#WORLD #WORLDWIDE #FRANCE #ANARCHISM #News #Journal #Update - (en) France, UCL AL #322- Politics, Libertarian economy: the communist "catch in the heap", critiques and perspectives (ca, de, it, fr, pt)[machine translation]

 In the previous issue of Alternative Libertaire, the taking in the pile - the

possible system of distribution of goods and services produced by a
post-capitalist society - was presented in its content and from a historical
point of view. This system raises, however, several questions as to the abundance
of resources and the place of production that it implies. ---- The "taking in the
heap", imagined by Pierre Kropotkine and discussed since the end of the XIX E
century by the libertarians, raises several questions as for its implementation
during and after the revolution.
The first of these questions concerns the prerequisite of a high degree of
awareness of the instigators of this singular distribution modality, combined
with the high level of consensus expected, making it possible to go so far from
the early days of the revolutionary upheaval.

The possibility that these two conditions are met exists but its probability is
likely to be reduced with the increase in the extent of the zone liberated from
capitalism and its degree of urbanization. Taking the example of the Spanish
village of Calanda during the Spanish Revolution of 1936 [1], which comes very
close to the capture of the Kropotkine heap, membership in this village, whose
activity was mainly agricultural, was a voluntary and quasi-general fact since
those who did not want to participate in this system were only "about fifteen,
twenty, out of five thousand inhabitants, that is to say very few." [2]

Reorganize production to limit rationing
And while, on a larger scale, some (rather agricultural) regions of Spain have
also been able to implement libertarian communism, it has not always taken such
an advanced form as in Calanda. Not to mention the more industrial regions, such
as Catalonia, which have nevertheless very clearly acquired anarcho-syndicalism,
which have not gone so far, without having to blush at the extent or intensity of
collectivizations. of realized companies and administrations, materializing the
libertarian ideal.

The second question relates to the state of productive disorganization, resulting
from the upheaval linked to the transition from one societal regime to another,
of which Kropotkin is however fully aware even if he minimizes its duration.
Indeed, this disorganization certainly allows the implementation of certain
features of the taking in the pile, such as the reduction in the use of monetary
use for the benefit of barter or donation and counter-donation, or the initial
seizure and distribution. accumulated stocks built up under capitalism, although
it is not certain, moreover, that these stocks are so abundant as to allow them
to be taken in the heap and that it does not then appear necessary that they be
rationed in order to be used sustainably ...

But this disorganization can also negatively affect other conditions of the
socket. This is particularly, and evidently, the case with the production of
goods and services. Of course, lucid, the libertarians have always put forward
the imperative need to immediately restart most productive activities, and in
particular those deemed essential (as illustrated by the anarcho-syndicalist
slogan of "general strike manager").

However, the immediate overall situation with which the population may be
confronted will not necessarily be favorable to maintaining a high level of
production, covering at least each of the basic needs (not to speak of desires)
guaranteeing that the threshold is reached. of relative abundance.

This is why, in past experiences, this abundance was always extremely limited in
variety, that is to say with regard to all the current goods and services of the
time (let's leave aside the "superfluous" ), and, very often also, on a regular
basis ...

Generalized abundance is therefore more of a medium or long-term goal than a very
short-term goal. The very short-term goal will then be above all to limit
rationing, which, it should be remembered ?, constitutes one of the opposites of
taking in the pile.

Towards a different free system
A third issue is added to these questions, that of free access to resources.
Indeed, to offer, without any expectation of exchange [3], goods and services
which, in fact, are always expensive, if only in time spent in their production,
in use of labor and materials , lost for any other activity, has important
implications. The most consequent is to require, by repercussion upstream, the
gratuity of the means of production (labor and capital) engaged for this one.

The donation of final products requires the donation of means of production, in
other words imposes, in all sectors concerned by the final heaping, the
generalization of free at all levels, without allowing exceptions. We immediately
see the high constraint which joins, by reinforcing it, the first question of
social acceptance [4].

This does not however call into question the aspiration to be offered free of
charge, in a libertarian economy and society, the use of a certain number of
goods and services, whatever their cost, including economic ones. However, this
free service could then only be a facade, like what certain public services are
today, such as primary and secondary public education, part of health, public
roads, etc., including the activity has an economic cost which is in fact mainly
financed indirectly (through compulsory levies).

