What is Communist Anarchism? Ch30!

in #communism9 months ago

This is the 32nd installment of Alexander Berkman's book, What is Communist Anarchism, it can be found in the Anarchists' Library.

If you haven't been reading these, shame on you for your willful ignorance, this is a good one not to miss.
It goes into the how questions you must have.


Chapter 30: Production

“What about production,” you ask; “how is it to be managed?”

We have already seen what principles must underlie the activities of the revolution if it is to be social and accomplish its aims.
The same principles of freedom and voluntary coöperation must also direct the reorganization of the industries.

The first effect of the revolution is reduced production.
The general strike, which I have forecast as the starting point of the social revolution, itself constitutes a suspension of industry.
The workers lay down their tools, demonstrate in the streets, and thus temporarily stop production.

But life goes on.
The essential needs of the people must be satisfied.
In that stage the revolution lives on the supplies, already on hand.
But to exhaust those supplies would be disastrous.
The situation rests in the hands of labor: the immediate resumption of industry is imperative.
The organized agricultural and industrial proletariat takes possession of the land, factories, shops, mines and mills.
Most energetic application is now the order of the day.

It should be clearly understood that the social revolution necessitates more intensive production than under capitalism in order to supply the needs of the large masses who till then had lived in penury.
This greater production can be achieved only by the workers having previously prepared themselves for the new situation.
Familiarity with the processes of industry, knowledge of the sources of supply, and determination to succeed will accomplish the task.
The enthusiasm generated by the revolution, the energies liberated, and the inventiveness stimulated by it must be given full freedom and scope to find creative channels.
Revolution always wakens a high degree of responsibility.
Together with the new atmosphere of liberty and brotherhood it creates the realization that hard work and severe self-discipline are necessary to bring production up to the requirements of consumption.

On the other hand, the new situation will greatly simplify the present very complex problems of industry.
For you must consider that capitalism, because of its competitive character and contradictory financial and commercial interests, involves many intricate and perplexing issues which would be entirely eliminated by the abolition of the conditions of to-day.
Questions of wage scales and selling prices; the requirements of the existing markets and the hunt for new ones; the scarcity of capital for large operations and the heavy interest to be paid on it; new investments, the effects of speculation and monopoly, and a score of related problems which worry the capitalist and make industry such a difficult and cumbersome network to-day would all disappear.
At present these require divers departments of study and highly trained men to keep unraveling the tangled skein of plutocratic cross purposes, many specialists to calculate the actualities and possibilities of profit and loss, and a large force of aids to help steer the industrial ship between the perilous rocks which beset the chaotic course of capitalist competition, national and international.

All this would be automatically done away with by the socialization of industry and the termination of the competitive system; and thereby the problems of production will be immensely lightened.
The knotted complexity of capitalist industry need therefore inspire no undue fear for the future.
Those who talk of labor not being equal to manage “modern” industry fail to take into account the factors referred to above.
The industrial labyrinth will turn out to be far less formidable on the day of the social reconstruction.

In passing it may be mentioned that all the other phases of life would also be very much simplified as a result of the indicated changes: various present-day habits, customs, compulsory and unwholesome modes of living will naturally fall into disuse.

Furthermore it must be considered that the task of increased production would be enormously facilitated by the addition to the ranks of labor of vast numbers whom the altered economic conditions will liberate for work.

Recent statistics show that in 1920 there were in the United States over 41 million persons of both sexes engaged in gainful occupations out of a total population of over 105 millions.[22]
Out of those 41 millions only 26 millions were actually employed in the industries, including transportation and agriculture, the balance of 15 millions consisting mostly of persons engaged in trade, of commercial travelers, advertisers, and various other middlemen of the present system.
In other words, 15 million[23] persons would be released for useful work by a revolution in the United Seates.
A similar situation, proportionate to population, would develop in other countries.

The greater production necessitated by the social revolution would therefore have an additional army of many million persons at its disposal.
The systematic incorporation of those millions into industry and agriculture, aided by modern scientific methods of organization and production, will go a long way toward helping to solve the problems of supply.

Capitalist production is for profit; more labor is used today to sell things than to produce them.
The social revolution reorganizes the industries on the basis of the needs of the populace.
Essential needs come first, naturally. Food, clothing, shelter — these are the primal requirements of man.
The first step in this direction is the ascertaining of the available supply of provisions and other commodities.
The labor associations in every city and community take this work in hand for the purpose of equitable distribution.
Workers’ committees in every street and district assume charge, coöperating with similar committees in the city and State, and federating their efforts throughout the country by means of general councils of producers and consumers.

