                  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
     development of a free humanity. In this sense Mutualism,
     Collectivism and Communism are not to be regarded as closed systems
     permitting no further development, but merely as economic
     assumptions as to the means of safeguarding a free community. There
     will even probably be in society of the future different forms of
     economic co-operation operating side by side, since any social
     progress must be associated with that free experiment and practical
     testing out for which in a society of free communities there will be
     afforded every opportunity." [Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 9]

   So given the common ideals and aims of anarchists, it is unsurprising
   that the economic systems we suggest has common features such as
   workers' self-management, federation, free agreement and so on (as
   discussed in [1]last section). For all anarchists, "[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." [Noam Chomsky, quoted by Albert and
   Hahnel, Looking Forward, p. 62]

   This achieved by means of "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]

   The aim would be to maximise the time available for individuals to
   express and development their individuality, including in production.
   As Stirner put it, the "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." Criticising the authoritarian socialists of his time,
   Stirner went 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 silent." 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!" [Max
   Stirner, The Ego and Its Own, p. 268 and p. 269] Which is exactly what
   libertarian communists argue:

     "[We] recognise that man [sic!] has other needs besides food, and as
     the strength of Anarchy lies precisely in that it understands all
     human faculties and all passions, and ignores none, we shall . . .
     contrive to satisfy all his intellectual and artistic needs . . .
     the man [or woman] who will have done the four or five hours of . .
     . work that are necessary for his existence, will have before him
     five or six hours which his will seek to employ according to tastes
     . . .

     "He will discharge his task in the field, the factory, and so on,
     which he owes to society as his contribution to the general
     production. And he will employ the second half of his day, his week,
     or his year, to satisfy his artistic or scientific needs, or his
     hobbies." [Kropotkin, Conquest of Bread, pp. 110-1]

   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 is
   to provide the means of providing the individual with 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."

   In other words, anarchists desire to organise voluntary workers
   associations which will try to ensure a minimisation of mindless labour
   in order to maximise the time available for creative activity both
   inside and outside "work." This is to be achieved by free co-operation
   between equals, which is seen as being based on self-interest. After
   all, while capitalist ideology may proclaim that competition is an
   expression of self-interest it, in fact, results in the majority of
   people sacrificing themselves for the benefits of the few who own and
   control society. The time you sell to a boss in return for them
   ordering you about and keeping the product of your labour is time you
   never get back. Anarchists aim to end a system which crushes
   individuality and create one in which solidarity and co-operation allow
   us time to enjoy life and to gain the benefits of our labour ourselves.
   Mutual Aid, in other words, results in a better life than mutual
   struggle and so "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:

     "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 inequality. 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, to use Kropotkin's
   expression, "well-being for all" -- physical, mental, emotional and
   ethical! Indeed, by concentrating on just poverty and ignoring the
   emancipation of the proletariat, the real aims of socialism are
   obscured:

     "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."
     [Kropotkin, Op. Cit., p. 44]

   So, while refusing to define exactly how an anarchist system will work,
   we will explore the implications of how the anarchist principles and
   ideals outlined above could be put into practice. Bear in mind that
   this is just a possible framework for a system which has few historical
   examples to draw upon. This means that we can only indicate the general
   outlines of what an anarchist society could be like. Those seeking
   blue-prints and exactness should look elsewhere. In all likelihood, the
   framework we present will be modified and changed (even ignored) in
   light of the real experiences and problems people will face when
   creating a new society.

   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"
   text-book capitalism with any real system is a pointless task. As we
   discussed in depth in [2]section C, capitalist economics does not even
   describe the reality of capitalism so why think it would enlighten
   discussion of post-capitalist systems? What hope does it have of
   understanding post-capitalist systems which reject its proprietary
   despotism and inequalities? As anarchists aim for a qualitative change
   in our economic relationships, we can safely say that its economic
   dynamics will reflect the specific forms it will develop rather than
   those produced by a class-ridden hierarchical system like capitalism
   and the a-historic individualistic abstractions invented to defend it!

   So any attempt to apply the notions developed from theorising about
   (or, more correctly, justifying and rationalising) capitalism to
   anarchism will fail to capture the dynamics of a non-capitalist system.
   John Crump stressed this point in his discussion of Japanese anarchism
   between the World Wars:

     "When considering the feasibility of the social system advocated by
     the pure anarchists, we need to be clear about the criteria against
     which it should be measured. It would, for example, be unreasonable
     to demand that it be assessed against such yardsticks of a
     capitalist economy as annual rate of growth, balance of trade and so
     forth . . . evaluating anarchist communism by means of the criteria
     which have been devised to measure capitalism's performance does not
     make sense . . . capitalism would be . . . baffled if it were
     demanded that it assess its operations against the performance
     indicators to which pure anarchists attached most importance, such
     as personal liberty, communal solidarity and the individual's
     unconditional right to free consumption. Faced with such demands,
     capitalism would either admit that these were not yardsticks against
     which it could sensibly measure itself or it would have to resort to
     the type of grotesque ideological subterfuges which it often
     employs, such as identifying human liberty with the market and
     therefore with wage slavery . . . The pure anarchists' confidence in
     the alternative society they advocated derived not from an
     expectation that it would 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]

   Finally, anarchists are well aware that transforming how an economy
   works does not happen overnight. As discussed in [3]section I.2.2, we
   have long rejected the idea of instantaneous social transformation and
   argued that revolution will take time to develop and change the legacy
   of centuries of class and hierarchical society. This transformation and
   the resulting changes in people and surroundings can only be achieved
   by the full participation of all in overcoming the (many) problems a
   free society will face and the new ways of relating to each other
   liberation implies. A free people will find their own practical
   solutions to their problems, for "there will be all sorts of practical
   difficulties to overcome, but the [libertarian socialist] system is
   simplicity itself compared with the monster of centralised State
   control, which sets such an inhuman distance between the worker and the
   administrator that there is room for a thousand difficulties to
   intervene." [Herbert Read, Anarchy and Order, p. 49] Thus, for
   anarchists, the "enthusiasm generated by the revolution, the energies
   liberated, and the inventiveness stimulated by it must be given full
   freedom and scope to find creative channels." [Alexander Berkman, What
   is Anarchism?, p. 223] As such, the ideas within this section of our
   FAQ are merely suggestions, possibilities.

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, to use Kropotkin's expression, "well-being for all". Rather
   than toil to make the rich richer, people in a free society would work
   together to "ensure to society as a whole its life and further
   development." Such an economy would be based upon "giving society the
   greatest amount of useful products with the least waste of human
   energy", to meet "the needs of mankind". [The Conquest of Bread, p. 43,
   p. 144 and p. 175] Needless to say, today we must also add: with the
   least disruption of nature.

   In terms of needs, it should be stressed that these are not limited to
   just material goods (important as they may be, particularly to those
   currently living in poverty). Needs also extend to having meaningful
   work which you control, pleasant and ecologically viable surroundings,
   the ability to express oneself freely within and outwith work, and a
   host of other things associated with the quality of life rather than
   merely survival. Anarchism seeks to transform economic activity rather
   than merely liberate it by self-management (important as that is).

   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 [sec!] is free
   to choose the mode of work, the conditions of work, and the freedom to
   work. One whom making a table, the building of a house, or the tilling
   of the soil is what the painting is to the artist and the discovery to
   the scientist -- the result of inspiration, of intense longing, and
   deep interest in work as a creative force." [Emma Goldman, Red Emma
   Speaks, p. 67 and p. 68]

   So the point of economic activity in an anarchist society is to produce
   as and when required and not, as under capitalism, to organise
   production for the sake of production in order to make profits for the
   few. Production, to use Kropotkin's words, is to become "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] This should not be taken to imply that anarchism seeks
   production for the sake of production in order to meet all the needs of
   all. Far from it, as such a regime would, to quote Malatesta, involve
   "employing all of one's strength in producing things, because taken
   literally, this would mean working until one is exhausted, which would
   mean that by maximising the satisfaction of human needs we destroy
   humanity." In other words, a free society would take into account the
   wants of the producers (and the planet we live on) when meeting the
   wants of consumers. Thus, there would be a balance sought. "What we
   would like," continued Malatesta, "is for everybody to live in the best
   possible way: so that everybody with a minimum amount of effort will
   obtain maximum satisfaction." [At the Caf, p. 61]

   So while the basic aim of economic activity in an anarchist society is,
   obviously, producing wealth -- i.e., satisfying individual needs --
   without enriching capitalists or other parasites in the process, it is
   far more than that. Yes, an anarchist society will aim to create
   society in which everyone will have a standard of living suitable for a
   fully human life. Yes, it will aim to eliminate poverty, inequality,
   individual want and social waste and squalor, but it aims for far more
   than that. It aims to create free individuals who express their
   individuality within and outwith "work." After all, what is the most
   important thing that comes out of a workplace? Pro-capitalists may say
   profits, others the finished commodity or good. In fact, the most
   important thing that comes out of a workplace is the worker. What
   happens to us in the workplace will have an impact on all aspects of
   our life and so cannot be ignored.

   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 anarchism
   recognises this and takes it into account in its vision of a free
   society. This means that, in an anarchist society, economic activity is
   the process by which we produce what is useful but, in addition, is
   also beautiful (to use Oscar Wilde's words) in a way that empowers the
   individual. We anarchists charge capitalism with wasting human energy
   and time due to its irrational nature and workings, energy that could
   be spent creating what is beautiful (both in terms of individualities
   and products of labour). Under capitalism we are "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 [4]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 genuine socialists, support social equality in order to maximise
   freedom, including the freedom to choose between options to satisfy
   ones needs. To treat people equally, as equals, means to respect their
   desires and interests, to acknowledge their right to equal liberty. To
   make people consume the same as everyone else does not respect the
   equality of all to develop ones abilities as one sees fit. Socialism
   means equality of opportunity to satisfy desires and interests, not the
   imposition of an abstract minimum (or maximum) on unique individuals.
   To treat unique individuals equally means to acknowledge that
   uniqueness, not to deny it.

   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 ideals. Such a scheme is alien to a free society. The
   equality anarchists desire is a social equality, based on control over
   the decisions that affect you. The aim of anarchist economic activity,
   therefore, is to provide the goods required for "equal freedom for all,
   an equality of conditions such as to allow everyone to do as they
   wish." [Errico Malatesta, Errico Malatesta: His 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
   (while creating what is beautiful). So instead of aiming just to
   produce because the economy will collapse if we did not, anarchists
   want to ensure that we produce what is useful in a manner which
   liberates the individual and empowers them in all aspects of their
   lives.

   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." 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." [The Political Economy of Participatory
   Economics, p. 9]

   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 the words of William Morris, 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
   as we know it today 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. So a workplace environment with power
   structures undermines these abilities. This was recognised by Adam
   Smith who argued that 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." [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. Different types of authority
   structures and different technologies have different effects on those
   who work within them. Carole Pateman notes that the evidence suggests
   that "[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." [Participation and Democratic Theory,
   p. 51] She quotes one expert who argues that within capitalist
   companies based upon a highly rationalised work environment and
   extensive division of labour, the worker has no control over the pace
   or technique of his work, no room to exercise skill or leadership and
   so they "have practically no opportunity to solve problems and
   contribute their own ideas." The worker, 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." [quoted by
   Pateman, Op. Cit., p. 51 and p. 52]

   The evidence Pateman summarises shows that an individual's "attitudes
   will depend to a large degree on the authority structure of his [or
   her] work environment", with workplaces which are more autocratic and
   with a higher division of labour being worse for an individual's sense
   of self-esteem, feelings of self-worth and autonomy. In workplaces
   where "the worker has a high degree of personal control over his [or
   her] work . . . and a very large degree of freedom from external
   control" or is based on the "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" a different social character is seen. [Pateman, Op.
   Cit., pp. 52-3] 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." Thus 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." [R.
   Blauner, quoted by Pateman, Op. Cit., p. 52]

   Thus, to quote Bob Black (who notes that Smith's comments against the
   division of labour are his "critique of work"), the capitalist
   workplace turns us into "stultified submissives" and places us "under
   the sort of surveillance that ensures servility." For this reason
   anarchists desire, to use Bob Black's phrase, "the abolition of work."
   [The Abolition of Work and other essays, p. 26, p. 22 and p. 19]

   Work, in this context, does not mean any form of productive activity.
   Far from it. Work (in the sense of doing necessary things or productive
   activity) will always be with us. There is no getting away from it;
   crops need to be grown, schools built, homes fixed, and so on. No, work
   in this context means any form of labour in which the worker does not
   control his or her own activity. In other words, wage labour in all its
   many forms.

   A society based upon hierarchical relations in production will result
   in a society within which the typical worker uses few of their
   abilities, exercise little or no control over their work because they
   are governed by a boss during working hours. This has been proved to
   lower the individual's self-esteem and feelings of self-worth, as would
   be expected in any social relationship that denied self-government.
   Capitalism is marked by an extreme division of labour, particularly
   between mental and physical labour. It reduces the worker to a mere
   machine operator, following the orders of his or her boss. Therefore, a
   libertarian that does not support economic liberty (i.e.
   self-management) is no libertarian at all.

