an anarchist economy function?

This is an important question facing all opponents of a given system -- 
what will you replace it with? We can say, of course, that it is pointless 
to make blueprints of how a future anarchist society will work as the 
future will be created by everyone, not just the few anarchists and 
libertarian socialists who write books and FAQs. This is very true, we 
cannot predict what a free society will actually be like or develop and 
we have no intention to do so here. However, this reply (whatever its other 
merits) ignores a key point, people need to have some idea of what anarchism 
aims for before they decide to spend their lives trying to create it.

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: 

"Common 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 co-operation 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." [_Anarcho-Syndicalism_, 
p. 16]

So, given the common aims of anarchists, its unsurprising that 
the economic systems they suggest will have common features such 
as workers' self-management, federation, free agreement and so on. 
For all anarchists, the "economy" is seen as a "voluntary association 
that will organise labour, and be the manufacturer and distributor 
of necessary commodities" and this "*is to make what is useful. The 
individual is to make what is beautiful.*" [Oscar Wilde, _The Soul 
of Man Under Socialism_, p. 1183] For example, the machine "will 
supersede hand-work in the manufacture of plain goods. But at the 
same time, hand-work very probably will extend its domain in the 
artistic finishing of many things which are made entirely in the 
factory." [Peter Kropotkin, _Fields, Factories and Workplaces
Tomorrow_, p. 152] Murray Bookchin, decades later, argued for
the same idea: "the machine will remove the toil from the
productive process, leaving its artistic completion to man."
[_Post-Scarcity Anarchism_, p. 134]

This "organisation of labour touches only such labours as others 
can do for us. . . the rest remain egoistic, because no one can in
your stead elaborate your musical compositions, carry out your
projects of painting, etc.; nobody can replace Raphael's labours.
The latter are labours of a unique person, which only he is 
competent to achieve." [Max Stirner, _The Ego and Its Own_, 
p. 268] Stirner goes on to ask "for whom is time to be gained
[by association]? For what does man require more time than is
necessary to refresh his wearied powers of labour? Here Communism
is slient." He then answers his own question by arguing it is 
gained for the individual "[t]o take comfort in himself as unique, 
after he has done his part as man!" [Op. Cit., p. 269] Which is 
exactly what Kropotkin also argued:

"He [sic!] will discharge his task in the field, the factory, and
so on, which he owes to society as his contribution to the general
production. And he will employ the second half of his day, his week,
or his year, to satisfy his artistic or scientific needs, or his
hobbies." [_Conquest of Bread_, p. 111]

Thus, while *authoritarian* Communism ignores the unique individual
(and that was the only kind of Communism existing when Stirner wrote
his classic book) *libertarian* communists agree with Stirner and
are not silent. Like him, they consider the whole point of organising
labour as the means of providing the individual the time and resources
required to express their individuality. In other words, to pursue
"labours of a unique person." Thus all anarchists base their 
arguments for a free society on how it will benefit actual individuals,
rather than abstracts or amorphous collectives (such as "society").
Hence chapter 9 of _The Conquest of Bread_, "The Need for Luxury"
and, for that matter, chapter 10, "Agreeable Work." 

Or, to bring this ideal up to day, as Chomsky put it, "[t]he task for 
a modern industrial society is to achieve what is now technically 
realisable, namely, a society which is really based on free voluntary 
participation of people who produce and create, live their lives 
freely within institutions they control, and with limited hierarchical 
structures, possibly none at all." [quoted by Albert and Hahnel in 
_Looking Forward: Participatory Economics for the Twenty First Century_, 
p. 62]

In other words, anarchists desire to organise voluntary workers associations 
which will try to ensure a minimisation of mindless labour in order to maximise 
the time available for creative activity both inside and outside "work." This
is to be achieved by free co-operation between equals, for while competition 
may be the "law of the jungle", co-operation is the law of civilisation.

This co-operation is *not* based on "altruism," but self-interest. As Proudhon 
argued, "[m]utuality, 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." [quoted by Martin Buber, _Paths in Utopia_, pp. 29-30]
In other words, solidarity and co-operation 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 "the *association for struggle* will 
be a much more effective support for civilisation, progress, and evolution 
than is the *struggle for existence* with its savage daily competitions." 
[Luigi Geallani, _The End of Anarchism_, p. 26]

In the place of the rat race of capitalism, economic activity in an
anarchist society would be one of the means to humanise and individualise
ourselves and society, to move from *surviving* to *living.* Productive
activity should become a means of self-expression, of joy, of art, rather
than something we have to do to survive. Ultimately, "work" should become
more akin to play or a hobby than the current alienated activity. The
priorities of life should be towards individual self-fulfilment and
humanising society rather than "running society as an adjunct to the
market," to use Polanyi's expression, and turning ourselves into
commodities on the labour market. Thus anarchists agree with John
Stuart Mill when he wrote:

"I confess I am not charmed with an ideal of life held out by
those who think that the normal state of human beings is that of
struggling to get on; that the trampling, crushing, elbowing, and
treading on each other's heels, which form the existing type of
social life, are the most desirable lot of human kind, or anything
but the disagreeable symptoms of one of the phases of industrial
progress." [_Collected Works_, vol. III, p. 754]

The aim of anarchism is far more than the end of poverty. Hence
Proudhon's comment that socialism's "underlying dogma" is that the 
"objective of socialism is the emancipation of the proletariat and
the eradication of poverty." This emancipation would be achieved
by ending "wage slavery" via "democratically organised workers'
associations." [_No Gods, No Masters_, vol. 1, p. 57 and p.62]
Or, in Kropotkin's words, "well-being for all" -- physical, mental 
and moral! Indeed, by concentrating on just poverty and ignoring the 
emancipation of the proletariat, the real aims of socialism are 
obscured. As Kropotkin argued:

"The 'right to well-being' means the possibility of living like
human beings, and of bringing up children to be members of a
society better than ours, whilst the 'right to work' only means
the right to be a wage-slave, a drudge, ruled over and exploited
by the middle class of the future. The right to well-being is the
Social Revolution, the right to work means nothing but the 
Treadmill of Commercialism. It is high time for the worker to
assert his right to the common inheritance, and to enter into
possession of it." [_The Conquest of Bread_, p. 44]

Combined with this desire for free co-operation is a desire to end 
centralised systems. The opposition to centralisation is often framed 
in a distinctly false manner. This can be seen when Alex Nove, a leading 
market socialist, argues that "there are horizontal links (market), 
there are vertical links (hierarchy). What other dimension is there?" 
[Alex Nove, _The Economics of Feasible Socialism_, 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 co-operating together as they (not a central 
body) sees fit. This co-operation 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. 

So, while refusing to define exactly how an anarchist system will work, we
will explore the implications of how the anarchist principles and ideals
outlined above could be put into practice. Bear in mind that this is just
a possible framework for a system which has few historical examples to draw
upon 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 *theory* 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. In addition, there will be those who seek to apply the 
"scientific" principles of the neo-classical economics to our 
ideas. By so doing they make what Proudhon called "the radical 
vice of political economy", namely "affirming as a definitive 
state a transitory condition -- namely, the division of society 
intto patricians and proletares." [_System of Economical 
Contradictions_, p. 67] Thus any attempt to apply the "laws" 
developed from theorising about capitalism to anarchism will 
fail to capture the dynamics of a non-capitalist system 
(given that neo-classical economics fails to understand the
dynamics of capitalism, what hope does it have of understanding
non-capitalist systems which reject the proprietary despotism and
inequalities of capitalism?). 

John Crump stresses this point in his discussion of Japanese 
anarchism:

"When considering the feasibility of the social system
advocated by the pure anarchists, we need to be clear
about the criteria against which it should be measured.
It would, for example, be unreasonable to demand that
it be assessed against such yardsticks of a capitalist
economy as annual rate of growth, balance of trade
and so forth . . . evaluating anarchist communism by
means of the criteria which have been devised to
measure capitalism's performance does not make sense
. . . capitalism would be . . . baffled if it were
demanded that it assess its operations against the
performance indicators to which pure anarchists 
attached most importance, such as personal liberty,
communal solidarity and the individual's unconditional
right to free consumption. Faced with such demands,
capitalism would either admit that these were not
yardsticks against which it could sensibly measure
itself or it would have to resort to the type of
grotesque ideological subterfuges which it often
employs, such as identifying human liberty with the 
market and therefore with wag slavery. . . The pure 
anarchists' confidence in the alternative society 
they advocated derived not from an expectation that 
it would *quantitatively* outperform capitalism in 
terms of GNP, productivity or similar capitalist 
criteria. On the contrary, their enthusiasm for 
anarchist communism flowed from their understanding 
that it would be *qualitatively* different from 
capitalism. Of course, this is not to say that the 
pure anarchists were indifferent to questions of 
production and distribution . . . they certainly 
believed that anarchist communism would provide 
economic well-being for all. But neither were they 
prepared to give priority to narrowly conceived 
economic expansion, to neglect individual liberty 
and communal solidarity, as capitalism regularly 
does." [_Hatta Shuzo and Pure Anarchism in Interwar 
Japan_, pp. 191-3]

As Kropotkin argued, "academic political economy has been 
only an enumeration of what happens under the . . . conditions 
[of capitalism] -- without distinctly stating the conditions 
themselves. And then, having described *the facts* [academic
neo-classical economics usually does not even do that, we 
must stress, but Kropotkin had in mind the likes of Adam 
Smith and Ricardo, *not* modern neo-classical economics] which
arise in our societies under these conditions, they represent
to use these *facts* as rigid, *inevitable economic laws.*"
[_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_, p. 179] So, by changing
the conditions we change the "economic laws" of a society and
so capitalist economics is not applicable to post (or pre)
capitalist society (nor are its justifications for existing
inequalities in wealth and power).

I.4.1 What is the point of economic activity in anarchy?

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 -- 
we consume what we desire and no one forces us to do so! It may 
come as a surprise that the idea that we consume only what we 
desire is not quite true under a capitalist economy. Capitalism, 
in order to survive, *must* expand, *must* create more and more 
profits. This leads to irrational side effects, for example, the 
advertising industry. While it goes 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.

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. Production, to use
Kropotkin's words, is to become "the mere servant of consumption;
it must mould itself on the wants of the consumer, not dictate to
him [or her] conditions." [_Act For Yourselves_, p. 57] However,
while the basic aim of economic activity in an anarchist society is, 
obviously, producing wealth -- i.e. of satisfying individual needs -- 
without enriching capitalists or other parasites in the process, it 
is far more than that. Yes, an anarchist society will aim to create 
society in which everyone will have a standard of living suitable for 
a fully human life. Yes, it will aim to eliminate poverty, inequality, 
individual want and social waste and squalor, but it aims for far 
more than that. It aims to create free individuals who express their 
individuality within and without "work." After all, what is the most 
important thing that comes out of a workplace? Pro-capitalists may 
say profits, others the finished commodity or good. In fact, the 
most important thing that comes out of a workplace is the *worker.* 
What happens to them in the workplace will have an impact on all 
aspects of their life and so cannot be ignored. 

Therefore, for anarchists, "[r]eal wealth consists of things of 
utility and beauty, in things that help create strong, beautiful 
bodies and surroundings inspiring to live in." Anarchism's "goal
is the freest possible expression of all the latent powers of
the individual . . . [and this] is only possible in a state of
society where man [and woman] is free to choose the mode of
work, the conditions of work, and the freedom to work. One
whom making a table, the building of a house, or the tilling
of the soil is what the painting is to the artist and the
discovery to the scientist -- the result of inspiration, of
intense longing, and deep interest in work as a creative
force." [Emma Goldman, _Red Emma Speaks_, p. 53 and p. 54]

To value "efficiency" above all else, as capitalism says it does
(it, in fact, values *profits* above all else and hinders developments
like workers' control which increase efficiency but harm power
and profits), is to deny our own humanity and individuality. Without 
an appreciation for grace and beauty there is no pleasure in creating 
things and no pleasure in having them. Our lives are made drearier 
rather than richer by "progress." How can a person take pride in 
their work when skill and care are considered luxuries (if not 
harmful to "efficiency" and, under capitalism, the profits and power 
of the capitalist and manager)? We are not machines. We have a need 
for craftspersonship and anarchist recognises this and takes it into 
account in its vision of a free society.

This means that, in an anarchist society, economic activity is the 
process by which we produce what is both useful *and* beautiful in 
a way that empowers the individual. As Oscar Wilde put it, individuals 
will produce what is beautiful. Such production will be based upon the 
"study of the needs of mankind, and the means of satisfying them with 
the least possible waste of human energy." [Peter Kropotkin, _The 
Conquest of Bread_, p. 175] This means that anarchist economic ideas 
are the same as what Political Economy should be, not what it actually 
is, namely the "essential basis of all Political Economy, the study of 
the most favourable conditions for giving society the greatest amount 
of useful products with the least waste of human energy" (and, we 
must add today, the least disruption of nature). [Op. Cit., p. 144] 

The anarchists charge capitalism with wasting human energy and time 
due to its irrational nature and workings, energy that could be spent 
creating what is beautiful (both in terms of individualities and 
products of labour). Under capitalism we are "toiling to live, that 
we may live to toil." [William Morris, _Useful Work Versus Useless 
Toil_, p. 37]

In addition, we must stress that the aim of economic activity within
an anarchist society is *not* to create equality of outcome -- i.e.
everyone getting exactly the same goods. As we noted in section A.2.5,
such a "vision" of "equality" attributed to socialists by pro-capitalists
indicates more the poverty of imagination and ethics of the critics
of socialism than a true account of socialist ideas. Anarchists, like
other socialists, support equality in order to maximise freedom, 
including the freedom to choose between options to satisfy ones 
needs.

To treat people equally, as equals, means to respect their desires
and interests, to acknowledge their right to equal liberty. To 
make people consume the same as everyone else does not respect
the equality of all to develop ones abilities as one sees fit.
Thus it means equality of opportunity to satisfy desires and 
interests, not the imposition of an abstract minimum (or maximum)
on unique individuals. To treat unique individuals equally means
to acknowledge that uniqueness, not to deny it.

Thus the *real* aim of economic activity within an anarchy is to 
ensure "that every human being should have the material and moral 
means to develop his humanity." [Michael Bakunin, _The Political 
Philosophy of Bakunin_, p. 295] And you cannot develop your humanity 
if you cannot express yourself freely. Needless to say, to treat 
unique people "equally" (i.e. identically) is simply evil. You 
cannot, say, have a 70 year old woman do the same work in order to 
receive the same income as a 20 year old man. No, anarchists do not 
subscribe to such "equality," which is a product of the "ethics of 
mathematics" of capitalism and *not* of anarchist ideas. Such a 
scheme is alien to a free society. The equality anarchists desire 
is a social equality, based on control over the decisions that 
affect you. The aim of anarchist economic activity, therefore, is 
provide the goods required for "equal freedom for all, an equality 
of conditions such as to allow everyone to do as they wish." [Errico 
Malatesta, _Life and Ideas_, p. 49] Thus anarchists "demand not
natural but social equality of individuals as the condition for
justice and the foundations of morality." [Bakunin, Op. Cit., 
p. 249]

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 "create what is beautiful"). So instead of aiming just to produce 
because the economy will collapse if we did not, anarchists want to ensure 
that we produce what is useful in a manner which liberates the individual 
and empowers them in all aspects of their lives. They share this desire 
with (some of) the classical Liberals and agree totally with Humbolt's 
statement that "the end of man  . . . is the highest and most harmonious 
development of his powers to a complete and consistent whole." [quoted 
by J.S. Mill in _On Liberty and Other Essays_, p. 64] 

This desire means that anarchists reject the capitalist definition 
of "efficiency." Anarchists would agree with Albert and Hahnel when 
they argue that "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."
[_The Political Economy of Participatory Economics_, 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 Hahnel go on to note, 
"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." [Ibid.]

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.

In a nutshell, to use William Morris' expression, useful work will replace 
useless toil in an anarchist society.

I.4.2 Why do anarchists desire to abolish work?

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. 

If by freedom we mean self-government, then it is clear that being subjected
to hierarchy in the workplace subverts our abilities to think and judge
for ourselves. Like any skill, critical analysis and independent thought
have to be practised continually in order to remain at their full potential.
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:

"The understandings of the greater part of men are necessarily formed by
their ordinary employments." That being so, "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." [Adam Smith, quoted by Noam 
Chomsky, _Year 501_, p. 18] 

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 _Participation and 
Democratic Theory_) notes that the evidence suggests that "[o]nly 
certain work situations were found to be conducive 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." [p. 51] She quotes one expert (R.
Blauner from his _Freedom and Alienation_) who argues that within 
capitalist companies based upon highly rationalised work environment,

extensive division of labour and "no control over the pace or technique
of his [or her] work, no room to exercise skill or leadership" [Op. Cit., 
p. 51] workers, according to a psychological study, is "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." [p. 52] 

However, in workplaces where "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"
[p. 52] a different social character is seen. This was characterised by
"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."
[p. 52] She notes that R. Blauner states that the "nature of a man's 
work affects his social character and personality" and that an 
"industrial environment tends to breed a distinct social type."
[cited by Pateman, Op. Cit., p. 52] 

As Bob Black argues:

"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 cretinisation all around us than even such
significant moronising 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." [_The Abolition of Work_]

For this reason anarchists desire, to use Bob Black's phrase, "the
abolition of work." "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 grown, schools built, homes fixed, and so on. No, "work" in 
this context means any form of labour in which the worker does not control 
his or her own activity. In other words, *wage labour* in all its many 
forms. As Kropotkin put it, "the right to work" simply "means the right 
to be always a wage-slave, a drudge, ruled over and exploited by the 
middle class of the future" and he contrasted this to the "right to 
well-being" which meant "the possibility of living like human beings, 
and of bringing up children to be members of a society better than 
ours." [_The Conquest of Bread_, p. 44]

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.

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
shows the poverty of that system. As Alexander Berkman argues:

"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."
[_ABC of Anarchism_, p. 15] 

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. 

Capitalism's impoverishment of the individual's spirit is hardly surprising. 
As William Godwin argued, "[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." [_The Anarchist Reader_, 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 *directly* 
from what Godwin called "the third degree of property" namely "a system. . .
by which one man enters into the faculty of disposing of the produce of 
another man's industry" in other words, capitalism. [Op. Cit., p. 129]

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:
 
"Anarchism aims to strip labour of its deadening, dulling aspect, of its gloom 
and compulsion. It aims to make work an instrument of joy, of strength, of 
colour, of real harmony, so that the poorest sort of a man should find in 
work both recreation and hope." [_Anarchism and Other Essays_, p. 61]

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 "doesn't
mean we have to stop doing things. It does mean creating a new way of life 
based on play; in other words, a ludic revolution . . . a collective adventure 
in generalised joy and freely interdependent exuberance. Play isn't passive."
[Bob Black, Op. Cit.]

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 "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 carving of wood. The problem is to make all time a time
of liberty and to allow concrete freedom to find expression in creative
activity." Essentially, "the problem is to put poetry into work." 
[_Workers' Councils and the Economics of a Self-Managed Society_,
p. 14 and p. 15]

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-realisation and not a form of 
self-negation. In other words, anarchists want to abolish work because 
"[l]ife, the art of living, has become a dull formula, flat and inert." 
[A. Berkman, Op. Cit., 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. 

All this does not imply that anarchists think that individuals will 
not seek to "specialise" in one form of productive activity rather 
than another. Far from it, people in a free society will pick 
activities which interest them as the main focal point of their 
means of self-expression. "It is evident," noted Kropotkin, "that
all men and women cannot equally enjoy the pursuit of scientific
work. The variety of inclinations is such that some will find
more pleasure in science, some others in art, and other again in
some of the numberless branches of the production of wealth." This 
"division of work" is commonplace 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 be encouraged in an anarchist 
society. As Kropotkin argued, anarchists "fully recognise the 
necessity of specialisation of knowledge, but we maintain that 
specialisation must follow general education, and that general 
education must be given in science and handicraft alike. To 
the division of society into brain workers and manual workers 
we oppose the combination of both kinds of activities . . . we 
advocate the *education integrale* [integral education], or 
complete education, which means the disappearance of that

pernicious division." He was aware, however, that both 
individuals and society would benefit from a diversity of
activities and a strong general knowledge. In his words, "[b]ut
whatever the occupations preferred by everyone, everyone
will be the more useful in his [or her] branch is he [or she]
is in possession of a serious scientific knowledge. And,
whosoever he [or she] might be . . . he would be the gainer
if he spent a part of his life in the workshop or the
farm (the workshop *and* the farm), if he were in contact
with humanity in its daily work, and had the satisfaction 
of knowing that he himself discharges his duties as an
unprivileged producer of wealth." [_Fields, Factories and 
Workshops Tomorrow_, p. 186, p. 172 and p. 186]

However, while specialisation would continue, the permanent division 
of individuals into manual or brain workers would be eliminated.  
Individuals will manage all aspects of the "work" required (for 
example, engineers will also take part in self-managing their 
workplaces), a variety of activities would be encouraged and 
the strict division of labour of capitalism will be abolished. 

In other words, anarchists want to replace the division of labour 
by the division of  work. We must stress that we are not playing
with words here. John Crump presents a good summary of the ideas
of the Japanese anarchist Hatta Shuzo on this difference:

"[W]e must recognise the distinction which Hatta made between
the 'division of labour' . . . and the 'division of work' . . .
he did not see anything sinister in the division of work . . .
On the contrary, Hatta believed that the division of work
was a benign and unavoidable feature of any productive
process: 'it goes without saying that within society,
whatever the kind of production, there has to be a 
division of work.'" [_Hatta Shuzo and Pure Anarchism in
Interwar Japan_, pp. 146-7]

As Kropotin argued:

"while a *temporary* division of functions remains the surest
guarantee of success in each separate undertaking, the *permanent*
division is doomed to disappear, and to be substituted by a variety
of pursuits -- intellectual, industrial, and agricultural --
corresponding to the different capacities of the individual, as 
well as to the variety of capacities within every human aggregate."
[_Fields, Factories and Workshops Tomorrow_, p. 26]

As an aside, supporters of capitalism argue that *integrated* labour
must be more inefficient than *divided* labour as capitalist firms
have not introduced it. This is false for numerous reasons. 

Firstly, we have to put out the inhuman logic of the assertion. 
After all, few would argue in favour of slavery if it were, in fact, 
*more* productive than wage labour but such is the logical conclusion 
of this argument. If someone did argue that the only reason slavery
was not the dominant mode of labour simply because it was inefficient
we would consider them as less than human. Simply put, it is a sick
ideology which happily sacrifices individuals for the sake of
slightly more products. Sadly, that is what many defenders of
capitalism do, ultimately, argue for.

Secondly, capitalist firms are not neutral structures but rather 
a system of hierarchies, with entrenched interests and needs. 
Managers will only introduce a work technique that maintains 
their power (and so their profits). As we argue in section 
J.5.12, while workers' participation generally see a rise in 
efficiency managers generally stop the project simply because 
it undercuts their power by empowering workers who then can fight 
for a greater slice of the value they produce. So the lack of 
integrated labour under capitalism simply means that it does not 
empower management, not that it is less efficient. 

Thirdly, the attempts by managers and bosses to introduce 
"flexibility" by eliminating trade unions suggests that 
integration *is* more efficient. After all, one of the
major complains directed towards trade union contracts
were that they explicitly documented what workers could
and could not do. For example, union members would refuse 
to do work which was outside their agreed job descriptions. 
This is usually classed as an example of the evil of 
regulations.

However, if we look at it from the viewpoint of contract, it
exposes the inefficiency and inflexibility of contract as a
means of co-operation. After all, what is this refusal actually
mean? It means that the worker refuses to do what is not 
specified in his or her contract! Their job description indicates
what they have been contracted to do and anything else has 
not been agreed upon in advance. It specifies the division of
labour in a workplace by means of a contract between worker
and boss.

While being a wonderful example of a well-designed contract, 
managers discovered that they could not operate their workplaces 
because of them. Rather, they needed a general "do what you are told" 
contract (which of course is hardly an example of contract reducing 
authority) and such a contract *integrates* numerous work tasks 
into one. The managers diatribe against union contracts suggests 
that production needs some form of integrated labour to actually 
work (as well as showing the hypocrisy of the labour contract
under capitalism as labour "flexibility" simply means labour 
"commodification" -- a machine does not question what its used for, 
the ideal for labour under capitalism is a similar unquestioning
nature for labour). The union job description indicates that 
not only is the contract not applicable to the capitalist 
workplace but that production needs the integration of labour
while demanding a division of work. As Cornelius Caastoriadis
argued:

"Modern production has destroyed many traditional professional
qualifications. It has created automatic or semi-automatic
machines. It has thereby itself demolished its own traditional
framework for the industrial division of labour. It has given
birth to a universal worker who is capable, after a relatively
short apprenticeship, of using most machines. Once one gets
beyond its class aspects, the 'posting' of workers to 
particular jobs in a big modern factory corresponds less and
less to a genuine division of *labour* and more and more
to a simple division of tasks. Workers are not allocated to
given areas of the productive process and then riveted to
them because their 'occupational skills' invariably
correspond to the 'skills required' by management. They
are placed there . . . just because a particular vacancy
happened to exist." [_Political and Social Writings_,
vol. 2, p. 117]

Of course, the other option is to get rid of capitalism by 
self-management. If workers managed their own time and labour, 
they would have no reason to say "that is not my job" as they 
have no contract with someone who tells them what to do. Similarly, 
the process of labour integration forced upon the worker would be 
freely accepted and a task freely accepted always produces superior
results than one imposed by coercion (or its threat). This
means that "[u]nder socialism, factories would have no reason
to accept the artificially rigid division of labour now
prevailing. There will be every reason to encourage a
rotation of workers *between shops and departments* and
between production and office areas." The "residues of
capitalism's division of labour gradually will have to be
eliminated" as "socialist society cannot survive unless it
demolishes this division." [Ibid.] 

Division of tasks (or work) will replace division of labour
in a free society. "The main subject of social economy," argued
Kropotkin, is "the *economy* of energy required for the 
satisfaction of human needs.*" These needs obviously expressed
both the needs of the producers for empowering and interesting
work and their need for a healthy and balanced environment.
Thus Kropotkin discussed the "advantages" which could be 
"derive[d] from a combination of industrial pursuits with
intensive agriculture, and of brain work with manual work."
The "greatest sum total of well-being can be obtained when
a variety of agricultural, industrial and intellectual
pursuits are combined in each community; and that man [and
woman] shows his best when he is in a position to apply
his usually-varied capacities to several pursuits in the
farm, the workshop, the factory, the study or the studio,
instead of being riveted for life to one of these pursuits
only." [_Fields, Factories and Workshops Tomorrow_, pp. 17-8]

By replacing the division of labour with the division of work,
productive activity can be transformed into an enjoyable task
(or series of tasks). By integrating labour, all the capacities
of the producer can be expressed so eliminating a major source
of alienation and unhappiness in society.

One last point on the abolition of work. May 1st -- International
Workers' Day -- which, as we discussed in section A.5.2, was created
to commemorate the Chicago Anarchist Martyrs. Anarchists then, as
now, think that it should be celebrated by strike action and mass
demonstrations. In other words, for anarchists, International
Workers' Day should be a non-work day! That sums up the anarchist
position to work nicely -- that the celebration of workers' day
should be based on the rejection of work.

I.4.3 How do anarchists intend to abolish work?

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, "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." [Errico Malatesta, _Anarchy_, p. 40]

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.

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 *all* individuals from useless toil (it does,
of course, liberate a few from such "activity"). As Ted Trainer argues:
 
"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 soak up 
investable capital.

"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.

"Hence the ceaseless and increasing pressure to find more business 
opportunities" ["What is Development", p 57-90, _Society and Nature_, 
Issue No. 7, p. 49]

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.

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 "the free exercise of *all* the faculties of man" both 
inside and outside "work." [Peter Kropotkin, _The Conquest of Bread_, 
p. 148] The aim of such a development would be to turn productive
activity, as far as possible, into an enjoyable experience. In the
words of Murray Bookchin it is the *quality* and *nature* of the
work process that counts:

"If workers' councils and workers' management of production
do not transform the work into a joyful activity, free time
into a marvellous experience, and the workplace into a
community, then they remain merely formal structures, in
fact, *class* structures. They perpetuate the limitations
of the proletariat as a product of bourgeois social conditions.
Indeed, no movement that raises the demand for workers'
councils can be regarded as revolutionary unless it tries to
promote sweeping transformations in the environment of the
work place." [_Post-Scarcity Anarchism_, p. 146]

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 
I.4.15 -- What will the workplace of tomorrow be like?). This will
obviously apply to work conducted in the home as well, otherwise the 
"revolution, intoxicated with the beautiful words, Liberty, Equality,
Solidarity, would not be a revolution if it maintained slavery at
home. Half [of] humanity subjected to the slavery of the hearth would 
still have to rebel against the other half." [Peter Kropotkin, _The 
Conquest of Bread_, p. 128]

In other words, anarchists desire "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"  -- the transformation of what economists 
call production into productive play. [Bob Black, _Smokestack Lightning_]

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 
"moral economy" can be seen in both social anarchists desire for 
the end of the market system and the individualists insistence that 
"cost be the limit of price." Anarchists recognise that the "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 characterised 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." [_Man for Himself_, pp. 67-68]

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 the "free market" 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, why 
they produce it and how they produce it is irrelevant, as long as 
profits are produced. 

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 that "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." [Rudolph Rocker, _Anarcho-Syndicalism_, p. 11] 

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 "alliance of free groups of 
men and women based on co-operative labour and a planned administration of 
things in the interest of the community." [Op. Cit., p. 62] 

However, as things are produced by people, it could be suggested that a 
"planned administration of things" implies a "planned administration of 
people" (although few who suggest this danger apply it to capitalist 
firms which are like mini-centrally planned states). This objection is 
false simply because anarchism aims "to reconstruct the economic life  
of the peoples from the ground up and build it up anew in the spirit of 
Socialism" and, moreover, "only the producers themselves are fitted for 
this task, since they are the only value-creating element in society out 
of which a new future can arise." Such a reconstructed economic life 
would be based on anarchist principles, that is "based on the principles 
of federalism, a free combination from below upwards, putting the right 
of self-determination of every member above everything else and recognising 
only the organic agreement of all on the basis of like interests and 
common convictions." [Op. Cit., p. 61 and p. 53]

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 emphasises this 
point when he writes that:

    "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." 
     [Op. Cit., p. 55]

In other words, the "planned administration of things" would be done
by the producers *themselves,* in independent groupings. This would 
likely take the form (as we indicated in  section I.3) of confederations 
of syndicates who communicate information between themselves and respond 
to changes in the production and distribution of products by increasing or
decreasing the required means of production in a co-operative (i.e. "planned") 
fashion. No "central planning" or "central planners" governing the economy,
just workers co-operating together as equals (as Kropotkin argued, free
socialism "must result from thousands of separate local actions, all
directed towards the same aim. It cannot be dictated by a central body:
it must result from the numberless local needs and wants." [_Act for
Yourselves_, p. 54]). 

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 "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." [Peter Kropotkin, quoted by Buber in 
_Paths in Utopia_, p. 42]

In response to consumption patterns, syndicates will have to expand or 
reduce production and will have to attract volunteers to do 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 minimised and fairly shared (see section I.4.13).

Now, any form of association requires agreement. Therefore, even a 
society based on the communist-anarchist maxim "from each according 
to their ability, to each according to their need" will need to make 
agreements in order to ensure co-operative ventures succeed. In other 
words, members of a co-operative commonwealth would have to make and 
keep to their agreements between themselves. This means that the members 
of a syndicate would agree joint starting and finishing times, require 
notice if individuals want to change "jobs" and so on within and between 
syndicates. Any joint effort requires some degree of co-operation and 
agreement. Moreover, between syndicates, an agreement would be reached 
(in all likelihood) that determined the minimum working hours required 
by all members of society able to work. How that minimum was actually 
organised would vary between workplace and commune, with work times, 
flexi-time, job rotation and so on determined by each syndicate
(for example, one syndicate may work 8 hours a day for 2 days, another 
4 hours a day for 4 days, one may use flexi-time, another more rigid 
starting and stopping times).

As Kropotkin argued, an anarchist-communist society would be based upon 
the following kind of "contract" between its members:

"We undertake to give you the use of our houses, stores, streets,  
means of transport, schools, museums, etc., on condition that, from 
twenty to forty-five or fifty years of age, you consecrate four or 
five hours a day to some work recognised as necessary to existence. 
Choose yourself the producing group which you wish to join, or organise 
a new group, provided that it will undertake to produce necessaries. And 
as for the remainder of your time, combine together with whomsoever you 
like, for recreation, art, or science, according to the bent of your 
taste . . . Twelve or fifteen hundred hours of work a year . . . is 
all we ask of you. For that amount of work we guarantee to you the 
free use of all that these groups produce, or will produce." [_The 
Conquest of Bread_, pp. 153-4]

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.

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, playing
music, 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 
I.4.13 for more on this).

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 defence 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 (i.e. the
actions of other individuals, but turned into a force outwith their control,
see section I.1.3). 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.

And it seems strange to the communist-anarchist that certain free 
agreements made between equals can be considered authoritarian while 
others are not. The individualist-anarchist argument that social 
co-operation to reduce labour is "authoritarian" while agreements 
between individuals on the market are not seems illogical to social 
anarchists. They cannot see how it is better for individuals to be 
pressured into working longer than they desire by "invisible hands" 
than to come to an arrangement with others to manage their own affairs 
to maximise their free time.

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.

I.4.4 What economic decision making criteria could be used in anarchy?

Firstly, it should be noted that anarchists do not have any set idea
about the answer to this question. Most anarchists are communists, 
desiring to see the end of money, but that does not mean they want 
to impose communism onto people. Far from it, communism can only be 
truly libertarian if it is organised from the bottom up. So, anarchists 
would agree with Kropotkin that it is a case of not "determining in 
advance what form of distribution the producers should accept in 
their different groups -- whether the communist solution, or labour 
checks, or equal salaries, or any other method" while considering a 
given solution best in their opinion. [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary 
Pamphlets_, p. 166] Free experiment is a key aspect of anarchism.

While certain anarchists have certain preferences on the
social system they want to live in and so argue for that, they 
are aware that objective circumstances and social desires will
determine what is introduced during a revolution (for example,
while Kropotkin was a communist-anarchist and considered it
essential that a revolution proceed towards communism as quickly
as possible, he was aware that it was unlikely it would be
introduced immediately -- see section I.2.2 for details).

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.

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 its system of market based distribution around a network of co-operatives 
and mutual banks, does not really need a further discussion as its basic 
operations are the same as in any non-capitalist market system. Collectivism 
and communism will have to be discussed in more detail. However, all systems 
are based on workers' self-management and so the individuals directly affected 
make the decisions concerning what to produce, when to do it, and how to do 
it. In this way workers retain control of the product of their labour. It 
is the social context of these decisions and what criteria workers use to 
make their decisions that differ between anarchist schools of thought.

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 collectivised factories and workshops are exchanged not according to 
highest price that can be wrung from consumers, but according to their actual 
production costs. The determination of these honest prices 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 those involved. 

As Guillaume puts it "the value of the commodities having been established 
in advance by a contractual agreement between the regional co-operative 
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." [_Bakunin on Anarchism_, p. 366] These 
vouchers would be related to hours worked, for example, and when used as a
guide for investment decisions could be supplemented with cost-benefit 
analysis of the kind possibly used in a communist-anarchist society (see 
below).

Although this scheme bears a strong resemblance to Proudhonian "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 "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." [Op. Cit., p. 367] The workers syndicates
would still determine what orders to produce and each commune would be free
to choose its suppliers.

As will be discussed in more depth later (see section I.4.8) information 
about consumption patterns will be recorded and used by workers to inform
their production and investment decisions. In addition, we can imagine that
production syndicates would encourage communes as well as consumer groups and 
co-operatives to participate in making these decisions. This would ensure 
that produced goods reflect consumer needs. Moreover, as conditions permit, 
the exchange functions of the communal "banks" would (in all likelihood) be 
gradually replaced by the distribution of goods "in accordance with the needs 
of the consumers." In other words, most supporters of collectivist anarchism 
see it as a temporary measure before anarcho-communism could develop. 
 
Communist anarchism would be similar to collectivism, i.e. a system of
confederations of collectives, communes and distribution centres ("Communal
stores"). However, in an anarcho-communist system, prices are not used. How 
will economic decision making be done? One possible solution is as follows:

"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 simply to employ a technique to
facilitate decision-making in particular concrete cases." [Adam Buick and 
John Crump, _State Capitalism: The Wages System Under New Management_, 
pp. 138-139]

This points system would be the means by which producers and consumers
would be able to determine whether the use of a particular good is 
efficient or not. Unlike prices, this cost-benefit analysis system 
would ensure that production and consumption reflects social and 
ecological costs, awareness and priorities. Moreover, this analysis
would be a *guide* to decision making and not a replacement of human
decision making and evaluation. As Lewis Mumford argues:

"it is plan that in the decision as to whether to build a bridge
or a tunnel there is a human question that should outweigh the
question of cheapness or mechanical feasibility: namely the number
of lives that will be lost in the actual building or the advisability
of condemning a certain number of men [and women] to spend their
entire working days underground supervising tunnel traffic. As soon
as our thought ceases to be automatically conditioned by the mine,
such questions become important. Similarly the social choice
between silk and rayon is not one that can be made simply on 
the different costs of production, or the difference in quality 
between the fibres themselves: there also remains, to be integrated 
in the decision, the question as to difference in working-pleasure
between tending silkworms and assisting in rayon production. What
the product contributes to the labourer is just as important as what
the worker contributes to the product. A well-managed society might
alter the process of motor car assemblage, at some loss of speed
and cheapness, in order to produce a more interesting routine for
the worker: similarly, it would either go to the expense of
equipping dry-process cement making plants with dust removers -- 
or replace the product itself with a less noxious substitute. When
none of these alternatives was available, it would drastically
reduce the demand itself to the lowest possible level." [_The
Future of Technics and Civilisation_, pp. 160-1]

Obviously, today, we would include ecological issues as well as
human ones. However Mumford's argument is correct. Any decision
making process which disregards the quality of work or the effect
on the human and natural environment is a deranged process. However,
this is how capitalism operates, with the market rewarding capitalists
and managers who introduce de-humanising and ecologically harmful
practices. Indeed, so biased against labour and the environment
is capitalism that economists and pro-capitalists argue that 
reducing "efficiency" by such social concerns is actually *harmful*
to an economy, which is a total reversal of common sense and
human feelings (after all, surely the economy should satisfy human
needs and not sacrifice those needs to the economy?). The argument
is that consumption would suffer as resources (human and material)
would be diverted from more "efficient" productive activities and 
so reduce, over all, our economic well-being. What this argument 
ignores is that consumption does not exist in isolation from the 
rest of the economy. What we what to consume is conditioned, in 
part, by the sort of person we are and that is influenced by the 
kind of work we do, the kinds of social relationships we have, 
whether we are happy with our work and life, and so on. If our 
work is alienating and of low quality, then so will our consumption 
decisions. If our work is subject to hierarchical control and
servile in nature then we cannot expect our consumption decisions
of totally rational -- indeed they may become an attempt to find
happiness via shopping, a self-defeating activity as consumption
cannot solve a problem created in production. Thus rampant 
consumerism may be the result of capitalist "efficiency" and so
the objection against socially aware production is question
begging.

Of course, as well as absolute scarcity, prices under capitalism 
also reflect relative scarcity (while in the long term, market prices 
tend towards their production price plus a mark-up based on the
degree of monopoly in a market, in the short term prices can change 
as a result of changes in supply and demand). How a communist society 
could take into account such short term changes and communicate them 
through out the economy is discussed in section I.4.5 (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.

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 I.3.5) 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). 

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 co-operating individuals and workplaces and the dispersed 
knowledge which exists within any society can be put to good effect (*better* 
effect than under capitalism because it does not hide social and ecological 
costs in the way market prices do and co-operation will eliminate the business 
cycle and its resulting social problems).

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.

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 co-ordination between equals (i.e. horizontal
links and agreements) for major investment decisions, thus bringing together 
supply and demand and allowing the plans of the various units to be 
co-ordinated. By this process of co-operation, production units can reduce 
duplicating effort and so reduce the waste associated with over-investment 
(and so the irrationalities of booms and slumps associated with the price 
mechanism, which does not provide sufficient information to allow
workplaces to efficiently co-ordinate their plans - see section C.7.2). 

Needless to say, this issue is related to the "socialist calculation"
issue we discussed in section I.1.2. To clarify our ideas, we shall
present an example.

Consider two production processes. Method A requires 70 tons of steel 
and 60 tons of concrete while Method B requires 60 tons of steel and 
70 tons of concrete.  Which method should be preferred? One of the 
methods will be more economical in terms of leaving more resources
available for other uses than the other but in order to establish 
which we need to compare the relevant quantities. 

Supporters of capitalism argue that only prices can supply the necessary
information as they are heterogeneous quantities. Both steel and 
concrete have a price (say $10 per ton for steel and $5 per ton for
concrete). The method to choose is clearly B as it has a lower
price that A ($950 for B compared to $1000 for A). However, this
does not actually tell us whether B is the more economical method
of production in terms of minimising waste and resource use, it 
just tells us which costs less in terms of money. 

Why is this? Simply because, as we argued in section I.1.2, 
prices do not totally reflect social, economic and ecological 
costs. They are influenced by market power, for example, and 
produce externalities, environmental and health costs which 
are not reflected in the price. Indeed, passing on costs in 
the form of externalities and inhuman working conditions 
actually are rewarded in the market as it allows the company
so doing to cut their prices. As far as market power goes, this
has a massive influence on prices, directly in terms of prices
charged and indirectly in terms of wages and conditions of
workers. Due to natural barriers to entry (see section C.4), 
prices are maintained artificially high by the market power of big 
business. For example, steel could, in fact cost $5 per ton to 
produce but market power allows the company to charge $10 per ton, 

Wage costs are, again, determined by the bargaining power of 
labour and so do not reflect the real costs in terms of health, 
personality and alienation the workers experience. They may 
be working in unhealthy conditions simply to get by, with 
unemployment or job insecurity hindering their attempts to 
improve their conditions or find a new job. Nor are the social
and individual costs of hierarchy and alienation factored
into the price, quite the reverse. It seems ironic that an
economy which it defenders claim meets human needs (as 
expressed by money, of course) totally ignores individuals 
in the workplace, the place they spend most of their waking 
hours in adult life.

So the relative costs of each production method have to be
evaluated but price does not, indeed cannot, provide an real
indication of whether a method is economical in the sense of
actually minimising resource use. Prices do reflect some of
these costs, of course, but filtered through the effects of
market power, hierarchy and externalities they become less
and less accurate. Unless you take the term "economical" to
simply mean "has the least cost in price" rather than the
sensible "has the least cost in resource use, ecological
impact and human pain" you have to accept that the price
mechanism is not a great indicator of economic use.

What is the alternative? Obviously the exact details will be 
worked out in practice by the members of a free society,
but we can suggest a few ideas based on our comments above. 

When evaluating production methods we need to take into account 
as many social and ecological costs as possible and these have 
to be evaluated. Which costs will be taken into account, of 
course, be decided by those involved, as will how important 
they are relative to each other (i.e. how they are weighted).
Moreover, it is likely that they will factor in the desirability 
of the work performed to indicate the potential waste in human 
time involved in production (see section I.4.13 for a discussion
of how the desirability of productive activity could be indicated
in an anarchist society). The logic behind this is simple, a 
resource which people *like* to produce will be a better use 
of the scare resource of an individual's time than one people 
hate producing. 

So, for example, steel may take 3 person hours to produce one 
ton, produce 200 cubic metres of waste gas, 2000 kilo-joules 
of energy, and has excellent working conditions. Concrete, 
on the other hand, may take 4 person hours to produce one ton,
produce 300 cubic metres of waste gas, uses 1000 kilo-joules
of energy and has dangerous working conditions due to dust. 
What would be the best method? Assuming that each factor is 
weighted the same, then obviously Method A is the better
method as it produces the least ecological impact and has the
safest working environment -- the higher energy cost is offset 
by the other, more important, factors. 

What factors to take into account and how to weigh them
in the decision making process will be evaluated constantly
and reviewed so to ensure that it reflects real costs and
social concerns. Moreover, simply accounting tools can be
created (as a spreadsheet or computer programme) that
takes the decided factors as inputs and returns a cost
benefit analysis of the choices available.

Therefore, the claim that communism cannot evaluate different
production methods due to lack of prices is inaccurate. Indeed,
a look at the actual capitalist market -- marked as it is by
differences in bargaining and market power, externalities 
and wage labour -- soon shows that the claims that prices
accurately reflect costs is simply not accurate.

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, *all* 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 B.6) 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. 

I.4.5 What about "supply and demand"?

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." 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.

Firstly, as E.P. Thompson argues, "supply and demand" promotes "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 this sequence, high prices can actually withdraw supply from the most
afflicted area." [_Customs in Common_, pp. 283-4]

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 "everybody more or less, but
particularly the inferior ranks of people, upon thrift and good management."
[cited by Thompson, Op. Cit., p. 284] However, as Thompson notes, "[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." [Op. Cit., p. 285]

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, than 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 *because* they are rich). This has an obvious effect on production, 
with "effective demand" twisting economic activity. As Chomsky notes, 
"[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." George Barrett brings home of the evil of such a "skewed" 
form of production:

"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." [_Objections to Anarchism_] 
 
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.

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?

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 in which this is done varies between anarchist 
threads. In a mutualist economy, based on independent and co-operative labour, 
differences in wealth would be vastly reduced, so ensuring that irrational 
aspects of the market that exist within capitalism would be minimised. 
The workings of supply and demand would provide a more just result than 
under the current system.

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]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." [_Against Capitalism_, p. 86]

However, Schweickart is wrong. Horizontal links need not be market 
based and co-operation between individuals and groups need not be 
hierarchical. What is implied in this comment is that there is just 
two ways to relate to others -- namely, by bribery or by authority. 
In other words, either by prostitution (purely by cash) or by 
hierarchy (the way of the state, the army or capitalist workplace). 
But people relate to each other in other ways, such as friendship, 
love, solidarity, mutual aid and so on. Thus you can help or 
associate with others without having to be ordered to do so or 
by being paid cash to do so -- we do so all the time. You can 
work together because by so doing you benefit yourself and 
the other person. This is the *real* communist way, that of 
mutual aid and free agreement. 

So Schweickart is ignoring the vast majority of relations in any 
society. For example, love/attraction is a horizontal link between 
two autonomous individuals and profit considerations do not enter 
into the relationship. Thus anarchists argue that Schweickart's 
argument is flawed as it fails to recognise that resource usage 
and production techniques can be organised in terms of human need 
and free agreement between economic actors, without profits or 
central command. This system does not mean that we all have to
love each other (an impossible wish). Rather, it means that we
recognise that by voluntarily co-operating as equals we ensure
that we remain free individuals and that we can gain the 
advantages of sharing resources and work (for example, a reduced
working day and week, self-managed work in safe and hygienic 
working conditions and a free selection of the product of
a whole society). In other words, a self-interest which exceeds
the narrow and impoverished "egotism" of capitalist society.
In the words of John O'Neil:

"[F]or it is the institutions themselves that define what
counts as one's interests. In particular, the market 
encourages egoism, not primarily because it encourages
an individual to be 'self-interested' -- it would be
unrealistic not to expect individuals to act for the
greater part in a 'self-interested' manner -- but rather
because it defines an individual's interests in a
particularly narrow fashion, most notably in terms of
possession of certain material goods. In consequence,
where market mechanism enter a particular sphere of
life, the pursuit of goods outside this narrow range 
of market goods is institutionally defined as an act
of altruism." [_The Market_, p. 158]

Thus free agreement and horizontal links are not limited
to market transactions -- they develop for numerous reasons
and anarchists recognise this. As George Barret argues:

"Let us imagine now that the great revolt of the workers has taken
place, that their direct action has made them masters of the
situation. It is not easy to see that some man in a street that
grew hungry would soon draw a list of the loaves that were needed,
and take it to the bakery where the strikers were in possession?
Is there any difficulty in supposing that the necessary amount
would then be baked according to this list? By this time the
bakers would know what carts and delivery vans were needed to
send the bread out to the people, and if they let the carters
and vanmen know of this, would these not do their utmost to
supply the vehicles. . . If . . . [the bakers needed] more 
benches [to make bread] . . . the carpenters would supply
them [and so on] . . . So the endless continuity goes on
-- a well-balanced interdependence of parts guaranteed, because
*need* is the motive force behind it all. . . In the same way
that each free individual has associated with his brothers
[and sisters] to produce bread, machinery, and all that is
necessary for life, driven by no other force than his desire
for the full enjoyment of life, so each institution is free
and self-contained, and co-operates and enters into agreements
with other because by so doing it extends its own possibilities.
There is no centralised State exploiting or dictating, but the
complete structure is supported because each part is dependent
on the whole . . . It will be a society responsive to the wants
of the people; it will supply their everyday needs as quickly
as it will respond to their highest aspirations. Its changing
forms will be the passing expressions of humanity." [_The
Anarchist Revolution_, pp. 17-19]

To make productive decisions we need to know what others need and
information in order to evaluate the alternative options available
to us to satisfy that need. Therefore, it is a question of distributing 
information between producers and consumers, information which the market 
often hides (or actively blocks) or distorts due to inequalities in 
resources (i.e. need does not count in the market, "effective demand"
does and this skews the market in favour of the wealthy). This information 
network has partly been discussed in the last section 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.

In a non-Mutualist anarchist system it is assumed that confederations of
syndicates will wish to adjust their 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 "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." [Pat Devine, _Democracy and Economic Planning_, 
p. 242]

To indicate the relative changes in scarcity of a given good it 
will be necessary to calculate a "scarcity index." This would inform 
potential users of this good whether its demand is outstripping its
supply so that they may effectively adjust their decisions in light 
of the decisions of others. This index could be, for example, a 
percentage figure which indicates the relation of orders placed
for a 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 *really* required it would place orders 
for it (so ensuring effective use of resources). Needless to say, 
stock levels and other basic book-keeping techniques would be 
utilised in order to ensure a suitable buffer level of a specific 
good existed. This may result in some excess supply of goods being 
produced and used as stock to buffer out unexpected changes in the 
aggregate demand for a good.

Such a buffer system would work on an individual workplace level and at
a communal level. Syndicates would obviously have their inventories, 
stores of raw materials and finished goods "on the shelf," which can be 
used to meet excesses in demand. Communal stores, hospitals and so on
would have their stores of supplies in case of unexpected disruptions
in supply. This is a common practice even in capitalism, although it
would (perhaps) be extended in a free society to ensure changes in 
supply and demand do not have disruptive effects.

Communes and confederations of communes may also create buffer stocks
of goods to handle unforeseen changes in demand and supply. This
sort of inventory has been used by capitalist countries like the
USA to prevent changes in market conditions for agricultural products
and other strategic raw materials producing wild spot-price 
movements and inflation. Post-Keynesian economist Paul Davidson
argued that the stability of commodity prices this produced "was
an essential aspect of the unprecedented prosperous economic
growth of the world's economy" between 1945 and 1972. US President
Nixon dismantled these buffer zone programmes, resulting in
"violent commodity price fluctuations" which had serious economic
effects. [_Controversies in Post-Keynesian Economics_, p. 114
and p. 115]

Again, an anarchist society is likely to utilise this sort of buffer 
system to iron out short-term changes in supply and demand. By reducing 
short-term fluctuations of the supply of commodities, bad investment 
decisions would be reduced as syndicates would not be mislead, as is 
the case under capitalism, by market prices being too high or too low 
at the time when the decisions where being made. Indeed, if market
prices are not at their equilibrium level then they do not (and 
cannot) provide adequate knowledge for rational calculation. The 
misinformation conveyed by dis-equilibrium prices can cause very 
substantial macroeconomic distortions as profit-maximising 
capitalists response to unsustainable prices for, say, tin, and 
over-invest in a given branch of industry. Such mal-invest could 
spread through the economy, causing chaos and recession. 

This, combined with cost-benefit analysis described in section I.4.4, 
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 I.1.2, 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.

To get an idea how this system could work, let use take the example 
of a change in the copper industry. Let use assume that a source of 
copper unexpectedly dries up or, what amounts to the same thing, that 
the demand for copper increases. What would happen?

First, the initial difference would be a diminishing of stocks of 
copper which each syndicate maintains to take into account 
unexpected changes in requests for copper. This would help "buffer
out" expected, and short lived, changes in supply or requests. 
Second, naturally, there is an increase in demand for copper 
for those syndicates which are producing it. This immediately
increases the "scarcity index" of those firms, and so the 
"scarcity index" for the copper they produce and for the 
industry as a whole. For example, the index may rise from
95% (indicating a slight over-production in respect to current
demand) to 115% (indicating that the demand for copper has
risen in respect to the current level of production).

This change in the "scarcity index" (combined with difficulties in 
finding copper producing syndicates which can supply their orders) 
enters into the decision making algorithms of other syndicates. 
This, in turn, results in changes in their plans (for example, 
substitutes for copper may be used as they have become a more 
efficient resource to use). 

This would aid a syndicate when it determined which method of
production to use when creating a consumer good. The 
cost-benefit analysis out-lined in the last section would 
allow a syndicate to determine the costs involved between
competing productive techniques (i.e. to ascertain which
used up least resources and therefore left the most over
for other uses). Producers would already have an idea of 
the absolute costs involved in any good they are planning to 
use, so relative changes between them would be a deciding factor.

In this way, requests for copper products fall and soon only reflects 
those requests that need copper and do not have realistic substitutes
available for it. This would result in the demand falling with 
respect to the current supply (as indicated by requests from other 
syndicates and to maintain buffer stock levels). Thus a general 
message has been sent across the "economy" that copper has become 
(relatively) scare and syndicates plans have changed in light of 
this information. No central planner made these decisions nor was money
required to facilitate them. We have a decentralised, non-market
system based on the free exchange of products between self-governing
associations.

Looking at the wider picture, the question of how to response
to this change in supply/requests for copper presents itself.
The copper syndicate federation and cross-industry syndicate
federations have regular meetings and the question of the 
changes in the copper situation present themselves. The 
copper syndicates, and their federation, must consider how
to response to these changes. Part of this is to determine
whether this change is likely to be short term or long term.
A short term change (say caused by a mine accident, for example)
would not need new investments to be planned. However, long 
term changes (say the new requests are due to a new product
being created by another syndicate or an existing mine becoming
exhausted) may need co-ordinated investment (we can expect 
syndicates to make their own plans in light of changes, for
example, by investing in new machinery to produce copper
more efficiently or to increase efficiency). If the expected
changes of these plans approximately equal the predicted 
long term changes, then the federation need not act. However,
if they do then investment in new copper mines or large scale
new investment across the industry may be required. The
federation would propose such plans.

Needless to say, the future can be guessed, it cannot be 
accurately predicted. Thus there may be over-investment in
certain industries as expected changes do not materialise.
However, unlike capitalism, this would not result in an
economic crisis as production would continue (with over
investment within capitalism, workplaces close due to lack 
of profits, regardless of social need). All that would happen 
is that the syndicates would rationalise production, close
down relatively inefficient plant and concentrate production
in the more efficient ones. The sweeping economic crises
of capitalism would be a thing of the past.

Therefore, each syndicate receives its own orders and supplies and sends 
its own produce out. Similarly, communal distribution centres would order
required goods from syndicates it determines. In this way consumers can
change to syndicates which respond to their needs and so production units 
are aware of what it is socially useful for them to produce as well as the 
social cost of the resources they need to produce it. In this way a network 
of horizontal relations spread across society, with co-ordination achieved 
by equality of association and not the hierarchy of the corporate structure.
This system ensures a co-operative 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 C.7.2).

While anarchists are aware of the "isolation paradox" (see section B.6) 
this does not mean that they think the commune should make decisions *for* 
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 *irrationality* (for example, traffic 
jams, pollution, illness, unpleasant social infrastructures). A sane society
would discuss the problems associated with car use and would agree to
produce a fully integrated public transport network which would reduce
pollution, stress, illness, and so on. 

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. 

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 society. However, production will be 
"variations on a theme" in order to ensure consumer choice and to allow 
the producers to know what features consumers prefer. It would be 
impossible to sit down beforehand and make a list of what features a 
good should have -- that assumes perfect knowledge and that technology 
is fairly constant. Both these assumptions are of limited use in real life. 
Therefore, co-operatives would produce goods with different features and 
production would change to meet the demand these differences suggest (for 
example, factory A produces a new CD player, and consumption patterns 
indicate that this is popular and so the rest of the factories convert). 
This is in addition to R&D experiments and test populations. In this way 
consumer choice would be maintained, and enhanced as consumers would be 
able to influence the decisions of the syndicates as producers (in some 
cases) and through syndicate/commune dialogue.

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 *effective* 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 I.4.8 (What about investment 
decisions?) and section I.4.13 ( Who will do the dirty or unpleasant 
work?) will discuss the allocation of work tasks.

I.4.6 Surely anarchist-communism would just lead to demand exceeding supply?
	
Its a common objection that communism would lead to people wasting 
resources by taking more than they need. Kropotkin stated that "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." [_The Place of Anarchism in the Evolution 
of Socialist Thought_, p. 7]

But, some argue, what if an individual says they "need" a luxury house or
a personal yacht? Simply put, workers may not "need" to produce for that
need. As Tom Brown puts it, "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" [_Syndicalism_, p. 51]

Therefore, communist-anarchists are not blind to the fact that free access 
to products is based upon the actual work of real individuals -- "society" 
provides nothing, individuals working together do. This is reflected in 
the classic statement of communism -- "From each according to their ability, 
to each according to their needs." Therefore, the needs of both consumer 
*and* 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 *really* want something but such acts in no way undermines a 
communist society.

Communist-anarchists recognise that production, like consumption, must 
be based on freedom. However, it has been argued that free access would
lead to waste as people take more than they would 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 such cases individuals use the resource as 
and when they need to. 

We can expect a similar results as other resources become freely available. 
In effect, this argument makes as much sense as arguing that individuals will
travel to stops *beyond* 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." However, for many the world seems to be 
made up of such idiots. Perhaps it would be advisable for such critics to
hand out political leaflets in the street. Even though the leaflets are
free, crowds rarely form around the person handing them out demanding
as many copies of the leaflet as possible. Rather, those interested in
what the leaflets have to say take them, the rest ignore them. If free
access automatically resulted in people taking more than they need then
critics of free communism would be puzzled by the lack of demand for what 
they were handing out!

Part of the problem is that capitalist economics have invented a
fictional type of person, *Homo Economicus,* whose wants are limitless:
an individual who always wants more and more of everything and so
whose needs could only satisfied if resources were limitless too. 
Needless to say, such an individual has never existed. In reality,
wants are not limitless -- people have diverse tastes and rarely
want everything available nor want more of a good than that which
satisfies their need.

Communist Anarchists also argue that we cannot judge people's
buying habits under capitalism with their actions in a free
society. After all, advertising does not exist to meet people's
needs but rather to create needs by making people insecure 
about themselves. Simply put, advertising does not amplify 
existing needs or sell the goods and services that people 
already wanted. Advertising would not need to stoop to the 
level of manipulative ads that create false personalities for
products and provide solutions for problems that the advertisers 
themselves create if this was the case.

Crude it may be, but advertising is based on the creation of insecurities, 
preying on fears and obscuring rational thought. In an alienated society
in which people are subject to hierarchical controls, feelings of 
insecurity and lack of control and influence would be natural. It is
these fears that advertising multiples -- if you cannot have real
freedom, then at least you can buy something new. Advertising is the
key means of making people unhappy with what they have (and who they are). 
It is naive to claim that advertising has no effect on the psyche of the 
receiver or that the market merely responds to the populace and makes no
attempt to shape their thoughts. Advertising creates insecurities about 
such matter-of-course things and so generates irrational urges to buy
which would not exist in a libertarian communist society. 

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 *its* values, not 
some abstract "human nature." As Bob Black argues:

"what we want, what we are capable of wanting is relative to the 
forms of social organisation. People 'want' fast food because they 
have to hurry back to work, because processed supermarket food 
doesn't taste much better anyway, because the nuclear family (for 
the dwindling minority who have even that to go home to) is too small
and too stressed to sustain much festivity in cooking and eating
-- and so forth. It is only people who can't get what they want

who resign themselves to want more of what they can get. Since 
we cannot be friends and lovers, we wail for more candy."
 [_Smokestack Lightning_]

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 *really* 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.

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):

"*If I am what I have and if what I have is lost, who then am I?*
Nobody but a defeated, deflated, pathetic testimony to a wrong way 
of living. Because I *can* lose what I have, I am necessarily 
constantly worried that I *shall* lose what I have." [_To Have 
Or To Be_, p. 111] 

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: "If *I am what I am* and not what I have, nobody 
can deprive me of or threaten my security and my sense of identity.
My centre is within myself." [Op. Cit., 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).

