Section I - What would an anarchist society look like? 

I.1	Isn't libertarian socialism an oxymoron? 

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

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

	I.2.1	Why discuss what an anarchist society would be like at all? 
	I.2.2	Will it be possible to go straight to an anarchist society 
	 	from capitalism?

I.3	What could the economic structure of an anarchist society look like?

	I.3.1	What is a "syndicate"?
	I.3.2	What is workers' self-management?
	I.3.3	What role do collectives play in the "economy"? 
	I.3.4	What relations exist between individual syndicates?
	I.3.5	What would confederations of syndicates do? 
	I.3.6   What about competition between syndicates? 
	I.3.7	What about people who do not want to join a syndicate? 

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

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

	I.5.1	What are participatory communities and why are they needed?  
	I.5.2	Why are confederations of participatory communities needed? 
	I.5.3	What will be the scales and levels of confederation? 
	I.5.4	How will anything ever be decided by all those confederal 
	 	conferences?
	I.5.5	Are participatory communities and confederations not just 
	 	new states?
	I.5.6	Won't there be a danger of a "tyranny of the majority" under 
		libertarian socialism? 
	I.5.7	What if I don't want to join a commune? 
	I.5.8	What about crime?
	I.5.9   What about Freedom of Speach under Anarchism?
	I.5.10	What about Political Parties?
	I.5.11	What about interest groups and other associations?

I.6	What about the "Tragedy of the Commons" and all that? Surely communal
	ownership will lead to overuse and environmental destruction? 

	I.6.1	But anarchists cannot explain how the use of property 'owned by 
	 	everyone in the world' will be decided?  
	I.6.2   Doesn't any form of communal ownership involve restricting 
	        individual liberty?

I.7	Won't Libertarian Socialism destroy individuality?

	I.7.1 Do "Primative" cultures indicate that communalism defends 
	      individuality?
	I.7.2 Is this not worshipping the past or the "noble savage"?
	I.7.3 Is the law required to protect individual rights?
	I.7.4 Does capitalism protect individuality?

I.8	Does revolutionary Spain show that libertarian socialism can work in 
 	practice? 

	I.8.1	Wasn't the Spanish Revolution primarily a rural phenomenon and 
	 	therefore inapplicable as a model for modern industrialized 	
		states? 
	I.8.2	How were the anarchists able to obtain mass popular support in 
	 	Spain? 
	I.8.3 	How were Spanish industrial collectives organized? 
	I.8.4 	How were the Spanish industrial collectives coordinated? 
	I.8.5	How were the Spanish agricultural cooperatives organized and 
	 	coordinated? 
	I.8.6	What did the agricultural collectives accomplish?  
	I.8.7 	I've heard that the rural collectives were created by force. 
		Is this true?
	I.8.8 	But did the Spanish collectives innovate?
	I.8.9	Why, if it was so good, did it not survive? 
	I.8.10 	What political lessons were learned from the revolution?
	I.8.11 	What economic lessons were learned from the revolution?

Section I - What would an anarchist society look like? 

So far this FAQ has been largely critical, focusing on capitalism, the
state, and the problems to which they have led, as well as refuting some
bogus "solutions" that have been offered by authoritarians of both the
right and the left. It is now time to examine the constructive side of
anarchism -- the libertarian-socialist society that anarchists envision. 

Therefore, in this section of the FAQ we will give a short outline of what
an anarchist society might look like. To quote Glenn Albrecht, anarchists
"lay great stress on the free unfolding of a spontaneous order without the
use of external force or authority" ["Ethics, Anarchy and Sustainable
Development", _Anarchist Studies_ vol.2, no.2, pp. 110]. This type of 
development implies that anarchist society would be organised from the
simple to the complex, from the individual upwards to the community, the
bioregion and, ultimately, the planet. The resulting complex and diverse
order, which would be the outcome of nature freely unfolding toward
greater diversity and complexity, is ethically preferable to any other
sort of order simply because it allows for the *highest* degree of organic
unity and freedom. As Kropotkin argued, "[w]e forsee millions and millions of
groups freely constituting themselves for the the satisfaction of all the
varied needs of human beings. . . All these will be composed of human beings
who will combine freely. . .'Take pebbles,' said Fourier, 'put them in a
box and shake them, and they will arrange themselves in a mosaic that you
could never get by instructing to anyone the work of arranging them
harmonimously.'" [_The Place of Anarchism in Socialistic Evolution_, 
p. 11-12] Anarchist opposition to hierarchy is an essential part
of a "spontaneously ordered" society, for authority stops the free
development and growth of the individual. As Proudhon argued, "liberty 
is the mother of order, not its daughter."

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

Thus, a system which encourages individuality must be decentralised and
participatory in order for people to develop a psychology that allows 
them to accept the responsibilities of self-management. Living under
capitalism produces a servile character, as the individual is constantly
placed under hierarchical authority. Such a situation cannot promote
freedom. For under wage labour, people sell their creative energy and
control over their activity for a given period. The boss does not just
take surplus value from the time employees sell, but the time itself --
their ability to make their own decisions, express themselves through work
and with their fellow workers. Anarchism is about changing that, putting
life before the soul-destroying "efficiency" needed to survive under
capitalism; for the anarchist "takes his stand on his positive right to
life and all its pleasures, both intellectual, moral and physical. He
loves life, and intends to enjoy it to the full." [Mikhail Bakunin, quoted
in _Bakunin: The Philosophy of Freedom_, p. 118] 

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

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

Perhaps needless to say, this section is intended as a heuristic device
only, as a way of helping readers envision how anarchist principles might
be embodied in practice, but not as a definitive statement of how they
*must* be embodied. The idea that a few people could determine exactly
what a free society would look like is contrary to the anarchist principles
of free growth and thought, and is far from our intention. Here we simply
try to indicate some of the structures that an anarchist society may
contain, based on the few examples of anarchy in action that have existed
and our critical evaluation of their limitations and successes. Of
course, as such a society will not be created overnight or without links
to the past, and so it will initially include structures created in social
struggle and will be marked with the ideas that inspired and developed
within that struggle. For example, the anarchist collectives in Spain
were organised in a bottom-up manner, similar to the way the CNT (the
anarcho-syndicalist labor union) was organised before the revolution. 

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

So, when reading this section please remember that this is not a blueprint 
but only one possible suggestion of what anarchy would look like. It is
designed to provoke thought and indicate that an anarchist society is 
possible and that such a society is the product of our activity in the 
here and now.