Great events and upheavals bring to the fore the most active and energetic elements.
The social revolution will crystallize the class-conscious labor ranks.
By whatever name they will be known-as industrial unions, revolutionary syndicalist bodies, coöperative associations, leagues of producers and consumers — they will represent the most enlightened and advanced part of labor, the organized workers aware of their aims and how to attain them.
It is they who will be the moving spirit of the revolution.

With the aid of industrial machinery and by scientific cultivation of the land freed from monopoly the revolution must first of all supply the elemental wanes of society.
In farming and gardening intensive cultivation and modern methods have made us practically independent of natural soil quality and climate.
To a very considerable extent man now makes his own soil and his own climate, thanks to the achievements of chemistry.
Exotic fruits can be raised in the north to be supplied to the warm south, as is being done in France.
Science is the wizard who enables man to master all difficulties and overcome all obstacles.
The future, liberated from the incubus of the profit system and enriched by the work of the millions of non-producers of to-day, holds the greatest welfare for society.
That future must be the objective point of the social revolution; its motto: bread and well-being for all. First bread, then well-being and luxury.
Even luxury, for luxury is a deep-felt need of man, a need of his physical as of his spiritual being.

Intense application to this purpose must be the continuous effort of the revolution: not something to be postponed for a distant day but of immediate practice.
The revolution must strive to enable every community to sustain itself, to become materially independent.
No country should have to rely on outside help or exploit colonies for its support.
That is the way of capitalism.
The aim of Anarchism, on the contrary, is material independence, not only for the individual, but for every community.

This means gradual decentralization instead of centralization.
Even under capitalism we see the decentralization tendency manifest itself in spite of the essentially centralistic character of the present-day industrial system.
Countries which were before entirely dependent on foreign manufactures, as Germany in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, later Italy and Japan, and now Hungary, Czechoslovakia, etc., are gradually emancipating themselves industrially, working their own natural resources, building their own factories and mills, and attaining economic independence from other lands.
International finance does not welcome this development and tries its utmost to retard its progress, because it is more profitable for the Morgans and Rockefellers to keep such countries as Mexico, China, India, Ireland, or Egypt industrially backward, in order to exploit their natural resources and at the same time be assured of foreign markets for “overproduction” at home.
The governments of the great financiers and lords of industry help them secure those foreign natural resources and markets, even at the point of the bayonet.
Thus Great Britain by force of arms compels China to permit English opium to poison the Chinese, at a good profit, and exploits every means to dispose in that country of the greater part of its textile products.
For the same reason Egypt, India, Ireland, and other dependencies and colonies are not permitted to develop their home industries.

In short, capitalism seeks centralization.
But a free country needs decentralization, independence not only political but also industrial, economic.

Russia strikingly illustrates how imperative economic independence is, particularly to the social revolution.
For years following the October upheaval the Bolshevik Government concentrated its efforts on currying favor with bourgeois governments for “recognition” and inviting foreign capitalists to help exploit the resources of Russia.
But capital, afraid to make large investments under the insecure conditions of the dictatorship, failed to respond with any degree of enthusiasm.
Meanwhile Russia was approaching economic breakdown.
The situation finally compelled the Bolsheviki to understand that the country must depend on her own efforts for maintenance.
Russia began to look around for means to help herself; and thereby she acquired greater confidence in her own abilities, learned to exercise self-reliance and initiative, and started to develop her own industries; a slow and painful process, but a wholesome necessity which will ultimately make Russia economically self-supporting and independent.

The social revolution in any given country must from the very first determine to make itself self-supporting.
It must help itself.
This principle of self-help is not to be understood as a lack of solidarity with other lands.
On the contrary, mutual aid and coöperation between countries, as among individuals, can exist only on the basis of equality, among equals.
Dependence is the very reverse of it.

Should the social revolution take place in several countries at the same time — in France and Germany, for instance — then joint effort would be a matter of course and would make the task of revolutionary reorganization much easier.

Fortunately the workers are learning to understand that their cause is international: the organization of labor is now developing beyond national boundaries.
It is to be hoped that the time is not far away when the entire proletariat of Europe may combine in a general strike, which is to be the prelude to the social revolution.
That is emphatically a consummation to be striven for with the greatest earnestness.
But at the same time the probability is not to be discounted that the revolution may break out in one country sooner than in another — let us say in France earlier than in Germany — and in such a case it would become imperative for France not to wait for possible aid from outside but immediately to exert all her energies to help herself, to supply the most essential needs of her people by her own efforts.

Every country in revolution must seek to achieve agricultural independence no less than political, industrial self-help no less than agricultural.
This process is going on to a certain extent even under capitalism.
It should be one of the main objects of the social revolution.
Modern methods make it possible.
The manufacture of watches and clocks, for example, which was formerly a monopoly of Switzerland, is now carried on in every country.
Production of silk, previously limited to France, is among the great industries of various countries to-day.
Italy, without sources of coal or iron, constructs steel-clad ships. Switzerland, no richer, also makes them.

