Parecon & Anarchism
A necessary answer to Michael Albert
“If Kropotkin, Bakuninn, Emma Goldman and etc anarchists were alive; they would be in favour of Parecon”, M. Albert B-fest 30/5/09.
Parecon & Anarchism
A necessary answer to Michael Albert
“If Kropotkin, Bakuninn, Emma Goldman and etc anarchists were alive; they would be in favour of Parecon”, M. Albert B-fest 30/5/09.
This claim is nothing more than an unjustifiable hypothesis. Parecon may be an alternative thinking to capitalism, however it is not anarchist economics. Anarchism has been justified through the Spanish Civil War where much of Spain's economy was put under worker control; in anarchist strongholds like Catalonia, the figure was as high as 75%. Factories were run through worker committees, agrarian areas became collectivised and run as libertarian communes. It has been estimated by Sam Dolgoff, author of The Anarchist Collectives: Workers' Self-Management in the Spanish Revolution, that over 10 million people participated directly or at least indirectly in the Spanish Revolution. Even places like hotels, barber shops, and restaurants were collectivized and managed by their workers.
The communes were run according to the basic principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". In some places, money was entirely eliminated, to be replaced with vouchers; however, in practice these "vouchers" performed and functioned as money themselves. Despite the critics clamoring for "maximum efficiency" rather than revolutionary methods, anarchic communes often produced more than before the collectivization. In Aragon, for instance, the productivity increased by 20%. The newly liberated zones worked on entirely libertarian principles; decisions were made through councils of ordinary citizens without any sort of bureaucracy (it should be noted that the CNT-FAI leadership was at this time not nearly as radical as the rank and file members responsible for these sweeping changes).
From this point of view the Anarchist social transformation was accomplished in Spain during the civil war and no one can deny that. For three years the Anarchist collectives maintain, sustain and deliver Utopia into praxis. Economy will always be based on figures and this is an inevitable evil otherwise we may speak for economic fiction (Parecon is still fiction). The achievements of the Anarchist economics in the Spanish Civil War are evident: Three fiscal years & annual results for a revolutionary economy is something that did not happen by accident. The Spanish workers made Anarchism possible by rejuvenating crops and agriculture production, while developing heavy industry. In the case of economy they achieved full production, full employment that almost led to a non-existent unemployment for anyone willing to work, and reduced inflation to zero. These are very bold examples for a true social revolution.
But how did the Spanish Workers come to such results? This is the major anarchist insight: Undertake self action and responsibility by destroying the old world and instantly transforming the new one. All “revolutional” movements are trying to create a transformation based on social mobility: To occupy authority and power and climb up the social class; the worker to become white collar, the old slave to become a new master, member of the party, Bolsevik, and the list goes on for ever. On the contrary, Anarchism is different in this sense: It dictates that the worker should be empowered and released from its oppressor without being one. So this is the importance of the Spanish civil war the workers, after the uprising of July 19th , remain workers but now they work for themselves and their communities thatʼs why they succeed. An instant inspiration for experiencing the freedom now - not later, that became the powerful motive.
This is why Kropotikin, Bakuninn, Emma Goldman and all the anonymous anarchists will NEVER be in favour of Parecon. If Parecon as an organizational method wants to have any significance, it has to learn from the Spanish Civil war, the greatest social experiment of the last century. Spanish Anarchists show us with their lives how the world and society may be after capitalism. This is of course just an inspiring picture and not a generalized Sechtarian guidance for the future, otherwise it will be a Revolutionary Dystopia. To destroy capitalism is simple. The mistake of every revolutionary thinker and Michael Albert is not an exception, is that they try to reinvent the wheel, instead of learning how to use it. The last makes anarchism always a contemporary & significant social theory and movement. Social Anarchism always was a result of the legacy of Kropotkinʼs mutual aid, not simple reciprocity or Proudhons mutualism.
My humble suggestion is to explore the economics and history of social transformation of Spanish civil more. Although it is not perfect and ideal and has some flaws, you will be amazed by the rich examples and case studies that you will find and help you formulate a better approach. If we are impatient for freedom we need to learn from the mistakes and history of the past. This is a vital cognitive learning process that we have to develop to win the battle against capitalism and not get fooled again. Dedicated to the memory of Abel Pazz and all the beloved anonymous anarchistʼs men and women of the Spanish Civil war that sacrificed their lives for making Anarchy a viable reality.
