Anarcho-Syndicalism

Anarcho-syndicalism 

by Giancarlo Melini

“There is mutuality, in fact, when in an industry, all the workers, instead of working for an owner who pays them and keeps their product, work for each other and thereby contribute to a common product from which they share the profit."  Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

Some time ago I was watching this show called "Undercover Boss", which basically consists on CEOs, presidents, owners and managers of large corporations that temporarily leave their privileged positions to take the role of an average employee. In this process they also try to relate in a personal level with their co-workers, "being friends with them" if you will, in order to find out their personal and working necessities. At the end, these Atlas-like bosses reveal their true identities to their employees and let them know that they were a part of this experiment. Then a series of over acted drama begins as the "good" bosses give the humble and thankful hard workers a number of gifts to reward their dedicated labor and let them know they are appreciated in the company. The funny thing is that these corporations make dozens of millions of dollars a year, and yet they give each employee an equivalent of a few thousands of dollars in benefits to show how "merciful, thoughtful, kind and emphatic" they are with the people that actually produce the wealth they enjoy. It's sickening how this bosses give some crumbs to "the plebs" as these rejoice in their misery. But that wasn't what caught my attention the most.

I've seen about half a dozen episodes of this show, and I've noticed two things that are common on these so called “successful” entrepreneurs that appear every week, that is actually pathetic:

1) All of them (at least in the episodes I've watched) inherited their businesses. They enjoy their comfortable positions because their fathers or grandfathers (or even great grandfathers) made an enormous effort to create a successful and profitable enterprise from the ground up so their descendants could enjoy a rich and easy life. That might explain why they need to be in this show in order to find out what the necessities of the average people/workers are. They even make "entertainment" out of their trip of empathy to a normal employee's life.  

2) None of them could actually perform the simplest tasks that are the core component of the entire business activity of their companies. They are not able to operate the machinery, to assemble the products, to maintain production standards, to sell the products to the costumer, and many other activities involved in the whole manufacturing and commercialization processes. They basically know nothing about their own businesses. The only thing this "clever" business men do in their normal workday is seat on a meeting room and make decisions that affect thousands of workers (negatively in many cases) so they can put more money into their own pockets, disregarding the social and environmental costs. Profit first, customers second, workers last.

Many capitalism apologists would argue that without the wise leadership of this fine second or third generation entrepreneurs businesses would cease to produce benefit for the owners, for the workers and for the customers. In many cases this isn't true. This bosses have the means -money they inherited- to hire skilled, experienced and ruthless managers and advisers who can run things better than them, more efficiently and for a relatively affordable cost, so this people don't need to take full responsibility for the functioning of their own enterprises, and certainly don't need to have intelligence, skills and work ethics to stay in the privileged positions they undeservingly hold. For many people capitalism -liberalism- means meritocracy, but this is a clear example it isn't.  

These individuals think they are the pillars of society, the heart of the economy, the engines of prosperity, the minds behind progress and the support in which we all rest upon, and without them our way of life would cease to exist. They are the masters of the game, they are the job creators, they are the owners of capital, they possess the means of production, they are the reason we enjoy technological marvels and high standards of living. Without this Atlas-like individuals the average hard working people would be doomed, wouldn't know what to do for themselves in order to achieve a decent life. But the reality is quite the opposite. In most cases these people are nothing but lucky individuals that were privileged with a life they often don't deserve, nothing more than parasites of the labor of their subordinates. Many of them have never lived the stress that the average person/worker -the real producers- have to go thru in order to survive on a daily basis, and the sad part is that the work force, the heart of society, are many times considered second class citizens, people whose rights have to be abolished for the sake of profit and "progress". The bosses never seek to give their employees a fair compensation for the work they perform because it might affect the accumulation of wealth they viciously seek. This is madness!

Just let us think... what would this world be like without the real producers, workers, farmers... the proletarians? Complete scarcity, complete poverty, complete chaos. We have to recognize that our society is powered by the people that get the worse treatment on this system. They produce abundance and yet they live in scarcity, they are granting all of us access to resources, and they are despised by many, they educate the best they can to perform meaningless, mundane task that undermine their intelligence, and yet they are accused of being dumb, lazy, mediocre or simply inferior. If you want to know what real injustice looks like just take a walk on your city and you'll see a considerable amount of unfairness. 

But all of that makes me wonder... What would be a fair system that actually rewards people according to the value of what they produce? What would be a better way to achieve a higher standard of living for everyone, and not privilege the owners over the producers? a system that would consider workers people instead of resources? a system where everyone can fairly enjoy the fruits of their labor? My humble opinion is that anarcho-syndicalism integrated with mutualism and collectivism would be the way to achieve a transition to a post-scarcity society.

“Either Property will overrule the Republic, or the Republic will overrule Property”.  Pierre-Joseph Proudhon 

Definitions

Semantics is often a problem that makes communication difficult between human beings, and conflict surges where there is misunderstanding and misinterpretation of ideas. In order to prevent this to happen, and truly understand exactly how anarcho-syndicalism would work -as I personally envision it-, it's important to define some terms. Note that I will define these terms as I understand them and they're still subject to interpretation due to the deficient design of the languages we use today, as Jacque Fresco and Alfred Korzybski have pointed out in many occasions.