   Capitalism bases its rationale for itself on consumption and this
   results in a viewpoint which minimises the importance of the time we
   spend in productive activity. Anarchists consider that it is essential
   for individual's to use and develop their unique attributes and
   capacities in all walks of life, to maximise their powers. Therefore,
   the idea that "work" should be ignored in favour of consumption is
   totally mad. Productive activity is an important way of developing our
   inner-powers and express ourselves; in other words, be creative.
   Capitalism's emphasis on consumption shows the poverty of that system.
   As Alexander Berkman argued:

     "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." [What is
     Anarchism?, pp. 152-3]

   Therefore, capitalism is based on a constant process of alienated
   consumption, as workers try to find the happiness associated within
   productive, creative, self-managed activity in a place it does not
   exist -- on the shop shelves. This can partly explain the rise of both
   mindless consumerism and the continuation of religions, as individuals
   try to find meaning for their lives and happiness, a meaning and
   happiness frustrated in wage labour and other hierarchies.

   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] Any system based on hierarchical relationships in work will
   result in a deadening of the individual and in a willingness to defer
   to economic masters. Which is why Anarchists desire to change this and
   create a society based upon freedom in all aspects of life. Hence
   anarchists desire to abolish work, simply because it restricts the
   liberty and distorts the individuality of those who have to do it. To
   quote Emma Goldman:

     "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. 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." The aim is "to abolish work and
   replace it, insofar as it serves useful purposes, with a multitude of
   new kinds of free activities. To abolish work requires going at it from
   two directions, quantitative and qualitative." In terms of the first,
   "we need to cut down massively the amount of working being done"
   (luckily, "most work is useless or worse and we should simply get rid
   of it"). For the second, "we have to take what useful work remains and
   transform it into a pleasing variety of game-like and craft-like
   pastimes, indistinguishable from other pleasurable pastimes, except
   that the happen to yield useful end-products." [Bob Black, Op. Cit., p.
   17 and p. 28]

   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: "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." [Political and Social
   Writings, vol. 2, p. 107]

   This is why anarchists desire to abolish "work" (i.e., productive
   activity not under control of the people doing it), to ensure that
   whatever productive economic activity is required to be done is managed
   by those who do it. In this way it can be liberated, transformed, and
   so become a means of self-realisation and not a form of self-negation.
   In other words, anarchists want to abolish work because "[l]ife, the
   art of living, has become a dull formula, flat and inert." [Berkman,
   Op. Cit., p. 166] Anarchists want to bring the spontaneity and joy of
   life back into productive activity and save humanity from the dead hand
   of capital. Anarchists consider economic activity as an expression of
   the human spirit, an expression of the innate human need to express
   ourselves and to create. Capitalism distorts these needs and makes
   economic activity a deadening experience by the division of labour and
   hierarchy. We think that "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. 2]

   One last point on the abolition of work. May 1st -- International
   Workers' Day -- was, as we discussed in [5]section A.5.2, 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.

   The collection of articles in Why Work? Arguments for the Leisure
   Society (edited by Vernon Richards) is a useful starting place for
   libertarian socialist perspectives on work.

I.4.3 How do anarchists intend to abolish work?

   Basically by workers' self-management of production and common
   ownership of the means of production. It is hardly in the interests of
   those who do the actual "work" to have bad working conditions, boring,
   repetitive labour, and so on. Therefore, a key aspect of the liberation
   from work is to create a self-managed society, "a society in which
   everyone has equal means to develop and that all are or can be at the
   same time intellectual and manual workers, and the only differences
   remaining between men [and women] are those which stem from the natural
   diversity of aptitudes, and that all jobs, all functions, give an equal
   right to the enjoyment of social possibilities." [Errico Malatesta,
   Anarchy, p. 42]

   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
   economist Juliet B. Schor points out, productivity "measures the goods
   and services that result from each hour worked. When productivity
   rises, a worker can either produce the current output in less time, or
   remain at work the same number of hours and produce more." With rising
   productivity, we are presented with the possibility of more free time.
   For example, since 1948 the level of productivity of the American
   worker "has more than doubled. In other words, we could now produce our
   1948 standard of living . . . . in less than half the time it took that
   year. We could actually have chosen the four-hour day. Or a working
   year of six months." [The Overworked American, p. 2]

   And, remember, these figures include production in many areas of the
   economy that would not exist in a free society -- state and capitalist
   bureaucracy, weapons production for the military, property defence, the
   finance sector, and so on. As Alexander Berkman argued, millions are
   "engaged in trade, . . . advertisers, and various other middlemen of
   the present system" along with the armed forces and "the great numbers
   employed in unnecessary and harmful occupations, such as building
   warships, the manufacture of ammunition and other military equipment"
   would be "released for useful work by a revolution." [What is
   Anarchism, pp. 224-5] So the working week will be reduced simply
   because more people will be available for doing essential work.
   Moreover, goods will be built to last and so much production will
   become sensible and not governed by an insane desire to maximise
   profits at the expense of everything else. In addition, this is not
   taking into account the impact of a more just distribution of
   consumption in terms of living standards and production, meaning that a
   standard of living produced by working half the time would be far
   higher than that implied by Schor's 1948 baseline (not to mention the
   advances in technology since then either!). In short, do not take the
   1948 date as implying a literal return to that period!

   Moreover, a lower working week would see productivity rising. "Thus,"
   as one economist summarises, "when the hours of labour were reduced,
   the better-rested workers were often able to produce as much or more in
   the shorter hours than they had previously in longer hours." Yet
   "competition between employers would make it unlikely that a working
   day of optimal length would be established" under capitalism. In
   addition, "more disposable time might better contribute to people's
   well-being -- that is, to things such as trust, health, learning,
   family life, self-reliance and citizenship". While this may reduce such
   conventional economic measures as GDP, the fact is that such measures
   are flawed. After all, "an increase in GDP could represent a diminution
   of free time accompanied by an increased output of goods and services
   whose sole utility was either facilitating labour-market participation
   or repairing some of the social damage that resulted from the stress of
   overwork or neglect of non-market activity." [Tom Walker, "Why
   Economists dislike a Lump of Labor", pp. 279-91, Review of Social
   Economy, vol. 65, No. 3, p. 286, pp. 287-8 and p. 288]

   All this suggests the level of production for useful goods with a
   four-hour working day would be much higher than the 1948 level or, of
   course, the working day could be made even shorter. As such, we can
   easily combine a decent standard of living with a significant reduction
   of the necessary working time required to produce it. Once we realise
   that much work under capitalism exists to manage aspects of the profit
   system or are produced as a result of that system and the damage it
   does, we can see how a self-managed society can give us more time for
   ourselves in addition to producing useful goods (rather than working
   long and hard to produce surplus value for the few).

   However, anarchists do not see it as simply a case of reducing the
   hours of work will keeping the remaining work as it. That would be
   silly. We aim to transform what useful productive activity is left.
   When self-management becomes universal we will see the end of division
   of labour as mental and physical work becomes unified and those who do
   the work also manage it. This will allow "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. 88]

   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 [6]section
   I.4.15). 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."
   [Kropotkin, Op. Cit., 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". In short, the transformation of production
   (creating "what seems needful"") into "productive play". [Bob Black,
   "Smokestack Lightning", Friendly Fire, p. 48 and p. 49]

   Workers' self-management of production (see [7]section I.3.2) would be
   the means of achieving this. Only those subject to a specific mode of
   working can be in a position to transform it and their workplace into
   something fit for free individuals to create in. Only those who know a
   workplace which would only exist in a hierarchical system like
   capitalism can be in a position to decommission it safely and quickly.
   The very basis of free association will ensure the abolition of work,
   as individuals will apply for "work" they enjoy doing and so would be
   interested in reducing "work" they did not want to do to a minimum.
   Therefore, an anarchist society would abolish work by ensuring that
   those who do it actually control it. "Personal initiative will be
   encouraged and every tendency to uniformity and centralisation
   combated." [Kropotkin, quoted by Martin Buber, Paths in Utopia, p. 42]

   All this does not imply that anarchists think that individuals will not
   seek to "specialise" in one form of productive activity rather than
   another. Far from it, people in a free society will pick activities
   which interest them as the main focal point of their means of
   self-expression (after all, not everyone enjoys the same games and
   pastimes so why expect the same of productive play?). "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 others
   again in some of the numberless branches of the production of wealth."
   This "division of work" is commonplace in humanity this natural desire
   to do what interests you and what you are good at will be encouraged in
   an anarchist society. As Kropotkin argued, anarchists "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." Anarchists are, needless to
   say, aware that training and study are required to qualify you to so
   some tasks and a free society would ensure that individuals would
   achieve the necessary recognised levels before undertaking them (by
   means of, say, professional bodies who organise a certification
   process). Kropotkin was aware, however, that both individuals and
   society would benefit from a diversity of activities and a strong
   general knowledge: "But whatever the occupations preferred by everyone,
   everyone will be the more useful in his [or her] branch if he [or she]
   is in possession of a serious scientific knowledge. And, whosoever he
   might be . . . he would be the gainer if he spent a part of his life in
   the workshop or the farm (the workshop 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:

     "[We must] recognise the distinction which Hatta made between the
     'division of labour' . . . and the 'division of work' . . . while
     Hatta believed that the division of labour . . . was the cause of
     class divisions and exploitation, he did not see anything sinister
     in the division of work . . . On the contrary, Hatta believed that
     the division of work was a benign and unavoidable feature of any
     productive process: 'it goes without saying that within society,
     whatever the kind of production, there has to be a division of
     work.' . . . [For] the dangers [of division of labour] to which
     Hatta [like other anarchists like Proudhon and Kropotkin] drew
     attention did not arise from a situation where, at any one time,
     different people were engaged in different productive activities . .
     . What did spell danger, however, was when, either individually or
     collectively, people permanently divided along occupational lines .
     . . and gave rise to the disastrous consequences . . . . [of] the
     degrading of labour to a mechanical function; the lack of
     responsibility for, understanding of, or interest in other branches
     of production; and the need for a superior administrative organ to
     co-ordinate the various branches of production." [Hatta Shuzo and
     Pure Anarchism in Interwar Japan, pp. 146-7]

   As Kropotkin 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." [Op.
     Cit., 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 [8]section J.5.12, while experiments in
   workers' participation see a rise in efficiency and productivity,
   managers stop them simply because they recognise that workers' control
   undercuts their power by empowering workers who then can fight for a
   greater slice of the value they produce (not to mention come to the
   conclusion that while the boss needs them to work, they don't need to
   boss to manage them!). So the lack of integrated labour under
   capitalism simply means that it does not empower management nor secure
   their profits and power, not that it is less efficient.

   Thirdly, the attempts by managers and bosses to introduce "flexibility"
   by eliminating unions suggests that integration is more efficient.
   After all, one of the major complains directed towards union contracts
   are that they explicitly documented what workers could and could not do
   (for example, union members would refuse to do work which was outside
   their agreed job descriptions). This is usually classed as an example
   of the evil of regulations. However, if we look at it from the
   viewpoint of contract and division of labour, it exposes the
   inefficiency and inflexibility of both as a means of co-operation.
   After all, what is this refusal actually mean? It means that the worker
   refuses to do work that is not specified in his or her contract! Their
   job description indicates what they have been contracted to do and
   anything else has not been agreed upon in advance. The contract
   specifies a clear, specified and agreed division of labour in a
   workplace between worker and boss.

   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 under capitalism is a similar
   unquestioning nature for labour). The union job description indicates
   that production needs the integration of labour while demanding a
   division of work. As Cornelius Castoriadis argued:

     "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
     Economic Writings, vol. 2, p. 117]

   By replacing the division of labour with the division of work, a free
   society will ensure that productive activity can be transformed into an
   enjoyable task (or series of tasks). By integrating labour, all the
   capacities of the producer can be expressed so eliminating a major
   source of alienation and unhappiness in society. "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." [Op. Cit., pp. 17-8] 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."
   [Castoriadis, Op. Cit., p. 117]

   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." However, as
   things are produced by people, it could be suggested that this 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." [Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 72, p. 62 and p. 60]

   In other words, those who produce also administer and so govern
   themselves in free association (and it should be pointed out that any
   group of individuals in association will make "plans" and "plan", the
   important question is who does the planning and who does the work. Only
   in anarchy are both functions united into the same people). The
   "planned administration of things" would be done by the producers
   themselves, in their independent groupings. This would likely take the
   form (as we indicated in [9]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]).

   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. As
   Kropotkin argued, an communist anarchist society would be based upon
   the such a minimum-hour "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 could be the means by which work hours would be
   recorded and access to the common wealth of society ensured. And, of
   course, individuals and groups are free to work alone and exchange the
   produce of their labour with others, including the confederated
   syndicates, if they so desired. An anarchist society will be as
   flexible as possible.

   Therefore, we can imagine a social anarchist society being based on two
   basic arrangements -- firstly, an agreed minimum working week of, say,
   16 hours, in a syndicate of your choice, plus any amount of hours doing
   "work" which you feel like doing -- for example, art, scientific
   experimentation, DIY, playing music, composing, gardening and so on.
   How that minimum working week was actually organised would vary between
   workplace and commune, with work times, flexi-time, job rotation and so
   on determined by each syndicate (for example, one syndicate may work 8
   hours a day for 2 days, another 4 hours a day for 4 days, one may use
   flexi-time, another more rigid starting and stopping times). Needless
   to say, in response to consumption patterns, syndicates will have to
   expand or reduce production and will have to attract volunteers to do
   the necessary work as would syndicates whose work was considered
   dangerous or unwanted. In such circumstances, volunteers could arrange
   doing a few hours of such activity for more free time or it could be
   agreed that one hour of such unwanted positions equals more hours in a
   more desired one (see [10]section I.4.13 for more on this). Needless to
   say, the aim of technological progress would be to eliminate unpleasant
   and unwanted tasks and to reduce the basic working week more and more
   until the very concept of necessary "work" and free time enjoyments is
   abolished. Anarchists are convinced that the decentralisation of power
   within a free society would unleash a wealth of innovation and ensure
   that unpleasant tasks are minimised and fairly shared while required
   productive activity is made as pleasant and enjoyable as possible.

