DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

Anarchist communism - an introduction

Federazione Anarchica Italiana - Italian anarchist-communist group.

A short introduction to anarchist-communism.

Anarchist communism is a form of anarchism that advocates the abolition of the State and capitalism in favour of a horizontal network of voluntary associations through which everyone will be free to satisfy his or her needs.

Anarchist communism is also known as anarcho-communism, communist anarchism, or, sometimes, libertarian communism. However, while all anarchist communists are libertarian communists, some libertarian communists, such as council communists, are not anarchists. What distinguishes anarchist communism from other variants of libertarian communism is the formers opposition to all forms of political power, hierarchy and domination.

Anarchist communism stresses egalitarianism and the abolition of social hierarchy and class distinctions that arise from unequal wealth distribution, the abolition of capitalism and money, and the collective production and distribution of wealth by means of voluntary associations. In anarchist communism, the state and property no longer exist. Each individual and group is free to contribute to production and to satisfy their needs based on their own choice. Systems of production and distribution are managed by their participants.

The abolition of wage labour is central to anarchist communism. With distribution of wealth being based on self-determined needs, people will be free to engage in whatever activities they find most fulfilling and will no longer have to engage in work for which they have neither the temperament nor the aptitude. Anarchist communists argue that there is no valid way of measuring the value of any one person's economic contributions because all wealth is a collective product of current and preceding generations. Anarchist communists argue that any economic system based on wage labour and private property will require a coercive state apparatus to enforce property rights and to maintain the unequal economic relationships that will inevitably arise.

Well known anarchist communists include Peter, or Piotr, Kropotkin (Russia), Errico Malatesta (Italy) and Nestor Makhno (Ukraine). Kropotkin is often seen as the most important theorist of anarchist communism, outlining his economic ideas in books The Conquest of Bread and Fields, Factories and Workshops. Kropotkin felt co-operation to be more beneficial than competition, arguing in Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution that this was illustrated in nature. Anarchist communist ideas were very influential in the introduction of anarchism to Japan through the efforts of Kôtoku Shûsui in the early 1900s who corresponded with Kropotkin and translated his works. Alexander Berkman and Emma Goldman (who were both deported from USA in 1919) became important proponents of ‘Communist anarchism’ and became especially critical of Bolshevism after they discovered its devastating reality first-hand in Russia, and after the Red Army's crushing of the Kronstadt uprising. They in turn had been influenced by German-born émigrée to the USA, Johann Most, who had earlier helped bring anarchist communist thought to Britain though his contact with Frank Kitz in London around 1880 (see Anarchist Communism in Britain for a full historical account).

Many platformists refer to themselves as anarchist communists, although other anarchist communists are uncomfortable with some areas of the Organisational Platform document, such as the issue of ‘collective responsibility’ as supported by Mahkno but opposed by Malatesta. While historically many anarchist communists have been active anarcho-syndicalists, many are critical towards those syndicalists who seek some form of self-managed wage system rather than its abolition, pointing out that any system which maintains economic relations based on reward of effort and exchange is not communist.

Modern day anarchist communists are represented in several organisations within the International of Anarchist Federations, including the Anarchist Federation (Britain). Platformist anarchist communists include the Workers Solidarity Movement (Ireland) and the North-Eastern Federation of Anarchist Communists (USA). Many nascent Eastern European, Russian and Caucasian anarchist groups identify with anarchist communism and there is a strong anarchist communist current amongst contemporary Latin American and Caribbean anarchist organisations.

More information

Edited by libcom from an article by the Anarchist Federation.

AttachmentSize
Anarchist communism - an introduction.pdf104.76 KB

Comments

Joseph Kay
May 15 2011 10:50

don't want to edit this unilaterally as it's attributed to the AF, but this seems manifestly incorrect:

Quote:
In general anarchist communists of all kinds are critical of some aspects of anarcho-syndicalism which considers workplace self-management by workers as fundamental to the aims (as well as the means) of achieving social revolution and still maintains economic relations based on reward of effort and exchange.

historically most anarchist communists have been anarcho-syndicalists (critically or otherwise), and anarcho-syndicalism is committed to libertarian communism, not 'economic relations based on reward of effort and exchange'.

could this be reworded something like 'many anarchist communists are critical of anarcho-syndicalism because they consider it....' ?

