What is Communist Anarchism? Ch29!

in #communism9 months ago

This is the 31st installment of Alexander Berkman's book, What is Communist Anarchism, it can be found in the Anarchists' Library.

If you haven't been following along very carefully, this is a good chapter not to miss.
It goes into many of the how questions you may still be unaware that have answers.


Chapter 29: Consumption and Exchange

Let us take up the organization of consumption first, because people have to eat before they can work and produce.

“What do you mean by the organization of consumption?” your friend asks.

“He means rationing, I suppose,” you remark.

I do.
Of course, when the social revolution has become thoroughly organized and production is functioning normally there will be enough for everybody.
But in the first stages of the revolution, during the process of reconstruction, we must take care to supply the people as best we can, and equally, which means rationing.

“The Bolsheviki did not have equal rationing,” your friend interrupts; “they had different kinds of rations for different people.

They did, and that was one of the greatest mistakes they made.
It was resented by the people as a wrong and it provoked irritation and discontent.
The Bolsheviki had one kind of ration for the sailor, another of lower quality and quantity for the soldier, a third for the skilled worker, a fourth for the unskilled one; another ration again for the average citizen, and yet another for the bourgeois.
The best rations were for the Bolsheviki, the members of the Party, and special rations for the Communist officials and commissars.
At one time they had as many as fourteen different food rations.
Your own common sense will tell you that it was all wrong.
Was it fair to discriminate against people because they happened to be laborers, mechanics, or intellectuals rather than soldiers or sailors?
Such methods were unjust and vicious: they immediately created material inequality and opened the door to misuse of position and opportunity, to speculation, graft, and swindle.
They also stimulated counter-revolution, for those indifferent or unfriendly to the Revolution were embittered by the discrimination and therefore became an easy prey to counter-revolutionary influences.

This initial discrimination and the many others which followed were not dictated by the needs of the situation but solely by political party considerations.
Having usurped the reins of government and fearing the opposition of the people, the Bolsheviki sought to strengthen themselves in the government seat by currying favor with the sailors, soldiers, and workers.
But by these means they succeeded only in creating indignation and antagonizing the masses, for the injustice of the system was too crying and obvious.
Furthermore, even the “favored class,” the proletariat, felt discriminated against because the soldiers were given better rations. Was the worker not as good as the soldier?
Could the soldier fight for the Revolution — the factory man argued — if the worker would not supply him with ammunition?
The soldier, in his turn, protested against the sailor getting more.
Was he not as valuable as the sailor?
And all condemned the special rations and privileges bestowed on the Bolshevik members of the Party, and particularly the comforts and even luxuries enjoyed by the higher officials and commissars, while the masses suffered privation.

Popular resentment of such practices was strikingly expressed by the Kronstadt sailors.
It was in the midst of an extremely severe and hungry winter, in March, 1921, that a public mass-meeting of the sailors unanimously resolved voluntarily to give up their extra rations in behalf of the less favored population of Kronstadt, and to equalize the rations in the entire city.[20]
This truly ethical revolutionary action voiced the general feeling against discrimination and favoritism, and gave convincing proof of the deep sense of justice inherent in the masses.

All experience teaches that the just and square thing is at the same time also the most sensible and practical in the long run.
This holds equally true of the individual as of collective life.
Discrimination and injustice are particularly destructive to revolution, because the very spirit of revolution is born of the hunger for equity and justice.

I have already mentioned that when the social revolution attains the stage where it can produce sufficient for all, then is adopted the Anarchist principle of “to each according to his needs.”
In the more industrially developed and efficient countries that stage would naturally be reached sooner than in backward lands.
But until it is reached, the system of equal sharing, equal distribution per capita, is imperative as the only just method.
It goes without saying, of course, that special consideration must be given to the sick and the old, to children, and to women during and after pregnancy, as was also the practice in the Russian Revolution.

“Let me get this straight,” you remark.
“There is to be equal sharing, you say.
Then you won’t be able to buy anything?”