I.1 Isn't libertarian socialism an oxymoron? 

No.  As discussed in section A.1.3, the word "libertarian" has been used
by anarchist socialists for far longer than the pro-free market right have
been using it.  This in itself does not, of course, prove that the term is
free of contradiction.  However, as we will show below, the claim that the
term is self-contractory rests on the assumption that socialism requires
the state in order to exist and that socialism is incompatible with
liberty. This assumption, as is often true of objections to socialism, is
based on a misconception of what socialism is, a misconception that many
authoritarian socialists and the state capitalism of Soviet Russia have
helped to foster.  In reality it is the term "state socialism" which is an
oxymoron.    

The right (and many on the left) consider that, by definition, "socialism"
*is* state ownership and control of the means of production, along with
centrally planned determination of the national economy (and so social
life).  This definition has become common because many Social Democrats,
Leninists, and other statists *call* themselves socialists.  However, the
fact that certain people call themselves socialists does not imply that
the system they advocate is really socialism.  We need to analyse and
understand the systems in question, by applying critical, scientific
thought, in order to determine whether their claims to the socialist label
are justified.  As we'll see, to accept the above definition one has to
ignore the overall history of the socialist movement and consider only
certain trends within it as representing the movement as a whole. 

Even a quick glance at the history of the socialist movement indicates
that the identification of socialism with state ownership and control is
not common. For example, Anarchists, many Guild Socialists, council
communists, and other libertarian Marxists, as well as followers of Robert
Owen, all rejected state ownership.  Indeed, anarchists recognised that
the means of production did not change their form as capital when the
state took over their ownership, and hence that state ownership of capital
was a tendency *within,* not *opposed* to, capitalism (see section H.2.2
for more on this).
  
So what *does* socialism mean?  And is it compatible with libertarian
ideals? _Webster's New International Dictionary_ defines a libertarian as
"One who holds to the doctrine of free will; also, one who upholds the
principles of liberty, esp. individual liberty of thought and action." As
we discussed earlier, capitalism denies liberty of thought and action
within the workplace (unless one is the boss, of course). Therefore,
*real*  libertarian ideas mean that workers control the work they do,
determining where and how they do it and what happens to the fruit of
their labour, which in turn means the elimination of wage labour.  It
implies a classless and anti-authoritarian (i.e. libertarian) society in
which people manage their own affairs, either as individuals or as part
of  a group (depending on the situation). In other words, it implies 
self-management in all aspects of life. 

According to the _American Heritage Dictionary_ "socialism" is "a social 
system in which the producers possess both political power and the means 
of producing and distributing goods."  This definition fits neatly with
the implications of the word "libertarian" indicated above.  In fact, it 
shows that socialism is *necessarily* libertarian, not statist.  For if the
state possesses the workplace, then the producers do not, and so they will
not be at liberty to manage their own work but will instead be subject to
the state as the boss.  Moreover, replacing the capitalist owning class
by  state officials in no way eliminates wage labour; in fact it makes it
worse in many cases.  Therefore "socialists" who argue for
nationalisation of the  means of production are *not* socialists (which
means that the soviet union  and the other 'socialist" countries and
parties are *not* socialist). 

Since it's an essential principle of socialism that inequalities of power
between people must be abolished in order to ensure liberty, it makes no
sense for a genuine socialist to support any institution based on
inequalities of power.  And as we discussed in section B, the state and
the authoritarian workplace are just such institutions.  However, the
meaning of "equality" has been so corrupted by capitalist ideologues, with
their "ethics of mathematics," that "equality" has come to mean
"identical." Given the uniqueness of individuals, any attempt to create a
society of people who are "equal" in the sense of identical would, of
course, not only be doomed to failure but would also create a slave
society in the process.  

So, libertarian socialism rejects the idea of state ownership and control
of the economy, along with the state as such. Through workers'
self-management it proposes to bring an end to authority, exploitation,
and hierachy in production. This in itself will increase, not reduce,
liberty. Those who argue otherwise rarely claim that political democracy
results in less freedom than political dictatorship (although a few
"libertarian" capitalist supporters of the "natural law" dogma effectively
do so -- see  section F.7). 

The communal ownership advocated by collectivist and communist anarchists 
is not the same as state ownership. This is because it is based on
horizontal  relationships between the actual workers and the "owners" of
social capital (i.e. the federated communities as a whole), not vertical
ones as in nationalisation.  In addition, all the members of a
participatory anarchist community fall into one of three categories:  (1)
producers (i.e. members of a collective or self-employed artisans), (2)
those unable to work (i.e. the  old, sick and so on, who *were*
producers), or (3) the young (i.e. those who *will be* producers).
Therefore, workers' self-management within a framework of communal
ownership is entirely compatible with libertarian and socialist ideas
concering the possession of the means of producing and distributing goods 
by the producers themselves.  Hence, far from there being any
contradiction between libertarianism and sociaism, libertarian ideals
imply socialist ones, and vice versa. As Bakunin argued in 1867, "We are
convinced that freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice, and
that Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality" [_Bakunin on
Anarchism_]. History has proven him correct. 

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

In 1920, von Mises declared socialism to be impossible on the grounds that
without private ownership of the means of production, there cannot be a
competitive market for production goods; that without a market for
production goods, it is impossible to determine their values; and that
without knowing their values, economic rationality is impossible. This is
his "calculation argument," which "anarcho"-capitalists are fond of
claiming is a "proof" that libertarian (or any other kind of) socialism is
impossible in principle.

As David Schweickart observes in _Against Capitalism_, however, it has
long been recognized that von Mises's argument is logically defective,
because even without a market in production goods, their monetary values
can be determined. In other words, economic calculation based on prices is
possible in a libertarian socialist system. In addition, the Mondragon
cooperatives indicate that a libertarian socialist economy can exist and
flourish. There is no need for capital markets in a system based on mutual
banks and networks of cooperatives. Unfortunately, the state socialists
who replied to Mises did not have such a libertarian economy in mind. 