Steven.
May 15 2011 12:17

These were meant to be our libcom introductions. I think it would be fine to edit it unilaterally and change the line at the end to say edited by libcom from a piece originally by the AF. I would say that sentence it might be better to change it to say critical of "some anarcho-syndicalists who consider…"

Joseph Kay
May 15 2011 12:46

ok, i'll think about wording. i'm happy with something like that in there since it's a view a lot of anarchist communists have, i just don't think it should be presented as uncontroversial fact.

but out of interest which anarcho-syndicalists want "economic relations based on reward of effort and exchange"? i mean, there may well be self-identified individuals with such views, and i guess if your anarchism was mutualist and you pursued a syndicalist strategy that would be a form of anarcho-syndicalism. but is there any significant tendency that does that?

Steven.
May 15 2011 12:47

I would say the parecon types, some of whom identify as anarcho-syndicalists, like Tom Wetzel perhaps

Joseph Kay
May 15 2011 12:49

Yeah fair point. I'll change the wording now and leave a comment in the revision log

Steven.
May 15 2011 12:57
Joseph Kay wrote:
Yeah fair point. I'll change the wording now and leave a comment in the revision log

sorry that they let the side down!

Joseph Kay
May 15 2011 13:06

well i think self-identification by individuals is a pretty poor threshold for critiquing traditions involving millions of workers over a century. but the point is that critique exists and is part of the reason for there being separate anarchist communist and anarcho-syndicalist organisations so it should be in the intro. but i don't think we can present as fact that "in general" anarchist communists are against anarcho-syndicalism, since the vast majority of anarcho-syndicalists are anarchist communists, and those that aren't (being charitable) are the kind of 'anarchists' who take state money (CGT etc). and as they're communists, they don't advocate self-managed wage relations but libertarian communism.

Steven.
May 15 2011 13:08

Sure, I agree

AIW
May 15 2011 19:32
Quote:
Individualist Anarchists and Mutualists believe in individual ownership, as against the Communist Anarchists who see in the institution of private property one of the main sources of injustice and inequality, of poverty and misery. The Individualists and Mutualists maintain that liberty means "the right of every one. to the product of his toil"; which is true, of course. Liberty does mean that. But the question is not whether one has a right to his product, but whether there is such a thing as an individual product. I have pointed out in preceding chapters that there is no such thing in modern industry: all labor and the products of labor are social. The argument, therefore, about the right of the individual to his product has no practical merit.

Alexander Berkman, Now and After: The ABC of Communist Anarchism, New York: Vanguard Press, 1929. CHAPTER 23

AIW
May 15 2011 20:07
Quote:
What distinguishes anarchist communism from other variants of libertarian communism is the formers opposition to all forms of political power, hierarchy and domination.

Are you saying that Council Communists support political power, hierarchy and domination? Why do they?

nastyned
May 15 2011 21:33

Regarding anarcho-syndicalism the trouble is term 'anarchist communist' is used in a couple of ways.

There is a tradition of anarchist communist organising separate from syndicalist unions, so in that instance it's factually correct to say 'anarchist communists of all kinds are critical of some aspects of anarcho-syndicalism'.

Then there's the fact most modern anarcho-syndicalists are in favour of creating an anarchist communist society so in that sense it's not.

I guess you need to be clear on which sense you're using the term in this article.

Joseph Kay
May 15 2011 23:21

ned, if you can propose a better wording feel free to post it up! it's slippery for precisely that reason...

LBird
May 16 2011 10:16
OP wrote:
What distinguishes anarchist communism from other variants of libertarian communism is the formers opposition to all forms of political power, hierarchy and domination.
AIW wrote:
Are you saying that Council Communists support political power, hierarchy and domination? Why do they?

In the sense that democracy supports 'political power, hierarchy and domination' this can be seen as true.

Clearly, even to elect a revokable, recallable, delegate is to give some form of 'political power' to someone, which is separate from the individuals who do the electing. This is why Libertarian Communists stress the need for vigilance towards all those that we elect into any position of power, including delegates, to prevent the emergence of a permanent 'hierarchy and dominance'. But human social relationships are political, so power and its dangers will be ever-present. So, it's not so much that CCs 'support' these things, but that they regard them as inescapable.