No, there will be no buying or selling.
The revolution abolishes private ownership of the means of production and distribution, and with it goes capitalistic business.
Personal possession remains only in the things you use.
Thus, your watch is your own, but the watch factory belongs to the people.
Land, machinery, and all other public utilities will be collective property, neither to be bought nor sold.
Actual use will be considered the only title — not to ownership but to possession.
The organization 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, coöperatively managed in the interests of the community, will take the place of personal ownership privately conducted for profit.

“But if you can’t buy anything, then what’s the use of money?” you ask.

None whatever; money becomes useless.
You can’t get anything for it.
When the sources of supply, the land, factories, and products become public property, socialized, you can neither buy nor sell.
As money is only a medium for such transactions, it loses its usefulness.

“But how will you exchange things?”

Exchange will be free.
The coal miners, for instance, will deliver the coal they mined to the public coal yards for the use of the community.
In their turn the miners will receive from the community’s warehouses the machinery, tools, and the other commodities they need.
That means free exchange without the medium of money and without profit, on the basis of requirement and the supply on hand.

“But if there is no machinery or food to be given to the miners?”

If there is none, money will not help matters.
The miners couldn’t feed on banknotes.
Consider how such things are managed to-day.
You trade coal for money, and for the money you get food.
The free community we are speaking of will exchange the coal for food directly, without the medium of money.

“But on what basis?
To-day you know what a dollar is worth, more or less, but how much coal will you give for a sack of flour?”

You mean, how will value or price be determined.
But we have seen already in preceding chapters that there is no real measure of value, and that price depends on supply and demand and varies accordingly.
The price of coal rises if there is a scarcity of it; it becomes cheaper if the supply is greater than the demand.
To make bigger profits the coal owners artificially limit the output, and the same methods obtain throughout the capitalistic system.
With the abolition of capitalism no one will be interested in raising the price of coal or limiting its supply.
As much coal will be mined as will be necessary to satisfy the need.
Similarly will as much food be raised as the country needs.
It will be the requirements of the community and the supply obtainable which will determine the amount it is to receive.
This applies to coal and food as to all other needs of the people.

“But suppose there is not enough of a certain product to go around.
What will you do then?”

Then we’ll do what is done even in capitalistic society in time of war and scarcity: the people are rationed, with the difference that in the free community rationing will be managed on principles of equality.

“But suppose the farmer refuses to supply the city with his products unless he gets money?”

The farmer, like any one else, wants money only if he can buy with it the things he needs.
He will quickly see that money is useless to him.
In Russia during the Revolution you could not get a peasant to sell you a pound of flour for a bagful of money.
But he was eager to give you a barrel of the finest grain for an old pair of boots.
It is plows, spades, rakes, agricultural machinery, and clothing which the farmer wants, not money.
For these he will let you have his wheat, barley, and corn.
In other words, the city will exchange with the farm the products each requires, on the basis of need.

It has been suggested by some that exchange during the reconstruction should be based on some definite standard.
It is proposed, for example, that every community issue its own money, as is often done in time of revolution; or that a day’s work should be considered the unit of value and so-called labor notes serve as medium of exchange.
But neither of these proposals is of practical help.
Money issued by communities in revolution would quickly depreciate to the point of no value, since such money would have no secure guarantees behind it, without which money is worth nothing.
Similarly labor notes would not represent any definite and measurable value as a means of exchange.
What would, for instance, an hour’s work of the coal miner be worth?
Or fifteen minutes’ consultation with the physician?
Even if all effort should be considered equal in value and an hour’s labor be made the unit, could the house painter’s hour of work or the surgeon’s operation be equitably measured in terms of wheat?

Common sense will solve this problem on the basis of human equality and the right of every one to life.

“Such a system might work among decent people,” your friend objects; “but how about shirkers?
Were not the Bolsheviki right in establishing the principle that ‘whoever doesn’t work, doesn’t eat’?”