1) Anarchism: Is an ideology or political philosophy that diminishes any form of hierarchical organization because it is considered undesirable, unnecessary and harmful to society. It advocates for complete self governance and voluntary associations. It claims that a stateless society would be a perfect environment for human development, enhancing individual liberties.

Pure anarchism is theoretically and practically unfeasible, mainly because we don't live in a world of our own (meaning the world isn't only for ourselves), and there has to be some limits to the actions of human beings that affect others, and in order to enforce those limits there has to be some sort of institution that holds the authority to prevent abuses to happen. That is why anarchy is associated with chaos, because it may result in that if it is not implemented correctly. There are many other reasons of why anarchism is not a viable model to organize a society, but I will not elaborate on them because it is not the subject of this note. Yet it is important to mention that many branches of anarchism have been developed, and in some degrees they have been successfully implemented in many industrialized countries, as further explained.

2) Syndicalism: Is a type of economic system which uses federations of collectivized trade or industrial unions to control the means of production and guide the economy towards favorable conditions to workers.

In practice, syndicalism on itself doesn't work without the intervention of the state as and equilibrium force between the capitalists and the workers. Regulation is required in order to limit the action of unions and to protect their existence.

3) Anarcho-syndicalism: Is one of the major forms of social anarchism. Anarcho-syndicalism combines the economic methods of syndicalism -workers democratic self management- with the revolutionary politics of anarchism -abolishment of state intervention-. 

It seeks the workers ownership of the means of production and the abolition of the wage system. This means that workers would be the owners of the companies they work for, and they would profit from its success, and lose from their failure. Workers would actually receive a proper and proportional compensation from the product of their labor. Anarcho-syndicalism regards the state as an complete anti-worker institution and it states the primary purpose of the state is the defense of private property (as in capitalist property) and therefore promotes economic, social and political privilege to those who have the power to acquire it. The states protect ownership abuse and profit at any cost, even when such protections deny the citizens the ability to enjoy material independence and the social autonomy which derives from it. The well being of the individual and its harmony with the collectivity are the aims of this radical ideology. It is called "radical" because it goes against the established rules in politics, economics, law and social conventionalities.

4) Mutualism: Is an economic theory and anarchist school of thought that envisions a society based on a labor theory of value. It holds that when labor or its product is sold, in exchange, the worker must receive goods or services equivalent to "the amount of labor necessary to produce it in exactly the similar and equal utility" according to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.

Mutualism basically states that no one can benefit from something he did not produced or worked for. A landlord who holds property over land and doesn't work to produce something out of it, under no circumstance has the right to obtain a rent or profit out of it. Other examples would be investors, bankers, brokers, loans, heirs, etc. It is logical that no one should accumulate wealth if he didn't work for it, it's justice. Today's economic system works very differently. Wealth is hoarded by taking advantage of the work of others, the labor force gets paid cents for producing goods that are worth millions in the market place, and of course that surplus is the profit that the owner of the means of production perceives, and almost never deserves. In essence, if you don't work in an activity that is relevant to produce wealth, abundance and profit, you should not receive any pay.

5) Collectivism: Is a philosophic, political, economic, or social outlook that emphasizes the interdependence of every human being. It gives more priority to group goals over individual goals and the importance of cohesion within social groups. In practice it could be essentially defined as a group of people working together towards a common objective or goal, which in many cases is the well being of everyone involved.

Collectivism should be partially integrated in any organization that seeks sustainable development and well being for every member. The individual well being can only be achieved if the conditions that surround the person allow it. We are social beings and as long as we live with other people we must behave in a manner that also allows others to be happy. The absurd statement that the individual actions, led by an invisible hand, will benefit the whole society by pursuing personal goals, has been proven false in many occasions in practice, and example of this is that countries that apply this classic-liberal ideas have enormous rates of inequality, social stress and class mobilization. Collectivism cannot be totally implemented into any system, because it would result in repression to the individual and authoritarian will of the masses, so it has to be balanced between the individual aspirations and society's well being.

"Political Freedom without economic equality is a pretense, a fraud, a lie; and the workers want no lying."  Mikhail Bakunin

Anarcho-syndicalism, mutualism and collectivism applied to modern society as a transition to achieve a post-scarcity civilization.

A global society based on a set of truly just values would enable the entire humanity to thrive, and would be based upon cooperation, self and social best interest -equally-, increasing well being instead of profit and total caring of the environment, obtaining abundance of and access to resources, empathy, solidarity, open source knowledge and sustainability of any sort of practices. We know the previous values are totally opposite to competition, profit incentive, best self interest, egoism, resource hoarding, social status and property acquisition, which have forged our civilization for millennia. It is an evident truth that today's values are not sustainable and will eventually lead humanity to its own demise if not changed, mainly because of the destruction/exploitation of precious resources and detriment of the natural environment which supports life. The question is: How would this new civilization be like? How could we implement it? What can we do now?