The starting point for all Communists should be the 'social', not the 'individual', whereas for some individualist Anarchists the starting point is the 'individual'. These ACs also reject 'political power' as being a temporary, class-based, state phenomenon, whereas CCs (and other LCs) see 'power' to be an eternal social phenomenon, not an attribute of some individuals or some societies.

In this sense, I see 'Anarchist Communism' as a contradiction in terms. That's why I would place 'Class Struggle Anarchists' in the 'Libertarian Communist' camp, and not in the AC camp.

"Opposition to all forms of political power, hierarchy and domination" can be seen as similar to "opposition to all earthquakes" - we all 'oppose' them, but 'ignoring' their reality is no basis for dealing with them. Pretending 'earthquakes' or 'power' are going to go away is a political mistake.

Harrison
May 16 2011 12:59

LBird's post sums up the differences between Council Communism and Anarchist Communism pretty well.

I'd just say that i personally am happy to call myself either; the theory is different, but the practice is very close. I also think that the aversion to 'political power, hierarchy and domination' is anarchist-communism's simultaneous strength and weakness.

For me, as a council communist, the real issue is retaining rank and file control over our structures. An anti-hierarchical ideology like anarchism 99% of the time coincides with this goal. The other 1% is when anti-hierarchical rhetoric is used to paralyse structures into unworkable forms, ensuring that essentially no-one (not even the rank and file) has control over them!

nastyned
May 16 2011 13:51
Harrison Myers wrote:
LBird's post sums up the differences between Council Communism and Anarchist Communism pretty well.

It looked like nonsense to me.

LBird
May 16 2011 14:15
Harrison Myers wrote:
LBird's post sums up the differences between Council Communism and Anarchist Communism pretty well.
nastyned wrote:
It looked like nonsense to me.

Would you care to, err, expand a little on that, nasty? You might have a point, and I'm keen to learn (if you indeed do have one), but short of using a mystic ball or praying to the almighty, I'm not going to learn much from your terse (and a bit insulting) comment.

FWIW, I tend to agree with Harrison Myers' comments - I'm 99% happy with the stress on self-activity and direct action from SolFed and AF, but I regard the other 1% as a fundamental weakness for rank-and-file control of society. It's like having a 99% solid covering on a nuclear reactor - it's the 1% airgap that's the source of the danger...

If nastyned proves incapable of enlightening us all, could someone else criticise what I wrote, from an Anarchist Communist perspective?

I'd like to be very clear about why I disagree, at present, with AC.

radicalgraffiti
May 16 2011 14:16
LBird wrote:
The starting point for all Communists should be the 'social', not the 'individual', whereas for some individualist Anarchists the starting point is the 'individual'. These ACs also reject 'political power' as being a temporary, class-based, state phenomenon, whereas CCs (and other LCs) see 'power' to be an eternal social phenomenon, not an attribute of some individuals or some societies.

I really disagree with this, I think being a communist is the logical result of looking at the world from and individualist perspective, there is no individual without society, and there is no society with out the individual. Any perspective that ignores one or the other is incomplete.

As far as power goes, you seem to be defining it differently to others, and then comparing them as if the meant the same thing.

Harrison
May 16 2011 15:57

rather than make this into an argument over CC vs AC, (a bit fruitless imo)
it is better to focus on what the actual differences are.

I would posit the main difference to be ideological confrontation of the concept of 'power' or 'hierarchy'.

The CCers have more of a theoretical concern over rank and file control of organizations. (not to say that concern isn't also present in anarchist communism, but it exists in AC as a derivative of anti-hierarchical ideology)

But i'm still highly sympathetic to AC, as it holds essentially the same practical views, despite arriving at them by a different route!

MT
May 16 2011 16:11

Isn't the individual-society as something opposed a bit false dichotomy? Individualists are totally out of space just because of that, but I don't know of any AC claiming the opposite pole of this dichotomy. That doesn't mean I can't imagine there are such wink

LBird
May 16 2011 18:32
radicalgraffiti wrote:
...I think being a communist is the logical result of looking at the world from an individualist perspective...

I afraid you'll have to expand on this, rg. To me, 'being a communist is the logical result of looking at the world from a social perspective'. In historical terms, the 'individualist perspective' is the product of bourgeois society - but that's not to say we should throw the individual baby out with the capitalist bathwater.

radicalgraffiti wrote:
...there is no individual without society, and there is no society with out the individual. Any perspective that ignores one or the other is incomplete.