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

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

Thus the economic crises of the 1980s in the Soviet Union and Eastern
Europe do not  provide evidence that Mises and Hayek were correct in 
maintaining that "socialism" cannot be made to work in practice.  For as
shown in the previous section, these countries were not socialist at all. 
Obviously  the Soviet Union and Eastern European countries had
authoritarian "command  economies" with central bureaucratic planning, and
so their failure cannot be taken as proof that a decentralized,
libertarian socialism cannot work.  The latter kind of socialism did in
fact work remarkably well during the Spanish Revolution in the face of
amazing difficulties, with increased productivity and output in many
workplaces (see Sam Dolgoff, _The Anarchist Collectives_ and section I.8
of this FAQ).

Finally, let us note that the theoretical work of Schweickart, Engler and 
others on market socialism shows that von Mises was wrong in asserting that 
"a socialist system with a market and market prices is as self-contradictory 
as is the notion of a triangular square." So far, most models of market 
socialism have not been fully libertarian, but instead involve the idea of 
workers' control within a framework of state ownership of capital (Engler 
is an exception to this, supporting community ownership).  However, as we
argue in G.4, libertarian forms of market socialism are indeed possible and 
would be similar to Proudhon's mutualism (as some Leninist Marxists recognise,
see _Against the Market_ in which the author argues that Proudhon was precuser
of the current market socialists).

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

No. While the "calculation argument" is often used by right-libertarian's
as *the* "scientific" basis for the argument that communism (a moneyless
society) is impossible, it is based on certain false ideas of what money
does and how an anarchist society would function without it. This is
hardly surprising, as Mises based his theory on the "subjective" theory of
value and marxian social-democratic ideas of what a "socialist" "economy"
would look like. However, it is useful here to indicate exactly why a
moneyless "economy" would work and why the "calculation argument" is
flawed as an objection to it. 

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

This argument is not without its force. How can a producer be expected to
know if tin is a better use of resources than iron when creating a
product? However, Mises' argument is based on a number of flawed
assumptions.  Firstly, he assumes a centralised, planned economy. While
this was a common idea in Marxian social democracy, it is rejected by
anarchism. No small body of men can be expected to know what happens in
society.  As Bakunin argued, it would lead to "an extremely complex
government. This government will not content itself with administering and
governing the masses politically. . .it will also administer the masses
economically, concentrating in the hands of the State [all economic
activity]. . .All that will demand an immense knowledge and many heads
`overflowing with brains' in this government. It will be the reign of
*scientific intelligence,* the most aristocratic, despotic, arrogant, and
elitist of all regimes. There will be a new class, a new hierarchy. . .
Such a reigme will not fail to arouse very considerable discontent in the
masses of the people, and in order to keep them in check. . .[a]
considerable armed force [would be required]." [_Bakunin on Anarchism_, 
p.319]  Hence anarchists can agree with Mises:  central planning cannot work
in practice. However, socialist ideas are not limited to Marxian Social
Democracy, and so Mises ignores far more socialistic ideas than he attacks.

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

The generation and communication of such information implies a decentralised, 
horizontal network between producers and consumers. Therefore, as John O'Neil 
notes, "the market may be *one* way in which dispersed knowledge can be put 
to good effect. It is not... the only way" [_Ecology, Policy and Politics_, 
p. 118]

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

Therefore, a purely market-based system leaves out information on which to
base rational resource allocations (or, at the very least, hides it). The
reason for this is that a market system measures, at best, preferences of
*individual* buyers among the *available* options. This assumes that all
pertinent use-values that are to be outcomes of production are things that
are to be consumed by the individual, rather than use-values that are
collectively enjoyed (like clean air). In other words, prices hide the
actual costs that production involved for the individual, society, and the
environment, and instead boils everything down into *one* factor, namely
price. There is a lack of dialogue and information between producer and 
consumer. As John O'Neil argues, "the market distributes a little 
information and. . . blocks the distribution of a great deal [more]. . .
The educative dialogue exists not through the market, but alongside of it" 
[_Ecology, Policy and Politics_, p. 143].

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

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

To claim that prices include all these "externalities" is nonsense. If
they did, we would not see capital moving to third-world countries with
few or any anti-pollution or labour laws. At best, the "cost" of pollution
would only be included in price if the company was sued successfully in
court for damages -- in other words, once the damage is done.  Ultimately,
companies have a strong interest in buying inputs with the lowest prices,
regardless of *how* they are produced. As Noam Chomsky points out, "[i]n a
true capitalist society, . . . socially responsible behavior would be
penalized quickly in that competitors, lacking such social responsibility,
would supplant anyone so misguided as to be concerned with something other
than private benefit" [_Language and Politics_, pp. 300-1].  It is
reductionist accounting and its accompanying "ethics of mathematics" that
produces the "irrationality of rationality" which plagues capitalism's
exclusive reliance on prices to measure "efficiency."  Moreover, the
critique we have just sketched ignores the periodic crises that hit
capitalist industry and economies to produce massive unemployment and
social distruption -- crises that are due to subjective and objective
pressures on the operation of the price mechanism. 

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

Sections I.4.4 and I.4.5 discusses one possible framework for a communist 
economic decision-making process. Such a framework is necessary because 
"an appeal to a necessary role for practical judgements in decision
making  is *not* to deny any role to general principles. Neither...does it
deny any  place for the use of technical rules and algorithmic
procedures...Moreover,  there is a necessary role for rules of thumb,
standard procedures, the default  procedures and institutional
arrangements that can be followed unreflectively  and which *reduce* the
scope for *explicit* judgements comparing different  states of affairs.
There are limits in time, efficient use of resources and  the dispersal of
knowledge which require rules and institutions. Such rules  and
institutions can fee us for space and time for reflective judgements 
where they matter most" [John O'Neil, Op. Cit., pp.117-118].

As two libertarian socialists point out, "socialist society still has to
be concerned with using resources efficiently and rationally, but the
criteria of 'efficiency' and 'rationality' are not the same as they are
under capitalism." [Buick and Crump, Op. Cit., p. 137] So, to claim that
communism will be "more" efficient than capitalism misses the point.  It 
will be "efficient" in a totally different way and people will act in ways
considered "irrational" only under the logic of capitalism. 

I.1.3 What is wrong with markets anyway? 

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

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

In addition, a market-based system can result in what we have termed "the
ethics of mathematics," where things (particularly money) become more
important than people. This can have a de-humanising effect, with people
becoming cold-hearted working calculators who put profits before people.
This can be seen in capitalism, where economic decisions are far more
important than ethical ones. Merit does not "necessarily" breed success,
and the successful do not "necessarily" have merit. The truth is that, in
the words of Noam Chomsky, "wealth and power tend to accrue to those who
are ruthless, cunning, avaricious, self-seeking, lacking in sympathy and
compassion, subservient to authority and willing to abandon principle for
material gain, and so on." (Thorstein Veblen elaborated at length on this
theme in _The Leisure Class_, a classic analysis of capitalist
psychology.) A system which elevates making money to the position of the
most important individual activity will obviously result in the degrading
of human values and an increase in neurotic and pyschotic behaviour. 

