Anarcho-Syndicalism 101: newswire/143

Texts :: critics
Anarchy Against Capitalism and Socialism
by Chris Wilson	02 Sep 2005
"Even socialist anarchists admit that the actions of the CNT were often abusive and authoritarian, not the least of which was its leaders' decision to submit to the direction of the state and Leninist forces to "fight fascism". In various locations throughout the world, nations no less free (and in certain respects, freer) than the U.S. have successfully implemented mixed economies containing elements of both market-based exchange and socialism without the use of death squads or gulags. Needless to say, none of them abolished the role of capital or the state. These failed attempts at stateless socialism are a direct consequence of the innate hierarchy of large-scale organization combined with a refusal to realize that power always corrupts, even when delegated democratically. "
by Chris Wilson, with thanks to Joe. Traditionally, those who have called themselves anarchists have been leftists who consider socialism to be the economic system that would arise in a non-authoritarian and stateless society. In recent decades, however, a number of right-wing pro-capitalist libertarians have adopted the label, calling themselves "anarcho-capitalists". Anarchism is an opposition to all forms of coercive authority. An anarchic society is one that recognizes the value of individual autonomy above all else. It must respect the liberty of each person to live according to their own terms in pursuit of their own desires and interests, as opposed to being a servant to the purposes of others. Neither capitalism nor socialism is based upon a respect for self-determination. Both economic arrangements are coercive, in the sense that they conscript people into a life of servitude to the goals of organizations and privileged classes of people, preventing them from devoting their time and energy to the satisfaction of the needs and desires of themselves and those whom they care about. Due to their hierarchical organizational structure and expansionist nature, both capitalism and socialism forcibly subject people to varying states of domination and alienation for most of their lives, and hence are incompatible with anarchy. Many mistakenly think that a free society must necessarily be based upon the principles of unregulated capitalism, as only it recognizes the right of each individual to choose exactly how they will make a living. Rather than forcing one into a static role within society, capitalism allows one the freedom to choose between any position that is offered by those who have access to resources. It respects the sovereignty of agreements made between employee and employer. This is a rather narrow view of freedom. In actuality, capitalism only respects the freedom to choose between masters. Although one can partake in any form of work that is offered, one still must work - that is, one must spend the majority of each conscious day engaged in an activity that holds no inherent appeal to ones natural needs or desires. In the meantime, one must obey and report to a boss or hierarchy of managers who are concerned with little more than whether or not their employees are functional in their role as a means to an end. The primary beneficiary of this productive work is usually not the person doing the work, but those who control the means of production. The relationship between the worker and the job is one of alienation - the worker doesn't partake in it because of intrinsic enjoyment or interest, but because of the need to obtain the power to purchase needed commodities. Most people experience work as stressful, boring, injurious, nauseating, monotonous, unfulfilling, self-negating, or all of the above. Capitalism complicates the process that one must undergo in order to survive. People could satisfy their needs directly on their own terms, but capitalism demands that most people satisfy their needs indirectly by cooperating with a series of exploitative intermediaries. The majority of those who live under capitalism have no alternative but to submit to the domination and alienation that is inherent to the process of work. There is nothing authoritarian about market-based exchange in and of itself. However, the supposedly "voluntary" transfers and agreements that take place under capitalism build upon a history of coercive property acquisitions, which have allowed a disproportionately small number of people to secure exclusive ownership rights to vast amounts of land and resources that greatly exceed what is required for personal use. The remainder of the population must subsequently pay tribute to the "owners" just to earn the right to exist. To freely occupy a space on the planet, most people must pay rent or a mortgage on a regular basis throughout the course of their lives. To acquire the means of paying, they must spend their lives working for the benefit and under the direction of those who control land and capital. Because of the amount of time spent working to satisfy the appetites of others, it becomes difficult to take care of one's own needs directly, thus making it necessary to purchase one's daily necessities as commodities. Hence, one must devote even more of one's life to projects that are not one's own in order to afford these commodities. The necessity of labor and commodity use only came into being after the ruling classes who carried favor with the state succeeded in forcibly asserting their dominion over land that was previously used in common by its residents. The present distribution of control over resources by capitalists, landlords, and speculators was only made possible by a history of usurpations and evictions. However, to be a resident of the planet under capitalism, one must pay whatever is requested to these beneficiaries of thievery - for they are considered the "rightful owners" of the planet, in spite of their violent methods of acquiring it. Free access to land is an essential element of an autonomous and self-sufficient