Yeah, I, and I imagine all LibCommers would agree with that. The problem is that AC seems to ignore the issue of 'political power', which is a central issue of any 'society' which is referred to in your statement.

That's the key difference between AC and LC - LC covers both individual and society, whereas AC only focuses on 'individuals' and disregards 'social power' ie. 'politics'.

radicalgrafitti wrote:
As far as power goes, you seem to be defining it differently to others, and then comparing them as if the meant the same thing.

Yeah, this seems to be the bone of contention. Can you say what you mean by 'power', if not something to do with social relationships? For me, power is about 'relationships between individuals', not about the individuals themselves.

Once again, I'm very sympathetic with Harrison Myers' views on the practical aspects. But I don't understand the AC position on 'power', which to me, on the surface, seems to be ignoring the obvious. Perhaps you can discuss this further, as I'm keen to understand, even if not agree.

LBird
May 17 2011 19:06

Could nastyned or radicalgraffiti give me some feedback on my questions above?

Or failing those two, anyone sympathetic to AC with an interest in discussing these issues?

Or even Harrison Myers - although you're not an AC-er, could you outline the AC position on 'power', that seems to be so different to mine, according to radicalgraffiti?

nastyned
May 17 2011 21:19

Haven't we discussed this before? Am I right in thinking you're the person in favour of shooting sentries that fall asleep?

Have you read The Tyranny of Structurelessness? I think it talks about some of the point you raised.

As to the difference between anarchist communism and council communism I would say they are down to the political traditions they come from. One important point is the anarchists are federalists, whereas the council communists being Marxists came from centralised political parties. Though many councilists did end up rejecting parties I don't think they ever came up with a coherent organisational practice like the anarchists have.

LBird
May 18 2011 08:35
nastyned wrote:
Haven't we discussed this before?

Well, no, we haven't. I've tried to promote some discussion on this issue of 'power' a few times, but the posters who politically disagree with me seem to be very reticent in explaining their position, rather just relying on either using abuse (apparently, I'm a 'leninoid authoritarianoid' or somesuch), or 'strawmanning' my position. Which, quite handily, leads me to:

nastyned wrote:
Am I right in thinking you're the person in favour of shooting sentries that fall asleep?

It's an old trick, beloved of tabloid-headline writers, of taking statements out of their context, to shock their more naive readers.

Let's see if I can do the same:

A militia unit of anarchists, including nastyned, decide to liberate one of their comrades who is being held under torture in a Nazi police station. Rather than employ the suicidal tactic of a daylight frontal assault, nastyned quite cleverly suggests that they wait until mid-night, let the dozy Nazi sentry fall asleep, sneak up and slit his throat, and gain access to the building and free their comrade, all without any friendly losses. nastyned proves his tactical genius.

Next day's headline? "nastyned in favour of knifing sentries that fall asleep!"

We both know that the 'facts' have been twisted to confuse the unwary. My 'sentry' statement was in the context of a discussion about 'democratic control of force' and your allotted scenario was in the context of an enemy sentry, but why bother with the full facts, when cheap shots are so much easier than making a substantial logical argument?

Well, let's leave all that sort of stuff behind us, eh? And have a comradely discussion.

nastyned wrote:
As to the difference between anarchist communism and council communism I would say they are down to the political traditions they come from. One important point is the anarchists are federalists, whereas the council communists being Marxists came from centralised political parties. Though many councilists did end up rejecting parties I don't think they ever came up with a coherent organisational practice like the anarchists have.

While I agree with what you've said above, it still doesn't address the issues surrounding 'power', and our different political positions on them.

Furthermore, you've quite rightly raised the additional issue of 'federal' versus 'central', which I think is a connected debate which we on this board should have.

And, perhaps to tease further, do Anarchists have 'a coherent organisational practice' beyond "an individual leaves a Workers' Council that they disagree with"?

Please take all this in the spirit it's meant: I'm really interested in trying to understand something I don't yet understand properly.

Harrison
May 18 2011 09:47
LBird wrote:
Or even Harrison Myers - although you're not an AC-er, could you outline the AC position on 'power', that seems to be so different to mine, according to radicalgraffiti?

well if i am not misinformed (i must admit i've not read that much AC or anarchist stuff)
it is derived from the phrase 'power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely' (this quote was not made by an anarchist, but many anarchists hold to it)

This, when interpreted in an AC way, leads them to support assemblies and councils and the destruction of wage labour. individualists interpret it in crap-er ways.