Decentralization will cure society of many evils of the centralized principle.
Politically decentralization means freedom; industrially, material independence; socially it implies security and well-being for the small communities; individually it results in manhood and liberty.

Equally important to the social revolution as independence from foreign lands is decentralization within the country itself.
Internal decentralization means making the larger regions, even every community, so far as possible, self-supporting.
In his very illuminating and suggestive work, Fields, Factories, and Workshops, Peter Kropotkin has convincingly shown how a city like Paris even, now almost exclusively commercial, could raise enough food in its own environs to support its population abundantly.
By using modern agricultural machinery and intensive cultivation London and New York could subsist upon the products raised in their own immediate vicinity.
It is a fact that “our means of obtaining from the soil whatever we want, under any climate and upon any soil, have lately been improved at such a rate that we cannot foresee yet what is the limit of productivity of a few acres of land.
The limit vanishes in proportion to our better study of the subject, and every year makes it vanish further and further from our sight.”

When the social revolution begins in any land, its foreign commerce stops: the importation of raw materials and finished products is suspended.
The country may even be blockaded by the bourgeois governments, as was the case with Russia.
Thus the revolution is compelled to become self-supporting and provide for its own wants.
Even various parts of the same country may have to face such an eventuality.
They would have to produce what they need within their own area, by their own efforts.
Only decentralization could solve this problem.
The country would have to reorganize its activities in such a manner as to be able to feed itself.
It would have to revert to production on a small scale, to home industry, and to intensive agriculture and horticulture.
Man’s initiative freed by the revolution and his wits sharpened by necessity will rise to the situation.

It must therefore be clearly understood that it would be disastrous to the interests of the revolution to suppress or interfere with the small-scale industries which are even now practiced to such a great extent in various European countries.
Numerous articles of every-day use are produced by the peasants of Continental Europe during their leisure winter hours.
Those home manufactures total up tremendous figures and fill a great need.
It would be most harmful to the revolution to destroy them, as Russia so foolishly did in her mad Bolshevik passion for centralization.
When a country in revolution is attacked by foreign governments, when it is blockaded and deprived of imports, when its large-scale industries threaten to break down or the railroads actually do break down, then it is just the small home industries which become the vital nerve of economic life: they alone can feed and save the revolution.

Moreover, such home industries are not only a potent economic factor; they are also of the greatest social value.
They serve to cultivate friendly intercourse between the farm and the city, bringing the two into closer and more solidaric contact.
In fact, the home industries are themselves an expression of a most wholesome social spirit which from earliest times has manifested itself in village gatherings, in communal efforts, in folk dance and song.
This normal and healthy tendency, in its various aspects, should be encouraged and stimulated by the revolution for the greater weal of the community.

The rôle of industrial decentralization in the revolution is unfortunately too little appreciated.
Even in progressive labor ranks there is a dangerous tendency to ignore or minimize its importance.
Most people are still in the thraldom of the Marxian dogma that centralization is “more efficient and economical.”
They close their eyes to the fact that the alleged “economy” is achieved at the cost of the worker’s limb and life, that the “efficiency” degrades him to a mere industrial cog, deadens his soul, and kills his body.
Furthermore, in a system of centralization the administration of industry becomes constantly merged in fewer hands, producing a powerful bureaucracy of industrial overlords.
It would indeed be the sheerest irony if the revolution were to aim at such a result.
It would mean the creation of a new master class.

The revolution can accomplish the emancipation of labor only by gradual decentralization, by developing the individual worker into a more conscious and determining factor in the processes of industry, by making him the impulse whence proceeds all industrial and social activity.
The deep significance of the social revolution lies in the abolition of the mastery of man over man, putting in its place the management of things.
Only thus can be achieved industrial and social freedom.

“Are you sure it would work?” you demand.

I am sure of this: if that will not work, nothing else will.
The plan I have outlined is a free communism, a life of voluntary coöperation and equal sharing.
There is no other way of securing economic equality which alone is liberty.
Any other system must lead back to capitalism.

It is likely, of course, that a country in social revolution may try various economic experiments.
A limited capitalism might be introduced in one part of the land or collectivism in another.
But collectivism is only another form of the wage system and it would speedily tend to become the capitalism of the present day.
For collectivism begins by abolishing private ownership of the means of production and immediately reverses itself by returning to the system of remuneration according to work performed; which means the reintroduction of inequality.

