In this section we will examine some modern trends which we regard as being potential openings for anarchists to organise. These trends are of a general nature, partly as a product of social struggle, partly as a response to economic and social crisis, partly involving people's attitudes to big government and big business partly in relation to the communications revolution we are currently living through, and so on. We do this because, as Kropotkin argued, the anarchist "studies human society as it is now and was in the past. . . He [or she] studies society and tries to discover its tendencies, past and present, its growing needs, intellectual and economical, and in his ideal he merely points out in which direction evolution goes." [Anarchism and Anarchist Communism, p. 24] In this section we highlight just a few of the tendencies in modern society which point in an anarchist direction.
Of course, looking at modern society we see multiple influences, changes which have certain positive aspects in some directions but negative ones in others. For example, the business-inspired attempts to decentralise or reduce (certain) functions of governments. In the abstract, such developments should be welcomed by anarchists for they lead to the reduction of government. In practice such a conclusion is deeply suspect simply because these developments are being pursued to increase the power and influence of business and capital and undermine working class power and autonomy. Similarly, increases in self-employment can be seen, in the abstract, as reducing wage slavery. However, if, in practice, this increase is due to corporations encouraging "independent" contractors to cut wages and worsen working conditions, increase job insecurity and undermine paying for health and other employee packages then is hardly a positive sign. Obviously increases in self-employment would be different if such an increase was the result of an increase in the number of co-operatives, for example.
Thus few anarchists celebrate many apparently "libertarian" developments as they are not the product of social movements and activism, but are the product of elite lobbying for private profit and power. Decreasing the power of the state in (certain) areas while leaving (or increasing) the power of capital is a retrograde step in most, if not all, ways. Needless to say, this "rolling back" of the state does not bring into question its role as defender of property and the interests of the capitalist class -- nor could it, as it is the ruling class who introduces and supports these developments.
As an example of these multiple influences, we can point to the economic crisis which has staggered on since 1973 in many Western countries. This crisis, when it initially appeared, lead to calls to reduce taxation (at least for the wealthy, in most countries the tax-burden was shifted even more onto the working class -- as was the case in Thatcher's Britain). In most countries, as a result, government "got off the back" of the wealthy (and got even more comfy on our back!). This (along with slower growth) helped to create declining revenue bases in the advanced capitalist nations has given central governments an excuse to cut social services, leaving a vacuum that regional and local governments have had to fill along with voluntary organisations, thus producing a tendency toward decentralisation that dovetails with anarchist ideals.
As Murray Bookchin points out, a sustainable ecological society must shift emphasis away from nation-states as the basic units of administration and focus instead on municipalities -- towns, villages, and human-scale cities. Interestingly, the ongoing dismantling of the welfare state is producing such a shift by itself. By forcing urban residents to fend for themselves more than ever before in meeting transportation, housing, social welfare, and other needs, the economic crisis is also forcing them to relearn the arts of teamwork, co-operation, and self-reliance (see his Remaking Society: Pathways to a Green Future, p. 183).
Of course the economic crisis also has a downside for anarchists. As hardships and dislocations continue to swell the ranks and increase the militancy of progressive social movements, the establishment is being provoked to use ever more authoritarian methods to maintain control (see D.9). As the crisis deepens over the next few decades, the reactionary tendencies of the state will be reinforced (particularly as the neo-liberal consensus helps atomise society via the market mechanism and the resulting destruction of community and human relationships). However, this is not inevitable. The future depends on our actions in the here and now. In this section of the FAQ we highlight some developments which do, or could, work to the advantage of anarchists. Many of these examples are from the US, but they apply equally to Britain and many other advanced industrial states.
In this section, we aim to discuss tendencies from below, not above -- tendencies which can truly "roll back" the state rather than reduce its functions purely to that of the armed thug of Capital. The tendencies we discuss here are not the be all nor end all of anarchist activism or tendencies. We discuss many of the more traditionally anarchist "openings" in section J.5 (such as industrial and community unionism, mutual credit, co-operatives, modern schools and so on) and so will not do so here. However, it is important to stress here that such "traditional" openings are not being downplayed -- indeed, much of what we discuss here can only become fully libertarian in combination with these more "traditional" forms of "anarchy in action."
For a lengthy discussion of anarchistic trends in society, we recommend Colin Ward's classic book Anarchy in Action. Ward's excellent book covers many areas in which anarchistic tendencies have been expressed, far more than we can cover here. The libertarian tendencies in society are many. No single work could hope to do them justice.
Simply because it shows that people are unhappy with the existing
society and, more importantly, are trying to change at least some part
of it. It suggests that certain parts of the population have reflected
on their situation and, potentially at least, seen that by their own
actions they can influence and change it for the better.
Given that the ruling minority draws its strength of the acceptance
and acquiescence of the majority, the fact that a part of that
majority no longer accepts and acquiesces is a positive sign.
After all, if the majority did not accept the status quo and
acted to change it, the class and state system could not survive.
Any hierarchical society survives because those at the bottom follow
the orders of those above it. Social struggle suggests that some people
are considering their own interests, thinking for themselves and
saying "no" and this, by its very nature, is an important, indeed,
the most important, tendency towards anarchism. It suggests that
people are rejecting the old ideas which hold the system up,
acting upon this rejection and creating new ways of doing thinks.
"Our social institutions," argues Alexander Berkman, "are founded
on certain ideas; as long as the latter are generally believed,
the institutions built upon them are safe. Government remains
strong because people think political authority and legal
compulsion necessary. Capitalism will continue as long as such
an economic system is considered adequate and just. The
weakening of the ideas which support the evil and oppressive
present-day conditions means the ultimate breakdown of
government and capitalism." [The ABC of Anarchism, p. xv]
Social struggle is the most obvious sign of this change of
perspective, this change in ideas, this progress towards freedom.
Social struggle is expressed by direct action. We have discussed
both social struggle and direct action before (in sections J.1
and J.2 respectively) and some readers may wonder why we are
covering this again here. We do so for two reasons. Firstly,
as we are discussing what trends in society help anarchist
activity, it would be wrong not to highlight social struggle
and direct action here. This is because these factors are key
tendencies towards anarchism as anarchism will be created by
people and social struggle is the means by which people create
the new world in the shell of the old. Secondly, social struggle
and direct action are key aspects of anarchist theory and we
cannot truly present a picture of what anarchism is about
without making clear what these are.
So social struggle is a good sign as it suggests that people are
thinking for themselves, considering their own interests and
working together collectively to change things for the better.
As the French syndicalist Emile Pouget argues:
Social struggle means that people come into opposition with the boss
and other authorities such as the state and the dominant morality. This
challenge to existing authorities generates two related processes: the
tendency of those involved to begin taking over the direction of their
own activities and the development of solidarity with each other. Firstly,
in the course of a struggle, such as a strike, occupation, boycott, and
so on, the ordinary life of people, in which they act under the constant
direction of the bosses or state, ceases, and they have to think, act and
co-ordinate their actions for themselves. This reinforces the expression
towards autonomy that the initial refusal that lead to the struggle
indicates. Thus struggle re-enforces the initial act of refusal and
autonomy by forcing those involves to act for themselves. Secondly, in
the process of struggle those involved learn the importance of solidarity,
of working with others in a similar situation, in order to win. This
means the building of links of support, of common interests, of
organisation. The practical need for solidarity to help win the
struggle is the basis for the solidarity required for a free society
to be viable.
Therefore the real issue in social struggle is that it is an attempt by
people to wrestle at least part of the power over their own lives away
from the managers, state officials and so on who currently have it and
exercise it themselves. This is, by its very nature, anarchistic and
libertarian. Thus we find politicians and, of course, managers and
property owners, often denouncing strikes and other forms of direct
action. This is logical. As direct action challenges the real
power-holders in society and because, if carried to its logical
conclusion, it would have to replace them, social struggle and
direct action can be considered in essence a revolutionary process.
Moreover, the very act of using direct action suggests a transformation
within the people using it. "Direct action's very powers to fertilise,"
argues Pouget, "reside in such exercises in imbuing the individual
with a sense of his own worth and in extolling such worth. It marshals
human resourcefulness, tempers characters and focuses energies. It
teaches self-confidence! And self-reliance! And self-mastery! And
shifting for oneself!" Moreover, "direct action has an unmatched
educational value: It teaches people to reflect, to make decisions
and to act. It is characterised by a culture of autonomy, an
exaltation of individuality and is a fillip to initiative, to
which it is the leaven. And this superabundance of vitality
and burgeoning of 'self' in no way conflicts with the economic
fellowship that binds the workers one with another and far
from being at odds with their common interests, it reconciles
and bolsters these: the individual's independence and activity
can only erupt into splendour and intensity by sending its roots
deep into the fertile soil of common agreement." [Pouget, Op. Cit.]
Emma Goldman also recognised the transforming power of direct
action. Anarchists, she argues, "believe with Stirner that
man has as much liberty as he is willing to take. Anarchism
therefore stands for direct action, the open defiance of, and
resistance to, all laws and restrictions, economic, social and
moral. But defiance and resistance are illegal. Therein lies the
salvation of man. Everything illegal necessitates integrity,
self-reliance, and courage. In short, it calls for free
independent spirits. . ." [Red Emma Speaks, p. 61-2]
Social struggle is the beginning of a transformation of the people
involved and their relationships to each other. While its external
expression lies in contesting the power of existing authorities, its
inner expression is the transformation of people from passive and
isolated competitors into empowered, self-directing, self-governing
co-operators. Moreover, this process widens considerable what
people think is "possible." Through struggle, by collective action,
the fact people can change things is driven home, that they have
the power to govern themselves and the society they live in. Thus
struggle can change people's conception of "what is possible" and
encourage them to try and create a better world. As Kropotkin argued:
"Such a struggle, they say, . . . permits the worker to obtain some
temporary improvements. . ., while it opens his [or her] eyes to the
evil that is done by capitalism and the State. . . , and wakes up
his thoughts concerning the possibility of organising consumption,
production, and exchange without the intervention of the capitalist
and the State." [Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 171]
In other words, social struggle has a radicalising and politicising
effect, an effect which brings into a new light existing society and
the possibilities of a better world ("direct action", in Pouget's words,
"develops the feeling for human personality as well as the spirit
of initiative . . . it shakes people out of their torpor and steers
them to consciousness."). The practical need to unite and resist the
boss also helps break down divisions within the working class. Those
in struggle start to realise that they need each other to give them
the power necessary to get improvements, to change things. Thus
solidarity spreads and overcomes divisions between black and
white, male and female, heterosexual and homosexual, trades,
industries, nationalities and so on. The real need for solidarity
to win the fight helps to undermine artificial divisions and show
that there are only two groups in society, the oppressed and the
oppressors.
Moreover, struggle as well as transforming those involved is also
the basis for transforming society as a whole simply because, as
well as producing transformed individuals, it also produces new
forms of organisation, organisations created to co-ordinate their
struggle and which can, potentially at least, become the framework
of a libertarian socialist society.
Thus anarchists argue that social struggle opens the eyes of those
involved to self-esteem and a sense of their own strength, and the
groupings it forms at its prompting are living, vibrant associations
where libertarian principles usually come to the fore. We find
almost all struggles developing new forms of organisation,
forms which are often based on direct democracy, federalism
and decentralisation. If we look at every major revolution, we
find people creating mass organisations such as workers' councils,
factory committees, neighbourhood assemblies and so on as a
means of taking back the power to govern their own lives,
communities and workplaces. In this way social struggle and
direct action lays the foundations for the future. By actively
taking part in social life, people are drawn into creating new
forms of organisation, new ways of doing things. In this way
they educate themselves in participation, in self-government,
in initiative and in asserting themselves. They begin to realise
that the only alternative to management by others is self-management
and organise to achieve thus.