No, my friend, you are mistaken.
At first sight it may appear as if that was a just and sensible idea.
But in reality it proved impractical, not to speak of the injustice and harm it worked all around.

“How so?”

It was impractical because it required an army of officials to keep tab on the people who worked or didn’t work.
It led to incrimination and recrimination and endless disputes about official decisions.
So that within a short time the number of those who didn’t work was doubled and even trebled by the effort to force people to work and to guard against their dodging or doing bad work.
It was the system of compulsory labor which soon proved such a failure that the Bolsheviki were compelled to give it up.

Moreover, the system caused even greater evils in other directions.
Its injustice lay in the fact that you cannot break into a person’s heart or mind and decide what peculiar physical or mental condition makes it temporarily impossible for him to work.
Consider further the precedent you establish by introducing a false principle and thereby rousing the opposition of those who feel it wrong and oppressive and therefore refuse coöperation.

A rational community will find it more practical and beneficial to treat all alike, whether one happens to work at the time or not, rather than create more non-workers to watch those already on hand, or to build prisons for their punishment and support.
For if you refuse to feed a man, for whatever cause, you drive him to theft and other crimes — and thus you yourself create the necessity for courts, lawyers, judge, jails, and warders, the upkeep of whom is far more burdensome than to feed the offenders.
And these you have to feed, anyhow, even if you put them in prison.

The revolutionary community will depend more on awakening the social consciousness and solidarity of its delinquents than on punishment.
It will rely on the example set by its working members, and it will be right in doing so.
For the natural attitude of the industrious man to the shirker is such that the latter will find the social atmosphere so unpleasant that he will prefer to work and enjoy the respect and good will of his fellows rather than to be despised in idleness.

Bear in mind that it is more important, and in the end more practical and useful, to do the square thing rather than to gain a seeming immediate advantage.
That is, to do justice is more vital than to punish.
For punishment is never just and always harmful to both sides, the punished and the punisher; harmful even more spiritually than physically, and there is no greater harm than that, for it hardens and corrupts you.
This is unqualifiedly true of your individual life and with the same force it applies to the collective social existence.

On the foundations of liberty, justice, and equality, as also on understanding and sympathy, must be built every phase of life in the social revolution.
Only so it can endure.
This applies to the problems of shelter, food, and the security of your district or city, as well as to the defense of the revolution.

As regards housing and local safety Russia has shown the way in the first months of the October Revolution.
House committees, chosen by the tenants, and city federations of such committees, take the problem in hand.
They gather statistics of the facilities of a given district and of the number of applicants requiring quarters.
The latter are assigned according to personal or family need on the basis of equal rights.

Similar house and district committees have charge of the provisioning of the city.
Individual application for rations at the distributing centers is a stupendous waste of time and energy.
Equally false is the system, practiced in Russia in the first years of the Revolution, of issuing rations in the institutions of one’s employment, in shops, factories, and offices.
The better and more efficient way, which at the same time insures more equitable distribution and closes the door to favoritism and misuse, is rationing by houses or streets.
The authorized house or street committee procures at the local distributing center the provisions, clothing, etc., apportioned to the number of tenants represented by the committee.
Equal rationing has the added advantage of eradicating food speculation, the vicious practice which grew to enormous proportions in Russia because of the system of inequality and privilege.
Party members or persons with a political pull could freely bring to the cities carloads of flour while some old peasant woman was severely punished for selling a loaf of bread.
No wonder speculation flourished, and to such an extent, indeed, that the Bolsheviki had to form special regiments to cope with the evil.[21]
The prisons were filled with offenders; capital punishment was resorted to; but even the most drastic measures of the government failed to stop speculation, for the latter was the direct consequence of the system of discrimination and favoritism.
Only equality and freedom of exchange can obviate such evils or at least reduce them to a minimum.