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

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

In addition, market decisions are crucially conditioned by the purchasing
power of those income groups that can back their demands with money.  The
market is a continuous bidding for goods, resources, and services, with
those who have the most purchasing power the winners. This means that the
market system is the worst one for allocating resources when purchasing
power is unequally distributed. This is why orthodox economists make the
connvenient assumption of a 'given distribution of income' when they try
to show that a market-based allocation of resources is the best one (for
example, "Pareto optimality"). 

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore, social anarchists do not appeal to "altruism" in their struggle
against the de-humanising effects of the market, but rather, to egoism: 
the simple fact that cooperation and mutual aid is in our best interests
as individuals. By cooperating and controlling "the affairs of the
united," we can ensure a free society which is worth living in, one in
which the individual is not crushed by market forces and has time to fully
develop his or her individuality and uniqueness. "Solidarity is therefore
the state of being in which Man attains the greatest degree of security
and wellbeing; and therefore egoism itself, that is the exclusive
consideration of one's own interests, impels Man and human society towards
solidarity" [Errico Malatesta, _Anarchy_, p. 28].

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

Some "Libertarian" capitalists say yes to this question, arguing that the
labour theory of value (LTV) does not imply socialism but what they call
"self-managed" capitalism. This, however, is not a valid inference.  The
LTV can imply both socialism (selling the product of ones labour) and
communism (distribution according to needs). The theory is a critique of
capitalism, not necessarily the basis of a socialist economy, although it
*can* be considered this as well. For example, Proudhon used the LTV as
the foundation of his proposals for mutual banking and cooperatives, while
Robert Owen used it as the basis of his system of labour notes. Though a
system of cooperative selling on the market or exchanging labour-time
values would not be communism, it is *not* capitalism, because the workers
are not separated from the means of production.  Therefore, right
libertarians' attempts to claim that it is capitalism are false, an
example of misinformed insistence that virtually *every* economic system,
bar state socialism and feudalism, is capitalist. Some libertarian
Marxists  claim, similarly, that non-communist forms of socialism are just
"self-managed" capitalism. Why libertarian Marxists desire to reduce the
choices facing humanity to either communism some form of capitalism is
frankly strange, but also understandable because of the potential
dehumanising effects of market systems seen under capitalism.

However, it could be argued that communism (based on free access and
communal ownership of resources) would mean that workers are exploited by
non-workers (the young, the sick, the elderly and so on). While this may
reflect the  sad lack of personal empathy (and so ethics) of the
pro-capitalist  defenders of this argument, it totally misses the point as
far as communist anarchism goes. This is because "anarchist communism . . .
means voluntary communism, communism from free choice" [A. Berkman, _ABC
of Anarchism_, p. 11], which means it is not imposed on anyone but is created
and practiced only by those who believe in it. Therefore it would  be up
to the communities and syndicates to decide how they wish to distribute 
the products of their labour.  Some may decide on equal pay, others on
payment in terms of labour time, yet others on communistic associations.
We have indicated elsewhere why communism would be in people's
self-interest, so we will not repeat ourselves here. The important thing
to realise is that cooperatives will decide what to do with their output,
whether to exchange it or to distribute it freely. Hence, because it is
based on free agreement, anarchist communism cannot be exploitative.
Members of a cooperative which is communistic are free to leave, after
all. Needless to say, the cooperatives will usually distribute their
product to others within their confederation and exchange with the
non-communist ones in a different manner. We say "usually," for in the
case of emergencies like earthquakes and so forth the situation would call
for mutual aid. 

The reason why capitalism is exploitative is that workers *have* to agree
to give the product of their labour to another (the boss) in order to be
employed in the first place (see section B.4). Capitalists would not remain 
capitalists if their capital did not produce a profit. In libertarian 
communism, by contrast, the workers themselves agree to distribute part of 
their product to others (i.e. society as a whole, their neightbours, 
friends, and so forth). It is based on free agreement, while capitalism 
is marked by power, authority, and the firm hand of market forces. Similiarly,
capitalism by its very nature, needs to expand into new areas, meaning
that unlike socialism, it will attempt to undermine and replace other
social systems (usually by force, if history is any guide). As freedom
cannot be given, there is no reason for a libertarian-socialist system to
expand beyond the effect of a "good example" on the oppressed of
capitalist regimes.

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

No, far from it. There can be no such thing as a "blueprint" for a free
society. All we can do here is indicate those general features that we
believe a free society *must* have in order to qualify as truly libertarian.
For example, a society based on hierarchical management in the workplace
(like capitalism) would not be libertarian, nor would it remain anarchist
for long, as private or public states would soon develop to protect the
power of those in the top hierarchical positions. Beyond such general
considerations, however, the specifics of how to structure a
non-hierarchical workplace must remain open for discussion and
experimentation. 

So, this section of the anarchist FAQ should not be regarded as a detailed
plan. Anarchists have always been reticent about spelling out their
vision of the future in too much detail. For it would be contrary to
anarchist principles to dogmatise about the precise forms the new society
must take. Free people will create their own alternative institutions in
response to conditions specific to their area, and it would be
presumptuous of us to attempt to set forth universal policies in advance.
Not only that, given the ways in which our own unfree society has shaped
our ways of thinking, it's probably impossible for us to imagine what new
forms will arise once humanity's ingenuity and creativity is unleashed by
the removal of its present authoritarian fetters.

