As I’ve replied to the reply to my letter to The Weekly Worker, I though that I would take the opportunity to make some notes on a few issues I’ve been thinking about, more specifically on what socialisation means and, on a slightly related subject, forms of capitalism. I’ll also mention, in passing, some credit crunch news.
As I’ve replied to the reply to my letter to The Weekly Worker, I though that I would take the opportunity to make some notes on a few issues I’ve been thinking about, more specifically on what socialisation means and, on a slightly related subject, forms of capitalism. I’ll also mention, in passing, some credit crunch news.
First, on socialisation. When I was writing my article on co-operatives or bailouts, I realised that An Anarchist FAQ did not have a sub-section specifically on what socialisation meant and why anarchists consider it essential to their ideas of a free society. This will be corrected when section I is revised (later this year). But I thought I would summarise it now, particularly as it relates to another issue I have been pondering of late.
The key to understanding socialisation is to remember that it is fundamentally about access. In other words, that every one has the same rights to the means of life as everyone else. For example, how workplaces are socialised in the mutualism, collectivism and communism are different but rest on the same principle of equal access. Thus when someone joins an existing workers association they become full members of the co-operative, with the same rights and duties as existing members. In other words, they participate in the decisions on a basis of one person, one vote. How the products of that association are distributed vary in different types of anarchism, but the associations that create them are rooted in an association of equals. In contrast, a capitalist society places the owner in the dominant position and new members of the workforce are employees and so subordinate members of an "association" which they have no say in. Much the same can be said of state (or nationalised) property.
Hence these words by John Most and Emma Goldman (Anarchy Defended by Anarchists, as reprinted in the last issue of Black Flag): "The system of communism logically excludes any and every relation between master and servant, and means really Anarchism, and the way to this goal leads through a social revolution." Hebert Read put it this way:
"The essential principle of anarchism is that mankind has reached a stage of development at which it is possible to abolish the old relationship of master-man (capitalist-proletarian) and substitute a relationship of egalitarian co-operation. This principle is based, not only on ethical ground, but also on economic grounds." [Anarchy and Order, p. 92]
This fits into Proudhon’s arguments in favour of self-management and the abolition of wage labour. Or, for that matter, David Ellerman‘s comment (echoing Proudhon, unknowingly?) that the democratic workplace "is a social community, a community of work rather than a community residence. It is a republic, or res publica of the workplace. The ultimate governance rights are assigned as personal rights . . . to the people who work in the firm . . . This analysis shows how a firm can be socialised and yet remain ‘private’ in the sense of not being government-owned." [The Democratic Worker-Owned Firm, p. 76] I quoted Proudhon on the need to turn workplaces into "little republics of workingmen" in my article on anarchism, Marxism and the Paris Commune (which, among other things, corrected most commonplace Marxist distortions of the Frenchman’s thoughts). I should also note that Ellerman wrote one of my favourite articles, the classic satire on right-wing "libertarianism" The Libertarian Case for Slavery
Thus a desire of liberty drives the anarchist desire for socialisation. Emma Goldman (as was so often the case) puts it well:
"free access to the land and all means of production, and entire liberty of disposing of the fruits of his efforts; that each and every individual has the unquestionable right of free and voluntary association with other equally sovereign individuals for economic, political, social, and other purposes, and that to achieve this end man must emancipate himself from the sacredness of property, the respect for man-made law, the fear of the Church, the cowardice of public opinion, the stupid arrogance of national, racial, religious, and sex superiority, and from the narrow puritanical conception of human life." [A Documentary History of the American Years, vol. 2, pp. 450-1]
Needless to say, schools of anarchist thought disagree over the degree of socialisation. Communist-anarchists stress that, to be consistent, the product of labour should be socialised as well (although this, we have always noted, is based on voluntary association). Thus there should be free access to the product of labour as well as the means of production, with distribution by need rather than by deed (this does not imply, needless to say, that "the community" allocates goods to people, rather than they take what they need from the common stores). In other words, Mutualism aims to abolish wage labour but not the wage system (they are not identical, as abolition of the former does not imply the abolition of the latter, although abolition of the wages systems does imply the abolition of wage labour). Yet the underlying position is one of free access to the means of life, with people joining a workplace also joining a community of equals, with each person having the same say in the collective task as the others. In summary, no hierarchy of bosses and wage-slaves. Unsurprisingly we find Chomsky summarising the anarchist position thusly:
"A consistent anarchist must oppose private ownership of the means of production and the wage slavery which is a component of this system, as incompatible with the principle that labour must be freely undertaken and under the control of the producer . . . A consistent anarchist must oppose not only alienated labour but also the stupefying specialisation of labour that takes place when the means for developing production." ["Notes on Anarchism", Chomsky on Anarchism, p. 123]
Thus the "consistent anarchist, then, will be a socialist, but a socialist of a particular sort." [p. 125] Hence the whole libertarian against propertarian thing. Which should be obvious, given a basic understanding of anarchist theory (particularly an awareness of Proudhon’s What is Property?) but, sadly, most critics of anarchism fail to understand the underlying analysis of private property, confusing possession (use rights) with private property (property rights) — as Marx (who had obviously read his Proudhon) memorably noted with regards to political economy. In summary, if it generates authoritarian social relationships (hierarchies) then consistent anarchists must oppose it (otherwise you have, at best, voluntary archy — not to mention massive self-contradiction.