Given that remaking society has to begin at the bottom, this finds
its expression in direct action, individuals taking the initiative,
building new, more libertarian forms of organisation and using the
power they have just generated by collective action and organisation
to change things by their own efforts. Social struggle is therefore a
two way transformation -- the external transformation of society
by the creation of new organisations and the changing of the power
relations within it and the internal transformation of those who take
part in the struggle. And because of this, social struggle, "[w]hatever
may be the practical results of the struggle for immediate gains, the
greatest value lies in the struggle itself. For thereby workers learn
that the bosses interests are opposed to theirs and that they cannot
improve their conditions, and much less emancipate themselves, except
by uniting and becoming stronger than the bosses. If they succeed in
getting what they demand, they will be better off . . . and immediately
make greater demands and have greater needs. If they do not succeed
they will be led to study the causes of their failure and recognise
the need for closer unity and greater activism and they will in the
end understand that to make their victory secure and definitive, it
is necessary to destroy capitalism. The revolutionary cause, the cause
of the moral elevation and emancipation of the workers must benefit by
the fact that workers unite and struggle for their interests." [Errico
Malatesta, Life and Ideas, p. 191]
Hence Nestor Makhno's comment that "[i]n fact, it is only through
that struggle for freedom, equality and solidarity that you reach
an understanding of anarchism." [The Struggle Against the State
and other Essays, p. 71] The creation of an anarchist society is
a process and social struggle is the key anarchistic tendency
within society which anarchists look for, encourage and support.
Its radicalising and transforming nature is the key to the growth
of anarchist ideas, the creation of libertarian structures and
alternatives within capitalism (structures which may, one day,
replace capitalism and state) and the creation of anarchists and
those sympathetic to anarchist ideas. Its importance cannot be
underestimated!
It is often argued that social struggle, by resisting the powerful
and the wealthy, will just do more harm than good. Employers often
use this approach in anti-union propaganda, for example, arguing that
creating a union will force the company to close and move to less
"militant" areas.
There is, of course, some truth in this. Yes, social struggle can
lead to bosses moving to more compliant workforces -- but, of course,
this also happens in periods lacking social struggle too! If we look
at the down-sizing mania that gripped the U.S. in the 1980s and 1990s,
we see companies down-sizing tens of thousands of people during
a period where unions were weak, workers scared about loosing their
jobs and class struggle basically becoming mostly informal and
"underground." Moreover, this argument actually indicates the
need for anarchism. It is a damning indictment of any social
system that it requires people to kow-tow to their masters
otherwise they will suffer economic hardship. It boils down to
the argument "do what you are told, otherwise you will regret
it." Any system based on that maxim is an affront to human
dignity!
It would, in a similar fashion, be easy to "prove" that slave
rebellions are against the long term interests of the slaves.
After all, by rebelling the slaves will face the anger of their
masters. Only by submitting to their master can they avoid this
fate and, perhaps, be rewarded by better conditions. Of course,
the evil of slavery would continue but by submitting to it they
can ensure their life can become better. Needless to say, any
thinking and feeling person would quickly dismiss this reasoning
as missing the point and being little more than apologetics
for an evil social system that treated human beings as things.
The same can be said for the argument that social struggles within
capitalism do more harm than good. It betrays a slave mentality
unfitting for human beings (although fitting for those who desire
to live of the backs of workers or desire to serve those who do).
Moreover, this kind of argument ignores a few key points. Firstly,
by resistance the conditions of the oppressed can be maintained or
even improved. After all, if the boss knows that their decisions will
be resisted they may be less inclined to impose speed-ups, longer
hours and so on. If they know that their employees will agree to
anything then there is every reason to expect them to impose all
kinds of oppressions, just as a state will impose draconian laws
if it knows that it can get away with it. History is full of examples
of non-resistance producing greater evils in the long term and
of resistance producing numerous important reforms and improvements
(such as higher wages, shorter hours, the right to vote for
working class people and women, freedom of speech, the end of
slavery, trade union rights and so on).
So social struggle has been proven time and time again to gain
successful reforms. For example, before the 8 hour day movement
of 1886 in America, for example, most companies argued they could not
introduce that reform without doing bust. However, after displaying
a militant mood and conducting an extensive strike campaign, hundreds
of thousands of workers discovered that their bosses had been lying
and they got shorter hours. Indeed, the history of the labour movement
shows what bosses say they can afford and the reforms workers can get
via struggle are somewhat at odds. Given the asymmetry of information
between workers and bosses, this is unsurprising. Workers can only
guess at what is available and bosses like to keep their actual
finances hidden. Even the threat of labour struggle can be enough
to gain improvements. For example, Henry Ford's $5 day is often
used as an example of capitalism rewarding good workers. However,
this substantial pay increase was largely motivated by the
unionisation drive by the Industrial Workers of the World among
Ford workers in the summer of 1913 [Harry Braverman, Labour and
Monopoly Capitalism, p. 144]. More recently, it was the mass
non-payment campaign against the poll-tax in Britain during the
late 1980s and early 1990s which helped ensure its defeat (and
the 1990 poll-tax riot in London also helped and ensured that the
New Zealand government did not introduce a similar scheme in their
country too!). In the 1990s, France also saw the usefulness of
direct action. Two successive prime ministers (Edouard Balladur
and Alain Juppe) tried to impose large scale "reform" programmes
that swiftly provoked mass demonstrations and general strikes
amongst students, workers, farmers and others. Confronted by
crippling disruptions, both governments gave in. Compared to
the experience of, say Britain, France's tradition of direct
action politics proved more effective in maintaining existing
conditions or even improving on them.
Secondly, and in some ways more importantly, it ignores that by
resistance those who take part can the social system they live in
can be changed. This radicalising effect of social struggle can
open new doors for those involved, liberate their minds, empower
them and create the potential for deep social change. Without
resistance to existing forms of authority a free society cannot
be created as people adjust themselves to authoritarian structures
and accept what is as the only possibility. By resisting, people
transform and empower themselves, as well as transforming society.
In addition, new possibilities can be seen (possibilities before
dismissed as "utopian") and, via the organisation and action
required to win reforms, the framework for these possibilities
(i.e. of a new, libertarian, society) created. The transforming
and empowering effect of social struggle is expressed well by the
ex-IWW and UAW-CIO shop steward Nick DeGaetano in his experiences
in the 1930s:
Other labour historians note the same radicalising process
elsewhere (modern day activists could give more examples!):
"The contest [over wages and conditions] so pervaded social
life that the ideology of acquisitive individualism, which
explained and justified a society regulated by market
mechanisms and propelled by the accumulation of capital,
was challenged by an ideology of mutualism, rooted in
working-class bondings and struggles. . . Contests over
pennies on or off existing piece rates had ignited
controversies over the nature and purpose of the American
republic itself." [David Montgomery, The Fall of the House
of Labour, p. 171]
This radicalising effect is far more dangerous to authoritarian
structures than better pay, more liberal laws and so on as they
need submissiveness to work. Little wonder that direct action is
usually denounced as pointless or harmful by those in power or
their spokespersons, for direct action will, taken to its
logical conclusion, put them out of a job! Struggle, therefore,
holds the possibility of a free society as well as of improvements
in the here and now. It also changes the perspectives of those
involved, creating new ideas and values to replace the ones of
capitalism.
Thirdly, it ignores the fact that such arguments do not imply
the end of social struggle and working class resistance and
organisation, but rather its extension. If, for example, your
boss argues that they will move to Mexico if you do not "shut
up and put up" then the obvious solution is to make sure the
workers in Mexico are also organised! Bakunin argued this basic
point over one hundred years ago, and it is still true -- "in
the long run the relatively tolerable position of workers in
one country can be maintained only on condition that it be
more or less the same in other countries." If, for example,
workers in Mexico have worse wages and conditions than you do,
these same conditions will be used against you as the "conditions
of labour cannot get worse or better in any particular industry
without immediately affecting the workers in other industries,
and that workers of all trades are inter-linked with real
and indissoluble ties of solidarity," ties which can be ignored
only at your own peril. Ultimately, "in those countries the
workers work longer hours for less pay; and the employers
there can sell their products cheaper, successfully competing
against conditions where workers working less earn more,
and thus force the employers in the latter countries to
cut wages and increase the hours of their workers." Bakunin's
solution was to organise internationally, to stop this
undercutting of conditions by solidarity between workers. As
recent history shows, his argument was correct [The Political
Philosophy of Bakunin, pp. 306-7]. Thus it is not social
struggle or militancy which is bad, just isolated militancy,
struggle which ignores the ties of solidarity required to
win, extent and keep reforms and improvements. In other
words, our resistance must be as transnational as capitalism
is.
The idea that social struggle and working class organisation
are harmful was expressed constantly in the 1970s. If we look
at the arguments of the right in the 1970s, we also find evidence
that the "struggle does more harm than good" viewpoint is flawed.
With the post-war Keynesian consensus crumbling, the "New Right"
argued that trade unions (and strikes) hampered growth and that
wealth redistribution (i.e. welfare schemes which returned some
of the surplus value workers produced back into their own hands)
hindered "wealth creation" (i.e. economic growth). Do not struggle
over income, they argued, let the market decide and everyone will
be better off.
This argument was dressed up in populist clothes. Thus we find
the right-wing guru F.A. von Hayek arguing that, in the case of
Britain, the "legalised powers of the unions have become the
biggest obstacle to raising the standards of the working class
as a whole. They are the chief cause of the unnecessarily big
differences between the best- and worse-paid workers." He
maintained that "the elite of the British working class. . .
derive their relative advantages by keeping workers who
are worse off from improving their position." Moreover,
he "predict[ed] that the average worker's income would rise
fastest in a country where relative wages are flexible, and
where the exploitation of workers by monopolistic trade union
organisations of specialised workers are effectively outlawed."
["1980s Unemployment and the Unions" reproduced in The Economic
Decline of Modern Britain, p. 107, p. 108, p. 110]
Now, if von Hayek's claims were true we could expect that in the
aftermath of Thatcher government's trade union reforms we would
have seen: a rise in economic growth (usually considered as the
means to improve living standards for workers by the right); a
decrease in the differences between high and low paid workers;
a reduction in the percentage of low paid workers as they improved
their positions when freed from union "exploitation"; and that
wages rise fastest in countries with the highest wage flexibility.
Unfortunately for von Hayek, the actual trajectory of the
British economy exposes his claims as nonsense.
Looking at each of his claims in turn we discover that rather
than "exploit" other workers, trade unions are an essential
means to shift income from capital to labour (which is way
capital fights labour organisers tooth and nail). And, equally
important, labour militancy aids all workers by providing a
floor under which wages cannot drop (non-unionised/militant
firms in the same industry or area have to offer similar
programs to prevent unionisation and be able to hire workers)
and by maintaining aggregate demand. This positive role of
unions/militancy in aiding all workers can be seen by
comparing Britain before and after Thatcher's von Hayek
inspired trade union and labour market reforms.
As far as economic growth goes, there has been a steady fall since
trade union reforms. In the "bad old days" of the 1970s, with its
strikes and "militant unions" growth was 2.4% in Britain. It fell
to 2% in the 1980s and fell again to 1.2% in the 1990s [Larry Elliot
and Dan Atkinson, The Age of Insecurity, p. 236]. So the rate of
"wealth creation" (economic growth) has steadily fallen as unions
were "reformed" in line with von Hayek's ideology (and falling
growth means that the living standards of the working class as a
whole do not rise as fast as they did under the "exploitation" of
the "monopolistic" trade unions). If we look at the differences
between the highest and lowest paid workers, we find that rather
than decrease, they have in fact shown "a dramatic widening out
of the distribution with the best-workers doing much better"
since Thatcher was elected in 1979 [Andrew Glyn and David
Miliband (eds.), Paying for Inequality, p. 100]
Given that inequality has also increased, the condition of the
average worker must have suffered. For example, Ian Gilmore
states that "[i]n the 1980s, for the first time for fifty
years. . . the poorer half of the population saw its share of
total national income shirk." [Dancing with Dogma, p. 113]
According to Noam Chomsky, "[d]uring the Thatcher decade, the
income share of the bottom half of the population fell from
one-third to one-fourth" and the between 1979 and 1992, the
share of total income of the top 20% grew from 35% to 40% while
that of the bottom 20% fell from 10% to 5%. In addition, the
number of UK employees with weekly pay below the Council of
Europe's "decency threshold" increased from 28.3% in 1979
to 37% in 1994 [World Orders, Old and New, p. 144, p. 145]
Moreover, "[b]ack in the early 1960s, the heaviest concentration
of incomes fell at 80-90 per cent of the mean. . . But by the
early 1990s there had been a dramatic change, with the peak
of the distribution falling at just 40-50 per cent of the mean.