In some ways this is good, because it provides a really robust buffer to leninism, but it has led to a lot of anti-organizational things (which, as nastyned mentions, have since been overcome by most organized ACs, by things like Jo Freeman's The Tyranny of Structurelessness)

tbh i prefer to view the assemblies and councils in more of a scientific way, than (what i perceive to be) the moralism inherent in anti-hierarchical thought, which is why I lean more toward CC.

ie. The proletariat as a class can only exercise it's class power collectively through the media of direct and delegate democracy. It is incompatible with bourgeois forms of democracy or militaristic structures which necessitate the creation of a bureaucracy who develop their own independent class interests and warp the character of the revolution.

My only real criticism of AC, is that there is a latent tendency toward anti-organisationalism. I don't really like Kropotkin's commitment to blanket decentralisation, which I think is a good thing for community and workplace power - ie. assemblies and councils - but not necessarily for production itself. I also think it has a possibility to instil an irrational fear of the higher delegate councils.

but as i've stated a thousand times, the conclusions that AC reach are totally compatible with CC, it is just a different body of thought behind it; the workers must carry out their own revolution through their own revolutionary structures. But as with CC, it has it's own quirks that have to be overcome. I wouldn't be surprised if they had already been debated and overcome by AC groups.

PS. i think this AC vs CC discussion should be split into a new thread by an admin

nastyned
May 18 2011 10:11
LBird wrote:
Please take all this in the spirit it's meant: I'm really interested in trying to understand something I don't yet understand properly.

Look, I don't know you from Adam but I had a feeling we'd had discussion before so I was trying to place you and the sentry thing was the thing that stuck in my mind.

LBird
May 18 2011 10:31

Thanks, HM, for your proxy attempt to explain AC's view of power.

Harrison Myers wrote:
'power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely'

Yeah, this point was made by the liberal Lord Acton, but I would think all Libertarian Communists, not just ACs, would subscribe to its political truth. But the real issue here is not 'power is dangerous', which we all agree on, LC and AC, but whether we go on to say '...and therefore must always be vigilantly controlled', as for LCs, or to say '...and must be abolished', as it seems to me that the ACs maintain.

I think you and I, and other LCs, agree with the former, hence our emphasis on elected, recallable, revokable, delegates. But that method of democratic accountability doesn't entirely remove the danger; it only lessens it.

Harrison Myers wrote:
...it provides a really robust buffer to leninism

I think the buffer to Leninism is workers' democracy.

Harrison Myers wrote:
...(what i perceive to be) the moralism inherent in anti-hierarchical thought...

Yeah, perhaps you're onto something here. 'Moralism' is no substitute for 'politics'. And where do morals come from anyway, to resurrect a debate from a few months ago?

Harrison Myers wrote:
...but as i've stated a thousand times, the conclusions that AC reach are totally compatible with CC...

While I agree with most of the rest of your post, this point is one I'm not sure about at all. Which is why I want this discussion.

Harrison Myers wrote:
PS. i think this AC vs CC discussion should be split into a new thread by an admin

No, I see this counterposing of AC and CC as entirely relevant to the OP.

For example,

OP wrote:
Anarchist communism stresses egalitarianism and the abolition of social hierarchy and class distinctions that arise from unequal wealth distribution, the abolition of capitalism and money, and the collective production and distribution of wealth by means of voluntary associations. In anarchist communism, the state and property no longer exist. Each individual and group is free to contribute to production and to satisfy their needs based on their own choice. Systems of production and distribution are managed by their participants.

The abolition of wage labour is central to anarchist communism. With distribution of wealth being based on self-determined needs, people will be free to engage in whatever activities they find most fulfilling and will no longer have to engage in work for which they have neither the temperament nor the aptitude. Anarchist communists argue that there is no valid way of measuring the value of any one person's economic contributions because all wealth is a collective product of current and preceding generations. Anarchist communists argue that any economic system based on wage labour and private property will require a coercive state apparatus to enforce property rights and to maintain the unequal economic relationships that will inevitably arise.