existence. Unfortunately, certain categories of property rights enforced under capitalism allow the powerful to hoard resources that they neither produce nor use exclusively, hence reducing the bulk of the population to a landless state. Many people who acknowledge the exploitative nature of capitalism recommend socialism as an alternative. Socialists argue that the landowners and capitalists do not produce the resources required to sustain life, and hence cannot claim any valid ownership rights. Land should be considered the common property of the community that resides upon it, and capital should be owned and controlled collectively by the workers who produce it. In theory, anarchist socialism holds that the production and distribution of goods would be administered democratically by the workers themselves, or by elected delegates in cases in which specialization is required. Workplaces would be collectively controlled by workers' syndicates, which would be federated with each other to facilitate the exchange of resources between industries. No individual syndicate would be permitted to operate independently if its production is to rely upon the resources of other syndicates - a market economy based upon competing syndicates would only allow capitalism to resurface. All syndicates would be federated on a local, regional, national, and global level, making it necessary for the workers to elect multiple tiers of delegate councils to administer relations between the vast array of organizations involved. In reality, a federation run by a complex bureaucracy of delegates that wields global decision-making authority is no different than a state. Furthermore, the scope of such a federation's influence would be far greater than any state that currently exists, which would make it arguably much more pernicious. At least today, one potentially has the option of emigrating to escape the rule of one's government, and possibly moving to a country whose policies are more benign. Anarchist socialists hold that individuals would always have the option to choose which syndicate to join (although work itself would be no more optional than under capitalism). However, the delegates and workers may not always agree on what positions need to be filled. When the delegates who administer production and distribution determine that that there is a shortage of labor in one craft or industry and a surplus in another, they can choose between one of two options in order to rectify the situation. The first option is to implement coercive conscription measures, which is not anarchist. The second option is to issue unequally high pay or benefits to workers to provide them with an incentive to choose one craft or industry over another, which is contrary to the socialist goal of realizing a classless and egalitarian society. Advocates of the socialist varieties of anarchism (e.g., anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism) insist that the command structure of a federation will remain "democratic" and "non-hierarchical", and that the multiple layers of delegate councils will somehow remain "accountable" to the worker base. The delegates would be fundamentally different than the elected representatives of the state -- contrary to today's politicians, the elected delegates will be assigned a strict "mandate" from the workers, and hence will be obligated to carry it out. In the world conceived of by socialists, the workers are policy makers, even if they're cabinet builders, miners, or computer programmers by profession. It is unclear how this would be possible within a division of labor economy in which people normally understand 2-3 crafts at most. It is also undetermined exactly how the workers will ensure that the "mandates" will be carried out without constantly monitoring the actions, words and thoughts of the delegates. It should obvious to any anarchist that those entrusted with power are not bound by any "mandates", policies, procedures, or protocols unless they are strictly enforced at all times (which is impossible). Politicians, cops, and citizens do not obey any of the "mandates" that they disagree with unless they think there is a good possibility that they will be stopped and/or punished for not doing so. Why would worker-elected delegates act any differently? The behavior of union officials hasn't given us any indication that they would - quite the opposite. Furthermore, the way in which one carries out a "mandate" (if at all) is determined by one's personal interpretation of its meaning, which produces an additional disconnect between a policy's intent and its enforcement. Socialist anarchists will retort that an "instant recall" procedure will keep the arrangement democratic. Again, this requires the so-called "rank and file" to be no less engaged in the decision-making process than their elected bosses. Such would defeat the purpose of specialization and delegation. Theory aside, there have been no historical cases in which socialism has been successfully implemented writ large in a manner free of hierarchy, bureaucracy and coercion, which makes it impossible to verify the possibility of such a society. Most attempts to realize full socialism have resulted in totalitarian societies in which the population is used as an expendable resource for the enrichment of a handful of elites. Anarcho-communists and anarcho-syndicalists who disavow the experiments of the Soviet Union, the Eastern Bloc nations, China, and Cuba, will make their usual disclaimer: "Those aren't examples of real socialism, but Bolshevism and state capitalism." Considering that every attempt to implement "real socialism" has resulted in "state capitalism" and all of its associated horrors, anarchist socialists should consider the possibility that the proposed command structure of socialism might possess certain inherent properties that necessarily lead to such ghastly forms of authoritarianism. Leftist anarchists point to Catalonia during the Spanish Revolution as a short but successful instance of socialism, but the briefness