RED & ANARCHIST ACTION NETWORK - MONTANA
|
LIBERTARIAN COMMUNISM by Issac Puente First published by the CNT in Spanish as a widely distributed pamphlet in 1932, with many subsequent editions. - The first english translation appeared in 'The Cienfuegos Press Anarchist Review' #6 Orkney 1982. Also published in 1985 by Monty Miller Press, P.O. Box 92 Broadway, Sydney 2007, Australia. This Edition is Published by Red & Anarchist Action Network, P.O. Box 9263, Missoula, MT 59807, usa. Introduction Libertarian communism is not a blueprint for a future society. It
is, rather, a set of principles to be applied by the working class,
and all others who are prepared to work alongside them, for taking
over and running the economic base of society so as to refashion it
in accordance with social justice. While it is collective in spirit
and method, libertarian communism gives the fullest possible scope
to individual needs and aspirations. It is no utopian scheme, though
it is the means by which to reach the utopia of anarchy. In December 1933, Puente, Cipriano Mera and Durruti constituted the
committee that organised the uprising in Aragon. A comrade who took
part, Miguel Foz, has described events succinctly: 'Comrades carried out their task of burning the property archives,
the church and municipal records, etc... A public announcement abolished
thenceforth the circulation of money... We lived for five days under
libertarian communism, relying on the loyalty of the village and the
apprehensiveness of the enemy. Some of our opponents came before the
unions to ask, in full assembly, for explanations of the meaning of
libertarian communism, and some of them came over spontanelously.'
The Aragon rising was put down with considerable ferocity by the
authorities. Puente was among those arrested and tortured by the police.
After five months he and the other main organisers were finally released
thanks to enormous popular pressure; the legal case against the mass
of the insurgents had collapsed following a daring raid on the prosecution
offices carried out from within the prison. Puente's pamphlet was widely read. It inspired the historic platform
formulated by the CNT at its May 1936 congress at Saragossa. This
city had been the centre of the December 1933 rising. It was on the
basis of this platform that the libertarian workers of Spain, in their
struggle against fascism that began only weeks later, pushed social
liberation to unprecedented heights. Unfortunately, Puente was one
of the first victims of the fascists, being caught behind their lines
and shot in July 1936. As their struggle became more and more confident and coordinated,
turning inevitably towards the abolition of their own slavery, ie
of capitalism and the state, the organisational principles adopted
would inevitably be those described here by the humanitarian healer
and libertarian militant Issac Puente. -M.H.
LIBERTARIAN COMMUNISM The National Confederation of Labour (CNT) is, so to speak, the channel for all the revolutionary strivings that the working class makes towards the realisation of one specific goal: the installation of Libertarian Communism. This is a system of human coexistence that attempts to find a way to solve the economic problem without using the state or politics, in accordance with the well-known formula: From each according to his/her abilities, to each according to her/his needs. The freedom movement of the working class progresses through suffering the bitter lessons of experience. From each setback it emerges rejuvenated and with fresh vigour. It is a force in the making, the moulder of the future. It bears within itself a seed of social perfectability, and it bespeaks the presence of a striving that comes from deep within the human being, a striving because of which it cannot perish even were it to lose its way another hundred times. The workers' movement has come through barbaric repressions. For a long time it allowed itself to be seduced by the false-voices of reformism and by the siren songs of politics, which lead only to the emancipation of leaders and redeemers, who from being brothers turn abruptly into enemies. The workers have been the target of too much preaching. Some have told them they need calm, others that they need culture, others training. According to the notions of those who would be their shepherds, the workers have never been mature enough to liberate themselves. If the situation is to continue, preparations will go on for all eternity: the only way the workers can shrug off the ignorance and cultural deprivation that the capitalist regime and the state assign them to is by means of revolution. Every partial freedom must cost just as much effort as total emancipation, if it is to be won collectively and not just by individuals. If we look for ways of doing this without attacking the system, no resolution of the social problem is possible. It is like Columbus's egg. If we keep on and on trying to balance the egg on one end, we will only waste a lot of time. We must resolve to flatten one of the ends by knocking it on the table, end so attack the actual shape of the egg itself. The National Confederation of Labour acts as interpreter to the workers' freedom movement, warning of reformist flannel and giving the blind alley of politics a wide birth. It has found a straight road, that of direct action, which leads directly to the installation of libertarian communism, the only path to freedom. There is no point in building up a powerful movement that will win the admiration both of