There's not a great deal there that most LCs would disagree with, at least within 'full Communism', but where's ACs views on purely political issues, as opposed to only economic ones, that the quote addresses? And avoiding politics means an avoidance of the dangers of power. It seems like 'head-in-the-sand' to me. Ignoring dangers don't make them go away.

I'll leave relevant examples of 'political' versus 'economic' till a later post, if the discussion continues.

mons
May 18 2011 12:44

On power and centralism/federalism, I think I've quoted this before but it's relevant here:

Quote:
It is worth pointing out, at this stage, that we doubt if there is any intrinsic merit in decentralisation. as some anarchists maintain. The Paris Commune, a Congress of Soviets (or a shop stewards' committee or strike committee to take modern analogies) are all highly centralised yet fairly democratic. Feudalism on the other hand was both decentralised and highly bureaucratic. The key question is whether the 'centralised' apparatus is controlled from below (by elected and revocable delegates) or whether it separates itself from those on whose behalf it is allegedly acting . This period witnessed a considerable fall in production, due to a complex variety of factors which have been well described elsewhere.

from Maurice Brinton
I don't think I know what the supposed difference between federalism and centralism is to be honest, but total control from below seems the most important thing and maybe the centralism/federalism debate is a bit of a red herring? Equally, whether you regard it as the democratic wielding of power, or the abolition of it, isn't the substance pretty much the same so long as there is no decision-making body removed from the base?

MT
May 18 2011 12:52

good points mons, I have the same impression. but I would say that there is a reason for marxists to use "centralism" instead of "federalism" which may stem from the "party" concept. still, this is just my guess as I am not so good in this tradition.

LBird
May 18 2011 14:43
mons wrote:
I don't think I know what the supposed difference between federalism and centralism is to be honest, but total control from below seems the most important thing and maybe the centralism/federalism debate is a bit of a red herring? Equally, whether you regard it as the democratic wielding of power, or the abolition of it, isn't the substance pretty much the same so long as there is no decision-making body removed from the base?

But isn't this the nub of the issue?

We can have total control from below and no decision-making body removed from the base and still have a situation where the 'higher level' err... mandate or instruction or fiat (call it what one wishes) is imposed upon somebody or some body against their own wishes.

For example, three Workers' Councils decide to co-ordinate their responses to certain issues (economic or political) by setting up a 'higher level' co-ordinating body. This body is elected, recallable, revokable and mandated, and all decisions have to be ratified by all the members of the three constituent Workers' Councils.

What happens if an overwhelming majority of members of two of the three, together with a large minority within the third, vote to do something which a small majority within the third disagree?

Workers within all three Councils have come together to make a decision on an issue that affects them all equally.

For LCers, I imagine that they would agree that the vote would be carried in favour of the policy desired by the overwhelming majority of the three bodies. The power to impose the policy would be with the 'higher level' Workers' Council.

But for ACers? I don't know. From what I've read, they would ignore the democratic vote, and the third Workers' Council would go its own way, to the detriment both of the other two Workers' Councils and many workers within their own Council.

This example might be very contrived, and I apologise for that. But I'm trying to give an example in which, as far as I can guess, based on what I've read from ACers (who seem to be opposed to democratic decision making), makes clear a difference between LC and AC, in contrast to Harrison Myers assumption that LC and AC are the same in practice.

This issue affects the way we look at 'federalism' versus 'centralism', too.

[edit]

Harrison Myers wrote:
An anti-hierarchical ideology like anarchism 99% of the time coincides with this goal. The other 1% is when anti-hierarchical rhetoric is used to paralyse structures into unworkable forms, ensuring that essentially no-one (not even the rank and file) has control over them!

Yeah, this is what I'm trying to show: when, using ACs political method, not even the rank and file has control over their own structures of workers' power.

[end edit]

mons
May 18 2011 15:25
Quote:
But for ACers? I don't know. From what I've read, they would ignore the democratic vote, and the third Workers' Council would go its own way, to the detriment both of the other two Workers' Councils and many workers within their own Council.

This is a much better example than the shooting a sentry one! I presume - but this is common sense and not based on reading any anarchist-communist theory or anything - that if it was an issue that affects everyone then the third workers' council would have to comply, whereas if it were something where the workers' council going its own way wouldn't impact too much on others then they would do their own thing. Obviously there's a question of how and where you draw that line, but that's totally abstract and pretty irrelevant and something which will be worked out at the time.