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

So, when reading these sections, please remember that this is just an
attempt to sketch the outline of a possible future. It is in no way an
attempt to determine *exactly* what a free society would be like, for such
a free society will be the result of the actions of all of society, not
just anarchists. As Malatesta argues, "[no] one can judge with certainty who
is right and who is wrong, who is nearest to the truth, or which is the
best way to achieve the greatest good for each and everyone. Freedom,
coupled by experience, is the only way of discovering the truth and what
is best; and there is no freedom if there is a denial of the freedom to
err" [_Malatesta: Life and Ideas_, p. 49]

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

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

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

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

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

As Malatesta pointed out, such discussions are necessary and essential,
for "[i]t is absurd to believe that, once government has been destroyed
and the capitalists expropriated, 'things will look after themselves'
without the intervention of those who already have an idea on what has to
be done and who immediately set about doing it. . . . [for] social life,
as the life of individual's, does not permit of interruption" [Op. Cit.,
p. 121] 

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

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

Possibly. It depends on the social situation and what anarchists you
ask. For example, Bakunin and other collectivists have doubted the
possibility of introducing a communistic system instantly after a
revolution. Some anarchists, like the individualists, do not support the
idea of revolution and instead see anarchist alternatives growing within
capitalism and slowly replacing it. For Kropotkin and many other
anarcho-communists, communistic anarchy can, and must, be introduced at
once in order to ensure a successful revolution.

One thing that all anarchists do agree on is that it's essential for both
the state and capitalism to be undermined as quickly as possible. It is
true that, in the course of social revolution, we anarchists may not be able
to stop a new state being created or the old one from surviving. It all depends
on the balance of support for anarchist ideas in the population and how
willing people are to introduce them. There is no doubt, though, that for
a social revolt to be fully anarchist, the state and capitalism must be
destroyed and new forms of oppression and exploitation not put in their
place. 

Most anarchists, however, agree that an anarchist society cannot be
created overnight, for to assume so would be to imagine that anarchists
could enforce their ideas on a pliable population. Libertarian socialism
can only be created from below, by people who want it and understand it,
organising and liberating themselves. The results of the Russian
Revolution should have cleared away long ago any contrary illusions about
how to create "socialist" societies. The lesson from every revolution is
that the mistakes made by people in liberating themselves are always
minor compared to the results of creating authorities, who eliminate such
"ideological errors" by destroying the freedom to make mistakes. For
freedom is the only real basis on which socialism can be built.

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

One thing is certain: an anarchist social revolution or mass movement
will need to defend itself against attempts by statists and capitalists to
defeat it. Every popular movement, revolt, or revolution has had to face a
backlash from the supporters of the status quo. An anarchist revolution or
mass movement will face (and indeed has faced) such counter-movements.

However, this does not mean that the destruction of the state and
capitalism need be put off until after the forces of reaction are defeated
(as Marxists usually claim). A social revolution can only be defended by
anti-statist means, for example arming the people and organising popular
militias, as the Mexican, Ukrainian, and Spanish anarchists did.

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

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

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

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

Here we will examine a possible framework of a libertarian-socialist
economy. It should be kept in mind that in practice it is impossible to
separate the economic realm from the social and political realms, as there
are numerous interconnections between them. Also, by discussing the
economy first we are not implying that dealing with economic domination is
more important than dealing with other aspects of the total system of
domination, e.g. patricentric values, racism, etc. We follow this order of
exposition because of the need to present one thing at a time, but it
would have been equally easy to start with the social and political
structure of anarchy.

The aim of any anarchist society would be to maximize freedom and so
creative work. In the words of Noam Chomsky, "[i]f it is correct, as I 
believe it is, that a fundamental element of human nature is the need for 
creative work or creative inquiry, for free creation without the arbitrary 
limiting effects of coercive institutions, then of course it will follow 
that a decent society should maximize the possibilities for this fundamental 
human characteristic to be realized. Now, a federated, decentralized system 
of free associations incorporating economic as well as social institutions 
would be what I refer to as anarcho-syndicalism. And it seems to me that 
it is the appropriate form of social organization for an advanced 
technological society, in which human beings do not have to be forced 
into the position of tools, of cogs in a machine."

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

The key principles of libertarian socialism are decentralization,
self-management by direct democracy, voluntary association, and
federation. These principles determine the form and function of both 
the economic and political systems. In this section we'll consider just the
economic system. Bakunin gives an excellent overview of such an economy
when he writes: "The land belongs to only those who cultivate it with
their own hands; to the agricultural communes. The capital and all the
tools of production belong to the workers; to the workers' associations
. . . The future political organisation should be a free federation of
workers." [_Bakunin on Anarchy_, p. 247]

The essential economic concept for libertarian socialists is *workers'
control.* However, this concept needs careful explanation, because, like
the terms "anarchist" and "libertarian," "workers' control" is also is
being co-opted by capitalists. 

As anarchists use the term, workers' control means collective worker 
ownership and self-management of all aspects of production and distribution, 
through participatory-democratic workers' councils, agricultural syndicates, 
and people's financial institutions which perform all functions formerly 
reserved for capitalist owners, executives, and financiers. 

"Workers' ownership" in its most limited sense refers merely to the
ownership of individual firms by their workers. In such firms, surpluses
(profits) would be either equally divided between all full-time members of
the cooperative or divided unequally on the basis of the type of work
done, with the percentages allotted to each type being decided by
democratic vote, on the principle of one worker, one vote. 

Worker cooperatives of this type do have the virtue of preventing the
exploitation of wage labor by capital, since workers are not hired for
wages but, in effect, become partners in the firm, so that the value-added
that they produce is not appropriated by a privileged elite. However, this
does not mean that all forms of economic domination and exploitation would
be eliminated if worker ownership were confined merely to individual
firms. In fact, most social anarchists believe this type of system would
degenerate into a kind of "petty-bourgeois cooperativism" in which 
worker-owned firms would act as syndicate capitalists and compete against 
each other in the market as ferociously as the previously individual 
capitalists. This would also lead to a situation where market forces 
ensured that the workers involved made irrational decisions (from both 
a social and individual point of view) in order to survive in the market. 
As these problems were highlighted in section I.1.3 (What's wrong with 
markets anyway?), we will not repeat ourselves here.

For individualist anarchists, this "irrationality of rationality" is the
price to be paid for a free market and any attempt to overcome this
problem holds numerous dangers to freedom. 