In other words, the well-developed individuality that an anarchist society
would develop would have less need to consume than the average person in a
capitalist one. This is not to suggest that life will be bare and without
luxuries in an anarchist society, far from it. A society based on the
free expression of individuality could be nothing but rich in wealth and
diverse in goods and experiences. What we are arguing here is that an 
anarchist-communist society would not have to fear rampant consumerism 
making demand outstrip supply constantly and always precisely because 
freedom will result in a non-alienated society of well developed 
individuals.

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 *can* be introduced instantly
is a moot point amongst anarchists, although most would like to see society
develop towards a communist goal eventually.

I.4.7 What will stop producers ignoring consumers?

It is often claimed that with a market producers would ignore the needs
of consumers. Without the threat (and fear) of unemployment and destitution
and the promise of higher profits, producers would turn out shoddy goods.
The holders of this argument point to the example of the Soviet Union
which was notorious for terrible goods and a lack of consumer goods.

Capitalism, in comparison to the old Soviet block, does, to some 
degree make the producers accountable to the consumers. If the
producer ignores the desires of the producer then they will loose
business to those who do not and be forced, perhaps, out of
business (large companies, of course, due to their resources can
hold out far longer than smaller ones). Thus we have the carrot 
(profits) and the stick (fear of poverty) -- although, of course,
the carrot can be used as a stick against the consumer (no profit, 
no sale, no matter how much the consumer may need it). Ignoring the 
obvious objection to this analogy (namely we are human beings, *not* 
donkeys!) it does have contain an important point. What will ensure
that consumer needs are meet in an anarchist society?

In an Individualist-Mutualist anarchist system, as it is based on 
a market, producers would be subject to market forces and so have 
to meet consumers needs. Of course, there are three problems with
this system. Firstly, those without money have no access to the goods 
produced and so the ill, the handicapped, the old and the young may go 
without. Secondly, inequalities may become more pronounced as successful
producers drive others out of business. Such inequality would skew
consumption as it does in capitalism, so ensuring that a minority
get all the good things in life (Individualist anarchists would claim
that this is unlikely, as non-labour income would be impossible). 
Lastly, there is the danger that the system would revert back to
capitalism. This is because unsuccessful co-operatives may fail and 
cast their members into unemployment. This creates a pool of unemployed
workers, which (in turn) creates a danger of wage-labour being re-created 
as successful firms hire the unemployed but do not allow them to join the
co-operative. This would effectively end self-management and anarchy.
Moreover, the successful could hire "protection agencies" (i.e. thugs)
to enforce capitalist ideas of property rights.

This problem was recognised by Proudhon, who argued for an agro-industrial
federation to protect self-management from the effects of market forces,
as well as the collectivist-anarchists. In both these schemes, self-management
would be protected by agreements between co-operative workplaces to share
their resources with others in the confederation, so ensuring that new
workers would gain access to the means of life on the same terms as those
who already use it. In this way wage-labour would be abolished. In addition,
the confederation of workplaces would practice mutual aid and provide
resources and credit at cost to their members, so protecting firms from
failure while they adjust their production to meet consumer needs. 

In both these systems producers would be accountable to consumers by the 
process of buying and selling between co-operatives. As James Guillaume 
put it, the workers' associations would "deposit their unconsumed commodities 
in the facilities provided by the [communal] Bank of Exchange . . . The Bank 
of Exchange would remit to the producers negotiable *vouchers* representing 
the value of their products" (this value "having been established in 
advance by a contractual agreement between the regional co-operative
federations and the various communes"). [_Bakunin on Anarchism_, pp. 366] 
If the goods are not in demand then the producer associations would not 
be able to sell the product of their labour to the Bank of Exchange and 
so they would adjust their output accordingly. Overtime Guillaume hopes
that this system would evolve into free communism as production develops
and continually meets demand [Op. Cit., p. 368].

While mutualist and collectivist anarchists can argue that producers
would respond to consumer needs otherwise they would not get an
income, communist-anarchists (as they seek a moneyless society)
cannot argue their system would reward producers in this way. So
what mechanism exists to ensure that "the wants of all" are, in
fact, met? How does anarcho-communism ensure that production
becomes "the mere servant of consumption" and "mould itself on
the wants of the consumer, not dictate to him conditions"? [Peter
Kropotkin, _Act for Yourselves_, p. 57]

Libertarian communists argue that in a *free* communist society 
consumers' needs would be meet. This is because of the decentralised 
and federal nature of a communist-anarchist society.

So what is the mechanism which makes producers accountable to consumers
in a libertarian communist society? Firstly, communes would practice
their power of "exit" in the distributive network. If a syndicate was 
producing sub-standard goods or refusing to change their output in
the face of changing consumer needs, then the communal stores would
turn to those syndicates which *were* producing the goods desired. The
original syndicates would then be producing for their own stocks, a
pointless task and one few, if any, would do. After all, people generally
desire their work to have meaning, to be useful. To just work, producing
something no-one wanted would be such a demoralising task that few, if
any, sane people would do it (under capitalism people put up with spirit
destroying work as some income is better than none, such an "incentive"
would not exist in a free society).

As can be seen, "exit" would still exit in libertarian communism. 
However, it could be argued that unresponsive or inefficient 
syndicates would still exist, exploiting the rest of society by 
producing rubbish (or goods which are of less than average 
quality) and consuming the products of other people's labour, 
confident that without the fear of poverty and unemployment 
they can continue to do this indefinitely. Without the market, 
it is argued, some form of bureaucracy would be required (or 
develop) which would have the power to punish such syndicates. 
Thus the state would continue in "libertarian" communism, with 
the "higher" bodies using coercion against the lower ones to 
ensure they meet consumer needs or produced enough.

While, at first glance, this appears to be a possible problem on closer
inspection it is flawed. This is because anarchism is based not only
on "exit" but also "voice." Unlike capitalism, libertarian communism
is based on association and communication. Each syndicate and commune
is in free agreement and confederation with all the others. Thus, is
a specific syndicate was producing bad goods or not pulling its
weight, then those in contact with them would soon realise this.
First, those unhappy with a syndicate's work would appeal to them 
directly to get their act together. If this did not work, then 
they would notify their disapproval by refusing to "contract" with
them in the future (i.e. they would use their power of "exit" as
well as refusing to provide the syndicate with any goods *it* 
requires). They would also let society as a whole know (via the
media) as well as contacting consumer groups and co-operatives
and the relevant producer and communal confederations which
they and the other syndicate are members of, who would, in turn,
inform their members of the problems (the relevant confederations
could include local and regional communal confederations, the
general cross-industry confederation, its own industrial/communal 
confederation and the confederation of the syndicate not pulling
its weight). In today's society, a similar process of "word of
mouth" warnings and recommendations goes on, along with consumer
groups and programmes. Our suggestions here are an extension of this
common practice (that this process exists suggests that the price
mechanism does not, in fact, provide consumers with all the 
relevant information they need to make decisions, but this is an
aside).

If the syndicate in question, after a certain number of complaints
had been lodged against it, still did not change its ways, then
it would suffer non-violent direct action. This would involve
the boycotting of the syndicate and (perhaps) its local commune
with products and investment, so resulting in the syndicate being 
excluded from the benefits of association. The syndicate would 
face the fact that no one else wanted to associate with it and 
suffer a drop in the goods coming its way, including consumption 
products for its members. In effect, a similar process would occur 
to that of a firm under capitalism that looses its customers and 
so its income. However, we doubt that a free society would subject 
any person to the evils of destitution or starvation (as capitalism
does). Rather, it would provide a bare minimum of goods required
for survival would still be available.

In the unlikely event this general boycott did not result in a change 
of heart, then two options are left available. These are either the
break-up of the syndicate and the finding of its members new work
places or the giving/selling of the syndicate to its current users
(i.e. to exclude them from the society they obviously do not want
to be part off). The decision of which option to go for would depend
on the importance of the workplace in question and the desires of the
syndicates' members. If the syndicate refused to disband, then option
two would be the most logical choice (unless the syndicate controlled
a scare resource). The second option would, perhaps, be best as this
would drive home the benefits of association as the expelled syndicate 
would have to survive on its own, subject to survival by selling the 
product of its labour and would soon return to the fold.

Kropotkin argued in these terms over 100 years ago. It is worthwhile
to quote him at length:

"First of all, is it not evident that if a society, founded on
the principle of free work, were really menaced by loafers, it
could protect itself without the authoritarian organisation
we have nowadays, and without having recourse to wagedom
[or payment by results]?

"Let us take a group of volunteers, combining for some particular
enterprise. Having its success at heart, they all work with a will,
save one of the associates, who is frequently absent from his post.
. . . some day the comrade who imperils their enterprise will be
told: 'Friend, we should like to work with you; but as you are
often absent from your post, and you do your work negligently,
we must part. Go and find other comrades who will put up with
your indifference!'

"This is so natural that it is practised everywhere, even nowadays,
in all industries . . . [I]f [a worker] does his work badly, if he 
hinders his comrades by his laziness or other defects, if he is 
quarrelsome, there is an end of it; he is compelled to leave the 
workshop.

"Authoritarian pretend that it is the almighty employer and his 
overseers who maintain regularity and quality of work in factories. 
In reality . . . it is the factory itself, the workmen [and women] 
who see to the good quality of the work . . .

"Not only in industrial workshops do things go in this way; it happens 
everywhere, every day, on a scale that only bookworms have as yet no 
notion of. When a railway company, federated with other companies, 
fails to fulfil its engagements, when its trains are late and goods 
lie neglected at the stations, the other companies threaten to cancel 
the contract, and that threat usually suffices.

"It is generally believed . . . that commerce only keeps to its 
engagements from fear of lawsuits. Nothing of the sort; nine times 
in ten the trader who has not kept his word will not appear before 
a judge. . . the sole fact of having driven a creditor to bring a 
lawsuit suffices for the vast majority of merchants to refuse for 
good to have any dealings with a man who has compelled one of them 
to go to law.

"This being so, why should means that are used today among workers 
in the workshop, traders in the trade, and railway companies in the 
organisation of transport, not be made use of in a society based on 
voluntary work?" [_The Conquest of Bread_, pp. 152-3]

Thus, to ensure producer accountability of production to consumption, 
no bureaucratic body is required in libertarian communism (or any other 
form of anarchism). Rather, communication and direct action by those 
affected by unresponsive producers would be an effective and efficient 
means of ensuring the accountability of production to consumption.

I.4.8 What about investment decisions?

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, "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." [_Guild Socialism Restated_, p. 144]

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 "[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." 
[Charles A. Dana, _Proudhon and his "Bank of the People"_, 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. 

So under a mutualist regime, credit for investment would be 
available from two sources. Firstly, an individual's or 
co-operative's 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.

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, 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." [_Guild Socialism Restated_, 
p. 143] So collectivist and communist anarchists agree with 
their Mutualist cousins when they state that "[a]ll credit 
presupposes labour, and, if labour were to cease, credit 
would be impossible" and that the "legitimate source of 
credit" was "the labouring classes" who "ought to control 
it" and "whose benefit [it should] be used" [Charles A. 
Dana, Op. Cit., p. 35]

Therefore, in collectivism, investment funds would exist for
syndicates, communes and their in community ("People's") 
"banks." These would be used to store depreciation funds and 
as well as other funds agreed to by the collectives for
investment projects (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 major investment projects). Similarly, individual syndicates 
and communes would also create a store of funds for their own 
investment projects. In this, collectivist anarchism is like 
mutualism, with communal credit banks being used to facilitate 
investment by organising credit and savings on a 
non-exploitative basis (i.e. issuing credit at zero 
interest). 

However, the confederations of syndicates to which these 
"People's Banks" would be linked would have a defined
planning function as well -- i.e. taking a role in investment
decisions to ensure that production meets demand (see below). 
This would be one factor in deciding which investment plans 
should be given funding (this, we stress, is hardly "central 
planning" as capitalist firms also plan future investments to 
meet expected demand).

In a communist-anarchist society, things would be slightly different
as this would not have the labour notes used in mutualism and
collectivism. This means that the collectives would agree that 
a certain part of their output and activity will be directed to 
investment projects. 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 
(investment "is essentially an allocation of material and
labour, and fundamentally, an allocation of human productive
power." [Cole, Op. Cit., pp. 144-5]). In this way, mutual aid 
ensures a suitable pool of resources for the future from which 
all benefit.

How would this work? Obviously investment decisions have
implications for society as a whole. The implementation of
these decisions require the use of *existing* capacity and
so must be the responsibility of the appropriate level of
the confederation in question. Investment decisions taken
at levels above the production unit become effective in the
form of demand for the current output of the syndicates which
have the capacity to produce the goods required. This would
require each syndicate to "prepare a budget, showing
its estimate of requirements both of goods or services
for immediate use, and of extensions and improvements." 
[Cole, Op. Cit., p. 145] These budgets and investment
projects would be discussed at the appropriate level
of the confederation (in this, communist-anarchism would
be similar to collectivist anarchism).

The confederation of syndicates/communes would be the ideal 
forum to discuss (communicate) the various investment
plans required -- and to allocate scarce resources between
competing ends. This would involve, possibly, dividing 
investment into two groups -- necessary and optional --
and using statistical techniques to consider the impact
of an investment decision (for example, the use of 
input-output tables could be used to see if a given
investment decision in, say, the steel industry would
require investment in energy production). In this way
social needs *and* social costs would be taken into
account and ensure that investment decisions are not
taken in isolation from one another, so causing 
bottle-necks and insufficient production due to lack
of inputs from other industries.

Necessary investments are those which have been agreed upon
by the appropriate confederation. It means that resources
and productive capacity are prioritised towards them, as
indicated in the agreed investment project. It will not be 
required to determine precisely *who* will provide the 
necessary goods for a given investment project, just 
that it has priority over other requests. When a bank 
gives a company credit, it rarely asks exactly where that
money will be built. Rather, it gives the company the power
to command the labour of other workers by supplying them
with credit. Similarly in an anarcho-communist society,
except that the other workers have agreed to supply their
labour for the project in question by designating it a
"necessary investment." This means when a request arrives
at a syndicate for a "necessary investment" a syndicate
must try and meet it (i.e. it must place the request
into its production schedule before "optional" requests,
assuming that it has the capacity to meet it). A list of
necessary investment projects, including what they require
and if they have been ordered, will be available to all 
syndicates to ensure such a request is a real one. 

Optional investment is simply investment projects which
have not been agreed to by a confederation. This means
that when a syndicate or commune places orders with a
syndicate they may not be meet or take longer to arrive.
The project may go ahead, but it depends on whether the
syndicate or commune can find workers willing to do that
work. This would be applicable for small scale investment
decisions or those which other communes/syndicates do not
think of as essential.

This we have two inter-related investment strategies. A
communist-anarchist society would prioritise certain forms 
of investment by the use of "necessary" and "optional"
investment projects. This socialisation of investment 
will allow a free society to ensure that social needs 
are meet while maintaining a decentralised and dynamic 
"economy." Major projects to meet social needs will be
organised effectively, but with diversity for minor
projects. In addition, it will also allow such a society
to keep track of what actual percentage of resources
are being used for investment, so ensuring that current
needs are not sacrificed for future ones and vice-versa. 

As for when investment is needed, it is clear that this will be 
based on the changes in demand for goods in both collectivist
and communist anarchism. As Guilliame puts it, "[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." [_Bakunin on Anarchism_, 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:

"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." 
[_Syndicalism_, p. 55]

As a rule of thumb, syndicates that produce investment goods would 
be inclined to supply other syndicates who are experiencing excess 
demand before others, all other things being equal. Because of such 
guidelines and communication between producers, investment would 
go to those industries that actually required them. In other words,
customer choice (as indicated by individuals choosing between
the output of different syndicates) would generate information
that is relevant to investment decisions. 

As production would be decentralised as far as it is sensible and
rationale to do so, each locality/region would be able to understand 
its own requirements and apply them as it sees fit. This means that
large-scale planning would not be conducted (assuming that it
could work in practice, of course) simply because it would not
be needed.

This, combined with an extensive communications network, would 
ensure that investment not only did not duplicate unused plant 
within the economy but that investments take into account the 
specific problems and opportunities each locality has. Of course, 
collectives would experiment with new lines and technology as well 
as existing lines and so invest in new technologies and products. 
As occurs under capitalism, extensive consumer testing would
occur before dedicating major investment decisions to new products. 

In addition, investment decisions would also require information 
which showed the different outcomes of different options. By this 
we simply mean an analysis of how different investment projects 
relate to each other in terms of inputs and outputs, compared to 
the existing techniques. This would be in the form of cost-benefit 
analysis (as outlined in section I.4.4) and would show when it 
would make economic, social and ecological sense to switch 
industrial techniques to more efficient and/or more empowering 
and/or more ecologically sound methods. Such an evaluation would
indicate levels of inputs and compare them to the likely
outputs. For example, if a new production technique reduced
the number of hours worked in total (comparing the hours
worked to produce the machinery with that reduced in using
it) as well as reducing waste products for a similar output,
then such a technique would be implemented.

Similarly with communities. A commune will obviously have to 
decide upon and plan civic investment (e.g. new parks, housing 
and so forth). They will also have the deciding say in industrial 
developments in their area as it would be unfair for syndicate to 
just decide to build a cement factory next to a housing co-operative 
if they did not want it. There is a case for arguing that the local 
commune will decide on investment decisions for syndicates in its 
area (for example, a syndicate may produce X plans which will be 
discussed in the local commune and 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 co-operatives. The 
actual location for investment decisions will be worked out by 
those involved. However, local syndicates must be the focal 
point for developing new products and investment plans in 
order to encourage innovation.

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 
co-operation and communication between workplaces in a 
decentralised, confederated network. The relative needs of 
different consumers of a product can be evaluated by the 
producers and an informed decision reached on where it 
would best be used. 

Without 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 setting and no longer stand apart from nature. In this way 
human life can be enriched and the evils of cramping as many humans 
and things into a small a space as is "economical" can be overcome.

In addition, the stock market is hardly the means by which capital 
is actually raised within capitalism. As Engler points out, 
"[s]upporters 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." [_Apostles of Greed_, pp. 157-158] Indeed, 
Doug Henwood argues that "the signals emitted by the stock market 
are either irrelevant or harmful to real economic activity, and 
that the stock market itself counts little or nothing as a source 
of finance. Shareholders . . . have no useful role." [_Wall Street_, 
p. 292]

Moreover, the existence of a stock market has serious (negative) 
effects on investment. As Henwood notes, there "are serious 
communication problems between managers and shareholders." This 
is because "[e]ven if participants are aware of an upward bias 
to earnings estimates [of companies], and even if they correct 
for it, managers would still have an incentive to try to fool 
the market. If you tell the truth, your accurate estimate
will be marked down by a sceptical market. So, it's entirely 
rational for managers to boost profits in the short term, either 
through accounting gimmickry or by making only investments with 
quick paybacks." So, managers "facing a market [the stock market] 
that is famous for its preference for quick profits today rather 
than patient long-term growth have little choice but to do its 
bidding. Otherwise, their stock will be marked down, and the 
firm ripe for takeover." While "[f]irms and economies can't 
get richer by starving themselves" stock market investors "can 
get richer when the companies they own go hungry -- at least 
in the short term. As for the long term, well, that's someone 
else's problem the week after next." [Op. Cit., p. 171]

Ironically, this situation has a parallel with Stalinist central
planning. Under that system manager of State workplaces had an

incentive to lie about their capacity to the planning bureaucracy.
The planner would, in turn, assume higher capacity, so harming
honest managers and encouraging them to lie. This, of course, 
had a seriously bad impact on the economy. Unsurprisingly, the
similar effects caused by capital markets on economies subject
to them as just as bad, downplaying long term issues and investment.

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.

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.

I.4.9 Should technological advance be seen as anti-anarchistic?

Not necessarily. This is because technology can allow us to "do more 
with less," technological progress can improve standards of living for 
all people, and technologies can be used to increase personal freedom: 
medical technology, for instance, can free people from the scourges 
of pain, illness, and a "naturally" short life span; technology 
can be used to free labour from mundane chores associated with 
production; advanced communications technology can enhance our 
ability to freely associate. The list goes on and on. Therefore, 
most anarchists agree with Kropotkin when he pointed out that the 
"development of [the industrial] technique at last gives man [sic!]
the opportunity to free himself from slavish toil." [_Ethics_, p. 2]

For example, increased productivity under capitalism usually 
leads to further exploitation and domination, displaced workers, 
economic crisis, etc. But it does not have to in an anarchist 
world. By way of example, consider a commune in which all 
resources are distributed equally amongst the members. Let 
us say that this commune has 5 people who desire to be bakers 
(or 5 people are needed to work the communal bakery) and, for 
the sake of argument, 20 hours of production per person, per 
week is spent on baking bread for the local commune. Now, what 
happens if the introduction of automation, *as desired, planned 
and organised by the workers themselves*, reduces the amount 
of labour required for bread production to 15 person-hours 
per week, including the labour cost spent in creating and 
maintaining the new machinery? 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 
5 person-hours have been freed up from the task of bread 
production, and those person-hours may now be used elsewhere 
or converted to leisure, either way increasing each person's 
standard of living. 

Obviously, this happy outcome derives not only from the technology 
used, but also (and critically) from its use in an equitable 
economic and social system. Certainly, a wide variety of outcomes 
would be possible under alternative social systems. Yet, we have 
managed to prove our point: in the end, there is no reason why 
the use of technology cannot be used to empower people and 
increase their freedom! 

Of course technology can be used for oppressive ends. Human knowledge, 
like all things, can be used to increase freedom or to decrease it,
to promote inequality or reduce it, to aid the worker or to subjugate
them, and so on. Technology, as we argued in section D.10, cannot be
considered in isolation from the society it is created and used in. 
In a hierarchical society, technology will be introduced that 
serves the interests of the powerful and helps marginalise and 
disempower the majority ("technology is political," to use David 
Noble's expression), it does not evolve in isolation from human 
beings and the social relationships and power structures between
them. "Capitalism has created," Cornelius Castoriadais correctly 
argued, "a capitalist technology, for its *own* ends, which are by 
no means neutral. The real essence of capitalist technology is not 
to develop production for production's sake: it is to subordinate 
and dominate the producers." This means that in an anarchist society, 
technology would have to be transformed and/or developed which 
empowered those who used it, so reducing any oppressive aspects 
of it. In the words of Cornelius Castoriadais, the "conscious 
transformation of technology will . . . be a central task of a 
society of free workers." [_Workers' Councils and the Economics 
of a Self-Managed Society_, p. 13]

However, as Kropotkin argued, we are (potentially) in a good position, 
because "[f]or the first time in the history of civilisation, mankind 
has reached a point where the means of satisfying its needs are in excess 
of the needs themselves. To impose, therefore, as hitherto been done, 
the curse of misery and degradation upon vast divisions of mankind, 
in order to secure well-being and further development for the few, 
is needed no more: well-being can be secured for all, without 
placing on anyone the burden of oppressive, degrading toil and 
humanity can at last build its entire social life on the basis 
of justice." [_Ethics_, p. 2] The question is, for most anarchists, 
how can we humanise and modify this technology and make it socially 
and individually liberatory, rather than destroying it (where
applicable, of course, certain forms of technology will probably
be eliminated due to their inherently destructive nature).

For Kropotkin, like most anarchists, the way to humanise technology
and industry was for "the workers [to] lay hands on factories, 
houses and banks" and so "present production would be completely 
revolutionised by this simple fact." This would be the start
of a process which would *integrate* industry and agriculture,
as it was "essential that work-shops, foundries and factories
develop within the reach of the fields." [_The Conquest of Bread_,
p. 190] Such a process would obviously involve the transformation
of both the structure and technology of capitalism rather than
its simple and unthinking application.

There is another reason for anarchists seeking to transform
rather then eliminate current technology. As Bakunin pointed 
out, "to destroy. . . all the instruments of labour [i.e. 
technology and industry] . . . would be to condemn all humanity -- 
which is infinity too numerous today to exist. . . on the simple 
gifts of nature . . . -- to . . . death by starvation." His solution 
to the question of technology was, like Kropotkin's, to place it 
at the service of those who use it, to create "the intimate and 
complete union of capital and labour"  so that it would "not . . . 
remain concentrated in the hands of a separate, exploiting class." 
Only this could "smash the tyranny of capital." [_The Basic Bakunin_, 
pp. 90-1] 

Thus, most anarchists seek to transform technology and industry 
rather than get rid of it totally.

Most anarchists are aware that "Capital invested in machines that would 
re-enforce the system of domination [within the capitalist workplace], 
and this decision to invest, which might in the long run render the 
chosen technology economical, was not itself an economical decision but 
a political one, with cultural sanction." [David Noble, _Progress Without 
People_, p. 6] But this does not change the fact that we need to be in 
possession of the means of production before we can decide what to keep, 
what to change and what to throw away as inhuman. In other words, it is 
not enough to get rid of the boss, although this is a necessary first step!

It is for these reasons that anarchists have held a wide range of 
opinions concerning the relationship between human knowledge and 
anarchism. Some, such as Peter Kropotkin, were themselves scientists 
and saw great potential for the use of advanced technology to expand 
human freedom. Others have held technology at arm's length, concerned 
about its oppressive uses, and a few have rejected science and technology 
completely. All of these are, of course, possible anarchist positions. 
But most anarchists support Kropotkin's viewpoint, but with a healthy 
dose of practical Luddism when viewing how technology is (ab)used in 
capitalism ("The worker will only respect machinery *in the day* when 
it becomes his friend, shortening his work, rather than as *today,* 
his enemy, taking away jobs, killing workers." [Emile Pouget quoted 
by David Noble, Op. Cit., p. 15]).

Anarchists of all types recognise the importance of critically 
evaluating technology, industry and so on. The first step of any 
revolution will be the seizing of the means of production. The 
second *immediate* step will be the start of their radical
transformation by those who use them and are affected by them
(i.e. communities, those who use the products they produce and
so on). Few, if any, anarchists seek to maintain the current
industrial set-up or apply, unchanged, capitalist technology.
We doubt that many of the workers who use that technology and
work in industry will leave either unchanged. Rather, they will
seek to liberate the technology they use from the influences of
capitalism, just as they liberated themselves. In Kropotkin's
words "if most of the workshops we know are foul and unhealthy,
it is because the workers are of no account in the organisation
of factories" and "[s]laves can submit to them, but free
men will create new conditions, and their will be pleasant
and infinitely more productive." [_The Conquest of Bread_,
p. 121 and p. 123] 

This will, of course, involve the shutting down (perhaps 
instantly or over a period of time) of many branches of 
industry and the abandonment of such technology which 
cannot be transformed into something more suitable for 
use by free individuals. And, of course, many workplaces 
will be transformed to produce new goods required to meet 
the needs of the revolutionary people or close due to 
necessity as a social revolution will disrupt the market 
for their goods -- such as producers of luxury export goods 
or suppliers of repressive equipment for state security 
forces. Altogether, a social revolution implies the
transformation of technology and industry, just as it
implies the transformation of society.

This process of transforming work can be seen from the Spanish
Revolution. Immediately after taking over the means of production,
the Spanish workers started to transform it. They eliminated
unsafe and unhygienic working conditions and workplaces and
created new workplaces based on safe and hygienic working 
conditions. Working practices were transformed as those 
who did the work (and so understood it) managed it. Many
workplaces were transformed to create products required by
the war effort (such as weapons, ammunition, tanks and so on)
and to produce consumer goods to meet the needs of the local 
population as the normal sources of such goods, as Kropotkin
predicted, were unavailable due to economic disruption and
isolation. Needless to say, these were only the beginnings 
of the process but they clearly point the way any libertarian 
social revolution would progress, namely the total transformation 
of work, industry and technology. Technological change would 
develop along new lines, ones which will take into account
human and ecological needs rather the power and profits of 
a minority.

Explicit in anarchism is the believe that capitalist and
statist methods cannot be used for socialist and libertarian
ends. In our struggle for workers' and community self-management
is the awareness that workplaces are not merely sites of
production -- they are also sites of *re*production, the
reproduction of certain social relationships based on
specific relations of authority between those who give
orders and those who take them. The battle to democratise
the workplace, to place the collective initiative of the
direct producers at the centre of any productive activity,
is clearly a battle to transform the workplace, the nature
of work and, by necessity, technology as well.

As Kropotkin argued, a "revolution is more than a mere
change of the prevailing political system. It implies
the awakening of human intelligence, the increasing of
the inventive spirit tenfold, a hundredfold; it is the
dawn of a new science . . . It is a revolution in the
minds of men, as deep, and deeper still, than in their
institutions . . . the sole fact of having laid hands
on middle-class property will imply the necessity of
completely re-organising the whole of economic life
in the workplaces, the dockyards, the factories." 
[_The Conquest of Bread_, p. 192] And some think that
industry and technology will remain unchanged by such
a process and that workers will continue doing the
same sort of work, in the same way, using the same
methods! 

For Kropotkin "all production has taken a wrong direction, as 
it is not carried on with a view to securing well-being for all" 
under capitalism. [Op. Cit., p. 101] Well-being for all obviously 
includes those who do the producing and so covers the structure 
of industry and the technological processes used. Similarly, 
well-being also includes a person's environment and surroundings 
and so technology and industry must be evaluated on an 
ecological basis. Thus Kropotkin supported the integration of 
agriculture and industry, with "the factory and workshop at the 
gates of your fields and gardens." These factories would be 
"airy and hygienic, and consequently economical, factories in 
which human life is of more account than machinery and the making 
of extra profits." [_Fields, Factories and Workshops Tomorrow_, 
p. 197]

Technological progress in an anarchist society, needless to say, 
will have to take into account these factors as well as others 
people think are relevant, otherwise the ideal of "well-being for 
all" is rejected.

Capitalism has developed many technologies, some of them harmful or 
dangerous, but those technologies do not develop by themselves. 
The technology of cheap solar power, for example, has scarcely 
moved at all because the capitalists have not chosen to invest in 
it. Chainsaws do not cut down rain forests, people do; and they do 
so because they have irresistible economic incentives to do so 
(whether they be capitalists who stand to make profits or workers 
who have no other way to survive). Until the economic system is 
abolished, these incentives will continue to drive technological
progress and change.

So, technology always partakes of and expresses the basic values of 
the social system in which it is embedded. If you have a system 
(capitalism) that alienates everything, it will naturally produce 
alienated forms of technology and it will orient those technologies 
so as to reinforce itself. As we argued in section D.10, capitalists
will select technology which re-enforces their power and profits and
skew technological change in that direction rather than in those
which empower individuals and make the workplace more egalitarian.

This does not mean that we have to reject all technology and industry
because it has been shaped by, or developed within, class society.
Certain technologies are, of course, so insanely dangerous that they
will no doubt be brought to a prompt halt in any sane society. Similarly,
certain forms of technology and industrial process will be impossible
to transform as they are inherently designed for oppressive ends. 
Many other industries which produce absurd, obsolete or superfluous
commodities will, of course, cease automatically with the disappearance 
of their commercial or social rationales. But many technologies, however 
they may presently be misused, have few if any inherent drawbacks. They
could be easily adapted to other uses. When people free themselves from 
domination, they will have no trouble rejecting those technologies that 
are harmful while adapting others to beneficial uses. 

So if it is true that technology reflects the society which creates it, 
then technology cannot be inherently bad. A liberated, non-exploitative 
society will naturally create liberating, non-exploitative technologies, 
just as the present alienated social system naturally produces alienated 
forms (or uses) of technology. 

Does this argument mean that most anarchists are against the "abolition
of work"? No, unless you confuse all kinds of productive activity with
work. It always takes some "work" to create a product (even only if it
is food) but that work does not necessarily have to be wage labour or
otherwise alienated or subject to domination and hierarchy. A life 
without dead time does not mean a life where you never have to move a 
muscle or use your head. 

And, of course, different communities and different regions would 
choose different priorities and different lifestyles. As the CNT's 
Zaragoza resolution on libertarian communism made clear, "those 
communes which reject industrialisation . . . may agree upon a 
different model of co-existence." Using the example of "naturists 
and nudists," it argues that they "will be entitled to an autonomous 
administration released from the general commitments" agreed by the 
communes and their federations and "their delegates to congresses of 
the . . . Confederation of Autonomous Libertarian Communes will be 
empowered to enter into economic contacts with other agricultural 
and industrial Communes." [quoted by Jose Peirats, _The CNT in the 
Spanish Revolution_, vol. 1, p. 106]

(See Ken Knabb's _The Poverty of Primitivism_ for more details
-- we have extracted some of the above arguments from this
excellent text).

All this means, of course, that technological progress is not neutral
but dependent on who makes the decisions. As David Noble argues,
"[t]echnological determinism, the view that machines make history
rather than people, is not correct . . . If social changes now
upon us seem necessary, it is because they follow not from any
disembodied technological logic, but form a social logic." 
Technology conforms to "the interests of power" but as 
"technological process is a social process" then "it is,
like all social processes, marked by conflict and struggle,
and the outcome, therefore, is always ultimately indeterminate."
Viewing technological development "as a social process rather
than as an autonomous, transcendent, and deterministic force
can be liberating . . . because it opens up a realm of
freedom too long denied. It restores people once again to
their proper role as subjects of the story, rather than mere
pawns of technology . . . And technological development itself,
now seen as a social construct, becomes a new variable rather
than a first cause, consisting of a range of possibilities and
promising a multiplicity of futures." [_Forces of Production_,
pp. 324-5]

Change society and the technology introduced and utilised will 
likewise change. By viewing technological progress as a new
variable, dependent on those who make the decisions and the
type of society they live in, allows us to see that technological
development is not inherently anti-anarchist. A non-oppressive,
non-exploitative, ecological society will develop non-oppressive, 
non-exploitative, ecological technology just as capitalism has 
developed technology which facilitates exploitation, oppression
and environmental destruction. Thus an anarchist questions 
technology: The best technology? Best for whom? Best for what? 
Best according to what criteria, what visions, according to 
whose criteria and whose visions?

For most anarchists, technological advancement is important 
in a free society in order to maximise the free time available 
for everyone and replace mindless toil with meaningful work. The 
means of doing so is the use of *appropriate* technology (and 
*not* 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 unquestioningly anti-technology.

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 that 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. 

I.4.10 What would be the advantage of a wide basis of surplus distribution? 

We noted earlier that competition between syndicates can lead to 
"petty-bourgeois co-operativism," 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. 

Collectivisation in Catalonia embraced not only major industries like
municipal transportation and utilities, but smaller establishments as
well: small factories, artisan workshops, service and repair shops, etc. 
Augustin Souchy describes the process as follows:  

"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." 

"Before July 19th, 1936 [the date of the Revolution], there were 1,100
hairdressing parlours in Barcelona, most of them owned by poor wretches

living from hand to mouth. The shops were often dirty and ill-maintained. 
The 5,000 hairdressing assistants were among the most poorly paid 
workers. . . Both owners and assistants therefore voluntarily decided 
to socialise all their shops. 

"How was this done?  All the shops simply joined the union. At a general
meeting they decided to shut down all the unprofitable shops. The 1,100
shops were reduced to 235 establishments, a saving of 135,000 pesetas 
per month in rent, lighting, and taxes. The remaining 235 shops were
modernised and elegantly outfitted. From the money saved, wages were 
increased by 40%. Everyone having the right to work and everyone
received the same wages. The former owners were not adversely affected 
by socialisation. They were employed at a steady income. All worked 
together under equal conditions and equal pay. The distinction 
between employers and employees was obliterated and they were 
transformed into a working community of equals -- socialism from 
the bottom up." ["Collectivisations in Catalonia," in Sam Dolgoff, 
_The Anarchist Collectives_, pp. 93-94]

Therefore, co-operation 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 co-operatives and productive units, there
is little danger that rationalisation in production will hurt the interests
of the consumer.

Another way in which wide distribution of surplus can be advantageous
is in investment and research and development. By creating a fund for
research and development which is independent of the fortunes of
individual syndicates, society as a whole can be improved by access
to useful new technologies and processes.

Therefore, in a libertarian-socialist society, people (both within the 
workplace and in communities) are likely to decide to allocate significant 
amounts of resources for basic research from the available social output. 
This is because the results of this research would be freely available to 
all 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.

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.

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.

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:

"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."
["Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Inventiveness," 
in National Bureau of Economic Research, _The Rate and Direction of
Inventive Activity_, p. 618]

Would modern society have produced so many innovations if it had 
not been for the Pentagon system, the space race and so on? Take 
the Internet, for example -- it is unlikely that this would have 
got off the ground if it had not been for the state. Needless to
say, of course, much of this technology has been developed for
evil reasons and purposes and would be in need of drastic change
(and, in many cases, abolition) before it could be used in a
libertarian society. However, the fact remains that it is unlikely
that a pure market based system could have generated most of the
technology we take for granted. As Noam Chomsky argues:

"[Alan] Greenspan [head of the US Federal Reserve] gave a talk
to newspaper editors in the US. He spoke passionately about the
miracles of the market, the wonders brought by consumer choice,
and so on. He also gave examples: the Internet, computers, 
information processing, lasers, satellites, transistors. It's
an interesting list: these are textbook examples of creativity
and production in the public sector. In the case of the Internet,
for 30 years it was designed, developed and funded primarily
in the public sector, mostly the Pentagon, then the National
Science Foundation -- that's most of the hardware, the software,
new ideas, technology, and so on. In just the last couple of
years it has been handed over to people like Bill Gates . . .
In the case of the Internet, consumer choice was close to
zero, and during the crucial development stages that same was
true of computers, information processing, and all the rest . . .

"In fact, of all the examples that Greenspan gives, the only
one that maybe rises above the level of a joke is transistors,
and they are an interesting case. Transistors, in fact, were 
developed in a private laboratory -- Bell Telephone Laboratories
of AT&T -- which also made major contributions to solar cells,
radio astronomy, information theory, and lots of other
important things. But what is the role of markets and
consumer choice in that? Well, again, it turns out, zero.
AT&T was a government supported monopoly, so there was no
consumer choice, and as a monopoly they could charge high
prices: in effect a tax on the public which they could use
for institutions like Bell Laboratories . . . So again, it's
publicly subsidised. As if to demonstrate the point, as
soon as the industry was deregulated, Bell Labs went out of
existence, because the public wasn't paying for it any more
. . . But that's only the beginning of the story. True,
Bell invented transistors, but they used wartime technology,
which, again, was publicly subsidised and state-initiated.
Furthermore, there was nobody to but transistors at that
time, because they were very expensive to produce. So, for
ten years the government was the major procurer . . .
Government procurement provided entrepreneurial initiatives
and guided the development of the technology, which could
then be disseminated to industry." [_Rogue States_, 
pp. 192-3]

As well as technological developments, a wide basis of surplus
generation would help improve the skills and knowledge of the
members of a community. As Keynesian economist Michael Stewart
points out, "[t]here are both theoretical and empirical reasons 
to suppose that market forces under-provide research and development 
expenditures, as well as both education and training." [_Keynes
in the 1990s_, p. 77]

If we look at vocational training and education, a wide basis
of surplus distribution would aid this no end. Under free market
capitalism, vocational training suffers due to the nature of
the market. The argument is simple. Under free market capitalism,
if companies stood to gain, in terms of higher profits, from
training more workers, they would train them. If they did not,
that just proves that training was not required. Unfortunately,
this piece of reasoning overlooks the fact that profit
maximising firms will not incur costs that will be enjoyed
by others. This means that firms will be reluctant to spend
money on training if they fear that the trained workers
will soon be poached by other firms which can offer more money
because they had not incurred the cost of providing training.
This means that few firms will provide the required training
as they could not be sure that the trained workers will not
leave for their competitors (and, of course, a trained work
force also, due to their skill, have more workplace power and
are less replaceable).

By socialising training via confederations of workplaces,
syndicates could increase productivity via increasing the
skill levels of their members. Higher skill levels will
also tend to increase innovation and enjoyment at "work"
when combined with workers' self-management. This is because
an educated workforce in control of their own time will be
unlikely to tolerate mundane, boring, machine-like work
and seek ways to eliminate it, improve the working environment
and increase productivity to give them more free time.

The free market can also have a negative impact on innovation.
This is because, in order to please shareholders with higher 
share prices, companies may reduce funds available for real 
investment and R&D, which would also depress growth and 
employment in the long term. What shareholders might condemn 
as "uneconomic" (investment projects and R&D) can, and does, 
make society as a whole better off. However, these gains are 
over the long term and, within capitalism, it is short-term 
gains which count. Higher share prices in the here and now 
are essential in order to survive and so see the long-run.

In a more socialised economy, wide-scale collectivisation
could aid in allocating resources for Research and Development,
long term investment, innovation and so on. Via the use of
mutual banks or confederations of syndicates and communes,
resources could be allocated which take into account the
importance of long-term priorities, as well as social costs, 
which are not taken into account (indeed, are beneficial to 
ignore) under capitalism. Rather than penalise long term investment 
and research and development, a socialised economy would ensure 
that adequate funds are available, something which would benefit 
everyone in society in some way.

In addition to work conducted by syndicates, education establishments,
communes and so on, it would be essential to provide resources
for individuals and small groups to pursue "pet projects." Of
course, syndicates and confederations will have their own research 
institutions but the innovatory role of the interested "amateur" 
cannot be over-rated. As Kropotkin argued:

"What is needed to promote the spirit of innovation is . . . the
awakening of thought, the boldness of conception, which our
entire education causes to languish; it is the spreading of a
scientific education, which would increase the numbers of
inquirers a hundred-fold; it is faith that humanity is going to
take a step forward, because it is enthusiasm, the hope of doing
good, that has inspired all the great inventors. The Social
Revolution alone can give this impulse to thought, this boldness,
this knowledge, this conviction of working for all.

"Then we shall have vast institutes . . . immense industrial
laboratories open to all inquirers, where men will be able to
work out their dreams, after having acquitted themselves of
their duty towards society; . . . where they will make their
experiments; where they will find other comrades, experts in
other branches of industry, likewise coming to study some
difficult problem, and therefore able to help and enlighten
each other -- the encounter of their ideas and experiences
causing the longed-for solution to be found." [_The Conquest
of Bread_, p. 117]

In addition, unlike under capitalism, where inventors often
"carefully hide their inventions from each other, as they
are hampered by patents and Capitalism -- that bane of present
society, that stumbling-block in the path of intellectual
and moral progress," inventors within a free society will be
able to build upon the knowledge of everyone and past generations.
Rather than hide knowledge from others, in case they get a
competitive advantage, knowledge would be shared, enriching all
involved as well as the rest of society [Ibid.]. As John O'Neil
argues:

"There is, in a competitive market economy, a disincentive to
communicate information. The market encourages secrecy, which
is inimical to openness in science. It presupposes a view of
property in which the owner has rights to exclude others. In 
the sphere of science, such rights of exclusion place limits 
on the communication of information and theories which are
incompatible with the growth of knowledge . . . science tends 
to grow when communication is open. . . [In addition a] necessary
condition for the acceptability of a theory or experimental
result is that it pass the public, critical scrutiny of
competent scientific judges. A private theory or result 
is one that is shielded from the criteria of scientific 
acceptability." [_The Market_, p. 153]  

Thus socialisation would aid innovation and scientific development.
This is two fold, by providing the necessary resources for such
work and by providing the community spirit required to push the
boundaries of science forward.

Lastly, there is the issue of those who cannot work and general 
provision of public goods. With a wide distribution to surplus,
communal hospitals, schools, universities and so on can be
created. This simple fact is that any society has members who
cannot (indeed, should not) work. For example, the young, the
old and the sick. In a mutualist society, particularly an
Individualist Anarchists mutualist society, there is no real
provision for these individuals unless someone (a family member
or friend) provides them with the money required for hospital
fees and so on. However, with a communal basis for distribution
every member of the commune can receive an education, health
care and so on as a right -- and so live a fully human life
as a right, rather than a privilege. Moreover, the experience
of capitalist countries suggests that socialising, say, health
care, leads to a service with lower costs than one which is
predominately privatised. For example, the administrative costs 
of the British National Health Service are a fraction of the U.S. 
or Chilean systems (where a sizeable percentage of income ends
up as profit rather than as health care).

This tendency for the use of surplus for communal services
(such as hospitals and education) can be seen from the
Spanish Revolution. Many collectives funded new hospitals
and colleges for their members, providing hundreds of 
thousands with services they could never have afforded by
their own labour. This is a classic example of co-operation
helping the co-operators achieve far more than they could
by their own isolated activities.

I.4.11 If libertarian socialism eliminates the profit motive, won't 
       creativity and performance suffer?

Firstly, just to be totally clear, by the profit motive we mean
money profit. As anarchists consider co-operation to be in our
self-interest -- i.e. we will "profit" from it in the widest 
sense possible -- we are *not* dismissing the fact people usually
act to improve their situation. However, money profit is a *very*
narrow form of "self-interest," indeed so narrow as to be positively
harmful to the individual in many ways (in terms of personal 
development, interpersonal relationships, economic and social
well-being, and so on). In other words, do not take our discussion
in this section of the FAQ on the "profit motive" to imply a denial
of self-interest, quite the reverse. Anarchists simply reject the
"narrow concept of life which consist[s] in thinking that *profits*
are the only leading motive of human society." [Peter Kropotkin,
_Fields, Factories and Workshops Tomorrow_, p. 25]

Secondly, we cannot hope to deal fully with the harmful effects
of competition and the profit motive. For more information, we
recommend Aflie Kohn's _No Contest: The Case Against Competition_
and _Punished by Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive
Plans, A's, Praise and Other Bribes_. He documents the extensive
evidence accumulated that disproves the "common sense" of
capitalism that competition and profits are the best way to
organise a society.

According to Alfie Kohn, a growing body of psychological research 
suggests that rewards can lower performance levels, especially 
when the performance involves creativity. ["Studies Find Reward 
Often No Motivator," _Boston Globe_, Monday 19 January 1987]
Kohn notes that "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."  

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. "It 
may be that commissioned work will, in general, be less
creative than work that is done out of pure interest," 
Amabile says. In 1985, she asked 72 creative writers at 
Brandeis and at Boston University to write poetry. 

"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.

"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.'" [Ibid.]

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. "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" [Ibid.]

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, "[t]hey also challenge the behaviourist assumption that any activity
is more likely to occur if it is rewarded."  Amabile concludes that her
research "definitely refutes the notion that creativity can be operantly
conditioned."

These findings re-enforce the findings of other scientific fields. 
Biology, social psychology, ethnology and anthropology all present 
evidence that support co-operation as the natural basis for human 
interaction. For example, ethnological studies indicate that 
virtually all indigenous cultures operate on the basis of 
highly co-operative relationships and anthropologists have 
presented evidence to show that the predominant force driving 
early human evolution was co-operative social interaction, leading 
to the capacity of hominids to develop culture. This is even
sinking into capitalism, with industrial psychology now promoting 
"worker participation" and team functioning because it is decisively 
more productive than hierarchical management. More importantly, the 
evidence shows that co-operative workplaces are more productive 
than those organised on other principles. All other things equal, 
producers' co-operatives will be more efficient than capitalist 
or state enterprises, on average. Co-operatives can often achieve 
higher productivity even when their equipment and conditions are 
worse. Furthermore, the better the organisation approximates the 
co-operative ideal, the better the productivity.

All this is unsurprising to social anarchists (and it should make 
individualist anarchists reconsider their position). Peter Kropotkin 
argued that, "[i]f we . . . ask Nature: 'Who are the fittest: those 
who are continually at war with each other, or those who support one 
another?' we at once see that those animals which acquire habits of 
mutual aid are undoubtedly the fittest. They have more chances to 
survive, and they attain, in their respective classes, the highest 
development of intelligence and bodily organisation." [_Mutual Aid_, 
p. 24] From his observation that mutual aid gives evolutionary 
advantage to those who practice it, he derived his political 
philosophy -- a philosophy which stressed community and 
co-operative endeavour.

Modern research has reinforced his argument. For example, as noted, 
Alfie Kohn is also the author of _No Contest: The Case Against 
Competition_ and he spent seven years reviewing more than 400 
research studies dealing with competition and co-operation. Prior 
to his investigation, he believed that "competition can be natural 
and appropriate and healthy." After reviewing research findings, 
he radically revised this opinion, concluding that, the "ideal 
amount of competition . . . in any environment, the classroom, 
the workplace, the family, the playing field, is none . . . 
[Competition] is always destructive." [_Noetic Sciences Review_, 
Spring 1990]

Here we 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 
co-operative sharing of resources and knowledge), and the 
undermining of inner motivation. Competition shifts the focus 
to victory over others, and away from intrinsic motivators 
such as curiosity, interest, excellence, and social interaction. 
Studies show that co-operative behaviour, by contrast, consistently
predicts good performance--a finding which holds true under a wide 
range of subject variables. Interestingly, the positive benefits 
of co-operation become more significant as tasks become more 
complex, or where greater creativity and problem-solving 
ability is required (as indicated above).

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.

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. 

Social Anarchists have long argued these points. In the competitive 
mode, people work at cross purposes, or purely for (material) 
personal gain. This leads to an impoverishment of society 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 
injustice and authoritarian system.

All in all, the results of competition (as documented by a host of 
scientific disciplines) shows its poverty as well as indicating that 
co-operation is the means by which the fittest survive.

Moreover, as Kohn discusses in _Punished by Rewards_, the 
notion that material rewards result in better work is
simply not true. Basing itself on simple behavourist 
psychology, such arguments fail to meet the test of long-term
success (and, indeed, can be counter-productive). Indeed, it
means treating human beings as little better that pets or
other animals (he argues that it is "not an accident that
the theory behind 'Do this and you'll get that' derives 
from work with other species, or that behaviour management
is frequently described in words better suited to animals.")
In other words, it "is by its very nature dehumanising."
[_Punished by Rewards_, p. 24 and p. 25]

Rather than simply being motivated by outside stimuli like
mindless robots, people are not passive. We are "beings
who possess natural curiosity about ourselves and our
environment, who search for and overcome challenges, who
try and master skills and attain competence, and who seek
new levels of complexity in what we learn and do . . . 
in general we act on the environment as much as we are
acted on by it, and we do not do so simply in order to
receive a reward." [Op. Cit., p. 25]

Kohn presents extensive evidence to back upon his case that
rewards harm activity and individuals. We cannot do justice
to it here. We will present a few examples. One study with
college students showed that those paid to work on a puzzle
"spent less time on it than those who hadn't been paid" when
they were given a choice of whether to work on it or not.
"It appeared that working for a reward made people less
interested in the task." Another study with children
showed that "extrinsic rewards reduce intrinsic motivation."
Scores of other studies confirmed this. This is because
a reward is effectively saying that a given activity is
not worth doing for its own sake -- and why would anyone
wish to do something they have to be bribed to do?
[Op. Cit., p. 70 and p. 71]

In the workplace, a similar process goes on. Kohn presents
extensive evidence to show that extrinsic motivation also
does not work in the workplace. Indeed, he argues that
"economists have it wrong if they think of work as a
'disutility' -- something unpleasant we must do in order
to be able to buy what we need, merely a means to an
end." Kohn stresses that "to assume that money is what drives
people is to adopt an impoverished understanding of human
motivation. Moreover, "the risk of *any* incentive or 
pay-for-performance system is that it will make people
less interested in their work and therefore less likely
to approach it with enthusiasm and a commitment to
excellence. Furthermore, *the more closely we tie
compensation (or other rewards) to performance, the
most damage we do.*" [Op. Cit., p. 131, p. 134 and 
p. 140]

Kohn argues that the idea that human's will only work for profit
or rewards "can be fairly described as dehumanising" if
"the capacity for responsible action, the natural love of
learning, and the desire to do good work are already part
of who we are." Also, it is "a way of trying to control
people" and so to "anyone who is troubled by a model of
human relationships founded principally on the idea of
one person controlling another must ponder whether rewards
are as innocuous as they are sometimes made out to be."
He uses the example of a workplace, where "there is no
getting around the fact that 'the basic purpose of merit
pay is manipulative.' One observer more bluntly characterises
incentives as 'demeaning' since the message they really
convey is, 'Please big daddy boss and you will receive the
rewards that the boss deems appropriate.'" [Op. Cit., p. 26]

Given that much work is controlled by others and can
be a hateful experience under capitalism does not mean
that it has to be that way. Clearly, even under wage
slavery most workers can and do find work interesting
and seek to do it well -- not because of possible rewards
or punishment but because we seek meaning in our activities
and try and do them well. Given that research shows that
reward orientated work structures harm productivity and
excellence, social anarchists have more than just hope
to base their ideas. Such research confirms Kropotkin's
comments:

"Wage-work is serf-work; it cannot, it must not, produce 
all it could produce. And it is high time to disbelieve
the legend which presents wagedom as the best incentive
to productive work. If industry nowadays brings in a 
hundred times more than it did in the days of our
grandfathers, it is due to the sudden awakening of
physical and chemical sciences towards the end of the
[18th] century; not to the capitalist organisation of
wagedom, but *in spite* of that organisation." [_The
Conquest of Bread_, p. 150]

For these reasons, social anarchists are confident that the 
elimination of the profit motive within the context of 
self-management will not harm productivity and creativity, 
but rather *enhance* them (within an authoritarian system 
in which workers enhance the power and income of bureaucrats, 
we can expect different results). With the control of their
own work and workplaces ensured, all working people can
express their abilities to the full. This will see an
explosion of creativity and initiative, not a reduction.

I.4.12 Won't there be a tendency for capitalist enterprise to reappear 
       in any socialist society? 

This is a common right-libertarian objection. Robert Nozick, for 
example, imagines the following scenario:  

"[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."   

Hence Nozick claims that "the socialist society will have to forbid 
capitalist acts between consenting adults." [_Anarchy, State and Utopia_, 
pp. 162-3]

As Jeff Stein points out, however, "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." ["Market Anarchism?  Caveat
Emptor!", a review of  _A Structured Anarchism : An Overview of
Libertarian Theory and Practice_ by John Griffin, _Libertarian 
Labour Review_ #13, Winter 1992-93, pp. 33-39] 

In an anarchist society, there is no need for anyone to "forbid"
capitalist acts. All people have to do is *refrain* from helping 
would-be capitalists set up monopolies of productive assets. 
This is because, as we have noted in section B.3.2, 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, better working conditions, etc.) than the 
would-be capitalist ones. The would-be capitalists would have 
to offer not only excellent wages and conditions but also, in 
all likelihood, workers' control and hire-purchase on capital 
used. The chances of making a profit once the various monopolies 
associated with capitalism are abolished are slim.

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 *not* 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 John Stuart Mill 
pointed out, "powers of exclusive use and control are very various, 
and differ greatly in different countries and in different states of 
society." ["Chapters on Socialism," _Principles of Political Economy_, 
p. 432] 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 rights (like 
those he, and other supporters of capitalism, believes in) along with 
the wealth. As Mill argued, "[o]ne of the mistakes oftenest committed,
and which are the sources of the greatest practical errors in human
affairs, is that of supposing that the same name always stands for
the same aggregation of ideas. No word has been subject of more of
this kind of misunderstanding that the word property." [Ibid.] 
Unfortunately, this errors seems particularly common with right-wing
libertarians, who assume any use of the word "property" means what
they mean by the word (this error reaches ridiculous levels when it
comes to their co-option of the Individualist Anarchists based on
this error!).

In other words, Nozick assumes that in *all* societies property rights 
must replace use rights in both consumption *and* production (an 
assumption that is ahistorical in the extreme). As Cheyney C. Ryan 
comments, "[d]ifferent conceptions of justice differ not only in how 
they would apportion society's holdings but in what rights individuals 
have over their holdings once they have been apportioned." ["Property 
Rights and Individual Liberty", in _Reading Nozick_, p. 331]  

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 and abided by the rules they helped create in that commune
then they would have full use of the resources of that commune and 
could use their possessions as they saw fit (even "melt them down"
to create a new machine, or whatever). Such lack of *absolute*
"ownership" does not reduce liberty any more than the employee and the 
company car he or she uses (bar destruction and selling it, the employee 
can use it as they see fit).

This point highlights another flaw in Nozick's argument. If his argument
is true, then it applies equally to capitalist society. For 40 hours plus a
week, workers are employed by a boss. In that time they are given resources
to use, under instructions of their boss. They are most definitely *not*
allowed to melt down these resources to create a machine or use the resources
they have been given access to further their own plans. In other words, 
"capitalist society will have to forbid capitalist acts between consenting 
adults." This can apply equally to rented accommodation as well, for example
when landlords ban working from home or selling off the furniture that is
provided. Thus, ironically, capitalism forbids capitalist acts between 
consenting adults all the time.

Of course, Nozick's reply to this point would be that the individual's involved
have "consented" to these rules when they signed their contract. But the same
can be said of an anarchist society -- it is freely joined and freely left. 
To join a communist-anarchist society it would simply be a case of agreeing 
to "exchange" the product of ones labour freely with the other members of 
that society. Thus you could smelt down personal possessions and create a 
machine, exchange your time with others and so on. However, if wage labour 
becomes involved then the individuals involved have ceased being members of  
"the socialist society" by their actions. They have violated their agreements 
with their fellows and so it is not a case of "forbidding" certain acts. 
Rather it is a case of individuals meeting their self-created obligations. 
If this is "authoritarian" then so is capitalism -- and we must stress that 
at least anarchist associations are based on self-management and so the 
individuals involved have an equal say in the obligations they live under.

Notice also that Nozick confuses exchange with capitalism ("I offer you a
lecture once a week in exchange for other things"). This is a telling
mistake by someone who claims to be an expert on capitalism, because the
defining feature of capitalism is not exchange (which obviously took place
long before capitalism existed) but labour contracts involving capitalist
middlemen who appropriate a portion of the value produced by workers -- in
other words, wage labour. Nozick's example is merely a direct labour contract 
between the producer and the consumer. It does not involve any capitalist 
intermediary taking a percentage of the value created by the producer. Nor
does it involve exploitative wage labour, what makes capitalism capitalism. 
It is only this latter type of transaction that libertarian socialism 
prevents -- and not by "forbidding" it but simply by refusing to maintain 
the conditions necessary for it to occur, i.e. protection of capitalist 
property.

In addition, we must note that Nozick also confuses "private property in
the means of production" with capitalism. Liberation socialism can be
easily compatible with "private property in the means of production"
when that "private property" is based on *possession* rather than 
capitalistic property. This can be seen from Kropotkin's arguments
that peasant and artisan workers, those who "exploit nobody," would 
*not* be expropriated in an anarchist revolution. [_Act for Yourselves_, 
pp. 104-5] Nozick, in other words, confuses private property with
possession and confuses pre-capitalist forms of production with 
capitalist ones. Thus possession of the means of production by people
outside of the free commune is perfectly acceptable to social anarchists
(see also section I.6.2).

Lastly, we must also note that Nozick also ignores the fact that acquisition 
*must* 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 *its* resources (i.e. they would
have to buy access to all the resources they currently took for granted).

Thus an anarchist society would have a flexible approach to Nozick's
(flawed) argument. Individuals, in their free time, could "exchange"
their time and possessions as they saw fit. These, however, are not
"capitalist acts" regardless of Nozick's claims. However, the moment
an individual employs wage labour then, by this act, they have broken
their agreements with their fellows and, therefore, no longer part
of "socialist society." This would involve them no longer having 
access to the benefits of communal life and to communal possessions.
They have, in effect, placed themselves outside of their community
and must fair for themselves. After all, if they desire to create
"private property" (in the capitalist sense) then they have no right
of access to communal possessions without paying for that right. 
For those who become wage slaves, a socialist society would, 
probably, be less strict. As Bakunin argued:

"Since the freedom of every individual is inalienable, society shall
never allow any individual whatsoever legally to alienate his [or
her] freedom or engage upon any contract with another on any footing
but the utmost equality and reciprocity. It shall not, however, have
the power to disbar a man or woman so devoid of any sense of personal
dignity as to contract a relationship of voluntary servitude with
another individual, but it will consider them as living off private
charity and therefore unfit to enjoy political rights *throughout the
duration of that servitude.*" [_Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings_,
pp. 68-9]

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 (see section
B.3.4 for details). 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 F.8.3). As Cheyney C. Ryan points out, Nozick 
"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 *trade off* 
such liberties against material gain for society as a whole." ["Property 
Rights and Individual Liberty", in _Reading Nozack_, p. 339]

Again, as pointed out in section F.2 (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 when private property restricts liberty? Obviously, Nozick considers
the liberties associated with private property as more important than 
liberty *in general.* Likewise, capitalism must forbid corresponding 
socialist acts by individuals (for example, squatting unused property or
trespassing on private property) and often socialist acts between consenting 
individuals (for example, the formation of unions against the wishes of the 
property owner who is, of course, sovereign over their property and those 
who use it, or the use of workplace resources to meet the needs of the
producer rather than the owner). 

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.

I.4.13 Who will do the "dirty" or unpleasant work? 

This problem affects every society, including capitalism of course.
Under capitalism, this problem is "solved" by ensuring that such 
jobs are done by those at the bottom of the social pile. In other
words, it does not really solve the problem at all -- it just
ensures that some people are subject to this work the bulk of 
their working lives. However, most anarchists reject this flawed
solution in favour of something better, one that shares the good
with the bad and so ensure everyone's life is better.