Taking care of the sanitary and kindred needs of street and district by voluntary committees of house and locality affords the best results, since such bodies, themselves tenants of the given district, are personally interested in the health and safety of their families and friends.
This system worked much better in Russia than the subsequently established regular police force.
The latter consisting mostly of the worst city elements, proved corrupt, brutal, and oppressive.

The hope of material betterment is, as already mentioned, a powerful factor in the forward movement of humanity.
But that incentive alone is not sufficient to inspire the masses to give them the vision of a new and better world, and cause them to face danger and privation for its sake.
For that an ideal is needed, an ideal which appeals not only to the stomach but even more to the heart and imagination, which rouses our dormant longing for what is fine and beautiful, for the spiritual and cultural values of life.
An ideal, in short, which wakens the inherent social instincts of man, feeds his sympathies and fellow-feeling, fires his love of liberty and justice, and imbues even the lowest with nobility of thought and deed, as we frequently witness in the catastrophic events of life.
Let a great tragedy happen anywhere — an earthquake, flood, or railroad accident — and the compassion of the whole world goes out to the sufferers.
Acts of heroic self-sacrifice, of brave rescue, and of unstinted aid demonstrate the real nature of man and his deep-felt brotherhood and unity.

This is true of mankind in all times, climes, and social strata.
The story of Amundsen is a striking illustration of it.
After decades of arduous and dangerous work the famous Norwegian explorer resolves to enjoy his remaining years in peaceful literary pursuits.
He is announcing his decision at a banquet given in his honor, and almost at the same moment comes the news that the Nobile expedition to the North Pole had met with disaster.
On the instant Amundsen renounces all his plans of a quiet life and prepares to fly to the aid of the lost aviators, fully aware of the peril of such an undertaking.
Human sympathy and the compelling impulse to help those in distress overcome all considerations of personal safety, and Amundsen sacrifices his life in an attempt to rescue the Nobile party.

Deep in all of us lives the spirit of Amundsen.
How many men of science have given up their lives in seeking knowledge by which to benefit their fellow-men — how many physicians and nurses have perished in the work of ministering to people stricken with contagious disease — how many men and women have voluntarily faced certain death in the effort to check an epidemic which was decimating their country or even some foreign land — how many men, common workingmen, miners, sailors, railroad employees — unknown to fame and unsung — have given themselves in the spirit of Amundsen?
Their name is legion.

It is this human nature, this idealism, which must be roused by the social revolution.
Without it the revolution cannot be, without it, it cannot live.
Without it man is forever doomed to remain a slave and a weakling.

It is the work of the Anarchist, of the revolutionist, of the intelligent, class-conscious proletarian to exemplify and cultivate this spirit and instill it in others.
It alone can conquer the powers of evil and darkness, and build a new world of humanity, liberty, and justice.



Интересная пропаганда. У большевиков именно членов партии были самые маленькие пайки. Известный факт. Сталин был главой государства. Его жена ездила на трамвае и не имела охраны. Тем более не имела лимузина и водителя.
Глава государства? Было очень странно если глава государства опаздывает на встречу. Не имеет охраны? Особенно в период 2 мировой войны. Его бы банально убили.
Даже анархист Батька Махно в период войны имел личную охрану. В войну, когда есть враг, который желает тебя убить. Уничтожить главу армии соперников. Не иметь охрану глупость.
Теперь о равенстве пайков. Это пропаганда. Даже в анархизме при Махно они были разные. Как поработаешь так и получишь. Нестор Махно говорил работающий человек не может быть голодным! Не может быть нищим. Одновременно студент, который только учится и в будущем принесет пользу. Для общества он иждивенец. Да его будут кормить и содержать. Другое дело, человек который лично работает в поле. Он будет получать больше продуктов, больше товаров. Следующий момент наука. Некоторые ученые приносят товарную пользу больше, чем десятки или порой сотни людей. Реальную пользу здесь и сейчас. Потому их паек обязан быть равен принесенной пользе обществу.
Солдат, когда идет война. Вообще не производит продуктов. Думаете такого солдата не кормили и не содержали в армии Махно? Он рисковал жизнью. Условно сказать платил "налог" кровью! Таким был повышенный паек и содержание.