   It could be said that this sort of agreement is a restriction of
   liberty because it is "man-made" (as opposed to the "natural law" of
   "supply and demand"). This is a common defence of the non-capitalist
   market by individualist anarchists against anarcho-communism, for
   example. However, while in theory individualist-anarchists can claim
   that in their vision of society, they don't care when, where, or how a
   person earns a living, as long as they are not invasive about it the
   fact is that any economy is based on interactions between individuals.
   The law of "supply and demand" easily, and often, makes a mockery of
   the ideas that individuals can work as long as they like - usually they
   end up working as long as required by market forces (i.e. the actions
   of other individuals, but turned into a force outwith their control,
   see [11]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. [Anarchism, p. 166] Free
   experimentation 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 fully immediately -- see
   [12]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 and so 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 (although, as
   Malatesta suggested, such non-communist anarchies would "seek a way to
   ensure that money truly represents the useful work performed by its
   possessors" rather than, as today, "the means for living on the labour
   of others" [Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 101 and p. 100]).
   Mutualism will be more market orientated than collectivism, with
   collectivism being based on confederations of collectives to respond to
   changes in demand (i.e. to determine investment decisions and ensure
   that supply is kept in line with demand). Mutualism, with its system of
   market based distribution around a network of co-operatives and mutual
   banks, does not really need a further discussion as its basic
   operations are the same as in any non-capitalist market system.
   Collectivism and communism will have to be discussed in more detail.
   However, all systems are based on workers' self-management and so the
   individuals directly affected make the decisions concerning what to
   produce, when to do it, and how to do it. In this way workers retain
   control of the product of their labour. It is the social context of
   these decisions and what criteria workers use to make their decisions
   that differ between anarchist schools of thought.

   Although collectivism promotes the greatest autonomy for worker
   associations, it should not be confused with a market economy as
   advocated by supporters of mutualism or Individualist anarchism. The
   goods produced by the collectivised factories and workshops are
   exchanged not according to highest price that can be wrung from
   consumers, but according to their actual production costs. The
   determination of these honest prices would be made by a "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 James Guillaume put it "the value of the commodities having been
   established in advance by a contractual agreement between the regional
   co-operative federations and the various communes, who will also
   furnish statistics to the Banks of Exchange. The Bank of Exchange will
   remit to the producers negotiable vouchers representing the value of
   their products; these vouchers will be accepted throughout the
   territory included in the federation of communes." 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 Stalinist-like 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." ["On Building the New Social Order", pp.
   356-79, Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 366 and p. 367] The workers syndicates
   would still determine what orders to produce and each commune would be
   free to choose its suppliers.

   As will be discussed in more depth later (see [13]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' . . . [I]n socialism a points scheme for attributing
     relative importance to the various relevant considerations could be
     used . . . The points attributed to these considerations would be
     subjective, in the sense that this would depend on a deliberate
     social decision rather than some objective standard, but this is the
     case even under capitalism when a monetary value has to be
     attributed to some such 'cost' or 'benefit' . . . In the sense that
     one of the aims of socialism is precisely to rescue humankind from
     the capitalist fixation with production time/money, cost-benefit
     analyses, as a means of taking into account other factors, could
     therefore be said to be more appropriate for use in socialism than
     under capitalism. Using points systems to attribute relative
     importance in this way . . . [is] simply to employ a technique to
     facilitate decision-making in particular concrete cases." [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 argued:

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

   Obviously, today, we would include ecological issues as well as human
   ones. Any decision making process which disregards the quality of work
   or the effect on the human and natural environment is a deranged one.
   However, this is how capitalism operates, with the market rewarding
   capitalists and managers who introduce de-humanising and ecologically
   harmful practices. Indeed, so biased against labour and the environment
   is capitalism that many economists and pro-capitalists argue that
   reducing "efficiency" by such social concerns (as expressed by the
   passing laws related to labour rights and environmental protection) is
   actually 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 want to consume is conditioned, in part, by the
   sort of person we are and that is influenced by the kind of work we do,
   the kinds of social relationships we have, whether we are happy with
   our work and life, and so on. If our work is alienating and of low
   quality, then so will our consumption decisions. If our work is subject
   to hierarchical control and servile in nature then we cannot expect our
   consumption decisions to be totally rational -- indeed they may become
   an attempt to find happiness via shopping, a self-defeating activity as
   consumption cannot solve a problem created in production. Thus rampant
   consumerism may be the result of capitalist "efficiency" and so the
   objection against socially aware production is question begging.

   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 [14]section I.4.5. 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
   [15]section I.4.13 for a discussion of how this could be done). 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. Another key factor in making sensible
   decisions would be the relative scarcity of a good. After all, it would
   make little sense when making a decision to use a good which is in
   short supply over one which is much more abundant. Thus, while the
   cost-benefit points system would show absolute costs (number of hours
   work required, energy use, pollution, etc.) this would be complemented
   by information about how scare a specific good is and the desirability
   of the work required to produce it.

   Therefore, a communist-anarchist society would be based around a
   network of syndicates who communicate information between each other.
   Instead of the price being communicated between workplaces as in
   capitalism, actual physical data will be sent (the cost). This data is
   a summary of these (negative) use values of the good (for example
   resources, labour time and energy used to produce it, pollution
   details) as well as relative scarcity. With this information a
   cost-benefit analysis will be conducted to determine which good will be
   best to use in a given situation based upon mutually agreed common
   values. These will be used to inform the decision on which goods to
   use, with how well goods meet the requirements of production (the
   positive use-value) being compared to their impact in terms of labour,
   resource use, pollution and so forth (the negative use-values) along
   with their relative availability.

   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 [16]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 states they "need" a
   ship-builders syndicate to build a ship for their personal use, the
   ship-builders may not "need" to build it and instead build ships for
   communal use, freely available for all to use in turn -- see
   [17]section I.4.6). 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 (see [18]section I.1.2) and workplaces
   hierarchies within capitalism (see [19]section I.1.1).

   Moreover, production units, by their association within confederations
   ensure that there is effective communication between them. This results
   in a process of negotiated co-ordination between equals (i.e.
   horizontal links and agreements) for major investment decisions, thus
   bringing together supply and demand and allowing the plans of the
   various units to be co-ordinated. By this process of co-operation,
   production units can reduce duplicating effort and so reduce the waste
   associated with over-investment (and so the irrationalities of booms
   and slumps associated with the price mechanism, which does not provide
   sufficient information to allow workplaces to efficiently co-ordinate
   their plans).

   When evaluating production methods we need to take into account as many
   social and ecological costs as possible and these have to be evaluated.
   Which costs will be taken into account, of course, be decided by those
   involved, as will how important they are relative to each other (i.e.
   how they are weighted). What factors to take into account and how to
   weigh them in the decision making process will be evaluated and
   reviewed regularly so to ensure that it reflects real costs and social
   concerns. As communist-anarchists consider it important to encourage
   all to participate in the decisions that affect their lives, it would
   be the role of communal confederations to determine the relative points
   value of given inputs and outputs. In this way, 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 consumption
   and production can be harmonised with the needs of individuals as
   members of society and the environment they live in. The industrial
   confederations would seek to ensure that this information is recorded
   and communicated and (perhaps) formulating industry-wide averages to
   aid decision-making by allowing syndicates and communes to compare
   specific goods points to the typical value.

   So which factors are to be used to inform decision-making would be
   agreed and the information communicated between workplaces and communes
   so that consumers of goods can evaluate their costs in terms of
   ecological impact, use of resources and human labour. Any agreed values
   for the Cost-Benefit analysis for inputs can be incorporated in the
   information associated with the outputs. As such, a communist society
   would seek to base decisions on more than one criteria, whether it is
   profits or (say) labour. The reasons for this should be obvious, as one
   criteria rarely allows sensible decisions. Of course, to some degree
   people already do this under capitalism but market forces and
   inequality limit this ability (people will tend to buy cheaper products
   if they need to make ends meet) while both the price mechanism and the
   self-interest of companies ensure information about costs are hidden
   (for example, few companies publically acknowledge their externalities
   and most spend vast sums on advertising to greenwash their products).

   In order to process the information on costs communicated in a
   libertarian communist economy accounting tools can be created (such as
   a spreadsheet or computer programme). These could take the decided
   factors as inputs and returns a cost benefit analysis of the choices
   available. So while these algorithmic procedures and guidelines can,
   and indeed should be, able to be calculated by hand, it is likely that
   computers will be extensively used to take input data and process it
   into a suitable format. Indeed, many capitalist companies have software
   which records raw material inputs and finished product into databases
   and spreadsheets. Such software could be the basis of a libertarian
   communist decision making algorithm. Of course, currently such data is
   submerged beneath money and does not take into account externalities
   and the nature of the work involved (as would be the case in an
   anarchist society). However, this does not limit their potential or
   deny that communist use of such software can be used to inform
   decisions.

   Therefore, the claim that communism cannot evaluate different
   production methods due to lack of prices is inaccurate. Indeed, a look
   at the actual capitalist market -- marked as it is by differences in
   bargaining and market power, externalities and wage labour -- soon
   shows that the claims that prices accurately reflect costs is simply
   not accurate. However, it may be such that objective circumstances
   preclude the immediate introduction of libertarian communism (as
   discussed in [20]section I.2.2, many communist anarchists consider this
   likely). As such, there could be a transitional period in which
   elements of mutualism, collectivism and communism co-exist within a
   specific economy. It can easily be seen how a mutualist economy (the
   usual initial product of a social revolution) could evolve into a
   collectivist and then communist one. The market generated prices could
   initially be complemented by the non-market information decided upon
   (for objective costs and the scarcity index) and, overtime, replaced by
   this data as the main decision making criteria by syndicates and
   communes.

   One final point on this subject. What methods are used, which criteria
   picked, which information is communicated and how it is processed, will
   be the decision of a free people. This section was merely a suggestion
   of one possibility of how a libertarian communist economy could make
   informed decisions about production. It is not meant as a blue-print
   nor is it set-in-stone.

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 it is
   desired to be consumed or used. Neither do we deny that different
   individuals have different interests and tastes. However, this is not
   what is usually meant by "supply and demand." Often in general economic
   debate, this formula is given a certain mythical quality which ignores
   its underlying realities as well as some unwholesome implications of
   the theory (for example, as discussed in [21]section C.1.5 the market
   can very efficiently create famines by exporting food to areas where
   there is demand for it). At the very least, the "the law of supply and
   demand" is not the "most efficient" means of distribution in an unequal
   society as decisions are skewed in favour of the rich.

   As far as "supply and demand" in terms of allocating scare resources is
   concerned, anarchists are well aware of the need to create and
   distribute necessary goods to those who require them. The question is,
   in an anarchist society, how do you know that valuable labour and
   materials are not being wasted? How do people judge which tools are
   most appropriate? How do they decide among different materials if they
   all meet the technical specifications? How important are some goods
   than others? How important is cellophane compared to vacuum-cleaner
   bags and so which one should be produced?

   It is answers like this that the supporters of the market claim that
   their system answers. For individualist and mutualist anarchists, their
   non-capitalist market would indicate such information by differences
   between market price and cost price and individuals and co-operatives
   would react accordingly. For communist and collectivist anarchists, who
   reject even non-capitalist markets, the answer is less simple. As
   discussed in [22]section I.1.3, these anarchists argue that although
   the market does answer such questions it does so in irrational and
   dehumanising ways (while this is particularly the case under
   capitalism, it cannot be assumed this will disappear in a
   post-capitalist market). The question is: can collectivist and
   communist anarchism answer such questions? Yes, they reply.

   So collectivist and communist anarchists reject the market. This
   rejection often implies, to some, central planning. As the market
   socialist David Schweickart puts it, "[i]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 -- 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.

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

     "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 [23]last section
   where a method of comparison between different materials, techniques
   and resources based upon use value was discussed. In addition, the need
   to indicate the current fluctuations in stocks, production and
   consumption has also to be factored in when making decisions.

   To indicate the relative changes in scarcity of a given good it will be
   necessary to calculate what could be termed its "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 good to the amount actually produced. For example, a good
   which has a demand higher than its supply would have an index value of
   101% or higher. This value would inform potential users to start
   looking for substitutes for it or to economise on its use. Such a
   scarcity figure would exist for each syndicate as well as (possibly) a
   generalised figure for the industry as a whole on a regional,
   "national", etc. level.

   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 handle unexpected changes in the aggregate demand for a good. Such a
   buffer system would work on an individual workplace level and at a
   communal level. Syndicates would obviously have their inventories,
   stores of raw materials and finished goods "on the shelf" which can be
   used to meet unexpected increases in demand. Communal stores, hospitals
   and so on would have their stores of supplies in case of unexpected
   disruptions in supply.

   This is a common practice even in capitalism, with differences between
   actual demand and expected demand being absorbed by unintended stock
   changes. Firms today also have spare capacity in order to meet such
   upsurges in demand. Such policies of maintaining stocks and spare
   capacity will continue to the case under anarchism. It is assumed that
   syndicates and their confederations will wish to adjust capacity if
   they are aware of the need to do so. Hence, price changes in response
   to changes in demand would not be necessary to provide the information
   that such adjustments are required. This is because a "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]

   So syndicates, communes and their confederations will create buffer
   stocks of goods to handle unforeseen changes in demand and supply. This
   sort of inventory has also been used by capitalist countries like the
   USA to prevent changes in market conditions for agricultural products
   and other strategic raw materials producing wild spot-price movements
   and inflation. Post-Keynesian economist Paul Davidson argued that the
   stability of commodity prices this produced "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 negative 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 (as discussed in [24]section I.1.5 such disequilibrium prices
   convey misinformation which causes very substantial economic
   distortions).