of its existence might lead one to question whether it would have been sustainable in the long term. Furthermore, even socialist anarchists admit that the actions of the CNT were often abusive and authoritarian, not the least of which was its leaders' decision to submit to the direction of the state and Leninist forces to "fight fascism". In various locations throughout the world, nations no less free (and in certain respects, freer) than the U.S. have successfully implemented mixed economies containing elements of both market-based exchange and socialism without the use of death squads or gulags. Needless to say, none of them abolished the role of capital or the state. These failed attempts at stateless socialism are a direct consequence of the innate hierarchy of large-scale organization combined with a refusal to realize that power always corrupts, even when delegated democratically. Capitalism and socialism are not opposites, but different manifestations of the same process that aims to destroy individual autonomy and authenticity. This process is industrialism -- it is present in any social arrangement that is based upon the necessity of mass production. It is an inherently expansionist system in which the economic elites of a society (while backed by the power of the state) seek to forcibly employ the whole of the planet and life (human or non) that resides upon it into their service. It cannot function as a self-containing organism - for it to continue to increase or sustain productive output, it must perpetually extend the scope of its resource consumption, eventually converting all things into commodities that must be purchased to enjoy. People then become dependent upon this exploitative system to provide them with the resources required for survival. In non-industrial societies, people take care of their needs self-sufficiently instead of working primarily for an intermediary (e.g., a landlord, a business, or the state). The typical "work" day spans from 3-4 hours - leisure time is far more extensive in these societies than in those based upon mass production. Additionally, the process of "work" itself is far more creative, autonomous, and enjoyable than the toil one must undergo in a field, mine, factory, or office. As evidence, one may observe the artistic and expressive nature of the dwellings and handicrafts they create - their daily activities allow for individuality not tolerated in a mechanized labor environment. Most people know from experience that hunting, fishing, gardening, and small-scale crafts are much more pleasant and fulfilling activities than the fragmented and regimented chores that their jobs typically consist of. Furthermore, the direct satisfaction of needs doesn't require one to subordinate oneself to the control of mass organizations. No coercive governments or states are required to manage self-sufficient societies, although extended families within individual communities are often hierarchical. However, if one tires of one's local community, one does have the option of leaving to either form a new community or to live by oneself. Non-industrial societies are not expansionist, and thus do not demand that other communities conform to their customs and standards. Unfortunately, they have historically failed to successfully defend themselves against invading industrial societies who aim to seize their land for resource extraction and agriculture. Hence they have been massacred, enslaved, and forced to aid in the destruction of their own lands. Contrary to the false notions of "anarcho-capitalism", industrialism refuses to "live and let live". Although a free society must abandon industrialism in favor of self-sufficiency and small-scale autonomous communities, the rejection of mass production should not be construed as a desire to "return to the caves" (or to "return" to anything, for that matter). Reverting to a hunter-gatherer state is obviously not an option. Within the context of today's overpopulated world, such a way of life would quickly exhaust the wild game and edible plant populations, inevitably leading to mass starvation. Furthermore, one should not over-romanticize hunter-gatherers by claiming that every element of their way of life is desirable, much less perfect. However, it is not necessary to emulate every element of the past to arrive at a society free of hierarchy and alienating work, nor is it necessary to give up planting - there is literature available describing ways in which self-sufficiency and autonomy can be and is currently being created without the necessity of the stereotypical loincloths and hunting spears (although it would be a distraction to discuss the details here). Individuals will only be free to live autonomously for the sake of their own desires once industrialism is dismantled. Both capitalism and socialism are merely two different forms of industrial imperialism that enslave people to the organizations and projects of the powerful few. Even if socialism were democratic in practice, it would still not be desirable, for it is no better for one to be controlled and dominated by the majority than by the minority. Additionally, it should be apparent to all anarchists that freedom must mean more than the right to vote or to push for organizational change. Within the scope of a mutual association, people can agree upon a common set of standards or rules for behavior. However, one should always remain free to disassociate oneself when one no longer wishes to abide by these standards. Because of the expansionist nature of both capitalism and socialism, it is impossible to disassociate oneself from their influence and authority. Hence, any anarchy that is respectful of individual autonomy (and there can be no other kind) must reject the pretensions of both systems. A free society must be based not on an all-encompassing collectivist organizational structure or a quasi-religious reverence for overreaching private property rights, but instead upon freedom of association and a simple respect for personal space.