Social anarchists disagree. They think cooperation between workplaces can 
increase, not reduce, freedom. Social anarchists' proposed solution is
*society-wide* ownership of the major means of production and distribution, 
based on the anarchist principle of voluntary federation, with confederal 
bodies or coordinating councils at two levels: first, between all firms in 
a particular industry; and second, between all industries, agricultural 
syndicates, and people's financial institutions throughout the society.
As Berkman put it, "[a]ctual use will be considered the only title - not to 
ownership but to possession. The organisation of the coal miners, for example, 
will be in charge of the coal mines, not as owners but as the operating 
agency. Similarly will the railroad brotherhoods run the railroads, and so 
on. Collective possession, co-operatively managed in the interests of the 
community, will take the place of personal ownership privately conducted 
for profit." [_ABC of Anarchism_, p. 69]

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

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

"Mandated" here means that delegates from workers' councils to meetings 
of higher confederal bodies would be instructed, at every level of
confederation, by the workers they represent on how to deal with any
issue. The delegates would be given imperative mandates (binding
instructions) that committed them to a framework of policies within which
they would have to act, and they could be recalled and their decisions
revoked at any time for failing to carry out the mandates they were given.
Because of this right of mandating and recalling their delegates, workers'
councils would be the source of and final authority over policy for all
higher levels of confederal coordination of the economy. 

A society-wide economic federation of this sort is clearly not the same
thing as a centralized state agency, as in the concept of nationalized or
state-owned industry. Rather, it is a decentralized, participatory-democratic 
organization whose members can secede at any time and in which all power and 
initiative arises from and flows back to the grassroots level. Thus
Kropotkin's summary of what anarchy would look like:

"harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by 
obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the 
various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the 
sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the 
infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being. In a society 
developed on these lines. . . voluntary associations. . . would represent 
an interwoven network, composed of an infinite variety of groups and
federations of all sizes and degrees, local, regional, national and
international temporary or more or less permanent - for all possible
purposes: production, consumption and exchange, communications, sanitary
arrangements, education, mutual protection, defence of the territory, and so
on; and, on the other side, for the satisfaction of an ever-increasing
number of scientific, artistic, literary and sociable needs. Moreover, such
a society would represent nothing immutable. On the contrary - as is seen in
organic life at large - harmony would (it is contended) result from an
ever-changing adjustment and readjustment of equilibrium between the
multitudes of forces and influences, and this adjustment would be the easier
to obtain as none of the forces would enjoy a special protection from the
state." ["Anarchism", from _The Encyclopaedia Britannica_, 1910]

If this type of system sounds "utopian" it should be kept in mind that it
was actually implemented and worked quite well in the collectivist economy
organized during the Spanish Revolution of 1936, despite the enormous
obstacles presented by an ongoing civil war as well as the relentless 
(and eventually successful) efforts of both the Stalinists and Fascists 
to crush it. (See Sam Dolgoff, _The Anarchist Collectives: Workers'
Self-management in the Spanish Revolution, 1936-1939_, New York: 
Free Life Editions, 1974).

As well as this (and other) examples of "anarchy in action" there have been
other libertarian socialist economic systems described in writing. All share 
the common features of workers' self-management, cooperation and
so on we discuss here and in section I.4. These texts include _Syndicalism_ 
by Tom Brown, _The Program of Anarcho-Syndicalism_ by G.P. Maximoff, _Guild 
Socialism Restated_ by G.D.H. Cole, _After the Revolution_ by Abad de 
Santillan, _Anarchist Economics_ and _Principles of Libertarian Economy_ 
by Abraham Guillen, _Workers Councils and the Economics of a Self-Managed 
Society_ by Cornelius Castoriadis among others. Also worth reading are
_The Political Economy of Participatory Economics_ and _Looking Forward_ 
by Micheal Albert and Robin Hanel which contain some useful ideas. Fictional accounts include William Morris' _News from Nowhere_, _The Dispossessed_ by
Ursula Le Guin and _Women on the Edge of Time_ by Marge Piercy.

I.3.1 What is a "syndicate"?

As we will use the term, a "syndicate" (often called a "producer
cooperative," or "cooperative" for short, sometimes "collective" or
"association of producers" or "guild factory" or "guild workplace") is a
democratically self-managed productive enterprise whose productive assets
are either owned by its workers or by society as a whole. 

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

In many ways a syndicate is similar to a cooperative under capitalism.
Indeed, Bakunin argued that anarchists are "convinced that the cooperative
will be the preponderant form of social organisation in the future, in
every branch of labour and science" [_Basic Bakunin_, p. 153]. Therefore, 
even from the limited examples of cooperatives functioning in the 
capitalist market, the essential features of a libertarian socialist
economy can be seen. The basic economic element, the workplace, will be a
free association of individuals, who will organise their joint work
cooperatively.

"Cooperation" in this context means that the policy decisions related to
their association will be based on the principle of "one member, one
vote," with "managers" and other administrative staff elected and held
accountable to the workplace as a whole. Workplace self-management does
not mean, as many apologists of capitalism suggest, that knowledge and
skill will be ignored and *all* decisions made by everyone. 

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

The fact that decision-making powers would be delegated in this manner
sometimes leads people to ask whether a syndicate would not just be
another form of hierarchy. The answer is that it would not be
hierarchical because the workers' councils, open to all workers, would
decide what types of decision-making powers to delegate, thus ensuring
that ultimate power rests at the mass base. For example, if it turned out
that a certain type of delegated decision-making power was being abused,
it could be revoked by the whole workforce. Because of this grassroots
control, there is every reason to think that crucial types of
decision-making powers with the potential for seriously affecting all
workers' lives -- powers that are now exercised in an authoritarian manner
by managers under capitalism, such as those of hiring and firing, introducing
new production methods or technologies, changing product lines, relocating
production facilities, etc. -- would not be delegated but would remain
with the workers' assemblies.

As Malatesta put it, "of course in every large collective undertaking, a
division of labour, technical management, administration, etc. is
necessary. But authoritarians clumsily play on words to produce a *raison
d'etre for government out of the very real need for the organisation of
work. . . [However] Government means the delegation of power, that is the
abdication of initiative and sovereignty of all into the hands of a few;
administration means the delegation of work, that is tasks given and
received, free exchange of services based on free agreement. . .let one
not confuse the function of government with that of an administration, for
they are essentially different, and if today the two are often confused,
it is only because of economic and political privilege" [_Anarchy_, pp.
39-40].

New syndicates will be created upon the initiative of individuals within 
communities. These may be the initiative of workers in an existing
syndicate who desire to expand production, or members of the local
community who see that the current syndicates are not providing adequately
in a specific area of life. Either way, the syndicate will be a voluntary
association for producing useful goods or services and would spring up
and disappear as required. Therefore, an anarchist society would see
syndicates developing spontaneously as individuals freely associate to 
meet their needs, with both local and confederal initatives taking place. 
(The criteria for investment decisions is discussed in section I.4.7).