In my humble opinion, societies based on cooperation, collective objectives, common good, access to resources and abundance already exist and are not only functional, but the most advanced in the world. The Scandinavian countries -Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden- and Germany are good examples of how high levels of unionization -syndicalisation as I like to call it- translate into well being of the entire population. Those countries have the highest standards of living of the whole world and are classified amongst the happiest. Their economies are not oriented on making money exclusively, but also in producing well being and common good. They call this "social markets". German working paradigm is called "Gute Arbeit" in English "good labor", meaning that work must be dignifying activity, oriented to cause benefits to person one executing the labor in the highest measure possible. People have the right to earn a substantial and just portion of the fruit of their labor, not the lowest possible (minimum wage where it exists). Unions -syndicates- in these societies have an enormous impact in the industry, politics, economy, culture and education. Unions have a significant control over the means of production, they have a say on the board of the corporations, and they do function on behalf of the well being of the workforce. This system has proven to be the most stable and productive in the history of humanity, mainly because it guarantees an equal distribution of wealth amongst masses, which provokes more freedom for everyone. As Mikhail Bakunin once stated: "You cannot talk about political freedom without talking about economic equality".

It is my notion that the nations previously cited are not only the most productive in the world, but they also provide all the necessary tools to their citizens in order to become self sufficient by guaranteeing easy access to the means of production to satisfy their needs. In some places of Germany it is a policy that every new building being constructed has to have a built-in alternative energy production system, like solar panels and wind turbines. This will gradually lead the people to an abundant supply of energy and hence power independence. Food production is also starting to be home made, as the advancements of hydroponics, aquaponics and permaculture keeps rising. Manufacturing is also a revolutionary paradigm, as 3D printers keep improving and start producing a more extensive variety of goods. Imagine an individual household being able to generate its own energy, harvest its own food and manufacturing its own products. That would be the true meaning of independence, abundance and well being. A new social order would emerge, basing the economy not in growth, scarcity and consumption, but in sustainability, efficiency, abundance and access.

Now I will analyse the role of anarcho-syndicalism, mutalism and collectivism in the trasition to a post-scarcity economy.

Anarcho-syndicalism is a philosophy that truly enables people to be free. In a system whre people get a proper reward in proportion to what they produce, a certain feeling of justice is felt. Equal reward for equal work is what mutualism is about. People are more likely to be motivated when they are compensated fairly, not necessarily because they are getting wealthier, buy because there is general sentiment of fairness, justice and equality. Anarcho-syndicalist societies tend to be very mutualistic because workers get well compensated for what they do, and they even have a say regarding the direction of the company they work for. In Germany, as said earlier, workers feel they are an important part of the industry, and that is because they actually are. Without them no progress would ever be achieved, that is why a system has to guarantee that the producers -workers- get a substantial portion of the goods they produced with their labor. A clear example of how mutualism works in practice, and how it creates equality -a necessary condition for a person's well being-, is the income difference between CEO's and average workers in USA compared to Germany and the Nordic Countries. In USA, a society in which the workers get rewarded according to the laws of supply and demand, the average CEO earns about 350 times the amount the average worker does. Contrary to the Nordic Countries and Germany, where salaries are not only based on the laws of supply and demand but by union and government intervention, the average CEO's earn only about 15 times the amount the average worker does. The result, everyone enjoys a very high standard of living and the social stress and resentment caused by inequality and hierarchical stratification is nonexistent. People live happier in workers self management societies and mutualistic compensation. Regarding this matter, there is a study by Richard Wilkinson entitled "How economic inequality harms societies". 

This is a clear path to a post-scarcity society because in a more egalitarian society all people enjoy the proper conditions to become productive, hence self sufficient in the long term. Educated, healthy and happy people are more likely to become problem solvers when they don't have to worry about what they are going to be eating the next day, or how to pay the hospital bill, or where their children are going to study. A system that gradually guarantees all these benefits to their population enhances freedom, and keeps people from submission to the will of others. It's a synergistic system, contrary to what Austrian economists such as F.A. Hayek often stated. Today there are clear examples that prove Hayek's theory about the "planners" wrong.

Synergy brings us to collectivism. That is word feared by many because for them it involves the domination of the minority by the majority, the vanishing of the individual inside the mass. That is not the case at all. Collectivism means a common objective, and working cooperatively to achieve it. We humans are social beings, we rely on each other and society for our survival, so it is only logical that we establish common objectives and common strategies to achieve them. People working together for the benefit of the whole is the next level of society. That is the essence of the Scandinavian and German welfare state. Although the administration of resources by a public entity is not the best way to achieve freedom and happiness, a good path is a functional welfare state that gradually delegates more functions to communal and local governments, and these to the communes and individuals. People working toward the same path, the common good.

A post-scarcity society powered by a resource based economy is feasible, and the best way to achieve it is implementing an anarcho-syndicalist-mutalist-collectivist society.

"A federated, decentralized system of free associations incorporating economic as well as social institutions would be what I refer to as Anarcho-syndicalism, and it seems to me that it is the appropriate form of social organization for an advanced technological society in which human beings do not have to be forced into positions of tools, of cogs in a machine, in which the creative urge that I think is intrinsic in human nature will in fact be able to realize itself in whatever way it will." - Noam Chomsky