How this would be done depends on the kind of libertarian community 
you are a member of. 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?

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 "division of activity"
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.

For "work" placements in which supply exceeded demand, it would be easy 
to arrange a work share scheme to ensure that most people get a chance to do 

that kind of work (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. 

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 it is the boring, dangerous work which is the least
well paid with the worse working conditions. In addition, this argument 
ignores the fact that under workers self-management boring, dangerous work 
would be minimised and transformed as much as possible. Only under capitalist
hierarchy are people in no position to improve the quality of their work and 
working environment. As George Barrett argues:

"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." [_Objections to Anarchism_]

Moreover, most anarchists would think that the argument that there would
be a flood of workers taking up "easy" work placements is abstract and
ignores the dynamics of a real society. While many individuals would
try to create new productive syndicates in order to express themselves
in innovative work outwith the existing research and development going
on within existing syndicates, the idea that the majority of individuals
would leave their current work at a drop of a hat is crazy. A workplace
is a community and part of a community and people would value the links 
they have with their fellow workers. As such they would be aware of the
impacts of their decisions on both themselves and society as a whole. So, 
while we would expect a turnover of workers between syndicates, the mass 
transfers claimed in this argument are unlikely. Most workers who did want 
to try their hand at new work would apply for work places at syndicates 
that required new people, not create their own ones. Because of this, work 
transfers would be moderate and easily handled. 

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 preferences for certain 
types of work matches the requirements of social demand for labour?

Under mutualism, those who desired a certain form of work done would
reach an agreement with a workers or a co-operative and pay them to do
the work in question. Individuals would form co-operatives with each 
co-operative 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 co-operative 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.

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 a few days a month to all fit members 
of a community to do work which no one volunteers to do, it would soon be 
done. In this way, every one shares in the unpleasant as well as pleasant
tasks (and, of course, minimises the time any one individual has to 
spend on it). Or, for tasks which very popular, individuals would also
have to do unpleasant tasks as well. In this way, popular and unpopular
tasks would balance each other out.

Another possible solution could be to follow the ideas of Josiah 
Warren and take into account the undesirability of the work when 
considering the level of labour notes received or communal hours worked.
In other words, in a collectivist society the individuals who do unpleasant
work may be "rewarded" (along with social esteem) with a slightly higher
pay -- the number of labour notes, for example, for such work would be
a multiple of the standard amount, the actual figure being related to
how much supply exceeds demand (in a communist society, a similar solution 
could be possible, with the number of necessary hours required by an individual 
being reduced by an amount that corresponds to the undesirability of the 
work involved). The actual levels of "reward" would be determined by 
agreements between the syndicates.

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 fewer people applied than 
required, then the labour value would increase, as would holiday time, 
etc.

In this way, "supply and demand" for workers would soon approximate each 
other. In addition, a collectivist society would be better placed than the
current system to ensure work-sharing and other methods to spread unpleasant 
and pleasant tasks equally around society due to its organs of self-management
and the rising social awareness via participation and debate within those
organs.

A communist-anarchist society's solution would be similar to the collectivist
one. There would still be basic agreements between its members for work done 
and so for work placements with excess supply of workers the amount of hours 
necessary to meet the 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:

"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." [_Guild Socialism Restated_, p. 76]

By these methods a balance between industrial sectors would be achieved 
as individuals would balance their desire for interesting work with their
desires for free time. Over time, by using the power of appropriate 
technology, even such time keeping would be minimised or even got 
eliminated as society developed freely.

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. 

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.

Of course, no system is perfect -- we are sure that not everyone will be
able to do the work they enjoy the most (this is also the case under 
capitalism, we may add). In an anarchist society every method of ensuring 
that individuals pursue the work they are interested in would be
investigated. If a possible solution can be found, we are sure that it will.
What a free society would make sure of was that neither the capitalist
market redeveloped (which ensures that the majority are marginalised into
wage slavery) or a state socialist "labour army" type allocation process 
developed (which would ensure that free socialism did not remain free or
socialist for long).

In this manner, anarchism will be able to ensure the principle of 
voluntary labour and free association as well as making sure that 
unpleasant and unwanted "work" is done. Moreover, most anarchists are
sure that in a free society such requirements to encourage people to
volunteer for unpleasant work will disappear over time as feelings
of mutual aid and solidarity become more and more common place. Indeed, 
it is likely that people will gain respect for doing jobs that others 
might find unpleasant and so it might become "glamorous" to do such 
activity. Showing off to friends can be a powerful stimulus in doing 
any activity. So anarchists would agree with Albert and Hahnel when 
they say that:

"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 *means* of 
attaining other ends such as economic security, comfort, social esteem,
respect, status, or power." [_The Political Economy of Participatory 
Economics_, p. 52]

We should note here that the education syndicates would obviously take
into account the trends in "work" placement requirements when deciding
upon the structure of their classes. In this way, education would 
respond to the needs of society as well as the needs of the individual
(as would any productive syndicate).

I.4.14 What about the person who will not work? 

Anarchism is based on voluntary labour. If people do not desire to work
then they cannot (must not) be forced to. The question arises of what
to do with those (a small minority, to be sure) who refuse to work.

On this question there is some disagreement. Some anarchists, particularly
communist-anarchists, argue that the lazy should not be deprived of
the means of life. Social pressure, they argue, would force those
who take, but do not contribute to the community, to listen to their
conscience and start producing for the community that supports them.
Other anarchists are less optimistic and agree with Camillo Berneri when
he argues that anarchism should be based upon "no compulsion to work, 
but no duty towards those who do not want to work." ["The Problem of Work", 
in _Why Work?_, Vernon Richards (ed.), p. 74] This means that an anarchist 
society will not continue to feed, clothe, house someone who can produce 
but refuses to. Most anarchists have had enough of the wealthy under
capitalism consuming but not producing and do not see why they should
support a new group of parasites after the revolution.

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 (or by the commune,
as desired by those involved). As child rearing would be considered
"work" along with other more obviously economic tasks, mothers and 
fathers will not have to leave their children unattended and work to 
make ends meet. Instead, consideration will be given to the needs of 
both parents and children as well as the creation of community 
nurseries and child care centres.

We have to stress here that an anarchist society will not deny anyone
the means of life. This would violate the voluntary labour which is at
the heart of all schools of anarchism. Unlike capitalism, the means of
life will not be monopolised by any group -- including the commune. This
means that someone who does not wish to join a commune or who does not
pull their weight within a commune and are expelled will have access to
the means of making a living outside the commune. 

We stated that we stress this fact as many supporters of capitalism
seem to be unable to understand this point (or prefer to ignore it and
so misrepresent the anarchist position). In an anarchist society, no
one will be forced to join a commune simply because they do not have
access to the means of production and/or land required to work alone. 
Unlike capitalism, where access to these essentials of life is dependent
on buying access to them from the capitalist class (and so, effectively,
denied to the vast majority), an anarchist society will ensure that all
have access and have a real choice between living in a commune and
working independently. This access is based on the fundamental difference
between possession and property -- the commune possesses as much land
as it needs, as do non-members. The resources used by them are subject
to the usual possession rationale -- they possess it only as long as
they use it and cannot bar others using it if they do not (i.e., it is
not property).

Thus an anarchist commune remains a voluntary association and ensures
the end of all forms of wage slavery (see also section I.1.4). The
member of the commune has the choice of working as part of a community,
giving according to their abilities and taking according to their
needs (or some other means of organising production and consumption
such as equal income or receiving labour notes, and so on), or
working independently and so free of communal benefits as well as
any commitments (bar those associated with using communal resources
such as roads and so on). 

So, in most, if not all, anarchist communities, individuals have two 
options, either they can join a commune and work together as equals, or 
they can work as an individual or independent co-operative and exchange 
the product of their labour with others. If an individual joins a commune 
and does not carry their weight, even after their fellow workers ask them 
to, then that person will possibly be expelled and given enough land, tools 
or means of production to work alone. Of course, if a person is depressed, 
run down or otherwise finding it hard to join in communal responsibilities 
then their friends and fellow workers would do everything in their power 
to help and be flexible in their approach to the problem.

Some anarchist communities may introduce what Lewis Mumford termed
"basic communism." This means that everyone would get a basic amount
of "purchasing power," regardless of productive activity. If some
people were happy with this minimum of resources then they need not
work. If they want access to the full benefits of the commune, then
they could take part in the communal labour process. This could be
a means of eliminating all forces, even communal ones, which drive
a person to work and so ensure that all labour is fully voluntary
(i.e. not even forced by circumstances). What method a community 
would use would depend on what people in that community thought
was best.

It seems likely, however, that in most anarchist communities people 
will have to work, but how they do so will be voluntary. If people 
did not work then some would live off the labour of those who do work 
and 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 
and an essential way to express oneself. With work being voluntary and 
self-managed, it will become like current day hobbies and many people 
work harder at their hobbies than they do at "real" work (this FAQ
can be considered as an example of this!). 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. As Kropotkin argued (and has been subsequently supported by
empirical evidence), it is *not* work that people hate. Rather
it is overwork, in unpleasant circumstances and under the control
of others that people hate. Reduce the hours of labour, improve 
the working conditions and place the work under self-management
and work will stop being a hated thing. In his own words:

"Repugnant tasks will disappear, because it is evident that
these unhealthy conditions are harmful to society as a whole.
Slaves can submit to them, but free men create new conditions,
and their work will be pleasant and infinitely more productive.
The exceptions of today will be the rule of tomorrow." [_The
Conquest of Bread_, p. 123]

This, combined with the workday being shortened, will help ensure
that only an idiot would desire to work alone. As Malatesta argued, 
the "individual who wished to supply his own material needs by working 
alone would be the slave of his labours." [_The Anarchist Revolution_, 
p. 15]

So, enlightened self-interest would secure the voluntary labour and 
egalitarian distribution anarchists favour in the vast majority of the
population. The parasitism associated with capitalism would be a thing 
of the past. Thus the problem of the "lazy" person fails to understand
the nature of humanity nor the revolutionising effects of freedom and
a free society on the nature and content of work.

I.4.15 What will the workplace of tomorrow look like?

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. After all, "no movement that raises the demand
for workers' councils can be regarded as revolutionary unless it 
tries to promote sweeping transformations in the environment of the
work place." [Murray Bookchin, _Post-Scarcity Anarchism_, p. 146]

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, "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.
[Howard Zinn, _A People's History of the United States_, p. 391] In
the same year, during the Spanish Revolution, collectivised workplaces
also created libraries and education facilities as well as funding
schools, health care and other social necessities (a practice, we
must note, that had started before the revolution when C.N.T. unions
had funded schools, social centres, libraries and so on). 

Therefore the workplace would be expanded to include education and
classes in individual development (and so following Proudhon's comment
that we should "[o]rganise association, and by the same token, every 
workshop becoming a school, every worker becomes a master, every
student an apprentice." [_No Gods, No Masters_, vol. 1, pp. 62-3]). 
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.

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. There would, in effect, be a break down of the city/rural
divide -- workplaces would be placed next to fields and integrated into
the surroundings:

"Have the factory and the workshop at the gates of your fields and
gardens, and work in them. Not those large establishments, of course,
in which huge masses of metals have to be dealt with and which are
better placed at certain spots indicated by Nature, but the countless
variety of workshops and factories which are required to satisfy
the infinite diversity  of tastes among civilised men [and women] . . .
factories and workshops which men, women and children will not be
driven by hunger, but will be attracted by the desire of finding an
activity suited to their tastes, and where, aided by the motor and
the machine, they will choose the branch of activity which best 
suits their inclinations." [Peter Kropotkin, _Fields, Factories
and Workshops Tomorrow_, p. 197]

This vision of rural and urban integration is just part of the
future anarchists see for the workplace. As Kropotkin argued,
"[w]e proclaim *integration*. . . a society of integrated,
combined labour. A society where each individual is a producer 
of both manual and intellectual work; where each able-bodied
human being is a worker, and where each worker works both in 
the field and the industrial workshop; where every aggregation
of individuals, large enough to dispose of a certain variety of
natural resources -- it may be a nation, or rather a region --
produces and itself consumes most of its own agricultural and
manufactured produce." [Op. Cit., p. 26]

The future workplace would be an expression of the desires of 
those who worked there. It would be based around a pleasant working
environment, within gardens and with extensive library, resources 
for education classes and other leisure activities. All this, and 
more, will be possible in a society based upon self-realisation and 
self-expression and one in which individuality is not crushed by 
authority and capitalism. To re-quote Kropotkin, "if most of the 
workshops we know are foul and unhealthy, it is because the workers 
are of no account in the organisation of factories" and "[s]laves 
can submit to them, but free men will create new conditions, and 
their will be pleasant and infinitely more productive." [_The 
Conquest of Bread_, p. 121 and p. 123] 

"So in brief," argued William Morris, "our buildings will be beautiful
with their own beauty of simplicity as workshops . . . [and] besides
the mere workshops, our factory will have other buildings which may
carry ornament further than that, for it will need dinning-hall,
library, school, places for study of different kinds, and other such
structures." 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:

"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 . . .*only* the said gardens, etc. are twenty miles away from 
the factory, *out of the smoke,* and are kept up for *one member of the 
factory only,* the sleeping partner to wit" [_A Factory as It Might Be_, 
p. 9 and pp. 7-8]

Pleasant working conditions based upon the self-management of work can 
produce a workplace within which economic "efficiency" can be achieved
without disrupting and destroying individuality and the environment
(also see section I.4.9 for a fuller discussion of anarchism and
technology).

I.4.16 Won't a libertarian communist society be inefficient?

It is often argued that anarcho-communism and other forms of
non-market libertarian-socialism would promote inefficiency and 
unproductive work. The basis of this argument is that without market 
forces to discipline workers and the profit motive to reward them, 
workers would have no incentive to work in a way which minimises 
time or resources. The net effect of this would be inefficient
use of recourses, particularly individual's time.

This is a valid point in some ways; for example, a society can
(potentially) benefit from increasing productivity as the less 
time it takes to produce a certain good, the more time it gains 
for other activities (although, of course, in a class society
the benefits of increased productivity generally accrue to,
first and foremost, to those at the top). Indeed, for an 
individual, a decent society depends on people having time 
available for them to do what they want, to develop themselves 
in whatever way they want, to enjoy themselves. In addition, 
doing more with less can have a positive environment impact as 
well. And it is for these reasons that an anarchist society 
would be interested in promoting efficiency and productiveness 
during production.

While capitalism has turned improvements in productivity as 
a means of increasing work, enriching the few and generally 
proletarianising the working class, a free society would take
a different approach to the problem. As argued in section I.4.3,
a communist-anarchist society would be based upon this principle:

"for some much per day (in money today, in labour tomorrow)
you are entitled to satisfy -- luxury excepted -- this or
the other of your wants." [Peter Kropotkin, _Small Communal
Experiments and why the fail_, p. 8]

Building upon this, we can imagine a situation where the 
average output for a given industry in a given amount of
time is used to encourage efficiency and productivity. If
a given syndicate can produce this average output with at
least average quality in less time than the agreed 
average/minimum (and without causing ecological or social 
externalities, of course) then the members of that 
syndicate can and should have that time off. 

This would be a powerful incentive to innovate, improve
productivity, introduce new machinery and processes as
well as work efficiently without reintroducing the profit
motive and material inequality. With the possibility of
having more time available for themselves and their own
projects, people involved in productive activities would
have a strong interest in being efficient. Of course, if
the work in question is something they enjoy then any
increases in efficiency would *enhance* what makes their
work enjoyable and not eliminate it. 

Rewarding efficiency with free time would also be an 
important means to ensure efficient use of resources
as well as a means of reducing time spent in productive
activity which was considered as boring or otherwise
undesirable. The incentive of getting unpleasant tasks 
over with as quickly as possible would ensure that the
tasks were done efficiently and that innovation was 
directed towards them.

Moreover, when it came to major investment decisions, a
syndicate would be more likely to get others to agree to
its plans if the syndicate had a reputation of excellence. 
This, again, would encourage efficiency as people would know 
that they could gain resources for their communities and
workplaces (i.e. themselves) more easily if their work
is efficient and reliable. This would be a key means of
encouraging efficient and effective use of resources.

Similarly, an inefficient or wasteful syndicate would
have negative reactions from their fellow workers. As we 
argued in section I.4.7 ("What will stop producers 
ignoring consumers?"), a libertarian communist economy 
would be based on free association. If a syndicate or 
community got a reputation for being inefficient with
resources then others would not associate with them (i.e.
they would not supply them with materials, or place them
at the end of the queue when deciding which production
requests to supply, and so on). As with a syndicate which 
produced shoddy goods, the inefficient syndicate would also 
face the judgement of its peers. This will produce an
environment which will encourage efficient use of resources
and time. 

All these factors, the possibility of increased free time, 
the respect and resources gained for an efficient and excellent
work and the possibility of a lack of co-operation with others
for inefficient use of resources, would ensure that an 
anarchist-communist or anarchist-collectivist society would
have no need to fear inefficiency. Indeed, by placing the benefits
of increased efficiency into the hands of those who do the work, 
efficiency will no doubt increase.

With self-management, we can soon see human time being used
efficiently and productively simply because those doing the 
work would have a direct and real interest in it. Rather than 
alienate their liberty, as under capitalism, they would apply 
their creativity and minds to transforming their productive
activity in such a way as to make it enjoyable and not
a waste of their time.

Little wonder Kropotkin argued, modern knowledge could be
applied to a society in which people, "with the work of
their own hands and intelligence, and by the aid of the
machinery already invented and to be invented, should
themselves create all imaginable riches. Technics and
science will not be lagging behind if production takes
such a direction. Guided by observation, analysis and
experiment, they will answer all possible demands. They
will reduce the time required for producing wealth to any
desired amount, so as to leave to everyone as much
leisure as he or she may ask for. . . they guarantee
. . . the happiness that can be found in the full and 
varied exercise of the different capacities of the
human being, in work that need not be overwork." 
[_Fields, Factories and Workshops Tomorrow_, 
pp. 198-9] 

One last point. A free society will undoubtedly create
new criteria for what counts as an efficient use of
resources and time. What passes for "efficient" use
capitalism often means what is efficient in increasing
the power and profits of the few, without regard to the
wasteful use of individual time, energy and potential
as well as environmental and social costs. Such a narrow
criteria for decision making or evaluating efficient production 
will not exist in an anarchist society (see our discussion
of the irrational nature of the price mechanism in section
I.1.2, for example). While we use the term efficiency we mean 
the dictionary definition of efficiency (i.e. reducing waste, 
maximising use of resources) rather than what the capitalist 
market distorts this into (i.e. what creates most profits for 
the boss).

I.5 What could the social structure of anarchy look like? 

The social and political structure of anarchy is similar to 
that of the economic structure, i.e., it is based on a voluntary 
federation of decentralised, directly democratic policy-making 
bodies. These are the neighbourhood and community assemblies and
their confederations. In these grassroots political units, the 
concept of "self-management" becomes that of "self-government", a 
form of municipal organisation in which people take back control 
of their living places from the bureaucratic state and the capitalist 
class whose interests it serves. 

"A new economic phase demands a new political phase," argued
Kropotkin, "A revolution as profound as that dreamed of by
the [libertarian] socialists cannot accept the mould of an
out-dated political life. A new society based on equality of
condition, on the collective possession of the instruments of
work, cannot tolerate for a week . . . the representative
system . . . if we want the social revolution, we must seek
a form of political organisation that will correspond to the
new method of economic organisation. . . . The future belongs
to the free groupings of interests and not to governmental
centralisation; it belongs to freedom and not to authority."
[_Words of a Rebel_, pp. 143-4]

Thus the social structure of an anarchist society will be the opposite
of the current system. Instead of being centralised and top-down as
in the state, it will be decentralised and organised from the bottom
up. As Kropotkin argued, "socialism must become *more popular*, more 
communalistic, and less dependent upon indirect government through 
elected representatives. It must become more *self-governing.*"
[_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_, p. 185] While anarchists
have various different conceptions of how this communal system
would be constituted (as we will see), they is total agreement
on these basic visions and principles.

This empowerment of ordinary citizens through decentralisation and 
direct democracy will eliminate the alienation and apathy that are 
now rampant in the modern city and town, and (as always happens when 
people are free) unleash a flood of innovation in dealing with the 
social breakdown now afflicting our urban wastelands. The gigantic 
metropolis with its hierarchical and impersonal administration, its 
atomised and isolated "residents," will be transformed into a network 
of humanly scaled participatory communities (usually called "communes"), 
each with its own unique character and forms of self-government, which 
will be co-operatively linked through federation with other communities 
at several levels, from the municipal through the bioregional to the 
global.

Of course, it can (and has) been argued that people are just not
interested in "politics." Further, some claim that this disinterest 
is why governments exist -- people delegate their responsibilities and 
power to others because they have better things to do. Such an
argument, however, is flawed on empirical grounds. As we indicated
in section B.2.6, centralisation of power in both the French and
American revolutions occurred *because* working people were taking
*too much* interest in politics and social issues, not the reverse
("To attack the central power, to strip it of its prerogatives,
to decentralise, to dissolve authority, would have been to abandon
to the people the control of its affairs, to run the risk of a
truly popular revolution. That is why the bourgeoisie sought to
reinforce the central government even more. . ." [Kropotkin,
_Words of a Rebel_, p. 143]).

Simply put, the state is centralised to facilitate *minority rule* 
by excluding the mass of people from taking part in the decision 
making processes within society. This is to be expected as social 
structures do not evolve by chance -- rather they develop to meet 
specific needs and requirements. The specific need of the ruling 
class is to rule and that means marginalising the bulk of the 
population. Its requirement is for minority power and this is 
transformed into the structure of the state (and the capitalist 
company). 

Even if we ignore the historical evidence on this issue, anarchists
do not draw this conclusion from the current apathy that surrounds 
us. In fact, we argue that this apathy is not the cause of 
government but its result. Government is an inherently hierarchical 
system in which ordinary people are deliberately marginalised. The 
powerlessness people feel due to the workings of the system ensure 
that they are apathetic about it, thus guaranteeing that wealthy 
and powerful elites govern society without hindrance from the 
oppressed and exploited majority. 

Moreover, government usually sticks its nose into areas that 
most people have no real interest in. Some things, as in the 
regulation of industry or workers' safety and rights, a free 
society could leave to those affected to make their own 
decisions (we doubt that workers would subject themselves to 
unsafe working conditions, for example). In others, such as 
the question of personal morality and acts, a free people 
would have no interest in (unless it harmed others, of course). 
This, again, would reduce the number of issues that would
be discussed in a free commune.

Also, via decentralisation, a free people would be mainly 
discussing local issues, so reducing the complexity of many
questions and solutions. Wider issues would, of course, be
discussed but these would be on specific issues and so
more focused in their nature than those raised in the
legislative bodies of the state. So, a combination of 
centralisation and an irrational desire to discuss every 
and all questions also helps make "politics" seem boring 
and irrelevant.

As noted above, this result is not an accident and the 
marginalisation of "ordinary" people is actually celebrated 
in bourgeois "democratic" theory. As Noam Chomsky notes:

"Twentieth century democratic theorists advise that 'The public 
mmust be put in its place,' so that the 'responsible men' may 
'live free of the trampling and roar of a bewildered herd,' 
'ignorant and meddlesome outsiders' whose 'function' is to be 
'interested spectators of action,' not participants, lending 
their weight periodically to one or another of the leadership 
class (elections), then returning to their private concerns. 
(Walter Lippman). The great mass of the population, 'ignorant
and mentally deficient,' must be kept in their place for the 
common good, fed with 'necessary illusion' and 'emotionally 
potent oversimplifications' (Wilson's Secretary of State 
Robert Lansing, Reinhold Niebuhr). Their 'conservative' 
counterparts are only more extreme in their adulation of the
Wise Men who are the rightful rulers -- in the service of the 
rich and powerful, a minor footnote regularly forgotten." 
[_Year 501_, p. 18]

As discussed in Section B.2.6 ("Who benefits from centralisation?") 
this marginalisation of the public from political life ensures that 
the wealthy can be "left alone" to use their power as they see fit. 
In other words, such marginalisation is a necessary part of a fully 
functioning capitalist society. Hence, under capitalism, libertarian 
social structures have to be discouraged. Or as Chomsky puts it, the 
"rabble must be instructed in the values of subordination and a
narrow quest for personal gain within the parameters set by the
institutions of the masters; meaningful democracy, with popular
association and action, is a threat to be overcome." [Op. Cit., 
p. 18] This philosophy can be seen in the statement of a US Banker 
in Venezuela under the murderous Jimenez dictatorship:

"You have the freedom here to do whatever you want to do with your 
money, and to me, that is worth all the political freedom in the 
world." [quoted by Chomsky, Op. Cit., p. 99]

Deterring libertarian alternatives to statism is a common feature of our
current system. By marginalising and disempowering people, the ability of
individuals to manage their own social activities is undermined and
weakened. They develop a "fear of freedom" and embrace authoritarian 
institutions and "strong leaders," which in turn reinforces their 
marginalisation.

This consequence is hardly surprising. Anarchists maintain that the 
desire to participate and the ability to participate are in a symbiotic 
relationship: participation feeds on itself. By creating the social 
structures that allow participation, participation will increase. As 
people increasingly take control of their lives, so their ability to 
do so also increases. The challenge of having to take responsibility 
for decisions that make a difference is at the same time an opportunity 
for personal development. To begin to feel power, having previously felt 
powerless, to win access to the resources required for effective 
participation and learn how to use them, is a liberating experience. 
Once people become active subjects, making things happen in one aspect 
of their lives, they are less likely to remain passive objects, allowing 
things to happen to them, in other aspects. All in all, "politics" is far 
too important an subject to leave to politicians, the wealthy and 
bureaucrats. After all, it is what affects, your friends, community, 
and, ultimately, the planet you live on. Such issues cannot be left 
to anyone but you.

Hence a meaningful communal life based on self-empowered individuals is  
a distinct possibility (indeed, it has repeatedly appeared throughout
history). It is the hierarchical structures in statism and capitalism, 
marginalising and disempowering the majority, which is at the root of 
the current wide scale apathy in the face of increasing social and
ecological disruption. Libertarian socialists therefore call for a 
radically new form of political system to replace the centralised 
nation-state, a form that would be based around confederations of
self-governing communities. In other words, in anarchism "*[s]ociety 
is a society of societies; a league of leagues of leagues; a 
commonwealth of commonwealths of commonwealths; a republic of 
republics of republics.* Only there is freedom and order, only 
there is spirit, a spirit which is self-sufficiency and community, 
unity and independence." [Gustav Landauer, _For Socialism_, 
pp. 125-126]

To create such a system would require dismantling the nation-state 
and reconstituting relations between communities on the basis of
self-determination and free and equal confederation from below. In the
following subsections we  will examine in more detail why this new system
is needed and what it might look like. As we stressed in the introduction,
these are just suggestions of possible anarchist solutions to social
organisation. Most anarchists recognise that anarchist communities
will co-exist with non-anarchist ones after the destruction of the 
existing state. As we are anarchists we are discussing anarchist visions.
We will leave it up to non-anarchists to paint their own pictures of
a possible future.

I.5.1 What are participatory communities? 

As Murray Bookchin argues in _The Rise of Urbanisation and the 
Decline of Citizenship_ (reprinted as _From Urbanisation to
Cities_), the modern city is a virtual appendage of the capitalist
workplace, being an outgrowth and essential counterpart of the 
factory (where "factory" means any enterprise in which surplus 
value is extracted from employees). As such, cities are structured 
and administered primarily to serve the needs of the capitalist 
elite -- employers -- rather than the needs of the many -- their 
employees and their families. From this standpoint, the city must
be seen as (1) a transportation hub for importing raw materials 
and exporting finished products; and (2) a huge dormitory for 
wage slaves, conveniently locating them near the enterprises 
where their labour is to exploited, providing them with 
entertainment, clothing, medical facilities, etc. as well 
as coercive mechanisms for controlling their behaviour. 

The attitude behind the management of these "civic" functions 
by the bureaucratic servants of the capitalist ruling class is 
purely instrumental: worker-citizens are to be treated merely 
aas means to corporate ends, not as ends in themselves. This 
attitude is reflected in the overwhelmingly alienating features 
of the modern city: its inhuman scale; the chilling impersonality 
of its institutions and functionaries; its sacrifice of health, 
comfort, pleasure, and aesthetic considerations to bottom-line 
requirements of efficiency and "cost effectiveness"; the lack 
of any real communal interaction among residents other than
collective consumption of commodities and amusements; their 
consequent social isolation and tendency to escape into 
television, alcohol, drugs, gangs, etc. Such features make 
the modern metropolis the very antithesis of the genuine 
community for which most of its residents hunger. This 
contradiction at the heart of the system contains the 
possibility of radical social and political change.

The key to that change, from the anarchist standpoint, is the 
creation of a network of participatory communities based on 
self-government through direct, face-to-face democracy in 
grassroots neighbourhood and community assemblies. As we
argued in section I.2.3 such assemblies will be born in 
social struggle and so reflect the needs of the struggle 
and those within it so our comments here must be considered
as generalisations of the salient features of such communities
and *not* blue-prints. 

Traditionally, these participatory communities were called 
*communes* in anarchist theory ("The basic social and economic 
cell of the anarchist society is the free, independent commune"
[A. Grachev, quoted by Paul Avrich, _The Anarchists in the
Russian Revolution_, p. 64]). Within anarchist thought, 
there are two main conceptions of the free commune. One
vision is based on workplace delegates, the other on 
neighbourhood assemblies. We will sketch each in turn.

Bakunin argued that the "future social organisation must
be made solely from the bottom upwards, by the free 
association or federation of workers, firstly in their
unions, then in communes, regions, nations and finally
in a great federation, international and universal."
In other words, "the federative Alliance of all working
men's associations . . . will constitute the commune."
[_Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings_, p. 206 and p. 170]

This vision of the commune was created during many 
later revolutions (such as in Russia in 1905 and 1917
and Hungary in 1956). Being based on workplaces, this 
form of commune has the advantage of being based on 
groups of people who are naturally associated during 
most of the day (Bakunin considered workplace bodies
as "the natural organisation of the masses" as they
were "based on the various types of work" which 
"define their actual day-to-day life" [_The Basic
Bakunin_, p. 139]). This would facilitate the 
organisation of assemblies, discussion on social,
economic and political issues and the mandating and
recalling of delegates. Moreover, it combines political
and economic power in one organisation, so ensuring
that the working class actually manages society.

This vision was stressed by later anarchist thinkers.
For example, Spanish anarchist Issac Puente thought
that in towns and cities "the part of the free 
municipality is played by local federation. . . 
Ultimate sovereignty in the local federation
of industrial unions lies with the general assembly
of all local producers." [_Libertarian Communism_,
p. 27] The Russian anarchist G. P. Maximoff saw
the "communal confederation" as being "constituted
by thousands of freely acting labour organisations."
[_The Program of Anarcho-Syndicalism_, p. 43]

Other anarchists counterpoise neighbourhood assemblies to 
workers' councils. These assemblies will be general meetings 
open to all citizens in every neighbourhood, town, and village, 
and will be the source of and final "authority" over public 
policy for all levels of confederal co-ordination. Such "town 
meetings" will bring ordinary people directly into the political 
process and give them an equal voice in the decisions that affect 
their lives. Such anarchists point to the experience of the
French Revolution of 1789 and the "sections" of the Paris 
Commune as the key example of "a people governing itself 
directly -- when possible -- without intermediaries, without 
masters." It is argued, based on this experience, that "the 
principles of anarchism . . . dated from 1789, and that they 
had their origin, not in theoretical speculations, but in the 
*deeds* of the Great French Revolution." [Peter Kropotkin, 
_The Great French Revolution_, vol. 1, p. 210 and p. 204] 

Critics of workers' councils point out that not all working
class people work in factories or workplaces. Many are
parents who look after children, for example. By basing
the commune around the workplace, such people are 
automatically excluded. Moreover, in most modern cities
many people do not live near where they work. It would
mean that local affairs could not be effectively discussed
in a system of workers' councils as many who take part
in the debate are unaffected by the decisions reached
(this is something which the supporters of workers' 
councils *have* noticed and argue for councils which 
are delegates from both the inhabitants *and* the 
enterprises of an area).

In addition, anarchists like Murray Bookchin argue that
workplace based systems automatically generate "special
interests" and so exclude community issues. Only community
assemblies can "transcend the traditional special interests 
of work, workplace, status, and property relations, and
create a *general* interest based on shared community
problems." [Murray Bookchin, _From Urbanisation to Cities_,
p. 254]

However, such communities assemblies can only be valid if
they can be organised rapidly in order to make decisions
and to mandate and recall delegates. In the capitalist city,
many people work far from where they live and so such
meetings have to be called for after work or at weekends.
Thus the key need is to reduce the working day/week and
to communalise industry. For this reason, many anarchists
continue to support the workers' council vision of the
commune, complemented by community assemblies for those
who live in an area but do not work in a traditional
workplace (e.g. parents bring up small children, the 
old, the sick and so on).

These positions are not hard and fast divisions, far from it.
Puente, for example, thought that in the countryside the
dominant commune would be "all the residents of a village
or hamlet meeting in an assembly (council) with full
powers to administer local affairs." [Op. Cit., p. 25]
Kropotkin supported the soviets of the Russian Revolution,
arguing that the "idea of soviets . . . of councils of
workers and peasants . . . controlling the economic and
political life of the country is a great idea. All the
more so, since it necessarily follows that these councils
should be composed of all who take part in the production
of natural wealth by their own efforts." [_Kropotkin's
Revolutionary Pamphlets_, p. 254] 

Which method, workers' councils or community assemblies, will 
be used in a given community will depend on local conditions,
needs and aspirations and it is useless to draw hard and
fast rules. It is likely that some sort of combination of 
the two approaches will be used, with workers' councils being
complemented by community assemblies until such time as
a reduced working week and decentralisation of urban centres
will make purely community assemblies the more realistic
option. It is likely that in a fully libertarian society,
community assemblies will be the dominant communal organisation
but in the period immediately after a revolution this may
not be immediately possible. Objective conditions, rather 
than predictions, will be the deciding factor. Under
capitalism, anarchists pursue both forms of organisation,
arguing for community *and* industrial unionism in the
class struggle (see sections J.5.1 and J.5.2).

Regardless of the exact make up of the commune, they would
share identical features. They would be free associations, 
based upon the self-assumed obligation of those who join them. 
In free association, participation is essential simply because 
it is the *only* means by which individuals can collectively 
govern themselves (and unless they govern themselves, someone 
else will). "As a unique individual," Stirner argues, "you can
assert yourself alone in association, because the association 
does not own you, because you are one who owns it or who turns 
it to your own advantage." The rules governing the association 
aare determined by the associated and can be changed by them 
(and so a vast improvement over "love it or leave") as are 
the policies the association follows. Thus, the association 
"does not impose itself as a spiritual power superior to my 
spirit. I have no wish to become a slave to my maxims, but
would rather subject them to my ongoing criticism." [Max 
Stirner, _No Gods, No Masters_, vol. 1, p. 17]

Thus participatory communities are freely joined and self-managed 
by their members. No more division between order givers and order 
takers as exist within the state or capitalist workplaces. Rather 
the associated govern themselves and while the assembled people 
collectively decide the rules governing their association, and 
are bound by them as individuals, they are also superior to them
in the sense that these rules can always be modified or repealed 
(see section A.2.11 -- "Why are most anarchists in favour of direct 
democracy?" -- for more details). As can be seen, a participatory 
commune is new form of social life, radically different from the 
state as it is decentralised, self-governing and based upon
individual autonomy and free agreement. Thus Kropotkin:

"The representative system was organised by the bourgeoisie to
ensure their domination, and it will disappear with them. For
the new economic phase that is about to begin we must seek a
new form of political organisation, based on a principle quite
different from that of representation. The logic of events
imposes it." [_Words of a Rebel_, p. 125]

This "new form of political organisation has to be worked out 
the moment that socialistic principles shall enter our life. 
And it is self-evident that this new form will have to be 
*more popular, more decentralised, and nearer to the folk-mote 
self-government* than representative government can  ever be." 
[Kropotkin, _Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_, p. 184] He, 
like all anarchists, considered the idea that socialism could 
be created by taking over the current state or creating a new 
one as doomed to failure. Instead, he recognised that socialism 
would only be built using new organisations that reflect the 
spirit of socialism (such as freedom, self-government and so 
on). Kropotkin, like Proudhon and Bakunin before him, therefore 
argued that "*[t]his was the form that the social revolution 
must take* -- the independent commune. . . [whose] inhabitants 
have decided that they *will* communalise the consumption of 
commodities, their exchange and their production." [Op. Cit., 
p. 163]

In a nutshell, a participatory community is a free association, 
based upon the mass assembly of people who live in a common area, 
the means by which they make the decisions that affect them, 
their communities, bio-regions and the planet. Their essential 
task is to provide a forum for raising public issues and deciding 
them. Moreover, these assemblies will be a key way of generating 
a community (and community spirit) and building and enriching 
social relationships between individuals and, equally important, 
of developing and enriching individuals by the very process of 
participation in communal affairs. By discussing, thinking and 
listening to others, individuals develop their own abilities and
powers while at the same time managing their own affairs, so 
ensuring that no one else does (i.e. they govern themselves 
and are no longer governed from above by others). As Kropotkin 
argued, self-management has an educational effect on those who 
practice it:

"The 'permanence' of the general assemblies of the sections
-- that is, the possibility of calling the general assembly
whenever it was wanted by the members of the section and of
discussing everything in the general assembly. . . will educate 
every citizen politically. . . The section in permanence
-- the forum always open -- is the only way . . . to
assure an honest and intelligent administration." [_The
Great French Revolution_, vol. 1, pp. 210-1]

As well as integrating the social life of a community and
encouraging the political and social development of its
members, these free communes will also be integrated into 
the local ecology. Humanity would life in harmony with nature 
as well as with itself:


"We can envision that their squares will be interlaced by 
streams, their places of assembly surrounded by groves, their 
physical contours respected and tastefully landscaped, their 
soils nurtured carefully to foster plant variety for ourselves, 
our domestic animals, and wherever possible the wildlife they 
may support on their fringes." [Murray Bookchin, _The Ecology 
of Freedom_, p. 344]

The commune itself would aim for a balanced mix of agriculture
and industry, as described by Peter Kropotkin in his classic work 
_Fields, Factories and Workshops_. Thus a free commune would aim to 
integrate the individual into social and communal life, rural and 
urban life into a balanced whole and human life into the wider 
ecology. In this way the free commune would make human habitation 
fully ecological, ending the sharp and needless (and dehumanising 
and de-individualising) division of human life from the rest of 
the planet. The commune will be a key means of the expressing 
diversity within humanity and the planet as well as improving 
the quality of life in society:

"The Commune . . . will be entirely devoted to improving the communal
life of the locality. Making their requests to the appropriate 
Syndicates, Builders', Public Health, Transport or Power, the
inhabitants of each Commune will be able to gain all reasonable
living amenities, town planning, parks, play-grounds, trees in
the street, clinics, museums and art galleries. Giving, like the
medieval city assembly, an opportunity for any interested person
to take part in, and influence, his town's affairs and appearance,
the Commune will be a very different body from the borough council. . .

"In ancient and medieval times cities and villages expressed the
different characters of different localities and their inhabitants.
In redstone, Portland or granite, in plaster or brick, in pitch of
roof, arrangements of related buildings or patterns of slate and 
thatch each locality added to the interests of travellers . . .
each expressed itself in castle, home or cathedral.

"How different is the dull, drab, or flashy ostentatious monotony
of modern England. Each town is the same. The same Woolworth's,
Odeon Cinemas, and multiple shops, the same 'council houses' or
'semi-detached villas' . . . North, South, East or West, what's
the difference, where is the change?

"With the Commune the ugliness and monotony of present town and
country life will be swept away, and each locality and region,
each person will be able to express the joy of living, by living
together." [Tom Brown, _Syndicalism_, p. 59]

The size of the neighbourhood assemblies will vary, but it will probably
fluctuate around some ideal size, discoverable in practice, that will
provide a viable scale of face-to-face interaction and allow for both 
a variety of personal contacts and the opportunity to know and form a
personal estimation of everyone in the neighbourhood. Some anarchists 
have suggested that the ideal size for a neighbourhood assembly might 
be under one thousand adults. This, of course, suggests that any town
or city would itself be a confederation of assemblies -- as was, of
course, practised very effectively in Paris during the Great French
Revolution. 

Such assemblies would meet regularly, at the very least monthly
(probably more often, particularly during periods which require
fast and often decision making, like a revolution), and deal with 
a variety of issues. In the words of the CNT's resolution on
libertarian communism:

"the foundation of this administration will be the commune. 
These communes are to be autonomous and will be federated at 
regional and national levels to achieve their general goals. 
The right to autonomy does not preclude the duty to implement 
agreements regarding collective benefits.

"[The] commune . . . without any voluntary restrictions will 
undertake to adhere to whatever general norms may be agreed by 
majority vote after free debate. In return, those communities 
which industrialisation . . .  may agree upon a different model 
of co-existence and will be entitled to an autonomous 
administration released from the general commitments . . .

". . . the commune is to be autonomous and confederated with the
other communes . . . the commune will have the duty to concern 
itself with whatever may be of interest to the individual.

"It will have to oversee organising, running and beautification of 
the settlement. It will see that its inhabitants; are housed and 
that items and products be made available to them by the producers' 
unions or associations.

"Similarly, it is concern itself with hygiene, the keeping of
communal statistics and with collective requirements such as
education, health services and with the maintenance and 
improvement of local means of communication.

"It will orchestrate relations with other communes and will 
take care to stimulate all artistic and cultural pursuits.

"So that this mission may be properly fulfilled, a communal
council is to be appointed . . . None of these posts will
carry any executive or bureaucratic powers . . . [its members]
will perform their role as producers coming together in session 
at the close of the day's work to discuss the detailed items 
which may not require the endorsement of communal assemblies.

"Assemblies are to be summoned as often as required by 
communal interests, upon the request of the communal council
or according to the wishes of the inhabitants of each
commune . . . 

"The inhabitants of a commune are to debate among themselves 
their internal problems . . . Federations are to deliberate 
over major problems affecting a country or province and all 
communes are to be represented at their reunions and assemblies, 
thereby enabling their delegates to convey the democratic 
viewpoint of their respective communes . . . every commune 
which is implicated will have its right to have its say . . . 
On matters of a regional nature, it is the duty of the regional 
federation to implement agreements . . . So the starting point 
is the individual, moving on through the commune, to the 
federation and right on up finally to the confederation." 
[quoted by Jose Peirats, _The CNT in the Spanish Revolution_, 
vol. 1, pp. 106-7]

Thus the communal assembly discusses that which affects the
community and those within it. As these local community 
associations, will be members of larger communal bodies,
the communal assembly will also discuss issues which affect
wider areas, as indicated, and mandate their delegates to
discuss them at confederation assemblies (see next section). 
This system, we must note, was applied with great success
during the Spanish revolution (see section I.8) and so
cannot be dismissed as wishful thinking.

However, of course, the actual framework of a free society will 
be worked out in practice. As Bakunin correctly argued, society 
"can, and must, organise itself in a different fashion [than what 
came before], but not from top to bottom and according to an ideal 
plan." [_Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings_, p. 205] What does 
seem likely is that confederations of communes will be required. 
We turn to this in the next section.

I.5.2 Why are confederations of participatory communities needed? 

Since not all issues are local, the neighbourhood and community 
assemblies will also elect mandated and recallable delegates to 
the larger-scale units of self-government in order to address 
issues affecting larger areas, such as urban districts, the city 
or town as a whole, the county, the bio-region, and ultimately 
the entire planet. Thus the assemblies will confederate at 
several levels in order to develop and co-ordinate common 
policies to deal with common problems. 

In the words of the CNT's resolution on libertarian communism:

"The inhabitants of a commune are to debate among themselves their 
internal problems . . . Federations are to deliberate over major 
problems affecting a country or province and all communes are to be 
represented at their reunions and assemblies, thereby enabling 
their delegates to convey the democratic viewpoint of their 
respective communes.

"If, say, roads have to be built to link villages of a county 
or any matter arises to do with transportation and exchange 
of produce between agricultural and industrial counties, then
naturally every commune which is implicated will have its right 
to have its say.

"On matters of a regional nature, it is the duty of the regional 
federation to implement agreements which will represent the 
sovereign will of all the region's inhabitants. So the starting 
point is the individual, moving on through the commune, to the 
federation and right on up finally to the confederation.

"Similarly, discussion of all problems of a national nature
shall flow a like pattern . . . " [quoted by Jose Peirats, 
_The CNT in the Spanish Revolution_, p. 107]

In other words, the commune "cannot any longer acknowledge 
any superior: that, above it, there cannot be anything, save the 
interests of the Federation, freely embraced by itself in concert 
with other Communes." [Kropotkin, _No Gods, No Masters_, vol. 1, 
p. 259] 

Federalism is applicable at all levels of society. As Kropotkin 
pointed out, anarchists "understand that if no central government 
was needed to rule the independent communes, if national 
government is thrown overboard and national unity is obtained by 
free federation, then a central *municipal* government becomes 
equally useless and noxious. The same federative principle would 
do within the commune." [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_, 
pp. 163-164] Thus the whole of society would be a free federation, 
from the local community right up to the global level. And this 
free federation would be based squarely on the autonomy and 
self-government of local groups. With federalism, co-operation 
replaces coercion.

This need for co-operation does not imply a centralised body. 
To exercise your autonomy by joining self-managing organisations 
and, therefore, agreeing to abide by the decisions you help make 
is not a denial of that autonomy (unlike joining a hierarchical 
structure, where you forsake autonomy *within* the organisation). 
In a *centralised* system, we must stress, *power* rests at the 
top and the role of those below is simply to obey (it matters not 
if those with the power are elected or not, the principle is the 
same). In a *federal* system, power is *not* delegated into the 
hands of a few (obviously a "federal" government or state is a 
centralised system). Decisions in a federal system are made at 
the base of the organisation and flow upwards so ensuring that
power remains decentralised in the hands of all. Working together 
to solve common problems and organise common efforts to reach
common goals is not centralisation and those who confuse the 
two make a serious error -- they fail to understand the
different relations of authority each generates and confuse
obedience with co-operation.

As in the economic federation of collectives, the lower levels will 
control the higher, thus eliminating the current pre-emptive powers 
of centralised government hierarchies. Delegates to higher-level 
co-ordinating councils or conferences will be instructed, at every 
level of confederation, by the assemblies they represent, on how to 
deal with any issue. These instructions will be binding, committing 
delegates to a framework of policies within which they must act and 
providing for their recall and the nullification of their decisions 
if they fail to carry out their mandates. Delegates may be selected 
by election and/or sortition (i.e. random selection by lot, as for 
jury duty currently). 

Most anarchists recognise that there will be a need for "public 
officials" with specific tasks within the social confederation. 
We stress the word "tasks" as "powers" would not be the best word 
to describe their activities simply because their work is 
essentially administrative in nature. For example, an individual 
or a group of individuals may be elected to look into alternative 
power supplies for a community and report back on what they discover.
They cannot impose their decision *onto* the community as they
do not have the power to do so. They simply present their findings 
to the body which had mandated them. These findings are *not* a 
law which the electors are required to follow, but a series of 
suggestions and information from which the electors chose what 
they think is best. Or, to use another example, someone may be 
elected to overlook the installation of a selected power supply 
but the decision on what power supply to use and which specific 
project to implement has been decided upon by the whole community. 
Similarly with any delegate elected to a confederal council.
Such a delegate will have their decisions mandated by their
electors and are subject to recall by those electors. If such
a delegate starts to abuse their position or even vote in ways
opposed to by the communal assembly then they would quickly
be recalled and replaced.

As such a person is an elected delegate of the community, they are 
a "public official" in the broadest sense of the word but that
does not mean that they have power or authority. Essentially they
are an agent of the local community who is controlled by, and 
accountable to, that community. Clearly, such "officials" are 
unlike politicians. They do not, and cannot, make policy 
decisions on behalf of those who elected them, and so they 
do not have governmental power over those who elected them.
By this method the "officials" remain the servants of the 
public and are not given power to make decisions for people. 
In addition, these "officials" will be rotated frequently to 
prevent a professionalisation of politics and the problem of 
politicians being largely on their own once elected. And, of
course, they will continue to work and live with those who
elected them and receive no special privileges due to their
election (in terms of more income, better housing, and so on).

Therefore, such "public officials" would be under the strict control of
the organisations that elected them to administration posts. But, as
Kropotkin argued, the general assembly of the community "in permanence -
the forum always open -- is the only way . . .to assure an honest and
intelligent administration . . . [and is based upon] *distrust of all 
executive powers.*" [_The Great French Revolution_ Vol. 1, p. 211]

As Murray Bookchin argues, a "confederalist view involves a clear 
distinction between policy making and the co-ordination and execution 
of adopted policies. Policy making is exclusively the right of popular 
community assemblies based on the practices of participatory democracy. 
Administration and co-ordination are the responsibility of confederal 
councils, which become the means for interlinking villages, towns, 
neighbourhoods, and cities into confederal networks. Power flows from 
the bottom up instead of from the top down, and in confederations, 
the flow of power from the bottom up diminishes with the scope of 
the federal council ranging territorially from localities to
regions and from regions to ever-broader territorial areas." 
[_From Urbanisation to Cities_, p. 253]

Thus the people will have the final word on policy, which is the 
essence of self-government, and each citizen will have his or her 
turn to participate in the co-ordination of public affairs. In 
other words, the "legislative branch" of self-government will be 
the people themselves organised in their community assemblies and 
their confederal co-ordinating councils, with the "executive 
branch" (public officials) limited to implementing policy 
formulated by the legislative branch, that is, by the people.

Besides rotation of public officials, means to ensure the 
accountability of such officials to the people will include 
a wider use of elections and sortitions, open access to 
proceedings and records of "executive" activities by 
computer or direct inspection, the right of citizen 
assemblies to mandate delegates to higher-level confederal 
meetings, recall their officials, and revoke their decisions, 
and the creation of accountability boards, elected or selected 
by lot (as for jury duty), for each important administrative 
branch, from local to national. 

Thus confederations of communes are required to co-ordinate joint
activity and discuss common issues and interests. Confederation is 
also required to protect individual, community and social freedom.
The current means of co-ordinating wide scale activity -- centralism
via the state -- is a threat to freedom as, to quote Proudhon, "the
citizen divests himself of sovereignty, the town and the Department
and province above it, absorbed by central authority, are no longer 
anything but agencies under direct ministerial control." He continues:

"The Consequences soon make themselves felt: the citizen and the
town are deprived of all dignity, the state's depredations multiply,
and the burden on the taxpayer increases in proportion. It is no
longer the government that is made for the people; it is the people
who are made for the government. Power invades everything, dominates
everything, absorbs everything. . ." [_The Principle of Federation_,
p. 59]

Moreover, "[t]he principle of political centralism is openly
opposed to all laws of social progress and of natural evolution.
It lies in the nature of things that every cultural advance is
first achieved within a small group and only gradually finds
adoption by society as a whole. Therefore, political decentralisation
is the best guaranty for the unrestricted possibilities of new
experiments. For such an environment each community is given the
opportunity to carry through the things which it is capable of
accomplishing itself without imposing them on others. Practical
experimentation is the parent of ever development in society. So
long as each distinct is capable of effecting the changes within
its own sphere which its citizens deem necessary, the example of
each becomes a fructifying influence on the other parts of the
community since they will have the chance to weigh the advantages
accruing from them without being forced to adopt them if they are
not convinced of their usefulness. The result is that progressive
communities serve the others as models, a result justified by
the natural evolution of things." [Rudolf Rocker, _Pioneers
of American Freedom_, pp. 16-7]

The contrast with centralisation of the state could not be more
clear. As Rocker argues, "[i]n a strongly centralised state, the
situation is entirely reversed and the best system of representation
can do nothing to change that. The representatives of a certain
district may have the overwhelming majority of a certain district
on his [or her] side, but in the legislative assembly of the central
state, he [or she] will remain in the minority, for it lies in the
nature of things that in such a body not the intellectually most
active but the most backward districts represent the majority. Since
the individual district has indeed the right to give expression of
its opinion, but can effect no changes without the consent of 
the central government, the most progressive districts will be 
condemned to stagnate while the most backward districts will 
set the norm." [Op. Cit., p. 17]

Little wonder anarchists have always stressed what Kropotkin termed
"local action" and considered the libertarian social revolution as
"proceed[ing] by proclaiming independent Communes which Communes
will endeavour to accomplish the economic transformation within
. . . their respective surroundings." [Peter Kropotkin, _Act For
Yourselves_, p. 43] Thus the advanced communities will inspire 
the rest to follow them by showing them a practical example of 
what is possible. Only decentralisation and confederation can
promote the freedom and resulting social experimentation which 
will ensure social progress and make society a good place to live.

Moreover, confederation is required to maximise self-management.
As Rocker explains, "[i]n a smaller community, it is far easier
for individuals to observe the political scene and become 
acquainted with the issues which have to be resolved. This is
quite impossible for a representative in a centralised government.
Neither the single citizen nor his [or her] representative
is completely or even approximately to supervise the huge 
clockwork of the central state machine. The deputy is forced
daily to make decisions about things of which he [or she] has 
no personal knowledge and for the appraisal of which he must
therefore depend on others [i.e. bureaucrats and lobbyists].
That such a system necessarily leads to serious errors and
mistakes is self-evident. And since the citizen for the same
reason is not able to inspect and criticise the conduct of
his representative, the class of professional politicians
is given added opportunity to fish in troubled waters." 
[Op. Cit., p. 17-18]

In other words, confederations are required to protect society
and the individual against the dangers of centralisation. As
Bakunin stressed, there are two ways of organising society,
"as it is today, from high to low and from the centre to 
circumference by means of enforced unity and concentration"
and the way of the future, by federalism "starting with the
free individual, the free association and the autonomous
commune, from low to high and from circumference to centre,
by means of free federation." [_Michael Bakunin: Selected
Writings_, p. 88] In other words, "the organisation of 
society from the bottom up." [_The Basic Bakunin_, p. 131]

Thus confederations of participatory communities are required 
to co-ordinate joint activities, allow social experimentation and 
protect the distinctiveness, dignity, freedom and self-management 
of communities and so society as a whole. This is why "socialism 
is federalist" and "true federalism, the political organisation of 
socialism, will be attained only when these popular grass-roots 
institutions [namely, "communes, industrial and agricultural 
associations"] are organised in progressive stages from the bottom 
up." [_Bakunin on Anarchism_, p. 402]


I.5.3 What will be the scales and levels of confederation? 

This can only be worked out in practice. In general, it would 
be save to say that confederations would be needed on a wide
scale, including in towns and cities. No village, town or city 
could be self-sufficient nor would desire to be -- communication
and links with other places are part and parcel of live and
anarchists have no desire to retreat back into an isolated
form of localism:

"No community can hope to achieve economic autarchy, nor
should it try to do so. Economically, the wide range of
resources that are needed to make many of our widely used
goods preclude self-enclosed insularity and parochialism.
Far from being a liability, this interdependence among
communities and regions can well be regarded as an asset
-- culturally as well as politically . . . Divested
of the cultural cross-fertilisation that is often a
product of economic intercourse, the municipality tends
to shrink into itself and disappear into its own civic
privatism. Shared needs and resources imply the existence
of sharing and, with sharing, communication, rejuvenation
by new ideas, and a wider social horizon that yields a
wider sensibility to new experiences." [Murray Bookchin,
_From Urbanisation to Cities_, p. 237]

This means that the scale and level of the confederations
created by the communes will be varied and extensive. It
would be hard to generalise about them, particularly as
different confederations will exist for different tasks
and interests. Moreover, any system of communes would start 
off based on the existing villages, towns and cities of 
capitalism. That is unavoidable and will, of course, help
determine the initial scale and level of confederations.

It seems likely that the scale of the confederation will
be dependent on the inhabited area in question. A village,
for example, would be based on one assembly and (minimally)
be part of a local confederation covering all the villages
nearby. In turn, this local confederation would be part
of a district confederation, and so on up to (ultimately)
a continental and world scale. Needless to say, the higher
the confederation the less often it would meet and the 
less it would have to consider in terms of issues to 
decide. On such a level, only the most general issues and
decisions could be reached (in effect, only guidelines
which the member confederations would apply as they saw
fit).

In urban areas, the town or city would have to be broken
down into confederations and these confederations would
constitute the town or city assembly of delegates. Given
a huge city like London, New York or Mexico City it would
be impossible to organise in any other way. Smaller towns
would probably be able to have simpler confederations. We
must stress hear that few, if any, anarchists consider it
desirable to have huge cities in a free society and one of
the major tasks of social transformation will be to break
the metropolis into smaller units, integrated with the
local environment. However, a social revolution will take
place in these vast metropolises and so we have to take 
them into account in our discussion.

Thus the issue of size would determine when a new level of
confederation would be needed. A town or village of several 
thousand people could be organised around the basic level of
the commune and it may be that a libertarian socialist society 
would probably form another level of confederation once this
level has been reached. Such units of confederation would, as
noted above, include urban districts within today's large cities, 
small cities, and rural districts composed of several nearby 
towns. The next level of confederation would, we can imagine,
be dependent on the number of delegates required. After a
certain number, the confederation assembly may became difficult
to manage, so implying that another level of confederation
is required. This would, undoubtedly, be the base for
determining the scale and level of confederation, ensuring
that any confederal assembly can actually manage its activities
and remain under the control of lower levels.

Combined with this consideration, we must also raise the issue
of economies of scale. A given level of confederation may be
required to make certain social and economic services efficient
(we are thinking of economies of scale for such social needs 
as universities, hospitals, and cultural institutions). While
every commune may have a doctor, nursery, local communal stores 
and small-scale workplaces, not all can have a university, 
hospital, factories and so forth. These would be organised on
a wider level, so necessitating the appropriate confederation
to exist to manage them.

However, face-to-face meetings of the whole population are 
impractical at this size. Therefore, the decision making body 
at this level would be the *confederal council,* which would 
consist of mandated, recallable, and rotating delegates from 
the neighbourhood assemblies. These delegates would co-ordinate 
policies which have been discussed and voted on by the 
neighbourhood assemblies, with the votes being summed across 
the district to determine district policy by majority rule. 
The issues to be discussed by these confederal meetings/assemblies 
would be proposed by local communes, the confederal council would 
collate these proposals and submit them to the other communes in 
the confederation for discussion. Thus the flow of decision making 
would be from the bottom up, with the "lowest" bodies having the 
most power, particularly the power to formulate, suggest, correct 
and, if need be, reject decisions made at "higher" levels in the 
confederation.

Ties between bioregions or larger territories based on the 
distribution of such things as geographically concentrated 
mineral deposits, climate dependent crops, and production 
facilities that are most efficient when concentrated in one 
area will unite communities confederally on the basis of common
material needs as well as values. At the bioregional and higher 
levels of confederation, councils of mandated, recallable, and 
rotating delegates will co-ordinate policies at those levels, 
but such policies will still be subject to approval by the 
neighbourhood and community assemblies through their right 
to recall their delegates and revoke their decisions. 

In the final analysis, libertarian socialism cannot function 
optimally -- and indeed may be fatally undermined -- unless the 
present system of competing nation-states is replaced by a 
co-operative system of decentralised bioregions of self-governing 
communities confederated on a global scale. For, if a libertarian
socialist nation is forced to compete in the global market for 
scarce raw materials and hard cash with which to buy them, the 
problems of "petty-bourgeois co-operativism," previously noted,
will have merely been displaced to a higher level of organisation. 
That is, instead of individual co-operatives acting as collective 
capitalists and competing against each other in the national 
market for profits, raw materials, etc., the nation or community
*as a whole* will become the "collective capitalist" and compete 
against other nations in the global capitalist market -- a situation 
that is bound to reintroduce many problems, e.g. militarism, 
imperialism, and alienating/disempowering measures in the
workplace, justified in the name of "efficiency" and "global
competitiveness."

To some extent such problems can be reduced in the revolutionary 
period by achieving self-sufficiency within bioregions as
Kropotkin argued (see section I.3.8) This should be easier to
achieve in a libertarian socialist economy as artificial needs 
are not manufactured by massive advertising campaigns of giant 
profit-seeking corporations. As a social revolution would, as 
Kropotkin predicted, suffer (initially) from isolation and
disrupted trade patterns such a policy would have to be 
applied anyway and so interbioregional trade would be
naturally be limited to other members of the libertarian 
socialist federation to a large degree. However, to eliminate 
the problem completely, anarchists envision a global council 
of bioregional delegates to co-ordinate global co-operation 
based on policies formulated and approved at the grassroots 
by the confederal principles outlined above. As noted above,
most anarchists think that the "higher" the confederation,
the more its decisions will be guidelines rather than
anything else.