its members and of outsiders, unless it achieves its goal of liberation. This is no vague ideal to cherish: it is a battlefront. The ideal is in the form of anarchism, which supplies the guidance and the motivating force. Libertarian Communism is a society organised without the state and without private ownership. And there is no need to invent anything or conjure up some new organization for the purpose. The centres about which life in the future will be organised are already with us in the society of today: the free union and the free municipality. The union: in it combine spontaneiously the workers from factories and all places of collective exploitation. And the free municipality: an assembly with roots stretching back into the past where, again in spontaneity, inhabitants of village and hamlet combine together, and which points the way to the solution of problems in social life in the countryside. (By "village" the author means a rural settlement of up to several thousand inhabitants. - Ed. ) Both kinds of organisation, run on federal and democratic principles, will be soveriegn in their decision making, without being beholden to any higher body, their only obligation being to federate one with another as dictated by the economic requirement for liaison and communications bodies organised in industrial federations. The union and the free municipality will assume the collective or common ownership of everything which is under private ownership at present and will regulate production and consumption (in a word, the economy) in each locality. The very bringing together of the two terms (communism and libertarian) is indicative in itself of the fusion of two ideas: one of them is collectivist, tending to bring about harmony in the whole through the contributions and cooperation of individuals, without undermining their independence in any way; while the other is individualist, seeking to reassure the individual that his independence will be respected. Since by himself he can achieve nothing, the factory worker, railway worker or labourer needs to join forces with his colleagues, both to carry out his work and to protect his interests as an individual. In contrast, the artisan and the farm worker can live independently and can even be self-sufficient, as a result of which the spirit of individualism is deeply ingrained in them. Thus, the union meets the need for a collectivist organization, while the free municipality is better suited to the individualistic feelings of the peasant. Poverty is the symptom and slavery the disease. If we went only by appearances, we would all agree that poverty ought to be singled out as the worst feature of present-day society. The worst affliction, however, is slavery, which obliges man to lie down under poverty and prevents him from rebelling against it. The greatest of evils is not capital, which exploits the worker, enriching itself at his expense, but rather the state which keeps the worker naked and undefended, maintaining him in subjection by armed force and by imprisonment. Every ill that we deplore in society today (and it would be out of place to list them all here) is rooted in the institution of power, that is, in the state and the institution of private ownership, accumulation of which produces capital. Man is at the mercy of these two social afflictions which escape his control: they make him petty, stingy and lacking solidarity when he is rich and cruelly insensitive to human suffering when he wields power. Poverty degrades, but wealth perverts. Obedience consigns man to a state of prostration, while the authority deforms his sensibilities. Nothing has ever been the cause of greater tears or bloodshed than capital, with its fathomless appetite for profit. The whole of history is crammed with the crimes and tortures carried out by authority. Accumulation of wealth, like accumulation of power by the few, can only be achieved at the cost of depriving others. To destroy poverty, and likewise to end slavery, the accumulation of property and of power must be resisted, so that no one takes more than s/he needs and no one is allowed to boss all the others. Two fundamental drives. By our very nature and because of the way we live, people have two strivings that cannot be suppressed: to bread, which is everything we need to meet our economic needs (such as food, clothing, housing, education, medical assistance and means of communication), and to freedom, or control over our own actions. External pressures of themselves do not hold any repugnance for us, since we bow to those exerted by nature herself. What does repel and revolt us is that such pressure should be arbitrary pressure, a whim of others. We do not mind a restriction if we believe it to be just, and provided that it is left up to us to be the judge of that. We do reject it, however, with all the force we can muster, if it is something imposed upon us without our having a say in the matter. So lively and intense is this feeling for freedom (this ambition to be our own masters) that there is an old folk tale in which a nobleman forsakes the board, lodging and warmth of an inn and takes to the open road; he does this so as to conserve his freedom, for the price of his keep and comfort in the inn was to conform to its barrack-like discipline. Libertarian communism must make it possible to satisfy
economic need as well as respecting this wish to be free. Out of love
for freedom, we reject any monastic or barrack-style communism, the
communism of ant-heap and beehive, and the shepherd-and-flock type
