Anarchism:
Against Capitalism, Against Socialism

CHRIS WILSON / News From Nowhere n.4, 1dec03

Traditionally, those who have called themselves anarchists have been leftists who consider socialism to be the economic system that would arise in a non-authoritarian and stateless society. In recent decades, however, a number of right-wing pro-capitalist libertarians have adopted the label, calling them-selves "anarcho-capitalists". Anarchism is an opposition to all forms of coercive authority. An anarchic society is one that recognizes the value of individual autonomy above all else. Each person should be free to live on their own terms according to their own desires and interests, as opposed to being a servant to the purposes of others. Neither capitalism nor socialism are based upon a respect for self-determination. Both economic arrangements are coercive, in the sense that they conscript people into a life of servitude to the goals of organizations and privileged classes of people, preventing them from devoting their time and energy to the satisfaction of the needs and desires of themselves and those whom they care about. Due to their hierarchical organizational structure and expansionist nature, both capitalism and socialism forcibly subject people to varying states of domination and alienation for most of their lives, and hence are incompatible with anarchy.

Many mistakenly think that a free society must necessarily be based upon the principles of unregulated capitalism, as only it recognizes the right of each individual to choose exactly how they will make a living. Rather than forcing one into a static role within society, capitalism allows one the freedom to choose between any position that is offered by those who have access to resources. It respects the sovereignty of agreements made between employee and employer. This is a rather narrow view of freedom. In actuality, capital-ism only respects the freedom to choose between masters. Although one can partake in any form of work that is offered, one still must work - that is, one must spend the majority of each conscious day engaged in an activity that holds no inherent appeal to ones natural needs or desires. In the meantime, one must obey and report to a boss or hierarchy of managers who are concerned with little more than whether or not their employees are functional in their role as a means to an end. The primary beneficiary of this productive work is usually not the person doing the work, but those who control the means of production. The relationship between the worker and the job is one of alienation - the worker doesn't partake in it because of intrinsic enjoyment or interest, but to obtain the power to purchase needed commodities. Most people experience work as stressful, boring, injurious, nauseating, monotonous, unfulfilling, self-negating, or all of the above. Capitalism complicates the process that one must undergo in order to survive. People could satisfy their needs directly on their own terms, but capitalism demands that most people satisfy their needs indirectly by cooperating with a series of exploitative intermediaries. The majority of those who live under capitalism have no alternative but to submit to the domination and alienation that is inherent to the process of work.

Capitalism is not just a free market economy, but a modern form of serfdom. The supposedly "voluntary" exchanges involved build upon a history of coercive property acquisitions, which have allowed a disproportionately small number of people to secure exclusive ownership rights to vast amounts of land and resources that greatly exceed what is required for personal use. The remainder of the population must subsequently pay tribute to the "owners" just to earn the right to exist. To freely occupy a space on the planet, most people must pay rent or a mortgage on a regular basis throughout the course of their lives. To acquire the means of paying, they must spend their lives working for the benefit and under the direction of a privileged class of people. Because of the amount of time spent working to satisfy the appetites of others, it becomes difficult to take care of one's own needs directly, thus making it necessary to purchase one's daily necessities as commodities. Hence, one must devote even more time and energy to other people's projects in order to afford these commodities. Capitalism came into being only after those who enjoyed an advantage in terms of might and wealth managed to forcibly assert their dominion over land that was previously accessed and used in common by its residents. To be a resident of the planet under capitalism, one must pay what is requested to its "rightful owners". Free access to land is an essential element of an autonomous and self-sufficient existence. Unfortunately, the set of property rights enforced under capitalism reduces the bulk of the population to a landless state.