Должно быть, Сталин был довольно популярен, когда ходил без охраны и был уверен в своей способности пережить почти все.

Я не думаю, что потребление было бы чем-то равным.
Производство не может быть равным, так как женщины грузят меньше камня, чем мужчины, но производят больше детей.

Я предсказываю, что наши соседи будут поддерживать потребление на рациональном уровне, стыдясь потребления.

Вам действительно нужно 5 машин в дороге, или 2 телевизора в каждой комнате, или 10 пар обуви?
Мы боремся с жадностью, разговаривая с молодыми людьми, чтобы заставить их ценить больше, чем просто складывать товары в угол.

Как только чей-то вклад ценится больше, чем его обувь, мы знаем о нашем успехе.

Stalin had a guard. His wife didn't. He was popular. But he was the leader of the country. Therefore, he had both security and a limousine. He flew on a plane to meetings. For example, a meeting in Yalta. To the Yalta Conference with Churchill and Roosevelt.

The head of state, when there is a war, must have a guard!!!

His wife was not the head of state. That's why I took the tram. She had no guards. His sons were not the head of state. Therefore, they fought at the front as ordinary soldiers. The eldest son was captured. He died in captivity.
Was Stalin popular? Why was it? The capitalists tried to put on a show in 2012. On television, they talked about different rulers of Russia. Some were glorified, Stalin was scolded, and slandered. Who do you think won the vote?
The most correct and popular ruler is recognized as Stalin. Amazing! I'm sure there was some rigging in the voting by text message. Everything was done to discredit his name. On the show, they told all the abominations, how bad he was. It didn't help. It doesn't help, even though it's been 68 years since his death. People believe, remember and remember with a kind word. Although the media is drowning in propaganda scolding Stalin.

I got the joke about the wrong consumption. I don't need 5 cars. Although I need more than 10 pairs of shoes. You forget about my hobbies.
We have very different weather in winter and summer. Because I need winter shoes when it's cold and I need summer shoes when it's hot. Winter shoes must be at least 2 pairs. When there is a lot of snow, sometimes it gets into the shoes. It should be put to dry. While the shoes are drying, I have to put on other shoes.
Except for 2 couples in the city. I need boots in my country house. You have to go to places where they are simply necessary. Next comes spring and autumn, which are equivalent seasons for shoes in Russia.
In spring and autumn, there is a lot of slush and mud in the countryside. That's why I prefer to wear rubber boots. If the galoshes are slightly dry. They protect the boots, but they are still heavy. This is another 2 pairs of shoes. Boots can get wet, as well as galoshes, so they need 2 pairs each.
Next, the summer season. It is good to use sneakers. In the city, shoes under the suit. In the village on my site I wear rubber slates because they are very light and the foot breathes.
Why did I describe everything in such detail? We need an individual approach. For someone, 10 pairs of shoes is a lot. People like me don't have enough, we need more.
On TV. I don't agree here. television, radio, Internet means of communication and receiving information. Therefore, really for convenience, they should be in every room.
It is a crime to prevent access to information, books, and knowledge!

Now the problem of women and men is far-fetched. I was talking about the benefits to society. I didn't just say something about scientists. They may not even make discoveries, but work according to a template. Let's say a trained pharmacist releases analgin. Of course, I can cook it myself, but only released in my kitchen. Or tablets after chemical treatment by a good pharmacist 2 big differences. It benefits the here and now. Although it does not load stones at all.
So does a woman who produces children. Is this useful to society? Then this is a useful contribution!

Да, многое нужно проработать в деталях, но самое большое - это закончить правило силой, до тех пор мы просто порабощены, и у нас нет хорошего выбора.
Имейте всю необходимую обувь, но я думаю, что эта схема уменьшит растрату труда рабочего.