   This, combined with cost-benefit analysis described in [25]section
   I.4.4, would allow information about changes within a moneyless economy
   to rapidly spread throughout the whole system and influence all
   decision makers without the great majority knowing anything about the
   original causes of these changes. This would allow a syndicate to
   ascertain which good used up least resources and therefore left the
   most over for other uses (i.e., relative costs or scarcity) as well as
   giving them information on what resources were used to create it (i.e.,
   the absolute costs involved) The relevant information is communicated
   to all involved, without having to be ordered by an "all-knowing"
   central body as in a Leninist centrally planned economy. As argued in
   [26]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 to organise production and if such a body
   attempted to do so, the resulting bureaucracy would effectively reduce
   and impoverish the amount of information available to decision makers
   and so cause shortages and inefficiencies.

   To get an idea how this system could work, let us take the example of a
   change in the copper industry. Let us assume that a source of copper
   unexpectedly fails or that the demand for copper increases. What would
   happen?

   First, the initial difference would be a diminishing of stocks of
   copper which each syndicate maintains to take into account unexpected
   changes in requests. This would help buffer out short lived, changes in
   supply or requests. Second, naturally, there is an increase in demand
   for copper for those syndicates which are producing it. This
   immediately increases the scarcity index of those firms and their
   product. For example, the index may rise from 95% (indicating a slight
   over-production in respect to current demand) to 115% (indicating that
   the demand for copper has risen in respect to the current level of
   production). This change in the scarcity index (combined with
   difficulties in finding copper producing syndicates which will accept
   their orders) enters into the decision making algorithms of other
   syndicates. This, in turn, results in changes in their plans. For
   example, the syndicates can seek out other suppliers who have a lower
   scarcity index or substitutes for copper may be used as they have
   become a more efficient resource to use.

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

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

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

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

   While anarchists are aware of the "isolation paradox" (see [27]section
   B.6) this does not mean that they think the commune should make
   decisions for people on what they were to consume. That would be a
   prison. No, all anarchists agree that is up to the individual to
   determine their own needs and for the collectives they join to
   determine social requirements like parks, infrastructure improvements
   and so on. However, social anarchists think that it would be beneficial
   to discuss the framework around which these decisions would be made.
   This would mean, for example, that communes would agree to produce
   eco-friendly products, reduce waste and generally make decisions
   enriched by social interaction. Individuals would still decide which
   sort goods they desire, based on what the collectives produce but these
   goods would be based on a socially agreed agenda. In this way waste,
   pollution and other "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 syndicates would
   produce slightly different goods, so ensuring that people have a
   choice. It is doubtful that the current waste implied in multiple
   products from different companies (sometimes the same multi-national
   corporation!) all doing the same job would be continued in an anarchist
   society. However, production will be "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 people
   would be able to influence the decisions of the syndicates as producers
   (in some cases) and through syndicate/commune dialogue.

   Finally, it would be churlish, but essential, to note that capitalism
   only equates supply and demand in the fantasy world of neo-classical
   economics. Any real capitalist economy, as we discussed in [28]section
   I.1.5 is marked by uncertainty and a tendency to over-produce in the
   response to the higher profits caused by previously under-producing
   goods, with resulting periods of crisis in which falling effective
   demand sees a corresponding fall in supply. Not to the mention the
   awkward fact that real needs (demand) are not met simply because people
   are too poor to pay for the goods (i.e., no effective demand). As such,
   to suggest that only non-market systems have a problem ensuring demand
   and supply meet is mistaken.

   To conclude, 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 investment response to
   changes in supply and demand will be discussed in [29]section I.4.8
   while [30]section I.4.13 will discuss the allocation of work tasks.

I.4.6 Surely anarchist-communism would just lead to demand exceeding supply?

   While non-communist forms of anarchism relate consumption to work done,
   so automatically relating demand to production, this is not the case in
   communist-anarchism. In that system, distribution is according to need,
   not deed. Given this, it is a common objection that libertarian
   communism would lead to people wasting resources by taking more than
   they need.

   Kropotkin, for example, 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 it. As
   Tom Brown put 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." This must be
   considered as a whole as those producing have needs and those receiving
   have abilities. The needs of both consumer and producer have to be
   taken into account, and this suggests that those producing have to feel
   the need to do so. This means that if no syndicate or individual
   desires to produce a specific order then this order can be classed as
   an "unreasonable" demand -- "unreasonable" in this context meaning that
   no one freely agrees to produce it. Of course, individuals may agree to
   barter services in order to get what they want produced if they really
   want something but such acts in no way undermines a communist society.

   This also applies to the demand for goods which are scare and, as a
   result, require substantial labour and resources to produce. In such
   circumstances, the producers (either as a specific syndicate or in
   their confederations) would refuse to supply such a "need" or communes
   and their confederations would suggest that this would be waste of
   resources. Ultimately, a free society would seek to avoid the
   irrationalities of capitalism where the drive for profits results in
   production for the sake of production and consumption for the sake of
   consumption and the many work longer and harder to meet the demands of
   a (wealthy) few. A free people would evaluate the pros and cons of any
   activity before doing it. As Malatesta put it:

     "[A] communist society . . . is not, obviously, about an absolute
     right to satisfy all of one's needs, because needs are infinite . .
     . so their satisfaction is always limited by productive capacity;
     nor would it be useful or just that the community in order to
     satisfy excessive needs, otherwise called caprices, of a few
     individuals, should undertake work, out of proportion to the utility
     being produced . . . What we would like is for everybody to live in
     the best possible way: so that everybody with a minimum amount of
     effort will obtain maximum satisfaction." [At the Caf, pp. 60-1]

   Communist-anarchists recognise that production, like consumption, must
   be based on freedom. However, it has been argued that free access would
   lead to waste as people take more than they would if they had to pay
   for it. This objection is not as serious as it first appears. There are
   plenty of examples within current society to indicate that free access
   will not lead to abuses. Let us take a few examples. In public
   libraries people are free to sit and read books all day but few, if
   any, actually do so. Neither do people always take the maximum number
   of books out at a time. No, they use the library as they need to and
   feel no need to maximise their use of the institution. Some people
   never use the library, although it is free. In the case of water
   supplies, it is clear that people do not leave taps on all day because
   water is often supplied freely or for a fixed charge. Similarly with
   pavements, people do not walk everywhere because to do so is free. In
   such cases individuals use the resource as and when they need to.
   Equally, vegetarians do not start eating meat when they visit their
   friend's parties just because the buffet is free.

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

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

   Communist Anarchists also argue that we cannot judge people's buying
   habits under capitalism with their actions in a free society. After
   all, advertising does not exist to meet people's needs but rather to
   create needs by making people insecure about themselves. Simply put,
   advertising does not amplify existing needs or sell the goods and
   services that people already want. Advertising would not need to stoop
   to the level of manipulative adverts that create false personalities
   for products and provide solutions for problems that the advertisers
   themselves create if this were the case. Crude it may be, but
   advertising is based on the creation of insecurities, preying on fears
   and obscuring rational thought. In an alienated society in which people
   are subject to hierarchical controls, feelings of insecurity and lack
   of control and influence would be natural. It is these fears that
   advertising multiples -- if you cannot have real freedom, then at least
   you can buy something new. Advertising is the key means of making
   people unhappy with what they have and who they are. It is naive to
   claim that advertising has no effect on the psyche of the receiver or
   that the market merely responds to the populace and makes no attempt to
   shape their thoughts. If advertising did not work, firms would not
   spend so much money on it! Advertising creates insecurities about such
   matter-of-course things and so generates irrational urges to buy which
   would not exist in a libertarian communist society.

   However, there is a deeper point to be made here about consumerism.
   Capitalism is based on hierarchy, not liberty. This leads to a
   weakening of individuality as well as a lose of self-identity and sense
   of community. Both these senses are a deep human need and consumerism
   is often a means by which people overcome their alienation from their
   selves and others (religion, ideology and drugs are other means of
   escape). Therefore the consumption within capitalism reflects its
   values, not some abstract "human nature." As such, because a firm or
   industry is making a profit satisfying "needs" within capitalism, it
   does not follow that people in a free society would have similar wants
   (i.e., "demand" often does not exist independently of the surrounding
   society). As Bob Black argues:

     "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." [Friendly
     Fire", p. 57]

   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, self-managed productive activity,
   and so on). Consumerism is a means of filling the spiritual hole
   capitalism creates within us by denying our freedom and violating
   equality. This means that capitalism produces individuals who define
   themselves by what they have, not who they are. This leads to
   consumption for the sake of consumption, as people try to make
   themselves happy by consuming more commodities. But, as Erich Fromm
   pointed out, this cannot work for long and only leads to even more
   insecurity (and so even more consumption):

     "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 put 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.

   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.

   It should not be forgotten that communism has two conditions,
   distribution according to need and production according to ability. If
   the latter condition is not met, if someone does not contribute to the
   goods available in the libertarian communist society, then the former
   condition is not likely to be tolerated and they would be asked to
   leave so reducing demand for goods. The freedom to associate means
   being free not to associate. Thus a free communist society would see
   goods being supplied as well as demanded. As Malatesta argued:

     "Basic to the anarchist system, before communism or any other forms
     of social conviviality is the principle of the free compact; the
     rule of integral communism -- 'from each according to his [or her]
     ability, to each according to his [or her] need' -- applies only to
     those who accept it, including naturally the conditions which make
     it practicable." [quoted by Camillo Berneri, "The Problem of Work",
     pp. 59-82, Why Work?, Vernon Richards (ed.), p. 74]

   So, as Malatesta suggested, it should be noted that
   communist-anarchists are well aware that it is likely that free access
   to all goods and services cannot be done immediately (see [31]section
   H.2.5 for details). As Alexander Berkman summarised, "when the social
   revolution attains the stage where it can produce sufficient for all,
   then is adopted the Anarchist principle of 'to each according to his
   [or her] needs' . . . But until it is reached, the system of equal
   sharing . . . is imperative as the only just method. It goes without
   saying, of course, that special consideration must be given to the sick
   and the old, to children, and to women during and after pregnancy."
   [What is Anarchism?, p. 216] Another possibility was suggested by James
   Guillaume who argued that as long as a product was "in short supply it
   will to a certain extent have to be rationed. And the easiest way to do
   this would be to sell these scare products" but as production grows
   then "it will not be necessary to ration consumption. The practice of
   selling, which was adopted as a sort of deterrent to immoderate
   consumption, will be abolished" and goods "will be distribute[d] . . .
   in accordance with the needs of the consumers." ["On Building the New
   Social Order", pp. 356-79, Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 368] Other
   possibilities may include communes deciding that certain scare goods
   are only available to those who do the unpleasant work (such as
   collecting the rubbish) or that people have equal access but the actual
   goods are shared and used for short periods of time (as is currently
   the case with public libraries). As Situationist Ken Knabb suggests
   after usefully discussing "just some of the possibilities":
   "Experimenting with different methods, people will find out for
   themselves what forms of ownership, exchange and reckoning are
   necessary." [Public Secrets, p. 73]

   Whether or not full communism can be introduced instantly is a moot
   point amongst collectivist and communist anarchists, although most
   would like to see society develop towards a communist goal eventually.
   Of course, for people used to capitalism this may sound totally
   utopian. Possibly it is. However, as Oscar Wilde said, a map of the
   world without Utopia on it is not worth having. One thing is sure, if
   the developments we have outlined above fail to appear and attempts at
   communism fail due to waste and demand exceeding supply then a free
   society would make the necessary decisions and introduce some means of
   limiting supply (such as, for example, labour notes, equal wages, and
   so on). Rest assured, though, "the difficulty will be solved and
   obstacles in the shape of making necessary changes in the detailed
   working of the system of production and its relation to consumption,
   will vanish before the ingenuity of the myriad minds vitally concerned
   in overcoming them." [Charlotte M. Wilson, Anarchist Essays, p. 21]

I.4.7 What will stop producers ignoring consumers?

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

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

   In an Individualist or Mutualist anarchist system, as it is based on a
   market, producers would be subject to market forces and so have to meet
   consumers needs. Collectivist-anarchism meets consumer needs in a
   similar way, as producers would be accountable to consumers by the
   process of buying and selling between co-operatives. As James Guillaume
   put it, the workers associations would "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"). ["On Building the New Social Order", pp. 356-79, 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 (or directly to other syndicates or communes) and
   so they would adjust their output accordingly. Of course, there are
   problems with these systems due to their basis in the market (as
   discussed in [32]section I.1.3), although these problems were
   recognised by Proudhon who argued for an agro-industrial federation to
   protect self-management from the negative effects of market forces (as
   noted in [33]section I.3.5).

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

   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 associate 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 media. Our
   suggestions here are an extension of this common practice (that this
   process exists suggests that the price mechanism does not, in fact,
   provide consumers with all the relevant information they need to make
   decisions, but this is an aside).