communism of Russia. Prejudice number one: The belief that the
crisis is merely temporary. It is futile to cling to the old systems and to try to find palliatives or reforms, or to paper over the cracks, even should the palliatives be as seductive as Henry George's "single tax", for they come too late to breathe new life into a decrepit organism. Instead, the thought must be of what it is that is striving to be born, that seeks to replace what has to disappear, of those seminal forces trying to find a place in the life of society. Prejudice number two: The Supposition that libertarian communism is a product of ignorance. Because libertarian communion is championed
by folk who are reputed to be uneducated and uncultivated, people who
have no university diplomas, it is supposed that it is a simplistic
solution that fails to take account of the complexities of life and
the problems inherent in change on so vast a scale. The workers, on the other hand, in accordance with their (buffetting in) the sociology books, dare to put forward a solution which is not confined to a single class, nor to a single generation of one class, but one that applies to all classes in society. A solution that qualified sociologists have already broached at scientific and philosophical level and one that today can hold its own against any theoretical solution to the social question, on the basis of ensuring bread and culture for all people. If it is the 'ignorant' who enunciate that solution, it is precisely because for all their reputed learning, the intellectuals know nothing about it. And if the workers adopt it as their banner, the reason is that collectively the working class has a much more precise vision of the future and a greater breadth of spirit than all the intellectual classes put together. Prejudice number three: The intellectual
aristocracy. All that glitters is not gold. Nor is the intellectual standing of all whose fate it is to be deprived of education to be disdained. Many intellectuals fail to rise above the common herd, even on the wings afforded them by their diplomas. And, conversely, lots of working class people are the equals of the intellectuals in terms of talent. University training for a profession in no way implies superiority, since such training is not won through open competition but rather under the protection of economic privilege. What we call common sense, a quick grasp of things, intuitive ability, initiative and originality are not things that can be bought or sold in the universities. They may be found in illiterates and in intellectuals in equal measure. For all its ferocious ignorance. an uncultivated mentality is preferable to minds that have been poisoned by privilege and eroded by the routine grind of learning. Cultured they may be, but our intellectuals are nonetheless uncultivated in their sense of dignity, a sense that sometimes shines far brighter in folk who are supposed to be uncultured. A clean job does not imply superiority any more than being in a profession does and it is simplistic and puerile to pretend that people in that sort of employment should direct and instruct those who are not. Prejudice number four: The claim that we feel only contempt for art, science or culture. Our position is that we cannot understand
why it is that for these three activities to shine they have to rest
upon poverty or human slavery. In our view they ought to be incompatible
with such unnecessary evils. If, in order to shine, they needed the
contrast with ugliness, with ignorance and with lack of culture, then
we would declare here and now that we want none of them and we would
have no qualms about uttering a heresy by saying so. Predjudice number five: That we are not
equipped to build a new life. So we need not dazzle the world with our talents, nor our extraordinary gifts, which would be every whit as phoney as the gifts of politicians. We do not offer to redeem anyone. We do advocate a regime where it will not be necessary for people to be slaves in order to get them to produce nor will there be any call for poverty to make them succomb to the greed of capital where it will not be caprice or private and individual expediency that govern or direct, but where all of us will contribute to the harmony of the whole, each with their labour, in proportion to their strengths and their talents. Prejudice number six: The belief in the
need for a social architect. By the same wrongheaded idea we credit
the growth and development of a child to the care of the parent as if
growth and maturity were due to some external cause. But growth and
development are ever present in any child without anyone needing to
induce them. The important thing is that no one should impede or obstruct
them. The child is taught and educated in the
same fashion: by natural inclination. The teacher may take the credit
for the child's gift of being able to assimilate and be formed, but
the fact of the matter is that the child learns and is educated even
without anyone to direct him, or her, provided that no obstacles are
placed in his or her way. And in rational pedagogics (That is, "child
centred education" -Ed.), the primary role of teachers is to immerse
themselves in the biologically humble task of clearing the path and
removing the obstacles that stand in the way of the child's inclination
to assimilate information and to form itself. Self-educated people provides
ample evdence that the teacher is not an indispensable partner in the
process of learning. We might say the same about medicine. The