Man learns by doing.
The social revolution in different countries and regions will probably try out various methods, and by practical experience learn the best way.
The revolution is at the same time the opportunity and justification for it.
I am not attempting to prophesy what this or that country is going to do, what particular course it will follow.
Nor do I presume to dictate to the future, to prescribe its mode of conduct.
My purpose is to suggest, in broad outline, the principles which must animate the revolution, the general lines of action it should follow if it is to accomplish its aim — the reconstruction of society on a foundation of freedom and equality.

We know that previous revolutions for the most part failed of their objects; they degenerated into dictatorship and despotism, and thus reëstablished the old institutions of oppression and exploitation.
We know it from past and recent history.
We therefore draw the conclusion that the old way will not do.
A new way must be cried in the coming social revolution.
What new way?
The only one so far known to man: the way of liberty and equality, the way of free communism, of Anarchy.



Децентрализация всегда ведет у дроблению и уменьшению производства. Более того лишает свободы. Тогда человек привязан к своему месту жительства. Научные институты останавливают работу и начинается стагнация.
Начнем с элементарных вещей, а точнее свободы перемещения. В централизованной стране, а в идеале при коммунизме вся планета свободна. Человек может выбирать любое место жительства. Более того мигрировать из-за времени года. Переезжать в более теплый климат. Уехать отдыхать к морю. Или напротив поехать в горы кататься на лыжах.
Свободный человек выбирает, когда и куда ему ехать. В децентрализации от его труда будет зависеть и мелкая община. Переезд будет равен дезертирству. Тогда подобное решение не одного члена общества, а скажем десятка или сотни может привести к страшным последствиям.
Теперь касаемо производства и убытков. Убытков не существует, если не существует прибыли. Условно обществу требуется стекло. Значит нужно производить данное стекло. Учитывая, что нет прибавочной стоимости, когда буржуа присваивает результаты труда, то и нет проблемы. Нужно обществу тонна стекла они и выпустят тонну стекла.
В капитализме уже доказано. Нет никакой нехватки товаров. Есть только невозможность многими членами общества купить эти товары. Фактически есть дефицит денежных знаков. Если деньги изъять, а оставить некий аналог для облегчения обмена между людьми. Уничтожить понятие прибыль и убытки. Получается парадокс насыщения всеми необходимыми материальными благами.
Пишу вариант на русском т.к. не уверен, что переводчик сделает корректный перевод. Возвращаемся к стеклу. Для его производства потребуется калированная сода, негашеная известь и песок. Для достаточного нагрева емкости и плавильная печь. Естественно газ или уголь. Такое может быть убыточно, если газ стоит условно 100 долларов за кубометр. Вопрос лишь в том, а кто собственно в капитализме определяет его стоимость?
Отчего золото дороже железа? Да золото можно использовать в микросхемах. Золото сложнее добывать. Вот только золота требуется значительно меньше, чем железа.
Потому и понятие убытки есть только в капитализме. В социализме есть другой вопрос. Нужна данная вещь обществу или нет?


Decentralization always leads to fragmentation and reduction of production. Moreover, it deprives you of your freedom. Then the person is tied to their place of residence. Scientific institutions stop working and stagnation begins.
Let's start with the elementary things, or rather the freedom of movement. In a centralized country, and ideally under communism, the whole planet is free. A person can choose any place of residence. Moreover, to migrate because of the time of year. Move to a warmer climate. Go on vacation to the sea. Or on the contrary, go to the mountains to ski.
A free person chooses when and where to go. In decentralization, the small community will also depend on his work. The move will be equal to desertion. Then such a decision of not one member of the society, but say a dozen or a hundred, can lead to terrible consequences.
Now with regard to production and losses. There is no loss if there is no profit. Conventionally, the society requires glass. So you need to produce this glass. Given that there is no surplus value, when the bourgeois appropriates the results of labor, then there is no problem. If the society needs a ton of glass, they will release a ton of glass.
It has already been proven in capitalism. There is no shortage of goods. There is only the inability of many members of society to buy these goods. In fact, there is a shortage of banknotes. If you withdraw the money, and leave a certain analogue to facilitate the exchange between people. Destroy the concept of profit and loss. It turns out the paradox of saturation with all the necessary material goods.
I am writing the version in Russian because I am not sure that the translator will make a correct translation. We return to the glass. For its production, it will require soda ash, quicklime and sand. For sufficient heating of the container and the melting furnace. Naturally gas or coal. This can be unprofitable if the gas is conditionally $ 100 per cubic meter. The only question is, who exactly determines the value of capitalism?
Why is gold more expensive than iron? Yes, gold can be used in microchips. Gold is harder to mine. That's just gold requires much less than iron.
Therefore, the concept of losses exists only in capitalism. There is another question in socialism. Does the society need this thing or not?

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.70
TRX 0.09
JST 0.074
BTC 54727.38
ETH 4138.41
BNB 597.55
SBD 7.04