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

   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:

     "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 . . .
     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, p. 153]

   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 Guild Socialist 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] Loans would be
   allocated to projects which the mutual banks considered likely to
   succeed and repay the original loan. In this way, the increase in the
   money supply implied by these acts of credit providing does not
   generate inflation for money is not created wantonly but rather is
   aimed at projects which are considered likely to increase the supply of
   goods and services in the economy (see [34]section G.3.6). Another key
   source of investment would be internal funds (i.e., retained savings)
   as is the case with co-operatives today: "Worker-managers finance their
   new investments partly out of internal funds and partly from external
   loans . . . Entrepreneurial activity of worker-managers . . . generates
   profits and losses, i.e., higher or lower income per worker." [Branko
   Horvat, "The Theory of the Worker-Managed Firm Revisited", pp. 9-25,
   Journal of Comparative Economics, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 21] As discussed
   in [35]section I.1.1, eliminating the stock market will not harm
   investment (almost all investment funds are from other sources) and
   will remove an important negative influence in economic activity.

   Collectivist and communist anarchists recognise that credit is based on
   human activity, which is represented as money. As 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." [Op. Cit., 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 for "whose
   benefit [it should] be used". [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 syndicates for investment projects (for example,
   confederations of syndicates may agree to allocate a certain percentage
   of their labour notes to a common account in order to have the
   necessary funds available for major investment projects). Similarly,
   individual syndicates and communes would also create a store of funds
   for their own investment projects. Moreover, the confederations of
   syndicates to which these "People's Banks" would be linked would also
   have a defined role in investment decisions to ensure that production
   meets demand by being the forum which decides which investment plans
   should be given funding (this, we stress, is hardly "central planning"
   as capitalist firms also plan future investments to meet expected
   demand). In this, collectivist anarchism is like mutualism and so we
   would also expect interest-free credit being arranged to facilitate
   investment.

   In a communist-anarchist society, things would be slightly different as
   this would not have the labour notes used in mutualism and
   collectivism. This means that the productive syndicates would agree
   that a certain part of their total output and activity will be directed
   to investment projects. In effect, each syndicate is able to draw upon
   the resources approved of by the co-operative commonwealth in the form
   of an agreed claim on the labour power of society (investment "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.

   It should be remembered that savings are not required before credit can
   be issued. Under capitalism, for example, banks regularly issue credit
   in excess of their actual reserves of cash (if they did not then, one,
   they would not be very good capitalists and, two, the economy would
   grind to a halt). Nor does the interest rate reflect a preference for
   future goods (as discussed in [36]section C.2.6 interest rates reflect
   market power, the degree of monopoly in the credit industry, the social
   and class position of individuals and a host of other factors).
   Moreover, a developed economy replaces a process in time with a process
   in space. In peasant and tribal societies, individuals usually did have
   to spend time and energy making their own tools (the hunter had to stop
   hunting in order to create a new improved bow or spear). However, with
   a reasonably developed division of work then different people produce
   the tools others use and can do so at the same time as the others
   produce. If workers producing investment goods had to wait until
   sufficient savings had been gathered before starting work then it is
   doubtful that any developed economy could function. Thus the notion
   that "investment" needs saving is somewhat inappropriate, as different
   workplaces produce consumption goods and others produce investment
   goods. The issue becomes one of ensuring that enough people and
   resources go towards both activities.

   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 different ends. This would involve,
   possibly, dividing investment into two groups -- necessary and optional
   -- and using statistical techniques to consider the impact of an
   investment decision (for example, the use of input-output tables could
   be used to see if a given investment decision in, say, the steel
   industry would require investment in energy production). In this way
   social needs 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
   which syndicates will provide the necessary goods for a given
   investment project, just that it has priority over other requests.
   Under capitalism, when a bank gives a company credit, it rarely asks
   exactly which companies will be contracted with when the money is spent
   but, rather, it gives the company the power to command the labour of
   other workers by supplying them with credit/money. Similarly in an
   anarcho-communist society, except that the other workers have agreed to
   supply their labour for the project in question by designating it a
   "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 met or take
   longer to arrive. The project may go ahead, but it depends on whether
   the syndicate or commune can find workers willing to do that work. This
   would be applicable for small scale investment decisions or those which
   other communes/syndicates do not think of as essential.

   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. The tasks of
   ensuring investment production, making orders for specific goods and so
   forth, would be as decentralised as other aspects of a free economy and
   so anarchism "proposes . . . [t]hat usufruct of instruments of
   production -- land included -- should be free to all workers, or groups
   of workers", that "workers should group themselves, and arrange their
   work as their reason and inclination prompt" and that "the necessary
   connections between the various industries . . . should be managed on
   the same voluntary principle." [Charlotte M. Wilson, Anarchist Essays,
   p. 21]

   As for when investment is needed, it is clear that this will be based
   on the changes in demand for goods in both collectivist and communist
   anarchism. As Guilliaume put it: "By means of statistics gathered from
   all the communes in a region, it will be possible to scientifically
   balance production and consumption. In line with these statistics, it
   will also be possible to add more help in industries where production
   is insufficient and reduce the number of men where there is a surplus
   of production." ["On Building the New Social Order", pp. 356-79,
   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 made 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 [shop] 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
   rational to do so, each locality/region would be able to understand its
   own requirements and apply them as it sees fit. This means that
   large-scale planning would not be conducted (assuming that it could
   work in practice, of course) simply because it would not be needed.
   This, combined with an extensive communications network, would ensure
   that investment not only did not duplicate unused plant within the
   economy but that investments take into account the specific problems
   and opportunities each locality has. Of course, collectives would
   experiment with new lines and technology as well as existing lines and
   so invest in new technologies and products. As occurs under capitalism,
   extensive consumer testing would occur before dedicating major
   investment decisions to new products.

   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 [37]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 one plan finalised from the debate). Regional decisions
   (for example, a new hospital) could be decided at the appropriate
   level, with information fed from the health syndicate and consumer
   co-operatives. The actual location for investment decisions will be
   worked out by those involved. However, local syndicates must be the
   focal point for developing new products and investment plans in order
   to encourage innovation.

   Therefore, under anarchism no capital market is required to determine
   whether investment is required and what form it would take. The work
   that apologists for capitalism claim currently is done by the stock
   market can be replaced by co-operation and communication between
   workplaces in a decentralised, confederated network. The relative needs
   of different consumers of a product can be evaluated by the producers
   and an informed decision reached on where it would best be used.
   Without private property, housing, schools, hospitals, workplaces and
   so on will no longer be cramped into the smallest space possible.
   Instead, they will be built within a "green" environment. This means
   that human constructions will be placed within a natural setting and no
   longer stand apart from nature. In this way human life can be enriched
   and the evils of cramping as many humans and things into a small a
   space as is "economical" can be overcome.

   Only by taking investment decisions away from "experts" and placing it
   in the hands of ordinary people will current generations be able to
   invest according to their, and future generations', benefit. It is
   hardly in our best interests to have a system whose aim is to make the
   wealthy even wealthier and on whose whims are dependent the lives of
   millions of people.

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 is endless. So the vast majority of anarchists
   agree with Kropotkin's comment 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. However, it does not have to so in an anarchist world. By
   way of example, consider a commune in which 5 people desire to be
   bakers (or 5 people are needed to work the communal bakery) and 20
   hours of production per person, per week is spent on baking bread. Now,
   what happens if the introduction of automation, as desired, planned and
   organised by the workers themselves, reduces the amount of labour
   required for bread production to 15 person-hours per week? Clearly, no
   one stands to lose -- even if someone's work is "displaced" that person
   will continue to receive the same access to the means of life as before
   -- and they might even gain. This last is due to the fact that 5
   person-hours have been freed up from the task of bread production, and
   those person-hours may now be used elsewhere or converted to leisure,
   either way increasing each person's standard of living.

   Obviously, this happy outcome derives not only from the technology
   used, but also (and critically) from its use in an equitable economic
   and social system: in the end, there is no reason why the use of
   technology cannot be used to empower people and increase their freedom!

   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 [38]section D.10, cannot
   be considered in isolation from the society it is created and used in.
   Most anarchists are aware that, to quote expert David Noble, "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." [Progress Without People, p. 6] 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 Noble's expression). It does not evolve in isolation
   from human beings and the social relationships and power structures
   between them.

   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]). Vernon Richards stated the
   obvious:

     "We maintain that the term 'productivity' has meaning, or is
     socially important, only when all production serves a public need .
     . .

     "Productivity has meaning if it results both in a raising of living
     standards and an increase of leisure for all.

     "'Productivity' in the society we live in, because it is not a means
     to a social end, but is the means whereby industrialists hope to
     make greater profits for themselves and their shareholders, should
     be resolutely resisted by the working people, for it brings them
     neither greater leisure nor liberation from wage-slavery. Indeed for
     many it means unemployment . . .

     "The attempts by managers and the technocrats to streamline industry
     are resisted intuitively by most work people even if they haven't
     two political ideas in their heads to knock together, not because
     they are resistant to change per se but because they cannot see that
     'change' will do them any good. And of course they are right! Such
     an attitude is nevertheless a negative one, and the task of
     anarchist propagandists should be to make them aware of this and
     point to the only alternative, which, in broad terms, is that the
     producers of wealth must control it for the benefit of all." [Why
     Work?, Vernon Richards (ed.), p. 206]

   This means that in an anarchist society, technology would have to be
   transformed and/or developed which empowered those who used it, so
   reducing any oppressive aspects associated with it. As Kropotkin
   argued, we are (potentially) in a good position, because "[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." [Op. Cit., p. 2] The
   question is, for most anarchists, how can we humanise and modify this
   technology and make it socially and individually liberatory, rather
   than destroying it (where applicable, of course, certain forms of
   technology and industry will be eliminated due to their inherently
   destructive nature).

   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. As
   discussed in [39]section A.3.9, while a few anarchists do seek to
   eliminate all forms of technology, most would agree with Bakunin when
   he argued that "to destroy . . . all the instruments of labour . . .
   would be to condemn all humanity -- which is infinity too numerous
   today to exist . . . on the simple gifts of nature . . . -- to . . .
   death by starvation." 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] So most anarchists seek to transform rather
   then eliminate technology and to do that we need to be in possession of
   the means of production before we can decide what to keep, what to
   change and what to throw away as inhuman. In other words, it is not
   enough to get rid of the boss, although this is a necessary first step!

   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.

   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 reproduction, 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:

     "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." [Op. Cit., 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. 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 (see [40]section I.4.15
   for a discussion of what the workplace of the future could look like).

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

   All this suggests 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]

   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.

   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?

   Needless to say, different communities and different regions would
   choose different priorities and different lifestyles. As the CNT's
   Zaragoza resolution on libertarian communism made clear, "those
   communes which reject industrialisation . . . may agree upon a
   different model of co-existence." Using the example of "naturists and
   nudists," it argued 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]

   For most anarchists, though, technological advancement is important in
   a free society in order to maximise the free time available for
   everyone and replace mindless toil with meaningful work. The means of
   doing so is the use of 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 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.

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

   We noted earlier (in [41]section I.3.1) that competition between
   syndicates could lead to "co-operative egotism" (to use Kropotkin's
   term) and that to eliminate this problem, the basis of collectivisation
   needs to be widened so that production is based on need and, as a
   result, surpluses are distributed society-wide. The advantage of a wide
   surplus distribution is that it allows all to have a decent life and
   stop market forces making people work harder and longer to survive in
   the economy (see [42]section I.1.3). The consolidation of syndicates
   that would otherwise compete will, it is hoped, lead to a more
   efficient allocation of resources and technical improvements so
   allowing the transformation of work and reduction of the time we need
   to spend in production. We will back up this claim with illustrations
   from the Spanish Revolution as well as from today's system.

   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." [The Anarchist
     Collectives, Sam Dolgoff (ed.), pp. 93-94]

   The collectives, as well as improving working conditions, also ensured
   access to other goods and services which market forces had previously
   denied working class people. Across Republican Spain collectives in
   towns and villages organised health care. For example, in the village
   of Magdalena de Pulpis housing "was free and completely socialised, as
   was medical care . . . Medicines, supplies, transfer to hospitals in
   Barcelona or Castellon, surgery, services of specialists -- all was
   paid for by the collective." This was also done for education, with
   collectives forming and running schools, colleges and universities. For
   example, Regional Peasant Federation of Levant saw each collective
   organise "one or two free schools for the children" and "almost wiped
   out illiteracy" (over 70% of rural Spain was literate before the Civil
   War). It also organised a "University of Moncada" which "gave courses
   in animal husbandry, poultry raising. animal breeding, agriculture,
   tree science, etc." [Gaston Leval, Op. Cit., p. 156 and p. 125]

   These examples, social anarchists argue, show that co-operation ensures
   that resources are efficiently allocated and waste is minimised by
   cutting down needless competition. It also ensures that necessary goods
   and services which meet vital areas for human well-being and
   development are available for all rather than the few. Rather than
   reduce choice, such co-operation increased it by making such things
   available to all (and as consumers have choices in which syndicate to
   consume from as well as having direct communication between consumer
   co-operatives and productive units, there is little danger that
   rationalisation in production will hurt the interests of the consumer).

   Another way in which wide distribution of surplus can be advantageous
   is in Research and Development (R&D). By creating a fund for research
   and development which is independent of the fortunes of individual
   syndicates, society as a whole can be improved by access to useful new
   technologies and processes. Therefore, in a libertarian socialist
   society, people (both within the workplace and in communities) are
   likely to decide to allocate significant amounts of resources for basic
   research from the available social output. This is because the results
   of this research would be freely available to all and so would aid
   everyone in the long term. In addition, because workers directly
   control their workplace and the local community effectively "owns" it,
   all affected would have an interest in exploring research which would
   reduce labour, pollution, waste and so on or increase output with
   little or no social impact.