A sort of apparent pile-up, it has however little to do with that thought by
Kropotkine ... In addition, products at zero or almost zero marginal cost could
also be the subject of free, real this one. , at least from the moment when any
initial production costs are amortized (financed), like many products in the
digital sector (software, collaborative platforms, etc.) and in the knowledge
sector, including digital distribution post-completion is generally at almost
zero cost.

Finally, the last question raised here is another fundamental question, linked to
abundance itself. If it is consubstantial with the project of economy and
libertarian society that human needs and desires are satisfied, these must not be
dissociated from the project itself. Now, what are the libertarians aiming for?
Individual and collective well-being. And this is very far from being reduced to
the sphere of material satisfaction. Moreover, the material in the broad sense
cannot prevail over all the other dimensions of human life, constitutive of this
good living. Social ties and their nature, preservation of the ecological
environment, etc., should not be relegated to the background.

Abundance of goods or productivism ?
However, the abundance of products, in any case such as it was, in a dominant
way, envisaged in the XIX E century (thus including by Kropotkine), but also in
the essential of the XX E century, fits clearly in an outlook that can be
qualified as a "growthist". This growthism or ideology of the quantitative
increase in products, inherited from capitalism, and which has led to the
impoverishment of our social world and to the irreparable destruction of our
ecological environment, cannot be taken up, either as it is, or in any other
form. Abundance can no longer be excess, waste, degradation, but balance,
limitation, preservation. It must be at a minimum rethought, connected with a
form of self-limitation of material desires, and with it, the dimension of full
freedom which contributes to founding the grip on the pile.

Thus, taking in the pile was, and remains today, an emblematic formula, making
very easily grasp what communism could be, in one of its distributive forms.
However, the formula and expected, as thought in the XIX th century, certainly
have had their day. Indeed, once these latter, in their generalization, are no
longer granted to the conditions of the present, it is legitimate and decisive to
reconsider them, as well as the formula which summarizes them, if we sincerely
wish to transform our world.

Frédéric Antonini

Author of For a libertarian economy. Tracks and reflections , published by Nada
editions in 2019.
COLLECTIVISM OU COMMUNISM

The two terms, which have had fluctuating meanings throughout history, imply the
socialization of the means of production, but differ in the distribution of
wealth. The formula of collectivism, "To each according to his works", implies
that each one is remunerated according to the work which he provides.
Collectivism therefore supposes defining a work value, based on time, effort or
task. This idea, defended by Marx and Bakunin, rallied in 1869 the majority of
the International. But, in 1876, French and Italian anarchists contested it,
arguing that quantifying individual work would generate a bloated administration,
the embryo of a new statism.

They advocate communism, based on the formula "From each according to his means,
to each according to his needs" - and no need to quantify. In 1879-1880, the
nascent anarchist movement definitively opted for communism. Only the Spaniards
remained faithful to Bakuninian collectivism, until in 1919 the CNT in turn
adopted libertarian communism. In France, from around 1900 to 1920, "communist"
was almost synonymous with anarchist, while the The term "collectivist" refers to
the Marxists, supporters of the nationalization of the economy. After 1917, the
meaning of the word communism was upset due to its appropriation by the
Leninists, but the libertarian current continues to use it with its own meaning.

Guillaume Davranche (UCL Montreuil)

To validate

[1] "The communist" taking in the heap ", at the origins of an idea", Alternative
libertaire from November 2021.

[2] Miguel Celma, in Collective Equipo Juvenil Confederal, The Collective of
Calanda 1936-1938. The social revolution in an Aragonese village. The testimony
of Miguel Celma , Éditions CNT, 1997.

[3] Absence of a counterpart which is added to Kropotkin's proposition of an
engagement in the activity of production based on voluntary service, even if most
people, in the new society and economy, will have internalized the need to work
in the interest of all and that, as working conditions have radically changed,
work will have become (more) "pleasant".

[4] What I thus evoked in Pour une economy libertaire : "As long as a society is
not in a position to arouse free and generalized adhesion to free and voluntary
work, which authorizes the disappearance of material costs, and hence the free,
free and general supply of products, necessity leads most organized producers to
opt for more economical forms of distribution. The purpose of these forms is in
fact to make it possible to recover production costs so that each activity can be
pursued in the most sustainable manner."

https://www.unioncommunistelibertaire.org/?Economie-libertaire-la-prise-au-tas-communiste-critiques-et-perspectives
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca