DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

Taxes and Anarchism

25 posts / 0 new
Last post
JustABeginner
Offline
Joined: 11-09-09
Sep 11 2009 18:42
Taxes and Anarchism

Do Collectivist Anarchist believe in any form of taxation? I’ve been crawling the web trying to find an answer to this question. Some say, yes, others say, no. It sound like maybe certain communities might have something like a contract, stating that you are willing to pay taxes in that particular region. Thanks.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Sep 11 2009 21:23

welcome to libcom smile this is a libertarian communist site, so the posters here generally want a moneyless, stateless society, which makes taxation doubly impossible! a lot of anarchists around the internet have some pretty weird views on economics, but the best place to start if you're 'JustABeginner' is probably the Anarchist FAQ - and of course feel free to ask any other questions you like on the forums.

Alderson Warm-Fork
Offline
Joined: 24-12-08
Sep 12 2009 02:29

Re-phrasing Joseph's point about a moneyless society - taxes are a mechanism of 're-distribution'. If you were re-distributing goods, it would imply that 1) your original distribution was severely flawed, and 2) you for some reason couldn't change that original distribution. And to have this second distribution super-imposed on your original one would require some sort of agency standing somewhat above and apart from society - which isn't necessarily a state but sounds worryingly like it.

But I sense you might be asking more about attitude towards taxes in present-day society - are anarchists 'against them' or somesuch? I think most collectivist anarchists would say that it's a non-issue: state or private business, just two ways for society's wealth to be stolen. Might be differences in what it's spent on, but the state runs both the hospitals and the army, so eh.

Anonimiss
Offline
Joined: 4-09-09
Sep 12 2009 04:03

this may be a dumb question, but I don't know the answer so I'll ask.

if there are no taxes paid, or no money in general, how will things like construction, attaining/building new capital and maintaining it be accomplished?

JustABeginner
Offline
Joined: 11-09-09
Sep 12 2009 04:48

I’ve actually read the Anarchist FAQ but the question of taxation doesn’t seemed to be covered - or maybe I missed it. I understand how, what are usually called social programs are paid for in a mutualist, communist, and even “anarcho” capitalist society. As far as I understand, the Spanish Revolution was more of a Collectivist community. I’m like anonomiss above, it seems like a stupid question but how does one pay for basic services like roads, hospitals, etc. This leaves a giant fucking hole in my philosophy, one that if I can not reconcile, I’ll will be forced to move on to something else.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Sep 12 2009 07:01
Anonimiss wrote:
this may be a dumb question, but I don't know the answer so I'll ask.

if there are no taxes paid, or no money in general, how will things like construction, attaining/building new capital and maintaining it be accomplished

in basic terms, people will decide collectively what they want to do, and do it. even under capitalism when we spend most of our waking lives at work, preparing for work or recovering from work, people find time to organise loads of things on such a mutual aid basis (cooking for friends, organising sports teams/tournaments...). some more detailed discussions of a moneyless society are Peter Kropotkin's The Conquest of Bread and the libcom side of the 'a participatory society or libertarian communism?' debate.

JustABeginner wrote:
I’ve actually read the Anarchist FAQ but the question of taxation doesn’t seemed to be covered - or maybe I missed it. I understand how, what are usually called social programs are paid for in a mutualist, communist, and even “anarcho” capitalist society. As far as I understand, the Spanish Revolution was more of a Collectivist community. I’m like anonomiss above, it seems like a stupid question but how does one pay for basic services like roads, hospitals, etc. This leaves a giant fucking hole in my philosophy, one that if I can not reconcile, I’ll will be forced to move on to something else.

ok, fair enough on the A FAQ. like i say, the reason taxes wouldn't be mentioned (it's a long time since i read it through, so it may not be in there), is that if there's no money and no state, you can't have taxation. essentially, people, organised in workers councils (mass assemblies, with councils of recallable delegates co-ordinating between them), would decide what public works they wanted, allocate the resources and do it.

money is only required in a world of universal dispossession - where without access to the means of life, workers need to sell themselves in order to get money in order to get them. in a world where people give 'according to ability' and receive 'according to need', the need for such a mediator disappears. As I said to Anonimiss, Peter Kropotkin and the libcom/PPS debate go into this in considerably more detail.

As to revolutionary spain, yes in many parts (such as Barcelona), the economy was more collectivist than communist (although that didn't stop the provision of public goods, such as collectivised public transport). the revolution went furthest in Aragon, where libertarian communism (a moneyless society) was implemented in many places in the rearguard of the anarchist militias at the front. some good texts are
An account of agrarian collectives in Aragon by Augustin Souchy and Collectives in the Spanish Revolution by Gaston Leval. There's also a good chapter on the Libertarian Confederation of Aragon in Abel Paz's excellent biography of Durruti.

shadwdragn
Offline
Joined: 12-09-09
Sep 12 2009 07:05

In an anarch-communist society most people would agree that the work force or labor force would be organized into collectives, unions, co-ops, whatever you want to call it. These "unions" would be organized through federation. Now, things like construction, hospitals, etc, would simply be groups of workers collectives, run just like everything else. The things that need to be done to maintain society are numerous, and just because the state, with our taxpayers money, takes care of alot of them doesnt mean that a revolution couldnt simply put the reins in the hands of the communities themselves.

Anonimiss
Offline
Joined: 4-09-09
Sep 12 2009 08:21

hmmm, sorry i'm not the brightest crayon in the box. i still don't get it exactly.

I understand that a community can collectively decide if they need to do something, and do it.
So say the community decides they need a new fully equipped hospital. In a capitalist society, this will cost millions of dollars to get the resources, build, get the technology, machinery, etc etc.

How will they obtain the resources? How will they get the building materials? Through donations? That'd be a lot of labor going into producing these materials to be donated. which would mean the construction organizations would manufacture and produce millions of dollars worth of labor for the good of the community, but receive no compensation for their labor besides having a new hospital in their community?

Or say they need like a piece of machinery that's manufactured some place outside of their community, even in another country. How will they obtain that piece of machinery?

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Sep 12 2009 08:29
Anonimiss wrote:
How will they obtain the resources? How will they get the building materials? Through donations? That'd be a lot of labor going into producing these materials to be donated. which would mean the construction organizations would manufacture and produce millions of dollars worth of labor for the good of the community, but receive no compensation for their labor besides having a new hospital in their community?

this is discussed in some of the links above. basically, the 'construction organisations' are not private firms. they have no bills to pay, no wages to pay out etc - 'compensation' is therefore not a relevant concept. they are simply combinations of workers with a specific purpose. the principle of libertarian communism is simply that you contribute according to your abilities (whatever they may be), and accordingly receive according to your needs. all that is needed then is a process of deciding what to produce (different models are discussed in some detail in the libcom/PPS debate), and having the means to deal with any scarcity, if everyones needs exceded production (again, this is discussed in the libcom/PPS debate).

Anonimiss wrote:
Or say they need like a piece of machinery that's manufactured some place outside of their community, even in another country. How will they obtain that piece of machinery?

libertarian communism is federal, but that doesn't mean it's parochial. particularly with modern communications technology, national borders and geographic distances are of secondary importance to deciding what we want to produce. once we decide, resources can be allocated as part of a global system - from eac according to their abilities to each according to their needs applying equally to everyone, everywhere.

Anonimiss
Offline
Joined: 4-09-09
Sep 12 2009 09:22

But in a collectivist anarchism society there are wages to pay out, right?

The people who work in this non-private construction organization do get compensated according to the amount of time they put in.

So if the group in charge of building the hospital tells them, we need this amount of metal, this amount of concrete..etc, this would take a good amount of time and work for the construction organization workers to produce.

The people building the hospital would not have the resources to pay the construction orgs for their products, there fore the workers of the construction workers would not get compensated. right? and in a collectivist anarchist society, workers don't work for free.

now i know this is a libertarian communist site, and I don't know too much about this.
So a communist society there's no money and people work to their ability, and receive what they need.
Now if the community decides in this society that they need a hospital, they'd goto whoever was in construction, and ask them for the materials. This would take months to years for the construction org to produce all these materials.
Diligent workers would all just work for years because they have the know how and ability? knowing their compensation for doing this work is that some other org is doing the same thing to contribute to their needs?

also..lol sorry, i'm just trying to work this all out in my head.
In a lib-com society, money is abolished. SO, lets just say the united states turned to a libcom society. Other countries were not and still used money. Say we needed oil and gasoline to fuel cars, planes, buses, etc... how can we obtain things that are only available in other countries that still had the money system? Or even like some high tech medical instruments or medicines or whatever that was needed but not available in our society. how?

Yorkie Bar
Offline
Joined: 29-03-09
Sep 12 2009 10:46
Quote:
In a lib-com society, money is abolished. SO, lets just say the united states turned to a libcom society. Other countries were not and still used money. Say we needed oil and gasoline to fuel cars, planes, buses, etc... how can we obtain things that are only available in other countries that still had the money system? Or even like some high tech medical instruments or medicines or whateve

I think most communists here would agree that a communist revolution would have to be global to work. This is because capitalism is an interconnected, worldwide social system, and so can only be abolished on a global scale. Having one part of the world 'turn communist' while capitalism survived everywhere else would be problematical for a whole host of reasons, in addition to the ones you describe.

~J.

JustABeginner
Offline
Joined: 11-09-09
Sep 12 2009 10:55

Thanks Joseph for taking the time to answer our questions. I will definitely read the links and order the book that you have suggested. I’m actually reading, The Conquest of Bread and I’m loving it especially after reading, What is Property. Much appreciated!

As far as I understand it, Bakunin was not for the abolishment of money, at least at the beginning. From the A FAQ, “Communism is based on free consumption of all while collectivism is more likely to be based on the distribution of goods according to the labour contributed,” meaning people earned a salary usually based on how many people were in your family or some other system.

I was also under the impression from reading Sam Dolgoff’s book, The Anarchist Collectives, that money was never really abolished. To quote, “When talking about the Spanish Revolution, the confusion stems from the failure to stipulate that “abolishing money” refers to the official national money of Spain as distinct from the local money issued by the collectives.” (Chapter titled, Economics of Revolution) But the local collectives actually issued, vouchers, tokens, rationing booklets, certificates, coupons, etc. (Basically another form of money.) This would immediately bring back the issue of how a community pays for social services.

In The Anarchist Collectives, it also seems to suggest that their was a form of taxation by The Aragon Federation of Collectives. In their declaration and resolutions that was adopted by the congress, that the federation would perform all social tasks, such as school houses, gather scientist to understand crop formation for maximum benefit, etc. The declaration also says, “In accordance with the resources of the collectives and to facilitate procurement of outside commodities the collectives or the districts will accumulate funds[official national currency] for the creation of a Regional treasury…” This sounds like taxes to me. (The above was taken from the chapter titled, Coordination of Collectives)

I should mention that I wouldn’t mind paying taxes to a collective since I would have to spend that money either way. I also understand that my tax wouldn’t be going to some unaccountable government but that the federation is a bottom-up system. But my question still remains. Did the communes and federation tax? Was this tax mandatory? My only guess is that if you lived in a particular commune, their would be a contract stating that you agree to the rules of the commune, even if that is paying a tax. Again, I don’t have any problem with this. I just don’t want to sound ignorant when I’m talking to others. Thanks again for all the responses.

Boris Badenov
Offline
Joined: 25-08-08
Sep 12 2009 14:05
Anonimiss wrote:
The people building the hospital would not have the resources to pay the construction orgs for their products, there fore the workers of the construction workers would not get compensated. right?

well look, today a construction worker gets "compensated" with a wage that he/she then uses to buy basic necessities as well as other things that are deemed desirable. Compensation is only a means of having access to commodities. In communism, the same construction worker would have guaranteed access to basic necessities, as well as to other things, within reasonable limits, precisely because everything will be produced according to human needs, capital having been abolished.

Quote:
now i know this is a libertarian communist site, and I don't know too much about this.
So a communist society there's no money and people work to their ability, and receive what they need.
Now if the community decides in this society that they need a hospital, they'd goto whoever was in construction, and ask them for the materials. This would take months to years for the construction org to produce all these materials.

years is a bit much; the construction process might take that much, but basic materials would already be in stock, just like they are now.

Quote:
Diligent workers would all just work for years because they have the know how and ability? knowing their compensation for doing this work is that some other org is doing the same thing to contribute to their needs?

there is no one org that provides for their needs; their needs are being met by their respective community, which is itself part of a much larger federation of communities. Said workers would have guaranteed access to a variety of products and resources; even if they were paid in money, this would be useless in a society where things are made according to actual human needs, not according to capitalist strategies of profit-making. If I as a worker have access to almost every kind of material resource necessary for a comfortable life, what need do I have for some superfluous currency remuneration? Yes, I would work simply to help out fellow workers, fellow human beings, knowing that I have no reason why I shouldn't.

Quote:
In a lib-com society, money is abolished. SO, lets just say the united states turned to a libcom society. Other countries were not and still used money. Say we needed oil and gasoline to fuel cars, planes, buses, etc... how can we obtain things that are only available in other countries that still had the money system? Or even like some high tech medical instruments or medicines or whatever that was needed but not available in our society. how?

as has been pointed out, capital cannot be truly abolished in only one country (unless you think Soviet-style "socialism" is basically viable); a worldwide revolution (which sounds more cataclysmic that it actually would be) would need to occur for communism to be possible.

Alderson Warm-Fork
Offline
Joined: 24-12-08
Sep 12 2009 14:31

I didn't twig at first that you meant specifically collectivism-as-opposed-to-communism, I thought you just meant 'collectivism'-as-opposed-to-individualism.

Quote:
" But in a collectivist anarchism society there are wages to pay out, right? The people who work in this non-private construction organization do get compensated according to the amount of time they put in. So if the group in charge of building the hospital tells them, we need this amount of metal, this amount of concrete..etc, this would take a good amount of time and work for the construction organization workers to produce. The people building the hospital would not have the resources to pay the construction orgs for their products, there fore the workers of the construction workers would not get compensated. right? and in a collectivist anarchist society, workers don't work for free."

right, so the point is not that 'the hospital-builders don't have the resources to pay the construction workers' wages'. I'm not expert, but that sounds like the 'money' in use is being traded between particular organisations in exchange for raw materials - which means it would be functioning as 'capital'.

Rather, I think, both the hospital-builders and the makers of the metal, concrete, etc. are paid directly by some part of the 'federation of councils', i.e. democratic planning system, in accordance with it being agreed that their work is what needs doing. The planning system says 'build a hospital', the hospital-makers say 'sure, it will take us X hours, and we will need Y tonnes of concrete', the planning system says 'ok, concrete-makers, provide them with Y tonnes of concrete', the concrete-makers say 'sure, it will take us Z hours', and then the planning system says 'ok cool, we will pay the first group in accordance with their X hours, and the latter in accordance with their Z hours'.

So wherever you need other people's labour, or raw materials, or land, or energy, etc. you don't buy it yourself, you go to the councils and say 'we need this' and they evaluate your claim. I think you may have been assuming that when the hospital is to be built, the workers in charge get given 'money' to buy the necessary means of production - which would set them up as capitalists. You only use your 'wages' to 'buy' consumption goods for you to enjoy.

So the public authority already owns all the capital, and 'lends it' to different people to make use of, and all the consumption goods, which it 'sells' to peple for the 'wages' they get for working (or just for existing, for being sick, etc). There's no point in having 'taxes' because if you already 'own' 100% of social wealth, why try to get more? If you control distribution, what's the point of re-distribution.

Anonimiss
Offline
Joined: 4-09-09
Sep 12 2009 19:04

ahhhh thank you Alderson. that makes sense

JustABeginner
Offline
Joined: 11-09-09
Sep 13 2009 05:31

Okay, I think I finally get it. Let me see if this is right.

A particular commune would have a number of cooperatives. Some cooperative would make more than others. All the ‘money’ or ‘profits’ made between all the cooperatives would flow to the governing body, the federation of councils - under democratic control of course. The federation of councils would then disperse ‘money’ back to the cooperatives to make sure people are paid fairly. With some of the money they would, depending if the public wanted it, build hospitals, create a fire department, etc.

I hope this is right. Please let me know if I got something wrong in my analysis.

Hungry56
Offline
Joined: 24-08-08
Sep 13 2009 09:16

No, no money or profits, no payments.

If someone wants an orange, they go to the shop, grab the orange and walk out with it. Therefore wages would be unneccesary. People do not work for a wage, they work to contribute to society, to fulfill their creative, productive impulses, and if for some reason they refuse to work without a good excuse then they are banished or denied certain services or sent to the gulags.

Imagine the stock of chocolate comes in once a month. Maybe there might be a problem of all the yummy chocolate being snatched up within two weeks, then for the next two weeks people cannot get chocolate. So the supermarkets might decide to order more choccy from the producers. So the choccy producers send more choccy to the shop. But all the supermarkets are doing this, and the choccy factory doesn't have enough produce to fulfill all the orders. So they apply to the International Confederation of Sugar Growers or some other body for an increase in sugar. This body then democratically decides whether they should send more sugar to the choccy factory, or whether the people in Ethiopia who have never had sugar in their lives need it more.

It would be sort of similiar to production under capitalism, but without everything being mediated by money. And as there is no profit motive, things can be decided rationally and democratically in order to fulfill social needs.

JustABeginner
Offline
Joined: 11-09-09
Sep 13 2009 10:04

Yeah, I know how a anarcho-communist society would work. What I’m talking about is a anarcho-collective society. The type of society that Bakunin was interested in. (It should be said that Bakunin thought eventually a collective society would turn into a A-communist.

Collectivist believe that employees would be paid, that the money system would not be abolished. So, that’s my main question. How do social services, hospitals, fire departments, ect. get paid?

Hungry56
Offline
Joined: 24-08-08
Sep 13 2009 11:08

wall pfft that's what I get for skim-reading posts.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Sep 13 2009 11:26
JustABeginner wrote:
Yeah, I know how a anarcho-communist society would work. What I’m talking about is a anarcho-collective society. The type of society that Bakunin was interested in. (It should be said that Bakunin thought eventually a collective society would turn into a A-communist.

Collectivist believe that employees would be paid, that the money system would not be abolished. So, that’s my main question. How do social services, hospitals, fire departments, ect. get paid?

right, in that case I think yes, collectivists believe in taxes which then go to the federations.

However, I'm not aware of collectivism being a significant current in anarchism for at least a hundred or more years. I'm not aware of any organisations which support it, and don't think I know any individuals either.

JustABeginner
Offline
Joined: 11-09-09
Sep 13 2009 12:06

A writer by the name of Anarcho writes, “There are generally three different schools of anarchism (or libertarian socialism): Mutualism, Collectivism and Communism. Anarcho-Syndicalism more a tactic than a goal and so its adherents aim for one of these three (usually, anarcho-communism although Bakunin, who first formulated anarcho-syndicalist tactics, called himself a collectivist).” I believe I’ve seen Anarcho write on this forum. Anyway, the Anarchist FAQ also seems to use these definitions and breaks them down to each particular issue. Unfortunately, the FAQ, while being an incredible resource, doesn’t seem to answer my question. (Maybe I missed it. It is a pretty big book/electronic resource!)

Alderson Warm Fork above seems to say it best but I’m not sure if I understand him correctly.

This is my understanding of what he is saying… Communes are made up of a number of cooperatives. These cooperatives interact closing with the communes, albeit independently. Some cooperatives would make more money than others. All of this money would flow back to a governing body or a federation of councils. The money would then be sent back to all the cooperatives to make sure they are all being paid the same. The federation would keep some of that money and give it to the commune. The commune would then decide what social programs it would be used for. Because the cooperative in located in the commune, they would both be helping each other out. I’m not sure if this is correct. Any idea or correction?

Alderson Warm-Fork
Offline
Joined: 24-12-08
Sep 13 2009 17:25
Quote:
I'm not aware of collectivism being a significant current in anarchism for at least a hundred or more years

Interestingly, I hadn't actually twigged that this word was what I had been thinking about - I had always been going more on Marx's critique of the Gotha programme, where he says (apparently agreeing with Bakunin) that 'the earlier stage of communism' would retain something-like-wages because people's mindsets would still be adapted to capitalistic habits of seeking direct material rewards.

I don't really 'endorse' collectivism but I find it useful for deflecting 'people are so selfish!' arguments - 'ok, maybe they are, but you can still support revolutionary socialism, just a different flavour'.

(so obviously don't assume I really know what I'm talking about)

Quote:
Some cooperatives would make more money than others. All of this money would flow back to a governing body or a federation of councils.

This I think is the only point I'd disagree on - cooperatives (or whatever group of producers) don't make money, they make products. Making money would require either a coin mint or selling their goods, which they don't do.

Rather, their products are allocated to various purposes by the governing body, and it's that body which 'makes' (i.e. prints) money, that it then pays to compensate workers, and (I think?) gets back when they exchange those wages for whatever consumption goods.

I don't know much economics, but note that this 'money' may only exist for as long as it takes to be issued and then spent - i.e. it doesn't 'circulate' or exist as a 'stock' with the governing body. Indeed it might have a 'use-by' date on it, after which it becomes void, so that it doesn't even get saved up.

Also, I don't think they have to be either-or, you might have collectivist wages'n'prices just for a small section of the economy - certain luxury goods, and certain unpopular jobs - with a everything else being free and communist.

JustABeginner
Offline
Joined: 11-09-09
Sep 18 2009 12:01

I went to the BlackCat Forum and asked the same question as before but I modified it a little. Here it is:

"I have two totally simple questions that no anarchist can seem to answer.

Assume that a country becomes an anarchy. Much like the Spanish Revolution, there is still currency either in the form of paper, tokens, whatever. Eventually, this society might become anarcho-communist. Until then, how are social services such as roads, hospitals, fire departments, etc. paid for? Are communities taxed? If so, is this tax voluntary or forced? Does a federation of different industries pay? (I know how the structure works. What I don’t know is how it is paid for.)

I think this question would also apply to Spain during the revolution. Many communities used money (vouchers, tokens, etc.) the entire time. So how did they pay for public programs?

My second question: Assume a group of cooperatives in say, the toy industry, gather together into an federation. Maybe one of these cooperatives decides to try an experimental toy that totally flops. At the same time, another federation creates a toy that is a complete success. Wouldn’t one cooperative become rich while the other became poor, thereby creating inequality. My only thought is that all the money flows to the federation and is then redistributed to make sure all the other cooperatives are paid the same. Is this correct? I’m not sure. Any answers or links or anything would be fantastic."

This was the response...

"In the Spanish revolution the working class did not consolidate power, so they did not build a replacement for the state. There probably were still taxes being collected by the government. The Health Care Federation, which ran the health care industry, received some funding from the government and some direct funding from other worker organizations...usually as the result of negotiations. For example, in Barcelona they had an arrangement with the Transport Union in regard to transit workers where they had free access to a certain famous clinic, formerly for the elite, which the Health Federation had seized.

In regard to your question about competing collectives, yes inequality would be the result, if they're producing to obtain revenue owned by them from market sales. This problem of inequality between collectives was a serious problem during the Spanish revolution in the textile industry. This led them to complete socialization of the industry, so that the industry would be run as a single coordinated industry, thru a Textile Workers Council.

However, if your question is about a fully functional libertarian socialist society, there are different views. If one thinks that workers should be paid for work effort or an equal remuneration, their remuneration isn't based on market revenue. It's paid to them by the whole society which would own and control the whole economy, but with workplaces sort of sub-contracted to workers to manage.

In regard to items of personal consumption like a fishing boat or a sofa, the idea might be that the "price" is simply the costs. It's a non-profit system. The person who buys the sofa uses up a portion of their consumption entitlement to acquire the sofa.

In regard to services that are provided free at social expense such as health care, education, child care, public transit, whatever the community decides to provide that way, then the costs go onto the budget of the appropriate territorial federation...that is, whichever federation has decided to provide the service. For example, one area might provide a service that another does not. Or one area might want to build bigger parks, whatever.

In that case, the allocation of resources to provide the service comes out of the bridget for public goods and services of that federation. This will have to come out of the total consumption entitlement of the total region. That is, the more the regional federation wants to put into expanding free public services, the less will be available for private consumption goods. And you could think of that as equivalent to taxation. And it won't be voluntary. Voluntary would allow free riders to avoid their social obligations."

I also noticed that anonismiss (see above) was asking the same question on BlackenedFlag forum. I can't seem to register for whatever reason so hopefully he will see this post.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Sep 18 2009 17:52

Mate, it seems to me you're still thinking anarchism would operate under a market system. It wouldn't, production and distribution would be decided democratically.

In other words, rational planning would precede production. So in the toy factory example, the toy makers collective would be 'commissioned' to produce a certain toy (obviously in constant dialog with the larger workers' federation and the immediate community) and they would produce this in 'their' factory--one which the workers themselves democratically control. So if the toy flops or is a huge hit, it doesn't matter. The workers still have all their needs met and enjoy a sustainable amount of luxuries. To put in another, under anarchism the idea is that regardless of the work one does, he or she will get an equal share of social product*--as JK has been saying, "From Each According to their Ability, To Each According to their Need."

*Not money tho, we're talking about the direct distribution of goods and services, with, when neccessary, rationing occuring based on need and decided through democratic, transparent mechanisms.

Does that make sense?

banpen
Offline
Joined: 10-07-09
Sep 22 2009 11:07

To some extent participatory budgeting works in a similar way, with networks of labour being organised by the local government to build something which the communities/groups etc involved agree upon, the only difference being once moving into a moneyless, stateless, classless society these networks of labour and community groups would be decentralised, freely federated and self managed, the work instead being based on its feasibility; the availability of resources, its social and environmental impact etc rather than a profit motive.

As well as thinking within a market context, It also seems like you think work would be organised in the same alienating, exploitative way; ie labourers working back breaking hours.

Really good thread and answers by the way smile

red n black star