doctor can claim the credit for curing a patient and the public at large
may believe them. But what is really responsible for the cure is the
spontaneous tendency of the body to restore its own balance, and the
body's own defence mechanisms. The doctor best does the job when, again
with biological humility, they merely remove the obstacles and impediments
that stand in the way of the restorative defences. And on not a few
occasions the patient has recovered in spite of the doctor. For human societies to organise, and to perfect that organisation, there is no need for anyone to instigate. It is enough that no one obstructs or hinders. Again, it is naive to want to improve on the human and to seek to replace natural human tendencies with the contrivances of power or the waving of the conductors baton. With biological humility we anarchists ask that these organising tendencies and instincts be given free rein. Prejudice number seven: Placing knowledge
before experience. We are asked from the outset to come up
with a flawless system, to guarantee that things will work this way
and not that, without mishap or error. If learning to live had to be
done this way, then our apprenticeship would never end. Nor would the
child ever learn to walk, nor the youngster to ride a bicycle. On the
contrary, in real life things happen the other way around. Once begins
by making a decision to work and through that work one learns. The doctor
begins to practice while not yet master of this art, which is acquired
through confrontation, error, and many failures. Without prior training
in domestic economy, a housekeeper can keep her/his family's heads above
water through good management of an inadequate wage. One becomes a specialist
by emerging from dullness little by little. Living in libertarian communism will be like learning to live. Its weak poins and its failings will be shown up when it is introduced. If we were politicians we would paint a paradise brimful of perfections. Being human and being aware what human nature can be like, we trust that people will learn to walk the only way it is possible for them to learn: by walking. Prejudice number eight: Politicians as
intermediaries. As against the juggling and swindling of
political action, we advocate direct action which is nothing other than
the immediate realisation of the idea in mind, the making of it a tangible,
real fact and not some abstract written fiction or remote promise. It
is the implementation by the whole itself of an agreement made by the
whole, without putting itself in the hands of messiahs and without putting
any trust in any intermediary. The economic organisation of society Anything that does not qualify as an economic
function or an economic activity falls outside the competence of the
organisation and beyond its control. And, consequently, is open to private
initiative and individual activity. The contrast between organisation based on politics, which is a feature common to all regimes based on the state, and organisation based on economics, in a regime which shuns the state, could not be more radical nor more thorough. So as to bring that contrast out fully we have set out the following comparative scheme. POLITICAL ORGANISATION UNION ORGANISATION POLITICAL ORGANISATION UNION ORGANISATION Wealth and labour The wealth is estimated to stand at an
annual yield of some 25,000 million pesatas annually [1935 ] . Were
it distributed properly it would mean that Spain's entire population,
some 24 million inhabitants, would be comfortably off, with a little
over 1,000 pesatas each per annum. Thus, a family of five would have
an annual income of 5,000 pesetas- a situation which would leave everyone
in comparative comfort, economically speaking. But since, under the capitalist system,
capital is expected to yield interest at the rate of six per cent per
annum, and authority has to be matched by income, so that some individuals
have an income of some millions of pesetas a year, there have to be
whole families whose income is less than half of the sum due to each
individual as their share. The issue of pesetas and how to share them
out would not arise under a libertarian communist set-up. Only products
would be dealt with and these would no longer be changeable into pesetas,
could not be accumulated, and would be shared out among everyone in
proportion to their needs. Now since some seven million workers are
engaged in producing the wealth and this means they have to work an
average of eight hours a day, if the fourteen million able-bodied citizens
were to work it would mean a mere four hours' work each day by each
person. This is the clear and simple object lesson which can be deduced from a good and fair distribution. This is the utopia that the anarchist wishes to bring about. The economic potential of our country The memory of similar struggles and kindred
situations in our people's history gives us confidence in the battle
for our independence, and the topographical conditions supplied by our
land. If the people do make the most of the resources of our countryside,
and thereby arrive at a more comfortable standard of living, then they
will be in the staunchest defender of libertarian communism. Another threat is the danger of blockade
of our coast by the warships of the capitalist nations as a result of
which we would be forced to rely on our own resources alone. Given the
length of our coastline such a blockade would be easily evaded. But
the possibility remains, so we have to pose this question in advance.