For more information on the Spanish Revolution, the following books are recommended: Lessons of the Spanish Revolution by Vernon Richards; Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution and The CNT in the Spanish Revolution by Jose Peirats; Free Women of Spain by Martha A. Ackelsberg; The Anarchist Collectives edited by Sam Dolgoff; "Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship" by Noam Chomsky (in The Chomsky Reader); The Anarchists of Casas Viejas by Jerome R. Mintz; and Homage to Catalonia by George Orwell. And the Anarchist FAQ:A.5.6, I.3, I.8.
Argyris Argyriadis, B-fest, May 31st, 2009
This page can be viewed in
English Italiano Deutsch 
international |
history of anarchism |
opinion/analysis
Wednesday June 03, 2009 11:44
by A.A.
make this your Anarkismo.net front page
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (4 of 4)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4My two pence worth on Parecon:
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/few-thoughts-on-...recon
Regardless of whether it should replace libertarian communism or not (and my opinion is NOT), it would simply not work...
It confuses, like neo-classical economics, equations with reality.
So now we have heard it all; that Kropotkin would have supported the idea of Parecon. As if he had never written ‘The Wage System’;
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/kropotkin-pet...e.htm
In which he attacked the idea of a;
“State (reiteration board) which will undertake to find out if needs are disproportionate to deeds.”
Despite it good points the essay is also an outrage against the truth. The thing about Marx saying that skilled workers receive more than unskilled ones to pay for their apprenticeship or ‘reproduce their labour power’ was part of his analysis and criticism of capitalism not an endorsement or advocacy.
In fact Kropotkinist in former days was accused of ‘tilting at windmills’ when he was putting forward the ideas in ‘The Wage System’.
‘Marxist’ regarded the accusation by ‘Anarchists’ of them wishing to introduce, as a final objective at least, a system of "to each according to his services," as “either the result of stupidity, or it is despicable slander”.
From an unlikely source admittedly ie Stalin in 1906.
ANARCHISM or SOCIALISM
As you see, in Marx's opinion, the higher phase of communist (i.e., socialist) society will be a system under which the division of work into "dirty" and "clean," and the contradiction between mental and physical labour will be completely abolished, labour will be equal, and in society the genuine communist principle will prevail: from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Here there is no room for wage-labour.
http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/AS07.html#c3
And to demonstrate the ubiquity of the idea even amongst other shit heads.
Henry Mayers Hyndman, 1911
“A much more serious objection to Kropotkin and other Anarchists is their wholly unscrupulous habit of reiterating statements that have been repeatedly proved to be incorrect, and even outrageous, by the men and women to whom they are attributed. Time after time I have told Kropotkin, time after time has he read it in print, that Social-Democrats work for the complete overthrow of the wages system. He has admitted this to be so. But a month or so afterwards the same old oft-refuted misrepresentation appears in the same old authoritative fashion, as if no refutation of the calumny, that we wish to maintain wage-slavery, had ever been made.”
http://www.marxists.org/archive/hyndman/1911/adventure/....html
V. I. Lenin
From the Destruction of the Old Social System, To the Creation of the New
April 11, 1920
“Communist labour in the narrower and stricter sense of the term is labour performed gratis for the benefit of society, labour performed not as a definite duty, not for the purpose of obtaining a right to certain products, not according to previously established and legally fixed quotas, but voluntary labour, irrespective of quotas; it is labour performed without expectation of reward, without reward as a condition, labour performed because it has become a habit to work for the common good, and because of a conscious realisation (that has become a habit) of the necessity of working for the common good—labour as the requirement of a healthy organism.”
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/apr/11.htm
There are some objections to this kind of stuff. That some ‘Marxists’, not me, put forward a labour voucher system as a transitional measure to the final one, accepted.
And that the Parcon system is not a labour voucher system at all or, in some kind of Stalinist dialectical argument, that the Parecon remuneration system of balancing or finding the right proportion between needs and deeds isn’t a wages system, but a system of ‘pledges and promises’. Ignoring Etymology, I suppose.
Of course Karl did contemplate such a Parecon system and not too enthusiastically. Where the ‘Bank’, a metaphor, would be a;
“trustee of distribution, or it would indeed be nothing more than a (re-iteration) board which keeps the books and accounts for a society producing in common.”
