Transition to an anarchist society issues

For starters, that stuff about the boss being worse off than the workers is nonsense.

People who start businesses are generally very well off to begin with - this is how they either have or have access to the capital needed to start on. Working longer hours, fair enough, but I don't feel very sorry for rich people working long hours.

And as to your saying that "plenty" of business owners could be considered non-exploitative, on what are you basing this? Any sort of evidence?

In fact, you are tying yourself up with your own logic here. If your current boss is not exploiting any of his employees, and is only being rewarded proportionally to his own effort effectively as another worker, then he would not even lose out financially with the implementation of communism. He would only lose out if his exploitation of others was forcibly put to an end. But your saying he's not exploiting you. So there's no problem.

As to your response to my question about what he would actually lose, your answer is to do with effectively practicalities related to production in "socialism in one country". This is muddying two separate issues. Firstly because this could temporary disadvantage everyone, and secondly nobody on here is a proponent of "socialism in one country". For a revolution to be successful it would have to spread to a significant portion of the globe.

Boognish returning to the point directed at me - it is a speculation on a speculation at the end of the day but I would imagine an anarchist community that has rid itself of the wage economy would have no use for foreign investment/aid (call it what you will) as it no longer deals in currency per se. Therefore the IMF offering lots of dollars for an open door to corporations is probably pointless even if it were remotely acceptable.

Cuba (which isn't and never has been anarchist) to use your example, after the '59 revolution continued to run itself on the principles of capitalism run by State communism and allied itself to Soviet Russia in the running. To compare it with how an anarchist society might be run is therefore an erroneous comparison. The withdrawl of Soviet subsidies, as you rightly point out, had considerable economic effect. Cuba also faces an ongoing US embargo reinforced in 1992. People suffered.

But Cubans managed to create a considerable drive towards local production of vegetables which in turn solved part of the food crisis (the Government setting food prices all the while). Vegetable oils were used to power vehicles.In an anarchist sitation areas like these would be central as the drive is to rid society of the capitalist system of value ie. money. I think you're confusing anarchism with reformist economics.

Let's take a look at Spain - the anarchist collectivisation occurred on a scale involving at least 3 million people. The revolution would not have ocurred there unless there had been considerable organisation (AIT-CNT etc) for years, so when you ask how can we prevent suffering in transition the answer is to organise NOW and create potential strategy so that we are prepared for eventualities.

this is the whole problem. even if i went out tomorrow and through a combination of luck, graft and creativity managed to turn my dole cheque into a business empire, that vast wealth would not be the product of me alone, but of all the thousands of workers who contributed to it. initial innovation and graft doesn't entitle you to live off the labour of others forever - if you want to enjoy the fruits of your labour then everyone else has that same right.

even the classical bourgeois economists - Adam Smith, David Ricardo etc - distinguish between profit (which is the return on capital invested) and wages (which are paid in return for labour). capitalists don't get rich off wages (even if they take home the profits in the form of a paycheque). a non-exploitative business is as viable a concept as celibate sex. a business is a machine for the exploitation of labour. that's what it is. if it doesn't extract a surplus it fails (as most new start ventures do in fact). often, with a new start business much of that labour is indeed supplied by the owner, but they do so with the expectation that when it gets off the ground they can sit back and get rich of others' labour as the owner of the company while everyone else is its wage slave.

You've completely ignored my point that actually tears apart your whole argument. That if these business owners are as you claim "non-exploitative" then they will not lose out under communism, as they will not be denied the fruits of their exploitation.

Also, I don't know why you seem to ridicule the idea of having to provide some sort of evidence for your assertions. If you make claims they should be based on some sort of fact.

Finally, I'm not sure quite what point you're trying to get at here anyway. Are you saying that because your boss and a couple of other people won't be much richer than the rest of the population anymore, and so able to get more attractive wives and they would be otherwise, that we should support capitalism, which deprives hundreds of millions of people of food and fresh water? If not, then what is your point?

Okay cool, I wasn't sure quite what angle you were coming from!

If you could send me a private message with some details of your company that would actually be great, as a union rep I represent social workers, and their biggest problem is always too much time spending filling in databases, so that technological solution could be something we could ask for...

I think boogish raises the important point that a switch to a communist society would indeed not always seem just and fair. I don't read him being against such a transition so I think his point is perfectly reasonable as such.

I would also add that communist don't want to abolish capitalism because the rate of exploitation is positive but because we oppose the wage relationship along with the rest of capitalist relations. The rate of exploitation is only an average and so there is nothing unlikely about bosses who technically pay the workers above the average social price of labor (but by that token there will be others who pay less than average). At the same time, it's quite possible to have jobs that are subjectively awful even given relatively high wages and oppositely, some people may, say, find a low-paid but extremely easy job to convenient to their circumstances. Communism isn't about passing judgment about the billions of personal choices the world's proles make but about single judgment that the whole cannot and must not be sustained.