One-quarter of the population had incomes below half the average
by the early 1990s as against 7 per cent in 1977 and 11 per
cent in 1961. . ." [Elliot and Atkinson, Op. Cit., p. 235]
"Overall," notes Takis Fotopoulos, "average incomes increased
by 36 per cent during this period [1979-1991/2], but 70 per
cent of the population had a below average increase in their
income." [Towards an Inclusive Democracy, p. 113]
Looking at the claim that trade union members gained their
"relative advantage by keeping workers who are worse off
from improving their position" it would be fair to ask whether
the percentage of workers in low-paid jobs decreased in Britain
after the trade union reforms. In fact, the percentage of
workers below the Low Pay Unit's definition of low pay (namely
two-thirds of men's median earnings) increased -- from
16.8% in 1984 to 26.2% in 1991 for men, 44.8% to 44.9% for
women. For manual workers it rose by 15% to 38.4%, and for
women by 7.7% to 80.7% (for non-manual workers the figures
were 5.4% rise to 13.7% for men and a 0.5% rise to 36.6%).
If unions were gaining at the expense of the worse off,
you would expect a decrease in the number in low pay,
not an increase. [Paying for Inequality, p.102] An
OECD study concluded that "[t]ypically, countries with
high rates of collective bargaining and trade unionisation
tend to have low incidence of low paid employment." [OECD
Employment Outlook, 1996, p. 94]
Nor did unemployment fall after the trade union reforms.
As Elliot and Atkinson point out, "[b]y the time Blair
came to power [in 1997], unemployment in Britain was
falling, although it still remained higher than it had
been when the [the last Labour Government of] Callaghan
left office in May 1979." [Op. Cit., p. 258] Von Hayek
did argue that falls in unemployment would be "a slow
process" but over 10 years of higher unemployment is
moving at a snail's pace! And we must note that part of
this fall in unemployment towards its 1970s level was
due to Britain's labour force shrinking (and so, as
the July 1997 Budget Statement correctly notes, "the
lower 1990s peak [in unemployment] does not in itself
provide convincing evidence of improved labour
performance." [p. 77]).
As far as von Hayek's prediction on wage flexibility leading
to the "average worker's income" rising fastest in a country
where relative wages are flexible, it has been proved totally
wrong. Between 1967 and 1971, real wages grew (on average)
by 2.95% per year (nominal wages grew by 8.94%) [P. Armstrong,
A. Glyn and John Harrison, Capitalism Since World War II,
p.272]. In comparison, in the 1990s real wages grew by 1.1
per cent, according to a TUC press release entitled
Productivity Record, how the UK compares released
in March 1999.
Needless to say, these are different eras so it would also
be useful to compare the UK (often praised as a flexible
economy after Thatcher's "reforms") to France (considered
far less flexible) in the 1990s. Here we find that the
"flexible" UK is behind the "inflexible" France. Wages
and benefits per worker rose by almost 1.2 per cent per
year compared to 0.7% for the UK. France's GDP grew at a
faster rate than Britain's, averaging 1.4 per cent per year,
compared with 1.2 per cent. Worker productivity is also
behind, since 1979 (Thatcher's arrival) Britain's worker
productivity has been 1.9 per cent per year compared to
France's 2.2 per cent [Seth Ackerman, "The Media Vote for
Austerity", Extra!, September/October 1997]. And as Seth
Ackerman also notes, "[w]hile France's dismal record of job
creation is on permanent exhibit, it is never mentioned that
Britain's is even more dismal." [Ibid.]
Moving further afield, we find von Hayek's prediction falsified
yet again. If we look at the USA, frequently claimed as a
model economy in terms of wage flexibility and union weakness,
we discover that the real wages of the average worker has
decreased since 1973 (the weekly and hourly earnings of
US production and non-supervisory workers, which accounts for
80% of the US workforce, have fallen in real terms by 19.2% and
13.4% respectively [Economic Report of the President 1995,
Table B-45]). If we look at figures from U.S. Bureau of the
Census (Current Population Survey) we can see how increased
flexibility has affected income:
As can be seen, flexible wages and weaker unions have resulted
in the direct opposite of von Hayek's predictions. Within the
US itself, we discover that higher union density is associated
with fewer workers earning around the minimum wage -- "the
percentage of those earning around the minimum wage are both
substantially higher in right-to-work states [i.e. those that
pass anti-union laws] than overall and lower in high union
density states that overall" and "in right-to-work states . . .
wages have traditionally been lower." [Oren M. Levin-Waldman,
The Minimum Wage and Regional Wage Structure] If unions did
harm non-union workers, we would expect the opposite to occur.
It does not. Of course, being utterly wrong has not dented his
reputation with the right nor stopped him being quoted in
arguments in favour of flexibility and free market reforms.
Moreover, the growth of the US economy has also slowed down as
wage flexibility and market reform has increased (it was 4.4%
in the 1960s, 3.2% in the 1970s, 2.8% in the 1980s and 1.9%
in the first half of the 1990s [Larry Elliot and Dan Atkinson,
The Age of Insecurity, p. 236]). In addition, inequality
in the US has dramatically increased since the 1970s, with
income and wealth growth in the 1980s going predominately
to the top 20% (and, in fact, mostly to the top 1% of the
population). The bottom 80% of the population saw their
wealth grow by 1.2% and their income by 23.7% in the 1980s,
while for the top 20% the respective figures were 98.2%
and 66.3% (the figures for the top 1% were 61.6% and 38.9%,
respectively). [Edward N. Wolff, "How the Pie is Sliced",
The American Prospect, no. 22, Summer 1995]
Comparing the claims of von Hayek to what actually happened
after trade union reform and the reduction of class struggle
helps to suggest that the claims that social struggle is
self-defeating are false (and probably self-serving,
considering it is usually bosses and employer supported
parties and economists who make these claims). A lack of
social struggle has been correlated with low economic growth,
stagnant (even declining) wages and the creation of purely
paid service jobs to replace highly paid manufacturing ones.
So while social struggle may make capital flee and other
problems, lack of it is no guarantee of prosperity (quite
the reverse, if the last quarter of the 20th century is anything
to go by!). Indeed, a lack of social struggle will make bosses
be more likely to cut wages, worsen working conditions and so
on -- after all, they feel they can get away with it! Which
brings home the fact that "to make their [the working class']
victory secure and definitive, it is necessary to destroy
capitalism." [Errico Malatesta, Life and Ideas, p. 191]
Of course, no one can know that struggle will make things
better. It is a guess; no one can predict the future. Not all
struggles are successful and many can be very difficult. If
the "military is a role model for the business world" (in the
words of an ex-CEO of Hill & Knowlton Public Relations [quoted
by John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton in Toxic Sludge Is Good
For You!, p. 47]), and it is, then any struggle against it
and other concentrations of power may, and often is, difficult
and dangerous at times. But, as Zapata once said, "better to
die on your feet than live on your knees!" All we can say
is that social struggle can and does improve things and, in
terms of its successes and transforming effect on those
involved, well worth the potential difficulties it can create.
Moreover, without struggle there is little chance of creating
a free society, dependent as it is on individuals who refuse
to bow to authority and have the ability and desire to govern
themselves. In addition, social struggle is always essential,
not only to win improvements, but to keep them as well.
In order to fully secure improvements you have to abolish
capitalism and the state. Not to do so means that any reforms
can and will be taken away (and if social struggle does not exist,
they will be taken away sooner rather than later). Ultimately,
most anarchists would argue that social struggle is not an option --
we either do it or we put up with the all the petty (and not so
petty) impositions of authority. If we do not say "no" then the
powers that be will walk all over us.
As the history of the last 20 years shows, a lack of social
struggle is fully compatible with worsening conditions.
Ultimately, if you want to be treated as a human being you
have to stand up for your dignity -- and that means thinking
and rebelling. As Bakunin often argued, human development
is based on thought and rebellion (see God and the State).
Without rebellion, without social struggle, humanity would
stagnant beneath authority forever and never be in a
position to be free. We would agree wholeheartedly with
the Abolitionist Frederick Douglass:
When assessing the revolutionary potential of our own era, we must
note again that modern civilisation is under constant pressure from
the potential catastrophes of social breakdown, ecological destruction,
and proliferating weapons of mass destruction. These crises have drawn
attention as never before to the inherently counter-evolutionary nature
of the authoritarian paradigm, making more and more people aware that
the human race is headed for extinction if it persists in outmoded forms
of thought and behaviour. This awareness produces a favourable climate for
the reception of new ideas, and thus an opening for radical educational
efforts aimed at creating the mass transformation of consciousness which
must take place alongside the creation of new liberatory institutions.
This receptiveness to new ideas has led to a number of new social
movements in recent years. From the point of view of anarchism, the four
most important of these are perhaps the feminist, ecology, peace, and
social justice movements. Each of these movements contain a great deal
of anarchist content, particularly insofar as they imply the need for
decentralisation and direct democracy. Since we have already commented
on the anarchist aspects of the ecology and feminist movements, here
we will limit our remarks to the peace and social justice movements.
It is clear to many members of the peace movement that international
disarmament, like the liberation of women, saving the planet's
ecosystem, and preventing social breakdown, can never be attained
without a shift of mass consciousness involving widespread rejection
of hierarchy, which is based on the authoritarian principles of
domination and exploitation. As C. George Bennello argued, "[s]ince
peace involves the positive process of replacing violence by other
means of settling conflict. . . it can be argued that some sort of
institutional change is necessary. For if insurgency is satisfied
with specific reform goals, and does not seek to transform the
institutional structure of society by getting at its centralised
make-up, the war system will probably not go away. This is really
what we should mean by decentralising: making institutions serve
human ends again by getting humans to be responsible at every
level within them." [From the Ground Up, p. 31]
When pursued along gender, class, racial, ethnic, or national lines,
these two principles are the primary causes of resentment, hatred,
anger, and hostility, which often explode into individual or organised
violence. Therefore, both domestic and international peace depend on
decentralisation, i.e. dismantling hierarchies, thus replacing domination
and exploitation by the anarchist principles of co-operation, sharing,
and mutual aid.
But direct democracy is the other side of decentralisation. In order for
an organisation to spread power horizontally rather than concentrating
it at the apex of hierarchy, all of its members have to have an equal
voice in making the decisions that affect them. Hence decentralisation
implies direct democracy. So the peace movement implies anarchism,
because world peace is impossible without both decentralisation and
direct democracy. Moreover, "[s]o long as profits are tied to defence
production, speaking truth to the elites involved is not likely to
get very far" as "it is only within the boundaries of the profit
system that the corporate elites would have any space to move."
[Op. Cit., p. 34] Thus the peace movement implicitly contains a
libertarian critique of both forms of the power system -- the
political and economical.
In addition, certain of the practical aspects of the peace movement
also suggest anarchistic elements. The use of non-violent direct
action to protest against the war machine can only be viewed as
a positive development by anarchists. Not only does it use effective,
anarchistic methods of struggle it also radicalises those involved,
making them more receptive to anarchist ideas and analysis (after all,
as Benello correctly argues, the "anarchist perspective has an
unparalleled relevance today because prevailing nuclear policies
can be considered as an ultimate stage in the divergence between
the interests of governments and their peoples . . . the implications
when revealed serve to raise fundamental questions regarding the
advisability of entrusting governments with questions of life and
death. . . There is thus a pressing impetus to re-think the role,
scale, and structure of national governments." [Op. Cit., p. 138]).