Recognising the general kind of problems that a Parecon system would have to, and has attempted to solve namely;
“ It would have to determine the labour time in which commodities could be produced, with the average means of production available in a given industry, i.e. the time in which they would have to be produced. But that also would not be sufficient. It would not only have to determine the time in which a certain quantity of products had to be produced, and place the producers in conditions which made their labour equally productive (i.e. it would have to balance and to arrange the distribution of the means of labour), but it would also have to determine the amounts of labour time to be employed in the different branches of production.
The latter would be necessary because, in order to realize exchange value and make the bank’s currency really convertible, social production in general would have to be stabilized and arranged so that the needs of the partners in exchange were always satisfied.”
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundri...3.htm
There probably is a difference between a ‘straight forward’ labour voucher system and the statisticians of the Parecon system; and the filling out ‘state’ forms deciding how many rolls of toilet paper you intend to use, and the size of your arse.
Irrespective of the merits or lack of merits of Parecon, I think this article is very insightful on the inability of most anarchists to engage in debate with people that disagree with us, or that think differently, no matter how little difference there may be. I want to be absolutely constructive on this criticism, and if I feel compelled to do it, is because I think this style of "arguing" does not do any favour to anarchism at all, and works perfectly as counter-propaganda: we appear to be dogmatic, sectarian, etc. I could deal an awful lot with the extraordinarily imprecise and untrue claim that the Spanish Revolution immediately created a new world -but I think this simplistic misconception is secondary. The really striking problem with it is the style of arguing.
First of all, there is no substantive discussion on the differences between Parecon and libertarian communism, something absolutely necessary to introduce any difference of opinion. And whatever differences the author claim to exist, are immediately taken as two opposite absolute principles: whether is Parecon or us. And surely, the truth lies on "our" side (nevermind the fact that anarchism has not been able in 150 years of existence to produce a lasting revolution). After this, the argument turns increasingly circular: Parecon is wrong, because it does not fit our theories (and we know we are right). This is a typically dogmatic form of "debating".
Also, I don't think that someone "needs" to learn of the Spanish revolution before arriving to his or her own conclusions on today's problems and possible solutions, no matter how important the lessons from the Spanish revolution are. It is advisable to know the experience, that's fair enough, and we can use that experience to debate, but in no way I want to see it as the "permission card" to enter any debate, and in any case, the advice seems to me quite patronizing since Albert is a very knowledgable person and I'm sure is well conversant with the Spanish revolution (and actually with all major revolutions of the XXth Century).
Last but not least, to claim property and sure knowledge of the thought of long ago dead comrades (irrespective of what Michael Albert said) is nothing short of an act of religious fanaticism. To be sure, many times I've made the comment that if Bakunin was alive and saw many anarchist fora, he would rather have a heart attack. But from there to claim his thoughts on a particular economic doctrine such as Parecon, there's a long distance -even if we extensively quote this or that article of his.
I think that there is one merit to Parecon (even though I agree with Anarcho that it probably would not work, but the anarchism of the Spanish revolution in the 21st century, I'm afraid would not work either). This merit is the ability to try to think an alternative, along libertarian terms, to the current capitalist mess in a way none of the libertarian communist popes have been able to do. From that point of view, I think that it is only comradely to try to take whatever useful on it, let's try to debate looking for points of agreement and telling them apart from the genuine disagreements and see discuss the differences with an eye to build an alternative. Sectarians scan for the differences and then throw into the litter bin any idea that is not "exactly the same" as theirs. And sometimes they attack with a greater zeal those who are closer to them, in political terms, than their real class enemies.
I'd like to see a debate on Parecon (or for that matter, Bookchin's municipalism, etc., etc.) that is not so "black" and "white" and that addresses the bad want of alternatives and how welcome any new idea is.
To the author of this article:
Boiling this down, you stated that Parecon is antithetical to an anarchist economics because the 1930s Spanish anarchists succeeded in producing. But how did they succeed? Did they not have structural failures?
There was next to no specific commentary on Parecon as a proposal; you provided knee jerk reaction. There is so much romanticism in this article that it's hard to find a serious point here. I would really like a counterproposal, not "the Spanish anarchists wouldn't like this!"
To the author of the previous comment:
Yeah.