In summary, the size and scale of confederations will depend 
on practical considerations, based on what people found were 
optimal sizes for their neighbourhood assemblies and the needs 
of co-operation between them, towns, cities, regions and so on. 
We cannot, and have no wish, to predict the development of a 
free society. Therefore the scale and levels of confederation 
will be decided by those actually creating an anarchist world. 
All we can do is make a few suggestions of what seems likely.

I.5.4 How will anything ever be decided by all these meetings?

Anarchists have little doubt that the confederal structure
will be an efficient means of decision making and will not
be bogged down in endless meetings. We have various reasons
for thinking this.

Firstly, we doubt that a free society will spend all its time 
in assemblies or organising confederal conferences. Certain 
questions are more important than others and few anarchists 
desire to spend all their time in meetings. The aim of a free 
society is to allow individuals to express their desires and 
wants freely -- they cannot do that if they are continually 
at meetings (or preparing for them). So while communal and 
confederal assemblies will play an important role in a free 
society, do not think that they will be occurring all the 
time or that anarchists desire to make meetings the focal 
point of individual life. Far from it! 

Thus communal assemblies may occur, say, once a week, or 
fortnightly or monthly in order to discuss truly important 
issues. There would be no real desire to meet continuously 
to discuss every issue under the sun and few people would
tolerate this occurring. This would mean that such meetings
would current regularly and when important issues needed to
be discussed, *not* continuously (although, if required, 
continuous assembly or daily meetings may have to be 
organised in emergency situations but this would be rare).

Secondly, it is extremely doubtful that a free people would
desire waste vast amounts of time at such meetings. While
important and essential, communal and confederal meetings 
would be functional in the extreme and not forums for hot
air. It would be the case that those involved in such meetings
would quickly make their feelings known to time wasters and
those who like the sound of their own voices. Thus Cornelius
Castoriadis:

"It might be claimed that the problem of numbers remains
and that people never would be able to express themselves
in a reasonable amount of time. This is not a valid
argument. There would rarely be an assembly over twenty
people where everyone would want to speak, for the very
good reason that when there is something to be decided
upon there are not an infinite number of options or an
infinite number of arguments. In unhampered rank-and-file
workers' gatherings (convened, for instance, to decide
on a strike) there have never been 'too many' speeches.
The two or three fundamental opinions having been 
voiced, and various arguments exchanged, a decision
is soon reached.

"The length of speeches, moreover, often varies inversely
with the weight of their content. Russian leaders sometimes
talk on for four hours at Party Congresses without saying
anything . . . For an account of the laconicism of
revolutionary assemblies, see Trotsky's account of the
Petrograd soviet of 1905 -- or accounts of the meetings
of factory representatives in Budapest in 1956." [_Political
and Social Writings_, vol. 2, pp. 144-5]

As we shall see below, this was definitely the case during
the Spanish Revolution as well.

Thirdly, as these assemblies and congresses are concerned 
purely with joint activity and co-ordination, it is likely 
that they will not be called very often. Different associations, 
syndicates and co-operatives have a functional need for co-operation 
and so would meet more regularly and take action on practical 
activity which affects a specific section of a community or 
group of communities. Not every issue that a member of a 
community is interested in is necessarily best discussed at 
a meeting of all members of a community or at a confederal 
conference. 

In other words, communal assemblies and conferences will 
have specific, well defined agendas, and so there is little 
danger of "politics" taking up everyone's time. Hence, far 
from discussing abstract laws and pointless motions which 
no one actually knows much about, the issues discussed in
these conferences will be on specific issues which are 
important to those involved. In addition, the standard 
procedure may be to elect a sub-group to investigate an 
issue and report back at a later stage with recommendations. 
The conference can change, accept, or reject any proposals. 

As Kropotkin argued, anarchy would be based on "free agreement,
by exchange of letters and proposals, and by congresses at 
which delegates met to discuss well specified points, and 
to come to an agreement about them, but not to make laws. 
After the congress was over, the delegates [would return] 
. . . not with a law, but with the draft of a contract to 
be accepted or rejected." [_Conquest of Bread_, p. 131]

By reducing conferences to functional bodies based on concrete 
issues, the problems of endless discussions can be reduced, if 
not totally eliminated. In addition, as functional groups would 
exist outside of these communal confederations (for example, 
industrial collectives would organise conferences about their 
industry with invited participants from consumer groups), 
there would be a limited agenda in most communal get-togethers.

The most important issues would be to agree on the guidelines for
industrial activity, communal investment (e.g. houses, hospitals, 
etc.) and overall co-ordination of large scale communal activities. 
In this way everyone would be part of the commonwealth, deciding 
on how resources would be used to  maximise human well-being and 
ecological survival. The problems associated with "the tyranny 
of small decisions" would be overcome without undermining 
individual freedom. (In fact, a healthy community would enrich 
and develop individuality by encouraging independent and critical 
thought, social interaction, and empowering social institutions 
based on self-management).

Is such a system fantasy? Given that such a system has existed
and worked at various times, we can safely argue that it is
not. Obviously we cannot cover *every* example, so we point to 
just two -- revolutionary Paris and Spain.

As Murray Bookchin points out, Paris "in the late eighteenth 
century was, by the standards of that time, one of the largest 
and economically most complex cities in Europe: its population 
approximated a million people . . . Yet in 1793, at the height 
of the French Revolution, the city was managed *institutionally* 
almost entirely by [48] citizen assemblies. . . and its affairs 
were co-ordinated by the *Commune* .. . and often, in fact, by 
the assemblies themselves, or sections as they were called, which 
established their own interconnections without recourse to the 
*Commune.*" [_Society and Nature_, no. 5, p. 96] 

Here is his account of how communal self-government worked in 
practice:

"What, then, were these little-know forty-eight sections of
Paris . . .How were they organised? And how did they function?

"Ideologically, the *sectionnaires* (as their members were called)
believed primarily in sovereignty of the people. This concept
of popular sovereignty, as Albert Soboul observes, was for them
'not an abstraction, but the concrete reality of the people
united in sectional assemblies and exercising all their rights.'
It was in their eyes an inalienable right, or, as the section
de la Cite declared in November 1792, 'every man who assumes
to have sovereignty [over others] will be regarded as a
tyrant, usurper of public liberty and worthy of death.'

"Sovereignty, in effect, was to be enjoyed by *all* citizens,
not pre-empted by 'representatives' . . . The radical
democrats of 1793 thus assumed that every adult was, to one
degree or another, competent to participate in management
public affairs. Thus, each section . . . was structured
around a *face-to-face democracy*: basically a general
assembly of the people that formed the most important
deliberative body of a section, and served as the incarnation
of popular power in a given part of the city . . . each
elected six deputies to the Commune, presumably for the 
pursue merely of co-ordinating all the sections in the
city of Paris.

"Each section also had its own various administrative
committees, whose members were also recruited from the
general assembly." [_The Third Revolution_, vol. 1,
p. 319]

Little wonder Kropotkin argued that these "sections" showed 
"the principles of anarchism, expressed some years later in 
England by W. Godwin, . . . had their origin, not in 
theoretical speculations, but in the *deeds* of the Great 
French Revolution" [_The Great French Revolution_, 
vol. 1, p. 204]

Communal self-government was also practised, and on a far
wider scale, in revolutionary Spain. All across Republican
Spain, workers and peasants formed communes and federations
of communes (see section I.8 for fuller details). As Gaston
Leval summarises the experience:

"There was, in the organisation set in motion by the Spanish 
Revolution and by the libertarian movement, which was its 
mainspring, a structuring from the bottom to the top, which 
corresponds to a real federation and true democracy . . . the 
controlling and co-ordinating Comites, clearly indispensable, do 
not go outside the organisation that has chosen them, they remain 
in their midst, always controllable by and accessible to the 
members. If any individuals contradict by their actions their 
mandates, it is possible to call them to order, to reprimand 
them, to replace them. It is only by and in such a system that 
the 'majority lays down the law.'

"The syndical assemblies were the expression and the practice 
of libertarian democracy, a democracy having nothing in common 
with the democracy of Athens where the citizens discussed and 
disputed for days on end on the Agora; where factions, clan 
rivalries, ambitions, personalities conflicted, where, in view 
of the social inequalities precious time was lost in 
interminable wrangles. Here a modern Aristophenes would 
have had no reason to write the equivalent of _The Clouds_.

"Normally those periodic meetings would not last more than a 
few hours. They dealt with concrete, precise subjects concretely 
and precisely. And all who had something to say could express 
themselves. The Comite presented the new problems that had 
arisen since the previous assembly, the results obtained by 
the application of such and such a resolution . . relations 
with other syndicates, production returns from the various 
workshops or factories. All this was the subject of reports 
and discussion. Then the assembly would nominate the commissions, 
the members of these commissions discussed between themselves 
what solutions to adopt, if there was disagreement, a majority 
report and a minority report would be prepared.

"This took place in *all* the syndicates *throughout Spain*, 
in *all* trades and *all* industries, in assemblies which, in 
Barcelona, from the very beginnings of our movement brought 
together hundreds or thousands of workers depending on the 
strength of the organisations. So much so that the awareness 
of the duties, responsibilities of each spread all the time 
to a determining and decisive degree. . . 

"The practice of this democracy also extended to the agricultural 
regions . . . the decision to nominate a local management Comite 
for the villages was taken by general meetings of the inhabitants 
of villages, how the delegates in the different essential tasks 
which demanded an indispensable co-ordination of activities were 
proposed and elected by the whole assembled population. But it is 
worth adding and underlining that in all the collectivised villages 
and all the partially collectivised villages, in the 400 Collectives 
in Aragon, in the 900 in the Levante region, in the 300 in the 
Castilian region, to mention only the large groupings . . . the 
population was called together weekly, fortnightly or monthly and 
kept fully informed of everything concerning the commonweal.

"This writer was present at a number of these assemblies in 
Aragon, where the reports on the various questions making up 
the agenda allowed the inhabitants to know, to so understand, 
and to feel so mentally integrated in society, to so participate 
in the management of public affairs, in the responsibilities, 
that the recriminations, the tensions which always occur when 
the power of decision is entrusted to a few individuals, be 
they democratically elected without the possibility of 
objecting, did not happen there. The assemblies were public, 
the objections, the proposals publicly discussed, everybody 
being free, as in the syndical assemblies, to participate 
in the discussions, to criticise, propose, etc. Democracy 
extended to the whole of social life." [_Collectives in
the Spanish Revolution_, pp. 205-7]

These collectives organised federations embracing thousands
of communes and workplaces, whole branches of industry, 
hundreds of thousands of people and whole regions of Spain. 

In other words, it *is* possible. It *has* worked. With the 
massive improvements in communication technology it is even 
more viable than before. Whether or not we reach such a 
self-managed society depends on whether we desire to be 
free or not.

I.5.5 Aren't participatory communities and confederations just new states?

No. As we have seen in section B.2, a state can be defined both by its
structure and its function. As far as structure is concerned, a state
involves the politico-military and economic domination of a certain
geographical territory by a ruling elite, based on the delegation of 
power into the hands of the few, resulting in hierarchy (centralised 
authority). As Kropotkin argued, "the word 'State' . . . should be 
reserved for those societies with the hierarchical system and 
centralisation." [_Ethics_, p. 317f] 

In a system of federated participatory communities, however, there 
is no ruling elite, and thus no hierarchy, because power is retained 
by the lowest-level units of confederation through their use of 
direct democracy and mandated, rotating, and recallable delegates 
to meetings of higher-level confederal bodies. This eliminates the 
problem in "representative" democratic systems of the delegation 
of power leading to the elected officials becoming isolated from 
and beyond the control of the mass of people who elected them. As 
Kropotkin pointed out, an anarchist society would make decisions 
by "means of congresses, composed of delegates, who discuss among 
themselves, and submit *proposals*, not *laws*, to their constituents", 
and so is based on *self*-government, *not* representative government 
(i.e. statism). [_The Conquest of Bread_, p. 135] 

In addition, in representative democracy, elected officials who must 
make decisions on a wide range of issues inevitably gather an unelected
bureaucracy around them to aid in their decision making, and because of
its control of information and its permanency, this bureaucracy soon has
more power than the elected officials (who themselves have more power 
than the people). In the system we have sketched, policy proposals 
formulated by higher-level confederal bodies would often be presented 
to the grassroots political units for discussion and voting (though 
the grassroots units could  also formulate policy proposals directly), 
and these higher-level bodies would often need to consult experts in
formulating such proposals. But these experts would not be retained as 
a permanent bureaucracy, and all information provided by them would be
available to the lower-level units to aid in their decision making, thus
eliminating the control of information on which bureaucratic power is
based. 

Perhaps it will be objected that communal decision making is just a form
of "statism" based on direct, as opposed to representative, democracy --
"statist" because the individual is still be subject to the rules of the
majority and so is not free. This objection, however, confuses statism
with free agreement (i.e. co-operation). Since participatory communities,
like productive syndicates, are voluntary associations, the decisions they 
make are based on self-assumed obligations (see section A.2.11 -- "Why are 
most anarchists in favour of direct democracy?"), and dissenters can leave 
the association if they so desire. Thus communes are no more "statist" 
than the act of promising and keeping ones word.

In addition, in a free society, dissent and direct action can be 
used by minorities to press their case (or defend their freedom) 
as well as debate. As Carole Pateman argues, "[p]olitical disobedience 
is merely one possible expression of the active citizenship on which a 
self-managing democracy is based." [_The Problem of Political Obligation_, 
p. 162] In this way, individual liberty can be protected in a communal 
system and society enriched by opposition, confrontation and dissent. 

Without self-management and minority dissent, society would become
an ideological cemetery which would stifle ideas and individuals 
as these thrives on discussion ("those who will be able to create
in their mutual relations a movement and a life based on the
principles of free understanding . . . will understand that 
*variety, conflict even, is life and that uniformity is death*"
[Kropotkin, _Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_, p. 143]). 
Therefore it is likely that a society based on voluntary 
agreements and self-management would, out of interpersonal 
empathy and self-interest, create a society that encouraged 
individuality and respect for minorities.

Therefore, a commune's participatory nature is the opposite of 
statism. April Carter, in _Authority and Democracy_ agrees. She 
states that "commitment to direct democracy or anarchy in the 
socio-political sphere is incompatible with political authority" 
and that the "only authority that can exist in a direct democracy 
is the collective 'authority' vested in the body politic . . . it 
is doubtful if authority can be created by a group of equals who 
reach decisions be a process of mutual persuasion." [p. 69 and 
p. 380] Which echoes, we must note, Proudhon's comment that "the 
true meaning of the word 'democracy'" was the "dismissal of 
government." [_No Gods, No Masters_, vol. 1, p. 42] Bakunin
argued that when the "whole people govern" then "there will
be no one to be governed. It means that there will be no
government, no State." [_The Political Philosophy of Bakunin_,
p. 287] Malatesta, decades later, made the same point -- 
"government by everybody is no longer government in the 
authoritarian, historical and practical sense of the word." 
[_No Gods, No Masters_, vol. 2, p. 38] And, of course,
Kropotkin argued that by means of the directly democratic 
sections of the French Revolution the masses "practic[ed] 
what was to be described later as Direct Self-Government"
and expressed "the principles of anarchism." [_The Great 
French Revolution_, vol. 1, p. 200 and p. 204]  

Anarchists assert that individuals and the institutions they 
create cannot be considered in isolation. Authoritarian 
institutions will create individuals who have a servile 
nature, who cannot govern themselves. Anarchists, therefore, 
consider it common sense that individuals, in order to be free, 
*must* have take part in determining the general agreements they 
make with their neighbours which give form to their communities. 
Otherwise, a free society could not exist and individuals would 
be subject to rules others make *for* them (following orders is 
hardly libertarian). Therefore, anarchists recognise the social 
nature of humanity and the fact any society based on contracts 
(like capitalism) will be marked by authority, injustice and 
inequality, *not* freedom. As Bookchin points out, "[t]o speak of 
'The Individual' apart from its social roots is as meaningless 
as to speak of a society that contains no people or institutions." 
["Communalism: The Democratic Dimension of Anarchism", 
_Society and Nature_ no. 8, p. 15]

Society cannot be avoided and "[u]nless everyone is to be psychologically
homogeneous and society's interests so uniform in character that dissent
is simply meaningless, there must be room for conflicting proposals, 
discussion, rational explication and majority decisions - in short,
democracy." [Bookchin, Op. Cit., pp. 15-16] Those who reject democracy 
in the name of liberty (such as many supporters of capitalism claim 
to do) usually also see the need for laws and hierarchical authority 
(particularly in the workplace). This is unsurprising, as such 
authority is the only means left by which collective activity 
can be co-ordinated if "democracy" (i.e. self-management) is 
rejected (usually as "statist", which is ironic as the resulting 
institutions, such as a capitalist company, are far more statist 
than self-managed ones). 

However, it should be noted that communities can expel individuals or
groups of individuals who constantly hinder community decisions. As
Malatesta argued, "for if it is unjust that the majority should
oppress the minority, the contrary would be quite as unjust; and if the
minority has a right to rebel, the majority has a right to defend itself
. . . it is true  that this solution is not completely satisfactory. The
individuals put out of the association would be deprived of many social
advantages, which an isolated person or group must do without, because
they can only be procured  by the co-operation of a great number of human
beings. But what would you have? These malcontents cannot fairly demand
that the wishes of many others should be sacrificed for their sakes." 
[_A Talk about Anarchist-Communism_, p. 29]

Nevertheless, such occurrences would be rare (for reasons discussed in
section I.5.6), and their possibility merely indicates that free
association also means the freedom *not* to associate. This a very
important freedom for both the majority and the minority, and  must be
defended. However, as an isolated life is impossible, the need for
communal associations is essential. It is only by living together in a
supportive community can individuality be encouraged and developed along
with individual freedom. However, anarchists are aware that not everyone
is a social animal and that there are times that people like to withdraw
into their own personal space. Thus our support for free association
and federalism along with solidarity, community and self-management.

Lastly, that these communities and confederations are not just states
with new names in indicated by two more considerations. Firstly, in regard
to the activities of the confederal conferences, it is clear that they
would *not* be passing laws on personal behaviour or ethics, i.e. not
legislating to restrict the liberty of those who live in these communities
they represent. For example, a community is unlikely to pass laws
outlawing homosexuality or censoring the press, for reasons discussed in
the next section. Hence they would not be "law-making bodies" in the modern
sense of the term, and thus not statist. Secondly, these confederations
have no means to enforce their decisions. In other words, if a confederal
congress makes a decision, it has no means to force people to act or not
act in a certain way. We can imagine that there will be ethical reasons
why participants will not act in ways to oppose joint activity -- as they
took part in the decision making process they would be considered childish
if they reject the final decision because it did not go in their favour.
Moreover, they would also have to face the reaction of those who also
took part in the decision making process. It would be likely that those
who ignored such decisions (or actively hindered them) would soon face
non-violent direct action in the form of non-co-operation, shunning,
boycotting and so on.

So, far from being new states by which one section of a community imposes 
its ethical standards on another, the anarchist commune is just a public
forum. In this forum, issues of community interest (for example,

management of the commons, control of communalised economic activity, and
so forth) are discussed and policy agreed upon. In addition, interests
beyond a local area are also discussed and delegates for confederal
conferences are mandated with the wishes of the community. Hence,
administration of things replaces government of people, with the community
of communities existing to ensure that the interests of all are managed by
all and that liberty, justice and equality are more than just ideals.

For these reasons, a libertarian-socialist society would not create a new
state as far as structure goes. But what about in the area of function? 

As noted in section B.2.1, the function of the state is to enable the
ruling elite to exploit subordinate social strata, i.e. to derive an
economic surplus from them, which it does by protecting certain economic
monopolies from which the elite derives its wealth, and so its power. But
this function is completely eliminated by the economic structure of
anarchist society, which, by abolishing private property, makes it
impossible for a privileged elite to form, let alone exploit "subordinate
strata" (which will not exist, as no one is subordinate in power to anyone
else). In other words, by placing the control of productive resources in
the hands of the workers councils and community assemblies, every worker
is given free access to the means of production that he or she needs to
earn a living. Hence no one will be forced to pay usury (i.e. a use-fee)
in the form of appropriated surplus value (profits) to an elite class that
monopolises the means of production. In short, without private property,
the state loses its reason for existence. 

I.5.6 Won't there be a danger of a "tyranny of the majority" under 
      libertarian socialism?

While the "tyranny of the majority" objection does contain an 
important point, it is often raised for self-serving reasons. 
This is because those who raised the issue (for example, creators 
of the 1789 US constitution like Hamilton and Madison) saw the 
"minority" to be protected as the rich. In other words, the 
objection is not opposed to majority tyranny as such (they 
have no objections when the majority support their right to 
their riches) but rather attempts of the majority to change 
their society to a fairer one. However, as noted, the objection
to majority rule *does* contain a valid point and one which 
anarchists have addressed -- namely, what about minority freedom 
within a self-managed society.

There is, of course, this danger in *any* society, be its
decision making structure direct (anarchy) or indirect (by some
form of government). Anarchists are at the forefront in expressing 
concern about it (see, for example, Emma Goldman's classic essay 
"Minorities versus Majorities" in _Anarchism and Other Essays_). 
We are well aware that the mass, as long as the individuals 
within it do not free themselves, can be a dead-weight on 
others, resisting change and enforcing conformity. As Goldman 
argued, "even more than constituted authority, it is social 
uniformity and sameness that harass the individual the most." 
[_Red Emma Speaks_, p. 93] Hence Malatesta's comment that
anarchists "have the special mission of being vigilant custodians
of freedom, against all aspirants to power and against the possible
tyranny of the majority." [_Life and Ideas_, p. 161]

However, rather than draw elitist conclusions from this fact of life
under capitalism and urge forms of government and organisation which 
restrict popular participation (and promote rule, and tyranny, by the 
few) -- as classical liberals do -- libertarians argue that only a 
process of self-liberation through struggle and participation can 
break up the mass into free, self-managing individuals. Moreover, 
we also argue that participation and self-management is the only 
way that majorities can come to see the point of minority ideas
and for seeing the importance of protecting minority freedoms. 
This means that any attempt to restrict participation in the 
name of minority rights actually enforces the herd mentality, 
undermining minority and individual freedom rather than protecting 
it. As Carole Pateman argues: 

"the evidence supports the arguments . . . that we do learn
to participate by participating and that feelings of political
efficacy are more likely to be developed in a participatory
environment. Furthermore, the evidence indicates that
experience of a participatory authority structure might also
be effective in diminishing tendencies towards non-democratic
attitudes in the individual." [_Participation and Democratic
Theory_, p. 105]

However, while there is cause for concern (and anarchists are
at the forefront in expressing it), the "tyranny of the majority"
objection fails to take note of the vast difference between direct 
and "representative" forms of democracy.

In the current system, as we pointed out in section B.5, voters are 
mere passive spectators of occasional, staged, and highly rehearsed 
debates among candidates pre-selected by the corporate elite, who 
pay for campaign expenses. More often the public is expected to 
choose simply on the basis of political ads and news sound bites. 
Once the choice is made, cumbersome and ineffective recall procedures 
insure that elected representatives can act more or less as they 
(or rather, their wealthy sponsors) please. The function, then, 
of the electorate in bourgeois "representative government" is 
ratification of "choices" that have been *already made for them!*

By contrast, in a direct, libertarian democracy, decisions are made
following public discussion in community assemblies open to all. After
decisions have been reached, outvoted minorities -- even minorities of 
one -- still have ample opportunity to present reasoned and persuasive
counter-arguments to try to change the decision. This process of debate,
disagreement, challenge, and counter-challenge, which goes on even after
the defeated minority has temporarily acquiesced in the decision of the
majority, is virtually absent in the representative system, where "tyranny
of the majority" is truly a problem. In addition, minorities can secede
from an association if the decision reached by it are truly offensive to
them. 

And let us not forget that in all likelihood, issues of personal conduct 
or activity will not be discussed in the neighbourhood assemblies. Why? 
Because we are talking about a society in which most people consider

themselves to be unique, free individuals, who would thus recognise and
act to protect the uniqueness and freedom of others. Unless people are
indoctrinated by religion or some other form of ideology, they can be
tolerant of others and their individuality. If this is not the case 
now, then it has more to do with the existence of authoritarian social 
relationships -- relationships that will be dismantled under 
libertarian socialism -- and the type of person they create rather
than some innate human flaw. 

Thus there will be vast areas of life in a libertarian socialist
community which are none of other people's business. Anarchists 
have always stressed the importance of personal space and "private"
areas. Indeed, for Kropotkin, the failure of many "utopian" 
communities directly flowed from a lack personal space. One of
the mistakes made by such "utopian" communities within capitalism
was "the desire to manage the community after the model of a
family, to make it 'the great family.' They lived all in the 
same house and were thus forced to continuously meet the same
'brethren and sisters.' It is already difficult often for two
real brothers to live together in the same house, and family
life is not always harmonious; so it was a fundamental error to
impose on all the 'great family' instead of trying, on the
contrary, to guarantee as much freedom and home life to each
individual." [_Small Communal Experiments and Why they Fail_,
pp. 8-9]

Thus in an anarchist society, continual agreement on all issues
is not desired. The members of a free society "need only
agree as to some advantageous method of common work, and are
free otherwise to live in their own way." [Op. Cit., p. 22]

Which brings us to another key point. When anarchists talk of
democratising or communalising the household or any other
association, we do not mean that it should be stripped of its
private status and become open to the "tyranny of the majority"
or regulation by general voting in a single, universal public
sphere. Rather, we mean that households and other relationships
should take in libertarian characteristics and be consistent
with the liberty of all its members. Thus a society based
on self-management does not imply the destruction of private
spheres of activity -- it implies the extension of anarchist
principles into all spheres of life, both private and public.
It does not mean the subordination of the private by the public,
or vice versa. 

So, in other words, it is highly unlikely that the "tyranny of
the majority" will exert itself where most rightly fear it --
in their homes, how they act with friends, their personal space,
how they act, and do on. As long as individual freedom and
rights are protected, it is of little concern what people get up
to (included the rights of children, who are also individuals
and *not* the property of their parents). Direct democracy in 
anarchist theory is purely concerned with common resources and 
their use and management. It is highly unlikely that a free society 
would debate issues of personal behaviour or morality and instead
would leave them to those directly affected by them -- as it should 
be, as we all need personal space and experimentation to find the 
way of life that best suits us. 

Today an authoritarian worldview, characterised by an inability to 
think beyond the categories of domination and submission, is imparted 
by conditioning in the family, schools, religious institutions, clubs,
fraternities, the army, etc., and produces a type of personality that 
is intolerant of any individual or group perceived as threatening to the
perpetuation of that worldview and its corresponding institutions and
values. Thus, as Bakunin argues, "public opinion" is potentially intolerant
"simply because hitherto this power has not been humanised itself; it 
has not been humanised because the social life of which it is ever the
faithful expression is based . . . in the worship of divinity, not on
respect for humanity; in authority, not on liberty; on privilege, not on
equality; in the exploitation, not on the brotherhood, of men; on iniquity
and falsehood, not on justice and truth. Consequently its real action,
always in contradiction of the humanitarian theories which it professes,
has constantly exercised a disastrous and depraving influence." [_God and
the State_, p. 43f] In other words, "if society is ever to become free,
it will be so through liberated individuals, whose free efforts make
society." [Emma Goldman, _Anarchism and Other Essays_, p. 44]

In an anarchist society, however, a conscious effort will be 
made to dissolve the institutional and traditional sources of the
authoritarian/submissive type of personality, and thus to free "public 
opinion" of its current potential for intolerance. In addition, it should
be noted that as anarchists recognise that the practice of self-assumed
political obligation implied in free association also implies the right to
practice dissent and disobedience as well. As Carole Pateman notes, "[e]ven
if it is impossible to be unjust to myself, I do not vote for myself alone,
but alone with everyone else. Questions about injustice are always 
appropriate in political life, for there is no guarantee that participatory
voting will actually result in decisions in accord with the principles
of political morality." [_The Problem of Political Obligation_, p. 160]

If an individual or group of individuals feel that a specific decision 
threatens their freedom (which is the basic principle of political
morality in an anarchist society) they can (and must) act to defend 
that freedom. "The political practice of participatory voting rests 
in a collective self-consciousness about the meaning and implication of
citizenship. The members of the political association understand that to
vote is simultaneously to commit oneself, to commit one's fellow citizens,
and also to commit oneself to them in a mutual undertaking . . . a refusal
to vote on a particular occasion indicates that the refusers believe . . .
[that] the proposal . . . infringes the principle of political morality 
on which the political association is based . . A refusal to vote [or the
use of direct action] could be seen as an appeal to the 'sense of justice'
of their fellow citizens." [Carole Pateman, Op. Cit., p. 161]

As they no longer "consent" to the decisions made by their community they 
can appeal to the "sense of justice" of their fellow citizens by direct 
action and indicate that a given decision may have impacts which the 
majority were not aware. Hence direct action and dissent is a key aspect
of an anarchist society and help ensure against the tyranny of the majority.
Anarchism rejects the "love it or leave it" attitude that marks classical
liberalism as well as Rousseau (this aspect of his work being inconsistent 
with its foundations in participation).

This vision of self-assumed obligation, with its basis in individual
liberty, indicates the basic flaw of Joseph Schumpeter's argument
against democracy as anything bar a political *method* of arriving
at decisions (in his case who will be the leaders of a society). 
Schumpeter proposed the "mental experiment" of imagining a country
which, democratically, persecuted Jews, witches and Christians
(see his famous work _Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy_). He
argues that we should not approve of these practices just because
they have been decided upon by the democratic method and, therefore,
democracy cannot be an end in itself. 

However, such systematic persecution would conflict with the 
rules of procedure required if a country's or community's 
political method is to be called "democratic." This is 
because, in order to be democratic, the minority must be in a
position for its ideas to become the majority's via argument 
and convincing the majority (and that requires freedom of 
discussion and association). A country or community in which 
the majority persecutes or represses a minority automatically 
ensures that the minority can never be in a position to 
become the majority (as the minority is barred by force from 
becoming so) or convince the majority of the errors of its way 
(even if it cannot become the majority physically, it can become 
so morally by convincing the majority to change its position). 
Schumpeter's example utterly violates democratic principles 
and so cannot be squared with the rules of democratic procedure. 
Thus majority tyranny is an outrage against both democratic 
theory *and* individual liberty (unsurprisingly, as the former 
has its roots in the latter). 

This argument applies with even more force to a self-managed 
community too and so any system in which the majority tyrannises over 
a minority is, by definition, *not* self-managed as one part of the 
community is excluded from convincing the other ("the enslavement of 
part of a nation denies the federal principal itself." [P-J Proudhon, 
_The Principle of Federation_, p. 42f]). Thus individual freedom and 
minority rights are essential to direct democracy/self-management.
 
It should be stressed, however, that most anarchists do not think that 
the way to guard against possible tyranny by the majority is to resort to
decision-making by consensus (where no action can be taken until every
person in the group agrees) or a property system (based in contracts).
Both consensus (see section A.2.12 -- "Is consensus an alternative to 
direct democracy?") and contracts (see section A.2.14 -- "Why is 
voluntarism not enough?") soon result in authoritarian social 
relationships developing in the name of "liberty." 

For example, decision making by consensus tends to eliminate the 
creative role of dissent and mutate into a system that pressures 
people into psychic and intellectual conformity -- hardly a 
libertarian ideal. In the case of property and contract based systems, 
those with property have more power than those without, and so they soon 
determine what can and cannot be done -- in other words, the "tyranny of 
the minority" and hierarchical authority. Both alternatives are deeply 
flawed. 

Hence most anarchists have recognised that majority decision making, 
though not perfect, is the best way to reach decisions in a political 
system based on maximising individual (and so social) freedom. Direct 
democracy in grassroots confederal assemblies and workers' councils 
ensures that decision making is "horizontal" in nature (i.e. between 
*equals*) and not hierarchical (i.e. governmental, between order giver 
and order taker). In other words, it ensures liberty.

I.5.7 What if I don't want to join a commune?  

As would be expected, no one would be *forced* to join a commune nor 
take part in its assemblies. To suggest otherwise would be contrary 
to anarchist principles. We have already indicated (in the last two 
sections) why the communes would not be likely to restrict individuals 
with new "laws." Thus a commune would be a free society, in which 
individual liberty would be respected and encouraged.

However, what about individuals who live within the boundaries of a 
commune but decide not to join? For example, a local neighbourhood 
may include households that desire to associate and a few that do 
not (this is actually happened during the Spanish Revolution). What
happens to the minority of dissenters?

Obviously individuals can leave to find communities more in line 
with their own concepts of right and wrong if they cannot convince 
their neighbours of the validity of their ideas. And, equally 
obviously, not everyone will want to leave an area they like. So 
we must discuss those who decide to not to find a more suitable 
community. Are the communal decisions binding on non-members? 
Obviously not. If an individual or family desire *not* to join 
a commune (for whatever reason), their freedoms must be respected. 
However, this also means that they cannot benefit from communal 
activity and resources (such a free housing, hospitals, and so 
forth) and, possibly, have to pay for their use. As long as they 
do not exploit or oppress others, an anarchist community would 
respect their decision. After all, as Malatesta argued, "free 
and voluntary communism is ironical if one has not the right 
and the possibility to live in a different regime, collectivist, 
mutualist, individualist -- as one wishes, always on condition 
that there is no oppression or exploitation of others."
[_Life and Ideas_, p. 103]

Many who oppose anarchist self-management in the name of freedom  
often do so because they desire to oppress and exploit others. In other
words, they oppose participatory communities because they (rightly) fear
that this would restrict their ability to oppress, exploit and grow rich 
off the labour of others. This type of opposition can be seen from history, 
when rich elites, in the name of liberty, have replaced democratic forms 
of social decision making with representative or authoritarian ones 
(see section B.2.6). Regardless of what defenders of capitalism claim,
"voluntary bilateral exchanges" affect third parties and can harm others
indirectly. This can easily be seen from examples like concentrations 
of wealth which have effects across society, or crime in the local
community, or the ecological impacts of consumption and production.
This means that an anarchist society would be aware that inequality
and so statism could develop again and take precautions against it.
As Malatesta put it, some "seem almost to believe that after having 
brought down government and private property we would allow both 
to be quietly built up again, because of respect for the *freedom*
of those who might feel the need to be rulers and property owners. 
A truly curious way of interpreting our ideas." [_Anarchy_, p. 41]

So, it goes without saying that the minority, as in any society, 
will exist within the ethical norms of the surrounding society and 
they will be "forced to adhere" to them in the same sense that they 
are "forced to adhere" to not murdering people. Few people would 
say that forcing people not to commit murder is a restriction of 
their liberty. Therefore, while allowing the maximum of individual 
freedom of dissent, an anarchist community would still have to apply 
its ethical standards to those beyond that community. Individuals 
would not be allowed to murder, harm or enslave others and claim that 
they are allowed to do so because they are not part of the local 
community (see section I.5.8 on crime in an anarchist society). 

Similarly, individuals would not be allowed to develop private property 
(as opposed to possession) simply because they wanted to. Such a "ban" 
on private property would not be a restriction on liberty simply because 
stopping the development of authority hardly counts as an authoritarian 
act (for an analogy, supporters of capitalism do not think that banning 
theft is a restriction of liberty and because this view is -- currently -- 
accepted by the majority, it is enforced on the minority). Even the word 
"ban" is wrong, as it is the would-be capitalist who is trying to ban 
freedom for others on their "property." Members of a free society would 
simply refuse to recognise the claims of private property -- they would
simply ignore the would-be capitalist's pretensions and "keep out" signs.
Without a state, or hired thugs, to back up their claims, they would 
just end up looking silly. "Occupancy and use" (to use Tucker's term) 
would be the limits of possession -- and so property would become "that 
control of a thing by a person which will receive either social sanction, 
or else unanimous individual sanction, when the laws of social expediency 
shall have been fully discovered." [B. Tucker, _Instead of a Book_, p. 131]

Tucker explains this system further:

"Suppose that all the municipalities have adopted the voluntary 
principle, and that compulsory taxation has been abolished. Now
after this let us suppose that the Anarchistic view that occupancy
and use should condition and limit landholding becomes the prevailing
view. Evidently then these municipalities will proceed to formulate
and enforce this view. What the formula will be no one can foresee. 
But continuing with our suppositions, we will say that they decide
to protect no one in the possession of more than ten acres. In
execution of this decision, they . . . notify all holders of more
than ten acres within their limits that . . . they will cease to
protect them in the possession of more than ten acres . . ." [_The
Individualist Anarchists_, pp. 159-60]

A similar process would occur for housing, with tenants "would not
be forced to pay [the landlord] rent, nor would [the landlord] be
allowed to seize their property. The Anarchistic associations would
look upon . . . tenants very much as they would look upon . . . 
guests." [Op. Cit., p. 162]

Therefore anarchists support the maximum of experiments while ensuring 
that the social conditions that allow this experimentation are protected
against concentrations of wealth and power. As Malatesta put it, "Anarchism 
involves all and only those forms of life that respect liberty and recognise 
that every person has an equal right to enjoy the good things of nature and 
the products of their own activity." [_The Anarchist Revolution_, p. 14] 

This means that Anarchists do not support the liberty of being a boss 
(anarchists will happily work *with* someone but not *for* someone). Of 
course, those who desire to create private property against the wishes of 
others expect those others to respect their wishes. So, when the would-be 
propertarians happily fence off their "property" and exclude others from it, 
could not these others remember these words from Woody Guthrie's _This Land 
is Your Land_, and act accordingly?

 	       "As I went rumbling that dusty highway
	        I saw a sign that said private property
	        But on the other side it didn't say nothing
	        This land was made for you and me"

While happy to exclude others from "their" property, such owners seem more
than happy to use the resources held in common by others. They are the 
ultimate "free riders," desiring the benefits of society but rejecting the 
responsibilities that go with it. In the end, such "individualists" usually
end up supporting the state (an institution they claim to hate) precisely
because it is the only means by which private property and their "freedom" 
to exercise authority can be defended.

So, as a way to eliminate the problem of minorities seeking power and
property for themselves, an anarchist revolution places social wealth 
(starting with the land) in the hands of all and promises to protect 
only those uses of it which are considered just by society as a whole. 
In other words, by recognising that "property" is a product of society, 
an anarchist society will ensure than an individual's "property" is 
protected by his or her fellows when it is based purely upon actual
occupancy and use. Thus attempts to transform minority dissent into,
say, property rights would be fought by simply ignoring the "keep
out" signs of property owned, but not used, by an individual or
group.

Therefore, individuals are free not to associate, but their claims of
"ownership"  will be based around *use* rights, not property rights.
Individuals will be protected by their fellows only in so far as what
they claim to "own" is related to their ability to personally use said 
"property." As Kropotkin argued, "when we see a peasant who is in
possession of just the amount of land he can cultivate, we do not 
think it reasonable to turn him off his little farm. He exploits 
nobody, and nobody would have the right to interfere with his work. 
But if he possesses under the capitalist law more than be can cultivate 
himself, we consider that we must not give him the right of keeping 
that soil for himself, leaving it uncultivated when it might be 
cultivated by others, or of making other cultivate it for his
benefit." [_Act for Yourselves_, p. 104] Without a state to back 
up and protect property "rights," we see that all rights are, in 
the end, what society considers to be fair (the difference between 
law and social custom is discussed in section I.7.3). What the state 
does is to impose "rights" which do not have such a basis (i.e. those 
that protect the property of the elite) or "rights" which have been 
corrupted by wealth and would have been changed because of this 
corruption had society been free to manage its own affairs.

In summary, individuals will be free not to join a participatory 
community, and hence free to place themselves outside its decisions 
and activities on most issues that do not apply to the fundamental 
ethical standards of a society. Hence individuals who desire to 
live outside of anarchist communities would be free to live as 
they see fit but would not be able to commit murder, rape, create 
private property or other activities that harmed individuals. It 
should be noted, moreover, that this does not mean that their 
possessions will be taken from them by "society" or that "society" 
will tell them what to do with their possessions. Freedom, in a 
complex world, means that such individuals will not be in a position 
to turn their possessions into *property* and thus recreate capitalism 
(for the distinction between "property" and "possessions," see 
section B.3.1). This will not be done by "anarchist police" or 
by "banning" voluntary agreements, but purely by recognising that 
"property" is a social creation and by creating a social system 
that will encourage individuals to stand up for their rights and 
co-operate with each other. 

I.5.8 What about crime?

For anarchists, "crime" can best be described as anti-social acts, or
behaviour which harms someone else or which invades their personal space.
Anarchists argue that the root cause for crime is not some perversity of
human nature or "original sin," but is due to the type of society by which
people are moulded. For example, anarchists point out that by eliminating
private property, crime could be reduced by about 90 percent, since about
90 percent of crime is currently motivated by evils stemming from private
property such as poverty, homelessness, unemployment, and alienation. 
Moreover, by adopting anarchist methods of non-authoritarian child rearing
and education, most of the remaining crimes could also be eliminated,
because they are largely due to the anti-social, perverse, and cruel
"secondary drives" that develop because of authoritarian, pleasure-negative 
child-rearing practices (See section J.6 -- "What methods of child rearing 
do anarchists advocate?") 

"Crime", therefore, cannot be divorced from the society within which it
occurs. Society, in Emma Goldman's words, gets the criminals it deserves. 
For example, anarchists do not think it unusual nor unexpected that 
crime exploded under the pro-free market capitalist regimes of Thatcher 
and Reagan. Crime, the most obvious symptom of social crisis, took 
30 years to double in Britain (from 1 million incidents in 1950 to 
2.2 million in 1979). However, between 1979 and 1992 the crime rate 
more than doubled, exceeding the 5 million mark in 1992. These 13 
years were marked by a government firmly committed to the "free 
market" and "individual responsibility." It was entirely predictable 
that the social disruption, atomisation of individuals, and increased 
poverty caused by freeing capitalism from social controls would 
rip society apart  and increase criminal activity. Also 
unsurprisingly (from an anarchist viewpoint), under these pro-market
governments we also saw a reduction in civil liberties, increased state
centralisation, and the destruction of local government. As Malatesta put
it, the classical liberalism which these governments represented could
have had no other effect, for "the government's powers of repression must
perforce increase as free competition results in more discord and
inequality." [_Anarchy_, p. 46]

Hence the paradox of governments committed to "individual rights," the
"free market" and "getting the state off our backs" increasing state power 
and reducing rights while holding office during a crime explosion is no
paradox at all. "The conjuncture of the rhetoric of individual freedom and
a vast increase in state power," argues Carole Pateman, "is not unexpected
at a time when the influence of contract doctrine is extending into the
last, most intimate nooks and crannies of social life. Taken to a conclusion,
contract undermines the conditions of its own existence. Hobbes showed
long ago that contract -- all the way down -- requires absolutism and the
sword to keep war at bay." [_The Sexual Contract_, p. 232]

Capitalism, and the contract theory on which it is built, will inevitably
rip apart society. Capitalism is based upon a vision of humanity as isolated 
individuals with no connection other than that of money and contract. Such 
a vision cannot help but institutionalise anti-social acts. As Kropotkin 
argued "it is not love and not even sympathy upon which Society is based 
in mankind. It is the conscience -- be it only at the stage of an instinct 
-- of human solidarity. It is the unconscious recognition of the force
that is borrowed by each man [and woman] from the practice of mutual aid;
of the close dependency of every one's happiness upon the happiness of all; 
and of the sense of justice, or equity, which brings the individual to 
consider the rights of every other individual as equal to his [or her] 
own." [_Mutual Aid_, p. 16]

The social atomisation required and created by capitalism destroys the basic 
bonds of society - namely human solidarity - and hierarchy crushes the 
individuality required to understand that we share a common humanity with 
others and so understand *why* we must be ethical and respect others rights. 

We should also point out that prisons have numerous negative affects on
society as well as often re-enforcing criminal (i.e. anti-social) behaviour. 
Kropotkin originated the accurate description of prisons as "Universities
of Crime" wherein the first-time criminal learns new techniques and have 
adapt to the prevailing ethical standards within them. Hence, prisons would 
have the effect of increasing the criminal tendencies of those sent there 
and so prove to be counter-productive. In addition, prisons do not affect 
the social conditions which promote many forms of crime.

We are not saying, however, that anarchists reject the concept of individual 
responsibility. While recognising that rape, for example, is the result of
a social system which represses sexuality and is based on patriarchy (i.e.
rape has more to do with power than sex), anarchists do not "sit back" and
say "it's society's fault." Individuals have to take responsibility for
their own actions and recognise that consequences of those actions. Part
of the current problem with "law codes" is that individuals have been
deprived of the responsibility for developing their own ethical code, and so
are less likely to develop "civilised" social standards (see section I.7.3).

Therefore, while anarchists reject the ideas of law and a specialised
justice system, they are not blind to the fact that anti-social action may
not totally disappear in a free society. Therefore, some sort of "court"
system would still be necessary to deal with the remaining crimes and to
adjudicate disputes between citizens.

These courts would function in one of two ways. One possibility
is that the parties involved agree to hand their case to a third 
party. Then the "court" in question would be the arrangements 
made by those parties. The second possibility is when the parties 
cannot not agree (or if the victim was dead). Then the issue could
be raised at a communal assembly and a "court" appointed to look 
into the issue. These "courts" would be independent from the commune, 
their independence strengthened by popular election instead of executive
appointment of judges, by protecting the jury system of selection of
random citizens by lot, and by informing jurors of their right to judge
the law itself, according to their conscience, as well as the facts of a
case. As Malatesta pointed out, "when differences were to arise between
men [sic!], would not arbitration voluntarily accepted, or pressure
of public opinion, be perhaps more likely to establish where the right
lies than through an irresponsible magistrate which has the right to
adjudicate on everything and everybody and is inevitably incompetent
and therefore unjust?" [_Anarchy_, p. 43]

In the case of a "police force," this would not exist either as a 
public or private specialised body or company. If a local community 
did consider that public safety required a body of people who could 
be called upon for help, we imagine that a new system would be created. 
Such a system would "not be entrusted to, as it is today, to a special, 
official body: all able-bodied inhabitants [of a commune] will be called
upon to take turns in the security measures instituted by the commune." 
[James Guillaume, _Bakunin on Anarchism_, p. 371] This system would be
based around a voluntary militia system, in which all members of the
community could serve if they so desired. Those who served would not
constitute a professional body; instead the service would be made 
up of local people who would join for short periods of time and be 
replaced if they abused their position. Hence the likelihood that 
a communal militia would become corrupted by power, like the current 
police force or a private security firm exercising a policing 
function, would be vastly reduced. Moreover, by accustoming a 
population to intervene in anti-social as part of the militia, 
they would be empowered to do so when not an active part of it, 
so reducing the need for its services even more.

Such a body would not have a monopoly on protecting others, but
would simply be on call if others required it. It would no more 
be a monopoly of defence (i.e. a "police force") than the current 
fire service is a monopoly. Individuals are not banned from putting 
out fires today because the fire service exists, similarly individuals 
will be free to help stop anti-social crime by themselves, or in 
association with others, in an anarchist society.

Of course there are anti-social acts which occur without witnesses and
so the "guilty" party cannot be readily identified. If such acts did
occur we can imagine an anarchist community taking two courses of
action. The injured party may look into the facts themselves or appoint 
an agent to do so or, more likely, an ad hoc group would be elected at 
a community assembly to investigate specific crimes of this sort. Such 
a group would be given the necessary "authority" to investigate the crime 
and be subject to recall by the community if they start trying to abuse 
whatever authority they had. Once the investigating body thought it had
enough evidence it would inform the community as well as the affected parties 
and then organise a court. Of course, a free society will produce different 
solutions to such problems, solutions no-one has considered yet and so
these suggestions are just that, suggestions.

As is often stated, prevention is better than cure. This is as true of 
crime as of disease. In other words, crime is best fought by rooting out
its *causes* as opposed to punishing those who act in response to these
causes. For example, it is hardly surprising that a culture that promotes
individual profit and consumerism would produce individuals who do not
respect other people (or themselves) and see them as purely means to 
an end (usually increased consumption). And, like everything else in
a capitalist system, such as honour and pride, conscience is also 
available at the right price -- hardly an environment which encourages 
consideration for others, or even for oneself. 

In addition, a society based on hierarchical authority will also 
tend to produce anti-social activity because the free development 
and expression it suppresses. Thus, irrational authority (which is 
often claimed to be the only cure for crime) actually helps produce 
it. As Emma Goldman argued, crime "is naught but misdirected energy. 
So long as every institution of today, economic, political, social, 
moral conspires to misdirect human energy into wrong channels; so 
long as most people are out of place doing things they hate to do, 
living a life they loathe to live, crime will be inevitable, and 
all the laws on the statues can only increase, but never do away 
with, crime" [_Red Emma Speaks_, p. 57]

Eric Fromm, decades latter, makes the same point:

"It would seem that the amount of destructiveness to be found in 
individuals is proportionate to the amount to which expansiveness 
of life is curtailed. By this we do not refer to individual 
frustrations of this or that instinctive desire but to the 
thwarting of the whole of life, the blockage of spontaneity
of the growth and expression of man's sensuous, emotional, and 
intellectual capacities. Life has an inner dynamism of its 
own; it tends to grow, to be expressed, to be lived . . . the 
drive for life and the drive for destruction are not mutually 
interdependent factors but are in a reversed interdependence. 
The more the drive towards life is thwarted, the stronger is 
the drive towards destruction; the more life is realised, the 
less is the strength of destructiveness. *Destructiveness is the 
outcome of unlived life.* Those individual and social conditions 
that make for suppression of life produce the passion for 
destruction that forms, so to speak, the reservoir from which 
particular hostile tendencies -- either against others or against 
oneself -- are nourished" [_The Fear of Freedom_, p. 158]

Therefore, by reorganising society so that it empowers everyone and
actively encourages the use of all our intellectual, emotional and
sensuous abilities, crime would soon cease to be the huge problem that 
it is now. As for the anti-social behaviour or clashes between individuals
that might still exist in such a society, it would be  dealt with in a
system based on respect for the individual and a recognition of the
social roots of the problem. Restraint would be kept to a minimum.

Anarchists think that public opinion and social pressure would be the 
main means of preventing anti-social acts in an anarchist society, with 
such actions as boycotting and ostracising used as powerful sanctions to
convince those attempting them of the errors of their way. Extensive 
non-co-operation by neighbours, friends and work mates would be the best 
means of stopping acts which harmed others. 

An anarchist system of justice, we should note, would have a lot to 
learn from aboriginal societies simply because they are examples of 
social order without the state. Indeed many of the ideas we consider 
as essential to justice today can be found in such societies. As 
Kropotkin argued, "when we imagine that we have made great advances 
in introducing, for instance, the jury, all we have done is to return 
to the institutions of the so-called 'barbarians' after having changed 
it to the advantage of the ruling classes." [_The State: Its Historic 
Role_, p. 18]

Like aboriginal justice (as documented by Rupert Ross in _Returning
to the Teachings: Exploring Aboriginal Justice_) anarchists contend 
that offenders should not be punished but justice achieved by the 
teaching and healing of all involved. Public condemnation of the 
wrongdoing would be a key aspect of this process, but the wrong doer 
would remain part of the community and so see the effects of their 
actions on others in terms of grief and pain caused. It would be 
likely that wrong doers would be expected to try to make amends 
for their act by community service or helping victims and their 
families.

So, from a practical viewpoint, almost all anarchists oppose prisons
on both practical grounds (they do not work) and ethical grounds 
("We know what prisons mean -- they mean broken down body and spirit, 
degradation, consumption, insanity" Voltairine de Cleyre, quoted by 
Paul Avrich in _An American Anarchist_, p. 146]). The Makhnovists 
took the usual anarchist position on prisons:

"Prisons are the symbol of the servitude of the people, they are always 
built only to subjugate the people, the workers and peasants. . . Free 
people have no use for prisons. Wherever prisons exist, the people are 
not free. . . In keeping with this attitude, they [the Makhnovists] 
demolished prisons wherever they went." [Peter Arshinov, _The History 
of the Makhnovist Movement_, p. 153] 

With the exception of Benjamin Tucker, no major anarchist writer supported 
the institution. Few anarchists think that private prisons (like private 
policemen) are compatible with their notions of freedom. However, all 
anarchists are against the current "justice" system which seems to them 
to be organised around *revenge* and punishing effects and not fixing 
causes. 

However, there are psychopaths and other people in any society who are
too dangerous to be allowed to walk freely. Restraint in this case would
be the only option and such people may have to be isolated from others
for their own, and others, safety. Perhaps mental hospitals would be
used, or an area quarantined for their use created (perhaps an 
island, for example). However, such cases (we hope) would be rare. 

So instead of prisons and a legal code based on the concept of
punishment and revenge, anarchists support the use of pubic opinion 
and pressure to stop anti-social acts and the need to therapeutically
rehabilitate those who commit anti-social acts. As Kropotkin argued,
"liberty, equality, and practical human sympathy are the most effective
barriers we can oppose to the  anti-social instinct of certain among us"
and *not* a parasitic legal system. [_The Anarchist Reader_, p. 117]

I.5.9 What about Freedom of Speech under Anarchism?

Many express the idea that *all* forms of socialism would endanger 
freedom of speech, press, and so forth. The usual formulation of this
argument is in relation to state socialism and goes as follows: if the
state (or "society") owned all the means of communication, then only the
views which the government supported would get access to the media. 

This is an important point and it needs to be addressed. However, before 
doing so, we should point out that under capitalism the major media are
effectively controlled by the wealthy. As we argued in section D.3, the
media are *not* the independent defenders of freedom that they like to
portray themselves as. This is hardly surprising, since newspapers,
television companies, and so forth are capitalist enterprises owned by the
wealthy and with managing  directors and editors who are also wealthy
individuals with a vested interest  in the status quo. Hence there are
institutional factors which ensure that the "free press" reflects the
interests of capitalist elites.

However, in democratic capitalist states there is little overt censorship.
Radical and independent publishers can still print their papers and books
without state intervention (although market forces ensure that this
activity can be difficult and financially unrewarding). Under socialism,
it is argued, because "society" owns the means of communication and
production, this liberty will not exist. Instead, as can be seen from
all examples of "actually existing socialism," such liberty is crushed 
in favour of the government's point of view.

As anarchism rejects the state, we can say that this danger does not
exist under libertarian socialism. However, since social anarchists argue
for the communalisation of production, could not restrictions on free
speech still exist? We argue no, for three reasons. 

Firstly, publishing houses, radio stations, and so on will be run 
by their workers directly. They will be supplied by other syndicates, 
with whom they will make agreements, and *not* by "central planning" 
officials, who would not exist. In other words, there is no bureaucracy 
of officials allocating (and so controlling) resources (and so the 
means of communication). Hence, anarchist self-management will ensure 
that there is a wide range of opinions in different magazines and 
papers. There would be community papers, radio stations, etc., and 
obviously they would play an increased role in a free society. But 
they would not be the only media. Associations, political parties, 
industrial syndicates, and so on would have their own media and/or 
would have access to the resources of communication workers' syndicates, 
so ensuring that a wide range of opinions can be expressed.

Secondly, the "ultimate" power in a free society will be the individuals
of which it is composed. This power will be expressed in communal and
workplace assemblies that can recall delegates and revoke their
decisions. It is doubtful that these assemblies would tolerate a set of
would-be bureaucrats determining what they can or cannot read, see, or
hear. 

Thirdly, individuals in a free society would be interested in hearing 
different viewpoints and discussing them. This is the natural
side-effect of critical thought (which self-management would encourage), 
and so they would have a vested interest in defending the widest possible
access to different forms of media for different views. Having no vested
interests to defend, a free society would hardly encourage or tolerate
the censorship associated with the capitalist media ("I listen to criticism 
because I am *greedy.* I listen to criticism because I am *selfish.* I
would not deny myself another's insights" [_The Right to be Greedy_]).

Therefore, anarchism will *increase* freedom of speech in many important 
ways, particularly in the workplace (where it is currently denied under 
capitalism). This will be a natural result of a society based on maximising
freedom and the desire to enjoy life. 

We would also like to point out that during both the Spanish and Russian 
revolutions, freedom of speech was protected within anarchist areas. 

For example, the Makhnovists in the Ukraine "fully applied the revolutionary
principles of freedom of speech, of thought, of the Press, and of political
association. In all the cities and towns occupied . . . Complete freedom
of speech, Press, assembly, and association of any kind and for everyone
was immediately proclaimed." [Peter Arshinov, _The History of the Makhnovist
Movement_, p. 153] This is confirmed by Michael Malet who notes that "[o]ne
of the most remarkable achievements of the Makhnovists was to preserve a
freedom of speech more extensive than any of their opponents." [_Nestor
Makhno in the Russian Civil War_, p. 175]

In revolutionary Spain republicans, liberals, communists, Trotskyites and 
many different anarchist groups all had freedom to express their views. 
Emma Goldman writes that "[o]n my first visit to Spain in September 1936,
nothing surprised me so much as the amount of political freedom I found
everywhere. True, it did not extend to Fascists . . . [but] everyone of
the anti-Fascist front enjoyed political freedom which hardly existed
in any of the so-called European democracies." [_Vision on Fire_, p.147] 
This is confirmed in a host of other eye-witnesses, including George 
Orwell in _Homage to Catalonia_ (in fact, it was the rise of the 
pro-capitalist republicans and communists that introduced censorship). 

Both movements were fighting a life-and-death struggle against communist,
fascist and pro-capitalist armies and so this defence of freedom of 
expression, given the circumstances, is particularly noteworthy.

Therefore, based upon both theory and practice, we can say that anarchism 
will not endanger freedom of expression. Indeed, by breaking up the 
capitalist oligopoly which currently exists and introducing workers'
self-management of the press, a far wider range of opinions will become
available in a free society. Rather than reflect the interests of a
wealthy elite, the media would reflect the interests of society as
a whole and the individuals and groups within it.

I.5.10 What about political parties?

Political parties and other interest groups will exist in an anarchist 
society as long as people feel the need to join them. They will not be
"banned" in any way, and their members will have the same rights as 
everyone else. Individuals who are members of political parties or
associations can take part in communal and other assemblies and try to
convince others of the soundness of their ideas. 

However, there is a key difference between such activity and politics
under a capitalist democracy. This is because the elections to positions of
responsibility in an anarchist society will not be based on party tickets
nor will it involve the delegation of power. Emile Pouget's description 
of the difference between the syndicalist trade union and elections drives
this difference home:

"The constituent part of the trade union is the individual. Except
that the union member is spared the depressing phenomenon manifest
in democratic circles where, thanks to the veneration of universal
suffrage, the trend is towards the crushing and diminution of the
human personality. In a democratic setting, the elector can avail
of his [or her] will only in order to perform an act of abdication:
his role is to 'award' his 'vote' to the candidate whom he [or she]
wishes to have as his [or her] 'representative.'

"Affiliation to the trade union has no such implication . . . In joining
the union, the worker merely enters into a contract -- which he may at
any time abjure --  with comrades who are his equals in will and potential
. . . In the union, say, should it come to the appointment of a trade
union council to take charge of administrative matters, such 'selection'
is not to be compared with 'election': the form of voting customarily
employed in such circumstances is merely a means whereby the labour can
be divided and is not accompanied by any delegation of authority. The
strictly prescribed duties of the trade union council are merely
administrative. The council performs the task entrusted to it, without
ever overruling its principals, without supplanting them or acting
in their place.

"The same might be said of all decisions reached in the union: all are
restricted to a definite and specific act, whereas in democracy, election
implies that the elected candidate has been issued by his [or her] elector 
with a carte blanche empowering him [or her] to decide and do as he [or
she] pleases, in and on everything, without even the hindrance of the
quite possibly contrary views of his [or her] principals, whose opposition,
in any case, no matter how pronounced, is of no consequence until such
time as the elected candidate's mandate has run its course.

"So there cannot be any possible parallels, let alone confusion, between
trade unions activity and participation in the disappointing chores of
politics." [_No Gods, No Masters_, vol. 2, pp. 67-68]

In other words, when individuals are elected to administrative posts they
are elected to carry out their mandate, *not* to carry out their party's
programme. Of course, if the individuals in question had convinced their
fellow workers and citizens that their programme was correct, then this
mandate and the programme would be identical. However this is unlikely in
practice. We would imagine that the decisions of collectives and communes
would reflect the complex social interactions and diverse political
opinions their members and of the various groupings within the
association.

Hence anarchism will likely contain many different political groupings and
ideas. The relative influence of these within collectives and communes
would reflect the strength of their arguments and the relevance of their
ideas, as would be expected in a free society. As Bakunin argued, "[t]he
abolition of this mutual influence would be death. And when we vindicate
the freedom of the masses, we are by no means suggesting the abolition of
any of the natural influences that individuals or groups of individuals
exert on them. What we want is the abolition of influences which are
artificial, privileged, legal, official." [quoted by Malatesta in 
_Anarchy_, p. 50]

It is only when representative government replaces self-management that 
political debate results in "elected dictatorship" and centralisation of 
power into the hands of one party which claims to speak for the whole of 
society, as if the latter had one mind. 

I.5.11 What about interest groups and other associations?