Which brings me to the next issue, forms of capitalism. I’ve been thinking of different kinds of capitalism you could have. And I was wondering what people thought of these possibilities, and if they are all actually capitalism.
Normal capitalism: Finance and industrial capital, stock markets and wage labour predominant – although which side of capital is dominant varies (i.e., finance in Anglo-capitalism, industrial in Germany, say).
Industrial capitalism only: No finance capital, banks provide credit to employers of wage labour. Keynes’ ideal, perhaps, given his hopes that the rentier class would disappear?
State capitalism: Where the state replaces the industrial capitalist, with state banks providing credit. As in the USSR. The degree of market exchange could be variable, with the country going from relatively market based (as in the NEP of the 1920s) to (effectively) the country (dis-)organised as "one big firm" (as per 1930s Stalinism or Lenin’s "war communism").And to quote Goldman: "There Is No Communism in Russia".
Finance capitalism only: Stock markets but no employers of wage labour, property owners employ independent contractors or workers hire "capital" and land from the owning class.
Now, the last one seems problematic as capitalism is first and foremost a mode of production (rooted in wage labour). With independent contractors, it could be argued that there is no wage labour. However, I’m not sure. Why?
First, there is still a proletariat — property owners still exclude people from the means of life and only give access in return for money.
Second, is there really that much difference between an employee and an independent contractor?
I’m in IT and I’ve worked with them and they do exactly the same job, in exactly the same way as me. They have a project and they work to achieve it. At the only end of the spectrum of skilled labour, how would a "self-employed" waitress be any different from an employee waitress? Their "contract" is the same, namely wait on tables and do what the owner tells them (if not, they would be dismissed). Unless all the cafe staff worked the cafe together, in return for paying the owner a rent.
Third, in terms of, say, a car plant would it be that the "self-employed" workers have workers’ control? But then they are managing their own exploitation, as the property-owner would expect a cut of the output in return for contracting them in the first place.
I was tempted to call it self-managed capitalism, but does not seem to fit (see the IT and waitress examples). Is there wage-labour? In a sense, yes because there is still a proletariat and there would be usury but in a sense, no, if all they are doing is paying a property owner rent and otherwise managing their own work.
Would it be the same in as in a feudal system. The peasants work the land, but the owner would not mange them in terms of how they plant and what they plant but rather just collect rent at the end, ejecting them from the land if the rent was not sufficient? Would it be, then? rentier-ism? techno-landlordism? "industrial feudalism" (to use a term of Proudhon’s, although in a somewhat different context)?