   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.

   This means that research and innovation would be in the direct
   interests of everyone involved and that all would have the means to do
   it. Under capitalism, this is not the case. Most research is conducted
   in order to get an edge in the market by increasing productivity or
   expanding production into new (previously unwanted) areas. Any
   increased productivity often leads to unemployment, deskilling and
   other negative effects for those involved. Libertarian socialism will
   not face this problem. Moreover, it should be stressed that basic
   research is not something which free-market capitalism does well. As
   Doug Henwood notes, basic science research "is heavily funded by the
   public sector and non-profit institutions like universities." The
   internet and computer, for example, were both projects for the Pentagon
   and "the government picked up the basic R&D tab for decades, when
   neither Wall Street nor private industry showed any interest. In fact,
   capital only became interested when the start-up costs had all been
   borne by the public sector and there were finally profits to be made .
   . . good American individualists don't like to talk about the public
   sector, since their hero is the plucky entrepreneur." [After the New
   Economy, p. 196 and p. 6] The rise of such systems across the world
   indicates that basic research often needs public support in order to be
   done. Even such a leading neo-classical economist as Kenneth Arrow had
   to admit in the 1960s that market forces are insufficient:

     "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." [quoted by David Schweickart, Against
     capitalism, p. 132]

   Nothing has changed since. Would modern society have produced so many
   innovations if it had not been for the Pentagon system, the space race
   and so on? Take the Internet, for example -- it is unlikely that this
   would have got off the ground if it had not been for public funding.
   Needless to say, of course, much of this technology has been developed
   for evil reasons and purposes and would be in need of drastic change
   (or, in many some, abolition) before it could be used in a libertarian
   society. However, the fact remains that it is unlikely that a pure
   market based system could have generated most of the technology we take
   for granted. As Noam Chomsky argues:

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

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

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

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

   If we look at vocational training and education, a wide basis of
   surplus distribution would aid this no end. Under free market
   capitalism, vocational training suffers for profit seeking firms will
   not incur costs that will be enjoyed by others. This means that firms
   will be reluctant to spend money on training if they fear that the
   trained workers will soon be poached by other firms which can offer
   more money because they had not incurred the cost of providing
   training. As a result few firms will provide the required training as
   they could not be sure that the trained workers will not leave for
   their competitors (and, of course, a trained work force also, due to
   their skill, have more workplace power and are less replaceable). So as
   well as technological developments, a wide basis of surplus
   distribution would help improve the skills and knowledge of the members
   of a community. As Keynesian economist Michael Stewart points out,
   "[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]

   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.

   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]

   The example of free software (operating systems, programming languages,
   specific packages and code) today show the potential this. Thus
   socialisation would aid innovation and scientific development by
   providing the necessary resources (including free time) for such work.
   Moreover, it would also provide the community spirit required to push
   the boundaries of science forward. As John O'Neil argues:

     "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]

   Today 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." In a free society, socialisation would ensure that inventors
   will be able to build upon the knowledge of everyone, including past
   generations. Rather than hide knowledge from others, in case they get a
   competitive advantage, knowledge would be shared, enriching all
   involved as well as the rest of society. Thus the "spreading of a
   scientific education, which would increase the number of inquirers",
   "faith that humanity is going to take a step forward" and the
   "enthusiasm, the hope of doing good, that has inspired all the great
   inventors" will be maximised and innovation increased. [Kropotkin, Op.
   Cit., p. 117 and pp. 116-7]

   Social anarchists would also suggest that socialisation would produce
   more benefits by looking at existing societies. The evidence from the
   UK, USA, Australia, New Zealand and China shows that privatisations of
   nationalised industries associated with neo-liberalism failed in its
   stated aims of cheaper and better services while more than succeeding
   in their unstated aim of redistributing wealth upwards (for details see
   In Government we Trust: Market Failure and the delusions of
   privatisation by Warrick Funnell, Robert Jupe and Jane Andrew). The
   examples of railway and utility privatisation, the energy crisis in
   California (with companies like Enron reaping huge speculative profits
   while consumers faced blackouts) and the Sydney water treatment scandal
   in Australia are sadly all too typical. Ironically, in the UK after 30
   years of Thatcherite policies (first under the Tories and then New
   Labour) the readers of the right-wing press who supported it are
   subjected to article after article complaining about "Rip off Britain"
   and yet more increases in the prices charged for privatised utilities,
   services and goods. This, it must be stressed, if not to suggest that
   anarchists aim for nationalisation (we do not, we aim for socialisation
   and workers' self-management) but rather to indicate that privatising
   resources does not benefit the majority of people in a given society.

   It should also be noted that more unequal societies are bad for almost
   everyone within them. Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett in their book
   The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better show
   that almost every modern social and environmental problem (including
   ill-health, lack of community life, violence, drugs, obesity, mental
   illness, long working hours, big prison populations) is more likely to
   occur in an unequal society than a more equal one. Based on thirty
   years of research, it shows that inequality, as anarchists have long
   argued, is bad for us. As such, socialisation of wealth would benefit
   us all.

   Lastly, there is the issue of those who cannot work and the general
   provision of public goods. With a wide distribution to surplus,
   communal hospitals, schools, universities and so on can be created. The
   simple fact is that any society has members who cannot (indeed, should
   not) work unless they want to, such as the young, the old and the sick.
   In an Individualist Anarchist society, there is no real provision for
   these individuals unless someone (a family member, friend or charity)
   provides them with the money required for hospital fees and so on. For
   most anarchists, such a situation seems far too much like the system we
   are currently fighting against to be appealing. As such, social
   anarchists argue that everyone deserves an education, health care and
   so on as a right and so be able live a fully human life as a right,
   rather than a privilege to be paid for. A communal basis for
   distribution would ensure that every member of the commune can receive
   such things automatically, as and when required. The removal of the
   worry that, for example, privatised health care produces can be seen as
   a benefit of socialisation which cannot be reflected in, say, GDP or
   similar economic measures (not to mention the ethical statement it
   makes).

   Significantly, though, non-privatised system of health care are more
   efficient. Competition as well as denying people treatment also leads
   to inefficiencies as prices are inflated to pay for advertising,
   competition related administration costs, paying dividends to
   share-holders and so on. This drives up the cost for those lucky enough
   to be covered, not to mention the stress produced by the constant fear
   of losing insurance or being denying payment due to the insurance
   company deciding against the patient and their doctor. For example, in
   1993, Canada's health plans devoted 0.9% of spending to overhead,
   compared to U.S. figures of 3.2% for Medicare and 12% for private
   insurers. In addition, when Canada adopted its publicly financed system
   in 1971, it and the U.S. both spent just over 7% of GDP on health care.
   By 1990, the U.S. was up to 12.3%, verses Canada's 9%. Since then costs
   have continued to rise and rise, making health-care reform of key
   interest to the public who are suffering under it (assuming they are
   lucky enough to have private insurance, of course).

   The madness of private health-care shows the benefits of a society-wide
   distribution of surpluses. Competition harms health-care provision and,
   as a result, people. According to Alfie Kohn:

     "More hospitals and clinics are being run by for-profit
     corporations; many institutions, forced to battle for 'customers,'
     seem to value a skilled director of marketing more highly than a
     skilled caregiver. As in any other economic sector, the race for
     profits translates into pressure to reduce costs, and the easiest
     way to do it here is to cut back on services to unprofitable
     patients, that is, those who are more sick than rich . . . The
     result: hospital costs are actually higher in areas where there is
     more competition for patients." [No Contest, p. 240]

   American Liberal Robert Kuttner concurs:

     "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 a pure "free market"
   and so comparisons are pointless. However, it seems strange that the
   more competitive system, the more privatised system, is less efficient
   and less fair than the universal systems. It also seems strange that
   defenders of competition happily use examples from "actually existing"
   capitalism to illustrate their politics but reject negative examples as
   being a product of an "impure" system. They want to have their cake and
   eat it to.

   Significantly, we should note that the use of surplus for communal
   services (such as hospitals and education) can be seen from the Spanish
   Revolution. Many collectives funded new hospitals and colleges for
   their members, providing hundreds of thousands with services they could
   never have afforded by their own labour. This is a classic example of
   co-operation helping the co-operators achieve far more than they could
   by their own isolated activities. This libertarian health system was
   run and how other public services would be organised in a free society
   are discussed in [43]section I.5.12.

   So we can generalise from our experiences of different kinds of
   capitalism. If you want to live in a society of well-educated people,
   working today as equals in pleasant surroundings with more than ample
   leisure time to pursue their own projects and activities, then a wide
   sharing of the social surplus is required. Otherwise, you could live in
   a society where people work long and hard to survive on the market,
   without the time or opportunity for education and leisure, and be
   bossed about for most of their waking hours to enrich the wealthy few
   so that they can live a life of leisure (which, in turn, will inspire
   you to be work harder in spite of the fact that such high inequality
   produces low social mobility). The first society, according to some,
   would be one of self-sacrificing altruism and "collectivism" while the
   latter is, apparently, one based on "individualism" and
   self-interest...

I.4.11 If socialism eliminates the profit motive, won't 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 own
   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 here 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
   Alfie 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 Kohn, a growing body of psychological research suggests
   that rewards can lower performance levels, especially when the
   performance involves creativity. His books summarise the related series
   of studies shows which show that intrinsic interest in a task -- the
   sense that something is worth doing for its own sake -- typically
   declines when someone is rewarded for doing it. Much of the research on
   creativity and motivation has been performed by Theresa Amabile,
   associate professor of psychology at Brandeis University and she has
   found consistently that those were promised rewards did the least
   creative work. Thus "rewards killed creativity, and this was true
   regardless of the type of task, the type of reward, the timing of the
   reward or the age of the people involved." [Punished by Rewards, p. 45]
   Such research casts doubt on the claim that financial reward is the
   only effective way -- or even the best way -- to motivate people. They
   challenge the behaviourist assumption that any activity is more likely
   to occur or be better in terms of outcome if it is rewarded.

   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]

   It should be noted that, as one biologist points out, "Kropotkin's
   ideas, though unorthodox, were scientifically respectable, and indeed
   the contention that mutual aid can be a means of increasing fitness had
   become a standard part of modern sociobiology." [Douglas H. Boucher,
   "The Idea of Mutualism, Past and Future", pp. 1-28, The Biology of
   Mutualism: Biology and Evolution, Douglas H. Boucher (ed.), p. 17]
   Frans de Waal (a leading primatologist) and Jessica C. Flack argue that
   Kropotkin is part of a wider tradition "in which the view has been that
   animals assist each other precisely because by doing so they achieve
   long term, collective benefits of greater value than the short term
   benefits derived from straightforward competition." They summarise that
   the "basic tenet of [Kropotkin's] ideas was on the mark. Almost seventy
   years later, in an article entitled 'The Evolution of Reciprocal
   Altruism', [Robert] Trivers refined the concepts Kropotkin advanced and
   explained how co-operation and, more importantly, a system of
   reciprocity (called 'reciprocal altruism' by Trivers) could have
   evolved." ["'Any Animal Whatever': Darwinian Building Blocks of
   Morality in Monkeys and Apes", pp. 1-29, Journal of Consciousness
   Studies, Vol. 7, No. 1-2, p. 4]

   So modern research has reinforced Kropotkin's argument. This applies to
   both human and non-human animals. For the former, the evidence is
   strong that we have intrinsic abilities and needs to co-operate as well
   as an intrinsic senses of fairness and ethics. This suggests that
   co-operation is part of "human nature" and so studies which show that
   such behaviour is more productive than competition should come as no
   surprise -- and the evidence is impressive. As noted, Alfie Kohn is
   also the author of No Contest: The Case Against Competition and he
   spent seven years reviewing more than 400 research studies dealing with
   competition and co-operation. According to Kohn, there are three
   principle consequences of competition:

   Firstly, it has a negative effect on productivity and excellence. This
   is due to increased anxiety, inefficiency (as compared to co-operative
   sharing of resources and knowledge), and the undermining of inner
   motivation. Competition shifts the focus to victory over others, and
   away from intrinsic motivators such as curiosity, interest, excellence,
   and social interaction. Studies show that co-operative behaviour, by
   contrast, consistently produces good performance -- a finding which
   holds true under a wide range of subject variables. Interestingly, the
   positive benefits of co-operation become more significant as tasks
   become more complex, or where greater creativity and problem-solving
   ability is required.

   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.

   Thirdly, competition undermines human relationships. Humans are social
   beings; we best express our humanness in interaction with others. By
   creating winners and losers, competition is destructive to human unity
   and prevents close social feeling.

   Social Anarchists have long argued these points. In the competitive
   mode, people work at cross purposes, or purely for (material) personal
   gain. This leads to an impoverishment of society as well as hierarchy,
   with a lack of communal relations that result in an impoverishment of
   all the individuals involved (mentally, spiritually, ethically and,
   ultimately, materially). This not only leads to a weakening of
   individuality and social disruption, but also to economic inefficiency
   as energy is wasted in class conflict and invested in building bigger
   and better cages to protect the haves from the have-nots. Instead of
   creating useful things, human activity is spent in useless toil
   reproducing an injustice and authoritarian system.

