Following the meeting of the New Anarchist Research Group on 25th May, we hope to publish a few extracts or summaries from the writings of its subject, M P T Acharya, translated from French publications unearthed by the speaker., Ole Laursen, in the course of research for a biography.
Further information about Acharya is available on Dr Laursen's blog. The first piece is from a 1930 issue of the French paper l'en dehors.
Further information about Acharya is available on Dr Laursen's blog. The first piece is from a 1930 issue of the French paper l'en dehors.
Anarchism and Voluntary Associations
Summary of argument in an article by M P T Acharya
(based on unpublished translation)
The subject of voluntary association, as discussed by Brand in L'en dehors with reference to creating those associations in the economic sphere... is a most important one. I am convinced personally that economic association of this kind (which would enable individuals as much as communists to participate, as well as other anarchists) is not only possible, but is among the easiest to bring about. If it is neither possible nor easy, that amounts to saying that anarchists have nothing better to offer than a philosophy and a religion: the promise of a better life in another world. Well, anarchism must open the way to a better economic world down here - it must be in a position to provide the lever that everyone can operate to raise up humanity, pull it out of the present chaos and shift it on to the path of unlimited progress. To get there, anarchists need to distance themselves on a daily basis not only from the path of anarchist 'tradition' of one kind or another but from the path they've followed up to now.
But... I continue to
believe that economic anarchism cannot have to do with means of exchange and
its implications, money or paper credits. All
exchange must necessarily lead to capitalism - and to conflict of interest. The idea of exchange is a capitalist idea, better
suited to marxism: whether it's a prostitute hiring out her body for money, a
married woman living with a man because of some kind of 'love', the worker
selling his physical and mental capacities for a wage paid out by the state
(even one comprised of his comrades)... That is why I am for the abolition of the notion of exchange in
anarchism. Either you are happy with production and enjoyment TOGETHER, or not:
if yes, you are anarchists. Otherwise you are impelled by another interest,
production, and the various ways of joining together (associations) are
only means to your ends - and what you are going after is dictatorship, yours
or that of others.
Anarchism without exchange means production in common and enjoyment in common as the only
logical solution, and the simplest, in anarchist terms. How can we make this a reality? It looks
very difficult, almost impossible at first sight, so that all we have to fall
back on are capitalist mechanisms of exchange, in other words, exchange via the
dictatorship of a party (elected or slf-appointed)
over the rest. The apparent difficulty or impossibility arises quite simply
from a lack of synthesis in our thinking.
What does anarchism demand? The
annihilation of dictatorship, euphemistically called regulation, by one party
over the rest. This annihilation can only be made effective by direct democracy,
that is by making authorities, even those elected locally or by a wider geographical
area, useless and impossible. The idea of 'direct democracy' implies acceptance
of the principle of individual sovereignty in regard to what concerns the
individual when it comes to choosing which association he [or she] wants to join... He chooses the one
that suits him or puts forward new ideas about how associations might function.
No-one can exist without associating...
The idea of anarchism is to act in such a way that through the variety of its
aspects association will include all human beings without exception. Any
exclusivity, any ruling-out of association is contrary to anarchism, aristocratic,
dictatorial, whether or not anarchists are involved.
Direct democracy (founded on
anarchism) cannot be possible between individuals located in opposite corners of
the world. Its realisation must begin first with those closest to each other,
and through them, economically speaking, be applied throughout the world.
If each locality is anarchist and
all localities cooperate, nothing would be easier than to establish economic
anarchism among them all on the basis of production and enjoyment in common. No
need for any exchange of products such as is considered 'necessary' by both individualist
and communist anarchists. Production in common leads to the avoidance of
exchange and implies the need for equal or fair distribution - not to individuals receiving it personally, but to all the
inhabitants of the locality or area. This distribution will happen from time to
time and will include useful items and objects of comfort or luxury, shared
out either equally or fairly - as agreed in advance - within the bounds of
possibility. This arrangement rules out any intervention
from outside in the economic life of the local unit. It is the only anarchist
type of economic administration; any other form necessarily lapses into
centralisation.
Before taking any steps in this
direction, the principles I've just outlined should be spread not only among
anarchists but also among the non-anarchist working class, those who are not resolutely
anti-anarchist. For state socialists and individuals we would
need to initiate particular discussions to show them that their positions -
individual or statist - won't last long and will bring no solution for them... We have to
show them that the present system of retail buying and selling cannot last
long, because of the alliance of the most important businessmen, industrialists
and farmers with the big financiers. Sooner or later they will find themselves
empty-handed in the labour market. Then they'll have to decide between state
capitalism or social anarchism with
direct democracy (where there are only equals and friends), between
dictatorship and freedom, for they can never hope to recover their vanished
capital. It will be too late for them then to embark on anything voluntary. Today is
the time to create voluntary associations on an anarchist basis or to lose
everything they have, even their hopes.
Given that anarchists haven't yet
got enough equipment or capital to build their own organisations - those of
Europe at least, as far as a non-European like me can judge - it is necessary
to push this propaganda among non-anarchists, especially in the countryside. So
let's see anarchists who own land, capital or means of production uniting to produce and
consume on an anarchist basis, that is without exchange or credits.
If it could be shown in this
way to all the others that anarchists of all shades can get along with no more
money than what was needed to start them off, without the system of exchanging
or of wages, without buying or selling among themselves at a profit or loss,
those 'others' will open their eyes and see that it is a question of life or death,
and they too can be brought to join the anarchists on a voluntary associationist
basis. They will realise that, in fact, if undertaken on a larger scale, this
economic organisation would put an end to all the 'crises' and that they would thus
be sure of going on living, in a better way and without risk.
Anarchism consists of
independent economic life with well-being for all - the non-anarchists will be
happy working with the anarchists on an equal footing until they become
anarchists.
If the solution I've proposed can't
succeed among anarchists, the only remaining alternative*, among anarchists and sympathisers capable of providing employment, is to issue credits and employ a workforce in such a way that workers would be sheltered from
unemployment, free from money and stagnation...
*******************
[An editorial postscript took issue with some of the above]
We note that the word anarchist means absence of state or
government authority, hence the uselessness of state and government for
regulating people's inter-relationships. What those relations should be is up
to the anarchists themselves and given the multiplicity of points of view,
desires and personal aspirations it seems unlikely that one universal rule of
conduct, even economic, can be predicated or wished for... [I]t is just as anarchistic to practise
the exchange of products, from the economic point of view, as not to do so, to
use an exchange value as not, to employ the method of advances, credits, etc.
as that of piling up and taking. But none of those ways of understanding the
relations between individuals would bring a return to statism and unification
in any sphere. And that is what is anarchistic: the coexistence of varied systems
of economic life - competing with each other - is the only firm guarantee that
can stand against statism or unification.... - E.A.
Related Links to examples* referred to by MPTA in the original:
Further comments and contributions to the debate would be welcome.
No comments:
Post a Comment