Many people who acknowledge the exploitative nature of capitalism recommend socialism as an alternative. Socialists argue that the landowners and capitalists do not produce the resources required to sustain life, and hence cannot claim any valid ownership rights. Land should be considered the common property of the community that resides upon it, and capital should be owned and controlled collectively by the workers who produce it. In theory, anarchist socialism holdsthat the production and distribution of goods would be ad-ministered democratically by the workers themselves, or by elected delegates in cases in which specialization is required. Workplaces would be controlled by collective syndicates, which would be federated with other syndicates in order to facilitate the exchange of resources between them. No individual syndicate would be permitted to operate independently if its production relies upon the resources of other syndicates - a market economy based upon competing industrial syndicates would only allow capitalism to resurface. All syndicates would be federated on a local, regional, national, and global level, making it necessary for the workers to elect tier upon tier of delegate councils to administer relations between the vast array of organizations involved.

In reality, a federation run by a complex bureaucracy of delegates that wields global decision-making authority is no different than a state. Furthermore, the scope of such a federation's influence would be far greater than any state that currently exists, which would make it arguably much more pernicious. At least today, one potentially has the option of emigrating to escape the rule of one's government, and possibly moving to a country whose policies are more benign (although this is difficult). Anarchist socialists will argue that "local autonomy" will be preserved in such a situation, and one will always be able to choose which syndicate to join. However, when the delegates who administer production and distribution determine that that there is a shortage of labor in one craft or industry and a surplus in another, they can choose between one of two options in order to rectify the situation. The first option is to implement coercive conscription measures, which is not anarchist. The second option is to issue unequally high pay or benefits to workers to provide them with an incentive to choose one craft or industry over an-other, which is contrary to the socialist goal of realizing a classless and egalitarian society.

Advocates of the socialist varieties of anarchism (e.g., anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism) insist that the command structure of a federation will remain "democratic" and "non-hierarchical", and that the multiple layers of delegate councils will somehow remain "accountable" to the worker base. The delegates would be fundamentally different than the elected representatives of the state — contrary to today's politicians, the elected delegates will be assigned a strict "mandate" from the workers, ana hence will be obligated to carry it out. In the world conceived of by socialists, the workers are policy makers, even if they're cabinet builders, miners, or computer programmers by profession. It is unclear how this would be possible within a division of labor economy in which people normally understand 2-3 crafts at most. It is also undetermined exactly how the workers will ensure that the "mandates" will be carried out without constantly monitoring the actions, words and thoughts of the delegates. It should obvious to any anarchist that those en-trusted with power are not bound by any "mandates", policies, procedures, or protocols unless they are strictly enforced at all times (which is impossible). Politicians, cops, and citizens do not obey any of the "mandates" that they disagree with unless they think there is a good possibility that they will be stopped and/or punished for not doing so. Why would worker-elected delegates act any differently? The behavior of union bosses hasn't given us any indication that they would - quite the opposite. Furthermore, the way in which one carries out a "mandate" (if at all) is determined by one's personal interpretation of its meaning, which produces an additional disconnect between a policy's intent and its enforcement. Socialist anarchists will retort that an "instant recall" procedure will keep the arrangement democratic. Again, this requires the so-called "rank and file" to be no less engaged in the decision making process as the delegates. Such would defeat the purpose of specialization and delegation.

Theory aside, there have been no historical cases in which socialism has been successfully implemented on a mass scale, unless if you consider "successful" to be mean "conducive to tyranny, slavery, murder, famine, and death". Anarcho-communists and anarcho-syndicalists who disavow the experiments of the Soviet Union, the Eastern Bloc nations, China, and Cuba, will make their usual disclaimers: "But that's not real socialism! That's Bolshevism!" or "That's state capitalism!" Considering that every attempt to implement "real socialism" has resulted in "state capitalism" and all of its associated horrors, anarchist socialists should consider the possibility that the proposed command structure of social-ism might possess certain inherent properties that necessarily lead to such ghastly forms of authoritarianism. Every at-tempt to realize socialism has always resulted in a totalitarian society in which the population is used as an expendable resource for the enrichment of a handful of elites. These failed attempts are a direct consequence of the innate hierarchy of socialist organization combined with a refusal to realize that power always corrupts, even when delegated democratically. (Leftist anarchists point to Catalonia during the Spanish Revolution as a short but successful instance of socialism, but the briefness of its existence should lead one to question whether it would have been sustainable in the long term. Furthermore, even socialist anarchists admit that the actions of the CNT were often abusive and authoritarian, not the least of which was its leaders' decision to submit to the direction of the state and Leninist forces to "fight fascism")