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

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

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

I.3.2 What is workers' self-management?

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

In the hands of capitalists, "workers' control" is now referred to by such
terms as "participation," "democratization," "co-determination,"
"consensus," "empowerment", "Japanese-style management," etc. As Sam
Dolgoff notes, "For those whose function it is solve the new problems of
boredom and alienation in the workplace in advanced industrial capitalism,
workers' control is seen as a hopeful solution. . . . a solution in which
workers are given a modicum of influence, a strictly limited area of
decision-making power, a voice at best secondary in the control of
conditions of the workplace. Workers' control, in a limited form
sanctioned by the capitalists, is held to be the answer to the growing
non-economic demands of the workers" ["Workers' Control" in _The
Anarchist Collectives_, ed. Sam Dolgoff, Free Life Editions, 1974, p.
81].

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

Hence we prefer the term "workers' self-management" -- a concept which
refers to the exercise of workers' power through collectivization and
federation (see below). Self-management in this sense "is not a new form
of mediation between the workers and their capitalist bosses, but instead
refers to the very process by which the workers themselves *overthrow*
their managers and take on their own management and the management of
production in their own workplace. Self-management means the organization
of all workers . . . into a workers' council or factory committee (or
agricultural syndicate), which makes all the decisions formerly made by
the owners and managers" [Ibid., p. 81]. 

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

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

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

As we have seen, private ownership of the means of production is the
lynchpin of capitalism, because it is the means by which capitalists are
able to exploit workers by appropriating surplus value from them. To
eliminate such exploitation, anarchists propose that social capital --
productive assets such as factories and farmland -- be owned by society as
a whole and shared out among syndicates and self-employed individuals by
directly democratic methods, through face-to-face voting of the whole
electorate in local neighbourhood and community assemblies, which will be
linked together through voluntary federations. It does *not* mean that the
state owns the means of production, as under Marxism-Leninism or social
democracy, because there is no state under libertarian socialism. (For
more on neighbourhood and community assemblies, see sections I.5.2 and
I.5.3).

Production for use rather than profit is the key concept that
distinguishes collectivist and communist forms of anarchism from market
socialism or from the competitive forms of mutualism advocated by
Proudhon and the individualist anarchists. Under mutualism, workers
organize themselves into syndicates, but ownership of a syndicate's
capital is limited to its workers rather than resting with the whole
society. Under most versions of market socialism, the state owns the
social capital but the syndicates use it to pursue profits, which are
retained by and divided among the members of the individual syndicates.
Thus both mutualism and market socialism are forms of "bourgeois
cooperativism" in which the worker-owners of the cooperatives function 
as collective "capitalists", competing in the marketplace with other 
cooperatives for customers, profits, raw materials, etc. -- a situation
that gives rise to many of the same problems that arise under capitalism
(see section H.4). 

In contrast, within anarcho-collectivism and anarcho-communism, society
as a whole owns the social capital, which allows for the elimination of
both competition for profits and the tendency for workers to develop a
proprietary interest the enterprises in which they work. This in turn
enables goods to be either sold at their production prices so as to
reduce their cost to consumers or distributed in accordance with
communist principles (namely free); it facilitates efficiency gains
through the consolidation of formerly competing enterprises; and it
eliminates the many problems due to the predatory nature of capitalist
competition, including the destruction of the environment through the
"grow or die" principle, the development of oligopolies from capital
concentration and centralization, and the business cycle, with its
periodic recessions and depressions.

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

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

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

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

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

I.3.4 What relations would exist between individual syndicates?

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

Anarchists recognise the importance of letting people organise their own
lives. This means that they reject central planning and instead urge
direct links between workers' associations. Those directly involved in
production know their needs far better than any bureaucrat. Therefore
anarchists think that "[i]n the same way that each free individual has
associated with his brothers [and sisters!] to produce . . .all that was 
necessary for life, driven by no other force than his desire for the full 
enjoyment of life, so each institution is free and self-contained, and 
cooperates and enters into agreements with others because by so doing it
extends its own possibilities." [George Barret, _The Anarchist
Revolution_, p. 18] An example of one such agreement would be orders for
products and services.

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

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

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

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

A confederation of syndicates (called a "guild" by some libertarian
socialists, or "industrial union" by others) works on two levels: within
an industry and across industries. The basic operating principle of these
confederations is the same as that of the syndicate itself -- voluntary
cooperation between equals in order to meet common needs. In other words,
each syndicate in the confederation is linked by horizontal agreements
with the others, and none owe any obligations to a separate entity above
the group (see section A.11, "Why are anarchists in favour of direct
democracy?" for more on the nature of anarchist confederation). 

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

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

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

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

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

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

As indicated above, free agreement will ensure that customers would be 
able to choose their own suppliers, meaning that production units would 
know whether they were producing what their customers wanted, i.e.,
whether they were meeting social need as expressed through demand. If
they were not, customers would go elsewhere, to other production units
within the same branch of production. However, the investment response
to consumer actions would be coordinated by a confederation of syndicates
in that branch of production. By such means, the confederation can ensure
that resources are not wasted by individual syndicates over-producing
goods or over-investing in response to changes in production (see section
I.3.5). 

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

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

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

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

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

I.3.5 What would confederations of syndicates do? 

Voluntary confederation among syndicates is required in order to decide 
on the policies governing relations between syndicates and to coordinate
their activities. There are two basic kinds of confederation: within all
workplaces of a certain type, and within the whole economy (the federation
of all syndicates). Both would operate at different levels, meaning there
would be confederations for both industrial and inter-industrial 
associations at the local and regional levels and beyond. The basic aim
of this inter-industry and cross-industry networking is to ensure that
the relevant information is spread across the various elemental parts of
the economy so that each can effectively coordinate its plans with the
others. By communicating across workplaces, people can overcome the
barriers to coordinating their plans which one finds in market systems
(see section C.7.1) and so avoid the economic and social disruptions
associated with capitalism.