If we look at the implications of "nuclear free zones" we can detect
anarchistic tendencies within them. A nuclear free zone involves a
town or region declaring an end of its association with the nuclear
military industrial complex. They prohibit the research, production,
transportation and deployment of nuclear weapons as well as renouncing
the right to be defended by nuclear power. This movement was popular
in the 1980s, with many areas in Europe and the Pacific Basin
declaring that they were nuclear free zones. As Benello points out,
"[t]he development of campaigns for nuclear free zones suggests a
strategy which can educate and radicalise local communities. Indeed,
by extending the logic of the nuclear free zone idea, we can
begin to flesh out a libertarian municipalist perspective which can
help move our communities several steps towards autonomy from both
the central government and the existing corporate system." While
the later development of these initiatives did not have the
radicalising effects that Benello hoped for, they did "represent
a local initiative that does not depend on the federal government
for action. Thus it is a step toward local empowerment. . . Steps
that increase local autonomy change the power relations between
the centre and its colonies. . . The nuclear free zone movement
has a thrust which is clearly congruent with anarchist ideas. . .
The same motives which go into the declaration of a nuclear free
zone would dictate that in other areas where the state and the
corporate systems services are dysfunctional and involve
excessive costs, they should be dispensed with." [Op. Cit.,
p. 137, pp. 140-1]
The social justice movement is composed of people seeking fair and
compassionate solutions to problems such as poverty, unemployment,
economic exploitation, discrimination, poor housing, lack of health
insurance, wealth and income inequalities, and the like. Such concerns
have traditionally been associated with the left, especially with
socialism and trade-unionism. Recently, however, many radicals have
begun to perceive the limitations of both Marxist-Leninist and
traditional trade-unionist solutions to social justice problems,
particularly insofar as these solutions involve hierarchical
organisations and authoritarian values.
Following the widespread disillusionment with statism and centrally
planned economies generated by the failure of "Communism" in the
ex-Soviet Union and Eastern European nations, many radicals, while
retaining their commitment to social justice issues, have been searching
for new approaches. And in doing so they've been drawn into alliances
with ecologists, feminists, and members of the peace movement. (This has
occurred particularly among the German Greens, many of whom are former
Marxists. So far, however, few of the latter have declared themselves to
be anarchists, as the logic of the ecology movement requires.)
It is not difficult to show that the major problems concerning the
social justice movement can all be traced back to the hierarchy and
domination. For, given the purpose of hierarchy, the highest priority
of the elites who control the state is necessarily to maintain their
own power and privileges, regardless of the suffering involved for
subordinate classes.
Today, in the aftermath of 12 years of especially single-minded pursuit
of this priority by two Republican administrations, the United States,
for example, is reaping the grim harvest: armies of the homeless
wandering the streets; social welfare budgets slashed to the bone
as poverty, unemployment, and underemployment grow; sweatshops
mushrooming in the large cities; over 43 million Americans without
any health insurance; obscene wealth inequalities; and so on. This
decay promises to accelerate in the US during the coming years, now
that Republicans control both houses of Congress. Britain under the
neo-liberal policies of Thatcher and Major has experienced a social
deterioration similar to that in the US.
In short, social injustice is inherent in the exploitative functions
of the state, which are made possible by the authoritarian form of
state institutions and of the state-complex as a whole. Similarly, the authoritarian form of the corporation (and capitalist companies in
general) gives rise to social injustice as unfair income differentials
and wealth disparity between owners/management and labour.
Hence the success of the social justice movement, like that of the
feminist, ecology, and peace movements, depends on dismantling
hierarchies. This means not only that these movement all imply
anarchism but that they are related in such a way that it's
impossible to conceive one of them achieving its goals in
isolation from any of the others.
To take just one example, let's consider the relationship between
social justice and peace, which can be seen by examining a specific
social justice issue: labour rights.
As Dimitrios Roussopoulos points out, the production of advanced
weapons systems is highly profitable for capitalists, which is why
more technologically complex and precise weapons keep getting
built with government help (with the public paying the tab by way
of rising taxes).
Now, we may reasonably argue that it's a fundamental human right
to be able to choose freely whether or not one will personally
contribute to the production of technologies that could lead to
the extinction of the human race. Yet because of the authoritarian
form of the capitalist corporation, rank-and-file workers have
virtually no say in whether the companies for which they work will
produce such technologies. (To the objection that workers can always
quit if they don't like company policy, the reply is that they may not
be able to find other work and therefore that the choice is not free but
coerced.) Hence the only way that ordinary workers can obtain the right
to be consulted on life-or-death company policies is to control the
production process themselves, through self-management.
But we can't expect real self-management to emerge from the present
labour relations system in which centralised unions bargain with
employers for "concessions" but never for a dissolution of the
authoritarian structure of the corporation. As Roussopoulos puts it,
self-management, by definition, must be struggled for locally by
workers themselves at the grassroots level:
For these reasons, the peace and social justice movements
are fundamentally linked through their shared need for a
worker-controlled economy.
We should also note in this context that the impoverished ghetto
environments in which the worst victims of social injustice are forced
to live tends to desensitise them to human pain and suffering -- a
situation that is advantageous for military recruiters, who are thereby
able to increase the ranks of the armed forces with angry, brutalised,
violence-prone individuals who need little or no extra conditioning to
become the remorseless killers prized by the military command. Moreover,
extreme poverty makes military service one of the few legal economic
options open to such individuals. These considerations illustrate
further links between the peace and social justice movements -- and
between those movements and anarchism, which is the conceptual
"glue" that can potentially unite all the new social movement in a
single anti-authoritarian coalition.
Il y a actuellement une crise structurelle dans l'économie capitaliste mondiale. Par rapport à l'"Age d'Or" d'après-guerre de 1950 à 1973, la période allant de 1974 a vu une aggravation continue de la performance économique de l'Ouest et du Japon. Par exemple, la croissance est plus faible, le taux de chômage est beaucoup plus élevé, la productivité du travail est plus faible que l'investissement. La Moyenne des taux de chômage dans les grands pays industrialisés ont fortement augmentés depuis 1973, surtout après 1979. Le taux de chômage "dans les pays capitalistes avancés (le « Groupe des 7 »...) a augmenté de 56 pour cent entre 1973 et 1980 (passant d'une moyenne de 3,4 pour cent à 5,3 pour cent de la force de travail) et depuis lors par un autre de 50 pour cent (à partir de 5,3 pour cent de la population active en 1980 à 8,0 pour cent en 1994)" [Takis Fotopoulos, Towards and Inclusive Democracy, p. 35]. L'insécurité de l'emploi a augmenté (aux États-Unis, par exemple, il y a plus d'insécurité d'emploi que depuis la dépression des années 1930 [op. Cit., P. 141]). En outre, les économies nationales et l'économie internationale sont devenues beaucoup moins stable.
Cette crise ne se limite pas qu'à l'économie. Elle s'étend à l'écologique et le social. "Au cours des dernières années", souligne Larry Elliot et Dan Atkinson, "certains radicaux de l'économie ont tentés de [créer]... une mesure globale de bien-être appelé l'indice de bien-être économique durable [ISEW]... Dans les années 1950 et 1960 l'ISEW a augmenté en tandem avec le PIB par habitant. Il fut un temps non seulement de hausse des revenus, mais d'une plus grande équité sociale, de faible criminalité, de plein emploi et d'expansion de l'Etat-providence. Mais depuis le milieu des années 1970's les deux mesures ont commencés à passer outre. Le PIB par habitant a poursuivi son irrésistible ascension, mais les ISEW ont commencés à diminuer à la suite de l'allongement des files d'attente du chômage, de l'exclusion sociale, de l'explosion de la criminalité, du manque d'habitation, de la dégradation de l'environnement et de l'accroissement des maladies -et le stress- liées à cet environnement. Au début des années 1990, l' ISEW était presque revenu à des niveaux en cours qui avaient commencé au début des années 1990" [The Age of Insecurity, p. 248]. Cela montre bien, comme nos commentaires dans la section C.10, à savoir que les facteurs économiques ne peuvent pas, et ne le font pas, indiquer le bonheur de l'homme. Toutefois, ici nous discutons de facteurs économiques. Cela ne signifie pas que la situation sociale et les crises écologiques ne sont pas importantes ou sont réductible à l'économie. Loin de là . Nous nous concentrons sur le facteur économique simplement parce que c'est généralement le facteur souligné par l'establishment et il est utile d'indiquer l'écart entre la réalité et le battage dont nous sommes actuellement soumis.
Ironiquement, comme le souligne Robert Brenner, "tandis que le médicament néo-classique a été administré à des doses encore plus forte [depuis les années 1960], l'économie a réalisé des performances moins bonnes. Les années 1970's ont été pire que les années 1960's, les années 1980's pire que les années 1970's, et les années 1990's ont été pire que les années 1980's" [ "The Economics of Global Turbulence", New Left Review, no. 229, p. 236]. C'est ironique parce que pendant la crise du keynésianisme dans les années 1970, la droite a fait valoir que trop d'égalité et de démocratie nuisait à l'économie, et ainsi à nous tous à long terme (dûe à une plus faible croissance, la faiblesse de l'investissement et ainsi de suite). Toutefois, après plus d'une décennie de gouvernements pro-capitaliste, l'augmentation des inégalités, l'augmentation de la liberté pour le capital et de ses propriétaires et gestionnaires, l'affaiblissement des syndicats et ainsi de suite, la performance économique s'est empiré !
Si nous regardons les Etats-Unis dans les années 1990's (le plus souvent présenté comme une économie qui "a vu juste"), nous constatons que la "reprise conjoncturelle des années 1990's, en termes des principaux indicateurs macro-économiques de croissance - production, investissement, productivité et compensation réelle - a été encore moins dynamique que ses relativement faibles prédécesseurs des années 1980's et des années 1970's (sans parler de ceux des années 1950's et 1960's)" [Op. Cit., P. 5]. Bien sûr, l'économie est présentée comme un succès parce que l'inégalité est grandissante, les riches deviennent plus riches et la richesse se concentre dans de moins en moins de mains. Pour les riches et le capital financier, ça peut être considéré comme un «âge d'or» et c'est présenté comme tel par les médias. En effet, c'est pour cette raison qu'il peut être faux de définir cette lente pourriture comme une "crise", c'en est à peine une pour l'élite au pouvoir. Leur part de richesse sociale, de pouvoir et de revenu ayant augmenté régulièrement au cours de cette période. Pour la majorité, c'est sans aucun doute une crise (le terme de "dépression silencieuse" a été correctement utilisé pour décrire cela), mais pour ceux qui gèrent le système, ça n'a pas du tout été une crise.
En effet, les seuls pays qui ont vus une importante et dynamique croissance après 1973 où ceux qui ont utilisé l'intervention de l'État pour violer les «lois» éternelles de l'économie néo-classique, à savoir les pays de l'Asie du Sud-Est (en ceci qu'ils suivent l'exemple du Japon qui a utilisé l'intervention de l'État pour croître à des taux massives après la guerre). Bien sûr, avant la crise économique de 1997, les capitalistes de "libre marché" ont fait valoir que ces pays sont des exemples classiques d'économies de "libre marché". Par exemple, l'icône de l'aile droite F.A von Hayek a affirmé que "la Corée du Sud et d'autres nouveaux arrivants" ont "découvert les avantages de la libéralisation des marchés", alors qu'en fait, ils n'ont rien fait de tel ["1980s Unemployment and the Unions" reproduced in The Economic Decline of Modern Britain, p. 113]. Plus récemment, en 1995, l'"Heritage Foundation" a publié son indice de liberté économique. Quatre des sept pays étaient d'Asie, y compris le Japon et Taiwan. Tous les pays d'Asie en lutte pour seulement les quatre dernieres années ont été qualifiés de "libre". Toutefois, comme Takis Fotopoulos le fait valoir, "ce n'est pas les politiques de laissez-faire qui ont induits leur croissance spectaculaire. Comme un certain nombre d'études l'ont montré, l'expansion des tigres asiatique reposait sur l'intervention massive de l'État qui renforcaient leurs secteurs d'exportation, par des politiques publiques impliquant non seulement un lourd protectionnisme mais même en déformant délibérément les prix du marché pour stimuler l'investissement et le commerce" [Op. Cit., P. 115]. Après la crise, les partisans du libre-marché ont découvert que l'étatisme était toujours là et ils ont dansé joyeusement sur la tombe de ce que l'on appelait "le miracle asiatique".
