Everybody works. Or, at least, everybody works when artificial unemployment doesn't exist. And I say "everybody" because I always speak in hyperbole. In any case, the overwhelming majority of people seek work of some sort. Just recently, my mom lost her job, and instead of spending all day sitting on the couch watching Home & Garden television (which she could easily afford to do), she went and got a job that pays her barely anything. People want to be formally occupied by something they believe brings benefit to them and their family, or to society at large. This tendency takes various forms outside the capitalist structure of "employment". Artists create art regardless of whether they get paid for it. People who love cooking spend hours perfecting recipes for no one's enjoyment but their own. In a world that didn't care about "marketable skills" and didn't penalize risk-taking with destitution, people would be able to occupy themselves with whatever work they were naturally inclined to do.
In a capitalist society, where people must balance their desires against the demands of the market, many work jobs they do not enjoy, the most unpleasant of which are usually the lowest paying and most exploitative. Such people should, and historically often did, organize into guilds or unions to demand (and occasionally win) increases in wages, reduction in working hours, and improvements in working conditions. These unions are the perfect place to foment radicalism, since workers are the most exposed to the oppressive and exploitative nature of capitalism, and often suffer the most at the hands of the government once they organize. From a utopian perspective (by which I mean, from the point of view of an imagined future free society) such unions would constitute democratic worker councils in their respective industries, certifying members of professional groups and organizing allocation of work and resources. In the modern world, they are means of resisting capitalist exploitation and social oppression.
Not everyone, of course, is keen on resisting exploitation, because they do not see it as such. Particularly in America the myth (that is, the misunderstanding of economics and probability) that anyone can get rich tricks people into aligning their perceived interests with the capitalist class, and the illusion of democracy allows them to believe that the government exists to support them, rather than to support the capitalist system. They believe that fighting for their own, realistic, interests will jeopardize their chances of ascending the social or corporate ladder on the off chance they come up with the better mousetrap. The refusal to admit the existence of a sharp class division between workers on the one hand and owners and rulers on the other leads them to have disdain for anyone who recognizes, and fights against, it.
The disdain many people have for unions specifically is due to the essentially capitalist trades unions whose leaders often have more in common with the bosses than with the workers, and of course to the stain of Soviet Communism on the entire notion. (The Soviet Union was of course in no way communist, but is rather State Capitalist to the core.) When workers are divorced from the output of their labor, whether by capitalist profiteering or state mandates, the tendency to lose personal interest in their work is increased and reinforced, because the work is no longer theirs, either in methodology or results. To contrast, work done by democratically organized, voluntary worker collectives instills a sense of pride and ownership in the work which produces both better results and stronger communities. It is this aspect of union organizing which leads me to believe that syndicalism — that is, the organizing of the working class into unions based on industry or geography — is the most practicable way of achieving revolution.
Workers, who make up the vast majority of society, are shown the power of democratic organizing, the power of their numbers in the face of capitalist and government oppression, and the dignity and satisfaction to be found in controlling the product of their own labor. I will discuss in a future post why I think syndicalism is the best way of instilling revolutionary consciousness in the working class, but it is definitely not the simplest or most glamorous way. It involves working shitty jobs, taking large personal, financial and health risks, and seeing little progress or huge reversals in fortune. The main point is, though, that many workers do this every day without any political motivation anyway, and the addition of that motivation has been proven historically to be easier and more effective than the creation of entirely new, theory-motivated political organizations.
So here's the problem with syndicalism. There's no way to get from here to there. Sure, it works great once you already have it, but how do you get it without destroying the very society you're trying to save? This is the problem with utopian societies of all sorts, both libertarian and communitarian. In order to build the society, you have to tear up the existing social contract, causing massive amounts of disruption and resentment that creates a built-in source of resistance (or even counterrevolution).