Do we produce enough ourselves to be in
a position to manage completely without imports. Let us see. Present figures will not be
wholly applicable to the future situation, for they bear not so much
on our import needs as on what is profitable to import, not always the
same thing. Thus coal, for instance, could be mined from the abundant
seams in our own subsoil, yet we import it from England because compared
with our own, English coal is competitively priced. And this year Argentinian
wheat was imported even though there was no need for this, since there
was wheat aplenty in Andalusia. Statistics show that we are self-sufficient
where agricultural produce is concerned: we export large quantities
of olive oil, oranges, rice, vegetables, potatoes, almonds, wines and
fruits. We are self-sufficient in cereals, regardless of the fact that
we import maize. And we have more than enough metal to meet our needs.
But we are dependent upon imports for petroleum
and its by products (gasoline, heavy oils, lubricants, etc.), for rubber,
cotton and wood-pulp. Given that it is crucial to transportation, the
lack of petroleum might prove a serious handicap to the furtherance
of our economy. Consequently, in the event of a blockade being imposed,
it would be vital that we pour all our energies into sinking new wells
in search of petroleum, which have yet to be located, though it is believed
to be present. Petroleum may be obtained by distilling soft coal and
lignite, both of which we have in adundance in this country. This industry
already exists and would have to be intensified so as to meet our needs.
We could eke out our gasoline supply by mixing it with 30% to 50% of
alcohol, a mixture which gives excellent results in all motors. The
alcohol supply would be inexhaustible, for it may be obtained from rice,
wheat, potatoes, molasses, grapes, wood, etc. As for rubber, it would have to be produced
synthetically, as its being done in Germany already. Cotton is already harvested in our country, especially in Andalusia, with huge success and, judging by: its steady rise in output it will soon be enough to meet our requirements as a nation. It might be planted instead of vines and olives, two products whose yields are surplus to our needs. The timber industry could be expanded to
meet our needs in that line, with a corresponding intensificiation of
our reafforestation programme. We have incalculable supplies of electricity,
in which we are second only to Switzerland. And the building of reservoirs
and irrigation canals is virtually virgin territory. We do not even
cultivate one half of our arable land, estimated at 50 million hectacres.
Our arable land needs to be improved: our cultivation must be intensified
and farm machinery must be introduced throughout. A system whereby everyone
works together would allow production to be increased once the farm
machinery, that at present is available only to the hiers of the wealthy
landowner, is made available to all the holdings in a municipality.
Matching production to consuption is something
that has yet to be attempted. We have more than enough land. But apart
from land we have more human energy than we need, which means production
potential. The surplus labour power means it may be
possible for us to reduce the individual's working day, meet the increase
in work (construction of reservoirs and canals, reafforestation work,
increased cultivation, an increase in metal production and exploitation
of hydroelectric power and the step up production in a given industry.
Thanks to the organisation of shift work
it will be easier to make the best use of staff to increase production
from a factory or to double its daily production figures without increasing
the amount of machinery. The present employees already looked upon as
skilful will be split into two shifts, one working after the other with
each shift taking on so many apprentices. Implementation The free municipality is the assembly of
the workers in a very small locality, village or hamlet, enjoying sovereign
powers with regard to all local issues. As an institution with ancient
origins it can, despite dilution by political institutions, recover
its ancient sovereignty and take charge of the organisation of local
life. The national economy is the result of the
coordination of the various localities that go to make up the nation.