Cette hypocrisie est vraiment dégoûtante et des relents d'une volonté stalinienne / orwellienne de ré-écrire l'histoire de manière à apparaître comme ayant toujours raison. En outre, une telle analyse cynique sape réellement leur propre cause pour les merveilles du «libre marché». Après tout, jusqu'à ce que la crise apparaisse, les investisseurs du monde - c'est-à -dire "le marché" - n'ont rien vu si ce n'est un ciel bleu pour l'économie de ces pays. Ils ont montré leur foi en injectant des milliards dans les marchés asiatiques, tandis que les banques étrangères avec contentement remettent des milliards en prêts. Si les problèmes d'Asie sont de nature systémique et le résultat des politiques étatistes de ces pays, le deni des investisseurs à le reconnaître plus tôt est un coup porté contre le marché, pas pour lui.
Encore plus pervers est, qu'alors même que les partisans du capitalisme de "libre-marché" concluent que l'histoire rend son verdict sur le modèle asiatique du capitalisme, ils semblent oublier que, jusqu'à la récente crise qu'ils ont eus eux-mêmes beaucoup de mal à nier, un tel modèle existe. Jusqu'à ce que l'Asie ait capoté, les partisans du capitalisme de "libre-marché" ont heureusement tenus comme une preuve que la seule recette pour la croissance économique a été l'ouverture des marchés et la non-intervention de la part de l'État. Inutile de dire que cette ré-écriture de l'histoire sera mise aux oubliettes, avec toutes les autres allégations, qui ont ensuite été prouvées comme un non-sens absolu.
Alors, comme on peut le voir, l'économie mondiale a été marquée par de plus en plus de stagnation, un ralentissement de la croissance, dans les économies occidentales (par exemple, la reprise d'entreprise dans les années 1990 a été le maillon le plus faible depuis la fin de la Seconde Guerre mondiale). Ceci en dépit des (ou, plus probablement, en raison des) réformes imposées dans l'économie de marché et de la déréglementation du capital financier (on dit "en raison de" tout simplement parce que l'économie néo-classique fait valoir que les réformes pour le marché permettraient d'accroître la croissance et améliorer l'économie, mais comme nous l'avons fait valoir dans la section C une telle économie a peu de fondement dans la réalité et leurs recommandations ne sont guère à produire des résultats positifs). Bien sûr que la classe dirigeante a été bien dans ce nouvel ordre mondial, ce ralentissement a été ignorée et en toute évidence.
Au cours des dernières années la crise (en particulier la crise financière) est devenue de plus en plus visible (enfin) par la faiblesse sous-jacente de l'économie globale. Cette faiblesse sous-jacente a été caché par la performance des spéculateurs des marchés boursiers mondiaux, dont les performances, ironiquement, ont contribués à la création de cette faiblesse pour commencer ! Comme un expert sur Wall Street l'a fait valoir, "Les marchés à caution... Haïssent la solidité économique... Les actions se comportent généralement mal tout comme quand l'économie réelle est à son plus fort... Les actions prospérent sur une économie fraiche, et se fanent sur une chaude" [Wall Street, p. 124]. En d'autres termes, la véritable faiblesse économique se reflète dans la solidité financière.
Henwood note également que "ce qu'on pourrait appeler la part du rentier de par l'excédent de l'entreprise - dividendes, en plus des intérêts en pourcentage des bénéfices avant impôts et intérêts - a augmenté, passant de 20-30% dans les années 1950's à 60 % Dans les années 1990's" [Op. Cit., P. 73]. Cela contribue à expliquer la stagnation qui a frappé l'économie de l'Ouest. Les riches ont placés leur toujours plus croissante richesse dans les Actions, permettant à ce marché de croître face à la torpeur économique général. Plutôt que d'être utilisés dans l'investissement, l'excédent est acheminé dans les marchés financiers, les marchés qui concentrent la richesse avec beaucoup de succès (les bénéfices non répartis aux États-Unis ont diminués, autant que les intérêts et les paiements de dividendes ont augmenté [Brenner, op. Cit., P. 210] ). Etant donné que "le système financier américain effectue lamentablement sa tâche de publicité, que la société dirige efficacement l'épargne vers l'investissement optimal de leurs activités. Le système est incroyablement coûteux, donne de terrible signaux pour l'allocation des capitaux, et a étonnamment peu à voir avec le véritable investissement" [Henwood, op. Cit., P. 3]. Comme la plupart des investissements proviennent de fonds internes, la hausse de la part des rentiers (ceux qui tirent leurs revenus du rendement sur le capital) de l'excédent a permis de diminuer l'investissement et donc la stagnation de l'économie. Et le ralentissement de l'économie a augmenté la solidité financière, qui conduit à un affaiblissement de l'économie réelle. Un cercle vicieux, et qui se refléte dans le ralentissement de la croissance économique au cours des 30 dernières années.
En effet, en particulier depuis la fin des années 1970's, on a vu la domination croissante du capital financier. Cette domination a, en effet, créé un marché pour les politiques gouvernementales en tant que le capital financier est devenu de plus en plus de nature mondiale. Les gouvernements doivent garantir, protéger et élargir le domaine à visée lucrative pour le capital financier et les sociétés transnationales, sinon ils seront punis par les marchés mondiaux (c'est-à -dire le capital financier). Ces politiques ont été à la charge de l'économie sous-tendue, en général, et de la classe ouvrière en particulier :
"le pouvoir des Rentiers a été réalisé au niveau du travail, à la fois organisés et non organisés dans les rangs des salariés, car il considère la hausse des salaires en tant que principale menace contre l'ordre stable. Pour des raisons évidentes, cet objectif n'a jamais été dit très clairement, mais les marchés financiers ont compris le rôle central de la lutte : la protection de la valeur de leur capital nécessaire à la répression des revenus du travail." [William Greider, One World, Ready or Not, p. 302]
Bien sûr, le capital industriel déteste aussi le travail, il y a donc une base d'une alliance entre les deux parties du capital, même si elles ne sont pas d'accord sur les détails des politiques économiques mises en œuvre. Étant donné que l'un des principaux aspects des réformes néo-libérales ont étés la transformation du marché du travail d'un marché de vendeurs de l'après-guerre à un marché d'acheteurs du dix-neuvième siècle, avec ses effets sur la discipline d'usine, les créances salariales et la prédisposition à la grève, le capital industriel ne pouvait pas être heureux avec ses effets. Doug Henwood a correctement fait valoir que "les libéraux et les populistes ont souvent recherchés des alliés parmi les industriels, le raisonnement que, même si les intérêts financiers souffrent dans un boom, les entreprises qui échangent réellement, plutôt que fictivement, les produits prospérent lorsque la croissance est forte. En général, les industriels sont moins sensibles à ces arguments. les employeurs dans toute l'industrie comme du mou dans le marché du travail, ça permet une main-d'œuvre docile, avec peu de chances de faire des exigences ou de la résistance". En outre, "beaucoup de sociétés non financières ont de lourds intérêts financiers." [Op. Cit., p. 123, p. 135]
Ainsi, la stagnation générale qui frappe une grande partie du monde, une stagnation qui s'est développé dans la crise autant que les besoins de financement ont sapé l'économie réelle, qui, en fin de compte, en dépend. La contradiction entre les bénéfices à court terme et à long terme inhérents à la survie du capitalisme a encore frappé.
La crise, comme nous l'avons indiqué ci-dessus, est apparu dans des domaines auparavant considérés comme des économies fortes, et ça s'est propagé. Un aspect important de cette crise est la tendance de la capacité de production à dépasser la demande effective (c'est-à -dire la tendance à sur-investir par rapport à la demande disponible), qui découle en grande partie du déséquilibre entre les besoins des capitalistes d'un haut taux de profit et de simultanée nécessité de veiller à ce que les travailleurs aient suffisamment de richesses et de revenus afin qu'ils puissent venir acheter les produits sur lesquels ces bénéfices dépendent (voir la section C). L'inégalité a augmenté aux États-Unis, ce qui signifie que l'économie doit faire face à la réalisation de la crise (voir la section C.7), une crise qui a jusqu'ici été évitée par l'approfondissement de la dette pour les travailleurs (le niveau de la dette a plus que doublé entre les années 1950's et les années 1990's, de 25% à plus de 60%).
Un sur-investissement a été amplifié dans les tigres de l'Est asiatique comme ils ont été forcés d'ouvrir leurs économies à la finance mondiale. Ces économies, en raison de leur intervention sur le marché (et des régimes répressifs contre le travail) veillaient à ce qu'ils soient un lieu plus rentable que d'investir ailleurs. Le Capital inondé dans la zone, assurant un relatif sur-investissement a été inévitable. Comme nous l'avons fait valoir à la section C.7.2, la crise est possible simplement en raison de l'insuffisance des informations fournies par le mécanisme des prix - les agents économiques peuvent réagir d'une telle manière que par le résultat collectif de décisions rationnelles prises individuellement est irrationnelle. Ainsi, le désir de tirer les bénéfices dans les économies des Tigres a abouti à un effet de ciseau dans les bénéfices que l'ensemble des décisions d'investissement ont fait du sur-investissement, et ainsi de sur-production et faisant baisser les profits.
En effet, les économies de l'Asie du Sud-Est ont souffert d'un problème appelé l'«erreur de composition». Lorsque vous êtes la premiere économie exportatrice d'Asie, vous êtes en concurrence avec un coût élevé avec des producteurs de l'Ouest et donc avec des travailleurs bon marché, des impôts faibles et des lois environnementales laxistes vous permettant de couper court à vos concurrents et faire des profits. Toutefois, comme plus de tigres ont rejoint le marché, ils sont de fait en compétition les uns contre les autres et donc leurs marges de profit va vers une diminution de leur coût réel des prix plutôt que ceux des firmes occidentales. Avec la diminution des bénéfices, le capital qui se jettait dans la région en est reparti, créant ainsi une situation de crise (et la preuve, d'ailleurs, que les marchés libres sont déstabilisateurs et ne garantissent pas le meilleur de tous les résultats possibles). Ainsi, le régime des rentiers, après l'affaiblissement des économies occidentales, a contribué à déstabiliser aussi celles de l'Est.
Ainsi, dans le court terme, de nombreuses grandes entreprises et sociétés financières résolvent leurs problèmes de profit par un accroissement de la production dans les pays "sous-développés", afin de tirer profit de la main-d'œuvre bon marché présente (et de l'état de répression qui veille à ce bon marché), ainsi que de plus faibles lois sur l'environnement et des impôts moins élevés. Pourtant, peu à peu ils sont arrivés à court de populations du tiers-monde à exploiter. Pour le processus même de "développement" stimulé par la présence de corporations transnationales dans les nations du tiers-monde accroissant la concurrence et donc, potentiellement, le sur-investissement et, plus important encore, la production de la résistance sous la forme de syndicats, de rébellions et ainsi de suite, qui ont tendance à exercer une pression à la baisse sur le niveau de l'exploitation et des bénéfices (par exemple, en Corée du Sud, la part de travail en valeur ajoutée est passée de 23 à 30 pour cent, en contraste frappant avec les États-Unis, l'Allemagne et le Japon, tout simplement parce les travailleurs coréens se sont rebellés et ont gagné de nouvelles libertés politiques).