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

   Moreover, the notion that material rewards result in better work is
   simply not true. Basing itself on simple behaviourist psychology, such
   arguments fail to meet the test of long-term success (and, in fact, can
   be counter-productive). Indeed, it means treating human beings as
   little better that pets or other animals (Kohn argues that it is "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." 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." [Punished by Rewards, p. 24 and
   p. 25]

   Kohn presents extensive evidence to back upon his case that rewards
   harm activity and individuals. We cannot do justice to it here so we
   will present a few examples. One study with college students showed
   that those paid to work on a puzzle "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." [Op. Cit., p. 70 and
   p. 71] Scores of other studies confirmed this. This is because a reward
   is effectively saying that a given activity is not worth doing for its
   own sake -- and why would anyone wish to do something they have to be
   bribed to do?

   In the workplace, a similar process goes on. Kohn presents extensive
   evidence to show that extrinsic motivation also fails even there.
   Indeed, he argues that "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 humans 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". So "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?

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

     "small factories would spring up in a socialist society, unless
     forbidden. I melt some of my personal possessions and build a
     machine out of the material. I offer you and others a philosophy
     lecture once a week in exchange for yet other things, and so on . .
     . some persons might even want to leave their jobs in socialist
     industry and work full time in this private sector . . . [This is]
     how private property even in means of production would occur in a
     socialist society . . . [and so] the socialist society will have to
     forbid capitalist acts between consenting adults." [Anarchy, State
     and Utopia, pp. 162-3]

   There are numerous flawed assumptions in this argument and we will
   discuss them here. The key flaws are the confusion of exchange with
   capitalism and the typically impoverished propertarian vision that
   freedom is, essentially, the freedom to sell your liberty, to become a
   wage slave and so unfree. Looking at history, we can say that both
   these assumptions are wrong. Firstly, while markets and exchange have
   existed for thousands of years capitalism has not. Wage-labour is a
   relatively recent development and has been the dominant mode of
   production for, at best, a couple of hundred years. Secondly, few
   people (when given the choice) have freely become wage-slaves. Just as
   the children of slaves often viewed slavery as the "natural" order, so
   do current workers. Yet, as with chattel slavery, substantial state
   coercion was required to achieve such a "natural" system.

   As discussed in [44]section F.8, actually existing capitalism was not
   created by Nozick's process -- it required substantial state
   intervention to separate workers from the means of production they used
   and to ensure, eventually, that the situation in which they sold their
   liberty to the property owner was considered "natural." Without that
   coercion, people do not seek to sell their liberty to others. Murray
   Bookchin summarised the historical record by noting that in "every
   precapitalist society, countervailing forces . . . existed to restrict
   the market economy. No less significantly, many precapitalist societies
   raised what they thought were insuperable obstacles to the penetration
   of the State into social life." He pointed to "the power of village
   communities to resist the invasion of trade and despotic political
   forms into society's abiding communal substrate." [The Ecology of
   Freedom, pp. 207-8] Anarchist anthropologist David Graeber notes that
   in the ancient Mediterranean world "[w]hile one does periodically run
   into evidence of arrangements which to the modern eye look like
   wage-labour contracts, on closer examination they almost always
   actually turn out to be contracts to rent slaves . . . Free men and
   women thus avoided anything remotely like wage-labour, seeing it as a
   matter, effectively, of slavery, renting themselves out." This means
   that wage labour "(as opposed to, say, receiving fees for professional
   services) involves a degree of subordination: a labourer has to be to
   some degree at the command of his or her employer. This is exactly why,
   through most of history, free men and women tended to avoid
   wage-labour, and why, for most of history, capitalism . . . never
   emerged." [Possibilities, p. 92]

   Thus while the idea that people will happily become wage slaves may be
   somewhat common place today (particularly with supporters of
   capitalism) the evidence of history is that people, given a choice,
   will prefer self-employment and resist wage labour (often to the
   death). As E. P. Thompson noted, for workers at the end of the 18th and
   beginning of the 19th centuries, the "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 as the former
   collectivists refused to be the servants of the few.

   People who have tasted freedom are unlikely to go back to oppression.
   Therefore, any perception that people will become wage-slaves through
   choice in a free society is based on the assumption what people accept
   through necessity under capitalism will pass over, without change, into
   a free one. This assumption is unfounded and anarchists expect that
   once people struggle for freedom and taste the pleasures of freedom
   they will not freely accept a degradation back to having a master --
   and as history shows, we have some evidence to support our argument. It
   seems a strangely debased perspective on freedom to ponder whether
   people will be "free" to alienate their freedom -- it is a bit like
   proclaiming it a restriction of freedom to "forbid" owning slaves (and,
   as noted in [45]section F.2.2, Nozick did support voluntary slave
   contracts).

   So anarchists think Nozick's vision of unfreedom developing from
   freedom is unlikely. As anarcho-syndicalist Jeff Stein points out "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!", Libertarian Labour Review,
   no. 13]

   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 [46]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" people
   from doing anything, including protecting would-be capitalists'
   monopolies of the means of production. In other words, would-be
   capitalists would face stiff competition for workers in an anarchist
   society. This is because self-managed workplaces would be able to offer
   workers more benefits (such as self-government, better working
   conditions, etc.) than the would-be capitalist ones. The would-be
   capitalists would have to offer not only excellent wages and conditions
   but also, in all likelihood, workers' control and hire-purchase on
   capital used. The chances of making a profit once the various
   monopolies associated with capitalism are abolished are slim.

   Thus the would-be capitalist would "not [be] able to obtain assistance
   or people to exploit" and "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". [Malatesta, Errico
   Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, 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 [millionaire] who would settle in its
     midst. If every member of the community knows that after a few hours
     of productive toil he [or she] will have a right to all the
     pleasures that civilisation procures, and to those deeper sources of
     enjoyment which art and science offer to all who seek them, he [or
     she] will not sell his strength . . . No one will volunteer to work
     for the enrichment of your [millionaire]." [Conquest of Bread, p.
     61]

   However, let us suppose there is a self-employed inventor, Ferguson,
   who comes up with a new innovation without the help of the socialised
   sector. Would anarchists steal his idea? Not at all. The syndicates,
   which by hypothesis have been organised by people who believe in giving
   producers the full value of their product, would pay Ferguson an
   equitable amount for his idea, which would then become common across
   society. However, if he refused to sell his invention and instead tried
   to claim a patent monopoly on it in order to gather a group of wage
   slaves to exploit, no one would agree to work for him unless they got
   the full control over both the product of their labour and the labour
   process itself. And, assuming that he did find someone willing to work
   for him (and so be governed by him), the would-be capitalist would have
   to provide such excellent conditions and pay such good wages as to
   reduce his profits to near zero. Moreover, he would have to face
   workers whose neighbours would be encouraging them to form a union and
   strike for even better conditions and pay, including workers' control
   and so on. Such a militant workforce would be the last thing a
   capitalist would desire. In addition, we would imagine they would also
   refuse to work for someone unless they also got the capital they used
   at the end of their contract (i.e. a system of "hire-purchase" on the
   means of production used). In other words, by removing the statist
   supports of capitalism, would-be capitalists would find it hard to
   "compete" with the co-operative sector and would not be in a position
   to exploit others' labour.

   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 Benjamin 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. So without statism
   to back up various class-based monopolies of capitalist privilege,
   capitalism would not have become dominant.

   It should also be noted that Nozick makes a serious error in his case.
   He assumes that the "use rights" associated with an anarchist (i.e.
   socialist) society are identical to the "property rights" of a
   capitalist one. This is 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." Therefore,
   Nozick slips an ideological ringer into his example by erroneously
   interpreting socialism (or any other society for that matter) as
   specifying a distribution of capitalist property rights along with the
   wealth. As Mill argued: "One of the mistakes oftenest committed, and
   which are the sources of the greatest practical errors in human
   affairs, is that of supposing that the same name always stands for the
   same aggregation of ideas. No word has been subject of more of this
   kind of misunderstanding that the word property." ["Chapters on
   Socialism," Principles of Political Economy, p. 432]

   In other words, Nozick assumes that in all societies capitalist
   property rights are distributed along with consumption and production
   goods. 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", pp. 323-43,
   Reading Nozick, Jeffrey Paul (Ed.), p. 331] This means that when goods
   are distributed in a libertarian socialist society the people who
   receive or take them have specific (use) rights to them. As long as an
   individual remained a member of a commune and abided by the rules they
   helped create in that commune then they would have full use of the
   resources of that commune and could use their possessions as they saw
   fit (even "melt them down" to create a new machine, or whatever). If
   they used those goods to create an enterprise to employ (i.e., exploit
   and oppress) others then they have, in effect, announced their
   withdrawal from civilised society and, as a result, would be denied the
   benefits of co-operation. They would, in effect, place themselves in
   the same situation as someone who does not wish to join a syndicate
   (see [47]section I.3.7). 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).

   Would this be a restriction of freedom? While it may be considered so
   by the impoverished definitions of capitalism, it is not. In fact, it
   mirrors the situation within capitalism as what possessions someone
   holds are not his or her property (in the capitalist sense) any more
   than a company car is currently the property of the employee under
   capitalism. While the employee can use the car outside of work, they
   lack the "freedom" to sell it or melt it down and turn it into
   machines. Such lack of absolute "ownership" in a free society does not
   reduce liberty any more than in this case.

   This point highlights another flaw in Nozick's argument. If his
   argument were true, then it applies equally to capitalist society. For
   40 hours plus a week, workers are employed by a boss. In that time they
   are given resources to use and they are most definitely 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. 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, "capitalist society will have to forbid capitalist acts
   between consenting adults" -- and does so all the time.

   Moreover, it must be stressed that as well as banning capitalist acts
   between consenting adults, capitalism involves the continual banning of
   socialist acts between consenting adults. For example, if workers agree
   to form a union, then the boss can fire them. If they decide to control
   their own work, the boss can fire them for not obeying orders. Thus
   capitalism forbids such elemental freedoms as association and speech --
   at least for the majority, for the wage slaves. Why would people seek
   such "freedom" in a free society?

   Of course, Nozick's reply to this point would be that the individual's
   involved have "consented" to these rules when they signed their
   contract. Yet the same can be said of an anarchist society -- it is
   freely joined and freely left. To join a communist-anarchist society it
   would simply be a case of agreeing to "exchange" the product of ones
   labour freely with the other members of that society and not to create
   oppressive or exploitation social relationships within it. If this is
   "authoritarian" then so is capitalism -- and we must stress that at
   least anarchist associations are based on self-management and so the
   individuals involved have an equal say in the obligations they live
   under.

   Notice also that Nozick confused 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 wage labour. Nozick's example is merely a direct labour
   contract between the producer and the consumer. It does not involve
   wage labour, what makes capitalism capitalism. It is only this latter
   type of transaction that libertarian socialism prevents -- and not by
   "forbidding" it but simply by refusing to maintain the conditions
   necessary for it to occur, i.e. protection of capitalist property.

   In addition, we must note that Nozick also confused "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 limited to what a self-employed worker
   uses rather than capitalistic property (see [48]section G.2.1). Nozick,
   in other words, confused pre-capitalist forms of production with
   capitalist ones (see [49]section G.1.2). Thus possession of the means
   of production by people outside of the free commune is perfectly
   acceptable to social anarchists (see [50]section I.6.2).

   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 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]

   Lastly, we must also note that Nozick also ignored the fact that
   acquisition must come before transfer, meaning that before "consenting"
   capitalist acts occur, individual ones must precede it. As argued in
   [51]section B.3.4, Nozick provided no convincing arguments why natural
   resources held in common can be appropriated by individuals. This means
   that his defence of transferring absolute capitalist property rights in
   goods is without foundations. Moreover, his argument in favour of such
   appropriations ignore that liberties are very definitely restricted by
   private property (and it should be keep in mind that the destruction of
   commonly held resources, such as village commons, was imposed by the
   state -- see [52]section F.8.3). As pointed out in [53]section F.2,
   right-wing "libertarians" would better be termed "Propertarians" (why
   is liberty according a primary importance when arguing against
   socialism but not when private property restricts liberty?). As Cheyney
   C. Ryan points out, Nozick "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." [Op. Cit., p.
   339] This can be seen by his lack of comment on how capitalism forbids
   socialist acts between consenting adults, not to mention quite a few
   numerous capitalist acts for good measure.

   Thus Nozick's acquisition of resources is based on the would-be
   capitalist stealing communally owned resources and barring others from
   using them. This obviously would restrict the liberty of those who
   currently used them and so be hotly opposed by members of a community.
   As Murray Bookchin noted, a free society is based on "the practice of
   usufruct, the freedom of individuals in a community to appropriate
   resources merely by virtue of the fact that they are using them. Such
   resources belong to the user as long as they are being used." [The
   Ecology of Freedom, p. 116] As the would-be capitalist is not actually
   using the machines they have created, they would be in constant worry
   that their wage-slaves would simply expropriate them -- with the full
   backing of the local commune and its federations.

   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 "forbid capitalistic acts between
   individuals." In addition, Nozick cannot support the creation of
   private property out of communal property in the first place. It also
   undermines capitalism because that system must forbid socialistic acts
   by and between individuals. Thus Nozick's society would forbid
   squatting unused property or trespassing on private property as well
   as, say, the formation of unions against the wishes of the property
   owner (who is sovereign over their property and those who use it) or
   the use of workplace resources to meet the needs of the producer rather
   than the owner. As such, Nozick exposes how capitalism's hierarchical
   nature means that capitalist society "forbids socialist acts between
   consenting adults."