When each locality has its economy in good order and well administered,
the whole has to be a harmonious arrangement and the nation perfectly
at peace with itself. The thing is not that perfection should be superimposed
from on high, but that it should flourish at grassroots level, so that
it is a spontaneous growth and not a forced bloom. Just as agreement
between individuals can be reached through contact between them, harmony
between the localities will be achieved in similar fashion; through
the circumstantial, periodic contacts in plenums and congresses and
the lasting, ongoing contact set up by the industrial federations whose
special brief this will be. Let us take a separate look at organisation in the countryside, in the cities, and the organisation of the economy as a whole. In the countryside The free municipality, or communie, is
all the residents of a village of hamlet meeting in an assembly (council)
with full powers to administer and order local affairs, primarily production
and distribution. Today the council is not a free agent, being regarded as a minor entity, and its decisions can be overruled by the corporation, county council or government, three parasitic institutions which live off its back. In the free municipality the entire territory
within its jurisdiction will be under common ownership and not just
part of the municipal territory as is the case today; the hills, trees
and meadows; arable land; working animals and animals reared for meat,
buildings, machinery and farm implements; and the surplus materials,
and produce accumulated or placed in storage by the inhabitants. Consequently the only private property
that will exist will be in those things which are necessary to each
individual- such as accommodation, clothing, furniture, tools of the
trades, the allotment set aside for each inhabitant and minor lifestock
or farmyard poultry which they may wish to keep for their consumption
or as a hobby. Everything surplus to requirements can
be collected at any time by the municipality, with the prior agreement
of the assembly, since everything we accumulate without needing it does
not belong to us, for otherwise we are depriving everyone else of it.
Nature gives us the right of property over what we need, but we cannot
lay claim to anything beyond what we need without committing theft,
without usurping the property rights of the collective. All residents will be equal: The free municipality will federate with
its counterparts in other localities and with the national industrial
federations. Each locality will put its surplus produce up for exchange,
in return for those things it requires. It will make its own contribution
towards works of general interest, such as railroads, highways, reservoirs,
waterfalls, reafforestation, and so on. In return for this co-operation in the
general interest in the region or the nation, the members of the free
municipality will be able to reap the benefit of public services such
as posts, telegraphs, telephones railways and transport; electricity
supply grid system with its off-shoots; asylums, hospitals, sanitariums
and spas; higher and university education; and articles and products
not manufacturered in their locality. The human energy surplus will be taken
up by new work and new productions such as befit the locality, and by
sharing out the work among everyone, and reducing the number of hours
of work and the length of each worker's working day. The villager should not be too bothered by the free municipality, for their ancestors lived in a very similar style. In every village one can find work in common, and communal property to a greater or lesser degree and shared activities (such as collection of fuel or grazing). Also in rural customs there are procedures, ways and means by which a solution may be found to every possible difficulty, and in these procedures the decision is never made by one individual, even should they be elected for the purpose by the others, but through the agreement of everyone. In the city Their mission is to order the economic
life of their locality, but especially production and distribution,
in the light of the requirements of their own locality and, likewise,
the demands of other localities. In time of revolution, the unions will
take collective possession of factories, workshops and workrooms; of
lodgings, buildings and lands; of public services and materials and
raw materials and raw materials kept in storage. A producer's pass-book, issued by the appropriate
union will be indispensable if anyone wishes to enjoy all their rights;
in addition to the detaild information concerning consumption such as,
for instance, size of family, the number of days and hours worked will
also be noted in these pass-books. The only persons exempted from this
requirement will be children, the aged and the infirm. The producer's pass-book confers a right
to all these things: The local federation will attend to the
needs of its locality and see to it that the particular industry is
developed that it is best suited to, or which the nation has the most
urgent need of. In the General assembly, work will be allocated
to the venous unions, who will further allocate to their sections, just
as the sections will to workplaces with the constant aim of averting
unemployment, of increasing the daily output of a shift of workers in
an industry, or of cutting by the amount required the length of the
working day. All pursuits that are not purely economic
should be left open to the private initiatives of individuals or groups.
Each union should try to engage in activities that bring benefits to all, especially those activities concerned with protecting the health of the producer and making work more agreeable. The general economic order ln biology, for an organism to achieve
its proper physiology and normality, each of its cells has to fulfil
its function and that requires just one thing: that the blood supply
and nervous relationship be assured. We might say the same about a nation.
The nation's life is assured and normal when each locality plays its
part and the blood supply which brings it what it lacks and carries
away what hampers it has been assured (or, to put it another way, transport
is assured) and when localities are in contact with each other and communicating
their mutual needs and potentials. And this is where the national industrial
federations came into play, being just the bodies for the elaboration
of collectivised services that need to be governed by a nation-wide
scheme, such as communications (posts, telephones, telegraphs) and transport
(railways, ships, highways, and aircraft). Above the local organisation, there should
be no superstructure aside from those local organisations whose special
function cannot be performed locally. The sole interpreters of the national
will are the congresses and where circumstances demand they shall, temporarily,
exercise such sovereignty as may be vested in them by the plebiscite
decisions of the assemblies. Aside from the national federations of
transport and communications there may be regional or county federations,
such as hydrographical, forestry or electricity federations. The national federations will hold as common
property the roads, railroads, buildings, equipment, machinery and workshops.