Ce processus reflète, à bien des égards, l'essor du capital financier dans les années 1970's. Dans les années 1950's et 1960's, les pays industrialisés ont connus une concurrence accrue de l'ex-pouvoir de l'Axe (à savoir le Japon et l'Allemagne). Comme ces nations re-industrialisés, ils ont placés une pression accrue sur les États-Unis et d'autres nations, réduisant les "degrés de monopole" mondiaux et les forcant à entrer en concurrence avec les producteurs de moindre coût (qui, inutile de le dire, ont réduit les bénéfices des compagnies). En outre, le plein emploi produit une résistance accrue dans l'usine et dans la société dans son ensemble (voir la section C.7.1), pressant encore plus les profits. Ainsi, une combinaison de la lutte des classes et d'une sur-capacité mondiale a entraîné la crise des années 1970's. À l'incapacité de l'économie réelle, en particulier le secteur manufacturier, de fournir un rendement adéquat, le capital s'est transféré dans la finance. En effet, c'est parti en courant de par le succés des travailleurs à faire valoir leurs droits sur le lieu de production et ailleurs. Ce fait, combiné à une concurrence internationale accrue du Japon et de l'Allemagne, a assuré la montée du capital financier, qui en retour a assuré les tendances stagnationistes actuelles de l'économie (tendances aggravées par la montée des économies des tigres Asiatique dans les années 1980's).
De la contradiction entre capital financier et l'économie réelle, entre les besoins de bénéfices pour les capitalistes et les besoins humains, entre la surcapacité et la demande, et d'autres, il est apparu ce qui semble être une tendance à long terme vers une stagnation permanente de l'économie capitaliste. Cette tendance a été manifeste depuis plusieurs décennies, comme en témoigne l'ajustement continu à la hausse du taux de chômage officiellement considéré comme "normal" ou "acceptable" au cours de ces décennies, et par d'autres symptômes, ainsi telles que la baisse de la croissance, la baisse du taux de profit et ainsi de suite.
Cette stagnation est récemment devenue encore plus évidente par le développement de la crise dans de nombreux pays et les réactions des banques centrales tentant de relancer les économies réelles qui ont souffert des politiques inspirés par leur rentier. La question de savoir si cette crise va devenir pire, c'est difficile à dire. Les puissances occidentales peuvent agir pour protéger l'économie réelle en adoptant les politiques keynésiennes qu'ils ont essayé de discréditer au cours des trente dernières années. Toutefois, si une telle volonté de sauvetage de réussite est difficile à raconter et peut seulement assurer la poursuite de la stagnation plutôt que d'une véritable mise en marche, si ça n'a aucun effet du tout.
Bien sûr, une profonde dépression peut résoudre le problème de la surcapacité et du sur-investissement dans le monde et jeter les bases d'une remise en marche. Une telle stratégie est cependant très dangereuse en raison de la résistance de la classe ouvrière que cela pourrait provoquer, la profondeur de la crise et de la durée, ça pourrait durer. Toutefois, cela, peut-être, a été le cas aux Etats-Unis en 1997-9 où plus de 20 ans d'un côté la lutte des classes peut avoir porté leurs fruits en termes de bénéfices et taux de bénéfice. Toutefois, cette possibilité a plus à voir avec les problèmes ailleurs dans le monde qu'un véritable changement économique, en plus de la hausse de la dette des consommateurs (il existe maintenant des taux d'épargne personnels négatifs aux Etats-Unis), une aggravation du déficit commercial et une bulle boursière. En outre, une augmentation de la productivité s'est combiné avec la stagnation des salaires pour augmenter le rendement du capital et le taux de bénéfice (les salaires ont diminués au cours de la plus grande partie de la récupération des années 1990's et s'est finalement retrouvé en 1999 à leur pic de pré-récession de 1989 ! En dépit de 8 ans de croissance économique, le travailleur typique est de retour seulement où ils ont commencé à la pointe du dernier cycle économique). Cette baisse et la lenteur de la croissance des salaires représente essentiellement l'augmentation du taux de profit des États-Unis, avec la récente croissance des salaires réels étant à peine suffisant pour faire suffisamment d'impact (même si la Réserve fédérale américaine fait une hausse des taux d'intérêt pour ralentir cette augmentation, même, ce qui vient renforcer notre argument selon lequel les bénéfices capitalistes exigent le chômage et l'insécurité pour maintenir le pouvoir capitaliste sur le lieu de production).
Cette situation reflète l'Amérique des années 1920's (voir la section C.7.3 pour plus de détails), qui a également été marquée par une augmentation des inégalités, une main-d'oeuvre excédentaire et la hausse des profits et suggère que la nouvelle économie américaine est confrontée à la même possibilité d'une récession. Cela signifie que l'économie américaine doit faire face au danger de sur-investissement (par rapport à la demande, bien sûr), tôt ou tard, peut-être plus tôt que prévu en raison des problèmes ailleurs dans le monde en tant que les bénéfices de la croissance économique est fragile car elle dépend de l'investissement, les dépenses de luxe et les dettes de la classe ouvrière pour survivre - qui sont tous plus instable et vulnérable aux chocs que la consommation des travailleurs.
Étant donné les difficultés à prédire l'avenir (et le fait que ceux qui essaient cela se sont généralement avérée totalement dans le faux!), Nous ne pourrons pas prétendre le connaître et nous laisserons le débat mettre en lumière quelques possibilités. Une chose est vrai, cependant, et c'est que la classe ouvrière va payer le prix d'une "solution" - à moins qu'elle ne s'organise et se débarrasse du capitalisme et de l'État. En fin de compte, le capitalisme a besoin de profits pour survivre et ces bénéfices viennent du fait que les travailleurs n'ont pas la liberté économique. Ainsi, toute "solution" dans un cadre capitaliste, signifie l'accroissement de l'oppression et de l'exploitation des travailleurs.
Face à des bilans négatifs en période de récession, les couches supérieures de temps en temps paniquent et acceptent certaines réformes, certaines répartitions de la richesse, qui permettent de résoudre temporairement le problème à court terme de la stagnation de la demande croissante et permet ainsi de renouveler l'expansion. Toutefois, cette solution à court-terme signifie que la classe ouvrière va progressivement faire des gains économiques et politiques, de sorte que l'exploitation et l'oppresion et, par conséquent, le taux de profit, tende à baisser (comme cela s'est produit au cours de l'"age d'or" keynésien de l'après-guerre). Face aux dangers, d'une part, de l'effondrement économique et, d'autre part, de l'augmentation de la puissance de la classe ouvrière, la classe dirigeante peut ne pas agir avant qu'il ne soit trop tard. Ainsi, sur la base que la crise actuelle peut s'aggraver et la stagnation se transformer en dépression, nous allons examiner pourquoi la "crise économique structurelle" que nous avons vécu de par le dernier quart du 20ème siècle (et de son potentiel de crise) est important pour la lutte sociale dans la section suivante.
La "crise économique structurelle" que nous avons souligné dans la dernière section a certaines implications pour les anarchistes et les luttes sociales. Essentiellement, comme George C. Benello l'a fait valoir, "si la situation économique s'aggrave... Il est probable de trouver une ouverture pour des alternatives qui n'ont pas été pensé depuis la dépression des années 1930... Il est important de planifier en vue d'une éventuelle crise économique, car elle n'est pas seulement pratique, mais peut aussi servir de méthode pour mobiliser une communauté de façon créative" [From the Ground Up, p. 149].
Face à la stagnation et à la dépression économique, les tentatives visant à améliorer le taux d'exploitation (c'est-à -dire accroître les profits) en augmentant l'autorité du patron croissante. En outre, plus de gens trouvent difficile de joindre les deux bouts, rendant nécessaire des dettes pour survivre, le visage des sans-abri quand ils sont au chômage, et ainsi de suite. Ces effets rendent l'exploitation de plus en plus visible et ont tendance à pousser les couches opprimées ensemble dans les mouvements qui cherchent à atténuer, voire supprimer leur oppression. Comme l'ère capitaliste a porté sur elles, ces couches sont de plus en plus en mesure de se rebeller et de prendre des engagements pour des améliorations politiques et économiques, qui ont, en outre, conduits à de plus en plus de volontés à le faire en raison de la hausse des attentes (ce qui est possible) et de la frustration (ce qui l'est en réalité). C'est pourquoi, depuis 1945, la "famille" du monde entier des mouvements progressistes a augmenté "encore plus fort, toujours plus audacieuse, toujours plus diverse, de plus en plus difficile à contenir" [Immanuel Wallerstein, Géopolitique et Geoculture, p. 110]. Il est vrai que les libertaires, la gauche et le monde du travail ont subi un revers temporaire au cours des dernières décennies, mais avec l'augmentation de la misère de la classe ouvrière en raison des politiques néo-libérales (et la "crise économique structurelle" qu'ils créent), il n'est qu'une question de temps avant qu'il y ait une résurgence du radicalisme.
Les anarchistes seront aux premiers rangs de cette résurgence. Car, avec le discrédit du capitalisme d'État autoritaire ("communisme") dans l'Union soviétique et l'Europe de l'Est, la faction anti-autoritaire de la gauche sera de plus en plus considérée comme la seule crédible. Ainsi, la crise structurelle en cours dans l'économie capitaliste mondiale, combiné avec les autres ressorts de l'évolution de ce que Takis Fotopoulos appelle (dans son livre "Towards and Inclusive Democracy") une "crise multidimensionnelle" (qui comprend les aspects économiques, politiques, sociaux, écologiques et les aspects idéologiques), pourrait (éventuellement) amener pour la prochaine décennie ou la deuxiéme à une nouvelle alliance internationale anti-autoritaire entre le nouvel ensemble (et pas si nouveau) des mouvements sociaux dans l'Ouest (féminisme, le mouvement vert, la masse de militants du travail, etc) avec des mouvements de libération non-autoritaire dans le tiers monde et des nouveaux mouvements anti-bureaucratique dans les anciens pays "communiste". Toutefois, ce n'est susceptible de se produire que si les anarchistes prennent l'initiative de la promotion de solutions de remplacement et de travail avec la masse de la population. Les façons dont les anarchistes peuvent le faire sont discutés en détail dans la section J.5.
Ainsi, la "crise économique structurelle" peut aider la lutte sociale en plaçant un contraste de "ce qui est" à ce qui "pourrait être" dans une lumière claire. Toute crise crée des contradictions dans le capitalisme, entre la production de la valeur d'usage (les choses que les gens ont besoin) et de la valeur d'échange (capitaliste de profit), entre la proclamation du capitalisme à se fonder sur la liberté et l'autoritarisme associé au travail salarié ("les évidences générales de la répression que pose une ancienne contradiction du capitalisme : alors qu'il prétend promouvoir la liberté de l'homme, il fait concrètement les bénéfices de la négation de la liberté, plus particulierement de la liberté des travailleurs employés dans l'entreprise capitaliste" [William Greider, One World, Ready or Not, p. 388]) et ainsi de suite. ça tremble au peu de foi populaire dans la capacité du capitalisme à "livrer la marchandise" et met de plus en plus de gens à penser à des alternatives à ce système qui place le profit au-dessus et avant les gens et la planète. La crise a également, par sa nature même, encouragé les travailleurs et les opprimés d'autres sections de la population à résister et à combattre, ce qui génère à son tour organisation collective (comme les syndicats ou le lieu de travail fondée sur les assemblées et conseils), de la solidarité et de l'action directe - en d'autres termes, un collectif d'entre-aide et la conscience que les problèmes des personnes de la classe ouvrière ne peuvent être résolus que par elles-mêmes, par leurs propres actions et organisations. Les années 1930's aux États-Unis est un exemple classique de ce processus, avec des luttes très militantes qui ont lieu dans des situations très difficiles (voir Howard Zinn "Une histoire populaire des États-Unis" ou de Jeremy Brecher "Strike"! Pour plus de détails).
En d'autres termes, la "crise économique structurelle" donne aux radicaux beaucoup de potentiel pour diffuser leur message, même si l'environnement global peut faire des succès semble difficile à l'extrême par moments !