However, it is essential to remember that each syndicate within the 
confederation is autonomous. The confederations seek to coordinate
activities of joint interest (in particular investment decisions for new
plant and the rationalisation of existing plant in light of reduced
demand). They do not determine what work a syndicate does or how they do
it. As Kropotkin argues (based on his firsthand experience of Russia under
Lenin), "[n]o government would be able to organize production if the
workers themselves through their unions did not do it in each branch of
industry; for in all production there arise daily thousands of
difficulties which no government can solve or foresee. It is certainly
impossible to foresee everything. Only the efforts of thousands of
intelligences working on the problems can cooperate in the development of
a new social system and find the best solutions for the thousands of
local needs." [_Revolutionary Pamphlets_, pp. 76-77] 

Thus Coles statement:

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

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

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

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

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

However, it could again be argued that these confederations are still
centralised and that workers would still be following orders coming from
above. This is incorrect, for any decisions concerning an industry or plant
are under the direct control of those involved. For example, the steel
industry confederation may decide to rationalise itself at one of its
congresses. Murray Bookchin sketches the response to this situation as
follows: "[L]et us suppose that a board of highly qualified technicians is
established [by this congress] to propose changes in the steel industry. 
This board. . . advances proposals to rationalise the industry by closing
down some plants and expanding the operation of others. . . . Is this a
"centralised" body or not? The answer is both yes and no. Yes, only in the
sense that the board is dealing with problems that concern the country as
a whole; no, because it can make no decision that *must* be executed for
the country as a whole. The board's plan must be examined by all the
workers in the plants [that are affected]. . . . The board itself has no
power to enforce 'decisions'; it merely makes recommendations.
Additionally, its personnel are controlled by the plant in which they work
and the locality in which they live" [_Post Scarcity Anarchism_, p. 267]. 

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

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

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

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

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

I.3.6 What about competition between syndicates? 

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

For individualist anarchists and mutualists, competition is not viewed as
a problem. They think that competition, based around cooperatives and
mutual banks, would minimise economic inequality, as the credit structure
would eliminate unearned income such as profit, interest and rent and give
workers enough bargaining power to eliminate exploitation. Other
anarchists think that whatever gains might accrue from competition would
be more than offset by its negative effects, which are outlined in section
I.1.3. It is to these anarchists that the question is usually asked.

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

Anarchists desire to create a society in which such relationships are 
impossible, believing that the most effective way to do this is by 
empowering all, by creating an egoistic concern for liberty and equality 
among the oppressed, and by developing social organisations which encourage 
self-management. As for individuals' trying to improve their lot, anarchists 
maintain that cooperation is the best means to do so, *not* competition. 

Robert Axelrod, in his book, _The Evolution of Cooperation_ agrees and 
presents abundant evidence that cooperation is in our long term interests
(i.e. it provides better results than short term competition). This suggests 
that, as Kropotkin argued, mutual aid, not mutual struggle, will be in an 
individual's self-interest and so competition in a free, sane society would 
be minimalised and reduced to sports and other individual pastimes.

Now to the "competition" objection, which we'll begin to answer by noting
that it ignores a few key points. Firstly, the assumption that
libertarian socialism would "become capitalist" in the absence of a
*state* is obviously false. If competition did occur between collectives
and did lead to massive wealth inequalities, then the newly rich would
have to create a state to protect their private property (means of
production) against the dispossessed. 

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

Under capitalism, wealth inequality translates into such an inequality of
power, and vice versa, because wealth can buy private property (and state
protection of it), which gives owners authority over that property and those 
hired to produce with it; but under libertarian socialism, minor or even 
moderate differences in income among otherwise equal workers would not lead 
to this kind of power inequality, because direct democracy, social ownership 
of capital, and the absence of a state severs the link between wealth and
power (see further below). 

Thirdly, anarchists do not pretend that an anarchist society will be
"perfect." Hence there may be periods, particularly just after capitalism
has been replaced by self-management, when differences in skill, etc.,
leads to a few people exploiting their fellow workers and getting more
wages, better hours and conditions, and so forth. This problem existed in
the industrial collectives in the Spanish Revolution. As Kropotkin
pointed out, "But, when all is said and done, some inequalities, some
inevitable injustice, undoubtedly will remain. There are individuals in
our societies whom no great crisis can lift out of the deep mire of egoism
in which they are sunk. The question, however, is not whether there will
be injustices or no, but rather how to limit the number of them." [_The
Conquest of Bread_, p. 110] 

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

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

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

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

However, there are other reasons why economic inequality -- say, in
differences of income levels or working conditions, which may arise from
competition for "better" workers -- would be far less severe under any form 
of anarchist society than it is under capitalism. Firstly, the syndicates
would be democratically managed. This would result in much smaller wage
differentials, because there is no board of wealthy directors setting
wage levels for their own gain and who think nothing of hierarchy and 
having elites. The decentralisation of power in an anarchist society will 
ensure that there would no longer be wealthy elites paying each other vast 
amounts of money. This can be seen from the experience of the Mondragon 
cooperatives, where the wage difference between the highest paid and lowest 
paid worker was 4 to 1. This was only increased recently when they had to 
compete with large capitalist companies, and even then the new ratio of 9 
to 1 is *far* smaller than those in American or British companies (in 
America, for example, the ratio is even as high at 200 to 1 and beyond!).

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

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

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

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

Of course, the "competition" objection assumes that syndicates and members
of syndicates will place financial considerations above all else. This is
not the case, and few individuals are the economic robots assumed in
capitalist dogma. Since syndicates are *not* competing for market share,
it is likely that new techniques would be shared between workplaces and
skilled workers might decide to rotate their work between syndicates in
order to maximise their working time until such time as the general skill
level in society increases. 

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

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

It is doubtful that people inspired by anarchist ideas would start to
charge each other high prices, particularly since the syndicates and
community assemblies are likely to vote for a wide basis of surplus
distribution, precisely to avoid this problem and to ensure that
production will be for use rather than profit (see section I.4.9, "What
would be the advantage of a wide basis of surplus distribution?"). In
addition, as other communities and syndicates would likely boycott any
syndicate or commune that was acting in non-cooperative ways, it is
likely that social pressure would soon result in those willing to exploit
others rethinking their position. Cooperation does not imply a willingness
to tolerate with those who desire to take advantage of you.

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

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

In this case, they are free to work alone, by their own labour. Anarchists
have no desire to force people to join a syndicate, for as Malatesta
argued, "what has to be destroyed at once. . . is *capitalistic property,*
that is, the fact that a few control the natural wealth and the instruments 
of production and can thus oblige others to work for them . . . [but one 
must have a] right and the possibility to live in a different regime, 
collectivist, mutualist, individualist -- as one wishes, always on the 
condition that there is no oppression or exploitation of others." 
[_Malatesta: Life and Ideas_, p. 102]

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