So self-management of work is not sufficient in and of itself to ensure an anarchist society. Under feudalism, the peasants largely managed their own labour, providing the landlord with rent but such a regime was hardly libertarian. An industrial equivalent can be imagined, where workers hire "capital" and land from finance capitalists and landlords and work it themselves in return for paying rent. As left-wing economist Geoffrey M. Hodgson summarises:
"Assume that the workers are self-employed but do not own all the means of production. In this case there still may be powerful owners of factories, offices and machines . . . the owners of the means of production would still receive an income, emanating from that ownership. In bargaining with these owners, the workers would be required to concede the claim of these owners to an income, as they would be unable to produce without making use of the means of production owned by others. Hence the workers would still be deprived of . . . ‘surplus value’. Profits would still derive from ownership of the means of production." [Economics and Utopia, p. 168]
This would not be anarchism (as workers would still be exploited) nor would it be capitalism (as there is no wage labour as such, although there would be a proletariat). Thus genuine anarchism requires socialisation of the means of life, which in turn requires free access (no usury). In other words, self-management (while an essential part of anarchism) is not sufficient to make a society anarchist. Without socialism (free access to the means of life) it would be part of yet another class system and so exploitative. Which is why this subject is related to socialisation.
The only way I can see it as being associated with anarchism is in the context of Proudhon’s mutualism, when there is a transitional society in which peasants and workers have a hire-purchase arrangement with the current owners. In this situation, the rent is used to buy the means of life from the owning class (as Proudhon suggests with regards to peasants in The General Idea of the Revolution, with the purchased land becoming owned by the commune). It would not be anarchy, but on the way to it.
Any thoughts? Or is it (as I’m inclined to believe) pointless speculation on a form of class system which is extremely unlikely ever to exist?
Before my letter to the Weekly Worker, I thought I would mention this piece of news. According to testimony given to MPs, an employee of a bank was sacked for raising concerns about the lender’s rapid growth in the years before the credit crunch. According to The Independent, Mr Moore said he signed a "gagging clause" and allegedly received substantial damages. He alleged that his team was met with "threatening behaviour" by some executives when it tried to raise their concerns. The paper quotes him as follows:
"Being an internal risk and compliance manager at the time felt a bit like being a man in a rowing boat trying to slow down an oil tanker," he said. "Anyone whose eyes were not blinded by money, power and pride could have seen the explosion of ‘excessively easy credit’ was leading to disaster. But, sadly, no one wanted or felt able to speak up for fear of stepping out of line with the rest of the lemmings who were busy organising themselves to run over the edge of the cliff behind the pied piper CEOs and executive teams that were being paid so much to play that tune."
A classic example of Minsky’s "Financial Instability Hypothesis" in action (for good discussions of this, and its links with Marx and Keynes, have a look at the works of James Crotty as well as Steve Keen — talking of which, Keen recently linked to a great attack on neo-classical economics). Section C.8 discusses Minsky’s ideas on the context of a critique of "Austrian" Business Cycle Theory.
It is also a good example of two other issues. First, the stupidities of hierarchy and how capitalist firms block the flow of necessary information required to make sensible decisions ("blinded by money, power and pride"). People fearful of loosing their jobs are unlikely to communicate honestly with those above them (a feature of Stalinism which afflicts both the internal workings of a capitalist firm and in the stock market as well). Second, that prices hide a lot more information than they give. Clearly the bosses were looking at the profits being generated in the industry and made decisions appropriately. Sadly, the collective results of those decisions were not as expected.
And now, finally, to my new letter. While new converts can be zealous, it is often new converts who used to support another set of politics who are often the most annoying (Victor Serge springs to mind, although he finally did come to his senses in the 1930s, when it was far too late — unlike Emma Goldman). These people often make claims which they must know are not true but their disillusionment gets the better of them (see my review of Bookchin’s last book, for example). This seems to be the case here, with our Weekly Worker correspondent being an ex-anarchist! As I noted in my letter, his rant suggests he knows as little about anarchism as he does about Leninism! Which brings home the joy of hyperlinks, as you can make a short summary of an argument and link to the full discussion and evidence (usually, in my case, the appropriate section of AFAQ!).
One final point. I realised after I sent it that our ex-anarchist (falsely) complained that I had offered no positive suggestions to our Greek comrades. Yet he himself made no practical suggestions — unless it was to stop rioting, get to the library, read Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky and then form a political party! Great advice…
Until I blog again! Be seeing you…
Letter to Weekly Worker
Dear Weekly Worker
It would be easier to take Ted North’s letter more seriously if it contained even a slight understanding of the Russian and Spanish Revolutions or the limitations of space when writing letters (“Anarchy in the UK”, Weekly Worker, no. 754).