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. 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 is obvious that not all "jobs" are equal in interest or enjoyment.
   It is sometimes argued that people would start to join or form
   syndicates which are involved in more fun activities. By this process
   excess workers would be found in the more enjoyable "jobs" while the
   boring and dangerous ones would suffer from a scarcity of willing
   workers. Hence, so the argument goes, a socialist society would have to
   force people to do certain jobs and that requires a state. Obviously,
   this argument ignores the fact that under capitalism usually it is the
   boring, dangerous work which is the least well paid with the worse
   working conditions. In addition, this argument ignores the fact that
   under workers self-management boring, dangerous work would be minimised
   and transformed as much as possible. Only under capitalist hierarchy
   are people in no position to improve the quality of their work and
   working environment. As George Barrett argued:

     "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, p.
     361]

   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 each offers alternative ways to
   ensure that individual preferences for certain types of work matches
   the requirements of social demand for labour.

   Under individualist anarchism and mutualism, those who desired a
   certain form of work done would reach an agreement with workers or a
   co-operative and pay them to do the work in question. Within a
   co-operative, as Proudhon argued, a person's "education, instruction,
   and apprenticeship should . . . be so directed that, while permitting
   him to do his share of unpleasant and disagreeable tasks, they may also
   give variety of work and knowledge, and may assure him . . . an
   encyclopaedic attitude and a sufficient income." [General Idea of the
   Revolution, p. 222] In terms of unpleasant tasks for other people (for
   example, collecting and processing a community's rubbish) then
   individuals would form co-operatives which would have to find their
   place on the market and this would ensure that such work was done as
   they would contract with others to provide the appropriate services.
   However, this could lead to some people doing unpleasant work all the
   time and so is hardly a solution. As in capitalism, we may see some
   people doing terrible work because it is better than no work at all.
   This is a solution few anarchists would support.

   In a collectivist or communist anarchist society, such an outcome would
   be avoided as far as possible. Noam Chomsky points to two possible
   alternatives, one "in which the undesired work, after the best efforts
   to make it meaningful, is shared" and another one "where the undesired
   work receives high extra pay, so that individuals voluntarily choose to
   do it." Such schemes are "consistent with . . . anarchist principles"
   unlike the current situation where "the undesired work is given to
   wage-slaves." [Radical Priorities, p. 220] Another way, somewhat
   complementary to these two, would be to take a leaf from "peasant
   attitudes toward labour" and their "most striking feature", the extent
   "to which any kind of communal toil, however onerous, can be
   transformed by the workers themselves into festive occasions that serve
   to reinforce community ties." [The Ecology of Freedom, p. 342]

   It would be easy to imagine a free community sharing such tasks as
   fairly as possible between a community's members by, for example,
   allocating a few days a month to all fit members of a community to do
   work which no one volunteers to do. This would soon ensure that it
   would be done, particularly if it were part of a festival or before a
   party. In this way, every one shares in the unpleasant as well as
   pleasant tasks (and, of course, minimises the time any one individual
   has to spend on it). Or, for tasks which are very popular, individuals
   would also have to do unpleasant tasks as well. In this way, popular
   and unpopular tasks could balance each other out. Or such tasks could
   be rotated randomly by lottery. The possibilities are many and,
   undoubtedly, a free people will try many different ones in different
   areas.

   Another possible solution could be to follow the ideas of Josiah Warren
   and take into account the undesirability of the work when considering
   the level of labour notes received or communal hours worked. In other
   words, in a collectivist society the individuals who do unpleasant work
   may be "rewarded" (along with social esteem) with a slightly higher pay
   -- the number of labour notes, for example, for such work would be a
   multiple of the standard amount, the actual figure being related to how
   much supply exceeds demand (in a communist society, a similar solution
   could be possible, with the number of necessary hours required by an
   individual being reduced by an amount that corresponds to the
   undesirability of the work involved). The actual levels of "reward"
   would be determined by agreements between the syndicates. For example,
   if a given type of work has 50% more people wanting to do it than
   actually required, then the labour value for one hours work in this
   industry would correspondingly be less than one hour. If fewer people
   applied than required, then the labour value would increase, as would
   holiday time, etc. For "work" placements in which supply exceeded
   demand, it would be easy to arrange a work share scheme to ensure that
   most people get a chance to do that kind of work (along with such
   methods as increasing the value of an hour's labour, reducing holiday
   allocations and such like).

   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 agreed minimum would
   correspondingly increase. For example, an industry with 100% excess
   supply of volunteers would see its minimum requirement increase from
   (say) 20 hours a week to 30 hours. An industry with less applicants
   than required would see the number of required hours decrease, plus
   increases in holiday time and so on. As G.D.H. Cole argued in respect
   of this point:

     "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. Until such time as it
   can be automated away, a free society will have to encourage people to
   volunteer for "work" placements they do not particularly want to do by
   these and other methods.

   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 associates and the means by which individuals can discover
   these placements. Obviously, some tasks will still require
   qualifications and that will be taken into account when syndicates and
   communes "advertise" for help.

   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 by means of physical coercion.
   This makes some wonder what happens if someone refuses to work in a
   libertarian society.

   In terms of a mutualist or collectivist anarchy, this question is easy
   to answer for goods are distributed according to work done and so if
   people do not work then they are left dependent on the charity of those
   who do (exceptions for the young, old and ill would apply, of course).

   So this question is directed towards communist-anarchists, with many
   people arguing that communism is impossible because people simply would
   not work unless they get paid. This ignores the many people who do
   volunteer work (often in addition to their "real jobs"). It also
   ignores those who spend their time contributing to projects they are
   interested in (such as fan journals) which would be considered work in
   other contexts. A classic example of this is the internet, particularly
   webpages like Wikipedia and software projects like php. Then there is
   the activity of the pro-capitalists themselves, often fanatical
   anti-communists (which they almost always equate to Stalinism), who
   spend their free time working on wikipedia, newsgroups, webpages and
   journals explaining how communism could not work because people would
   never voluntarily contribute to society! It is one of the great ironies
   of life that those who hate communism the most often, by their actions,
   prove its viability.

   So, communist-anarchists argue, in a society based on self-managed work
   in pleasant surroundings and a reduction of the working week to a
   minimum, there would be few people who refuse to do any kind of
   productive activity. The question arises of what to do with those (a
   small minority, to be sure) who refuse to work.

   On this question there is some disagreement. Some anarchists argue that
   the lazy should not be deprived of the means of life. Social pressure,
   they argue, would ensure those who take from, but do not contribute, to
   the community to listen to their conscience and start producing for the
   community that supports them. If this did not happen, then the person
   who refused to contribute would be asked to leave (freedom of
   association means the freedom not to associate). As Kropotkin argued;

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

     "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.

     "Authoritarians pretend that it is the almighty employer and his
     overseers who maintain regularity and quality of work in factories.
     In reality . . . it is the factory itself, the workmen [and women]
     who see to the good quality of the work." [The Conquest of Bread,
     pp. 152-3]

   Most anarchists agree with Camillo Berneri when he argued 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", pp.
   59-82, 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. 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 in libertarian communism. As child rearing would
   be considered "work" along with other more obviously economic tasks,
   mothers and fathers will not have to leave their children unattended
   and work to make ends meet. Instead, consideration will be given to the
   needs of both parents and children as well as the creation of community
   nurseries and child care centres.

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

   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 domination. The member of the commune has the
   choice of working as part of a community, giving according to their
   abilities and taking according to their needs (or some other means of
   organising production and consumption such as equal income or receiving
   labour notes, and so on), or working independently and so free of
   communal benefits as well as any commitments (bar those associated with
   using communal resources such as roads and so on).

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

   However, most social anarchists think that the problem of people trying
   not to work would be a very minor one in a free society. This is
   because productive activity is part of human life and an essential way
   to express oneself. With work being voluntary and self-managed, it will
   become like current day hobbies and many people work harder at their
   hobbies than they do at "real" work (this FAQ can be considered as an
   example of this!). How long this takes to organise fully is, of course,
   unknown but one of the most important tasks of a free society will be
   to ensure work is transformed and the burden of what remains is shared
   in order to reduce toil to a minimum.

   It is the nature of employment under capitalism, the hierarchical
   nature of its workplace, that makes it "work" instead of pleasure. Work
   need not be a part of the day that we wish would end. It is not work
   that people hate. Rather it is over-work, in unpleasant circumstances
   and under the control of others that people hate. Reduce the hours of
   labour, improve the working conditions and place the work under
   self-management and work will stop being a hated thing. All these will
   help ensure that only an idiot would desire to work alone for, as
   Malatesta argued, the "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 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 totally transform the working
   environment. No longer would workers be indifferent to their
   workplaces, but they would express themselves in transforming them into
   pleasant places, integrated into both the life of the local community
   and into the local environment. After all, "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. 88]

   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 anarchist unions had funded schools, social centres,
   libraries and so on).

   The future workplace would be expanded to include education and classes
   in individual development. This follows Proudhon's suggestion made
   during the 1848 revolution that we should "[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 means that in a free society "Workers'
   associations have a very important role to play . . . Linked to the
   system of public education, they will become both centres of production
   and centres and for education . . . The working masses will be in daily
   contact with the youthful army of agricultural and industrial workers.
   Labour and study, which have for so long and so foolishly been kept
   apart, will finally emerge side by side in their natural state of
   union. Instead of being confined to narrow, specialised fields,
   vocational education will include a variety of different types of work
   which, taken as a whole, will insure that each student becomes an
   all-round worker." [Proudhon, Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph
   Proudhon, p. 87]

   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 for "can we
   doubt that work will become a pleasure and a relaxation in a society of
   equals, in which 'hands' will not be compelled to sell themselves to
   toil, and to accept work under any conditions Repugnant tasks will
   disappear, because it is evident that these unhealthy conditions are
   harmful to society as a whole. Slaves can submit to them, but free men
   [and women] will create new conditions, and their work will be pleasant
   and infinitely more productive." [Kropotkin, The Conquest of Bread, p.
   123] Workplaces would be designed to maximise space and allow
   individual expression within them. We can imagine such places
   surrounded by gardens and allotments which were tended by workers
   themselves, giving a pleasant surrounding to the workplace. There
   would, in effect, be a break down of the city/rural divide --
   workplaces would be placed next to fields and integrated into the
   surroundings:

     "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." [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 quote Kropotkin, the future workplace 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." [Op.
   Cit., p. 197] For, obviously, "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". [The Conquest of Bread, p. 121]

   "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." [A Factory as It Might Be, p. 9] This is possible and is
   only held back by capitalism which denounces such visions of freedom as
   "uneconomic." Yet such claims ignore the distribution of income in
   class society:

     "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."
     [Morris, Op. Cit., 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 [54]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 an
   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 and
   resources it takes to produce a certain good, the more of both it gains
   for other activities (although, of course, in a class society the
   benefits of increased productivity generally accrue to, first and
   foremost, those at the top and, for the rest, the "other activities"
   mean more work). Indeed, for an individual, a decent society depends on
   people having time available for them to do what they want, to develop
   themselves in whatever way they want, to enjoy themselves. In addition,
   doing more with less can have a positive environment impact as well. It
   is for these reasons that an anarchist society would be interested in
   promoting efficiency and productiveness during production.

   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 [55]section I.1.2,
   for example). When we use the term efficiency we mean the dictionary
   definition of efficiency (i.e. reducing waste, maximising use of
   resources) rather than what the capitalist market distorts this into
   (i.e. what creates most profits for the boss).

   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 [56]section I.4.3, a communist-anarchist society
   would be based upon the principle of "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 [57]section I.4.7,
   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 time and resources being used
   efficiently and productively simply because those doing the work would
   have a direct and real interest in it. Rather than alienate their
   liberty, as under capitalism, they would apply their creativity and
   minds to transforming their productive activity in such a way as to
   make it enjoyable and not a waste of their time.

   Little wonder Kropotkin argued that 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]

References

   1. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI3.html
   2. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secCcon.html
   3. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI2.html#seci22
   4. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secA2.html#seca25
   5. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secA5.html#seca52
   6. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI4.html#seci415
   7. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI3.html#seci32
   8. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ5.html#secj512
   9. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI3.html
  10. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI4.html#seci413
  11. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI1.html#seci13
  12. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI2.html#seci22
  13. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI4.html#seci48
  14. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI4.html#seci45
  15. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI4.html#seci413
  16. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI3.html#seci35
  17. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI4.html#seci46
  18. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI1.html#seci12
  19. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI1.html#seci11
  20. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI2.html#seci22
  21. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secC1.html#secc15
  22. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI1.html#seci13
  23. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI4.html#seci44
  24. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI1.html#seci15
  25. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI4.html#seci44
  26. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI1.html#seci12
  27. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secB6.html
  28. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI1.html#seci15
  29. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI4.html#seci48
  30. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI4.html#seci413
  31. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH2.html#sech25
  32. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI1.html#seci13
  33. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI3.html#seci35
  34. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secG3.html#secg36
  35. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI1.html#seci11
  36. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secC2.html#secc26
  37. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI4.html#seci44
  38. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secD10.html
  39. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secA3.html#seca39
  40. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI4.html#seci415
  41. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI3.html#seci31
  42. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI1.html#seci13
  43. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI5.html#seci512
  44. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secF8.html
  45. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secF2.html#secf22
  46. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secB3.html#secb32
  47. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI3.html#seci37
  48. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secG2.html#secg21
  49. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secG1.html#secg12
  50. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI6.html#seci62
  51. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secB3.html#secb34
  52. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secF8.html#secf83
  53. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secF2.html
  54. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI4.html#seci49
  55. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI1.html#seci12
  56. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI4.html#seci43
  57. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI4.html#seci47