Capitalism and socialism are not opposites, but different manifestations of the same process that aims to destroy individual autonomy and authenticity, namely industrialism. "Industrialism" refers to any social arrangement based upon the necessity of mass production. It is an inherently expansionist system in which the economic elites of a society (while backed by the power of the state) seek to forcibly employ all of the planet and life (human or non) that resides upon it into their service. It cannot function as a self-containing organ-ism - for it to continue to increase or sustain productive out-put, it must perpetually extend the scope of its resource consumption, eventually converting all things into commodities that must be purchased to enjoy. People then become dependent upon this exploitative system to provide them with the resources required for survival.

In non-industrial societies, people take care of their needs self-sufficiently instead of working primarily for an intermediary (e.g., a landlord, a business, or the state). The typical "work" day spans from 3-4 hours, and the process of "work" itself is far more creative, autonomous, and enjoy-able than the toil one must undergo in a field, mine, factory, or office. As evidence, one may observe the artistic and expressive nature of the dwellings and handicrafts they create - their daily activities allow for individuality not tolerated in a mechanized labor environment. Furthermore, most people know from experience that hunting, fishing, gardening, and small-scale crafts are much more pleasant than the fragmented and regimented chores that their jobs typically consist of. During their leisure time (which is much greater than ours), non-industrial peoples spend much of their time sleeping, developing relationships with others, making love, creating music or art, exploring the world, lounging around, etc. There are no governments or permanent hierarchies in these societies, and if one tires of one's local community, one would be free to leave and either form a new community or live by oneself. Non-industrial societies are not expansionist, and thus do not demand that other communities conform to their customs and standards. Unfortunately, they have historically failed to successfully defend themselves against invading industrial societies who aim to seize their land for resource extraction and agriculture. Hence they have been massacred, enslaved, and forced to aid in the destruction of their own lands. Contrary to the false notions of "anarcho-capitalism", industrialism refuses to "live and let live".

Although industrialism does need to be abandoned in favor of self-sufficiency and small-scale autonomous communities, the rejection of mass production should not be construed as a desire to "return to the caves" (or to "return" to anything, for that matter). It is evident that our society can-not revert to a hunter-gatherer state. Within the context of today's overpopulated world, such a way of life would quickly exhaust the wild game and edible plant populations, inevitably leading to mass starvation. Furthermore, one should not over-romanticize hunter-gatherers by claiming that every element of their way of life is desirable, much less perfect. However, it is not necessary to emulate every element of the past to arrive at a society free of hierarchy and alienating work, nor is it necessary to give up planting - there is literature available describing ways in which self-sufficiency and autonomy can be and is currently being created without the necessity of the stereotypical loincloths and hunting spears (although it would be a distraction to discuss the details here). Individuals will only be free to live autonomously in pursuit of their naturally occurring desires once industrialism is dismantled. Both capitalism and socialism are merely two different forms of industrial imperialism that enslave people to the desires of a class of privileged elites. Even if socialism were democratic in practice, it would still not be desirable, for it is no better for the individual to be enslaved to the majority than to the few. Within the scope of a mutual association, people can agree upon a common set of standards or rules for behavior. However, one should always remain free to disassociate oneself when one no longer wishes to abide by these standards. Because of the expansionist nature of both capitalism and socialism, it is impossible to disassociate oneself from their influence and authority. Hence, any anarchy that is respectful of individual autonomy (and there can be no other kind) must reject the pretensions of both systems. A free society must be based not on an all-encompassing collectivist organizational structure or a quasi-religious reverence for overreaching private property rights, but instead upon freedom of association and a simple respect for personal space.

source: printed copy. For free (plus postage) subscription, contact http://www.freewebs.com/thenewsfromnowhere