He complains that my original letter did not contain “even a hint of criticism of anarchists”! As I was pointing out the errors of his article’s assertions about anarchism, this is unsurprising. Apparently, from my letter “comrades who do not know the history of anarchism might think this school of thought had never made an incorrect prediction, let alone taken a mistaken action.” It seems that he expects anarchists to start every letter, no matter what the subject, with a mea culpa! Articles and letters would get lengthy if we all did that (particularly for Leninists!).
As to be expected, he raises the CNT in the Spanish Revolution and how it “demonstrates the failure of anarchism.” Strangely he fails to discuss, let alone mention, the objective circumstances facing the CNT in July 1936 and so we are left with ideological idealism at its worse (“the CNT’s acquiescence on the question of state power was fatal”) rather than serious analysis.
Ironically, he does complain that I ignore that “a brutal civil war, armed and funded by the imperialist powers, and the isolation of the revolution in an overwhelmingly peasant country” were “the primary factors in the revolution’s degeneration.” Yet, if he knew anything about the Russian Revolution, he would know that Bolshevik authoritarianism began before the start of the civil war, with a de facto party dictatorship in place within six weeks of the Czech Legion revolt (as shown by the packing of the Fifth All-Russian Congress of Soviets).
North proclaims that “a successful revolution” would see the creation of “an anarchist ‘state’ whose lack of organisation would lead to overthrow by internal or external forces.” Ignoring the ideological confusion this expresses, may I simply note that the Leninist state quickly became the dictatorship over the proletariat in order to repress popular opposition from the Russian working class – strikes were crushed, soviets gerrymandered and disbanded to secure party power. By 1919 ,the “dictatorship of the party” was official dogma.
So if the “bureaucracy embodied in Stalin” had “liquidated the very people who had led the 1917 revolution,” it was those “very people” who, from 1917 onwards, had “liquidated” every collective working class protest against their rule and ensured the creation of the bureaucracy by forming a centralised state and imposing one-man management in the workplace and the armed forces (i.e., “liquidated” the revolution).
For North, the “the modern CPGB” does not “dogmatically accept what passed for Marxism in the 20th century,” and that “we have shown our willingness to rethink.” And yet the same old mistakes of the past (electioneering, vanguardism, statism) are all offered as if the 20th century had not happened. This can also be seen from the analysis of the failure of the Russian Revolution offered.
He notes my call for “popular organisations which can take the struggle onwards”, adding that we anarchists “can’t call this a party.” Except popular organisations (“such as federations of community and workplace assemblies”, to quote my letter) are precisely that, not a “party”. He exposes his ignorance of the Russian Revolution by writing anarchists oppose “organisational structures that are both democratic and effective (centralised).” In reality, Leninists myths not withstanding, the Bolshevik Party was effective as long as its members ignored the party hierarchy (i.e., was decentralised). This included Lenin, incidentally.
North proclaims that whether we “like it or not, the anarchists do form a party. It’s just that they are very badly organised and/or undemocratic.” Undemocratic? Is self-managed organisation (“extreme democracy”, to use his words) undemocratic? As for “very badly organised”, well, what can I say? The constant refrain of Leninists is how “actually existing” Leninist parties are undemocratic and bureaucratic…
He asserts that I had “nothing positive in relation to events in Greece,” which is not true (I noted the need to form workplace and community assemblies). However, my focus was simply pointing out the errors of his politics. He proclaims, again, that “only Marxism” can “guide the working class, and thus all of humanity, to genuine liberation.” Except, as my letter sketched, it has not – something he cares to ignore.
Apparently my “level of analysis does not rise above sticking two fingers up.” Sometimes that is what an article deserves, but need I point out again the space limitations on letters pages? He ends by saying if I wish “to conduct a serious polemic, we are waiting” – will I be provided with the appropriate space in the form of an article? Suffice to say, his smug comment that “it would be [his] pleasure to help dispel some myths” suggests the arrogance of someone who neither understands his old politics (being “a former anarchist”) nor his new one.
Iain McKay