Anarchists do not think that social life can be reduced to political 
and economic associations alone. Individuals have many different 
interests and desires which they must express in order to have a
truly free and interesting  life. Therefore an anarchist society 
will see the development of numerous voluntary associations and 
groups to express these interests. For example, there would be 
consumer groups, musical groups, scientific associations, art 
associations, clubs, housing co-operatives and associations, 
craft and hobby guilds, fan clubs, animal rights associations,
groups based around sex, sexuality, creed and colour and so forth. 
Associations will be created for all human interests and activities. 

As Kropotkin argued:

"He who wishes for a grand piano will enter the association of musical
instrument makers. And by giving the association part of his half-days'
leisure, he will soon possess the piano of his dreams. If he is fond of
astronomical studies he will join the association of astronomers. . . 
and he will have the telescope he desires by taking his share of the
associated work. . .In short, the five or seven hours a day which each
will have at his disposal, after having consecrated several hours to the
production of necessities, would amply suffice to satisfy all longings for
luxury, however varied. Thousands of associations would undertake to 
supply them." [_The Conquest of Bread_, p. 120]

We can imagine, therefore, an anarchist society being based around
associations and interest groups on every subject which fires the
imagination of individuals and for which individuals want to meet in 
order to express and further their interests. Housing associations, 
for example, would exist to allow inhabitants to manage their local 
areas, design and maintain their homes and local parks and gardens.
Animal rights and other interest groups would produce information on 
issues they consider important, trying to convince others of the 
errors of eating meat or whatever. Consumer groups would be in dialogue
with syndicates about improving products and services, ensuring that
syndicates produce what is required by consumers. Environment groups 
would exist to watch production and make sure that it is not creating 
damaging side effects and informing both syndicates and communes of
their findings. Feminist, homosexual, bisexual and anti-racist groups 
would exist to put their ideas across, highlighting areas in which social 
hierarchies and prejudice still existed. All across society, people 
would be associating together to express themselves and convince others 
of their ideas on many different issues.

Hence in a anarchist society, free association would take on a stronger
and more positive role than under capitalism. In this way, social life
would  take on many dimensions, and the individual would have the choice of
thousands of societies to join to meet his or her interests or create new
ones with other like-minded people. Anarchists would be the last to deny
that there is more to life than work!

I.5.12 Would an anarchist society provide health care and other 
	 public services?

It depends on the type of anarchist society you are talking about.
Different anarchists propose different solutions.

In an individualist-mutualist society, for example, health care
and other public services would be provided by individuals or
co-operatives on a pay-for-use basis. It would be likely that
individuals or co-operatives/associations would subscribe to
various insurance providers or enter into direct contracts
with health care providers. Thus the system would be similar
to privatised health care but without the profit margins as
competition, it is hoped, would drive prices down to cost.

Other anarchists reject such a system. They are favour of
socialising health care and other public services. They argue
that a privatised system would only be able to meet the
requirements of those who can afford to pay for it and so 
would be unjust and unfair. The need for medical attention is 
not dependent on income and so a civilised society would
recognise this fact. Under capitalism, profit-maximising 
medical insurance sets premiums according to the risks of 
the insured getting ill or injured, with the riskiest may 
not being able to find insurance at any price. Private 
insurers shun entire industries, such as logging, as too 
dangerous for their profits due to the likelihood of accidents 
or illness. They review contracts regularly and drop people who 
get sick. Hardly a vision to inspire a free society or one 
compatible with equality and mutual respect.

Moreover, competition would lead to inefficiencies as prices 
would be inflated to pay for advertising, competition related 
administration costs, paying dividends to share-holders and so on. 
For example, in 1993, Canada's health plans devoted 0.9% of spending 
to overhead, compared to U.S. figures of 3.2% for Medicare and 12% 
for private insurers. In addition, when Canada adopted its publicly 
financed system in 1971, it and the U.S. both spent just over 7% 
of GDP on health care. By 1990, the U.S. was up to 12.3%, verses 
Canada's 9%. 

As can be seen, social anarchists point to what happens under 
capitalism when discussing the benefits of a socialised system
of health care in an anarchist society. Competition, they argue,
harms health-care provision. According to Alfie Kohn:

"More hospitals and clinics are being run by for-profit 
corporations; many institutions, forced to battle for 'customers,' 
seem to value a skilled director of marketing more highly than a 
skilled caregiver. As in any other economic sector, the race for 
profits translates into pressure to reduce costs, and the easiest 
way to do it here is to cut back on services to unprofitable 
patients, that is, those who are more sick than rich . . ." 

He concludes:

"The result: hospital costs are actually *higher* in areas 
where there is more competition for patients." [Alfie Kohn, 
_No Contest_, p. 240]

As Robert Kuttner notes: 

"The American health-care system is a tangle of inequity and 
inefficiency -- and getting worse as private-market forces 
seek to rationalise it. A shift to a universal system 
of health coverage would cut this Gordian knot at a stroke. 
It would not only deliver the explicitly medical aspects 
of health more efficiently and fairly, but, by socialising 
costs of poor health, it would also create a powerful 
financial incentive for society as a whole to stress primary 
prevention. . . every nation with a universal system
spends less of its GDP on health care than the United States
. . . And nearly every other nation with a universal system
has longer life spans from birth (though roughly equivalent
life spans from adulthood) . . . most nations with universal
systems also have greater patient satisfaction.

"The reasons . . . should be obvious. By their nature, universal
systems spend less money on wasteful overhead, and more on
primary prevention. Health-insurance overhead in the United 
States alone consumes about 1 percent of the GDP, compared
to 0.1 percent in Canada. Though medical inflation is a
problem everywhere, the universal systems have had far
lower rates of cost inflation . . . In the years between
1980 and 1987, total health costs in the United States
increased by 2.4 times the rate of GDP growth. In nations
with universal systems, they increased far more slowly.
The figures for Sweden, France, West Germany, and Britain
were 1.2, 1.6, 1.8, and 1.7 percent, respectively . . .

[. . . ]

"Remarkably enough, the United States spends most money 
on health care, but has the fewest beds per thousand in
population, the lowest admission rate, and the lowest
occupancy rate -- coupled with the highest daily cost,
highest technology-intensiveness, and greatest number
of employees per bed." [_Everything for Sale_, pp. 155-6]

In 1993, the US paid 13.4% of its GDP towards health care,
compared to 10% for Canada, 8.6% for Sweden and Germany,
6.6% for Britain and 6.8% for Japan. Only 40% of the US
population was covered by public health care and over 35 
million people, 14% of the population, went without health 
insurance for all of 1991, and about twice that many were 
uninsured for some period during the year. In terms of
health indicators, the US people are not getting value
for money. Life expectancy is higher in Canada, Sweden,
Germany, Japan and Britain. The USA has the highest levels
of infant mortality and is last in basic health indicators
as well as having fewer doctors per 1,000 people than the 
OECD average. All in all, the US system is miles begin the
universal systems of other countries.

Of course, it will be argued that the USA is not an anarchy and
so comparisons are pointless. However, it seems strange that
the more competitive system, the more privatised system, is
less efficient and less fair than the universal systems. It
also seems strange that defenders of competition happily
use examples from "actually existing" capitalism to illustrate
their politics but reject negative examples as being a product
of an "impure" system. They want to have their cake and eat
it to.

Therefore, most anarchists are in favour of a socialised and
universal health-care system for both ethical and efficiency
reasons. Needless to say, an anarchist system of socialised 
health care would differ in many ways to the current systems 
of universal health-care provided by the state.

Such a system of socialised health-care will be built from
the bottom-up and based around the local commune. In a social
anarchist society, "medical services . . . will be free of
charge to all inhabitants of the commune. The doctors will
not be like capitalists, trying to extract the greatest
profit from their unfortunate patients. They will be employed
by the commune and expected to treat all who need their
services." Moreover, prevention will play an important
part, as "medical treatment is only the *curative* side of
the science of health care; it is not enough to treat the
sick, it is also necessary to prevent disease. That is the
true function of hygiene." [James Guillaume, _Bakunin on 
Anarchism_, p. 371] 

How would an anarchist health service work? It would be based
on self-management, of course, with close links to the local
commune and federations of communes. Each hospital or health
centre would be autonomous but linked in a federation with
the others, allowing resources to be shared as and when required
while allowing the health service to adjust to local needs and
requirements as quickly as possible.

The Spanish Revolution indicates how an anarchist health service
would operate. In rural areas local doctors would usually join the 
village collective and provided their services like any other
worker. Where local doctors were not available, "arrangements
were made by the collectives for treatment of their members by
hospitals in nearby localities. In a few cases, collectives
themselves build hospitals; in many they acquired equipment
and other things needed by their local physicians." For example,
the Monzon comercal (district) federation of collectives in Aragon 
established maintained a hospital in Binefar, the Casa de Salud 
Durruti. By April 1937 it had 40 beds, in sections which included 
general medicine, prophylaxis and gynaecology. It saw about 25 
outpatients a day and was open to anyone in the 32 villages of 
the comarca. [Robert Alexander, _The Anarchists in the Spanish 
Civil War_, vol. 1, p. 331 and pp. 366-7]

The socialisation of the health care took on a slightly different
form in Catalonia but on the same libertarian principles. Gaston 
Leval provides us with an excellent summary:

"The socialisation of health services was one of the greatest
achievements of the revolution. To appreciate the efforts of
our comrades it must be borne in mind that the rehabilitated
the health service in all of Catalonia in so short a time
after July 19th. The revolution could count on the co-operation
of a number of dedicated doctors whose ambition was not to
accumulate wealth but to serve the afflicted and the
underprivileged.

"The Health Workers' Union was founded in September, 1936. In
line with the tendency to unite all the different classifications,
trades, and services serving a given industry, *all* health
workers, from porters to doctors and administrators, were
organised into one big union of health workers

[. . .]

"Our comrades laid the foundations of a new health service . . .
The new medical service embraced all of Catalonia. It constituted
a great apparatus whose parts were distributed according to
different needs, all in accord with an overall plan. Catalonia
was divided into nine zones . . . In turn, all the surrounding
villages and towns were served from these centres.

"Distributed throughout Catalonia were twenty-seven towns with
a total of thirty-sex health centres conducting services so
thoroughly that every village, every hamlet, every isolated
peasant in the mountains, every woman, every child, anywhere,
received adequate, up-to-date medical care. In each of the
nine zones there was a central syndicate and a Control 
Committee located in Barcelona. Every department was 
autonomous within its own sphere. But this autonomy was not
synonymous with isolation. The Central Committee in Barcelona,
chosen by all the sections, met once a week with one delegate
from each section to deal with common problems and to 
implement the general plan. . . 

"The people immediately benefited from the projects of the
health syndicate. The syndicate managed all hospitals and
clinics. Six hospitals were opened in Barcelona. . . Eight
new sanitariums were installed in converted luxurious homes
ideally situated amidst mountains and pine forests. It was
no easy task to convert these homes into efficient hospitals
with all new facilities. . ." [quoted by Sam Dolgoff, _The
Anarchist Collectives_, pp. 99-100]

People were no longer required to pay for medical services. Each 
collective, if it could afford it, would pay a contribution to 
its health centre. Building and facilities were improved and 
modern equipment introduced. Like other self-managed industries,
the health service was run at all levels by general assemblies 
of workers who elected delegates and hospital administration.

In the Levante, the CNT built upon its existing Sociedad de 
Socorros Mutuos de Levante (a health service institution founded 
by the union as a kind of mutual benefit society which had numerous 
doctors and specialists). During the revolution, the Mutua had 
50 doctors and was available to all affiliated workers and
their families.

Thus, all across Spain, the workers in the health service
re-organised their industry in libertarian lines and in 
association with the local collective or commune and the
unions of the CNT. As Gaston Leval summarises:

"Everywhere that we were able to study the towns and little
cities transformed by the revolution, the hospitals, the
clinics, the polyclincs and other health establishments
have been municipalised, enlarged, modernised, put under
the safekeeping of the collectivity. And where they didn't
exist, they were improvised. The socialisation of medicine
was a work for the benefit of all." [quoted by Robert
Alexander, Op. Cit., p. 677]

We can expect a similar process to occur in the future
anarchist society. Workers in the health industry will
organise their workplaces, federate together to share
resources and information, to formulate plans and improve
the quality of service to the public. The communes and 
their federations, the syndicates and federations of syndicates
will provide resources and effectively own the health system,
ensuring access for all.

Similar systems would operate in other public services. For example,
in education we expect the members of communes to organise a
system of free schools. This can be seen from the Spanish revolution.
Indeed, the Spanish anarchists organised Modern Schools before the
outbreak of the revolution, with 50 to 100 schools in various parts
funded by local anarchist groups and CNT unions. During the revolution
everywhere across Spain, syndicates, collectives and federations
of collectives formed and founded schools. Indeed, education "advanced
at an unprecedented pace. Most of the partly or wholly socialised
collectives and municipalities built at least one school. By 1938,
for example, every collective in the Levant Federation had its own
school." [Gaston Leval, quoted by Sam Dolgoff, _The Anarchist
Collectives_, p. 168] These schools aimed, to quote the CNT's 
resolution on Libertarian Communism, to "help mould men with
minds of their own -- and let it be clear that when we use the
word 'men' we use it in the generic sense -- to which end it will
be necessary for the teacher to cultivate every one of the child's
faculties so that the child may develop every one of its capacities
to the full." [quoted by Jose Periats, _The CNT in the Spanish
Revolution_, p. 70] The principles of libertarian education, of
encouraging freedom instead of authority in the school, was
applied on vast scale (see section J.5.13 for more details on
Modern Schools and libertarian education).

This educational revolution was not confined to collectives or
children. For example, the Federacion Regional de Campesinos de 
Levante formed institutes in each of its five provinces. The 
first was set up in October 1937 in an old convent with 100 
students. The Federation also set up two "universities" in 
Valencia and Madrid which taught a wide variety of agricultural
subjects and combined learning with practical experience in an
experimental form attached to each university. The Aragon 
collectives formed a similar specialised school in Binefar. The 
CNT was heavily involved in transforming education in Catalonia. 
In addition, the local federation of the CNT in Barcelona
established a school to train women workers to replace male
ones being taken into the army. The school was run by the
anarchist-feminist group the Mujeres Libres. [Robert Alexander, 
Op. Cit., p. 406, p. 670 and pp. 665-8 and p. 670]

Ultimately, the public services that exist in a social anarchist
society will be dependent on what members of that society desire.
If, for example, a commune or federation of communes desires a
system of communal health-care or schools then they will allocate
resources to implement it. They will allocate the task of creating
such a system to, say, a special commission based on volunteers
from the interested parties such as the relevant syndicates,
professional associations, consumer groups and so on. For example,
for communal education a commission or working group would include
delegates from the teachers union, from parent associations, from
student unions and so on. The running of such a system would be
based, like any other industry, on those who work in it. Functional
self-management would be the rule, with doctors managing their
work, nurses theirs and so on, while the general running of, say, 
a hospital would be based on a general assembly of all workers
there who would elect and mandate delegates, the administration
staff and decide the policy the hospital would follow. Needless 
to say, other interested parties would have a say, including 
patients in the health system and students in the education 
system.

Thus, as would be expected, public services would be organised
by the public, organised in their syndicates and communes. They
would be based on workers' self-management of their daily work
and of the system as a whole. Non-workers who took part in the
system (patients, students) would not be ignored and would also 
place a role in providing essential feedback to assure quality 
control of services and to ensure that the service is responsive
to users needs. The resources required to maintain and expand
the system would be provided by the communes, syndicates and
their federations. For the first time, public services would
truly be public and not a statist system imposed upon the
public from above.

Needless to say, any system of public services would not be imposed
on those who did not desire it. They would be organised for and
by members of the communes. Therefore, individuals who were
not part of a local commune or syndicate would have to pay to
gain access to the communal resources. However, it is unlikely
that an anarchist society would be as barbaric as a capitalist
one and refuse entry to cases who were ill and could not pay,
nor turn away emergencies because they did not have enough money
to pay. And just as other workers need not join a syndicate
or commune, so doctors, teachers and so on could practice their
trade outside the communal system as either individual artisans
or as part of a co-operative. However, given the availability
of free medical services it is doubtful they would grow rich
doing so. Medicine, teaching and so on would revert back to what
usually initially motivates people to take these up professions -- 
the desire to help others and make a positive impact in peoples 
lives.

I.5.13 Won't an anarchist society be vulnerable to the power hungry?

A common objection to anarchism is that an anarchist society will
be vulnerable to be taken over by thugs or those who seek power. A
similar argument is that a group without a leadership structure 
becomes open to charismatic leaders so anarchy would just lead to 
tyranny. 

For anarchists, such arguments are strange. Society already *is*
run by thugs and/or the off-spring of thugs. Kings were originally
just successful thugs who succeeded in imposing their domination
over a given territorial area. The modern state has evolved from
the structure created to impose this domination. Similarly with
property, with most legal titles to land being traced back to
its violent seizure by thugs who then passed it on to their
children who then sold it or gave it to their offspring. The
origins of the current system in violence can be seen by the
continued use of violence by the state and capitalists to enforce
and protect their domination over society. When push comes to
shove, the dominant class will happily re-discover their thug
past and employ extreme violence to maintain their privileges.
The descent of large parts of Europe into Fascism during the 
1930s, or Pinochet's coup in Chile in 1973 indicates how far 
they will go. As Peter Arshinov argued (in a slightly different
context):

"Statists fear free people. They claim that without authority
people will lose the anchor of sociability, will dissipate
themselves, and will return to savagery. This is obviously
rubbish. It is taken seriously by idlers, lovers of authority
and of the labour of others, or by blind thinkers of bourgeois
society. The liberation of the people in reality leads to the
degeneration and return to savagery, not of the people, but
of those who, thanks to power and privilege, live from the
labour of the people's arms and from the blood of the people's
veins . . . The liberation of the people leads to the savagery
of those who live from its enslavement." [_The History of the
Makhnovist Movement_, p. 85]

Anarchists are not impressed with the argument that anarchy
would be unable to stop thugs seizing power. It ignores the
fact that we live in a society where the power-hungry already
hold power. As an argument against anarchism it fails and is,
in fact, an argument against capitalist and statist societies.

Moreover, it also ignores fact that people in an anarchist society 
would have gained their freedom by overthrowing every existing and 
would-be thug who had or desired power over others. They would have
defended that freedom against those who desired to re-impose it. 
They would have organised themselves to manage their own affairs 
and, therefore, to abolish all hierarchical power. And we are to 
believe that these people, after struggling to become free, would 
quietly let a new set of thugs impose themselves? As Kropotkin 
argued:

"The only way in which a state of Anarchy can be obtained
is for each man [or woman] who is oppressed to act as if
he [or she] were at liberty, in defiance of all authority
to the contrary . . . In practical fact, territorial
extension is necessary to ensure permanency to any given
individual revolution. In speaking of the Revolution, we
signify the aggregate of so many successful individual
and group revolts as will enable every person within the
revolutionised territory to act in perfect freedom . . .
without having to constantly dread the prevention or the
vengeance of an opposing power upholding the former system
. . . Under these circumstance it is obvious that any
visible reprisal could and would be met by a resumption of
the same revolutionary action on the part of the individuals
or groups affected, and that the *maintenance* of a state
of Anarchy in this manner would be far easier than the
gaining of a state of Anarchy by the same methods and in
the face of hitherto unshaken opposition . . . They have
it in their power to apply a prompt check by boycotting
such a person and refusing to help him with their labour
or to willing supply him with any articles in their
possession. They have it in their power to use force 
against him. They have these powers individually as well
as collectively. Being either past rebels who have been
inspired with the spirit of liberty, or else habituated to
enjoy freedom from their infancy, they are hardly to rest
passive in view of what they feel to be wrong." [Kropotkin,
_Act for Yourselves_, pp. 87-8]

Thus a free society would use direct action to resist the
would-be ruler just as it had used direct action to free
itself from existing rulers. An anarchist society would be
organised in a way which would facilitate this direct action
as it would be based on networks of solidarity and mutual aid.
An injury to one is an injury to all and a would-be ruler
would face a whole liberated society acting against him or
her. Faced with the direct action of the population (which
would express itself in non-co-operation, strikes, demonstrations,
occupations, insurrections and so on) a would be power seeker
would find it difficult to impose themselves. Unlike those
accustomed to rulership in existing society, an anarchist
people would be a society of rebels and so difficult to 
dominate and conquer.

Anarchists point to the example of the rise of Fascism in
Italy, Spain and Germany to prove their point. In areas
with strong anarchist movements the fascists were 
resisted most strongly. While in Germany Hitler took
power with little or no opposition, in Italy and
Spain the fascists had to fight long and hard to
gain power. The anarchist and anarcho-syndicalist
organisations fought the fascists tooth and nail,
with some success before betrayal by the Republicans
and Marxists. From this historical experience anarchists
argue that an anarchist society would quickly and
easily defeat would-be thugs as people would be 
used to practising direct action and self-management
and would have no desire to stop practising them.

As for self-management resulting in "charismatic" leaders, well 
the logic is astounding. As if hierarchical structures are *not* 
based on leadership structures and do not require a charismatic 
leader! Such an argument is inherently self-contradictory -- as
well as ignoring the nature of modern society and its leadership
structures. Rather than mass assemblies being dominated by
leaders, it is the case that hierarchical structures are the
natural breeding ground for dictators. All the great dictators
the world have seen have come to the forefront in *hierarchical*
organisations, *not* libertarian structured ones. Hitler, for
example, did not come to power via a libertarian organisation.
Rather he used a highly centralised and hierarchically organised
party to take control of a centralised, hierarchical state. The
very disempowerment of the population in capitalist society results 
in them looking to leaders to act for them and so "charismatic"
leaders are a natural result. An anarchist society, by empowering 
all, would make it more difficult, not less, for a would-be 
leader to gain power -- few people, if any, would be willing 
to sacrifice and negate themselves for the benefit of another.

As would be expected, given our comments above, anarchists think
an anarchist society must defend itself against attempts to 
re-introduce the state or private property. The question of
defence of an anarchist society is discussed in the next section
and so we will not do so here.

Our discussion on the power hungry obviously relates to the more general
the question of whether ethical behaviour be rewarded in an anarchist 
society. In other words, could an anarchist society be stable or would
the unethical take over?

It is one of the most disturbing aspects of living in a world where the 
rush to acquire wealth is the single most important aspect of living is 
what happens to people who follow an ethical path in life.

Under capitalism, the ethical generally do not succeed as well as those 
stab their fellows in the back, those who cut corners, indulge in sharp 
business practises, drive competitors into the ground and live their lives 
with an eye on the bottom line but they do survive. Loyalty to a firm or
a group, bending over backwards to provide a service, giving a helping 
hand to somebody in need, placing friendship above money, count for 
nothing when the bills come in. People who act ethically in a capitalist 
society are usually punished and penalised for their ethical, moral and 
principled behaviour. Indeed, the capitalist market rewards unethical
behaviour as it generally reduces costs and so gives those who do it
a competitive edge.

It is different in a free society. Anarchism is based on two principles 
of association, equal access to power and wealth. Everybody in an anarchist 
society irrespective of what they do, or who they are or what type of work 
they perform is entitled to share in society's wealth. Whether a community 
survives or prospers depends on the combined efforts of the people in that 
community. Ethical behaviour would become the norm in an anarchist community; 
those people who act ethically would be rewarded by the standing they achieve 
in the community and by others being more than happy to work with and aid
them. People who cut corners, try to exercise power over others, refuse
to co-operate as equals or otherwise act in an unethical manner would 
lose their standing in an anarchist society. Their neighbours and work
mates would refuse to co-operate with them (or reduce co-operation to 
a minimum) and take other forms of non-violent direct action to point
out that certain forms of activity was inappropriate. They would discuss
the issue with the unethical person and try to convince them of the errors
of their way. In a society where the necessities are guaranteed,
people would tend to act ethically because ethical behaviour raises an
individuals profile and standing within such a community. Capitalism and
ethical behaviour are mutually exclusive concepts; anarchism encourages and
rewards ethical behaviour.

Therefore, as can be seen, anarchists argue that a free society would
not have to fear would-be thugs, "charismatic" leaders or the unethical.
An anarchist society would be based on the co-operation of free individuals.
It is unlikely that they would tolerate such behaviour and would use
their own direct action as well as social and economic organisations to
combat it. Moreover, the nature of free co-operation would reward ethical
behaviour as those who practice it would have it reciprocated by their
fellows.

One last point. Some people seem to think that anarchism is about 
the powerful being appealed to *not* to oppress and dominate others. 
Far from it. Anarchism is about the oppressed and exploited refusing 
to let others dominate them. It is *not* an appeal to the "better 
side" of the boss or would-be boss; it is about the solidarity and
direct action of those subject to a boss *getting rid of the boss* --
whether the boss agrees to it or not! Once this is clearly understood
the idea that an anarchist society is vulnerable to the power-hungry
is clearly nonsense -- anarchy is based on resisting power and so
is, by its very nature, more resistant to would-be rulers than
a hierarchical one.

I.5.14 How could an anarchist society defend itself?


Anarchists are well aware that an anarchist society will have
to defend itself from both inside and outside attempts to 
re-impose capitalism and the state. Indeed, every revolutionary
anarchist has argued that a revolution will have to defend itself.

Unfortunately, Marxists have consistently misrepresented anarchist
ideas on this subject. Lenin, for example, argued that the
"proletariat needs the state only temporarily. We do not at all
disagree with the anarchists on the question of the abolition
of the state as an *aim.* We maintain that, to achieve this aim,
we must temporarily make use of the instruments, resources and
methods of state power *against* the exploiters, just as the
dictatorship of the oppressed class is temporarily necessary 
for the abolition of classes. Marx chooses the sharpest and
clearest way of stating his position against the anarchists:
after overthrowing the  yoke of the capitalists, should 
workers 'lay down their arms' or use them against the
capitalists in order to crush their resistance? But what is
the systematic use of arms by one class against the other,
if not a 'transitory form' of state." ["The State and
Revolution", _Essential Works of Lenin_, p. 316]

Fortunately, as Murray Bookchin points out, anarchists are "not 
so naive as to believe anarchism could be established overnight. In
imputing this notion to Bakunin, Marx and Engels wilfully distorted
the Russian anarchist's views. Nor did the anarchists . . . believe
that the abolition of the state involved 'laying down arms' 
immediately after the revolution. . ." [_Post-Scarcity Anarchism_,
p. 213] Even a basic familiarity with the work of anarchist thinkers
would make the reader aware that Bookchin is right. As we shall
see, anarchists have consistently argued that a revolution and
an anarchist society needs to be defended against those who would
try and re-introduce hierarchy, domination, oppression and 
exploitation (even, as with Leninists, they call themselves
"socialists"). As Malatesta argued in 1891:

"Many suppose that . . . anarchists, in the name of their principles,
would wish to see that strange liberty respected which violates and
destroys the freedom and life of others. They seem almost to believe
that after having brought down government and private property
we would allow both to be quietly built up again, because of a
respect for the *freedom* of those who might feel the need to
be rulers and property owners. A truly curious way of interpreting
our ideas!" [_Anarchy_, p. 41]

Anarchists reject the idea that defending a revolution, or even 
the act of revolution itself, represents or requires a "state." As
Malatesta argued, the state "means the delegation of power, that
is the abdication of initiative and sovereignty of all into the
hands of a few." [Op. Cit., p. 40] Luigi Fabbri stresses this when
he argued that, for anarchists, "the essence of the state . . . 
[is] centralised power *or to put it another way the coercive
authority* of which the state enjoys the monopoly, in that
organisation of violence know as 'government'; in the
hierarchical despotism, juridical, police and military
despotism that imposes laws on everyone." ["Anarchy and 
'Scientific' Communism", in _The Poverty of Statism_, 
pp. 13-49, Albert Meltzer (ed.), pp. 24-5] Therefore the
state is the delegation of power, the centralisation of
authority into the hands of a few at the top of society
rather than a means of defending a revolution against the
expropriated ruling class. To confuse the defence of a
revolution and the state is, therefore, a great mistake
as it introduces an inequality of power into a so-called
socialist society. In the words of Voline:

"*All political power inevitably creates a privileged 
situation* for the men who exercise it. Thus is violates, 
from the beginning, the equalitarian principle and strikes 
at the heart of the Social Revolution . . . [and] becomes 
the source of other privileges . . . *power is compelled to 
create a bureaucratic and coercive apparatus* indispensable 
to all authority . . . *Thus it forms a new privileged
caste,* at first politically and later economically. . .
It sows everywhere the seed of inequality and soon infects
the whole social organism . . . It *predisposes the masses
to passivity,* and all sprite and initiative is stifled by
the very existence of power, in the extent to which it is
exercised." [_The Unknown Revolution_, p. 249]

Unsurprisingly, anarchists think a revolution should defend
itself in the same way that it organises itself -- from the
bottom up, in a self-managed way. The means to defend an
anarchist society or revolution are based around the organs
of self-management that revolution creates. In the words of
Bakunin:

"[T]he federative Alliance of all working men's associations . . . 
constitute the Commune . . .. Commune will be organised by the 
standing federation of the Barricades and by the creation of
a Revolutionary Communal Council composed of one or two
delegates from each barricade . . . vested with plenary but
accountable and removable mandates . . . all provinces, communes
and associations . . . *reorganising* on revolutionary lines
. . . [would] send . . . their representatives to an agreed
meeting place . . . vested with similar mandates to constitute
the federation of insurgent associations, communes and provinces 
. . . [which would] organise a revolutionary force capable of 
defeating reaction . . . it is the very fact of the expansion 
and organisation of the revolution for the purpose of self-defence 
among the insurgent areas that will bring about the triumph of 
the revolution. . . 

"Since revolution everywhere must be created by the people, and
supreme control must always belong to the people organised in
a free federation of agricultural and industrial associations
. . . organised from the bottom upwards by means of revolutionary
delegation. . . " [_Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings_, pp. 170-2]

Thus we have a dual framework of revolution. On the one hand, the
federation of workers' councils based on self-managed assemblies
nominating mandated and accountable delegates. On the other, we
have a federation of barricades, again based on self-management
and mandated delegates, which actually defends the revolution
against reaction. The success of the revolution depends on 
spreading it and organising joint self-defence. He stressed 
the importance of co-ordinating defence two years later, in
1870:

"[L]et us suppose . . . it is Paris that starts [the revolution] 
. . . Paris will naturally make haste to organise itself as best 
it can, in revolutionary style, after the workers have joined into 
associations and made a clean sweep of all the instruments of
labour, every kind of capital and building; armed and organised
by streets and *quartiers*, they will form the revolutionary
federation of all the *quartiers*, the federative commune. . .
All the French and foreign revolutionary communes will then
send representatives to organise the necessary common services
. . . and to organise common defence against the enemies of
the Revolution, together with propaganda, the weapon of
revolution, and practical revolutionary solidarity with 
friends in all countries against enemies in all countries." 
[Op. Cit., p. 178-9]

As can be seen, the revolution not only abolishes the state by
a free federation of workers associations, it also expropriates
capital and ends wage labour. Thus the "political revolution
is transformed into social revolution." [Op. Cit., p. 171]
Which, we must add, destroys another Marxist myth that claims
that anarchists think, to quote Engels, that "the state is
the chief evil, [and] it is above all the state which must
be done away with and then capitalism will go to blazes," in
other words, the "abolition of the state" comes before the
"social revolution." [Marx and Engels, _The Marx-Engels
Reader_ p. 728] As can be clearly seen, anarchists consider
the social revolution to be, *at the same time*, the abolition 
of the state *along with* the abolition of capitalism.

Therefore, Bakunin was well aware of the needs to defend a revolution
after destroying the state and abolishing capitalism. It is clear
that after a successful rising, the revolutionary population does 
*not* "lay down their arms" but rather organises itself in a federal
to co-ordinate defence against reactionary areas which seek to
destroy it. 

Nor was Bakunin alone in this analysis. For example, we discover 
Errico Malatesta arguing that during a revolution we should "[a]rm 
all the population." The revolution would have "armed the people 
so that it can resist any armed attempt by reaction to re-establish 
itself." This revolution would involve "creation of a voluntary 
militia, without powers to interfere as militia in the life of the 
community, but only to deal with any armed attacks by the forces 
of reaction to re-establish themselves, or to resist outside 
intervention by countries as yet not in a state of revolution."
Like Bakunin, Malatesta stresses the importance of co-ordinating
activity via free federations of workers' associations -- "the
development of the revolution would be the task of volunteers,
by all kinds of committees, local, intercommunal, regional
and national congresses which would attend to the co-ordination
of social activity," the "[o]rganisation of social life
by means of free association and federations of producers
and consumers, created and modified according to the wishes
of their members," and so be "under the direct control of the
people." Again, like Bakunin, the revolution would abolish
state and capital, and "the workers . . . [should] take possession
of the factories . . . federate among themselves . . . the
peasants should take over the land and the produce usurped
by the landlords." Ultimately, the "most powerful means for
defending the revolution remains always that of taking away
from the bourgeois the economic means on which their power
rests, and of arming everybody (until such time as one will
have managed to persuade everybody to throw away their
arms as useless and dangerous toys), and of interesting
the mass of the population in the victory of the revolution."
[_Life and Ideas_, p. 170, p. 165, p. 166, pp. 165-6, p. 184, 
p. 175, p. 165 and p. 173] 

Malatesta stresses that a government is not required to
defend a revolution:

"But, by all means, let us admit that the governments of the still
unemancipated countries were to want to, and could, attempt to
reduce free people to a state of slavery once again. Would this
people require a government to defend itself? To wage war men
are needed who have all the necessary geographical and mechanical
knowledge, and above all large masses of the population willing
to go and fight. A government can neither increase the abilities
of the former nor the will and courage of the latter. And the 
experience of history teaches us that a people who really want to 
defend their own country are invincible: and in Italy everyone
knows that before the corps of volunteers (anarchist formations)
thrones topple, and regular armies composed of conscripts or
mercenaries disappear." [_Anarchy_, pp. 40-1]

The Spanish anarchist D. A. Santillan argued that the "local 
Council of Economy will assume the mission of defence and raise 
voluntary corps for guard duty and if need be, for combat" in 
the "cases of emergency or danger of a counter-revolution." 
These Local Councils would be a federation of workplace
councils and would be members of the Regional Council of
the Economy which, like the Local Council, would be "constitute[d]
by delegations or through assemblies. [_After the Revolution_, p. 80
and pp. 82-83] Yet again we see the defence of the revolution
based on the federation of workers' councils and so directly
controlled by the revolutionary population.

Lastly, we turn to the Spanish CNT's 1936 resolution on Libertarian
Communism. In this document is a section entitled "Defence of the
Revolution" which argues:

"We acknowledge the necessity to defend the advances made
through the revolution . . . So . . . the necessary steps will
be taken to defend the new regime, whether against the perils of
a foreign capitalist invasion . . . or against counter-revolution
at home. It must be remembered that a standing army constitutes 
the greatest danger for the revolution, since its influence could 
lead to dictatorship, which would necessarily kill off the
revolution. . . 

"The people armed will be the best assurance against any
attempt to restore the system destroyed from either within 
or without. . .

"Let each Commune have its weapons and means of defence
. . . the people will mobilise rapidly to stand up to
the enemy, returning to their workplaces as soon as they 
may have accomplished their mission of defence. . . . 

"1. The disarming of capitalism implies the surrender of 
weaponry to the communes which be responsible for ensuring
defensive means are effectively organised nationwide.

"2. In the international context, we shall have to
mount an intensive propaganda drive among the proletariat
of every country so that it may take an energetic protest, 
calling for sympathetic action against any attempted
invasion by its respective government. At the same time, 
our Iberian Confederation of Autonomous Libertarian Communes 
will render material and moral assistance to all the world's 
exploited so that these may free themselves forever from the 
monstrous control of capitalism and the State." [quoted by 
Jose Peirats, _The CNT in the Spanish Revolution_, vol. 1, 
p. 110]

Therefore, an anarchist society defends itself in a non-statist
fashion. Defence is organised in a libertarian manner, based on 
federations of free communes and workers' councils and incorporating
self-managed workers' militias. This was exactly what the CNT-FAI
did in 1936 to resist Franco's fascists. The militia bodies that 
were actually formed by the CNT in the revolution were internally 
self-governing, not hierarchical. Each militia column was 
administered by its own "war committee," made up of elected 
delegates, which in turn sent delegates to co-ordinate action
on a specific front. Similarly, the Makhnovists during the Russian 
Revolution also organised in a democratic manner, subject to
the decisions of the local workers' councils and their congresses.

Thus Anarchist theory and practice indicate that defence of a 
revolution need not involve a hierarchical system like the 
Bolshevik Red Army where the election of officers, soldiers' 
councils and self-governing assemblies were abolished by 
Trotsky in favour of officers appointed from above (see 
Trotsky's article _The Path of the Red Army_ in which he 
freely admits to abolishing the soldiers "organs of 
revolutionary self-government" the Soviets of Soldiers' 
Deputies as well as "the system of election" of commanders 
by the soldiers themselves in favour of a Red Army "built 
from above" with appointed commanders).

As can be seen, the only armed force for the defence of the 
an anarchist society would be the voluntary, self-managed militia 
bodies organised by the free communes and federations of workers' 
associations. The militias would be unified and co-ordinated 
by federations of communes while delegates from each militia
unit would co-ordinate the actual fighting. In times of peace 
the militia members would be living and working among the rest 
of the populace, and, thus, they would tend to have the same 
outlook and interests as their fellow workers. 

Instead of organising a new state, based on top-down command
and hierarchical power, anarchists argue that a revolutionary
people can build and co-ordinate a militia of their own and 
control the defence of their revolution directly and democratically,
through their own organisations (such as unions, councils of 
delegates elected from the shop floor and community, and so on).
Where they have had the chance, anarchists have done so, with
remarkable success. Therefore, an anarchist society can be
defended against attempts to re-impose hierarchy and bosses
(old or new).

For more discussion of this issue, see section J.7.6 ("How 
could an anarchist revolution defend itself?")

I.6 What about the "Tragedy of the Commons"? Surely communal 
    ownership will lead to overuse and environmental destruction? 

It should first be noted that the paradox of the "Tragedy of the Commons"
is actually an application of the "tragedy of the free-for-all" to the
issue of the "commons" (communally owned land). Resources that are "free
for all" have all the problems associated with what is called the "Tragedy
of the Commons," namely the overuse and destruction of such resources; but
unfortunately for the capitalists who refer to such examples, they do not 
involve true "commons." 

The "free-for-all" land in such examples becomes depleted (the "tragedy")
because hypothetical shepherds each pursue their maximum individual gain
without regard for their peers or the land. What is individually rational
(e.g., grazing the most sheep for profit), when multiplied by each
shepherd acting in isolation, ends up grossly irrational (e.g., ending the
livelihood of *every* shepherd). What works for one cannot work as well
for everyone in a given area. But, as discussed below, because such land
is not communally *managed* (as true commons are), the so-called Tragedy
of the Commons is actually an indictment of what is, essentially,
laissez-faire capitalist economic practices!  

As Allan Engler points out, "[s]upporters of capitalism cite what they
call the tragedy of the commons to explain the wanton plundering of
forests, fish and waterways, but common property is not the problem. When
property was held in common by tribes, clans and villages, people took no
more than their share and respected the rights of others. They cared for
common property and when necessary acted together to protect it against
those who would damage it. Under capitalism, there is no common property.
(Public property is a form of private property, property owned by the 
government as a corporate person.) Capitalism recognises only private
property and free-for-all property. Nobody is responsible for free-for-all
property until someone claims it as his own. He then has a right to do as
he pleases with it, a right that is uniquely capitalist. Unlike common or
personal property, capitalist property is not valued for itself or for its
utility. It is valued for the revenue it produces for its owner. If the
capitalist owner can maximise his revenue by liquidating it, he has the
right to do that." [_Apostles of Greed_, pp. 58-59]

Therefore, as Colin Ward argues, "[l]ocal, popular, control is the
surest way of avoiding the tragedy of the commons." [_Reflected in
Water_, p. 20] Given that a social anarchist society is a communal,
decentralised one, it will have little to fear from irrational
overuse or abuse of communally owned and used resources.

So, the *real* problem is that a lot of economists and sociologists
conflate this scenario, in which *unmanaged* resources are free for all,
with the situation that prevailed in the use of "commons," which were
communally *managed* resources in village and tribal communities. E.P.
Thompson, for example, notes that Garret Hardin (who coined the phrase
"Tragedy of the Commons") was "historically uninformed" when he assumed
that commons were "pastures open to all. It is expected that each
herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons."
["Custom, Law and Common Right", _Customs in Common_, p. 108f] The
commons, in fact, *were* managed by common agreements between those
who used them. Similarly, those who argue that the experience of the
Soviet Union and Eastern Block shows that "common" property leads to
pollution and destruction of the resources also show a lack of awareness
of what common property actually is (it is no co-incidence that libertarian
capitalists use such an argument). This is because the resources in 
question were *not* owned or managed in common -- the fact that these
countries were dictatorships excludes popular control of resources. Thus
the Soviet Union does not, in fact, show the dangers of having "commons."
Rather it shows the danger of not subjecting those who control a resource
to public control (and it is no co-incidence that the USA is far more
polluted than Western Europe -- in the USA, like in the USSR, the 
controllers of resources are not subject to popular control and so 
pass pollution on to the public). The Eastern block shows the danger
of state owned resource use rather than commonly owned resource use,
particularly when the state in question is not under even the limited
control of its subjects implied in representative democracy.

This confusion has, of course, been used to justify the stealing of
communal property by the rich and the state. The continued acceptance 
of this "confusion" in political debate is due to the utility of 
the theory for the rich and powerful, who have a vested interest in
undermining pre-capitalist social forms and stealing communal resources.
Therefore, most examples used to justify the "tragedy of the commons" 
are *false* examples, based on situations in which the underlying social
context is radically different from that involved in using true commons.

In reality, the "tragedy of the commons" comes about only after wealth and
private property, backed by the state, starts to eat into and destroy
communal life. This is well indicated by the fact that commons existed for
thousands of years and only disappeared after the rise of capitalism --
and the powerful central state it requires -- had eroded communal values
and traditions. Without the influence of wealth concentrations and the
state, people get together and come to agreements over how to use communal
resources, and have been doing so for millennia. That was how the commons
were managed, so "the tragedy of the commons" would be better called the
"tragedy of private property." Gerrard Winstanley, the Digger (and 
proto-anarchist), was only expressing a widespread popular sentiment 
when he complained that "in Parishes where Commons lie the rich Norman 
Freeholders, or the new (more covetous) Gentry overstock the Commons with 
sheep and cattle, so that the inferior Tenants and poor labourers can 
hardly keep a cow but half starve her." [quoted by Maurice Dobb, _Studies 
in the Development of Capitalism_, p. 173] Colin Ward points to a more 
recent example, that of Spain after the victory of Franco:

"The water history of Spain demonstrates that the tragedy of the commons
is not the one identified by Garrett Hardin. Communal control developed
an elaborate and sophisticated system of fair shares for all. The
private property recommended by Hardin resulted in the selfish 
individualism that he thought was inevitable with common access,
or in the lofty indifference of the big landowners." [Colin Ward,
Op. Cit., p. 27]

As E.P. Thompson notes in an extensive investigation on this subject, the
tragedy "argument [is] that since resources held in common are not owned
and protected by anyone, there is an inexorable economic logic that dooms
them to over-exploitation. . . . Despite its common sense air, what it
overlooks is that commoners themselves were not without common sense. Over
time and over space the users of commons have developed a rich variety of
institutions and community sanctions which have effected restraints and
stints upon use. . . . As the old . . . institutions lapsed, so they fed
into a vacuum in which political influence, market forces, and popular
assertion contested with each other without common rules." [Op. Cit., 
p. 107]

In practice, of course, both political influence and market forces 
are dominated by wealth -- "There were two occasions that dictated
absolute precision: a trial at law and a process of enclosure. And
both occasions favoured those with power and purses against the 
little users." Popular assertion means little when the state enforces 
property rights in the interests of the wealthy. Ultimately, "Parliament 
and law imposed capitalist definitions to exclusive property in land." 
[E.P. Thompson, Op. Cit., p. 134 and p. 163]

The working class is only "left alone" to starve. In practice, the
privatisation of communal land has led to massive ecological destruction,
while the possibilities of free discussion and agreement are destroyed in
the name of "absolute" property rights and the power and authority which
goes with them.

For more on this subject, try _The Question of the Commons_, Bonnie M.
McCoy and James M. Acheson (ed.), Tucson, 1987 and _The Evolution of
Co-operation_ by Robert Axelrod, Basic Books, 1984. 

I.6.1 How can anarchists explain how the use of property "owned by
      everyone in the world" will be decided?

First, we need to point out the fallacy normally lying behind this
objection. It is assumed that because everyone owns something, that
everyone has to be consulted in what it is used for. This, however,
applies the logic of private property to non-capitalist social forms.
While it is true that everyone owns collective "property" in an anarchist
society, it does not mean that everyone *uses* it. Carlo Cafiero, one
of the founders of communist-anarchism, states the obvious:

"The common wealth being scattered right across the planet, while
belonging by right to the whole of humanity, those who happen to
be within reach of that wealth and in a position to make use of it
will utilise it in common. The folk from a given country will use
the land, the machines, the workshops, the houses, etc., of that
country and they will all make common use of them. As part of
humanity, they will exercise here, in fact and directly, their
rights over a portion of mankind's wealth. But should an inhabitant
of Peking visit this country, he [or she] would enjoy the same
rights as the rest: in common with the others, he would enjoy
all the wealth of the country, just as he [or she] would have
in Peking." [_No Gods, No Masters_, vol. 1, p. 250]

Anarchists, therefore, think that those who *use* a part of society's 
wealth have the most say in what happens to it (e.g. workers control 
the means of production they use and the work they do when using it). 
This does not mean that those using it can do what they like to it. 
Users would be subject to recall by local communities if they are 
abusing their position (for example, if a workplace was polluting the 
environment, then the local community could act to stop, or if need
be, close down the workplace). Thus use rights (or usufruct) replace 
property rights in a free society, combined with a strong dose of 
"think globally, act locally."

It is no coincidence that societies that are stateless are also without 
private property. As Murray Bookchin points out "an individual appropriation
of goods, a personal claim to tools, land, and other resources . . . is
fairly common in organic [i.e. aboriginal] societies. . . By the same
token, co-operative work and the sharing of resources on a scale that 
could be called communistic is also fairly common. . . But primary to
both of these seemingly contrasting relationships is the practice of
*usufruct.*" [_The Ecology of Freedom_, p. 50]

Such stateless societies are based upon "the principle of *usufruct*, the
freedom of individuals in a community to appropriate resources merely by
the virtue of the fact they are using them. . . Such resources belong to
the user as long as they are being used. Function, in effect, replaces
our hallowed concept of possession." [Bookchin, Op. Cit., p. 50] The 
future stateless society anarchists hope for would also be based upon 
such a principle. In effect, critics of social anarchism confuse 
property with possession and think that abolishing property 
automatically abolishes possession and use rights. However, 
as argued in section B.3, property and possession are distinctly 
different. In the words of Charlotte Wilson:

"*Property* is the *domination* of an individual, or a coalition of
individuals, over things; it is not the claim of any person or persons
to the use of things -- this is usufruct [or possession], a very
different matter. Property means the monopoly of wealth, the right
to prevent others using it, whether the owner needs it or not. Usufruct
implies the claim to the use of such wealth as supplies the user's
needs. If any individual shuts off a portion of it (which he is not
using, and does not need for his own use) from his fellows, he is
defrauding the whole community." [_Three Essays on Anarchism_, p. 17]

Thus an anarchist society has a simple and effective means of deciding
how communally owned resources are used, one based on possession and
usufruct. 

As for deciding what a given area of commons is used for, that falls 
to the local communities who live next to them. If, for example, a
local self-managed factory wants to expand and eat into the commons, 
then the local community who uses (and so controls) the local commons 
would discuss it and come to an agreement concerning it. If a minority 
*really* objects, they can use direct action to put their point across. 
But anarchists argue that rational debate among equals will not result 
in too much of that. Or suppose an individual wanted to set up an allotment
in a given area, which had not been allocated as a park. Then he or she
would notify the community assembly by appropriate means (e.g. on a notice
board or newspaper), and if no one objected at the next assembly or in a
set time-span, the allotment would go ahead, as no one else desired to use
the resource in question.

Other communities would be confederated with this one, and joint activity
would also be discussed by debate, with a community (like an individual)
being free *not* to associate if they so desire. Other communities could
and would object to ecologically and individually destructive practices.
The interrelationships of both ecosystems and freedom is well known, and
its doubtful that free individuals would sit back and let some amongst
them destroy *their* planet.

Therefore, those who use something control it. This means that "users
groups" would be created to manage resources used by more than one person.
For workplaces this would (essentially) be those who worked there (with,
possibly, the input of consumer groups and co-operatives). Housing
associations made up of tenants would manage housing  and repairs. 
Resources that are used by associations within society, such as communally
owned schools, workshops, computer networks, and so forth, would be
managed on a day-to-day basis by those who use them. User groups would
decide access rules (for example, time-tables and booking rules) and how
they are used, making repairs and improvements. Such groups would be
accountable to their local community. Hence, if that community thought
that any activities by a group within it was  destroying communal
resources or restricting access to them, the matter would be discussed 
at the relevant assembly. In this way, interested parties manage their 
own activities and the resources they use (and so would be very likely 
to have an interest in ensuring their proper and effective use), but
without private property and its resulting hierarchies and restrictions 
on freedom.

Lastly, let us examine clashes of use rights, i.e. cases where two or 
more people or communities/collectives desire to use the same resource. 
In general, such problems can be resolved by discussion and decision
making by those involved. This process would be roughly as follows: if
the contesting parties are reasonable, they would probably mutually agree
to allow their dispute to be settled by some mutual friend whose judgement
they could trust, or they would place it in the hands of a jury, randomly
selected from the community or communities in question. This would take
place if they could not come to an agreement between themselves to share
the resource in question. 

On thing is certain, however, such disputes are much better settled without
the interference of authority or the re-creation of private property. If
those involved do not take the sane course described above and instead
decide to set up a fixed authority, disaster will be the inevitable
result. In the first place, this authority will have to be given power to
enforce its judgement in such matters. If this happens, the new authority
will undoubtedly keep for itself the best of what is disputed, and allot
the rest to its friends! By re-introducing private property, such
authoritarian bodies would develop sooner, rather than later, with two 
new classes of oppressors being created -- the property owners and the
enforcers of "justice."

It is a strange fallacy to suppose that two people who meet on terms of
equality and disagree could not be reasonable or just, or that a third
party with power backed up by violence will be the incarnation of justice
itself. Common sense should certainly warn us against such an illusion. 
Historical "counterexamples" to the claim that people meeting on terms of
equality cannot be reasonable or just are suspect, since the history of
disagreements with unjust or unreasonable outcomes (e.g. resulting in war)
generally involve conflicts between groups with unequal power and within
the context of private property and hierarchical institutions. 

And, we should note, it is equally as fallacious, as Leninists claim,
that only centralisation can ensure common access and common use. 
Centralisation, by removing control from the users into a body 
claiming to represent "society", replaces the dangers of abuse
by a group of workers with the dangers of abuse by a bureaucracy
invested with power and authority over *all* workers. If rank and
file workers can abuse their position and restrict access for their
own benefit, so can the individuals gathered round a centralised
body (whether that body is, in theory, accountable by election or
not). Indeed, it is far more likely to occur. Thus *decentralisation*
is the key to common ownership and access, *not* centralisation.

Communal "property" needs communal structures in order to function. Use
rights, and discussion among equals, replace property rights in a free
society. Freedom cannot survive if it is caged behind laws enforced by
public or private states. 

I.6.2 Doesn't any form of communal ownership involve restricting 
      individual liberty?

This point is expressed in many different forms. John Henry MacKay (an
individualist anarchist) puts the point as follows:

"'Would you [the social anarchist], in the system of society which you 
call 'free Communism' prevent individuals from exchanging their labour  
among themselves by means of their own medium of exchange? And further: 
Would you prevent them from occupying land for the purpose of personal 
use?' . . . [The] question was not to be escaped. If he answered 'Yes!' 
he admitted that society had the right of control over the individual and 
threw overboard the autonomy of the individual which he had always zealously
defended; if on the other hand he answered 'No!' he admitted  the right 
of private property which he had just denied so emphatically." [_Patterns 
of Anarchy_, p. 31]

However, as is clearly explained above and in sections B.3 and I.5.7,
anarchist theory has a simple and clear answer to this question. To
see what this answer is it simply a case of remembering that use 
rights replace property rights in an anarchist society. In other words, 
individuals can exchange their labour as they see fit and occupy land 
for their own use. This in no way contradicts the abolition of private
property, because occupancy and use is directly opposed to private
property. Therefore, in a free communist society individuals can use 
land and such tools and equipment as they personally "use and occupancy" 
as they wish -- they do not have to join the free communist society. 
If they do not, however, they cannot place claims on the benefits 
others receive from co-operation and their communal life. 

This can be seen from Charlotte Wilson's discussions on anarchism
written a few years before MacKay published his "inescapable" 
question. Wilson argues that anarchism "proposes . . . [t]hat 
usufruct of instruments of production -- land included -- should 
be free to all workers, or groups of workers" and that "the 
necessary connections between the various industries . . . 
should be managed on the . . . voluntary principle." She 
asks the question: "Does Anarchism . . . then . . . 
acknowledge . . . no personal property?" She answers by 
noting that "every man [or woman] is free to take what he 
[or she] requires" and so "it is hardly conceivable that
personal necessaries and conveniences will not be appropriated."
For "[w]hen property is protected by no legal enactments,
backed by armed force, and is unable to buy personal 
service, its resuscitation on such a scale as to be
dangerous to society is little to be dreaded. The amount
appropriated by each individual . . . must be left to
his [or her] own conscience, and the pressure exercised
upon him [or her] by the moral sense and distinct
interests of his [or her] neighbours." This is because:

"*Property* is the *domination* of an individual, or a 
coalition of individuals, over things; it is not the claim 
of any person or persons to the use of things -- this is, 
usufruct, a very different matter. Property means
the monopoly of wealth, the right to prevent others
using it, whether the owner needs it or not. Usufruct
implies the claim to the use of such wealth as supplies
the users needs. If any individual shuts of a portion of
it (which he is not using, and does not need for his
own use) from his fellows, he is defrauding the whole
community." [_Anarchist Essays_, pp. 22-23 and p. 40]

In other words, *possession* replaces private property in a 
free society. This applies to those who decide to join a free 
communist society and those who desire to remain outside. This 
is clear from Kropotkin's argument that an communist-anarchist 
revolution would leave self-employed artisans and peasants alone 
if they did not desire to join the free commune (see _Act for 
Yourselves_, pp. 104-5 and _The Conquest of Bread_, p. 61 and 
pp. 95-6). Thus the leading theorist of free communism did not 
think the occupying of land for personal use (or a house or the 
means of production) entailed the "right of private property." 
Obviously John Henry MacKay had not read his Proudhon!

This can be seen even clearer when Kropotkin argued that "[a]ll 
things belong to all, and provided that men and women contribute 
their share of labour for the production of necessary objects, 
they are entitled to their share of all that is produced by the 
community at large." [_The Place of Anarchism in Socialistic 
Evolution_, p. 6] He goes on to state that "free Communism . . . 
places the products reaped or manufactured in common at the 
disposal of all, leaving to each the liberty to consume them 
as he [or she] pleases in his [or her] own home." [Op. Cit., 
p. 7] This obviously implies a situation of "occupancy and use" 
(with those who are actually using a resource controlling it). 

This clearly means, as the biographers of Kropotkin noted,
that an Individualist Anarchist like Tucker (or MacKay) "partly
misinterprets" Kropotkin when he "suggests that [Kropotkin's]
idea of communal organisation would *prevent* the individual
from working on his [or her] own if he wished (a fact which
Kropotkin always explicitly denied, since the basis of his
theory was the voluntary principle)." [G. Woodcock and I.
Avakumovic, _The Anarchist Prince_, p. 280]

Thus the case of the non-member of free communism is clear -- they 
would also consume what they have produced or exchanged with others 
in their own home (i.e. land used for their own "personal use"). The 
land and resources do *not,* however, become private property simply 
because they revert back into common ownership once they are no longer 
"occupied and used." In other words, *possession* replaces *property.* 
Thus communist-anarchists agree with Individualist Anarchist John 
Beverley Robinson when he wrote:

"There are two kinds of land ownership, proprietorship or property, by
which the owner is absolute lord of the land to use it or hold it out
of use, as it may please him; and possession, by which he is secure in
the tenure of land which he uses and occupies, but has no claim on it
at all if he ceases to use it. For the secure possession of his crops
or buildings or other products, he needs nothing but the possession
of the land he uses." [_Patterns of Anarchy_, p. 273]

This system, we must note, was used in the rural collectives during the
Spanish Revolution, with people free to remain outside the collective
working only as much land and equipment as they could "occupy and use"
by their own labour. Similarly, the individuals within the collective
worked in common and took what they needed from the communal stores.
See Gaston Leval's _Collectives in the Spanish Revolution for details
(and section I.8). 

Mackay's comments raise another interesting point. Given that Individualist
Anarchists oppose the current system of private property in land, *their*
system entails that "society ha[s] the right of control over the individual."
If we look at the "occupancy and use" land system favoured by the likes
of Tucker, we discover that it is based on restricting property in land
(and so the owners of land). Tucker argued that if "the Anarchistic view" 
of "occupancy and use" would prevail then any defence associations would
not protect anyone in the possession of more than they could personally
use, nor would they force tenants to pay rent to landlords of housing.
[_The Individualist Anarchists_, pp. 159-62] Thus the "prevailing view", 
i.e. society, would limit the amount of land which individuals could
acquire, controlling their actions and violating their autonomy. Which,
we must say, is not surprising as individualism requires the supremacy
of the rest of society over the individual in terms of rules relating
to the ownership and use of possessions (or "property") -- as the
Individualist Anarchists themselves implicitly acknowledge, as can 
be seen.

John Henry MacKay goes on to state that "every serious man must declare
himself: for Socialism, and thereby for force and against liberty, or for
Anarchism, and thereby for liberty and against force." [Op. Cit., p. 32]
Which, we must note, is a strange statement, as individualist anarchists 
like Benjamin Tucker considered themselves socialists and opposed 
capitalist private property (while, confusingly, many of them calling 
their system of possession "property" -- see section G.2.2).

However, MacKay's statement begs the question, does private property 
support liberty?  He does not address or even acknowledge the fact that 
private property will inevitably lead to the owners of such property 
gaining control over the individuals who use, but do not own, that
property and so denying them liberty (see section B.4). As Proudhon
argued:

"The purchaser draws boundaries, fences himself in, and says, 'This
is mine; each one by himself, each one for himself.' Here, then, is
a piece of land upon which, henceforth, no one has right to step,
save the proprietor and his friends; which can benefit nobody, save
the proprietor and his servants. Let these multiply, and soon the
people . . . will have nowhere to rest, no place of shelter, no
ground to till. They will die of hunger at the proprietor's door,
on the edge of that property which was their birth-right; and the
proprietor, watching them die, will exclaim, 'So perish idlers
and vagrants.'" [_What is Property?_, p. 118]

Of course, the non-owner can gain access to the property by selling
their liberty to the property-owner, by agreeing to submit to the owners
authority. Little wonder that Proudhon argued that the "second effect
of property is despotism." [Op. Cit., p. 259] Moreover, given that
Tucker argued that the state was "the assumption of sole authority
over a given area and all within it" we can see that MacKay's argument
ignores the negative aspects of property and its similarity with the
state [_The Individualist Anarchists_, p. 24]. After all, MacKay would 
be the first to argue that the property owner must be sovereign of 
their property (and not subject to any form of control). In other 
words, the property owner must assume sole authority over the given 
area they own and all within it. Little wonder Emile Pouget, echoing
Proudhon, argued that:

"Property and authority are merely differing manifestations and
expressions of one and the same 'principle' which boils down to
the enforcement and enshrinement of the servitude of man. 
Consequently, the only difference between them is one of vantage
point: viewed from one angle, slavery appears as a *property
crime*, whereas, viewed from a different angle, it constitutes
an *authority crime.*" [_No Gods, No Masters_, vol. 2, p. 66]

Neither does MacKay address the fact that private property requires 
extensive force (i.e. a state) to protect it against those who use it 
or could use it but do not own it.

In other words, MacKay ignores two important aspects of private property.
Firstly, that private property is based upon force, which must be used
to ensure the owner's right to exclude others (the main reason for the
existence of the state). And secondly, he ignores the anti-libertarian
nature of "property" when it creates wage labour -- the other side of 
"private property" -- in which the liberty of employees is obviously 
restricted by the owners whose property they are hired to use. Unlike
in a free communist society, in which members of a commune have equal
rights, power and say within a self-managed association, under "private 
property" the owner of the property governs those who use it. When the 
owner and the user is identical, this is not a problem (i.e. when 
possession replaces property) but once possession becomes property 
then despotism, as Proudhon noted, is created. 