Ainsi qu'encourager l'organisation du lieu de travail en raison de l'intensification de l'exploitation et de l'autorité provoquée par la stagnation économique / dépression, la "crise économique structurelle" peut encourager d'autres formes d'alternatives libertaires. Par exemple, "l'effet pratique de l'hégémonie du capital de la finance a été de verrouiller les économies avancées et leurs gouvernements dans une spirale maligne, les limitant à de mauvais choix. Comme Obligataires en général, le nouveau consensus qui régit explicitement l'hypothèse que la croissance économique plus rapide était dangereuse -- menaçant la stabilité financière - les nations ont effectivement été bloqué à partir de mesures susceptibles de réduire le chômage permanent ou d'ameliorer la baisse des salaires... La réalité de la lenteur de la croissance, à son tour, a poussé les gouvernements à approfondir leur endettement, étant donné que la croissance décevante a inévitablement compromis les recettes fiscales, tandis qu'il a élargi le coût du bien-être public. Le régime rentier a chargé à plusieurs reprises les gouvernements à réformer leurs priorités en matière de dépenses - qui est, de retirer des prestations à charge de citoyens..." [op. Cit., Pp. 297-8].
Ainsi, la "crise économique structurelle" a abouti à l'érosion de l'État-providence (au moins pour la classe ouvrière, pour les élites, les aides de l'Etat ne sont jamais très loin). Ce développement est un potentiel de possibilités libertaire. "Le déclin de l'État", affirme L. Gambone "rend nécessaire une revitalisation de la notion d'action directe et d'aide mutuelle. Sans Maman État le faisant pour nous, nous devons créer nos propres services sociaux par le biais de sociétés d'aide mutuelle" [Syndicalism in Myth and Reality, p. 12]. Comme nous l'affirmons de façon plus approfondie dans la section J.5.16, un tel mouvement d'aide mutuelle a une longue histoire dans la classe ouvrière et, comme c'est sous notre contrôle, ça ne peut pas nous être retiré pour enrichir et donner du pouvoir à la classe dirigeante comme l'État a géré les systèmes. Ainsi, le déclin des services sociaux gérés par l'Etat pourrait, éventuellement, voir la naissance d'un réseau auto-géré, des alternatives de la classe ouvrière (de même, bien sûr, on pouvait voir la fin de tous les services les plus faibles de notre société -- qui vient à dépendre sur la possibilité de ce que nous faisons dans l'ici et maintenant. voir la section J.5.15 pour une analyse anarchiste de l'État-providence).
Food Not Bombs! est un excellent exemple de pratiques alternatives libertaire étant généré par la crise économique, à laquelle nous sommes confrontés. Food Not Bombs aide les sans-abri à travers l'action directe de ses membres. Il s'agit également d'aider les sans-abri eux-mêmes. Il s'agit d'un groupe communautaire qui aide les autres personnes de la collectivité qui sont dans le besoin de fournir gratuitement des vivres à ceux qui en ont besoin. FNB! contribue également à d'autres projets politiques et activités anarchistes.
Food Not Bombs! sert de la nourriture gratuite dans les lieux publics pour dramatiser la situation difficile des sans-abri, l'insensibilité du système et de notre capacité à résoudre les problèmes sociaux par le biais de nos propres actions sans le gouvernement ou le capitalisme. Le harcèlement constant de la FNB! par les flics, les classes moyennes et le gouvernement illustre leur insensibilité à la détresse des pauvres et de l'échec de leurs institutions à construire une société qui s'occupe plus des personnes que d'argent et de propriété (et les armes, les flics et les prisons pour la protéger). Le fait est qu'aux États-Unis, de nombreux travailleurs et chômeurs n'ont pas le sentiment qu'ils ont le droit à des besoins humains de base tels que la médecine, des vêtements, des abris et de la nourriture. Food Not Bombs! encourage les pauvres à faire ces demandes, fournissant un espace où ces demandes peuvent être exprimées, et ne contribuent à casser le mur entre la faim et la non-faim. La répression visant le FNB! par les forces de police locales et les gouvernements démontre également l'efficacité de leur activité et de la possibilité qu'ils peuvent radicaliser ceux qui s'impliquent dans l'organisation. La charité est une chose, de toute évidence, l'aide mutuelle, c'est autre chose. FNB! car il s'agit d'un mouvement politisé d'en bas, basée sur la solidarité, n'est pas de la charité, parce que, dans les paroles de Kropotkine, la charité "porte un caractère d'inspiration d'en haut, et, en conséquence, implique une certaine supériorité du donneur sur le récepteur" et donc difficilment libertaire [Mutual Aid, p. 222].
Le dernier exemple dans la façon dont la stagnation économique peut générer des tendances libertaires peuvent être par le fait que, "historiquement, dans des temps d'inflation graves ou de pénuries de capitaux, les communautés ont été contraintes de compter sur leurs propres ressources. Au cours de la Grande Dépression, de nombreuses villes imprimaient leur propre monnaie, ce qui fonctionne dans la mesure où une communauté est en mesure de maintenir une économie viable interne qui fournit les nécessités de la vie, indépendante des transactions avec l'extérieur" [C. George Benello, op. Cit., P. 150].
Ces monnaies et économies locales peuvent être utilisés comme base d'une économie socialiste libertaire. Les devises doivent être la base d'une mutuelle de banque (voir les sections J.5.5 et J.5.6), offrant des prêts sans intérêt pour les travailleurs à former des coopératives et ainsi construire des alternatives libertaire aux entreprises capitalistes. En outre, ces monnaies locales pourraient être basées sur le temps de travail, en éliminant les profits des capitalistes, en permettant aux travailleurs d'échanger le produit de leur travail avec les autres travailleurs. En outre, "les systèmes d'échange locaux forcent les communautés locales par le renforcement de leur auto-suffisance, l'autonomisation des membres de la communauté, et aidant à les protéger contre les excès du marché mondial" [Frank Lindenfield, "Economics for Anarchists," Social Anarchism, no. 23, p. 24]. De cette façon, l'autonomie locale dans la gestion des communes pourrait être créé, les communes qui remplacent la hiérarchie, de haut en bas, le gouvernement avec la prise de décision collective des affaires de la communauté fondée sur la démocratie directe des assemblées communautaires (voir la section J.5.1). Ces communautés et ces économies autonomes pourraient se fédérer ensemble pour coopérer à une plus grande échelle et ainsi créer un contre-pouvoir à celui de l'État et du capitalisme.
Ce système confédéral de communautés auto-gérées pourrait aussi protéger les emplois comme la "mondialisation du capital menace les industries locales. Un moyen doit être trouvé pour maintenir le capital à la maison et ainsi préserver les emplois et les communautés qui en dépendent. Le protectionnisme est à la fois indésirable et impraticable. Mais la propriété des travailleurs ou les coopératives de travailleurs sont des solutions alternatives" [L. Gambone, syndicalism in Myth and Reality, pp.12-13]. Les communautés locales pourraient fournir l'appui nécessaire aux structures qui pourraient protéger les coopératives des effets de corromption du travail dans le marché capitaliste (voir la section J.5.11). De cette manière, la liberté économique (l'auto-gestion) pourrait remplacer le capitalisme (l'esclavage salarié) et montrer que l'anarchisme est une alternative au chaos et à l'autoritarisme du capitalisme, même si ces exemples sont fragmentaires et limités par nature.
Cependant, ces évolutions ne devraient pas être prises isolément des luttes collective sur le lieu de travail ou de la communauté. C'est dans la lutte des classes que le potentiel réel de l'anarchie est créé. Le travail de ces organisations comme Food Not Bombs! et la création de monnaies locales et les coopératives sont complémentaires à la tâche importante de la création des organisations des lieux de travail et communautaires qui peuvent créer une résistance efficace à la fois à l'État et aux capitalistes, la résistance qui peut renverser les deux (voir les sections J.5.2 et J.5.1 respectivement). "des volontaires et des systèmes de crédit de service et des monnaies alternatives par eux-mêmes peut ne pas suffire à remplacer le système d'entreprise capitaliste. Néanmoins, elles peuvent aider à bâtir la force économique de la monnaie locale, l'autonomisation des résidents locaux, et d'atténuer certaines des conséquences de la pauvreté et de chômage... Au moment où une majorité [de la communauté sont impliqués il] sera en bonne voie pour devenir une incarnation vivante de nombreux idéaux anarchistes" [Frank Lindenfield, op. Cit., P. 28]. Et cette communauté serait une grande aide dans une grève ou d'autres luttes sociales qui se passent !
Par conséquent, la crise économique générale à laquelle nous sommes confrontés a des implications pour la lutte sociale et l'activisme anarchiste. Ce pourrait être la base d'alternatives libertaire dans nos lieux de travail et communautés, les alternatives basées sur l'action directe, la solidarité et l'auto-gestion. Ces solutions pourraient inclure le syndicalisme du lieu de travail et de communauté, les coopératives, les banques mutuelles et les autres formes de résistance anarchiste au capitalisme et à l'Etat. Nous discutons de ces solutions de remplacement plus en détail dans la section J.5, et ainsi ne le faisons pas ici.
Avant de passer à la section suivante, nous devons souligner que nous ne sommes pas à faire valoir que la classe ouvrière a besoin d'une crise économique pour le forcer à la lutte. Un tel «objectivisme» (c'est-à -dire le placement des tendances vers le socialisme dans le développement du capitalisme, de facteurs objectifs, plutôt que dans la lutte des classes, c'est-à -dire des facteurs subjectifs), il vaut mieux laisser aux marxistes orthodoxes et léninistes comme ça a des sous-jacents autoritaires (voir la section H ). Au contraire, nous sommes conscients que la lutte des classes, la pression subjective sur le capitalisme, n'est pas indépendante des conditions dans lesquelles elle a lieu (et contribue à créer, il faut ajouter). La révolte Subjective est toujours présente sous le capitalisme et, dans le cas de la crise des années 1970, elle a joué un rôle dans sa création. Face à une crise économique, nous indiquons ce que nous pouvons faire pour y répondre et comment il pourrait, potentiellement, se créer les tendances libertaires au sein de la société. La crise économique pourrait, en d'autres termes, provoquer des luttes sociales, des action collective et des tendances anarchiques dans la société. De même, il peut provoquer l'apathie, le rejet de la lutte collective, et peut-être, l'embrassant de fausses "solutions", telles que le populisme de droite, le léninisme, le fascisme ou le "libéralisme" d'extrême-droite. Nous ne pouvons pas prédire la manière dont l'avenir se développera, mais il est vrai que si nous ne faisons rien, alors, évidemment, les tendances libertaires ne grandiront et ne se développeront pas.
According to a report in Newsweek ("The Good Life and its Discontents"
Jan. 8, 1996), feelings of disappointment have devastated faith in
government and big business. Here are the results of a survey in which
which people were asked whether they had a "great deal of confidence" in
various institutions:
As can be seen, the public's faith in major companies plunged 36% over a
28-year period in the survey, an even worse vote of "no confidence" than
that given to Congress (34%).
Some of the feelings of disappointment with government can be blamed
on the anti-big-government rhetoric of conservatives and right-wing
populists. But such rhetoric is of potential benefit to anarchists as
well. Of course the Right would never dream of really dismantling the
state, as is evident from the fact that government grew more bureaucratic
and expensive under "conservative" administrations than ever before.
Needless to say, this "decentralist" element of right-wing rhetoric
is a con. When a politician, economist or business "leader" argues that
the government is too big, he is rarely thinking of the same government
functions you are. You may be thinking of subsidies for tobacco farmers
or defence firms and they are thinking about pollution controls. You may
be thinking of reforming welfare for the better, while their idea is to
dismantle the welfare state totally. Moreover, with their support for
"family values", "wholesome" television, bans on abortion, and so on
their victory would see an increased level of government intrusion in
many personal spheres (as well as increased state support for the power
of the boss over the worker, the landlord over the tenant and so on).
If you look at what the Right has done and is doing, rather than what
it is saying, you quickly see the ridiculous of claims of right-wing
"libertarianism" (as well as who is really in charge). Obstructing pollution
and health regulations; defunding product safety laws; opening national
parks to logging and mining, or closing them entirely; reducing taxes for
the rich; eliminating the capital gains tax; allowing companies to fire
striking workers; making it easier for big telecommunications companies
to make money; limiting companies' liability for unsafe products-- the
program here is obviously to help big business do what it wants without
government interference, and to help the rich get richer. In other
words, increased "freedom" for private power combined with a state
whose role is to protect that "liberty."