ReplyDeleteSecondly, you're assuming that everyone is going to play honestly. That's simply not the case. Even in communities as small as a village, you'll find that there are people who simply will do whatever it takes to free-ride. The problem with free riders is not just the fact that they sap the material resources of the group. That would be a manageable proposition. No, the real problem with free riders is that they sap the psychological resources of the group. If people see others getting away with not working, day after day, their own motivation to work and contribute drops. How do you solve that? Rewire everyone's basic motivations to ignore a million-odd years of evolutionary psychology? Good luck with that.
Finally, how do you decide what to produce? Scratch that, how do you decide anything? Democratic capitalism isn't great, but it's a lot better than having to achieve consensus for each and every decision or having one person control all of the means of production. The former ensures that nothing ever gets produced, whilst the latter serves to enrich one man at the expense of the entire society.
No means of organizing society that fails to answer the above three questions can survive for long.
All excellent points, which I'll try to take in turn.
DeleteThe current society is a shitty one, and the entire point of revolution is to replace it. However, I see syndicalism as exactly the method of getting from "here" (our current exploitative society) to "there" (a future, libertarian one). To quote the IWW: "Build the new world in the shell of the old." You want to subvert and replace coercive, exploitative institutions with democratic, libertarian ones. Surely some people will resist such change, but all social change is resisted. That's not a unique feature of radicalism.
In my own personal view of future society (which is mere hypothetical fantasy — my earnest concern is on immediate possibilities) free-riding would be built in. Anyone who doesn't want to work would receive the minimum of food and shelter from their community (which would still almost certainly be more than capitalists (fail to) provide the poorest workers). Very little of the work done now in society is necessary to human comfort and survival, and certainly to human growth and happiness. A large free-loading class would almost inevitably emerge, in the sense that most people wouldn't do work which provides food, shelter, medicine, etc, because we simply don't need a majority to do those things (thing bulldozers, combines, MRI machines, which do the work of scores of people).
[Continued in next comment because apparently I have a pretty huge amount to say on this?]
As for decision making, consensus isn't necessary, although I do like it myself. I'm perfectly happy with majoritarianism, or any method which is relatively non-coercive. I'm currently reading Antony Beever's Battle for Spain, where he describes how the anarchist-run industry and militias in Catalonia had no trouble making decisions about production and organization, and that both food and industrial output actually increased during their preeminence, sometimes by as much as 20%. On a larger scale, "internationally" as it were, it's obviously a much tougher problem to figure out, but I don't see why it's in any way more difficult than the problem of international politics or multinational capitalism. It's easy to say that something is impossible, but much harder to come up with creative ways to solve problems of resource distribution. There are a lot of ways I can naively imagine solving the problem of resource distribution: macroeconomic market transactions between productive areas, small scale and local production, voluntary fiat.
DeleteCertainly under any libertarian socialist system we won't maintain the world as we see it now. In a bit of utopian speculative fiction I'm working on, an anarchistically organized Earth is sending rockets out into the solar system, but has computers barely more advanced than our own — fuel is easy to get, but the toxic metals and awful plastics necessary for computers no one is willing to produce. Some industries will wane because they are only viable in an exploitative capitalist society (finance, banking, manual sulfur mining), while others will explode because they are fulfilling and dignifying (artisan crafts, art, literature).
So long as enough food gets produced and houses get built, though, I don't see why we need to have the mania for "progress" heedless of course or cost that we have now. Progress will come at its own pace, from those who have the skills and resources to create it, as has always been true. We'll simply be changing the axis along which access to such opportunities is gained, and we wouldn't be the first to do that, either.
A lot of the criticisms I see leveled against left libertarianism sound to me (and I don't accuse you of this specifically, but it's a matter of tone) like demands for utopianism where utopianism doesn't exist. "Well, if we're not going to create a perfect society (because, see, all these things which are now easy will become hard!) why even bother?!" Well, lots of things are easy and shouldn't be. Burning "heretics" was once easy — just report them to the Inquisition; doesn't mean that it should have been. Running a free society will definitely be harder than living in an authoritarian one. But we should struggle for these things, "not because they are easy, but because they are hard".