I would contest is the idea that a small enterprise would be preserved as a particularly independent entity. While small production units would certainly continue, "advertising" would be replaced by simple information and a lot of sales would be unnecessary. Similarly, firms currently competing in various markets would be combined to various extent. Thus there would not simply be transfer of an existing enterprise "to the workers". Rather the whole of social production would be transformed.

Anyway, at the end of any revolutionary period, the likely result would be most enterprises bankrupt, most banks closed, many buildings damaged, etc, (from counter-revolutionary violence even if communist were somehow all non-violent).

At the same time, even in the Russian revolution many bosses actually did join the revolution and help manage the enterprises they formerly owned. There's no reason that a revolution couldn't make workaholics feel useful. They might not get the same living standard as formerly but they could get plaques, hugs, hand-shakes or whatever.

And certainly, we shouldn't underestimate how a revolution would involve a massive uprooting of all social relations and not some simple self-management of the enterprises and processes that currently exist. If this society wasn't going to, uh, hell in a hand basket, such an uprooting would be crazy. So, the continually increasing insanity of the present regime makes such an uprooting seem relatively saner but that's it. Any revolution will a scary mess, keep it in mind.

Any form of transition will be inherently difficult. I think that's a given. There will be violence and suffering as people get to grips with new ideas. The boss class will attempt to subvert it, as they stand to lose the most, and counter-revolution will be a perennial threat. Transition will be difficult for everyone, some will lose more than others.

Boognish the reason I brought up anarchist-communist economics because it SEEMS that you don't appreciate the positives that such a society could bring (the Raisin d'Être of anarchism) and your boss, while having to go through a period of uncertainty as workers democracy is implemented, will actually be better off in the long run. He will be able to reap the rewards of his labour - he will not be forced into having to work long hours to get stuff done; the shorter working day would also allow him more time to consider innovation in his field or whatever. Workers may decide to elect him to 'run' the company etc.

That's really the issue I'd take. That while he might lose the monetary gains he considers due under capitalist systems of value compared to what not just he, but everyone stands to gain. You see you're looking at the idea of reward from the CAPITALIST perspective. As Steven I think mentioned above - to each his need - is the system under communism. Is it fair? I think so, otherwise I wouldn't be an anarchist.

The Cuban model - ok you're a bit clearer - you're speculating on the fall of trade/imports and the effect of reliance upon them. My answer is the same, the key word is 'reliance'. Under capitalism whether corporate or state-communist the boss class maintain systems of reliance in key areas such as food production as a means of control creating dependency. By creating a populace dependent on the State (hierarchy) you harbour the notion that without the State chaos would ensue. But this dependence can be overcome through sustainable land use for example so that food can be created and supplied locally so there is no dependence on food imports. And intensive labour in that sector may well be the clinch pin in maintaining a revolution as food supply is vital.

So organising now in terms of learning about what you might need to do if such a revoltuion were to occur is something that can be done now - in terms of land use, medicine, technology, communication, transport and other infrastructure with an emphasis on sustainabilty and while that's ongoing we also need to consider creating the conditions for that to occur through agitation in the workplace and in the community in the first place.

BTW post-rev I got dibs on your boss's wife.

To a large extent, these issues were surely dealt with in the issue of ending slavery. The individual slaves, as property of the slave owner, represented without a doubt the result of hard work and investment in many cases (as well as previous exploitation) and the investment was made against the background of an implicit promise from society that slaves were an adequate vehicle of investment. Also, there were definitely good and bad slave owners. Some empathised with and tended for their slaves.

The point I'm trying to make is that utilitarianism does not really come into it. The slave-owners, good or bad, were not denied something that was rightfully theirs when slavery was abolished. They, unfortunately for them, had staked their fortune on something they had no right to have. And, if you are of the view that surplus extraction based on ownership of the means of production is wrong, then both "good" and "bad" capitalists, however your personal scheme sets up that difference, will lose out on this principle. This is not the violation of one principle in order to serve another, this is in fact essentially a matter of a principle of justice (rather than simply an outcome-directed action) having a consequence which we (understandably) find unpleasant. Many economic systems and moral principles, not least capitalism itself, have these features (e.g. nobody is celebrating when someone goes bankrupt, rather it is viewed as an unfortunate outcome of just principles).

But if your boss pays you exactly what you earn, then he isn't gaining any advantage from owning the means of production. This might therefore be continued in an anarchist situation, no?

Same goes if his rate of surplus extraction is quite low. The relationship can be continued intact without surplus extraction.

A final point/question. If your boss uses the means of production in order to have authority over you within the production process (rather than to gain a mark-up on your labour) then this relationship may be threatened by the end of capitalism. I'm sure this risks going into areas of theory that I know little about, but you seem to regard your boss as a legitimate authority over you in the context of the workplace - one who knows more, is well-intentioned, responsible, has put more time in, founded the business, etc. Could this relationship not be continued - possibly in a more enriched way - in the context of a post-transition society? Perhaps this could be achieved through informal, voluntary, acceptance of his experience and the legitimacy of his directive power (which in your case you seem willing to give).