Yet along with the pro-business, pro-private tyranny, racist,
anti-feminist, and homophobic hogwash disseminated by right-wing
radio propagandists and the business-backed media, important
decentralist and anti-statist ideas are also being implanted
in mass consciousness. These ideas, if consistently pursued
and applied in all areas of life (the home, the community, the
workplace), could lead to a revival of anarchism in the US -- but
only if radicals take advantage of this opportunity to spread the
message that capitalism is not genuinely anti-authoritarian (nor
could it ever be), as a social system based on liberty must entail.
This does not mean that right-wing tendencies have anarchistic
elements. Of course not. Nor does it mean that anarchist fortunes
are somehow linked to the success of the right. Far from it (the
reverse is actually the case). Similarly, the anti-big government
propaganda of big business is hardly anarchistic. But it does
have the advantage of placing certain ideas on the agenda, such
as decentralisation. What anarchists try to do is point out the
totally contradictory nature of such right-wing rhetoric. After
all, the arguments against big government are equally applicable
to big business and wage slavery. If people are capable of
making their own decisions, then why should this capability
be denied in the workplace? As Noam Chomsky points out, while
there is a "leave it alone" and "do your own thing" current
within society, it in fact "tells you that the propaganda system
is working full-time, because there is no such ideology in the
U.S. Business, for example, doesn't believe it. It has always
insisted upon a powerful interventionist state to support its
interests -- still does and always has -- back to the origins
of American society. There's nothing individualistic about
corporations. Those are big conglomerate institutions,
essentially totalitarian in character, but hardly individualistic.
Within them you're a cog in a big machine. There are few
institutions in human society that have such strict hierarchy
and top-down control as a business organisation. Nothing there
about 'Don't tread on me.' You're being tread on all the time.
The point of the ideology is to try to get other people,
outside of the sectors of co-ordinated power, to fail to
associate and enter into decision-making in the political
arena themselves. The point is to atomise everyone else
while leaving powerful sectors integrated and highly
organised and of course dominating resources." He goes
on to note that:
As the opinion polls above show, must people direct their dislike
and distrust of institutions equally to Big Business, which shows
that people are not stupid. However, the slight decrease in distrust
for big business even after a period of massive business-lead class
war, down-sizing and so on, is somewhat worrying. Unfortunately, as
Gobbels was well aware, tell a lie often enough and people start
to believe it. And given the funds available to big business, its
influence in the media, its backing of "think-tanks," the use of
Public Relations companies, the support of economic "science," its
extensive advertising and so on, it says a lot for the common sense
of people that so many people see big business for what it is. You
simply cannot fool all the people all of the time!
However, these feelings can easily be turned into cynicism and a
hopelessness that things can change for the better and than the
individual can help change society. Or, even worse, they can be
twisted into support for the right, authoritarian, populist or
(so-called) "Libertarian"-Right. The job for anarchists is to
combat this and help point the healthy distrust people have
for government and business towards a real solution to societies
problems, namely a decentralised, self-managed anarchist society.
Another important factor working in favour of anarchists is the
existence of a sophisticated global communications network and a
high degree of education and literacy among the populations of
the core industrialised nations. Together these two developments
make possible nearly instantaneous sharing and public dissemination
of information by members of various progressive and radical
movements all over the globe -- a phenomenon that tends to reduce
the effectiveness of repression by central authorities. The
electronic-media and personal-computer revolutions also make
it more difficult for elitist groups to maintain their previous
monopolies of knowledge. In short, the advent of the Information
Age is potentially one of the most subversive variables in the
modern equation.
Indeed the very existence of the Internet provides anarchists with a
powerful argument that decentralised structures can function effectively
in today's highly complex world. For the net has no centralised
headquarters and is not subject to regulation by any centralised
regulatory agency, yet it still manages to function quite effectively.
Moreover, the net is also an effective way of anarchists and other
radicals to communicate their ideas to others, share knowledge and
work on common projects (such as this FAQ, for example) and co-ordinate
activities and social struggle. By using the Internet, radicals can
make their ideas accessible to people who otherwise would not come
across anarchist ideas (obviously we are aware that the vast majority
of people in the world do not have access to telephones, never mind
computers, but computer access is increasing in many countries, making
it available, via work, libraries, schools, universities, and so on
to more and more working people). In addition, and far more important
than anarchists putting their ideas across, the fact is that the net
allows everyone with access to express themselves freely, to communicate
with others and get access (by visiting webpages and joining mailing
lists and newsgroups) and give access (by creating webpages and joining
in with on-line arguments) to new ideas and viewpoints. This is
very anarchistic as it allows people to express themselves and start
to consider new ideas, ideas which may change how they think and act.
Of course most people on the planet do not have a telephone, let alone
a computer, but that does not undermine the fact that the internet is a
medium in which people can communicate freely (at least until it is
totally privatised, then it may prove to be more difficult as the net
could become a giant shopping centre).
Of course there is no denying that the implications of improved
communications and information technology are ambiguous, implying
Big Brother as well the ability of progressive and radical movements to
organise. However, the point is only that the information revolution in
combination with the other new social developments we are considering
could (but will not necessarily) contribute to a social paradigm
shift. Obviously such a shift will not happen automatically. Indeed, it
will not happen at all unless there is strong resistance to governmental
attempts to limit public access to information technology (e.g. encryption
programs) and censor citizens' communications.
How anarchists are very effectively using the Internet to co-ordinate
struggles and spread information is discussed in section J.4.9.
This use of the Internet and computers to spread the anarchist message
is ironic. The rapid improvement in price-performance ratios of
computers, software, and other technology today seems to validate
the faith in free markets. But to say that the information revolution
proves the inevitable superiority of markets requires a monumental
failure of short-term historical memory. After all, not just the
Internet, but the computer sciences and computer industry represent
a spectacular success of public investment. As late as the 1970s
and early 1980s, according to Kenneth Flamm's 1988 book Creating the
Computer, the federal government was paying for 40 percent of all
computer-related research and probably 60 to 75 percent of basic research.
Even such modern-seeming gadgets as video terminals, the light pen, the
drawing tablet, and the mouse evolved from Pentagon-sponsored research
in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Even software was not without state
influence, with database software having its roots in US Air Force
and Atomic Energy Commission projects, artificial intelligence in
military contracts back in the 1950s and airline reservation systems
in 1950s air-defence systems. More than half of IBM's Research and
Development budget came from government contracts in the 1950s and
1960s.
The motivation was national security, but the result has been the creation
of comparative advantage in information technology for the United States
that private firms have happily exploited and extended. When the returns
were uncertain and difficult to capture, private firms were unwilling to
invest, and government played the decisive role. And not for want of
trying, for key players in the military first tried to convince businesses
and investment bankers that a new and potentially profitable business
opportunity was presenting itself, but they did not succeed and it was
only when the market expanded and the returns were more definite that
the government receded. While the risks and development costs were
socialised, the gains were privatised. All of which make claims that
the market would have done it anyway highly unlikely.
Looking beyond state aid to the computer industry we discover a
"do-it-yourself" (and so self-managed) culture which was essential
to its development. The first personal computer, for example, was
invented by amateurs who wanted to build their own cheap machines.
The existence of a "gift" economy among these amateurs and hobbyists
was a necessary precondition for the development of PCs. Without this
free sharing of information and knowledge, the development of computers
would have been hindered. In other words, socialistic relations between developers and within the working environment created the necessary
conditions for the computer revolution. If this community had been
marked by commercial relations, the chances are the necessary
breakthroughs and knowledge would have remained monopolised by a
few companies or individuals, so hindering the industry as a whole.
The first 20 years of the Internet's development was almost completely
dependent on state aid -- such as the US military or the universities --
plus an anti-capitalist "gift economy" between hobbyists. Thus a
combination of public funding and community based sharing helped create
the framework of the Internet, a framework which is now being claimed
as one of capitalism's greatest successes!
Encouragingly, this socialistic "gift economy" is still at the heart
of computer/software development and the Internet. For example, the
Free Software Foundation has developed the General Public Licence
(GPL). GPL, also know as "copyleft", uses copyright to ensure that
software remains free. Copyleft ensures that a piece of software is
made available to everyone to use and modify as they desire. The only
restriction is that any used or modified copyleft material must remain
under copyleft, ensuring that others have the same rights as you did when
you used the original code. It creates a commons which anyone may add
to, but no one may subtract from. Placing software under GPL means that
every contributor is assured that she, and all other uses, will be able
to run, modify and redistribute the code indefinitely. Unlike commercial
software, copyleft code ensures an increasing knowledge base from which
individuals can draw from and, equally as important, contribute to. In
this way everyone benefits as code can be improved by everyone, unlike
commercial code.
Many will think that this essentially anarchistic system would be a
failure. In fact, code developed in this way is far more reliable and
sturdy than commercial software. Linux, for example, is a far superior
operating system than DOS, for example, precisely because it draws
on the collective experience, skill and knowledge of thousands of
developers. Apache, the most popular web-server, is another freeware
product and is acknowledged as the best available. While non-anarchists
may be surprised, anarchists are not. Mutual aid and co-operation are
beneficial in evolution of life, why not in the evolution of software?
For anarchists, this "gift economy" at the heart of the communications
revolution is an important development. It shows the superiority of
common development and the walls to innovation and decent products
generated by property systems. We hope that such an economy will
spread increasingly into the "real" world.
J.4.1 Why is social struggle a good sign?
"Direct action . . . means that the working class, forever
bridling at the existing state of affairs, expects nothing from
outside people, powers or forces, but rather creates its own
conditions of struggle and looks to itself for its methodology . . .
Direct Action thus implies that the working class subscribes to
notions of freedom and autonomy instead of genuflecting before
the principle of authority. Now, it is thanks to this authority
principle, the pivot of the modern world - democracy being its
latest incarnation - that the human being, tied down by a
thousand ropes, moral as well as material, is bereft of
any opportunity to display will and initiative."
[Direct Action]
"since the times of the [first] International Working Men's Association,
the anarchists have always advised taking an active part in those workers'
organisations which carry on the direct struggle of labour against
capital and its protector -- the State.
J.4.2 Won't social struggle do more harm than good?
"the workers of my generation from the early days up to now had
what you might call a labour insurrection in changing from a
plain, humble, submissive creature into a man. The union made
a man out of him. . . I am not talking about benefits . . . I am
talking about the working conditions and how they affected the
man in plant. . . Before they were submissive. Today they are
men." [quoted in Industrial Democracy in America, Nelson
Lichtenstein and Holwell John Harris (eds.), p. 204]
Quintile 1950-1978 1979-1993
Lowest 20% 138% -15%
2nd 20% 98 -7
3rd 20% 106 -3
4th 20% 111 5
Highest 20% 99 18
"If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who
profess to favour freedom and yet deprecate agitation are
people who want crops without plowing up the ground. They
want rain without thunder and lightning. That struggle might
be a moral one; it might be a physical one; it might be both
moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes
nothing without a demand. It never did and never will. People
might not get all that they work for in this world, but they
must certainly work for all they get."
J.4.3 Are the new social movements a positive development for anarchists?
"Production for need and use will not come from the employer. The
owners of production in a capitalist society will never begin to
take social priorities into account in the production process.
The pursuit of ever greater profits is not compatible with social
justice and responsibility." [Dissidence]
J.4.4 Qu'est ce que la "crise économique structurelle" ?
J.4.5 Pourquoi cette "crise structurelle economique" est importante pour la lutte sociale ?
J.4.6 What are implications of anti-government and anti-big business feelings?
1966 1975 1985 1994
Congress 42% 13% 16% 8%
Executive Branch 41% 13% 15% 12%
The press 29% 26% 16% 13%
Major Companies 55% 19% 17% 19%
"There is a streak of independence and individuality in
American culture which I think is a very good thing. This
'Don't tread on me' feeling is in many respects a healthy
one. It's healthy up to the point where it atomises and keeps
you from working together with other people. So it's got
its healthy side and its negative side. It's the negative
side that's emphasised naturally in the propaganda and
indoctrination." [Keeping the Rabble in Line, pp. 279-80]
J.4.7 What about the communications revolution?