They will freely offer their services to the localities or to the individuals
who co-operate with their particular effort in the national economy;
offering their products or their surplus output; striving to produce,
as far as possible, more than the needs of the national demand, and
making their personal contribution to such labours as those services
may have need of. The mission of the national federations
of communications and transport is to bring the localities into touch
with one another, building up transport services between producing regions
and consuming ones; giving priority to perishables which have to be
consumed quickly, goods such as fish, milk, fruit and meat. Upon the right organisation of transport
hinge reliable supplies to areas of need and the non-congestion of areas
where surpluses are produced. Let necessity force individuals to combine
their efforts in contributing to the economic life of their locality.
And let necessity likewise force collectives to regulate their activities
through nationwide interchange; and let the circulatory system (transport)
and the nervous system (communications) play their part in the establishment
of liaisons between the localities.
It is the most rational of all solutions
to the economic question in that it corresponds to an equitable sharing
out of production and labour required to achieve a solution. No one
must shirk this necessity to join in the comparative effort of production,
for it is nature itself which imposes this harsh law of labour upon
us in climates where our nourishment does not grow spontaneously. Economic compulsion is the bond of society.
But it is, and must be, the only compulsion which the whole should exercise
over the individual. All other activities - cultural, artistic, and
scientific - should remain beyond the control of the collective and
stay in the hands of those groups keen upon pursuing and encouraging
them. Just as the obligatory working day (i.e.
the working day actually necessary given existing technology - Ed.)
would not, exhaust the individual's capacity for work- there will, alongside
controlled production, be other, free, spontaneous production - a production
inspired by keenness and enthusiasm, a production which will be its
own satisfaction; its own reward. In this production will be sown and
will germinate the seeds of another society, the new society exalted
and propagated by anarchism, and, so far as it meets the needs of society,
the economic supervision of individuals by organisations will have been
made redundant. A thousand objections will be raised, most
of them so devoid of sense as not to merit refutation. One objection
that is often repeated is laziness. Now laziness is the natural product
of a particularly favourable climate, for it is there that nature justifies
laziness, making the individual indolent. We recongise the right to be lazy provided
that those who seek to exercise that right agree to get along without
help from others. We live in a society where the lazy person, the incompetent
and the antisocial being are types who prosper and enjoy plenty, power
and honours. If such persons agree to renounce all this, there is no
obstacle to their remaining, as exhibits in museums or galleries, just
as fossilised animals are placed on display today. Where We Stand: Rebel Worker Group Anarcho-syndicalist organisations have a twofold function. Firstly, the revolutionary struggle for economic and social improvement within existing capitalist society, and secondly the workers' self-education towards complete self-management of production and distribution through the socialisation of all wealth. Anarcho-syndicalism stands completely opposed to all economic and social monopoly. It does not seek the conquest of political power, but rather the total abolition of all state functions in the life of society. Hence it rejects all parliamentary activity and other collaboration with legislative bodies. It stands for fighting organisations in the workplace and community, independent of, and opposed to all political Parties and Trade Union bureaucracies. Anarcho-syndicalism has as its only means of struggle Direct Action in all its forms- occupations, strikes, boycotts, sabotage, the General Strike, etc. To ensure the full participation of all in both the current struggle and the future self-management of society, it opposes centralism in its organisations. It organises on the basis of libertarian Federalism. That is from the bottom up without any hierarchy and with full freedom of initiative for local and regional groups. All co-ordinating bodies of the workers Federation consist of recallable delegates with a mandate of action determined by local workers assemblies. Anarcho-syndicalism rejects all arbitrarily created political and national frontiers. Standing against Nationalism and all Nation-states, it raises the banner of revolutionary Internationalism, both in spirit and in concrete global action and mutual aid. Anarcho-syndicalism opposes racism, sexism, militarism and all attitudes and institutions that stand in the way of equality and the right of all people everywhere to control their own lives and their environment. News | Principles | Literature | Calendar | Merchandise | Contact | Links |