It was about consumption. Analgin. I can take willow bark. Add water to the boil. Lower the bark into the water. Boil the solution.You'll get analgin. The quality is very low. The pharmacist uses equipment and chemicals. Creates a pill. My broth will be worse. Less concentration. Drink more of the nasty medicine. The pharmacist does not wear stones, but he benefits society.

The idea of information availability? Prohibition of copyright on the books of the Bolsheviks. You can't deny access to information. Prohibition is equal to a crime. Knowledge for everyone and free in any quantity What is your attitude?

A personal question. Are you surprised by the positive attitude towards Stalin in your society? I'm sure your capitalists are scolding Stalin. Do you have a negative attitude?

Interesting propaganda. It was the party members who had the smallest rations for the Bolsheviks. A well-known fact. Stalin was the head of state. His wife rode the tram and had no security. Moreover, she did not have a limousine and a driver.
The head of state? It was very strange if the head of state was late for a meeting. Doesn't have security? Especially during the Second World War. He would have been killed.
Even the anarchist Batka Makhno had a personal guard during the war. In a war, when there is an enemy who wants to kill you. Destroy the head of the rival army. Not having a guard is stupid.
Now about the equality of rations. This is propaganda. Even in anarchism under Makhno, they were different. As you work, you will get it. Nestor Makhno said that a working man cannot be hungry! He can't be a beggar. At the same time, a student who is just learning and will benefit in the future. For society, he is a dependent. Yes, he will be fed and supported. Another thing is a person who personally works in the field. He will get more products, more goods. The next point is science. Some scientists bring more marketable benefits than dozens or sometimes hundreds of people. A real benefit here and now. Therefore, their ration must be equal to the benefit brought to society.
A soldier when there is a war. It doesn't produce any products at all. Do you think such a soldier was not fed and kept in Makhno's army? He risked his life. Relatively speaking, I paid the " tax " in blood! Such was the increased ration and maintenance.

Regarding the Mongols. Some Westerners considered this period of vassalage bad. However, the Mongols did not claim cultural dominance. They did not want to change our religion and culture. They didn't interfere with the local government. As a result, in Russia, under the Mongols, republican self-government was preserved. Or the so-called people's assembly.
Princes and boyars, were feudal lords and came into conflict with the republic. However, the prince in Russia is the first among equal citizens. He is a military ruler. Cities and principalities employed the prince as a general. The power of the prince was unlimited at the time of the war. In peacetime, the prince could be driven away. If the people's assembly decided so.
Naturally, under such management, the rich still had more power.
What was the alternative to the Mongols? The Crusades of the Knights. There were 2 orders and the Polish Kingdom. They carried Catholicism by the power of the sword. Russia, because of the climatic conditions, hardly resisted. We didn't have that many human resources. In addition, we were economically weaker. At that time, the economy was based on agriculture.
Of course, in the warmer climate of Europe, it was possible to harvest a richer crop. In the colder climate of Russia, the harvest was more meagre.
Europe wanted to conquer our lands. To deprive us of our religion. Our culture and make them your slaves. The Slavonic slave market is famous in Venice. Ivan the Terrible, the first tsar of Russia, allocated 1/3 of the kingdom's budget for the redemption of slaves.
Money has never been the most important thing. Russia has always lacked people. The most important value for Russia is a person. We are not Europe, where there are a lot of people. Under Ivan the Terrible, about 15,000,000 refugees from Europe were accepted, who were hiding from the horrors of the Inquisition.
As a result, the Mongols demanded tribute. Payment of money to the Golden Horde. As a vassal, Russia paid and received military aid. In fact, the greatest good was the coming of the Golden Horde.
If it were not for the Mongols, there would be no Russia. We would become a colony that was destroyed and looted. Perhaps they repeated the fate of the Indians.
Moreover, we prefer the Asian way of development in cultural terms

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.71
TRX 0.10
JST 0.075
BTC 57133.49
ETH 4335.02
BNB 618.31
SBD 7.07