Therefore, it seems that in the name of "liberty" John MacKay and 
a host of other "individualists" end up supporting authority and 
(effectively) some kind of state. This is hardly surprising as 
private property is the opposite of personal possession, not its 
base.

Therefore, far from communal property restricting individual liberty 
(or even personal use of resources) it is in fact its only defence.

I.7 Won't Libertarian Socialism destroy individuality?

No. Libertarian socialism only suppresses individuality for those who are 
so shallow that they can't separate their identity from what they own. 
However, be that as it may, this is an important objection to any form
of socialism and, given the example of "socialist" Russia, needs to be 
discussed more. 

The basic assumption behind this question is that capitalism encourages 
individuality, but this assumption can be faulted on many levels. As 
Kropotkin noted, "individual freedom [has] remained, both in theory and 
in practice, more illusory than real" [_Ethics_, p. 27] and that "the want 
of development of the personality [leading to herd-psychology] and the lack 
of individual creative power and initiative are certainly one of the chief 
defects of our time." [Op. Cit., p. 28] In effect, modern capitalism has
reduced individuality to a parody of what it could be (see section I.7.4). 
As Alfie Kohn points out, "our miserable individuality is screwed to the 
back of our cars in the form of personalised license plates." Little
wonder Emma Goldman argued that:

"The oft repeated slogan of our time is . . . that ours is an era of
individualism . . . Only those who do probe beneath the surface might
be led to entertain this view. Have not the few accumulated the wealth
of the world? Are they not the masters, the absolute kings of the 
situation? Their success, however, is due not to individualism, but 
the inertia, the cravenness, the utter submission of the mass. The
latter wants but to be dominated, to be led, to be coerced. As to
individualism, at no time in human history did it have less chance
of expression, less opportunity to assert itself in a normal, 
healthy manner." [_Anarchism and Other Essays_, pp. 70-1]

So we see a system which is apparently based on "egoism" and "individualism"
but whose members are free to expand as standardised individuals, who
hardly express their individuality at all. Far from increasing individuality, 
capitalism standardises it and so restricts it -- that it survives at all
is more an expression of the strength of humanity than any benefits of
the capitalist system. This impoverishment of individuality is hardly 
surprising in a society based on hierarchical institutions which are 
designed to assure obedience and subordination. 

So, can we say that libertarian socialism will *increase* individuality or
is this conformity and lack of "individualism" a constant feature of the
human race? In order to make some sort of statement on this, we have to
look at non-hierarchical societies and organisations. We will discuss 
tribal cultures as an example of non-hierarchical societies in section
I.7.1. Here, however, we indicate how anarchist organisations will protect 
and increase an individual's sense of self.

Anarchist organisations and tactics are designed to promote individuality. 
They are decentralised, participatory organisations and so they give those 
involved the "social space" required to express themselves and develop their 
abilities and potential in ways restricted under capitalism. As Gaston Leval
notes in his book on the anarchist collectives during the Spanish Revolution,
"so far as collective life is concerned, the freedom of each is the right
to participate spontaneously with one's thought, one's will, one's initiative
to the full extent of one's capacities. A negative liberty is not liberty;
it is nothingness." [_Collectives in the Spanish Revolution_, p. 346]

By being able to take part in and manage the decision making processes which
directly affect you, your ability to think for yourself is increased and
so you are constantly developing your abilities and personality. The
spontaneous activity described by Leval has important psychological impacts.
As Eric Fromm notes, "[i]n all spontaneous activity, the individual embraces 
the world. Not only does his [sic] individual self remain intact; it becomes 
stronger and more solidified. *For the self is as strong as it is active.*" 
[_Escape from Freedom_, p. 225]

Therefore, individuality does not atrophy within an anarchist organisation
and becomes stronger as it participates and acts within the social 
organisation. In other words, individuality requires community. As Max 
Horkheimer once observed, "individuality is impaired when each man decides 
to fend for himself. . . . The absolutely isolated individual has always been 
an illusion. The most esteemed personal qualities, such as independence, 
will to freedom, sympathy, and the sense of justice, are social as well as
individual virtues. The fully developed individual is the consummation of a
fully developed society." [_The Eclipse of Reason_, p. 135]

The sovereign, self-sufficient individual is as much a product of a healthy
community as it is from individual self-realisation and the fulfilment of 
desire. Kropotkin, in _Mutual Aid_, documented the tendency for *community* 
to enrich and develop *individuality.* As he proved, this tendency is seen 
throughout human history, which suggests that the abstract individualism 
of capitalism is more the exception than the rule in social life. In other
words, history indicates that by working together with others as equals 
individuality is strengthen far more than in the so-called "individualism" 
associated with capitalism. 

This communal support for individuality is hardly surprising as 
individuality is a product of the interaction between *social* forces 
and individual attributes. The more an individual cuts themselves off 
from social life, the more likely their individuality will suffer. This 
can be seen from the 1980's when neo-liberal governments supporting the 
"radical" individualism associated with free market capitalism were 
elected in both Britain and the USA. The promotion of market forces 
lead to social atomisation, social disruption and a more centralised 
state. As "the law of the jungle" swept across society, the resulting 
disruption of social life ensured that many individuals became 
impoverished ethically and culturally as society became increasingly 
privatised.

In other words, many of the characteristics which we associate with a 
developed individuality (namely ability to think, to act, to hold ones
own opinions and standards and so forth) are (essentially) *social* skills
and are encouraged by a well developed community. Remove that social 
background and these valued aspects of individuality are undermined by
fear, lack of social interaction and atomisation. Taking the case of 
workplaces, for example, surely it is an obvious truism that a hierarchical
working environment will marginalise the individual and ensure that they 
cannot express their opinions, exercise their thinking capacities to the 
full or manage their own activity. This will have in impact in all aspects
of an individual's life.

Hierarchy in all its forms produces oppression and a crushing of 
individuality (see section B.1). In such a system, the "business" side
of group activities would be "properly carried out" but at the expense
of the individuals involved. Anarchists agree with John Stuart Mill when
he asks, under such "benevolent dictatorship,"  "what sort of human beings
can be formed under such a regimen? What development can either their 
thinking or their active faculties attain under it? . . . Their moral
capacities are equally stunted. Wherever the sphere of action of human
beings is artificially circumscribed, their sentiments are narrowed and
dwarfed." [_Representative Government_, pp. 203-4] Like anarchists, Mill 
tended his critique of political associations into all forms of associations
and stated that if "mankind is to continue to improve" then in the end
one form of association will predominate, "not that which can exist
between a capitalist as chief, and workpeople without a voice in the 
management, but the association of labourers themselves on terms of 
equality, collectively owning the capital with which they carry on 
their operations, and working under managers elected and removable 
by themselves." [_The Principles of Political Economy_, p. 147]

Hence, anarchism will protect and develop individuality by creating the
means by which all individuals can participate in the decisions that affect
them, in all aspects of their lives. Anarchism is build upon the central
assertion that individuals and their institutions cannot be considered in
isolation from one another. Authoritarian organisations will create a
servile personality, one that feels safest conforming to authority and
what is considered normal. A libertarian organisation, one that is based
upon participation and self-management will encourage a strong personality,
one that knows his or her own mind, thinks for itself and feels confident in
his or her own powers. 

Therefore, as Bakunin argued, liberty "is not a fact springing from
isolation but from reciprocal action, a fact not of exclusion, but,
on the contrary, of social interaction -- for freedom of every
individual is simply the reflection of his humanity or his human
right in the consciousness of all free men, his brothers, his
equals." Freedom "is something very positive, very complex, and
above all eminently social, since it can be realised only by 
society and only under conditions of strict equality and solidarity."
Hierarchical power, by necessity, kills individual freedom as
it is "characteristic of privilege and of every privileged 
position to kill the minds and hearts of men" and "power and
authority corrupt those who exercise them as much as those who
are compelled to submit to them." [_The Political Philosophy of 
Bakunin_, p. 266, p. 268, p. 269 and p. 249]

A libertarian re-organisation of society will be based upon, and encourage, 
a self-empowerment and self-liberation of the individual and by participation 
within self-managed organisations, individuals will educate themselves for 
the responsibilities and joys of freedom. As Carole Pateman points out, 
"participation develops and fosters the very qualities necessary for it;
the more individuals participate the better able they become to do so."
[_Participation and Democratic Theory_, pp. 42-43] 

Such a re-organisation (as we will see in section J) is based upon the 
tactic of *direct action.* This tactic also encourages individuality by
encouraging the individual to fight directly, by their own self-activity,
that which they consider to be wrong. As Voltairine de Cleyre puts it:

"Every person who ever thought he had a right to assert, and went boldly and
asserted it, himself, or jointly with others that shared his convictions,
was a direct actionist . . . Every person who ever had a plan to do anything, 
and went and did it, or who laid his plan before others, and won their 
co-operation to do it with him, without going to external authorities to 
please do the thing for them, was a direct actionist. All co-operative 
experiments are essentially direct action . . . [direct actions] are the 
spontaneous retorts of those who feel oppressed by a situation." [_Direct
Action_]

Therefore, anarchist tactics base themselves upon self-assertion and 
this can only develop individuality. Self-activity can only occur when 
there is a independent, free-thinking self. As self-management is based 
upon the principle of direct action ("all co-operative experiments are 
essentially direct action") we can suggest that individuality will have 
little to fear from an anarchist society. Indeed, anarchists strongly
stress the importance of individuality within a society:

"[T]o destroy individuality is to destroy society. For society is only
realised and alive in the individual members. Society has no motive
that does not issue from its individual members, no end that does not
centre in them, no mind that is not there. 'Spirit of the age,' 'public
opinion,' 'commonweal or good,' and like phrases have no meaning if
they are thought of as features of something that hovers or floats 
between man and woman. They name what resides in and proceeds from
individuals. Individuality and community, therefore, are equally
constitutive of out idea of human life." [J. Burns-Gibson quoted
by William R. McKercher, _Freedom and Authority_, p. 31]

Little wonder, then, that anarchism "recognises and values 
individuality which means character, conduct and the springs of
conduct, free initiative, creativeness, spontaneity, autonomy."
[J. Burns-Gibson, quoted by William R. McKercher, Op. Cit., p. 31f]
As Kropotkin put it, anarchism "seeks the most complete development
of individuality combined with the highest development of 
voluntary association in all its aspects . . . ever changing,
ever modified. . ." [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_, 
p. 123]

For anarchists, like Mill, real liberty requires social equality. For "[i]f
individuals are to exercise the maximum amount of control over their own
lives and environment then authority structures in these areas most be
so organised that they can participate in decision making." [Pateman, 
Op. Cit., p. 43] Hence individuality will be protected, encouraged and 
developed in an anarchist society far more than in a class ridden, 
hierarchical society like capitalism. As Kropotkin argued:

"[Anarchist] Communism is the best basis for individual development
and freedom; not that individualism which drives men to the war
of each against all . . . but that which represents the full 
expansion of man's [and woman's] faculties, the superior development 
of what is original in him [or her], the greatest fruitfulness
of intelligence, feeling and will." [Op. Cit., p. 141]

It is because wonders are so enriching to life, and none is more wonderful 
than individuality, that anarchists oppose capitalism in the name of 
socialism -- libertarian socialism, the free association of free individuals. 

I.7.1 Do tribal cultures indicate that communalism defends individuality?

Yes. In many tribal cultures (what some people call "primitive"), we 
find a strong respect for individuals. As Paul Radin points out, 
"[i]f I were to state . . . what are the outstanding features of 
aboriginal civilisation, I . . . would have no hesitation in 
answering that . . . respect for the individual, irrespective of 
age or sex" is the first one. [_The World of Primitive Man_, p. 11]

Murray Bookchin comments on Radin's statement as follows, "respect for 
the individual, which Radin lists first as an aboriginal attribute, 
deserves to be emphasised, today, in an era that rejects the collective 
as destructive of individuality on the one hand, and yet, in an orgy 
of pure egotism, has actually destroyed all the ego boundaries of 
free-floating, isolated, and atomised individuals on the other. A 
strong collectivity may be even more supportive of the individual 
as close studies of certain aboriginal societies reveal, than a 
'free market' society with its emphasis on an egoistic, but 
impoverished, self" [_Remaking Society_, p. 48]

This individualisation associated with tribal cultures was also 
noted by Howard Zinn. He quotes Gary Nash describing Iroquois culture
(which appears typical of most Native American tribes):

"No laws and ordinances, sheriffs and constables, judges and juries, 
or courts or jails -- the apparatus of authority in European societies 
-- were to be found in the north-east woodlands prior to European 
arrival. Yet boundaries of acceptable behaviour were firmly set. Though 
priding themselves on the autonomous individual, the Iroquois maintained 
a strict sense of right and wrong . . ." [quoted by Zinn in _A People's 
History of the United States_, p. 21]

This respect for individuality existed in a society based on communistic
principles. As Zinn notes, in the Iroquois "land was owned in common
and worked in common. Hunting was done together, and the catch was
divided among the members of the village. Houses were considered 
common property and were shared by several families. The concept of
private ownership of land and homes was foreign to the Iroquois."
In this communal society women "were important and respected" and
families were matrilineal. Power was shared between the sexes
(unlike the European idea of male domination). Similarly, children
"while taught the cultural heritage of their people and solidarity
with the tribe, were also taught to be independent, not to submit
to overbearing authority. They were taught equality of status and
the sharing of possessions." [Zinn, Op. Cit., p. 20]

As Zinn stresses, Native American tribes "paid careful attention to
the development of personality, intensity of will, independence and
flexibility, passion and potency, to their partnership with one
another and with nature." [Op. Cit., pp. 21-2]

Thus tribal societies indicate that community defends individuality,
with communal living actually encouraging a strong sense of individuality.
This is to be expected, as equality is the only condition in which
individuals can be free and so in a position to develop their 
personality to its full. Furthermore, this communal living took
place within an anarchist environment:

"The foundation principle of Indian government had always been
the rejection of government. The freedom of the individual was
regarded by practically all Indians north of Mexico as a canon
infinitely more precious than the individual's duty to his [or
her] community or nation. This anarchistic attitude ruled all
behaviour, beginning with the smallest social unity, the family.
The Indian parent was constitutionally reluctant to discipline
his [or her] children. Their every exhibition of self-will was
accepted as a favourable indication of the development of 
maturing character. . ." [Van Every, quoted by Zinn, Op. Cit.,
p. 136]

In addition, Native American tribes also indicate that communal living 
and high standards of living can and do go together. The Cherokees, for 
example, in the 1870s, "land was held collectively and life was contented 
and prosperous" with the Department of the Interior recognising that it 
was "a miracle of progress, with successful production by people living
in considerable comfort, a level of education 'equal to that furnished by 
an ordinary college in the States,' flourishing industry and commerce, an
effective constitutional government, a high level of literacy, and a state
of 'civilisation and enlightenment' comparable to anything known: 'What
required five hundred years for the Britons to accomplish in this direction
they have accomplished in one hundred years,' the Department declared in
wonder." [Noam Chomsky, _Year 501_, p. 231]

Senator Henry Dawes of Massachusetts visited "Indian Territory" in 1883 and
described what he found in glowing terms: 

"There was not a pauper in that nation, and the nation did not owe a dollar. 
It built its own capitol, in which we had this examination, and it built its 
schools and its hospitals." No family lacked a home. [Cited by Chomsky, 
Op. Cit., p. 231]

(It must be mentioned that Dawes recommended that the society must be 
destroyed because "[t]hey have got as far as they can go, because they own 
their land in common. . .there is no enterprise to make your home any better 
than that of your neighbours. There is no selfishness, which is the bottom 
of civilisation. Till this people will consent to give up their lands, and 
divide them among their citizens so that each can own the land he cultivates, 
they will not make much more progress." The introduction of capitalism --
as usual by state action -- resulted in poverty and destitution, again 
showing the link between capitalism and high living standards is not clear 
cut, regardless of claims otherwise).

Undoubtedly, having access to the means of production ensured that members
of such cultures did not have to place themselves in situations which could
produce a servile character structure. As they did not have to follow the
orders of a boss they did not have to learn to obey others and so could
develop their own abilities to govern themselves. This self-government 
allowed the development of a custom in such tribes called "the principle 
of non-interference" in anthropology. This is the principle of defending 
someone's right to express the opposing view and it is a pervasive 
principle in the tribal world, and it is so much so as to be safely 
called a "universal". 

The principle of non-interference is a powerful principle that extends 
from the personal to the political, and into every facet of daily life. 
Most modern people are aghast when they realise the extent to which it is 
practised, but it has proven itself to be an integral part of living 
anarchy (as many of these communities can be termed, although they would
be considered imperfect anarchist societies in some ways). It means that 
people simply do not limit the activities of others, period. This in effect 
makes absolute tolerance a custom, or as the modern would say, a law. But 
the difference between law and custom is important to point out. Law is 
dead, and Custom lives (see section I.7.3).

As modern people we have so much baggage that relates to "interfering" with
the lives of others that merely visualising the situation that would
eliminate this daily pastime for many is impossible. But think about it.
First of all, in a society where people do not interfere with each other's
behaviour, people tend to feel trusted and empowered by this simple social
fact. Their self-esteem is already higher because they are trusted with
the responsibility for making learned and aware choices. This is not
fiction; individual responsibility is a key aspect of social responsibility.

Therefore, given the strength of individuality documented in tribes with
little or no hierarchical structures within them, can we not conclude that
anarchism will defend individuality and even develop it in ways blocked
by capitalism? At the very least we can say "possibly," and that is enough 
to allow us to question that dogma that capitalism is the only system based 
on respect for the individual. 

I.7.2 Is this not worshipping the past or the "noble savage"?

No. However, this is a common attack on socialists by supporters of 
capitalism and on anarchists by Marxists. Both claim that anarchism is
"backward looking", opposed to "progress" and desire a society based on
inappropriate ideas of freedom. In particular, ideological capitalists
maintain that all forms of socialism base themselves on the ideal of the
"noble savage" and ignore the need for laws and other authoritarian social
institutions to keep people "in check" (see, for example, free market
capitalist guru Frederick von Hayek's work, particularly his _Fatal
Conceit: The Errors of Socialism_).

Anarchists are well aware of the limitations of the "primitive communist"
societies they have used as example of anarchistic tendencies within 
history or society. They are also aware of the problems associated with
using *any* historical period as an example of "anarchism in action." 
Take for example the "free cities" of Medieval Europe, which was used by 
Kropotkin as an example of the potential of decentralised, confederated
communes. He was sometimes accused of being a "Medievalist" (as was
William Morris) while all he was doing was indicating that capitalism
need not equal progress and that alternative social systems have existed
which have encouraged freedom in ways capitalism restricts.

In a similar way, Marxists often accuse Proudhon of being "petty-bourgeois"
and looking backward to a pre-industrial society of artisans and peasants.
Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. Proudhon came from a
area of French which, like many other parts of that country at the time,
was essentially pre-industrial and based on peasant and artisan production.
He therefore based his socialist ideas on the needs of working people as
they required them at the time. Unlike Marx, who argued that industrialisation
(i.e. proletarianisation) was the pre-conditions of socialism, Proudhon
wanted justice and freedom for working people in the here and now, not
some (unspecified) time in the future after capitalism had fully developed.
He was "petit-bourgeois" only in so far as the French working class at 
the time was "petit-bourgeois" and was "proletarian" in so far as his 
fellow working people were.

When Proudhon did look at large-scale production (such as railways, 
factories and so on) he proposed co-operative associations to run them. 
These associations would maintain the dignity of the worker by maintaining 
the essential feature of artisan and peasant live, namely the control of 
the work and product by the labourer. Thus he used the experience of the 
past (artisan production) to inform his analysis of current events 
(industrialisation) to create a solution to the social problem which
built upon and extended a freedom crushed by capitalism (namely workers'
self-management in production). Rather than being backward looking and
worshipping a past which was disappearing, Proudhon analysed the present
*and* past, drew any positive features he could from both and applied 
them to the present and the future (see also section H.2.1).

Again it is hardly surprising to find that many supporters of capitalism 
ignore the insights that can be gained by studying tribal cultures
and the questions they raise about capitalism and freedom. Instead, they 
duck the issues raised by these insights and accuse socialists of idealising 
"the noble savage." As indicated, nothing could be further from the truth.
Indeed, this claim has been directed towards Rousseau (often considered
the father of socialist and anarchist "idealisation" of the "noble
savage") even though Rousseau expressly rejected any "return to nature."
He stated that "must societies be totally abolished? Must *meum* and 
*tuum* be annihilated, and must we return again to the forests to
live among bears? This is a deduction in the manner of my adversaries, 
which I would as soon anticipate as let them have the shame of drawing." 
[_The Social Contract and Discourses_, p. 112] Sadly, Rousseau failed to 
understand that his adversaries, both then and now, seem to know no shame
(similarly, Rousseau is often thought of idealising "natural man" but
actually wrote that "men in a state of nature, having no moral relations 
or determinate obligations one with another, could not be either good or
bad, virtuous or vicious" [Op. Cit., p. 64]). This also seems to be the 
case when anarchists look through history, draw libertarian currents from 
it and are denounced as backward looking utopians.

What libertarians socialists point out from this analysis of history 
is that the atomised individual associated with capitalist society is 
not "natural" and that capitalist social relationships help to weaken 
individuality. All the many attacks on libertarian socialist analysis 
of past societies is a product of capitalists attempts to deny history 
and state that "Progress" reaches its final resting place in capitalism.
As David Watson argues:

"When we consider people living under some of the harshest, most
commanding conditions on earth, who can nevertheless do what they
like when the notion occurs to them, we should be able to witness
the contemporary doubt about civilisation's superiority without
growing indignant. Primitivism, after all, reflects not only a
glimpse of life before the rise of the state, but also a legitimate
response to real conditions of life under civilisation . . . Most
people do not live in aboriginal societies, and most tribal peoples
themselves now face wholly new contexts which will have to be
confronted in new ways if they are to survive as peoples. But 
their lifeways, their histories, remind us that *other modes of
being are possible.* Reaffirmation of our primal past offers insight
into our history -- not the only possible insight, to be sure, but
one important, legitimate entry point for a reasoned discussion
about (and an impassioned reaction to) this world we must leave
behind." [_Beyond Bookchin_, p. 240]

This essential investigation of history and modern society to see 
what other ways of living have and do exist is essential. It is
too easy to forget that what exists under modern capitalism has
not always existed (as neo-classical economics does, to a large
degree). It is also useful to remember what many people now
consider as "normal" was not always the case. As we discussed
in section F.8.6, the first generation of industrial wage
slaves *hated* the system, considering it both tyranny and
unnatural. Studying history, previous cultures and the process
of hierarchical society and the oppressed resistance to it can
enrich our analysis and activity in the here and now and help
us to envision an anarchist society, the problems it could
face and possible solutions to them.

If the challenge for anarchists is to smash power-relations and
domination, it would make sense to get to the root of the problem.
Hierarchy, slavery, coercion, patriarchy, and so on far outdate 
capitalism and it is hardly enough to just analyse the economic
system of capitalism, which is merely the current and most 
insidious form of hierarchical civilisation. Similarly, without 
looking to cultures and communities that functioned quite well
before the rise of the state, hierarchies and classes, anarchists
do not really have much solid ground to prove to people that 
anarchy is desirable or possible. For this reason, historical
analysis and the celebration of the positive aspects of tribal 
and other societies is essential.

Moreover, as George Orwell points out, attacks that reject this critical
analysis as worshipping the "noble savage" miss the point:

"In the first place he [the defender of modern life] will tell you that 
it is impossible to 'go back' . . . and will then accuse you of being a 
medievalist and begin to descant upon the horrors of the Middle Ages . . . 
As a matter of fact, most attacks upon the Middle Ages and the past 
generally by apologists of modernity are beside the point, because their 
essential trick is to project a modern man, with his squeamishness and his 
high standard of comfort, into an age when such things were unheard of. But 
notice that in any case this is not an answer. For dislike of the mechanised 
future does not imply the smallest reverence for any period of the past . . . 
When one pictures it merely as an objective; there is no need to pretend 
that it has ever existed in space and time." [_The Road to Wigan Pier_, 
p. 183]

We should also note that such attacks on anarchist investigations of past
cultures assumes that these cultures have *no* good aspects at all and so
indicates a sort of intellectual "all or nothing" approach to modern life.
The idea that past (and current) civilisations may have got *some* things 
right and others wrong and should be investigated is rejected for a
totally uncritical "love it or leave" approach to modern society. Of course, 
the well known "free market" capitalist love of 19th century capitalist 
life and values warrants no such claims of "past worship" by the supporters 
of the system.

Therefore attacks on anarchists as supporters of the "noble savage" ideal
indicate more about the opponents of anarchism and their fear of looking 
at the implications of the system they support than about anarchist theory.

I.7.3 Is the law required to protect individual rights?

No, far from it. While it is obvious that, as Kropotkin put it, "[n]o
society is possible without certain principles of morality generally
recognised. If everyone grew accustomed to deceiving his fellow-men; 
if we never could rely on each other's promise and words; if everyone
treated his fellow as an enemy, against whom every means of warfare 
is justified -- no society could exist." [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary 
Pamphlets_, p. 73] this does not mean that a legal system (with its 
resultant bureaucracy, vested interests and inhumanity) is the best 
way to protect individual rights within a society. 

What anarchists propose instead of the current legal system (or an 
alternative law system based on religious or "natural" laws) is *custom* 
- namely the development of living "rules of thumb" which express what 
a society considers as right at any given moment.

However, the question arises, if a fixed set of principles are used to 
determine the just outcome, in what way would this differ from laws?

The difference is that the "order of custom" would prevail rather than 
the "rule of law". *Custom* is a body of living institutions that enjoys 
the support of the body politic, whereas *law* is a codified (read dead) 
body of institutions that separates social control from moral force. 
This, as anyone observing modern Western society can testify, alienates
everyone. A *just outcome* is the predictable, but not necessarily the
inevitable outcome of interpersonal conflict because in a traditional
anarchistic society people are trusted to do it themselves. Anarchists 
think people have to grow up in a social environment free from the 
confusions generated by a fundamental discrepancy between morality, and 
social control, to fully appreciate the implications. However, the essential 
ingredient is the investment of trust, by the community, in people to come 
up with *functional solutions* to interpersonal conflict. This stands in 
sharp contrast with the present situation of people being infantilised by 
the state through a constant bombardment of fixed social structures removing
all possibility of people developing their own unique solutions.

Therefore, anarchist recognise that social custom changes with society. 
What was once considered "normal" or "natural" may become to be seen as 
oppressive and hateful. This is because the "conception of good or evil 
varies according to the degree of intelligence or of knowledge acquired. 
There is nothing unchangeable about it." [Kropotkin, Op. Cit., p. 92] 
Only by removing the dead hand of the past can society's ethical base 
develop and grow with the individuals that make it up (see section A.2.19 
for a discussion of anarchist ethics).

We should also like to point out here that laws (or "The Law") also restrict 
the development of an individual's sense of ethics or morality. This is 
because it relieves them of the responsibility of determining if something 
is right or wrong. All they need to know is whether it is legal. The morality 
of the action is irrelevant. This "nationalisation" of ethics is very
handy for the would be capitalist, governor or other exploiter. In addition,
capitalism also restricts the development of an individual's ethics because
it creates the environment where these ethics can be bought. To quote
Shakespeare's _Richard III_:

"Second Murderer: Some certain dregs of conscience are yet within me.

First Murderer  : Remember our reward, when the deed's done.

Second Murderer : Zounds! He dies. I had forgot the reward.

First Murderer  : Where's thy conscience now?

Second Murderer : O, in the Duke of Gloucester's purse."

Therefore, as far as "The Law" defending individual rights, it creates the
necessary conditions (such as the de-personalisation of ethics, the existence
of concentrations wealth, and so on) for undermining individual ethical 
behaviour, and so respect for other individual's rights. As English 
libertarian socialist Edward Carpenter put it, "I think we may fairly 
make the following general statement, viz., that legal ownership is
essentially a negative and anti-social thing, and that unless qualified
or antidoted by human relationship, it is pretty certain to be positively
*harmful.* In fact, when a man's chief plea is 'The law allows it,' 
you may be pretty sure he is up to some mischief!" [quoted by William
R. McKercher, _Freedom and Authority_, p. 48] 

The state forces an individual a relationship with a governing body.
This means "taking away from the individual his [or her] direct interest 
in life and in his surroundings . . . blunting his [or her] moral sense 
. . . teaching that he [or she] must never reply on himself [or herself]
. . . [but] upon a small part of men who are elected to do everything . . . 
[which] destroys to a large extent his [or her] perception of right and 
wrong." [J. B. Smith, quoted by McKercher, Op. Cit., p. 67f]

Individual rights, for anarchists, are best protected in a social environment 
based on the self-respect and sympathy. Custom, because it is based on the 
outcome of numerous individual actions and thought does not have this problem 
and reflects (and encourages the development of) individual ethical standards 
and so a generalised respect for others. Thus, "under anarchism all rules
and laws will be little more than suggestions for the guidance of juries
which will judge not only the facts but the law, the justice of the law,
its applicability to the given circumstances, and the penalty or damage
to be inflicted because if its infraction . . . under Anarchism the law
will be so flexible that it will shape itself to every emergency and
need no alteration. And it will be regarded as *just* in proportion to
its flexibility, instead of as now in proportion to its rigidity." 
[Benjamin Tucker, _The Individualist Anarchists_, pp. 160-1] Tucker,
like other individualist Anarchists, believed that the role of juries
had been very substantial in the English common-law tradition and that
they had been gradually emasculated by the state. This system of juries,
based on common-law/custom could be the means of ensuring justice in a
free society.

Tolerance of other individuals depends far more on the attitudes of the
society in question that on its system of laws. In other words, even if
the law does respect individual rights, if others in society disapprove 
of an action then they can and will act to stop it (or restrict individual
rights). All that the law can do is try to prevent this occurring. Needless
to say, governments can (and have) been at the forefront of ignoring 
individual rights when its suits them. 

In addition, the state perverts social customs for its own, and the 
interests of the economically and socially powerful. As Kropotkin argued, 
"as society became more and more divided into two hostile classes, one
seeking to establish its domination, the other struggling to escape,
the strife began. Now the conqueror was in a hurry to secure the results
of his actions in a permanent form, he tried to place them beyond 
question, to make them holy and venerable by every means in his power.
Law made its appearance under the sanction of the priest, and the 
warriors club was placed at its service. Its office was to render 
immutable such customs as were to the advantage of the dominant
minority . . . If law, however, presented nothing but a collection
of prescriptions serviceable to rulers, it would find some difficulty
in insuring acceptance and obedience. Well, the legislators confounded
in one code the two currents of custom . . . , the maxims which 
represent principles of morality and social union wrought out as a
result of life in common, and the mandates which are meant to ensure
external existence to inequality. Customs, absolutely essential
to the very being of society, are, in the code, cleverly intermingled
with usages imposed by the ruling caste, and both claim equal respect
from the crowd. . . . Such was the law; and it has maintained its
two-fold character to this day." [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_,
p. 205] In other words, "[t]he law has used Man's social feelings to get 
passed not only moral precepts which were acceptable to Man, but also 
orders which were useful only to the minority of exploiters against whom 
he would have rebelled." [Krotpotkin quoted by Malatesta in _Anarchy_, 
pp. 21-22]

Therefore anarchists argue that state institutions are not only unneeded
to create a ethical society (i.e. one based on respecting individuality)
but activity undermines such a society. That the economically and politically
powerful state that a state is a necessary condition for a free society and
individual space is hardly surprising. Malatesta put it as follows:

"A government cannot maintain itself for long without hiding its true nature
behind a pretence of general usefulness . . . it cannot impose acceptances
of the privileges of the few if it does not pretend to be the guardian of
the rights of all." [_Anarchy_, p. 21]

Therefore, its important to remember why the state exists and so whatever
actions and rights it promotes for the individual it exists to protect the
powerful against the powerless. Any human rights recognised by the state 
are a product of social struggle and exist because of pass victories in 
the class war and not due to the kindness of ruling elites. In addition,
capitalism itself undermines the ethical foundations of any society by
encouraging people to grow "accustomed to deceiving his fellow-men" and
women and treating "his fellow as an [economic] enemy, against whom every 
means of warfare is justified." Hence capitalism undermines the basic 
social context within which individuals develop and need to become fully
human and free. Little wonder that a strong state has always been required
to introduce a free market - firstly, to protect wealth from the increasingly
dispossessed and secondly, to try to hold society together as capitalism
destroys the social fabric which makes a society worth living in.

I.7.4 Does capitalism protect individuality?

Given that many people claim that *any* form of socialism will destroy
liberty (and so individuality) it is worthwhile to consider whether 
capitalism actually does protect individuality. As noted briefly in
section I.7 the answer must be no. Capitalism seems to help create a
standardisation which helps to distort individuality and the fact that
individuality does exist under capitalism says more about the human 
spirit than capitalist social relationships.

So, why does a system apparently based on the idea of individual profit
result in such a deadening of the individual? There are four main reasons:

1) capitalism produces a hierarchical system which crushes self-government 
in many areas of life;

2) there is the lack of community which does not provide the necessary 
supports for the encouragement of individuality; 

3) there is the psychological impact of "individual profit" when it becomes 
identified purely with monetary gain (as in capitalism); 

4) the effects of competition in creating conformity and mindless obedience 
to authority.

We have discussed point one on many occasions (see sections B.1 and B.4). 
As Emma Goldman put it, under capitalism, the individual "must sell
his [or her] labour" and so their "inclination and judgement are
subordinated to the will of a master." This, naturally, represses 
individual initiative and the skills needed to know and express ones 
own mind (as she put it, this "condemns millions of people to be
mere nonentities, living corpses without originality or power of
initiative . . . who pile up mountains of wealth for others and
pay for it with a grey, dull and wretched existence for themselves"). 
"There can be no freedom in the large sense of the word," Goldman 
stressed, "so long as mercenary and commercial considerations
play an important part in the determination of personal conduct."
[_Red Emma Speaks_, p. 36]

Given the social relationships it is based on, capitalism cannot 
foster individuality but only harm it. As Kropotkin argued,
"obedience towards individuals or metaphysical entities . . .
lead to depression of initiative and servility of mind."
[_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_, p. 285]

As far as point two goes, we have discussed it already in this
section and will not repeat ourselves (see sections I.7 and 
I.7.1).

The last two points are worth discussing more thoroughly, and we will do
so here.

Taking the third point first, when this kind of "greed" becomes the guiding 
aspect of an individual's life (and the society they live in) they usually 
end up sacrificing their own ego to it. Instead of the individual dominating 
their "greed," "greed" dominates them and so they end up being possessed by 
one aspect of themselves. This "selfishness" hides the poverty of the ego 
who practices it. 

As Erich Fromm argues:

"Selfishness if not identical with self-love but with its very opposite.
Selfishness is one kind of greediness. Like all greediness, it contains
an insatiability, as a consequence of which there is never any real
satisfaction. Greed is a bottomless pit which exhausts the person in an
endless effort to satisfy the need without ever reaching satisfaction. . .
this type of person is basically not fond of himself, but deeply dislikes
himself.

"The puzzle in this seeming contradiction is easy to solve. Selfishness
is rooted in this very lack of fondness for oneself. . . He does not 
have the inner security which can exist only on the basis of genuine 
fondness and affirmation." [_The Fear of Freedom_, pp. 99-100]

In other words, the "selfish" person allows their greed to dominate their
ego and they sacrifice their personality feeding this new "God." This
was clearly seen by Max Stirner who denounced this as a "one-sided, unopened, 
narrow egoism" which leads the ego being "ruled by a passion to which he 
brings the rest as sacrifices" (see section G.6). Like all "spooks," 
capitalism results in the self-negation of the individual and so the
impoverishment of individuality. Little wonder, then, that a system 
apparently based upon "egoism" and "individualism" ends up weakening 
individuality.

The effects of competition on individuality are equally as destructive.

Indeed, a "culture dedicated to creating standardised, specialised, 
predictable human components could find no better way of grinding them
out than by making every possible aspect of life a matter of competition.
'Winning out' in this respect does not make rugged individualists. It
shapes conformist robots." [George Leonard, quoted by Alfie Kohn,
_No Contest: The Case Against Competition_, p. 129]

Why is this?

Competition is based upon outdoing others and this can only occur if you
are doing the same thing they are. However, individuality is the most
unique thing there is and "unique characteristics by definition cannot
be ranked and participating in the process of ranking demands essential
conformity." [Alfie Kohn, Op. Cit., p. 130] According to Kohn in his 
extensive research into the effects of competition, the evidence 
suggests that it in fact "encourages rank conformity" as well as 
undermining the "substantial and authentic kind of individualism" 
associated by such free thinkers as Thoreau. [Op. Cit., p. 129] 

As well as impoverishing individuality by encouraging conformity, 
competition also makes us less free thinking and rebellious:

"Attitude towards authorities and general conduct do count in the kinds of 
competitions that take place in the office or classroom. If I want to get 
the highest grades in class, I will not be likely to challenge the teacher's 
version of whatever topic is being covered. After a while, I may cease to
think critically altogether. . . If people tend to 'go along to get along,'
there is even more incentive to go along when the goal is to be number one.
In the office or factory where co-workers are rivals, beating out the next
person for a promotion means pleasing the boss. Competition acts to 
extinguish the Promethean fire of rebellion." [Op. Cit., p. 130]

In section I.4.11 ("If libertarian socialism eliminates the profit motive,
won't creativity suffer?") we noted that when an artistic task is turned 
into a contest, children's work reveal significantly less spontaneity 
and creativity. In other words, competition reduces creativity and so 
individuality because creativity is "anti-conformist at its core: it is
nothing if not a process of idiosyncratic thinking and risk-taking.
Competition inhibits this process." [Op. Cit., p. 130] 

Competition, therefore, will result in a narrowing of our lives, a failing
to experience new challenges in favour of trying to win and be "successful."
It turns "life into a series of contests [and] turns us into cautious,
obedient people. We do not sparkle as individuals *or* embrace collective
action when we are in a race." [Op. Cit., p. 131] 

So, far from defending individuality, capitalism places a lot of barriers
(both physical and mental) in the path of individuals who are trying to
express their freedom. Anarchism exists precisely because capitalism has
not created the free society it supporters claimed it would during its
struggle against the absolutist state.

I.8 	Does revolutionary Spain show that libertarian socialism can 
	work in practice?

Yes. As Murray Bookchin puts it, "[i]n Spain, millions of people took
large segments of the economy into their own hands, collectivised them,
administered them, even abolished money and lived by communistic
principles of work and distribution -- all of this in the midst of a
terrible civil war, yet without producing the chaos or even the serious
dislocations that were and still are predicted by authoritarian
'radicals.' Indeed, in many collectivised areas, the efficiency with
which an enterprise worked by far exceeded that of a comparable one in
nationalised or private sectors. This 'green shoot' of revolutionary
reality has more meaning for us than the most persuasive theoretical
arguments to the contrary. On this score it is not the anarchists who are
the 'unrealistic day-dreamers,' but their opponents who have turned their
backs to the facts or have shamelessly concealed them." ["Introductory
Essay," in _The Anarchist Collectives_, Sam Dolgoff (ed.), p. xxxix]

Sam Dolgoff's book is by far the best English source on the Spanish
collectives and deserves to be quoted at length (as we do below). He
quotes French Anarchist Gaston Leval comments that in those areas 
which defeated the fascist uprising on the 19th of July 1936 a 
profound social revolution took place based, mostly, on anarchist
ideas:

"In Spain, during almost three years, despite a civil war that took
a million lives, despite the opposition of the political parties . . . 
this idea of libertarian communism was put into effect. Very quickly
more than 60% of the land was very quickly collectively cultivated by 
the peasants themselves, without landlords, without bosses, and without 
instituting capitalist competition to spur production. In almost all the 
industries, factories, mills, workshops, transportation services, public 
services, and utilities, the rank and file workers, their revolutionary 
committees, and their syndicates reorganised and administered production, 
distribution, and public services without capitalists, high-salaried 
managers, or the authority of the state.

"Even more: the various agrarian and industrial collectives immediately
instituted economic equality in accordance with the essential principle 
of communism, 'From each according to his ability and to each according 
to his needs.' They co-ordinated their efforts through free association 
in whole regions, created new wealth, increased production (especially 
in agriculture), built more schools, and bettered public services. They
instituted not bourgeois formal democracy but genuine grass roots
functional libertarian democracy, where each individual participated
directly in the revolutionary reorganisation of social life. They
replaced the war between men, 'survival of the fittest,' by the 
universal practice of mutual aid, and replaced rivalry by the principle 
of solidarity . . .

"This experience, in which about eight million people directly or
indirectly participated, opened a new way of life to those who 
sought an alternative to anti-social capitalism on the one hand, 
and totalitarian state bogus socialism on the other." [Op. Cit., 
pp. 6-7]

Thus about eight million people directly or indirectly participated in 
the libertarian based new economy during the short time it was able to 
survive the military assaults of the fascists and the attacks and 
sabotage of the Communists. This in itself suggests that libertarian
socialist ideas are of a practical nature. 

Lest the reader think that Dolgoff and Bookchin are exaggerating the
accomplishments and ignoring the failures of the Spanish collectives, 
in the following subsections we will present specific details and answer 
some objections often raised by misinformed critics. We will try to present 
an objective analysis of the revolution, its many successes, its strong 
points and weak points, the mistakes made and possible lessons to be 
drawn from the experience, both from the successes and the mistakes. 

This libertarian influenced revolution has (generally) been ignored 
by historians, or its existence mentioned in passing. Some so-called 

historians and "objective investigators" have slandered it and lied 
about (when not ignoring) the role anarchists played in it. Communist 
histories are particularly unreliable (to use a polite word for their 
activities) but it seems that almost *every* political perspective 
has done this (including liberal, right-wing libertarian, Stalinist,
Trotskyist, Marxist, and so on). Indeed, the myths generated by
Marxists of various shades are quite extensive (see the appendix
on "Marxists and Spanish Anarchism" for a reply to some of the
more common ones). 

Thus any attempt to investigate what actually occurred in Spain and 
the anarchists' role in it is subject to a great deal of difficulty. 
Moreover, the positive role that Anarchists played in the revolution 
and the positive results of our ideas when applied in practice are 
also downplayed, if not ignored. Indeed, the misrepresentations of 
the Spanish Anarchist movement are downright amazing (see Jerome R. 
Mintz's wonderful book _The Anarchists of Casa Viejas_ for a 
refutation of the historians claims, a refutation based on oral 
history, as well as J. Romero Maura's, "The Spanish case", 
contained in _Anarchism Today_, edited by J. Joll and D. Apter. 
Both are essential reading to understand the distortions of 
historians about the Spanish anarchist movement). 

All we can do here is present a summary of the social revolution 
that took place and attempt to explode a few of the myths that 
have been created around the work of the C.N.T. and F.A.I. during 
those years.

In addition, we must stress that this section of the FAQ can 
be nothing but an introduction to the Spanish Revolution. We 
concentrate on the economic and political aspects of the 
revolution as we cannot cover the social transformations 
that occurred. All across non-fascist Spain traditional social 
relationships between men and women, adults and children, 
individual and individual were transformed, revolutionised, 
in a libertarian way. C.N.T. militant Abel Paz gives a good 
indication of this when he wrote:

"Industry is in the hands of the workers and all the production
centres conspicuously fly the red and black flags as well as
inscriptions announcing that they have really become collectives.
The revolution seems to be universal. Changes are also evident
in social relations. The former barriers which used to separate
men and woman arbitrarily have been destroyed. In the cafes and
other public places there is a mingling of the sexes which would
have been completely unimaginable before. The revolution has
introduced a fraternal character to social relations which has
deepened with practice and show clearly that the old world is
dead." [_Durruti: The People Armed_, p. 243]

The social transformation empowered individuals and these, in
turn, transformed society. Anarchist militant Enriqueta Rovira
presents a vivid picture of the self-liberation the revolution
generated:

"The atmosphere then [during the revolution], the feelings were
very special. It was beautiful. A feeling of -- how shall I say
it -- of power, not in the sense of domination, but in the
sense of things being under *our* control, of under anyone's.
Of *possibility*. We *had* everything. We had Barcelona: It
was ours. You'd walk out in the streets, and they were ours
-- here, CNT; there, *comite* this or that. It was totally
different. Full of possibility. A feeling that we could,
together, really *do* something. That we could make things
different." [quoted by Martha A. Ackelsberg and Myrna 
Margulies Breithart, "Terrains of Protest: Striking City
Women", pp. 151-176, _Our Generation_, vol. 19, No. 1, 
pp. 164-5]

Moreover, the transformation of society that occurred during the
revolution extended to all areas of life and work. For example,
the revolution saw "the creation of a health workers' union,
a true experiment in socialised medicine. They provided medical
assistance and opened hospitals and clinics." [Juan Gomez Casas,
_Anarchist Organisation: The History of the FAI_, p. 192] We
discuss this example in some detail in section I.5.12 and so
will not do so here. Therefore, we must stress that this section
of the FAQ is just an introduction to what happened and does
not (indeed, cannot) discuss all aspects of the revolution.
We just present an overview, bringing out the libertarian
aspects of the revolution, the ways workers' self-management
was organised, how the collectives organised and what they did.

Needless to say, many mistakes were made during the revolution.
We point out and discuss some of them in what follows. Moreover,
much of what happened did not correspond exactly with what
many people consider as the essential steps in a communist
(libertarian or otherwise) revolution. Economically, for
example, few collectives reached beyond a mutualist or
collectivist state. Politically, the fear of a fascist
victory made many anarchists accept collaboration with the
state as a lessor evil. However, to dismiss the Spanish
Revolution because it did not meet the ideas laid out by 
a handful of revolutionaries would be sectarian and elitist 
nonsense. No working class revolution is pure, no mass
struggle is without its contradictions, no attempt to
change society will be perfect. "It is only those who do 
nothing who make no mistakes," as Kropotkin so correctly
pointed out. [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_, 
p. 143] The question is whether the revolution creates
a system of institutions which will allow those involved
to discuss the problems they face and correct the decisions 
they make. In this, the Spanish Revolution clearly 
succeeded, creating organisations based on the initiative,
autonomy and power of working class people. 

For more information about the social revolution, Sam Dolgoff's _The
Anarchist Collectives_ is an excellent starting place. Gaston Leval's
_Collectives in the Spanish Revolution_ is another essential text.
Jose Pierat's _Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution_ and Vernon
Richards' _Lessons of the Spanish Revolution_ are excellent critical
anarchist works on the revolution and the role of the anarchists.
Robert Alexander's _The Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War_ is a 
good general overview of the anarchist's role in the revolution 
and civil war, as is Burnett Bolloten's _The Spanish Civil War_. 
Noam Chomsky's excellent essay "Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship"
indicates how liberal books on the Spanish Civil War can be 
misleading, unfair and essentially ideological in nature (this
classic essay can be found in _The Chomsky Reader_ and _American
Power and the New Mandarins_). George Orwell's _Homage to Catalonia_
cannot be bettered as an introduction to the subject (Orwell was
in the POUM militia at the Aragon Front and was in Barcelona during
the May Days of 1937).

I.8.1 Wasn't the Spanish Revolution primarily a rural phenomenon and
 	therefore inapplicable as a model for modern industrialised 
	societies? 

Quite the reverse. More urban workers took part in the revolution
than in the countryside. So while it is true that collectivisation 
was extensive in rural areas, the revolution also made its mark in 
urban areas and in industry. 

In total, the "regions most affected" by collectivisation
"were Catalonia and Aragon, were about 70 per cent of the
workforce was involved. The total for the whole of Republican
territory was nearly 800,000 on the land and a little more
than a million in industry. In Barcelona workers' committees
took over all the services, the oil monopoly, the shipping
companies, heavy engineering firms such as Volcano, the
Ford motor company, chemical companies, the textile 
industry and a host of smaller enterprises. . . Services
such as water, gas and electricity were working under
new management within hours of the storming of the
Atarazanas barracks . . .a conversion of appropriate
factories to war production meant that metallurgical
concerns had started to produce armed cars by 22 July 
. . . The industrial workers of Catalonia were the most
skilled in Spain . . . One of the most impressive
feats of those early days was the resurrection of 
the public transport system at a time when the streets
were still littered and barricaded." Five days after
the fighting had stopped, 700 tramcars rather than
the usual 600, all painted in the colours of the
CNT-FAI were operating in Barcelona. [Antony Beevor,
_The Spanish Civil War_, pp. 91-2]

About 75% of Spanish industry was concentrated in Catalonia, 
the stronghold of the anarchist labour movement, and widespread 
collectivisation of factories took place there. However, 
collectivisation was not limited to Catalonia and took place
all across urban as well as rural Republican Spain. As Sam Dolgoff 
rightly observes, "[t]his refutes decisively the allegation that 
anarchist organisational principles are not applicable to industrial 
areas, and if at all, only in primitive agrarian societies or in 
isolated experimental communities." [_The Anarchist Collectives_, 
pp. 7-8]

There had been a long tradition of peasant collectivism in the Iberian
Peninsula, as there was among the Berbers and in the ancient Russian
*mir.* The historians Costa and Reparaz maintain that a great many
Iberian collectives can be traced to "a form of rural libertarian-communism
[which] existed in the Iberian Peninsula before the Roman invasion. Not 
even five centuries of oppression by Catholic kings, the State and the 
Church have been able to eradicate the spontaneous tendency to establish 
libertarian communistic communities." [cited, Op. Cit., p. 20] So it 
is not surprising that there were collectives in the countryside. 

According to Augustin Souchy, "[i]t is no simple matter to collectivise
and place on firm foundations an industry employing almost a quarter of a
million textile workers in scores of factories scattered in numerous
cities. But the Barcelona syndicalist textile union accomplished this
feat in a short time. It was a tremendously significant experiment. The
dictatorship of the bosses was toppled, and wages, working conditions and
production were determined by the workers and their elected delegates. 
All functionaries had to carry out the instructions of the membership and
report back directly to the men on the job and union meetings. The
collectivisation of the textile industry shatters once and for all the
legend that the workers are incapable of administrating a great and
complex corporation" [cited, Op. Cit., p. 94].

Moreover, Spain in the 1930s was not a "backward, peasant country," 
as is sometimes supposed. Between 1910 and 1930, the industrial
working class more than doubled to over 2,500,000. This represented
just over 26% of the working population (compared to 16% twenty
years previously). In 1930, 45 per cent of the working population
were engaged in agriculture. [Ronald Fraser, _The Blood of Spain_,
p. 38] In Catalonia alone, 200,000 workers were employed in the 
textile industry and 70,000 in metal-working and machinery 
manufacturing. This was very different than the situation in 
Russia at the end of World War I, where the urban working class 
made up only 10% of the population.
 
Capitalist social relations had also penetrated agriculture much 
more thoroughly than in "backward, underdeveloped" countries by
the 1930s. In Russia at the end of World War I, for example, 
agriculture mostly consisted of small farms on which peasant 
families worked mainly for their own subsistence, bartering or 
selling their surplus. In Spain, however, agriculture was 
oriented to the world market and by the 1930s approximately
90% of farm land was in the hands of the bourgeoisie. [Fraser,
Op. Cit., p. 37] Spanish agribusiness also employed large 
numbers of labourers who did not own enough land to support 
themselves. The revolutionary labour movement in the Spanish 
countryside in the 1930s was precisely based on this large 
population of rural wage-earners (the socialist UGT land
workers union had 451,000 members in 1933, 40% of its total
membership, for example).

Therefore the Spanish Revolution cannot be dismissed as a product 
a of pre-industrial society. The urban collectivisations occurred 
predominately in the most heavily industrialised part of Spain 
and indicate that anarchist ideas are applicable to modern 
societies (indeed, the CNT organised most of the unionised 
urban working class). By 1936 agriculture itself was 
predominately capitalist (with 2% of the population owning 
67% of the land). The revolution in Spain was the work (mostly) 
of rural and urban wage labourers (joined with poor peasants) 
fighting a well developed capitalist system. 

Therefore, the anarchist revolution in Spain has many lessons
for revolutionaries in developed capitalist countries and cannot
be dismissed as a product of industrial backwardness.

I.8.2 How were the anarchists able to obtain mass popular support in 
	Spain? 

Anarchism was introduced in Spain in 1868 by Giuseppi Fanelli, an
associate of Michael Bakunin, and found fertile soil among both the
workers and the peasants of Spain. 

The peasants supported anarchism because of the rural tradition of 
Iberian collectivism mentioned in the last section. The urban workers 
supported it because its ideas of direct action, solidarity and free 
federation of unions corresponded to their needs in their struggle 
against capitalism and the state. 

In addition, many Spanish workers were well aware of the dangers of 
centralisation and the republican tradition in Spain was very much
influenced by federalist ideas (coming, in part, from Proudhon's work). 
The movement later spread back and forth between countryside and cities 
as union organisers and anarchist militants visited villages and as
peasants came to industrial cities like Barcelona, looking for work.

Therefore, from the start anarchism in Spain was associated with the
labour movement (as Bakunin desired) and so anarchists had a practical 
area to apply their ideas and spread the anarchist message. By applying 
their principles in everyday life, the anarchists in Spain ensured that
anarchist ideas became commonplace and accepted in a large section of
the population. 

This acceptance of anarchism cannot be separated from the structure 
and tactics of the C.N.T. and its fore-runners. The practice of direct 
action and solidarity encouraged workers to rely on themselves to 
identify and solve their own problems. The decentralised structure 
of the anarchist unions had an educational effect of their members. 
By discussing issues, struggles, tactics, ideals and politics in 
their union assemblies, the members of the union educated themselves
and, by the process of self-management in the struggle, prepared 
themselves for a free society. The very organisational structure of
the C.N.T. ensured the dominance of anarchist ideas and the political
evolution of the union membership. As one C.N.T. militant from Casas
Viejas put it, new members "asked for too much, because they lacked
education. They thought they could reach the sky without a ladder . . .
they were beginning to learn . . . There was good faith but lack
of education. For that reason we would submit ideas to the assembly,
and the bad ideas would be thrown out." [quoted by J. Mintz, _The
Anarchists of Casas Viejas_, p. 27]

It was by working in the union meetings that anarchists influenced
their fellow workers. The idea that the anarchists, through the
F.A.I, controlled the C.N.T is a myth. Not all anarchists in the 
C.N.T were members of the F.A.I, for example. Almost all F.A.I 
members were also rank-and-file members of the C.N.T. who took part 
in union meetings as equals. Anarchists were not members of the FAI
indicate this. Jose Borras Casacarosa notes that "[o]ne has to
recognise that the F.A.I. did not intervene in the C.N.T. from
above or in an authoritarian manner as did other political 
parties in the unions. It did so from the base through militants
. . . the decisions which determined the course taken by the
C.N.T. were taken under constant pressure from these militants."
Jose Campos notes that F.A.I. militants "tended to reject control
of confederal committees and only accepted them on specific
occassions . . . if someone proposed a motion in assembly, the
other F.A.I. members would support it, usually successfully.
It was the individual standing of the *faista* in open assembly."
[quoted by Stuart Christie, _We, the Anarchists_, p. 62]

This explains the success of anarchism in the CNT. Anarchist 
ideas, principles and tactics, submitted to the union assemblies, 
proved to be good ideas and were not thrown out. The structure of 
the organisation, in other words, decisively influenced the *content* 
of the decisions reached as ideas, tactics, union policy and so
on were discussed by the membership and those which best applied 
to the members lives were accepted and implemented. The C.N.T
assemblies showed the validity of Bakunin's arguments for
self-managed unions as a means of ensuring workers' control of
their own destinies and organisations. As he put it, the union
"sections could defend their rights and their autonomy [against
union bureaucracy] in only one way: the workers called general
membership meetings . . . In these great meetings of the sections,
the items on the agenda were amply discussed and the most progressive
opinion prevailed." [_Bakunin on Anarchism_, p. 247] The C.N.T
was built on such "popular assemblies," with the same radicalising
effect. It showed, in practice, that bosses (capitalist as well as
union ones) were not needed -- workers can manage their own affairs
directly. As a school for anarchism it could not be bettered as it
showed that anarchist principles were not utopian. The C.N.T, by
being based on workers' self-management of the class struggle, 
prepared its members for workers' self-management of the revolution
and the new society.

The Spanish Revolution also shows the importance of anarchist 
education and media. In a country with a very high illiteracy 
rate, huge quantities of literature on social revolution were 
disseminated and read out loud at meetings by those who could 
read to those who could not. Anarchist ideas were widely 
discussed. "There were tens of thousands of books, pamphlets
and tracts, vast and daring cultural and popular educational 
experiments (the Ferrer schools) that reached into almost 
every village and hamlet throughout Spain." [_The Anarchist 
Collectives_, p. 27] The discussion of political, economic and 
social ideas was continuous, and "the centro [local union hall] 
became the gathering place to discuss social issues and to 
dream and plan for the future. Those who aspired to learn to
read and write would sit around . . . studying." [Jerome R. Mintz, 
_The Anarchists of Casas Viejas_, p. 160] One anarchist militant
described it as follows:

"With what joy the orators were received whenever a meeting
was held . . . We spoke that night about everything: of the
ruling inequality of the regime and of how one had a right 
to a life without selfishness, hatred, without wars and 
suffering. We were called on another occasion and a crowd
gathered larger than the first time. That's how the pueblo
started to evolve, fighting the present regime to win
something by which they could sustain themselves, and 
dreaming of the day when it would be possible to create
that society some depict in books, others by word of mouth.
Avid for learning, they read everything, debated, discussed,
and chatted about the different modes of perfect social
existence." [Perez Cordon, quoted by Jerome R. Mintz, 
Op. Cit., p. 158]

Newspapers and periodicals were extremely important. By 1919, more than
50 towns in Andalusia had their own libertarian newspapers. By 1934 the
C.N.T. (the anarcho-syndicalist labour union) had a membership of around
one million and the anarchist press covered all of Spain. In Barcelona 
the C.N.T. published a daily, _Solidaridad Obrera_ (Worker Solidarity), 
with a circulation of 30,000. The FAI's magazine _Tierra y Libertad_ 
(Land and Liberty) had a circulation of 20,000. In Gijon there was 
_Vida Obrera_ (Working Life), in Seville _El Productor_ (The Producer), 
and in Saragossa _Accion y Cultura_ (Action and Culture), each with a
large circulation. There were many more. 

As well as leading struggles, organising unions, and producing books, 
papers and periodicals, the anarchists also organised libertarian schools, 
cultural centres, co-operatives, anarchist groups (the F.A.I), youth groups 
(the Libertarian Youth) and women's organisations (the Free Women movement). 
They applied their ideas in all walks of life and so ensured that ordinary 
people saw that anarchism was practical and relevant to them.

This was the great strength of the Spanish Anarchist movement. It was a
movement "that, in addition to possessing a revolutionary ideology [sic],
was also capable of mobilising action around objectives firmly rooted in 
the life and conditions of the working class . . . It was this ability
periodically to identify and express widely felt needs and feelings that,
together with its presence at community level, formed the basis of the
strength of radical anarchism, and enabled it to build a mass base of
support." [Nick Rider, "The practice of direct action: the Barcelona 
rent strike of 1931", p. 99, from _For Anarchism_, pp. 79-105]
 
Historian Temma Kaplan stressed this in her work on the Andalusian
anarchists. She argued that the anarchists were "rooted in" social 
life and created "a movement firmly based in working-class
culture." They "formed trade unions, affinity groups such as
housewives' sections, and broad cultural associations such
as workers' circles, where the anarchist press was read and
discussed." Their "great strength . . . lay in the merger of 
communal and militant trade union traditions. In towns where 
the vast majority of worked in agriculture, agricultural
workers' unions came to be identified with the community as a
whole . . . anarchism . . . show[ed] that the demands of
agricultural workers and proletarians could be combined with
community support to create an insurrectionary situation . . . 
It would be a mistake . . . to argue that 'village anarchism'
in Andalusia was distinct from militant unionism, or that
the movement was a surrogate religion." [_Anarchists of Andalusia: 
1868-1903_, p. 211, p. 207, pp. 204-5]

The Spanish anarchists, before and after the C.N.T was formed, fought 
in and out of the factory for economic, social and political issues. 
This refusal of the anarchists to ignore any aspect of life ensured 
that they found many willing to hear their message, a message based 
around the ideas of individual liberty. Such a message could do nothing 
but radicalise workers for "the demands of the C.N.T went much further 
than those of any social democrat: with its emphasis on true equality, 
*autogestion* [self-management] and working class dignity, 
anarchosyndicalism made demands the capitalist system could not 
possibly grant to the workers." [J. Romero Maura, "The Spanish case", 
p. 79, from _Anarchism Today_, edited by J. Joll and D. Apter] 

Strikes, due to the lack of strike funds, depended on mutual aid 
to be won, which fostered a strong sense of solidarity and class
consciousness in the CNT membership. Strikes did not just involve 
workers. For example, workers in Jerez responded to bosses importing 
workers from Malaga "with a weapon of their own -- a boycott of
those using strikebreakers. The most notable boycotts were against
landowners near Jerez who also had commercial establishments in
the city. The workers and their wives refused to buy there, and
the women stationed themselves nearby to discourage other shoppers."
[Jerome R. Mintz, Op. Cit., p. 102]

The structure and tactics of the C.N.T encouraged the politicisation, 
initiative and organisational skills of its members. It was a federal, 
decentralised body, based on direct discussion and decision making from 
the bottom up. "The C.N.T tradition was to discuss and examine everything", 
as one militant put it. In addition, the C.N.T created a viable and 
practical example of an alternative method by which society could be 
organised. A method which was based on the ability of ordinary people to 
direct society themselves and which showed in practice that special ruling 
authorities are undesirable and unnecessary.

The very structure of the C.N.T and the practical experience it provided 
its members in self-management produced a revolutionary working class 
the likes of which the world has rarely seen. As Jose Peirats points 
out, "above the union level, the C.N.T was an eminently political 
organisation . . ., a social and revolutionary organisation for agitation 
and insurrection." [_Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution_, p. 239] 

The C.N.T. was organised in such a way as to encourage solidarity and 
class consciousness. Its organisation was based on the *sindicato unico* 
(one union) which united all workers of the same workplace in the 
same union. Instead of organising by trade, and so dividing the workers
into numerous different unions, the C.N.T united all workers in a
workplace into the same organisation, all trades, skilled and unskilled,
where in a single organisation and so solidarity was increased and
encouraged as well as increasing their fighting power by eliminating
divisions within the workforce. All the unions in an area were linked
together into a local federation, the local federations into a regional
federation and so on. As J. Romero Maura argues, the "territorial 
basis of organisation linkage brought all the workers from one area
together and fomented working-class solidarity over and above
corporate [industry or trade] solidarity." ["The Spanish case", 
p. 75, from _Anarchism Today_, edited by J. Joll and D. Apter]

Thus the structure of the C.N.T. encouraged class solidarity and 
consciousness. In addition, being based on direct action and
self-management, the union ensured that working people became
accustomed to managing their own struggles and acting for themselves,
directly. This prepared them to manage their own personal and 
collective interests in a free society (as seen by the success
of the self-managed collectives created in the revolution). Thus
the process of self-managed struggle and direct action prepared
people for the necessities of the social revolution and the an
anarchist society -- it built, as Bakunin argued, the seeds of the
future in the present.

In other words, "the route to radicalisation . . . came from
direct involvement in struggle and in the design of alternative
social institutions." Every strike and action empowered those
involved and created a viable alternative to the existing
system. For example, while the strikes and food protests in 
Barcelona at the end of the First World War "did not topple
the government, patterns of organisation established then
provided models for the anarchist movement for years to
follow." [Martha A. Ackelsberg and Myrna Margulies Breithart, 
"Terrains of Protest: Striking City Women", pp. 151-176, 
_Our Generation_, vol. 19, No. 1, p. 164] The same could 
be said of every strike, which confirmed Bakunin's and 
Kropotkin's stress on the strike as not only creating class 
consciousness and confidence but also  the structures necessary 
to not only fight capitalism, but to replace it.

It was the revolutionary nature of the C.N.T. that created a militant 
membership who were willing and able to use direct action to defend 
their liberty. Unlike the Marxist led German workers, organised in 
a centralised fashion and trained in the obedience required by 
hierarchy, who did nothing to stop Hitler, the Spanish working 
class (like their comrades in anarchist unions in Italy) took to 
the streets to stop fascism.

The revolution in Spain did not "just happen"; it was the result of 
nearly seventy years of persistent anarchist agitation and revolutionary
struggle, including a long series of peasant uprisings, insurrections,
industrial strikes, protests, sabotage and other forms of direct action
that prepared the peasants and workers organise popular resistance to the 
attempted fascist coup in July 1937 and to take control of the economy when
they had defeated it in the streets.

I.8.3 How were Spanish industrial collectives organised? 

Marta A. Ackelsberg gives us an excellent short summary of how
the industrial collectives where organised:

"In most collectivised industries, general assemblies of workers
decided policy, while elected committees managed affairs on a
day-to-day basis." [_Free Women of Spain_, p. 73]

The collectives were based on workers' democratic self-management 
of their workplaces, using productive assets that were under the 
custodianship of the entire working community and administered 
through federations of workers' associations. Augustin Souchy 
writes: 

"The collectives organised during the Spanish Civil War were workers' 
economic associations without private property. The fact that collective 
plants were managed by those who worked in them did not mean that these 
establishments became their private property. The collective had no right to 
sell or rent all or any part of the collectivised factory or workshop, The 
rightful custodian was the C.N.T., the National Confederation of Workers 
Associations. But not even the C.N.T. had the right to do as it pleased. 
Everything had to be decided and ratified by the workers themselves through 
conferences and congresses." [cited in _The Anarchist Collectives_, p. 67]

According to Souchy, in Catalonia "every factory elected its administrative
committee composed of its most capable workers. Depending on the size of
the factory, the function of these committees included inner plant
organisation, statistics, finance, correspondence, and relations with
other factories and with the community. . . . Several months after
collectivisation the textile industry of Barcelona was in far better shape
than under capitalist management. Here was yet another example to show
that grass roots socialism from below does not destroy initiative. Greed
is not the only motivation in human relations." [Op. Cit., p 95]

Thus the individual collective was based on a mass assembly of those
who worked there. This assembly nominated administrative staff who
were mandated to implement the decisions of the assembly and who
had to report back to, and were accountable to, that assembly. For
example, in Castellon de la Plana "[e]very month the technical and
administrative council presented the general assembly of the
Syndicate with a report which was examined and discussed if 
necessary, and finally introduced when this majority thought it
of use. Thus all the activities were known and controlled by all
the workers. We find here a practical example of libertarian
democracy." [_Collectives in the Spanish Revolution_, p. 303]

So, in general, the industrial collectives were organised from
the bottom-up, with policy in the hands of workers' assemblies
who elected the administration required, including workplace 
committees and managers. However, power rested the at base
of the collective, with "all important decisions [being]
taken by the general assemblies of the workers, . . .
[which] were widely attended and regularly held. . . if
an administrator did something which the general assembly
had not authorised, he was likely to be deposed at the
next meeting." An example of this process can be seen
from the Casa Rivieria company. After the defeat of the
army coup "a control committe (Comite de Control) was
named by the Barcelona Metal Workers' Union to take
over temporary control of the enterprises. . . A few
weeks after July 19th, there was the first general
assembly of the firm's workers . . . It elected an
enterprise committee (Comite de Empresa) to take control
of the firm on a more permanent basis. . . . Each
of the four sections of the firm -- the three factories
and the office staff -- held their own general assemblies
at least once a week. There they discussed matters ranging 
from the most important affairs to the most trivial." 
[Robert Alexander, _The Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War_, 
vol. 1, p. 469 and p. 532]

A plenum of syndicates met in December of 1936 and formulated norms for
socialisation in which the inefficiency of the capitalist industrial
system was analysed. The report of the plenum stated: 

"The major defect of most small manufacturing shops is fragmentation 
and lack of technical/commercial preparation. This prevents their
modernisation and consolidation into better and more efficient units 
of production, with better facilities and co-ordination. . . . For us,
socialisation must correct these deficiencies and systems of organisation
in every industry. . . . To socialise an industry, we must consolidate 
the different units of each branch of industry in accordance with a 
general and organic plan which will avoid competition and other 
difficulties impeding the good and efficient organisation of 
production and distribution. . ." [cited by Souchy, _The Anarchist
Collectives_, p. 83]

As Souchy points out, this document is very important in the evolution of
collectivisation, because it indicates a realisation that "workers must
take into account that partial collectivisation will in time degenerate
into a kind of bourgeois co-operativism," [Op. Cit., p. 83] as discussed 
earlier. Thus many collectives did not compete with each other for 
profits, as surpluses were pooled and distributed on a wider basis 
than the individual collective -- in most cases industry-wide. 
 
We have already noted some examples of the improvements in efficiency
realised by collectivisation during the Spanish Revolution (section I.4.10). 
Another example was the baking industry. Souchy reports that, "[a]s in the
rest of Spain, Barcelona's bread and cakes were baked mostly at night in
hundreds of small bakeries. Most of them were in damp, gloomy cellars
infested with roaches and rodents. All these bakeries were shut down. 
More and better bread and cake were baked in new bakeries equipped with
new modern ovens and other equipment." [Op. Cit., p. 82]

Therefore, the collectives in Spain were marked by workplace democracy 
and a desire to co-operate within and across industries. This attempt 
at libertarian socialism, like all experiments, had its drawbacks as
well as successes and these will be discussed in the next section as
well as some of the conclusions drawn from the experience.

I.8.4 How were the Spanish industrial collectives co-ordinated? 

The methods of co-operation tried by the collectives varied considerably.
Initially, there were very few attempts to co-ordinate economic activities
beyond the workplace. This is hardly surprising, given that the overwhelming
need was to restart production, convert a civilian economy to a wartime one 
and to ensure that the civilian population and militias were supplied with 
necessary goods. This, unsurprisingly enough, lead to a situation of anarchist
mutualism developing, with many collectives selling the product of their own
labour on the market (in other words, a form of simple commodity production).

This lead to some economic problems as there existed no framework of
institutions between collectives to ensure efficient co-ordination of
activity and so lead to pointless competition between collectives (which 
lead to even more problems). As there were initially no confederations of 
collectives nor mutual/communal banks this lead to the inequalities that
initially existed between collectives (due to the fact that the collectives
took over rich and poor capitalist firms) and it made the many ad hoc
attempts at mutual aid between collectives difficult and temporary. 

Therefore, the collectives were (initially) a form of "self-management 
straddling capitalism and socialism, which we maintain would not have 
occurred had the Revolution been able to extend itself fully under the 
direction of our syndicates." [Gaston Leval, _Collectives in the Spanish 
Revolution_, pp. 227-8] As economic and political development are closely
related, the fact that the C.N.T. did not carry out the *political* aspect 
of the revolution meant that the revolution in the economy was doomed to
failure. As Leval stresses, in "the industrial collectives, especially in
the large towns, matters proceeded differently as a consequence of 
contradictory factors and of opposition created by the co-existence
of social currents emanating from different social classes." [Op. Cit.,
p. 227] 

Given that the C.N.T. program of libertarian communism recognised that a 
fully co-operative society must be based upon production for use, C.N.T. 
militants fought against this system of mutualism and for inter-workplace 
co-ordination. They managed to convince their fellow workers of the 
difficulties of mutualism by free debate and discussion within their 
unions and collectives.

Therefore, the degree of socialisation varied over time (as would be 
expected). Initially, after the initial defeat of Franco's forces, 
there was little formal co-ordination and organisation. The most 
important thing was to get production started again. However, the 
needs of co-ordination soon became obvious (as predicted in anarchist
theory and the programme of the CNT). Gaston Leval gives the example
of Hospitalet del Llobregat with regards to this process:

"Local industries went through stages almost universally adopted in
that revolution . . . [I]n the first instance, *comites* nominated
by the workers employed in them [were organised]. Production and
sales continued in each one. But very soon it was clear that this
situation gave rise to competition between the factories. . . 
creating rivalries which were incompatible with the socialist and
libertarian outlook. So the CNT launched the watchword: 'All 
industries must be ramified in the Syndicates, completely socialised,
and the regime of solidarity which we have always advocated be 
established once and for all.

"The idea won support immediately" [Op. Cit., pp. 291-2]

Another example was the woodworkers' union which a massive debate on 
socialisation and decided to do so (the shopworkers' union had a similar 
debate, but the majority of workers rejected socialisation). According 
to Ronald Fraser a "union delegate would go round the small shops, 
point out to the workers that the conditions were unhealthy and 
dangerous, that the revolution was changing all this, and secure 
their agreement to close down and move to the union-built Double-X 
and the 33 EU." [Ronald Fraser, _Blood of Spain_, p. 222]

This process went on in many different unions and collectives and, 
unsurprisingly, the forms of co-ordination agreed to lead to different 
forms of organisation in different areas and industries, as would be 
expected in a free society. However, the two most important forms can 
be termed syndicalisation and confederationalism (we will ignore the 
forms created by the collectivisation decree as these were not created 
by the workers themselves). 

"Syndicalisation" (our term) meant that the C.N.T.'s industrial union ran 
the whole industry. This solution was tried by the woodworkers' union after 
extensive debate. One section of the union, "dominated by the F.A.I. [the 
anarchist federation], maintained that anarchist self-management meant that 
the workers should set up and operate autonomous centres of production so as 
to avoid the threat of bureaucratisation." [Ronald Fraser, _Blood of Spain_, 
p. 222] However, those in favour of syndicalisation won the day and 
production was organised in the hands of the union, with administration 
posts and delegate meetings elected by the rank and file.

However, the "major failure . . . (and which supported the original anarchist
objection) was that the union became like a large firm . . . [and its]
structure grew increasingly rigid." According to one militant, "From the
outside it began to look like an American or German trust" and the workers
found it difficult to secure any changes and "felt they weren't particularly
involved in decision making." 

In the end, the major difference between the union-run industry and a
capitalist firm organisationally appeared to be that workers could vote for 
(and recall) the industry management at relatively regular General Assembly 
meetings. While a vast improvement on capitalism, it is hardly the best 
example of participatory self-management in action although the economic 
problems caused by the Civil War and Stalinist led counter-revolution 
obviously would have had an effect on the internal structure of any
industry and so we cannot say that the form of organisation created was
totally responsible for any marginalisation that took place. 

The other important form of co-operation was what we will term 
"confederalisation." This form of co-operation was practised by the 
Badalona textile industry (and had been defeated in the woodworkers' 
union). It was based upon each workplace being run by its elected 
management, sold its own production, got its own orders and received 
the proceeds. However, everything each mill did was reported to the 
union which charted progress and kept statistics. If the union felt 
that a particular factory was not acting in the best interests of 
the industry as a whole, it was informed and asked to change course. 
According to one militant, the union "acted more as a socialist 
control of collectivised industry than as a direct hierarchised
executive" [Op. Cit., p. 229]

This system ensured that the "dangers of the big 'union trust' 
as of the atomised collective were avoided" [Fraser, Op. Cit., 
p. 229] as well as maximising decentralisation of power. Unlike 
the syndicalisation experiment in the woodworkers' industry, this 
scheme was based on horizontal links between workplaces (via the 
C.N.T. union) and allowed a maximum of self-management *and* 
mutual aid. The ideas of an anarchist economy sketched in 
section I.3 reflects in many ways the actual experiments in 
self-management which occurred during the Spanish Revolution.

Therefore, the industrial collectives co-ordinated their activity 
in many ways, with varying degrees of direct democracy and success. 
As would be expected, mistakes were made and different solutions 
found. When reading this section of the FAQ its important to remember 
that an anarchist society can hardly be produced "overnight" and so 
it is hardly surprising that the workers of the C.N.T. faced numerous 
problems and had to develop their self-management experiment as 
objective conditions allowed them to. 

Unfortunately, thanks to fascist aggression and Communist Party 
back-stabbing, the experiment did not last long enough to fully 
answer all the questions we have about the viability of the 
solutions they tried. Given the time, however, we are sure they 
would have solved the problems they faced.

I.8.5	How were the Spanish agricultural co-operatives organised and
 	co-ordinated? 

Jose Peirats describes collectivisation among the peasantry as follows:

"The expropriated lands were turned over to the peasant syndicates, and it
was these syndicates that organised the first collectives. Generally the
holdings of small property owners were respected, always on the condition
that only they or their families would work the land, without employing
wage labour. In areas like Catalonia, where the tradition of petty peasant
ownership prevailed, the land holdings were scattered. There were no
great estates. Many of these peasants, together with the C.N.T., organised
collectives, pooling their land, animals, tools, chickens, grain,
fertiliser, and even their harvested crops. 
 
"Privately owned farms located in the midst of collectives interfered with
efficient cultivation by splitting up the collectives into disconnected
parcels. To induce owners to move, they were given more or even better
land located on the perimeter of the collective.
 
"The collectivist who had nothing to contribute to the collective was
admitted with the same rights and the same duties as the others. In some
collectives, those joining had to contribute their money (Girondella in
Catalonia, Lagunarrotta in Aragon, and Cervera del Maestra in Valencia)."
[cited _The Anarchist Collectives_, p. 112]

Peirats also notes that in conducting their internal affairs, all the
collectives scrupulously and zealously observed democratic procedures. 
For example, "Hospitalet de Llobregat held regular general membership
meetings every three months to review production and attend to new
business. The administrative council, and all other committees, submitted
full reports on all matters. The meeting approved, disapproved, made
corrections, issued instructions, etc." [Ibid., p. 119] 

Dolgoff observes that "supreme power was vested in, and actually
exercised by, the membership in general assemblies, and all power derived
from, and flowed back to, the grass roots organisations of the people"
and quotes Gaston Leval: 

"Regular general membership meetings were convoked weekly, bi-weekly, 
or monthly. . . and these meetings were completely free of the tensions 
and recriminations which inevitably emerge when the power of decisions 
is vested in a few individuals -- even if democratically elected. The 
Assemblies were open for everyone to participate in the proceedings. 
Democracy embraced all social life. In most cases, even the 'individualists' 
who were not members of the collective could participate in the discussions, 
and they were listened to by the collectivists." [Op. Cit., p 119f] 

It was in these face-to-face assemblies that decisions upon the distribution
of resources were decided both within and without the collective. Here, when 
considering the importance of mutual aid, appeals were made to an 
individual's sense of empathy. As one activist remembers:

"There were, of course, those who didn't want to share and who said that 
each collective should take care of itself. But they were usually convinced 
in the assemblies. We would try to speak to them in terms they understood. 
We'd ask, 'Did you think it was fair when the cacique [local boss] let people 
starve if there wasn't enough work?' and they said, 'Of course not.' They 
would eventually come around. Don't forget, there were three hundred 
thousand collectivists [in Aragon], but only ten thousand of us had been 
members of the C.N.T.. We had a lot of educating to do." [Felix Carrasquer, 
quoted by Martha A. Ackelsberg in _Free Women of Spain_, p. 79]

In addition, regional federations of collectives were formed in many
areas of Spain (for example, in Aragon and the Levant). The federations 
were created at congresses to which the collectives in an area sent 
delegates. These congresses agreed a series of general rules about how 
the federation would operate and what commitments the affiliated collectives 
would have to each other. The congress elected an administration council, 
which took responsibility for implementing agreed policy.

These federations had many tasks. They ensured the distribution of surplus
produce to the front line and to the cities, cutting out middlemen and
ensuring the end of exploitation. They also arranged for exchanges between 
collectives to take place. In addition, the federations allowed the 
individual collectives to pool resources together in order to improve the 
infrastructure of the area (building roads, canals, hospitals and so on) 
and invest in means of production which no one collective could afford.

In this way individual collectives pooled their resources, increased 
and improved the means of production they had access to as well as 
improving the social infrastructure of their regions. All this, combined 
with an increase of consumption at the point of production and the
feeding of militia men and women fighting the fascists at the front.

Rural collectivisations allowed the potential creative energy that
existed among the rural workers and peasants to be unleashed, an energy
that had been wasted under private property. The popular assemblies allowed
community problems and improvements to be identified and solved directly,
drawing upon the ideas and experiences of everyone and enriched by 
discussion and debate. This enabled rural Spain to be transformed from 
one marked by poverty and fear, into one of hope and experimentation (see
the next section for a few examples of this experimentation).

Therefore self-management in collectives combined with co-operation in rural 
federations allowed an improvement in quality of rural life. From a 
purely economic viewpoint, production increased and as Benjamin Martin 
summarises, "[t]hough it is impossible to generalise about the rural 
land take-overs, there is little doubt that the quality of life for most 
peasants who participated in co-operatives and collectives notably improved."
[_The Agony of Modernisation_, p. 394]

More importantly, however, this improvement in the quality of life included 
an increase in freedom as well as in consumption. To requote the member 
of the Beceite collective in Aragon we cited in section A.5.6, "it was 
marvellous. . . to live in a collective, a free society where one could 
say what one thought, where if the village committee seemed unsatisfactory 
one could say. The committee took no big decisions without calling the 
whole village together in a general assembly. All this was wonderful." 
[Ronald Fraser, _Blood of Spain_, p. 288]

I.8.6 What did the agricultural collectives accomplish? 

Here are a few examples cited by Jose Peirats: 

"In Montblanc the collective dug up the old useless vines and 
planted new vineyards. The land, improved by modern cultivation 
with tractors, yielded much bigger and better crops. . . . Many 
Aragon collectives built new roads and repaired old ones, installed 
modern flour mills, and processed agricultural and animal waste 
into useful industrial products. Many of these improvements were 
first initiated by the collectives. Some villages, like Calanda, 
built parks and baths. Almost all collectives established libraries, 
schools, and cultural centres." [cited _The Anarchist Collectives_, 
p. 116]

Gaston Leval points out that "the Peasant Federation of Levant . . .
produced more than half of the total orange crop in Spain: almost four
million kilos (1 kilo equals about 2 and one-fourth pounds). It then
transported and sold through its own commercial organisation (no
middlemen) more than 70% of the crop. (The Federations's commercial
organisation included its own warehouses, trucks, and boats. Early in
1938 the export section established its own agencies in France: 
Marseilles, Perpignan, bordeaux, Cherbourg, and Paris.) Out of a total
of 47,000 hectares in all Spain devoted to rice production, the
collective in the Province of Valencia cultivated 30,000 hectares." 
[cited in Ibid., p. 124] 

To quote Peirats again: 

"Preoccupation with cultural and pedagogical innovations was an event 
without precedent in rural Spain. The Amposta collectivists organised 
classes for semi-literates, kindergartens, and even a school of arts 
and professions. The Seros schools were free to all neighbours, 
collectivists or not. Grau installed a school named after its most 
illustrious citizen, Joaquin Costa. The Calanda collective (pop.

only 4,500) schooled 1,233 children. The best students were sent to the
Lyceum in Caspe, with all expenses paid by the collective. The Alcoriza
(pop. 4,000) school was attended by 600 children. Many of the schools
were installed in abandoned convents. In Granadella (pop. 2,000), classes
were conducted in the abandoned barracks of the Civil Guards. Graus
organised a print library and a school of arts and professions, attended
by 60 pupils. The same building housed a school of fine arts and high
grade museum. In some villages a cinema was installed for the first
time. The Penalba cinema was installed in a church. Viladecana built an
experimental agricultural laboratory.

"The collectives voluntarily contributed enormous stocks of provisions and
other supplies to the fighting troops. Utiel sent 1,490 litres of oil and
300 bushels of potatoes to the Madrid front (in addition to huge stocks of
beans, rice, buckwheat, etc.). Porales de Tujana sent great quantities of
bread, oil, flour, and potatoes to the front, and eggs, meat, and milk to
the military hospital.
 
"The efforts of the collectives take on added significance when we take
into account that their youngest and most vigorous workers were fighting
in the trenches. 200 members of the little collective of Vilaboi were at
the front; from Viledecans, 60; Amposta, 300; and Calande, 500." [Ibid., 
pp. 116-120]

Peirats sums up the accomplishments of the agricultural collectives as
follows: 

"In distribution the collectives' co-operatives eliminated middlemen, 
small merchants, wholesalers, and profiteers, thus greatly reducing 
consumer prices. The collectives eliminated most of the parasitic 
elements from rural life, and would have wiped them out altogether 
if they were not protected by corrupt officials and by the political 
parties. Non-collectivised areas benefited indirectly from the 
lower prices as well as from free services often rendered by the
collectives (laundries, cinemas, schools, barber and beauty parlours, 
etc.)." [Ibid., p114]

Leval emphasises the following achievements (among others): 

"In the agrarian collectives solidarity was practised to the greatest 
degree. Not only was every person assured of the necessities, but the 
district federations increasingly adopted the principle of mutual aid 
on an inter-collective scale. For this purpose they created common 
reserves to help out villages less favoured by nature. In Castile 
special institutions for this purpose were created. In industry this 
practice seems to have begun in Hospitalet, on the Catalan railways, 
and was applied later in Alcoy. Had the political compromise not 
impeded open socialisation, the practices of mutual aid would have 
been much more generalised. . . A conquest of enormous importance 
was the right of women to livelihood, regardless of occupation or 
function. In about half of the agrarian collectives, the women 
received the same wages as men; in the rest the women received 
less, apparently on the principle that they rarely live alone. . .
In all the agrarian collectives of Aragon, Catalonia, Levant, Castile,
Andalusia, and Estremadura, the workers formed groups to divide the 
labour or the land; usually they were assigned to definite areas. 
Delegates elected by the work groups met with the collective's 
delegate for agriculture to plan out the work. This typical 
organisation arose quite spontaneously, by local initiative. . . 
In addition . . . the collective as a whole met in weekly, bi-weekly
or monthly assembly . . . The assembly reviewed the activities of
the councillors it named, and discussed special cases and unforeseen
problems. All inhabitants -- men and women, producers and non-producers
-- took part in the discussion and decisions . . . In land cultivation 
the most significant advances were: the rapidly increased use of 
machinery and irrigation; greater diversification; and forestation. 
In stock raising: the selection and multiplication of breeds; the 
adaptation of breeds to local conditions; and large-scale
construction of collective stock barns." [Ibid., pp. 166-167]

Martha A. Ackelsberg sums up the experience well:

"The achievements of these collectives were extensive. In many
areas they maintained, if not increased, agricultural production
[not forgetting that many young men were at the front line], 
often introducing new patterns of cultivation and fertilisation. . .
collectivists built chicken coups, barns, and other facilities
for the care and feeding of the community's animals. Federations
of collectives co-ordinated the construction of roads, schools,
bridges, canals and dams. Some of these remain to this day as
lasting contributions of the collectives to the infrastructure
of rural Spain." [_The Free Women of Spain_, p. 79]

She also points to inter-collective solidarity, noting that the 
"collectivists also arranged for the transfer of surplus produce
from wealthier collectives to those experiencing shortages." [Ibid.]

Therefore, as well as significant economic achievements, the
collectives ensured social and political ones too. Solidarity
was practised and previously marginalised people took direct
and full management of the affairs of their communities, 
transforming them to meet their own needs and desires. 

I.8.7 I've heard that the rural collectives were created by force. 
 	Is this true?

No, it is not. The myth that the rural collectives were created by 
"terror," organised and carried out by the anarchist militia, was 
started by the Stalinists of the Spanish Communist Party. More 
recently, some right-wing Libertarians have warmed up and repeated 
these Stalinist fabrications. Anarchists have been disproving these 
allegations since 1936 and it is worthwhile to do so again here.

As Vernon Richards notes, "[h]owever discredited Stalinism may appear 
to be today the fact remains that the Stalinist lies and interpretation 
of the Spanish Civil War still prevail, presumably because it suits the
political prejudices of those historians who are currently interpreting 
it." [Introduction to Gaston Leval's _Collectives in the Spanish 
Revolution_, p. 11] Here we shall present evidence to refute claims 
that the rural collectives were created by force.

Firstly, we should point out that rural collectives were created in many
different areas of Spain, such as the Levant (900 collectives), Castile (300)
and Estremadera (30), where the anarchist militia did not exist. In Catalonia, 
for example, the C.N.T. militia passed through many villages on its way to
Aragon and only around 40 collectives were created unlike the 450 in Aragon. 
In other words, the rural collectivisation process occurred independently of 
the existence of anarchist troops, with the majority of the 1,700 rural
collectives created in areas without a predominance of anarchist troops.

One historian, Ronald Fraser, seems to imply that the Aragon Collectives were 
imposed upon the Aragon population. As he puts it the "collectivisation, 
carried out under the general cover, if not necessarily the direct agency, 
of C.N.T. militia columns, represented a revolutionary minority's attempt to 
control not only production but consumption for egalitarian purposes and 
the needs of the war." [_Blood of Spain_, p. 370] Notice that he does not
suggest that the anarchist militia actually *imposed* the collectives, a
claim for which there is little or no evidence. Moreover, Fraser presents
a somewhat contradictory narrative to the facts he presents. On the one
hand, he talks of a policy of "obligatory" collectivistion imposed on 
the peasants by the C.N.T., while on the other hand he presents extensive
evidence that the collectives did not have a 100% membership rate. How
can collectivisation be obligatory if people remain outside the collectives?
Similarly, he talks of how *some* C.N.T. militia leaders justified forced
collectivisation in terms of the war effort while acknowledging the
official C.N.T. policy of opposing forced collectivisation, an opposition
expressed in practice as only around 5% of the collectives were total
(and expressed in his own book as collectivists interviewed continually
note that people remained outside their collectives!).

Thus Fraser's attempts to paint the Aragon collectives as a form of "war
communism" imposed upon the population by the C.N.T. and obligatory for
all fails to co-incidence with the evidence he presents.

Earlier he states that "[t]here was no need to dragoon them [the peasants] 
at pistol point [into collectives]: the coercive climate, in which 'fascists' 
were being shot, was sufficient. 'Spontaneous' and 'forced' collectives 
existed, as did willing and unwilling collectivists within them." [Op. Cit., 
p.349] Therefore, his suggestion that the Aragon collectives were imposed 
upon the rural population is based upon the insight that there was a "coercive
climate" in Aragon at the time. Of course a civil war against fascism would 
produce a "coercive climate," particularly at the front line, and so the 
C.N.T. can hardly be blamed for that. In addition, in a life and death 
struggle against fascism, in which the fascists were systematically 
murdering vast numbers of anarchists, socialists and republicans in the
areas under their control, it is hardly surprising that some anarchist troops 
took the law into their own hands and murdered some of those who supported 
and would help the fascists. Given what was going on in fascist Spain, and 
the experience of fascism in Germany and Italy, the C.N.T. militia knew 
exactly what would happen to them and their friends and family if they lost.

The question does arise, however, of whether the climate was made so coercive 
by the war and the nearness of the anarchist militia that individual choice 
was impossible.

The facts speak for themselves -- rural collectivisation in Aragon embraced 
more than 70% of the population in the area saved from fascism. Around 
30% of the population felt safe enough not to join a collective, a 
sizeable percentage. 

If the collectives had been created by anarchist terror or force, we would
expect a figure of 100% membership in the collectives. This was not the case,
indicating the basically voluntary nature of the experiment (we should point 
out that other figures suggest a lower number of collectivists which makes 
the forced collectivisation argument even less likely). Historian Antony
Beevor (while noting that there "had undoubtedly been pressure, and
no doubt force was used on some occasions in the fervour after the
rising") just stated the obvious when he wrote that "the very fact that
every village was a mixture of collectivists and individualists shows
that peasants had not been forced into communal farming at the point
of a gun." [_The Spanish Civil War_, p. 206] In addition, if the
C.N.T. militia had forced peasants into collectives we would expect the
membership of the collectives to peak almost overnight, not grow slowly
over time. However, this is what happened:

"At the regional congress of collectives, held at Caspe in mid-February 1937, 
nearly 80 000 collectivists were represented from 'almost all the villages
of the region.' This, however, was but a beginning. By the end of April 
the number of collectivists had risen to 140 000; by the end of the first
week of May to 180 000; and by the end of June to 300 000." [Graham Kelsey, 
"Anarchism in Aragon," pp. 60-82, _Spain in Conflict 1931-1939_,
Martin Blinkhorn (ed.), p. 61]

If the collectives had been created by force, then their membership would
have been 300 000 in February, 1937, not increasing steadily to reach that
number four months later. Neither can it be claimed that the increase was
due to new villages being collectivised, as almost all villages had sent
delegates in February. This indicates that many peasants joined the
collectives because of the advantages associated with common labour, the 
increased resources it placed at their hands and the fact that the surplus
wealth which had in the previous system been monopolised by the few was
used instead to raise the standard of living of the entire community.

The voluntary nature of the collectives is again emphasised by the number of
collectives which allowed smallholders to remain outside. According to evidence 
Fraser presents (on page 366), an F.A.I. schoolteacher is quoted as saying that 
the forcing of smallholders into the collective "wasn't a widespread problem, 
because there weren't more than twenty or so villages where collectivisation 
was total and no one was allowed to remain outside..." Instead of forcing
the minority in a village to agree with the wishes of the majority, the
vast majority (95%) of Aragon collectives stuck to their libertarian 
principles and allowed those who did not wish to join to remain outside.

So, only around 20 were "total" collectives (out of 450) and around 30% of the 
population felt safe enough *not* to join. In other words, in the vast majority 
of collectives those joining could see that those who did not were safe. 
These figures should not be discounted, as they give an indication of the 
basically spontaneous and voluntary nature of the movement. As was the 
composition of the new municipal councils created after July 19th. 
As Graham Kesley notes, "[w]hat is immediately noticeable from the results 
is that although the region has often been branded as one controlled by 
anarchists to the total exclusion of all other forces, the C.N.T. was far 
from enjoying the degree of absolute domination often implied and inferred." 
[_Anarchosyndicalism, Libertarian Communism and the State_, p. 198] 

In his account of the rural revolution, Burnett Bolloten notes that 
it "embraced more than 70 percent of the population" in liberated
Aragon and that "many of the 450 collectives of the region were 
largely voluntary" although "it must be emphasised that this 
singular development was in some measure due to the presence of 
militiamen from the neighbouring region of Catalonia, the immense 
majority of whom were members of the C.N.T. and F.A.I." [_The
Spanish Civil War_, p. 74]

As Gaston Leval points out, "it is true that the presence of these forces 
. . . favoured indirectly these constructive achievements by preventing 
active resistance by the supporters of the bourgeois republic and of
fascism." [_Collectives in the Spanish Revolution_, p. 90]

In other words, the presence of the militia changed the balance of
class forces in Aragon by destroying the capitalist state (i.e. the local
bosses - caciques - could not get state aid to protect their property) 
and many landless workers took over the land. The presence of the militia 
ensured that land could be taken over by destroying the capitalist "monopoly 
of force" that existed before the revolution (the power of which will be
highlighted below) and so the C.N.T. militia allowed the possibility of 
experimentation by the Aragonese population.

This class war in the countryside is reflected by Bolloten's statement that
"[if] the individual farmer viewed with dismay the swift and widespread
collectivisation of agriculture, the farm workers of the Anarchosyndicalist 
C.N.T. and the Socialist UGT saw it as the commencement of a new era." 
[_The Spanish Civil War_, p. 63] Both were mass organisations and 
supported collectivisation. 

Therefore, anarchist militia allowed the rural working class to abolish the
artificial scarcity of land created by private property (and enforced by the
state). The rural bosses obviously viewed with horror the possibility that 
they could not exploit day workers' labour. As Bolloten points out "the 
collective system of agriculture threaten[ed] to drain the rural labour 
market of wage workers." [Op. Cit., p. 62] Little wonder the richer peasants
and landowners hated the collectives.

Bolloten also quotes a report on the district of Valderrobes which indicates 
popular support for the collectives:

"Collectivisation was nevertheless opposed by opponents on the right and
adversaries on the left. If the eternally idle who have been expropriated
had been asked what they thought of collectivisation, some would have
replied that it was robbery and others a dictatorship. But, for the
elderly, the day workers, the tenant farmers and small proprietors who
had always been under the thumb of the big landowners and heartless
usurers, it appeared as salvation" [Op. Cit., p. 71]

However, most historians ignore the differences in class that existed in 
the countryside. They ignore it and explain the rise in collectives in
Aragon (and ignore those elsewhere) as the result of the C.N.T. militia. 
Fraser, for example, states that "[v]ery rapidly collectives . . . began 
to spring up. It did not happen on instructions from the C.N.T. leadership -- 
no more than had the [industrial] collectives in Barcelona. Here, as there, 
the initiative came from C.N.T. militants; here, as there, the 'climate' 
for social revolution in the rearguard was created by C.N.T. armed strength: 
the anarcho-syndicalists' domination of the streets of Barcelona was 
re-enacted in Aragon as the C.N.T. militia columns, manned mainly by 
Catalan anarcho-syndicalist workers, poured in. Where a nucleus of 
anarcho-syndicalists existed in a village, it seized the moment to carry 
out the long-awaited revolution and collectivised spontaneously. Where 
there was none, villagers could find themselves under considerable pressure 
from the militias to collectivise. . ."  [Op. Cit., p. 347]

In other words, he implies that the revolution was mostly imported into Aragon
from Catalonia. However, the majority of C.N.T. column leaders were opposed to
the setting up of the Council of Aragon (a confederation for the collectives)
[Fraser, Op. Cit., p. 350]. Hardly an example of Catalan C.N.T. imposed 
social revolution. The evidence we have suggests that the Aragon C.N.T. was 
a widespread and popular organisation, suggesting that the idea that the
collectives were imported into Aragon by the Catalan C.N.T. is simply *false.*

Fraser states that in "some [of the Aragonese villages] there was a 
flourishing C.N.T., in others the UGT was strongest, and in only too many 
there was no unionisation at all." [_Blood of Spain_, p. 348] The question 
arises of how extensive was that strength. The evidence we have suggests 
that it was extensive, strong and growing, so indicating that rural Aragon 
was not without a C.N.T. base, a base that makes the suggestion of imposed 
collectives a false one.

Murray Bookchin summarises the strength of the C.N.T. in rural Aragon as 
follows:

"The authentic peasant base of the C.N.T. [by the 1930s] now lay in Aragon
. . .[C.N.T. growth in Zaragoza] provided a springboard for a highly
effective libertarian agitation in lower Aragon, particularly among
the impoverished labourers and debt-ridden peasantry of the dry steppes
region." [_The Spanish Anarchists_, p. 203]

Graham Kelsey, in his social history of the C.N.T. in Aragon between 1930 
and 1937, provides the necessary evidence to more than back Bookchin's
claim of C.N.T. growth. Kesley points out that as well as the "spread of
libertarian groups and the increasing consciousness among C.N.T. members
of libertarian theories . . .contribu[ting] to the growth of the
anarchosyndicalist movement in Aragon" the existence of "agrarian unrest"
also played an important role in that growth [_Anarchosyndicalism, Libertarian
Communism and the State_, pp. 80-81]. This all lead to the "revitalisation
of the C.N.T. network in Aragon" [p. 82] and so by 1936, the C.N.T. had built
upon the "foundations laid in 1933. . . [and] had finally succeeded in 
translating the very great strength of the urban trade-union organisation
in Zaragoza into a regional network of considerable extent." [Op. Cit., 
p. 134]

Kelsey and other historians note the long history of anarchism in Aragon,
dating back to the late 1860s. However, before the 1910s there had been
little gains in rural Aragon by the C.N.T. due to the power of local bosses 
(called *caciques*):

"Local landowners and small industrialists, the *caciques* of provincial 
Aragon, made every effort to enforce the closure of these first rural
anarchosyndicalist cells [created after 1915]. By the time of the first
rural congress of the Aragonese C.N.T. confederation in the summer of 1923,
much of the progress achieved through the organisation's considerable
propaganda efforts had been countered by repression elsewhere."  
[Graham Kelsey, "Anarchism in Aragon," p. 62]

A C.N.T. activist indicates the power of these bosses and how difficult
it was to be a union member in Aragon:

"Repression is not the same in the large cities as it is in the villages
where everyone knows everybody else and where the Civil Guards are
immediately notified of a comrade's slightest movement. Neither friends
nor relatives are spared. All those who do not serve the state's repressive
forces unconditionally are pursued, persecuted and on occasions beaten
up." [cited by Kelsey, Op. Cit., p. 74]

However, while there were some successes in organising rural unions, 
even in 1931 "propaganda campaigns which led to the establishment of scores
of village trade-union cells, were followed by a counter-offensive from
village *caciques* which forced them to close." [Ibid. p. 67] But even in
the face of this repression the C.N.T. grew and "from the end of 1932. . . 
[there was] a successful expansion of the anarchosyndicalist movement into 
several parts of the region where previously it had never penetrated." 
[Kesley, _Anarchosyndicalism, Libertarian Communism and the State_, p. 185]

This growth was built upon in 1936, with increased rural activism which had 
slowly eroded the power of the *caciques* (which in part explains their support
for the fascist coup). After the election of the Popular Front, years of
anarchist propaganda and organisation paid off with a massive increase
in rural membership in the C.N.T.:

"The dramatic growth in rural anarcho-syndicalist support in the six
weeks since the general election was emphasised in the [Aragon C.N.T.'s
April] congress's agenda. . . the congress directed its attention
to rural problems . . . [and agreed a programme which was] exactly
what was to happen four months later in liberated Aragon." [Kesley,
"Anarchism in Aragon", p. 76]

In the aftermath of a regional congress, held in Zaragoza at the start 
of April, a series of intensive propaganda campaigns was organised
through each of the provinces of the regional confederation. Many 
meetings were held in villages which had never before heard anarcho-
syndicalist propaganda. This was very successful and by the beginning 
of June, 1936, the number of Aragon unions had topped 400, compared to
only 278 one month earlier (an increase of over 40% in 4 weeks). [Ibid.,
pp. 75-76]

This increase in union membership reflects increased social struggle
by the Aragonese working population and their attempts to improve their
standard of living, which was very low for most of the population. A 
journalist from the conservative-Catholic _Heraldo de Aragon_ visited
lower Aragon in the summer of 1935 and noted "[t]he hunger in many homes,
where the men are not working, is beginning to encourage the youth to
subscribe to misleading teachings." [cited by Kesley, Ibid.,  p. 74]

Little wonder, then, the growth in C.N.T. membership and social struggle
Kesley indicates: 

"Evidence of a different kind was also available that militant trade 
unionism in Aragon was on the increase. In the five months between 
mid-February and mid-July 1936 the province of Zaragoza experienced 
over seventy strikes, more than had previously been recorded in any 
entire year, and things were clearly no different in the other two 
provinces . . . the great majority of these strikes were occurring in 
provincial towns and villages. Strikes racked the provinces and in at 
least three instances were actually transformed into general strikes." 
[Ibid., p. 76]

Therefore, in the spring and summer of 1936, we see a massive growth in
C.N.T. membership which reflects growing militant struggle by the urban
and rural population of Aragon. Years of C.N.T. propaganda and organising
had ensured this growth in C.N.T. influence, a growth which is also 
reflected in the creation of collectives in liberated Aragon during the
revolution. Therefore, the construction of a collectivised society was 
founded directly upon the emergence, during the five years of the Second 
Republic, of a mass trade-union movement infused by libertarian, anarchist 
principles. These collectives were constructed in accordance with the 
programme agreed at the Aragon C.N.T. conference of April 1936 which
reflected the wishes of the rural membership of the unions within Aragon
(and due to the rapid growth of the C.N.T. afterwards obviously reflected
popular feelings in the area).

In the words of Graham Kesley, "libertarian dominance in post-insurrection 
Aragon itself reflected the predominance that anarchists had secured before 
the war; by the summer of 1936 the C.N.T. had succeeded in establishing 
throughout Aragon a mass trade-union movement of strictly libertarian 
orientation, upon which widespread and well-supported network the extensive 
collective experiment was to be founded." [Ibid., p. 61]

Additional evidence that supports a high level of C.N.T. support in
rural Aragon can be provided by the fact that it was Aragon that was the
centre of the December 1933 insurrection organised by the C.N.T. As Bookchin
notes, "only Aragon rose on any significant scale, particularly Saragossa
. . . many of the villages declared libertarian communism and perhaps the
heaviest fighting took place between the vineyard workers in Rioja and the
authorities" [M. Bookchin, Op. Cit., p. 238]

It is unlikely for the C.N.T. to organise an insurrection in an area within
which it had little support or influence. According to Kesley's in-depth
social history of Aragon, "it was precisely those areas which had most 
important in December 1933 . . . which were now [in 1936], in seeking to 
create a new pattern of economic and social organisation, to form the basis 
of libertarian Aragon." [G. Kesley, _Anarchosyndicalism, Libertarian Communism
and the State_, p. 161] After the revolt, thousands of workers were jailed,
with the authorities having to re-open closed prisons and turn at least
one disused monastery into a jail due to the numbers arrested.

Therefore, it can be seen that the majority of collectives in Aragon 
were the product of C.N.T. (and UGT) influenced workers taking the opportunity
to create a new form of social life, a form marked by its voluntary and
directly democratic nature. For from being unknown in rural Aragon, the
C.N.T. was well established and growing at a fast rate - "Spreading out from 
its urban base... the C.N.T., first in 1933 and then more extensively in 1936, 
succeeded in converting an essentially urban organisation into a truly 
regional confederation." [Ibid., p. 184]

Therefore the evidence suggests that historians like Fraser are wrong to 
imply that the Aragon collectives were created by the C.N.T. militia and 
enforced upon a unwilling population. The Aragon collectives were the natural
result of years of anarchist activity within rural Aragon and directly
related to the massive growth in the C.N.T. between 1930 and 1936. Thus
Kesley is correct to state that:

"Libertarian communism and agrarian collectivisation were not economic 
terms or social principles enforced upon a hostile population by special
teams of urban anarchosyndicalists . . ." [G. Kesley, Op. Cit., p. 161] 

This is not to suggest that there were *no* examples of people joining
collectives involuntarily because of the "coercive climate" of the front
line. And, of course, there were villages which did not have a C.N.T. union 
within them before the war and so created a collective because of the 
existence of the C.N.T. militia. But these can be considered as exceptions 
to the rule.

Moreover, the way the C.N.T. handled such a situation is noteworthy. Fraser 
indicates such a situation in the village of Alloza. In the autumn of 
1936, representatives of the C.N.T. district committee had come to suggest 
that the villagers collectivise (we would like to stress here that the 
C.N.T. militia which had passed through the village had made no attempt 
to create a collective there). 

A village assembly was called and the C.N.T. explained their ideas and
suggested how to organise the collective. However, who would join and how 
the villagers would organise the collective was left totally up to them (the 
C.N.T. representatives "stressed that no one was to be maltreated"). Within
the collective, self-management was the rule. 

According to one member, "[o]nce the work groups were established on a 
friendly basis and worked their own lands, everyone got on well enough," 
he recalled. "There was no need for coercion, no need for discipline and
punishment. . . A collective wasn't a bad idea at all." [Op. Cit., p. 360]
This collective, like the vast majority, was voluntary and democratic - 
"I couldn't oblige him to join; we weren't living under a dictatorship." 
[Op. Cit., p. 362] In other words, *no* force was used to create the 
collective and the collective was organised by local people directly.

Of course, as with any public good (to use economic jargon), all members of 
the community had to pay for the war effort and feed the militia. As Kesely 
notes, "[t]he military insurrection had come at a critical moment in the 
agricultural calendar. Throughout lower Aragon there were fields of grain 
ready for harvesting. . . At the assembly in Albalate de Cinca the opening 
clause of the agreed programme had required everyone in the district, 
independent farmers and collectivists alike, to contribute equally to 
the war effort, thereby emphasising one of the most important considerations 
in the period immediately following the rebellion." 

In addition, the collectives controlled the price of crops in order to ensure 
that speculation and inflation were controlled. However, these policies
as with the equal duties of individualists and collectivists in the war
effort were enforced upon the collectives by the war.

Lastly, in support of the popular nature of the rural collectives, we 
will indicate the effects of the suppression of the collectives in August 
1937 by the Communists, namely the collapse of the rural economy. This
sheds considerable light on the question of popular attitudes to the 
collectives. 

In October, the Communist-controlled Regional Delegation of Agrarian 
Reform acknowledged that "in the majority of villages agricultural 
work was paralysed causing great harm to our agrarian economy." 
This is confirmed by Jose Silva, a Communist Party member and general
secretary of the Institute of Agrarian Reform, who commented that
after Lister had attacked Aragon, "labour in the fields was
suspended almost entirely, and a quarter of the land had not
been prepared at the time for sowing." At a meeting of the 
agrarian commission of the Aragonese Communist Party (October 9th, 
1937), Jose Silva emphasised "the little incentive to work of 
the entire peasant population" and that the situation brought 
about by the dissolution of the collectives was "grave and 
critical." [quoted by Bolloten, Op. Cit., p. 530] 

Jose Peirats explains the reasons for this economic collapse as a result
of popular boycott: 

"When it came time to prepare for the next harvest, smallholders could 
not by themselves work the property on which they had been installed 
[by the communists]. Dispossessed peasants, intransigent collectivists, 
refused to work in a system of private property, and were even less 
willing to rent out their labour." [_Anarchists in the Spanish 
Revolution_, p. 258]

If the collectives were unpopular, created by anarchist force, then why did 
the economy collapse after the suppression? If Lister had overturned a
totalitarian anarchist regime, why did the peasants not reap the benefit of 
their toil? Could it be because the collectives were essentially a 
spontaneous Aragonese development and supported by most of the population
there? This analysis is backed up by Yaacov Oved's statement (from a paper 
submitted to the XII Congress of Sociology, Madrid, July 1990): 

"Those who were responsible for this policy [of "freeing" the Aragon
Collectivists], were convinced that the farmers would greet it joyfully
because they had been coerced into joining the collectives. But they were 
proven wrong. Except for the rich estate owners who were glad to get their 
land back, most of the members of the agricultural collectives objected and 
lacking all motivation they were reluctant to resume the same effort of in the 
agricultural work. This phenomenon was so widespread that the authorities and 
the communist minister of agriculture were forced to retreat from their 
hostile policy." [Yaacov Oved, _Communismo Libertario and Communalism in 
the Spanish Collectivisations (1936-1939)_] 

Even in the face of Communist repression, most of the collectives kept going. 
This, if nothing else, proves that the collectives were popular institutions.
As Yaacov Oved argues in relation to the breaking up of the collectives: 

"Through the widespread reluctance of collectivists to co-operate with the 
new policy it became evident that most members had voluntarily joined the 
collectives and as soon as the policy was changed a new wave of collectives 
was established. However, the wheel could not be turned back. An atmosphere 
of distrust prevailed between the collectives and the authorities and 
every initiative was curtailed" [Op. Cit.]

Jose Peirats sums up the situation after the communist attack on the 
collectives and the legalisation of the collectives as follows:

"It is very possible that this second phase of collectivisation better
reflects the sincere convictions of the members. They had undergone a
sever test and those who had withstood it were proven collectivists. Yet 
it would be facile to label as anti-collectivists those who abandoned
the collectives in this second phase. Fear, official coercion and
insecurity weighed heavily in the decisions of much of the Aragonese
peasantry." [Op. Cit., p. 258]

While the collectives had existed, there was a 20% increase in production  
(and this is compared to the pre-war harvest which had been "a good crop." 
[Fraser, p. 370]); after the destruction of the collectives, the economy
collapsed. Hardly the result that would be expected if the collectives were 
forced upon an unwilling peasantry. The forced collectivisation by Stalin
in Russia resulted in a famine. Only the victory of fascism made it possible 
to restore the so-called "natural order" of capitalist property in the 
Spanish countryside. The same land-owners who welcomed the Communist 
repression of the collectives also, we are sure, welcomed the fascists
who ensured a lasting victory of property over liberty.

So, overall, the evidence suggests that the Aragon collectives, like 
their counterparts in the Levante, Catalonia and so on, were *popular* 
organisations, created by and for the rural population and, essentially, 
an expression of a spontaneous and popular social revolution. Claims that 
the anarchist militia created them by force of arms are *false.* While acts 
of violence *did* occur and some acts of coercion *did* take place 
(against C.N.T. policy, we may add) these are the exceptions to the rule. 
Bolloten's summary best fits the facts:

"But in spite of the cleavages between doctrine and practice that plagued
the Spanish Anarchists whenever they collided with the realities of power,
it cannot be overemphasised that notwithstanding the many instances of
coercion and violence, the revolution of July 1936 distinguished itself
from all others by the generally spontaneous and far-reaching character of
its collectivist movement and by its promise of moral and spiritual
renewal. Nothing like this spontaneous movement had ever occurred before."
[Op. Cit., p. 78]

I.8.8 But did the Spanish collectives innovate?

Yes. In contradiction to the old capitalist claim that no one will 
innovate unless private property exists, the workers and peasants exhibited 
much more incentive and creativity under libertarian socialism than they 
had under the private enterprise system. This is apparent from Gaston
Leval's description of the results of collectivisation in Cargagente: 

"Carcagente is situated in the southern part of the province of Valencia. 
The climate of the region is particularly suited for the cultivation of
oranges. . . . All of the socialised land, without exception, is cultivated
with infinite care. The orchards are thoroughly weeded. To assure that
the trees will get all the nourishment needed, the peasants are
incessantly cleaning the soil. 'Before,' they told me with pride, 'all
this belonged to the rich and was worked by miserably paid labourers. The
land was neglected and the owners had to buy immense quantities of
chemical fertilisers, although they could have gotten much better yields
by cleaning the soil. . . .' With pride, they showed me trees that had
been grafted to produce better fruit.
 
"In many places I observed plants growing in the shade of the orange
trees. 'What is this?,' I asked. I learned that the Levant peasants
(famous for their ingenuity) have abundantly planted potatoes among the
orange groves. The peasants demonstrate more intelligence than all the
bureaucrats in the Ministry of Agriculture combined. They do more than
just plant potatoes. Throughout the whole region of the Levant, wherever
the soil is suitable, they grow crops. They take advantage of the four
month [fallow period] in the rice fields. Had the Minister of Agriculture
followed the example of these peasants throughout the Republican zone, the
bread shortage problem would have been overcome in a few months." [cited in
Dolgoff, _Anarchist Collectives_, p. 153]

This is just one from a multitude of examples presented in the accounts 
of both the industrial and rural collectives (for more see section C.2.3 
in which we present more examples to refute that charge that "workers' 
control would stifle innovation" and I.8.6). The available evidence proves
that the membership of the collectives showed a keen awareness of the 
importance of investment and innovation in order to increase production 
and to make work both lighter and more interesting *and* that the 
collectives allowed that awareness to be expressed freely. The Spanish 
collectives indicate that, given the chance, everyone will take an interest
in their own affairs and express a desire to use their minds to improve
their surroundings. In fact, capitalism distorts what innovation exists 
under hierarchy by channelling it purely in how to save money and maximise
investor profit, ignoring other, more important, issues.

As Gaston Leval argues, self-management encouraged innovation:

"The theoreticians and partisans of the liberal economy affirm that 
competition stimulates initiative and, consequently, the creative spirit
and invention without which it remains dormant. Numerous observations made
by the writer in the Collectives, factories and socialised workshops permit
him to take quite the opposite view. For in a Collective, in a grouping 
where each individual is stimulated by the wish to be of service to his
fellow beings research, the desire for technical perfection and so on 
are also stimulated. But they also have as a consequence that other
individuals join those who were first to get together. Furthermore, when,
in present society, an individualist inventor discovers something, it is
used only by the capitalist or the individual employing him, whereas in 
the case of an inventor living in a community not only is his discovery 
taken up and developed by others, but is immediately applied for the 
common good. I am convinced that this superiority would very soon manifest
itself in a socialised society." [_Collectives in the Spanish Revolution_,
p. 247]

Therefore the actual experiences of self-management in Spain supports the 
points made in section I.4.11. Freed from hierarchy, individuals will 
creatively interact with the world to improve their circumstances. This 
is not due to "market forces" but because the human mind is an active 
agent and unless crushed by authority it can no more stop thinking and 
acting than the Earth stop revolving round the Sun. In addition, the 
Collectives indicate that self-management allows ideas to be enriched 
by discussion, as Bakunin argued:

"The greatest intelligence would not be equal to a comprehension of the
whole. Thence results... the necessity of the division and association
of labour. I receive and I give - such is human life. Each directs and
is directed in his turn. Therefore there is no fixed and constant
authority, but a continual exchange of mutual, temporary, and, above all,
voluntary authority and subordination" [_God and the State_, p. 33]

The experience of self-management proved Bakunin's point that society is 
more intelligent than even the most intelligent individual simply because 
of the wealth of viewpoints, experience and thoughts contained there. 
Capitalism impoverishes individuals and society by its artificial boundaries 
and authority structures.

I.8.9 Why, if it was so good, did it not survive? 

Just because something is good does not mean that it will survive. 

For example, the Warsaw Ghetto uprising against the Nazis failed but that
does not mean that the uprising was a bad cause or that the Nazi regime 
was correct, far from it. Similarly, while the experiments in workers'
self-management and communal living undertaken across Republican Spain 
is one of the most important social experiments in a free society ever
undertaken, this cannot change the fact that Franco's forces and the 
Communists had access to more and better weapons. 

Faced with the aggression and terrorism of Franco, and behind him the 
military might of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, the treachery of the 
Communists, and the aloofness of the Western bourgeois "republics" (whose
policy of "non-intervention" was strangely ignored when their citizens
aided Franco) it is amazing the revolution lasted as long as it did.

This does not excuse the actions of the anarchists themselves. As is well
known, the C.N.T. co-operated with the other anti-fascist parties and trade
unions on the Republican side (see next section). This co-operation lead to 
the C.N.T. joining the anti-fascist government and "anarchists" becoming 
ministers of state. This co-operation, more than anything, helped ensure 
the defeat of the revolution. While much of the blame can be places at
the door of the would-be "leaders," who like most leaders started to
think themselves irreplaceable and spokespersons for the organisations
there were members of, it must be stated that the rank-and-file of the
movement did little to stop them. Most of the militant anarchists were 
at the front-line (and so excluded from union and collective meetings)
and so could not influence their fellow workers (it is no surprise that
the "Friends of Durruti" group were mostly ex-militia men). However, it
seems that the mirage of anti-fascist unity proved too much for the
majority of C.N.T. members (see section I.8.12). 

Some anarchists still maintain that the Spanish anarchist movement 
had no choice and that collaboration (while having unfortunate 
eeffects) was the only choice available. This view was defended 
by Sam Dolgoff and finds some support in the writings of Gaston 
Leval, August Souchy and many other anarchists. However, most 
anarchists today oppose collaboration and think it was a terrible 
mistake (at the time, this position was held by the majority of
non-Spanish anarchists plus a large minority of the Spanish 
movement, becoming a majority as the implications of 
collaboration became clear). This viewpoint finds its best 
expression in Vernon Richard's _Lessons of the Spanish Revolution_ 
and, in part, in such works as _Anarchists in the Spanish 
Revolution_ by Jose Peirats and _Anarchist Organisation: The 
History of the F.A.I_ by Juan Gomaz Casas as well as in a host 
of pamphlets and articles written by anarchists ever since.

So, regardless of how good a social system is, objective facts will 
overcome that experiment. Saturnino Carod (a leader of a C.N.T. Militia 
column at the Aragon Front) sums up the successes of the revolution 
as well as its objective limitations:

"Always expecting to be stabbed in the back, always knowing that 
if we created problems, only the enemy across the lines would 
stand to gain. It was a tragedy for the anarcho-syndicalist 
movement; but it was a tragedy for something greater -- the 
Spanish people. For it can never be forgotten that it was the 
working class and peasantry which, by demonstrating their 
ability to run industry and agriculture collectively, allowed 
the republic to continue the struggle for thirty-two months. 
It was they who created a war industry, who kept agricultural 
production increasing, who formed militias and later joined 
the army. Without their creative endeavour, the republic
could not have fought the war . . ." [quoted by Fraser, 
_Blood of Spain_, p. 394]

I.8.10 Why did the C.N.T. collaborate with the state?

As is well know, in September 1936 the C.N.T joined the
Catalan government, followed by the central government
in November. This followed on from the decision made on
July the 21st to not speak of Libertarian Communism
until after Franco had been defeated. In other words,
to collaborate with other anti-fascist parties and
unions in a common front against fascism. 

This, initially, involved the C.N.T agreeing to join a 
"Central Committee of Anti-Fascist Militias" proposed 
by the leader of the Catalan government, Louis Companys.
This committee was made up of representatives of various
anti-fascist parties and groups. From this it was only
a matter of time until the C.N.T joined an official 
government as no other means of co-ordinating activities
existed (see section I.8.13).

The question must arise, *why* did the C.N.T decide to
collaborate with the state, forsaking its principles and,
in its own way, contribute to the counter-revolution and
the loosing of the war. This is an important question.
Indeed, it is one Marxists always throw up in arguments
with anarchists or in anti-anarchist diatribes. Does the
failure of the C.N.T to implement anarchism after 
July 19th mean that anarchist politics are flawed? Or,
rather, does the experience of the C.N.T and F.A.I
during the Spanish revolution indicate a failure of
*anarchists* rather than of *anarchism,* a mistake
made under difficult objective circumstances and one
which anarchists have learnt from? Needless to say,
anarchists argue that the latter answer is the 
correct one. In other words, as Vernon Richards
argues, "the basis of [his] criticism is not that 
anarchist ideas were proved to be unworkable by the
Spanish experience, but that the Spanish anarchists
and syndicalists failed to put their theories to the
test, adopting instead the tactics of the enemy."
[_Lessons of the Spanish Revolution_, p. 14] The
writers of this FAQ agree.

So, why *did* the CNT collaborate with the state
during the Spanish Civil War? Simply put, rather than
being the fault of anarchist theory (as Marxists like
to claim), its roots can be discovered in the situation
facing the Catalan anarchists on July 20th. The objective
conditions facing the leading militants of the CNT and
FAI influenced the decisions they took, decisions which
they later justified by *mis*-using anarchist theory.

What was the situation facing the Catalan anarchists
on July 20th? Simply put, it was an unknown situation.
Jose Peirats quotes from the report made by the C.N.T
to the _International Workers Association_ as follows:

"Levante was defenceless and uncertain . . . We were
in a minority in Madrid. The situation in Andalusia
was unknown . . . There was no information from the
North, and we assumed the rest of Spain was in the
hands of the fascists. The enemy was in Aragon, at
the gates of Catalonia. The nervousness of foreign
consular officials led to the presence of a great
number of war ships around our ports." [quoted in
_Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution_, p. 180]

He also notes that:

"According to the report, the CNT was in absolute
control of Catalonia in July 19, 1936, but its
strength was less in Levante and still less in
central Spain where the central government and the
traditional parties were dominant. In the north of
Spain the situation was confused. The CNT could have
mounted an insurrection on its own 'with probable
success' but such a takeover would have led to a
struggle on three fronts: against the fascists,
the government and foreign capitalism. In view of
the difficulty of such an undertaking, collaboration
with other antifascist groups was the only alternative."
[Op. Cit., p. 179]

In the words of the CNT report itself:

"The CNT showed a conscientious scrupulousness in the
face of a difficult alternative: to destroy completely
the State in Catalonia, to declare war against the Rebels
[i.e. the fascists], the government, foreign capitalism,
and thus assuming complete control of Catalan society;
or collaborating in the responsibilities of government
with the other antifascist fractions." [quoted by Robert 
Alexander, _The Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War_, 
vol. 2, p. 1156]

Moreover, as Gaston Leval later argued, given that the 
"general preoccupation [of the majority of the population 
was] to defeat the fascists . . . the anarchists would, 
if they came out against the state, provoke the antagonism 
. . . of the majority of the people, who would accuse them 
of collaborating with Franco." Implementing an anarchist 
revolution would, in all likelihood, also "result . . . 
[in] the instant closing of the frontier and the blockade 
by sea by both fascists and the democratic countries. The 
supply of arms would be completely cut off, and the 
anarchists would rightly be held responsible for the 
disastrous consequences." [quoted in _The Anarchist 
Collectives_, p. 52 and p. 53]

While the supporters of Lenin and Trotsky will constantly
point out the objective circumstances in which their
heroes made their decisions during the Russian Revolution, 
they rarely mention those facing the anarchists in Spain on 
the 20th of July, 1936. It seems hypocritical to point to the 
Russian Civil War as the explanation of all of Bolshevism's 
crimes against the working class (indeed, humanity) while 
remaining silent on the forces facing the C.N.T-F.A.I at 
the start of the Spanish Civil War. The fact that *if* the
CNT had decided to implement libertarian communism in 
Catalonia they would have to face the fascists (commanding
the bulk of the Spanish army), the Republican government
(commanding the rest) *plus* those sections in Catalonia
which supported it is rarely mentioned. Moreover, when
the decision to collaborate was made it was *immediately
after the defeat of the army uprising in Barcelona* -- the
situation in the rest of the country was uncertain and
when the social revolution was in its early days. 

Stuart Christie indicates the dilemma facing the
leadership of the CNT at the time:

"The higher committees of the CNT-FAI-FIJL in Catalonia
saw themselves caught on the horns of a dilemma: social
revolution, fascism or bourgeois democracy. Either they
committed themselves to the solutions offered by social
revolution, regardless of the difficulties involved in
fighting both fascism and international capitalism, or,
through fear of fascism (or of the people), they sacrificed 
their anarchist principles and revolutionary objectives to 
bolster, to become, part of the bourgeois state . . . Faced 
with an imperfect state of affairs and preferring defeat to 
a possibly Pyrrhic victory, the Catalan anarchist leadership 
renounced anarchism in the name of expediency and removed the 
social transformation of Spain from their agenda.

"But what the CNT-FAI leaders failed to grasp was that the 
decision whether or not to implement Libertarian Communism, 
was not theirs to make. Anarchism was not something which 
could be transformed from theory into practice by organisational 
decree . . . [the] spontaneous defensive movement of 19 July 
had developed a political direct of its own." [_We, the 
Anarchists!_, p. 99]

Given that the pro-fascist army still controlled a third
or more of Spain (including Aragon) and that the CNT was 
not the dominant force in the centre and north of Spain, 
it was decided that a war on three fronts would only aid 
Franco. Moreover, it was a distinct possibility that by
introducing libertarian communism in Catalonia, Aragon
and elsewhere, the workers' militias and self-managed
industries would have been starved of weapons, resources
and credit. That isolation was a real problem can be seen 
from De Santillan's later comments on why the CNT joined 
the government:

"The Militias Committee guaranteed the supremacy of the
people in arms . . . but we were told and it was repeated to 
us endlessly that as long as we persisted in retaining it, 
that is, as long as we persisted in propping up the power of 
tthe people, weapons would not come to Catalonia, now would 
we be granted the foreign currency to obtain them from abroad, 
nor would we be supplied with the raw materials for our industry. 
And since losing the war meant losing everything and returning 
to a state like that prevailed in the Spain of Ferdinand VII, 
and in the conviction that the drive given by us and our 
people could not vanish completely from the new economic life, 
we quit the Militias Committee to join the Generalidad government." 
[quoted by Stuart Christie, Op. Cit., p. 109]

It was decided to collaborate and reject the basic ideas 
of anarchism until the war was over. A terrible mistake,
but one which can be understood given the circumstances
in which it was made. This is not, we stress, to justify
the decision but rather to explain it and place it in
context. Ultimately, the *experience* of the Civil War
saw a blockade of Republic by both "democratic" and 
fascist governments, the starving of the militias and
self-managed collectives of resources and credit as well 
as a war on two fronts when the State felt strong enough 
to try and crush the CNT and the semi-revolution its members 
had started. Unfortunately, the anarchist movement did not 
have a crystal-ball with which to see the future. Ultimately,
even faced with the danger of fascism, the liberals, the
right-wing socialists and communists preferred to undermine 
the anti-fascist struggle by attacking the CNT. In this, 
history proved Durruti totally correct:

"For us it is a matter of crushing Fascism once and for all. Yes, 
and in spite of the Government. 

"No government in the world fights Fascism to the death. When the 
bourgeoisie sees power slipping from its grasp, it has recourse to
Fascism to maintain itself. The liberal government of Spain could 
have rendered the fascist elements powerless long ago. Instead it
compromised and dallied. Even now at this moment, there are men in 
this Government who want to go easy on the rebels. You can never tell, 
you know-- he laughed -- the present Government might yet need these 
rebellious forces to crush the workers' movement . . .

"We know what we want. To us it means nothing that there is a Soviet 
Union somewhere in the world, for the sake of whose peace and
tranquillity the workers of Germany and China were sacrificed to 
Fascist barbarians by Stalin. We want revolution here in Spain, right
now, not maybe after the next European war. We are giving Hitler and 
Mussolini far more worry to-day with our revolution than the whole 
Red Army of Russia. We are setting an example to the German and 
Italian working class on how to deal with fascism.

"I do not expect any help for a libertarian revolution from any 
Government in the world. Maybe the conflicting interests of the 
various imperialisms might have some influence in our struggle.
That is quite possible . . . But we expect no help, not even from 
our own Government, in the last analysis." 

"You will be sitting on a pile of ruins if you are victorious,"
said [the journalist] van Paasen.

Durruti answered: "We have always lived in slums and holes in the 
wall. We will know how to accommodate ourselves for a time. For, 
you must not forget, we can also build. It is we the workers who 
built these palaces and cities here in Spain and in America and 
everywhere. We, the workers, can build others to take their place. 
And better ones! We are not in the least afraid of ruins. We are 
going to inherit the earth; there is not the slightest doubt about 
that. The bourgeoisie might blast and ruin its own world before it 
leaves the stage of history. We carry a new world here, in our 
hearts. That world is growing this minute." [quoted by Vernon
Richards, _Lessons of the Spanish Revolution_, pp. 193-4f]

Isolation, the uneven support for a libertarian revolution 
across Spain and the dangers of fascism were real problems, 
but they do not excuse the libertarian movement for its 
mistakes. As we discuss in sections I.8.11 and I.8.13, the 
biggest of these mistakes was forgetting basic anarchist 
ideas and an anarchist approach to the problems facing 
the Spanish people. If these ideas had been applied in
Spain, the outcome of the Civil War and Revolution would
have been different. 

In summary, while the decision to collaborate is one
that can be understood (due to the circumstances under which 
it was made), it cannot be justified in terms of anarchist 
theory. Indeed, as we argue in the next section, attempts 
by the CNT leadership to justify the decision in terms of 
anarchist principles are not convincing and cannot be done 
without making a mockery of anarchism.

I.8.11 Was the decision to collaborate a product of anarchist
       theory, so showing anarchism is flawed?


As we indicated in the last section, the decision to
collaborate with the state was made by the CNT due to
the fear of isolation. The possibility that by declaring 
libertarian communism, the CNT would have had to fight
the Republican government and foreign interventions 
*as well as* the military coup influenced the decision
reached by the militants of Catalan anarchism. They
argued that such a situation would only aid Franco. 

Rather than being the product of anarchist ideology,
the decision was made in light of the immediate danger
of fascism and the situation in other parts of the 
country. The fact is that the circumstances in which the
decision to collaborate was made are rarely mentioned
by Marxists, who prefer to quote CNT militant Garcia 
Oliver's comment from over a year later:

"The CNT and the FAI decided on collaboration and democracy, 
renouncing revolutionary totalitarianism which would lead to 
the strangulation of the revolution by the anarchist and 
Confederal dictatorship. We had to choose, between Libertarian 
Communism, which meant anarchist dictatorship, and democracy, 
which meant collaboration." [quoted by Vernon Richards,
_Lessons of the Spanish Revolution_, p. 34]

It is this quote, and quotes like it, which is ritualistically
trotted out by Marxists when attacking anarchist ideas. They
argue that they expose the bankruptcy of anarchist theory. So
convinced of this, they rarely bother discussing the problems
facing the CNT after the defeat of the military coup we discussed
in the last section nor do they compare these quotes to the 
anarchist theory they claim inspired them. There are good
reasons for this. Firstly, if they presented the objective
circumstances the CNT found itself it then their readers 
may see that the decision, while wrong, is understandable
and had nothing to do with anarchist theory. Secondly, by
comparing these quotes to anarchist theory they would 
soon see how at odds they are with it. Indeed, they invoke
anarchism to justify conclusions the exact opposite of
that theory.

So what can be made of Garcia Oliver's argument? 

As Abel Paz notes, "[i]t is clear that the explanations 
given . . . were designed for their political effect, hiding 
the atmosphere in which these decisions were taken. These 
declarations were made a year later when the CNT were 
already far removed from their original positions It is also
the period when they had become involved in the policy of
collaboration which lead taking part in the Central
Government. But in a certain way they shed light on the 
unknown factors which weighted so heavily on these who 
took part in the historic Plenum." [_Durruti: The People 
Armed_, p. 215]

For example, when the decision was made, the revolution
had not started yet. The street fighting had just ended
and the Plenum decided "not to speak about Libertarian
Communism as long as part of Spain was in the hands of
the fascists." [Mariano R. Vesquez, quoted by Paz, Op.
Cit., p.214] The revolution took place *from below* in
the days following the decision, independently of the
wishes of the Plenum. In the words of Abel Paz:

"When the workers reached their workplaces . . . they
found them deserted . . . The major centres of production
had been abandoned by their owners . . . The CNT and
its leaders had certainly not foreseen this situation; 
if they had, they had, they would have given appropriate
guidance to the workers when they called off the General
Strike and ordered a return to work. What happened next
was the result of the workers' spontaneous decision to
take matters into their own hands.

"Finding the factories deserted, and no instructions
from their unions, they resolved to operate the
machines themselves." [_The Spanish Civil War_,
pp. 54-5]

The rank and file of the CNT, on their own initiative, 
took advantage of the collapse of state power to transform 
the economy and social life of Catalonia. Paz stresses
that "no orders were given for expropriation or
colectivisation -- which proved that the union, which
represented the will of the their members until July 18th, 
had now been overtaken by events" and the "union leaders 
of the CNT committees were confronted with a revolution 
that they had not foreseen . . . the workers and peasants 
had bypassed their leaders and taken collective action." 
[Op. Cit., p. 40 and p. 56]

As the revolution had not yet begun and the CNT Plenum had 
decided *not* to call for its start, it is difficult to see 
how "libertarian communism" (i.e. the revolution) could 
"lead to the strangulation of the revolution" (i.e. 
libertarian communism). In other words, this particular
rationale put forward by Garica Oliver could not reflect
the real thoughts of those present at the CNT plenum and
so, in fact, was a later justification for the CNT's actions.

Similarly, Libertarian Communism is based on self-management,
by its nature opposed to dictatorship. According to the CNT's 
resolution at its congress in Zaragonza in May, 1936, "the 
foundation of this administration will be the commune" which 
is "autonomous" and "federated at regional and national levels." 
The commune "will undertake to adhere to whatever general norms 
[that] may be agreed by majority vote after free debate." It 
stressed the free nature of society aimed at by the CNT:

"The inhabitants of a commune are to debate among themselves 
their internal problems . . . Federations are to deliberate 
over major problems affecting a country or province and all 
communes are to be represented at their reunions and assemblies, 
thereby enabling their delegates to convey the democratic 
viewpoint of their respective communes . . . every commune 
which is implicated will have its right to have its say . . . 
On matters of a regional nature, it is the duty of the regional 
federation to implement agreements . . . So the starting point 
is the individual, moving on through the commune, to the 
federation and right on up finally to the confederation." 
[quoted by Jose Peirats, _The CNT in the Spanish Revolution_, 
vol. 1, pp. 106-7]


Hardly a picture of "anarchist dictatorship"! Indeed, it
is far more "democratic" than the capitalist state Oliver
describes as "democracy." 

Clearly, these often quoted words of Garcia Oliver cannot be 
taken at face value. Made in 1937, they present an attempt to 
misuse anarchist ideals to defend the anti-anarchist activities 
of the CNT leadership rather than a meaningful explanation of 
the decisions made on the 20th of July, 1936. 

Moreover, the decision made then clearly stated that Libertarian 
Communism would be back on the agenda once Franco was defeated. 
Oliver's comments were applicable *after* Franco was defeated 
just as much as when they were made. The real reasons for the 
decision to collaborate lies elsewhere, namely in the objective
circumstances facing the CNT after the defeat of the army
in Barcelona, July 20th, 1936, and *not* in anarchist theory. 

This can clearly been seen from the report made by the CNT
to the _International Workers Association_ to justify
the decision to forget anarchist theory and collaborate
with bourgeois parties and join the government. The 
report states that "the CNT, loyal to its ideals and 
its purely anarchist nature, did not attack the forms 
of the State, nor try publicly to penetrate or dominate 
it . . . none of the political or juridical institutions 
were abolished." [quoted by Robert Alexander, _The 
Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War_, vol. 2, p. 1156] 

In other words, according to this report, "anarchist" ideals 
do not, in fact, mean the destruction of the state, but 
rather the *ignoring* of the state. That this is nonsense, 
concocted to justify the CNT leaderships' betrayal of its 
ideals, is clear. To do so we just need to look at Bakunin 
and Kropotkin and look at the activities of the CNT *before* 
the start of the war.

Bakunin had argued that "the revolution must set out 
from the first to radically and totally destroy the State"
and that the "natural and necessary consequence of this 
destruction" will include the "dissolution of army, magistracy, 
bureaucracy, police and priesthood." Capital would be
expropriated (i.e. the "confiscation of all productive capital 
and means of production on behalf of workers' associations, 
who are to put them to use") and the state replaced by "the 
federative Alliance of all working men's associations" which
"will constitute the Commune." [_Michael Bakunin: Selected 
Writings_, p. 170] Similarly, Kropotkin had stressed that
the "Commune . . . must break the State and replace it
by the Federation." [_Words of a Rebel_, p. 83] 

Thus anarchism has always been clear on what to do with 
the state, and it is obviously not what the CNT did to it!
Nor had the CNT always taken this perspective. Before the
start of the Civil War, the CNT had organised numerous
insurrections against the state. For example, in the spontaneous
revolt of CNT miners in January 1932, the workers "seized town
halls, raised the black-and-red flags of the CNT, and declared
*communismo liberatario.*" In Tarassa, the same year, the workers
again "seiz[ed] town halls" and the town "swept by street 
fighting." The revolt in January 1933 began with "assaults by
Anarchist action groups . . . on Barcelona's military barracks
. . . Serious fighting occurred in working-class *barrios* and
the outlying areas of Barcelona . . . Uprising occurred in
Tarassa, Sardanola-Ripollet, Lerida, in several *pueblos* 
in Valencia province, and in Andalusia." In December 1933,
the workers "reared barricades, attacked public buildings,
and engaged in heavy street fighting . . . many villages
declared libertarian communism."  [Murray Bookchin, _The 
Spanish Anarchists_, p. 225, p. 226, p. 227 and p. 238]

It seems that the CNT leadership's loyalty to "its ideals 
and its purely anarchist nature" which necessitated "not 
attack[ing] the forms of the State" was a very recent 
development! That enemies of anarchism quote Garcia
Oliver's words from 1937 or from this document and others
like it in order to draw conclusions about anarchist theory 
says more about their politics than about anarchism!

As can be seen, the rationales later developed to justify
the betrayal of anarchist ideas and the revolutionary
workers of Spain have no real relationship to anarchist
theory. They were created to justify a non-anarchist
approach to the struggle against fascism, an approach
based on ignoring struggle from below and instead forging
alliances with parties and unions at the top (in the
style of the UGT "Workers' Alliance" the CNT had
correctly argued against before the war).

Rather than trying to cement a unity with other organisations
at the top level, the leadership of the CNT should have
applied their anarchist ideas by inciting the oppressed
to enlarge and consolidate their gains (which they did
anyway). This would have liberated all the potential
energy within the country (and elsewhere), energy that
clearly existed as can be seen from the spontaneous
collectivisations that occurred after the fateful Plenum
of July 20th and the creation of volunteer workers'
militia columns sent to liberate those parts of Spain
which had fallen to Franco. 

The role of anarchists, therefore, was that of "inciting 
the people to abolish capitalistic property and the 
institutions through which it exercises its power for the 
exploitation of the majority by a minority" and "to 
support, to incite and encourage the development of the 
social revolution and to frustrate any attempts by the 
bourgeois capitalist state to reorganise itself, which 
it would seek to do." This would involve "seeking to
destroy bourgeois institutions through the creation
of revolutionary organisms." [Vernon Richards, Op. Cit., 
p. 44, p. 46 and p. 193] 

In other words, to encourage, what Bakunin called 
the "federation of the standing barricades," made 
up of "delegates . . . vested with binding mandates
and accountable and revocable at all times") which could 
have been the initial framework for both defending and 
extending the revolution (to "defend the revolution"
a "communal militia" would be organised, the revolution
would "radiate . . . outwards" and communes would
"federate . . . for common defence.") [Michael Bakunin, 
_No Gods, No Masters_, vol. 1, p. 155 and p. 142] The 
equivalent of the "Sections" of the French Revolution, 
what Kropotkin argued "laid the foundations of a new, 
free, social organisation" and expressed "the principles 
of anarchism." [_The Great French Revolution_, vol. 1, 
p. 206 and p. 204] Indeed, such an organisation already
existing in embryo in the CNT's *barrios* defence committees
which had led and co-ordinated the struggle against the
military coup throughout the city.

Later, a delegate meeting from the various workplaces (CNT 
and UGT organised as well as unorganised ones) would have to 
had been arranged to organise, to again quote Bakunin, "the 
federal Alliance of workers associations" which would 
"constitute the Commune" and complement the "federation 
of the standing barricades." [Op. Cit., p. 155] In more
modern terminology, a federation of workers' councils
combined with a federation of workers' militias and
community assemblies. Without this, the revolution was
doomed as was the war against Franco's forces.

Such a development, applying the basic ideas of anarchism 
(and as expounded in the CNT's May resolution on Libertarian
Communism), was not an impossibility. After all, the CNT-FAI 
organised something similar in Aragon. The fear that if 
libertarian communism was implemented then a civil war 
within the anti-fascist forces would occur (so aiding
Franco) was a real one. Unfortunately, the conclusion draw
from that fear, namely to win the war against Franco before
talking about the revolution, was the wrong one. After all,
a civil war within the Republican side *did* occur, when
the state had recovered enough to do start it. Similarly,
with the fear of a blockade by foreign governments. This
happened away, confirming Durruti's comment that he "did
not expect help for a libertarian revolution from any
government in the world . . . not even from our own
government in the last analysis." [quoted by Vernon
Richards, Op. Cit., p. 194f] Organising a full and proper
delegate meeting in the first days of the revolution would 
have allowed these ideas to be discussed by the whole membership
of the CNT and, perhaps, a different decision may have been
reached on the subject of collaboration.

By thinking they could postpone the revolution until after the 
war, the CNT leadership made two mistakes. Firstly, they should 
have known that their members would hardly miss this opportunity
to implement their ideas so making their decision redundant
(and a statist backlash inevitable). Secondly, they abandoned 
their anarchist ideas, failing to understand that the struggle 
against fascism would never be effective without the active 
participation of the working class. Such participation could 
never be achieved by placing the war before the revolution
and by working in top-down, statist structures or within 
a state. 

Indeed, the mistake made by the CNT, while understandable, cannot 
be justified given that their consequences had been predicted by 
numerous anarchists beforehand, including Kropotkin decades 
previously in an essay on the Paris Commune. In that essay he 
refutes the two assumptions of the CNT leadership -- first, of 
placing the war before the revolution and, second, that the 
struggle could be waged by authoritarian structures or a state.

Kropotkin had explicitly attacked the mentality and logic
begin the official CNT line of not mentioning Libertarian 
Communism "until such time as we had captured that part of 
Spain that was in the hands of the rebels." Kropotkin had 
lambasted those who had argued "Let us first make sure of 
victory, and then see what can be done." His comments are 
worth quoting at length:

"Make sure of victory! As if there were any way of transforming 
society into a free commune without laying hands upon property! 
As if there were any way of defeating the enemy so long as the 
great mass of the people is not directly interested in the triumph 
of the revolution, in witnessing the arrival it of material, moral 
and intellectual well-being for all! They sought to consolidate
the Commune first of all while postponing the social revolution
for later on, while the only effective way of proceeding was
*to consolidate the Commune by the social revolution!*

"It was the same with the governmental principle. In proclaiming 
the free Commune, the people of Paris proclaimed an essential 
anarchist principle . . . If we admit, in fact, that a central 
government is absolutely useless to regulate the relations of 
communes between each other, why do we grant its necessity to 
regulate the mutual relations of the groups that constitute
the Commune? . . . A government within the Commune has no more
right to exist than a government over the Commune." [_Words
of a Rebel_, p. 97]

Kropotkin's argument was sound, as the CNT discovered. By waiting
until victory in the war they were defeated. Kropotkin also 
indicated the inevitable effects of the CNT's actions in 
co-operating with the state and joining representative bodies. 
In his words:

"Paris . . . sent her devoted sons to the Hotel-de-Ville [the
town hall]. Indeed, immobilised there by fetters of red tape,
forced to discuss when action was needed, and losing the 
sensitivity that comes from continual contact with the masses, 
they saw themselves reduced to impotence. Paralysed by their 
distancing from the revolutionary centre -- the people --
they themselves paralysed the popular initiative." [Op. Cit.,
pp. 97-8]

Which, in a nutshell, was what happened to the leading militants of 
the CNT who collaborated with the state. Kropotkin was proved right, 
as was anarchist theory from Bakunin onwards. As Vernon Richards 
argues, "there can be no excuse" for the CNT's decision, as "they 
were not mistakes of judgement but the deliberate abandonment of 
the principles of the CNT." [_Lessons of the Spanish Revolution_, 
pp. 41-2] It seems difficult to blame anarchist theory for the 
decisions of the CNT when that theory argues the opposite position.

However, while the experience of Spain confirms anarchist theory
*negatively*, it also confirms it *positively* by the Council of
Aragon. The Council of Aragon was created by a meeting of 
delegates from CNT unions, village collectives and militia 
columns to protect the new society the people of Aragon were 
building. Its creation exposes as false the claim that anarchism 
failed in during the Spanish Civil War. In Aragon, the CNT *did* 
follow the ideas of anarchism, abolishing both the state and 
capitalism. If they had followed this example in Catalonia, the 
outcome of the Civil War may have been different.

In spite of opposition from the two Catalan militia leaders, the 
Aragonese delegates at the Bujaraloz assembly, encouraged by Durruti, 
supported the proposals and the Regional Defence Council of Aragn 
was born with the specific objective of implementing libertarian 
communism. The meeting also decided to press for the setting up of 
a National Defence Committee which would link together a series of 
regional bodies that were organised on principles similar to the 
one now established in Aragon.

The formation of the Regional Defence Council was an affirmation 
of commitment to the principles of libertarian communism. This
principled stand for revolutionary social and economic change 
stands at odds with the claims that the Spanish Civil War
indicates the failure of anarchism. After all, in Aragon the
CNT *did* act in accordance with anarchist theory and its own
history and politics.

Therefore, the activities of the CNT during the Civil
War cannot be used to discredit anarchism although it
can be used to show that anarchists can and do make 
terrible decisions in difficult circumstances. That
Marxists always point to this event in anarchist
history is unsurprising, for it was a terrible mistake.

However, to use this to generalise about anarchism
is false as it, firstly, requires a dismissal of
the objective circumstances the decision was made in
(see last section) and, secondly, it means ignoring 
anarchist theory and history. It also gives the impression 
that anarchism as a revolutionary theory must be evaluated 
purely from one event in its history. The experiences of
the Makhnovists in the Ukraine, the U.S.I and U.A.I. 
in the factory occupations of 1920 and fighting fascism 
in Italy, the insurrections of the C.N.T. during the 
1930s, the Council of Aragon created by the CNT in the 
Spanish Revolution and so on, are all ignored when 
evaluating anarchism. Hardly convincing, although 
handy for Marxists. As is clear from, for example, the
experiences of the Makhnovists and the Council of
Aragon, that anarchism has been applied successfully 
on a large scale, both politically and economically, 
in revolutionary situations.

As Emma Goldman argued, the "contention that there is
something wrong with Anarchism . . . because the leading
comrades in Spain failed Anarchism seems to be very faulty
reasoning . . . the failure of one or several individuals
can never take away from the depth and truth of an ideal."
[_Vision on Fire_, p. 299] This is even more the case when
anarchists can point to anarchist theory and other examples 
of anarchism in action which fully followed anarchist ideas. 
That opponents of anarchism fail to mention these examples 
suggests their case against anarchism, based on the experience
of the CNT in the Spanish Civil War, is deeply flawed.

Rather than show the failure of anarchism, the experience
of the Spanish Revolution indicates the failure of anarchists
to apply their ideas in practice. Faced with extremely
difficult circumstances, they compromised their ideas in
the name of anti-fascist unity. Sadly, their compromises
*confirmed* (rather than refuted) anarchist theory as
they led to the defeat of both the revolution *and* the
civil war.

I.8.12 Was the decision to collaborate imposed on the CNT's 
       membership?

A few words have to be said about the development of the 
CNT and FAI post 19th of July. It is clear that the CNT and 
FAI changed in nature and were the not same organisations as 
they were *before* July 1936. Both organisations became more
centralised and bureaucratic, with the membership excluded 
from many major decisions. As Peirats argues: 

"In the CNT and among militant anarchists there had been a
tradition of the most scrupulous respect for the deliberations
and decisions of the assemblies, the grassroots of the
federalist organisation. Those who held administrative
office had been merely the mandatories of those decisions.
The regular motions adopted by the National congresses
spelled out to the Confederation and its representative 
committees ineluctable obligations of a basic and general 
nature incumbent upon very affiliated member regardless of 
locality or region. And the forming of such general motions 
was the direct responsibility of all of the unions by means of 
motions adopted at their respective general assemblies. Similarly, 
the Regional or Local Congresses would establish the guidelines 
of requirement and problems that obtained only at regional or 
local levels. In both instances, sovereignty resided always 
with the assemblies of workers whether in their unions or 
in their groups.

"This sense of rigorous, everyday federalist procedure was abruptly 
amended from the very outset of the revolutionary phase. . . This
amendment of the norms of the organisation was explained away by 
reference to the exceptional turn of events, which required a greater 
agility of decisions and resolutions, which is to say a necessary 
departure from the circuitous procedures of federalist practice 
which operated from the bottom upwards." [_The CNT in the Spanish 
Revolution_, vol. 1, p. 213] 

In other words, the CNT had become increasingly hierarchical, 
with the higher committees becoming transformed into executive 
bodies rather than administrative ones ("it is safe to assert 
that the significant resolutions in the organisation were
adopted by the committees, very rarely by the mass constituency.
Certainly, circumstances required quick decisions from the
organisation, and it was necessary to take precautions to
prevent damaging leaks. These necessities tempted the committees
to abandon the federalist procedures of the organisation."
[Jose Peirats, _Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution_, p. 188]).

Ironically, rather than the "anarchist leaders" of the CNT 
failing to "seize power" as Trotsky and his followers lament, 
they did -- *in their own organisations.* Such a development 
proved to be a disaster and re-enforced the anarchist critique 
against hierarchical and centralised organisations. The CNT higher 
committees became isolated from the membership, pursued their 
own policies and compromised and paralysed the creative work 
being done by the rank and file -- as predicted in anarchist 
theory. However, be that as it may, as we will indicate below,
it would be false to assert that these higher committees simply
imposed the decision to collaborate on their memberships (as,
for example, Vernon Richards seems to imply in his _Lessons
of the Spanish Revolution_). While it *is* true that the
committees presented many decisions as a *fait accompli* 
the rank-and-file of the C.N.T and F.A.I did not simply
follow orders and ratify all decisions blindly.

In any revolutionary situation decisions have to be made fast 
and sometimes without consulting the base of the organisation. 
However, such decisions must be accountable to the membership
who must discuss and ratify them (this was the policy within 
the CNT militias, for example). The experience of the CNT and 
FAI in countless strikes, insurrections and campaigns had proven 
the decentralised, federal structure was more than capable of 
pursuing the class war -- revolution is no exception as it is 
the class war in its most concentrated form. In other words, the 
organisational principles of the CNT and FAI were more than 
adequate for a revolutionary situation.

The centralising tendencies, therefore, cannot be blamed on
the exception circumstances of the war. Rather, it is the
policy of collaboration which explains them. Unlike the
numerous strikes and revolts that occurred before July 19th,
1936, the CNT higher committees had started to work within
the state structure. This, by its very nature, must generate
hierarchical and centralising tendencies as those involved
must adapt to the states basic structure and form. The
violations of CNT policy flowed from the initial decision
to compromise in the name of "anti-fascist unity" and a
viscous circle developed -- each compromise pushed the
CNT leadership further into the arms of the state, which 
increased hierarchical tendencies, which in turn isolated 
these higher committees of the CNT from the masses, which 
in turn encouraged a conciliatory policy by those committees.

This centralising and hierarchical tendency did not mean that
the higher committees of the CNT simply imposed their will on 
the rest of the organisation. It is very clear that the decision 
to collaborate had, initially, the passive support of the majority 
of the CNT and FAI (probably because they thought the war would
be over after a few weeks or months). This can be seen from various 
facts. As visiting French anarchist Sebastian Faure noted, while
"effective participation in central authority has had the
approval of the majority within the unions and in the groups 
affiliated to the FAI, that decision has in many places encountered 
the opposition of a fairly substantial minority. Thus there has been 
no unanimity." [quoted by Jose Peirats, _The CNT in the Spanish 
Revolution_, vol. 1, p. 183] 

In the words of Peirats:

"Were all of the militants of the same mind? . . . Excepting some 
vocal minorities which expressed their protests in their press 
organs and through committees, gatherings, plenums and assemblies, 
the dismal truth is that the bulk of the membership was in thrall 
to a certain fatalism which was itself a direct consequence of the 
tragic realities of the war." [Op. Cit., p. 181]

And:

"We have already seen how, on the economic plane, militant anarchism 
forged ahead, undaunted, with its work of transforming the economy. 
It is not to be doubted -- for to do so would have been to display 
ignorance of the psychology of libertarian rank and file of the 
CNT -- that a muffled contest, occasionally erupting at plenums and 
assemblies and manifest in some press organs broke out as soon as
the backsliding began. In this connection, the body of opinion 
hostile to any possible deviation in tactics and principles was 
able to count throughout upon spirited champions." [Op. Cit., 
p. 210]

Thus, within the libertarian movement, there was a substantial 
minority who opposed the policy of collaboration and made their 
opinions known in various publications and meetings. While many
(if not most) revolutionary anarchists volunteered for the
militias and so were not active in their unions as before, there
were various groups (such as Catalan Libertarian Youth, the 
Friends of Durruti, other FAI groups, and so on) which were
opposed to collaboration and argued their case openly in the 
streets, collectives, organisational meetings and so on. Moreover, 
outside the libertarian movement the two tiny Trotskyist groups 
also argued against collaboration, as did sections of the POUM. 
Therefore it is impossible to state that the CNT membership 
were unaware of the arguments against the dominant policy. 
Also the Catalan CNT's higher committees, for example, after 
the May Days of 1937 could not get union assemblies or plenums 
to expel the Friends of Durruti nor to get them to withhold 
financial support for the Libertarian Youth, who opposed 
collaboration vigorously in their publications, nor 
get them to call upon various groups of workers to stop 
distributing opposition publications in the public transit 
system or with the daily milk. [Abe Bluestein in Gomez Casas's 
_Anarchist Organisation: The History of the FAI_, p. 10] 

This suggests that in spite of centralising tendencies, the higher 
committees of the CNT were still subject to some degree of popular 
influence and control and should not be seen as having dictatorial 
powers over the organisation. While many decisions *were* presented 
as *fait accompli* to the union plenums (often called by the
committees at short notice), in violation of past CNT procedures, 
the plenums could not be railroaded into any ratifying any 
decision the committees wanted. The objective circumstances
associated with the war against Franco and fascism convinced most 
C.N.T. members and libertarian activists that working with other
parties and unions within the state was the only feasible 
option. To do otherwise was to weaken the war effort by provoking
another Civil War in the anti-Franco camp. While such a policy
did not work (when it was strong enough the Republican state did 
start a civil war against the C.N.T. which gutted the struggle 
against fascism) it cannot be argued that it was imposed upon 
the membership nor that they did not hear opposing positions.
Sadly, the call for anti-fascist unity dominated the minds of
the libertarian movement.

In the early stages, the majority of rank-and-file militants believed 
that the war would be over in a matter of weeks. After all, a few days 
had been sufficient to rout the army in Barcelona and other industrial 
centres. This inclined them to, firstly, tolerate (indeed, support)
the collaboration of the CNT with the "Central Committee of Anti-Fascist
Militias" and, secondly, to start expropriating capitalism in the
belief that the revolution would soon be back on track (the 
opportunity to start introducing anarchist ideas was simply
too good to waste, regardless of the wishes of the CNT Plenum). 
They believed that the revolution and libertarian communism, as 
debated and adopted by the CNT's Zaragoza Congress of May that 
year, was an inseparable aspect of the struggle against economic 
and social oppression and proceeded appropriately. The
ignoring of the state, rather than its destruction, was seen as
a short-term compromise, soon to be corrected. Sadly, there were
wrong -- collaboration had a logic all its own, one which got
worse as the war dragged on (and soon it was too late).

Which, we must note indicates the superficial nature of most Marxist 
attacks on anarchism using the CNT as the key evidence. After all, it 
was the anarchists and anarchist influenced members of the CNT who
organised the collectives, militias and started the transformation
of Spanish society. They did so inspired by anarchism and in an
anarchist way. To praise their actions, while attacking "anarchism",
shows a lack of logic -- it was anarchism which inspired these
actions. Indeed, these actions have more in common with anarchist
ideas than the actions and rationales of the CNT leadership. Thus,
to attack "anarchism" by pointing to the anti-anarchist actions
of a few leaders while ignoring the anarchist actions of the majority
is flawed. 

Therefore, to summarise, it is clear that while the internal structure 
of the CNT was undermined and authoritarian tendencies increased by 
its collaboration with the state, the CNT was not transformed into 
a mere appendage to the higher committees of the organisation. 
The union plenums could and did reject the calls made by the 
leadership of the CNT. Support for "anti-fascist unity" was 
widespread among the CNT membership (in spite of the activities 
and arguments of large minority of anarchists) and was reflected 
in the policy of collaboration pursued by the organisation. While 
the CNT higher committees were transformed into a bureaucratic 
leadership, increasingly isolated from the rank and file, it
cannot be argued that their power was absolute nor totally at 
odds with the wishes of the membership. Ironically, but 
unsurprisingly, the divergences from the C.N.T's previous 
libertarian organisational principles confirmed anarchist 
theory and became a drag on the revolution and a factor in 
its defeat.

As we argued in section I.8.11, the initial compromise with the 
state, the initial betrayal of anarchist theory and CNT policy, 
contained all the rest. Moreover, rather than refute anarchism, 
the experience of the CNT after it had rejected anarchist theory
confirmed the principles of anarchism -- centralised, hierarchical
organisations hindered and ultimately destroyed the revolution.

The experience of the C.N.T and F.A.I suggests that those, 
like Leninists, who argue for *more* centralisation and for 
"democratic" hierarchical structures have refused to understand,
let alone learn from, history. The increased centralisation 
within the C.N.T aided and empowered the leadership (a minority)
and disempowered the membership (the majority). Rather than
federalism hindering the revolution, it, as always, was
centralism which did so. 

Therefore, in spite of a sizeable minority of anarchists *within*
the C.N.T and F.A.I arguing against the dominate policy of
"anti-fascist unity" and political collaboration, this policy
was basically agreed to by the C.N.T  membership and was not
imposed upon them. The membership of the C.N.T could, and did,
reject suggestions of the leadership and so, in spite of the
centralisation of power that occurred in the C.N.T due to the
policy of collaboration, it cannot be argued that this policy
was alien to the wishes of the rank-and-file.

I.8.13 What political lessons were learned from the revolution?

The most important political lesson learned from the Spanish Revolution 
is that a revolution cannot compromise with existing power structures. 
In this, it just confirmed anarchist theory. 

The Spanish Revolution is a clear example of the old maxim, "those 
who only make half a revolution dig their own graves." Essentially, 
the most important political lesson of the Spanish Revolution is 
that a social revolution will only succeed if it follows an 
anarchist path and does not seek to compromise in the name of 
fighting a "greater evil." As Kropotin put it, a "revolution
that stops half-way is sure to be soon defeated." [_The Great
French Revolution_, vol. 2, p. 553]

On the 20th of July, after the fascist coup had been defeated in 
Barcelona, the C.N.T. sent a delegation of its members to meet the 
leader of the Catalan Government. A plenum of C.N.T union shop 
stewards, in the light of the fascist coup, agreed that libertarian 
communism would be "put off" until Franco had been defeated (the 
rank and file ignored them and collectivised their workplaces). 
They organised a delegation to visit the Catalan president 
to discuss the situation:

"The delegation. . . was intransigent . . . Either Companys 
[the Catalan president] must accept the creation of a 
Central Committee [of Anti-Fascist Militias] as the ruling 
organisation or the C.N.T. would *consult the rank and file 
and expose the real situation to the workers.* Companys 
backed down." [Abel Paz, _Durruti: the people Armed_, p. 216, 
our emphasis]

The C.N.T committee members used their new-found influence in the 
eyes of Spain to unite with the leaders of other organisations/parties 
but not the rank and file. This process lead to the creation of the 
"Central Committee of Anti-Fascist Militias", in which political 
parties as well as labour unions were represented. This committee 
was not made up of mandated delegates from workplaces, communities
or barricades, but of representatives of existing organisations, 
nominated by committees. Instead of a genuine confederal body (made 
up of mandated delegates from workplace, militia and neighbourhood 
assemblies) the C.N.T. created a body which was not accountable to, 
nor could reflect the ideas of, ordinary working class people 
expressed in their assemblies. The state and government was not 
abolished by self-management, only ignored.

This first betrayal of anarchist principles led to all the rest, 
and so to the defeat of the revolution and the civil war. As Emma 
Goldman argued, the Spanish anarchists had "come to realise that 
once they went into the so-called united-front, they could do 
nothing else but go further. In other words, the one mistake, 
the one wrong step inevitably led to others as it always does. 
I am more than ever convinced that if the comrades had remained 
firm on their own grounds they would have remained stronger than 
they are now. But I repeat, once they had made common cause for 
the period of the anti-Fascist war, they were driven by the 
logic of events to go further." [_Vision on Fire_, pp. 100-1] 

The most obvious problem, of course, was that collaboration with 
the state ensured that a federation of workers' associations
could not be created to co-ordinate the struggle against fascism 
and the social revolution. As Stuart Christie argues, "[b]y 
imposing their leadership from above, these partisan committees
suffocated the mushrooming popular autonomous revolutionary
centres -- the grass-roots factory and local revolutionary
committees -- and prevented them from proving themselves
as an efficient and viable means of co-ordinating communications,
defence and provisioning. They also prevented the Local
Revolutionary committees from integrating with each other to 
form a regional, provincial and national federal network which 
would facilitate the revolutionary task of social and economic 
reconstruction." [_We, the Anarchists!_, pp. 99-100] Without 
such a federation, it was only a matter of time before the C.N.T 
joined the bourgeois government.

Rather than being an example of "dual power" as many 
Trotskyists maintain, the "Central Committee of Anti-Fascist 
Militias" created on July 20th, 1936, was, in fact, an organ
of class collaboration and a handicap to the revolution. Stuart 
Christie was correct to call it an "artificial and hybrid
creation," a "compromise, an artificial political solution,
an officially sanctioned appendage of the Generalidad
government" which "drew the CNT-FAI leadership inexorably
into the State apparatus, until then its principal enemy."
[Op. Cit., p. 105] Only a true federation of delegates from 
the fields, factories and workplaces could have been the 
framework of a true organisation of (to use Bakunin's 
expression) "the social (and, by consequence, anti-political) 
power of the working masses." [_Michael Bakunin: Selected 
Writings_, pp. 197-8]

Therefore, the C.N.T forgot a basic principle of anarchism,
namely "the destruction . . . of the States." Instead, like
the Paris Commune, the C.N.T thought that "in order to combat 
. . . reaction, they had to organise themselves in reactionary 
Jacobin fashion, forgetting or sacrificing what they themselves 
knew were the first conditions of revolutionary socialism." The 
real basis of the revolution, the basic principle of anarchism,
was that the "future social organisation must be made solely 
from the bottom upwards, by the free association or federation 
of workers, firstly in their unions, then in communes, regions, 
nations and finally in a great federation, international and 
universal." [Bakunin, Op. Cit., p. 198, p. 202 and p. 204] By 
not doing this, by working in a top-down compromise body rather 
than creating a federation of workers' councils, the C.N.T 
leadership could not help eventually sacrificing the revolution 
in favour of the war. 

Of course, if a full plenum of CNT unions and *barrios* 
defence committees, with delegates invited from UGT and 
unorganised workplaces, had taken place there is no 
guarantee that the decision reached would have been in
line with anarchist theory. The feelings for antifascist
unity were strong. However, the decision would have been
fully discussed by the rank and file of the union, under
the influence of the revolutionary anarchists who were
later to join the militias and leave for the front. It
is likely, given the wave of colllectivisation and what 
happened in Aragon, that the decision would have been 
different and the first step would have made to turn 
this plenum into the basis of a free federation of 
workers associations -- i.e. the framework of an
anarchist and self-managed society -- which could have
smashed the state and ensured no other appeared to 
take its place.

The basic idea of anarchism, the need to create a federation of
workers councils, was ignored. In the name of "antifascist" unity, 
the C.N.T worked with parties and classes which hated both them 
and the revolution. In the words of Sam Dolgoff "both before and 
after July 19th, an unwavering determination to crush the 
revolutionary movement was the leitmotif behind the policies 
of the Republican government; irrespective of the party in 
power." [_The Anarchist Collectives_, p. 40] Without creating
a means to organise the "social power" of the working class,
the CNT was defenceless against these parties once the state
had re-organised itself.

To justify their collaboration, the leaders of the C.N.T-F.A.I argued 
that not collaborating would have lead to a civil war within the civil 
war, so allowing Franco easy victory. In practice, while paying lip 
service to the revolution, the Communists and republicans attacked 
the collectives, murdered anarchists, cut supplies to collectivised 
industries (even *war* industries) and disbanded the anarchist militias 
after refusing to give them weapons and ammunition (preferring to arm 
the Civil Guard in the rearguard in order to crush the C.N.T. and so the
revolution). By collaborating, a civil war was not avoided. One occurred
anyway, with the working class as its victims, as soon as the state felt
strong enough. 

Garcia Oliver (the first ever, and hopefully last, "anarchist" minister 
of justice) stated in 1937 that collaboration was necessary and that the 
C.N.T. had "renounc[ed] revolutionary totalitarianism, which would lead to 
the strangulation of the revolution by anarchist and Confederal [C.N.T.]
dictatorship. We had confidence in the word and in the person of a Catalan
democrat" Companys (who had in the past jailed anarchists). Which means that
only by working with the state, politicians and capitalists can an anarchist
revolution be truly libertarian! Furthermore, in the words of Vernon Richards:

"This argument contains . . . two fundamental mistakes, which many 
of the leaders of the CNT-FAI have since recognised, but for which 
there can be no excuse, since they were not mistakes of judgement 
but the deliberate abandonment of the principles of the CNT. Firstly, 
that an armed struggle against fascism or any other form of reaction 
could be waged more successfully within the framework of the State 
and subordinating all else, including the transformation of the 
economic and social structure of the country, to winning the war. 
Secondly, that it was essential, and possible, to collaborate with   
political parties -- that is politicians -- honestly and sincerely, 
and at a time when power was in the hands of the two workers 
organisations. . .

"All the initiative . . . was in the hands of the workers. The   
politicians were like generals without armies floundering in a   
desert of futility. Collaboration with them could not, by any   
stretch of the imagination, strengthen resistance to Franco.  
On the contrary, it was clear that collaboration with political 
parties meant the recreation of governmental institutions and the 
transferring of initiative from the armed workers to a central 
body with executive powers. By removing the initiative from the 
workers, the responsibility for the conduct of the struggle and 
its objectives were also transferred to a governing hierarchy, 
and this could not have other than an adverse effect on the morale 
of the revolutionary fighters." [_Lessons of the Spanish Revolution_, 
p. 42]

The dilemma of "anarchist dictatorship" or "collaboration" raised
in 1937 was fundamentally wrong. It was never a case of banning 
parties, and other organisations under an anarchist system, far 
from it. Full rights of free speech, organisation and so on should 
have existed for all but the parties would only have as much 
influence as they exerted in union, workplace, community and 
militia assemblies, as should be the case! "Collaboration" yes, 
but within the rank and file and within organisations organised 
in an anarchist manner. Anarchism does not respect the "freedom" 
to be a boss or politician.

In his history of the F.A.I., Juan Gomaz Casas (an active F.A.I. 
member in 1936) makes this clear:

"How else could libertarian communism be brought about? It would 
always signify dissolution of the old parties dedicated to the idea 
of power, or at least make it impossible for them to pursue their 
politics aimed at seizure of power. There will always be pockets of 
opposition to new experiences and therefore resistance to joining 
'the spontaneity of the unanimous masses.' In addition, the masses 
would have complete freedom of expression in the unions and in the 
economic organisations of the revolution as well as their political 
organisations in the district and communities." [_Anarchist 
Organisation: the History of the F.A.I._, p. 188f]

Instead of this "collaboration" from the bottom up, by means
of a federation of workers' associations, community assemblies
and militia columns as argued for by anarchists from Bakunin
onwards, the C.N.T. and F.A.I. committees favoured "collaboration" 
from the top down. The leaders ignored the state and co-operated 
with other trade unions officials as well as political parties in 
the _Central Committee of Anti-Fascist Militias_. In other words, 
they ignored their political ideas in favour of a united front 
against what they considered the greater evil, namely fascism. 
This inevitably lead the way to counter-revolution, the destruction 
of the militias and collectives, as they was no means by which
these groups could co-ordinate their activities independently
of the state. 

In particular, the continued existence of the state ensured that 
economic confederalism between collectives (i.e. extending the 
revolution under the direction of the syndicates) could not 
develop naturally nor be developed far enough in all places. 
Due to the political compromises of the C.N.T. the tendencies 
to co-ordination and mutual aid could not develop freely 
(see next section).

It is clear that the defeat in Spain was due to a failure not of 
anarchist theory and tactics but a failure of anarchists to *apply* 
their theory and tactics. Instead of destroying the state, the 
C.N.T.-F.A.I. ignored it. For a revolution to be successful it 
needs to create organisations which can effectively replace the 
state and the market; that is, to create a widespread libertarian 
organisation for social and economic decision-making through
which working class people can start to set their own agendas. 
Only by going this route can the state and capitalism be 
effectively smashed.

In building the new world we must destroy the old one. Revolutions 
are authoritarian by their very nature, but only in respect to 
structures and social relations which promote injustice, hierarchy 
and inequality. It is not "authoritarian" to destroy authority and 
not tyrannical to dethrone tyrants! Revolutions, above all else, 
must be libertarian in respect to the oppressed. That is, they 
must develop structures that involve the great majority of the 
population, who have previously been excluded from decision-making 
about social and economic issues. As such, a revolution is the
most *libertarian* thing ever.

As the _Friends of Durruti_ argued a "revolution requires the absolute
domination of the workers' organisations." ["The Friends of Durruti 
accuse", from _Class War on the Home Front_, p. 34] Only this, the 
creation of viable anarchist social organisations, can ensure that 
the state and capitalism can be destroyed and replaced with a just 
system based on liberty, equality and solidarity. Just as Bakunin,
Kropotkin and a host of other anarchist thinkers had argued decades
previously.

Thus the most important lesson gained from the Spanish Revolution
is simply the correctness of anarchist theory on the need to
organise the "social power" of the working class by a free
federation of workers associations to destroy the state. Without 
this, no revolution can be lasting. As Gomez Casas correctly
argues, "if instead of condemning that experience [of collaboration],
the movement continues to look for excuses for it, the same
course will be repeated in the future . . . exceptional
circumstances will again put . . . anarchism on [its] knees
before the State." [Op. Cit., p. 251]

The second important lesson is on the nature of anti-fascism. The 
C.N.T. leadership, along with many (if not most) of the rank-and-file, 
were totally blinded by the question of anti-fascist unity, leading 
them to support a "democratic" state against a "fascist" one. While 
the basis of a new world was being created around them by the working 
class, inspiring the fight against fascism, the C.N.T. leaders 
collaborated with the system that spawns fascism. Indeed, while
the anti-fascist feelings of the CNT leadership were sincere, the
same cannot be said of their "allies" (who seemed happier attacking
the gains of the semi-revolution than fighting fascism). As the 
Friends of Durruti make clear, "Democracy defeated the Spanish 
people, not Fascism." [_Class War on the Home Front_, p. 30]

To be opposed to fascism is not enough, you also have to be 
anti-capitalist. As Durruti stressed, "[n]o government in the
world fights fascism to the death. When the bourgeoisie sees
power slipping from its grasp, it has recourse to fascism
to maintain itself." [quoted Vernon Richards, Op. Cit., 
p. 193f]

In Spain, anti-fascism destroyed the revolution, not fascism. As 
the Scottish Anarchist Ethal McDonald argued at the time, "Fascism 
is not something new, some new force of evil opposed to society, but 
is only the old enemy, Capitalism, under a new and fearful sounding 
name . . . Anti-Fascism is the new slogan by which the working class 
is being betrayed." [_Workers Free Press_, Oct 1937]

Thirdly, the argument of the CNT that Libertarian Communism
can wait until after the war was a false one. Fascism can only
be defeated by ending the system that spawned it (i.e. capitalism).
In addition, in terms of morale and inspiration, the struggle
against fascism could only be effective if it was also a struggle
*for* something better -- namely a free society. To fight fascism
for a capitalist democracy which had repressed the working class
would hardly inspire those at the front. Similarly, the only hope 
for workers' self-management was to push the revolution as far
as possible, i.e. to introduce libertarian communism while
fighting fascism. The idea of waiting for libertarian communism
ultimately meant sacrificing it for the war effort.

Fourthly, the role of anarchists in a social revolution is to
always encourage organisation "from below" (to use one of
Bakunin's favourite expressions), revolutionary organisations
which can effectively smash the state. Bakunin himself argued
(as noted above) in favour of workers' councils, complemented 
by community assemblies (the federation of the barricades) and 
a self-managed militia. This model is still applicable today
and was successfully applied in Aragon by the CNT.

Therefore, the political lessons gained from the experience of the
C.N.T come as no surprise. They, in general, confirm anarchist theory.
As Bakunin argued, no revolution is possible unless the state is smashed,
capital expropriated and a free federation of workers' associations
created as the framework of libertarian socialism. Rather than
refuting anarchism, the experience of the Spanish Revolution confirms
it.

I.8.14 What economic lessons were learned from the revolution?

The most important lesson from the revolution is the fact that ordinary 
people took over the management of industry and did an amazing job of 
keeping (and improving!) production in the face of the direst circumstances.
Not only did workers create a war industry from almost nothing in Catalonia, 
they also improved working conditions and innovated with new techniques and
processes. The Spanish Revolution shows that self-management is possible
and that the constructive powers of ordinary people inspired by an
ideal can transform society.

From the point of view of individual freedom, its clear that self-management 
allowed previously marginalised people to take an active part in the decisions 
that affected them. Egalitarian organisations provided the framework for a 
massive increase in participation and individual self-government, which 
expressed itself in the extensive innovations carried out by the Collectives. 
The Collectives indicate, in Stirner's words, that "[o]nly in the union can 
you assert yourself as unique, because the union does not possess you, but 
you possess it or make it of use to you." [_The Ego and Its Own_, p. 312]
A fact Emma Goldman confirmed from her visits to collectives and 
discussions with their members:

"I was especially impressed with the relies to my questions as to 
what actually had the workers gained by the collectivisation . . . 
the answer always was, first, greater freedom. And only secondly,
more wages and less time of work. In two years in Russia [1920-21]
I never heard any workers express this idea of greater freedom."
[_Vision on Fire_, p. 62]

As predicted in anarchist theory, and borne out by actual experience, there
exists large untapped reserves of energy and initiative in the ordinary
person which self-management can call forth. The collectives proved 
Kropotkin's argument that co-operative work is more productive and that if 
the economists wish to prove "their thesis in favour of *private property* 
against all other forms of *possession*, should not the economists demonstrate 
that under the form of communal property land never produces such rich 
harvests as when the possession is private. But this they could not prove; 
in fact, it is the contrary that has been observed." [_The Conquest of Bread_, 
p. 146]

Therefore, five important lessons from the actual experience of a libertarian
socialist economy can be derived:

Firstly, that an anarchist society cannot be created overnight, but is a 
product of many different influences as well as the objective conditions.
In this the anarchist collectives confirmed the ideas of anarchist
thinkers like Bakunin and Kropotkin (see section I.2). 

The lesson from every revolution is that the mistakes made in the process 
of liberation by people themselves are always minor compared to the results 
of creating institutions *for* people. The Spanish Revolution is a clear 
example of this, with the "collectivisation decree" causing more harm than 
good. Luckily, the Spanish anarchists recognised the importance of having 
the freedom to make mistakes, as can be seen by the many different forms 
of collectives and federations tried.

The actual process in Spain towards industrial co-ordination and so 
socialisation was dependent on the wishes of the workers involved -- 
as would be expected in a true social revolution. As Bakunin argued,
the "revolution should not only be made for the people's sake; it 
should also be made by the people." [_No Gods, No Masters_, vol. 1, 
p. 141] The problems faced by a social revolution will be solved 
in the interests of the working class only if working class people 
solve them themselves. For this to happen it requires working class 
people to manage their own affairs directly -- and this implies
anarchism, not centralisation or state control/ownership. The
experience of the collectives in Spain supports this basic idea
of anarchism.

Secondly, that self-management allowed a massive increase in innovation 
and new ideas. 

The Spanish Revolution is clear proof of the anarchist case against 
hierarchy and validates Isaac Puente words that in "a free collective
each benefits from accumulated knowledge and specialised experiences of 
all, and vice versa. There is a reciprocal relationship wherein information 
is in continuous circulation." [cited in _The Anarchist Collectives_, p. 32]


Thirdly, the importance of decentralisation of management. 

The woodworkers' union experience indicates that when an industry becomes 
centralised, the administration of industry becomes constantly merged in fewer 
hands which leads to ordinary workers being marginalised. This can happen even 
in democratically run industries and soon result in apathy developing within 
it. This was predicted by Kropotkin and other anarchist theorists (and by 
many F.A.I. members in Spain at the time). While undoubtedly better than 
capitalist hierarchy, such democratically run industries are only close 
approximations to anarchist ideas of self-management. Importantly, however, 
the collectivisation experiments also indicate that co-operation need not 
imply centralisation (as can be seen from the Badelona collectives).

Fourthly, the importance of building links of solidarity between workplaces
as soon as possible. 

While the importance of starting production after the fascist uprising 
made attempts at co-ordination seem of secondary importance to the 
collectives, the competition that initially occurred between workplaces 
helped the state to undermine self-management. Because there was no 
People's Bank or other communistic body to co-ordinate credit and 
production, state control of credit and the gold reserves made it 
easier for the Republican state (through its monopoly of credit) to 
undermine the revolution and control the collectives and (effectively) 
nationalise them in time (Durruti and a few others planned to seize the 
gold reserves but were advised not to by De Santillan). 

This attack on the revolution started when the Catalan State issued a decree 
legalising (and so controlling) the collectives in October 1936 (the famous 
"Collectivisation Decree"). The counter-revolution also withheld funds for 
collectivised industries, even war industries, until they agreed to come 
under state control. The industrial organisation created by this decree 
was a compromise between anarchist ideas and those of other parties 
(particularly the communists) and in the words of Gaston Leval, "the 
decree had the baneful effect of preventing the workers' syndicates 
from extending their gains. It set back the revolution in industry." 
[_The Anarchist Collectives_, p. 54]

And lastly, that an economic revolution can only succeed if the existing 
state is destroyed. As Kropotkin argued, "a new form of economic organisation 
will necessarily require a new form of political structure" -- capitalism 
needs the state, socialism needs anarchy. [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary
Pamphlets_, p. 181] Without the new political structure, the new economic
organisation cannot develop to its full potential.

Due to the failure to consolidate the revolution *politically,* it was 
lost *economically.* The decree "legalising collectivisation" "distorted 
everything right from the start" [_Collectives in the Spanish Revolution_, 
p. 227] and helped undermine the revolution by ensuring that the mutualism 
of the collectives did not develop freely into libertarian communism ("The 
collectives lost the economic freedom they had won at the beginning" due 
to the decree, as one participant put it. [Ronald Fraser, _Blood of Spain_, 
p. 230]).

As Fraser notes, it "was doubtful that the C.N.T. had seriously 
envisaged collectivisation of industry. . .before this time." 
[Op. Cit., p. 212] C.N.T. policy was opposed to the collectivisation 
decree. As an eyewitness pointed out, the C.N.T.'s "policy was thus 
not the same as that pursued by the decree." [Op. Cit., p. 213] 
Indeed, leading anarchists like Abad de Santillan opposed it and 
urged people to ignore it: 

"I was an enemy of the decree because I considered it premature . . .
when I became councillor, I had no intention of taking into account or 
carrying out the decree: I intended to allow our great people to carry 
on the task as they best saw fit, according to their own inspiration." 
[Op. Cit., p. 212] 

However, with the revolution lost politically, the C.N.T. was soon forced 
to compromise and support the decree (the C.N.T. did propose more libertarian 
forms of co-ordination between workplaces but these were undermined by
the state). A lack of effective mutual aid organisations allowed the 
state to gain power over the collectives and so undermine and destroy 
self-management. Working class control over the economy (important as it 
is) does not automatically destroy the state. In other words, the economic 
aspects of the revolution cannot be considered in isolation from its 
political ones.

However, these points do not diminish the successes of the Spanish 
revolution. As Gaston Leval argued, "in spite of these shortcomings
[caused lack of complete socialisation] . . . the important fact
is that the factories went on working, the workshops and works
produced without the owners, capitalists, shareholders and
without high management executives." [_Collectives in the Spanish
Revolution_, p. 228] 

Beyond doubt, these months of economic liberty in Spain show not 
only that libertarian socialism *works* and that working class 
people can manage and run society ourselves but that it can 
improve the quality of life and increase freedom. Given the 
time and breathing space, the experiment would undoubtedly have 
ironed out its problems. Even in the very difficult environment 
of a civil war (and with resistance of almost all other parties 
and unions) the workers and peasants of Spain showed that a 
better society is possible. They gave a concrete example of
what was previously just a vision, a world which was more
humane, more free, more equitable and more civilised than
that run by capitalists, managers, politicians and bureaucrats.
