For any advanced society, particularly an industrial one, it is necessary to have a well structured system of political economy capable of providing those functions which we find desirable or at the very least necessary in a government. Among those functions is the regulation of private commerce, securing of the domestic order, defense from extrinsic threats, and prevention of disparate resource allocation by provision of equal opportunity, protection of basic social welfare, and maintenance of freedom by operating in a minimally imposing manner.
The Poverty of Political Philosophy
By Nathan Jaco
For any advanced society, particularly an industrial one, it is necessary to have a well structured system of political economy capable of providing those functions which we find desirable or at the very least necessary in a government. Among those functions is the regulation of private commerce, securing of the domestic order, defense from extrinsic threats, and prevention of disparate resource allocation by provision of equal opportunity, protection of basic social welfare, and maintenance of freedom by operating in a minimally imposing manner.
Presently we are to set about the task of evaluating various forms of government for their suitability in meeting these ends. Among these various systems of government are a princedom, a republic, and the one which I favor, as you will come to understand, an anarcho-syndicalist arrangement or order of free association if you will.
It is my belief that an order of free association is superior in maximizing individual choice while providing the essential amount of collective action necessary to improve quality of life to those standards many of us enjoyed (though all of us should enjoy) today.
Though my investigation into this matter is essentially based on the urgent need to purport prescriptive information, I will try to be as descriptive as possible. I will first describe in some detail the princedom and the republican governments theoretically constructed by eminent scholars of the bygone era in the first and second parts. Then in the final part I will outline the communal government that I propose as a solution to our worldly woes.
To preface my discussion of the princedom and the republic, let me say that the conservative princedom and the liberal republic are two forms of government which are capable of promoting to some degree all of the above goals which I stated were the functions of government. However, they are aligned along two overlapping and often competing axes. The first axis is the conservative axis, which focuses relatively greater amounts of attention on securing domestic order, international defense, and protection of private commerce. The second axis is the liberal axis, which is also concerned with discipline, defense, and commerce, but is comparatively inclined towards promoting the equitable distribution of resources and protection of social welfare.
The princedom is principally notable for its expediency in maintaining social order given the breadth and severity of threats posed by enemies, both foreign and domestic. In turbulent times devolved forms of government struggle to maintain a precarious civil order. In order to maintain domestic discipline a centralization of power is considered necessary by many analysts. When this centralized power is concentrated, at least symbolically, into the hands of an hereditary monarch who singularly responds to demands for official action the form of government empowered is called a princedom.
Niccolo Machiavelli argued that hereditary principates are comparatively easier to maintain than other forms of government which might emerge because they rest on a firm foundation of tradition and custom. He argues that in order for an orderly society to hold fast the central figure must do whatever is necessary to maintain his power and privilege. In fact, he is best known for his treatises on schemes and machinations by which a monarch may maintain his power for the sake of expediency and practicality.
What Machiavelli apparently failed to realize was that any government which spends its time and energy maintaining the status quo, which Machiavelli argues is its principal responsibility; it no longer efficiently allocates social welfare. In fact it may be altogether unconcerned with social welfare. And with all the power and legitimacy of government rested in a central figure, the public do not possess the capacity to defend their freedoms, say life, liberty, and property, from the abuses of a corrupt government. It is for these reasons that a princedom cannot be considered ideal, because it rests too strongly on the conservative axis and focuses on defending an artificially legitimate bastion of concentrated power from internal and external threats, rendering it impotent in satisfying the needs and wants of its constituent public.
The second system of government common in the world is the republic. The republic is a liberal form of government with delineated, but often overlapping, functions for public and private sectors and devolved power protecting the rights of the many from the abuses of the powerful few. To be quite frank, republican liberalism is based on the same type of high-minded idealism as anarcho-syndicalism, with common principles such as the ethic of reciprocity, dutiful mutual aid, natural rights and individual freedom.
However, liberalism in practice often asks the many to naively consent to be governed by an extremely powerful few in public power. At the same time, liberalism does not provide the private sector the regulatory framework necessary to prevent gross concentrations of resources and power. These forces can often collude to effectively control society without actually breaching many specific provisions of the social contract established by the people.
In fact the Lockean social contract created by the governed who consent to the dominion of their governors often does more to protect the few in their capacity to concentrate and exercise power from the discipline of mass popular action or influence than it does to protect the mass public from abuses of power or coercion by the powerful. It is for this reason that liberal republics often develop into a right-wing polyarchies, often by design, which are not sufficiently democratic to be called democracy and not sufficiently representative to be called republican. Therefore, liberalism is not to be trusted, and the republican form of government has proven untenable over the long-run because there is a non-negligible chance they will allow managed facades of representation to emerge in place of true civic participation and thus allow the powerful to pursue their own self-interests at the expense of the public, very similar to princedoms.
A preferable from of government to the former two, one which can operate to protect the domestic environment from assault and disorder while at the same time keep power de-concentrated, is the order of free association. It is not a government in the traditional sense, but is in fact a form of self-government. Anarchism does not mean chaos. Anarchism necessitates a great deal of planning and large scale decision-making. But planners, even if they are representatives, are in no way insulated from the public or public discipline. Nor are they in fixed positions of power because planners obey the will of rightly concerned parties which does not require specialized skill or ability and thus carries no justification for elite positions.
Free associations of individuals working towards common goals can accomplish all of the functions government which have been stated. But they carry with them less potential for insidious influence, abuse of power, and unilateralism. Anarchism allows people working toward common goals to organize themselves into councils where they can express their desires and advocate for themselves with equal footing.
Anarchism also requires less complex instruments of action, so there is less need for specialization of function or labor. Specialization of labor and the trading of labor power, for a time, to capital have resulted in the commoditization of labor. In fact the exploitation of labor is inherent in capitalism.
The value a worker creates in his daily work in adding to the value of the raw materials, is larger than what he needs for his living and receives for his labor power. The difference that the capitalist gets in his hands when the product is sold, the surplus-value, forms his profit, which, in so far as it is not consumed, is accumulated into new capital. The labor power of the working class thus may be compared with an ore mine, that in exploitation gives out a produce exceeding the cost bestowed on it. Hence, the term exploitation of labor by capital. Capital itself is the product of labor; its bulk is accumulated surplus-value. (Pannekoek 6)
When workers control the means of production through councils then they are no longer under the threat of exploitation by capital, nor are they under the threat of being pitted against other laborers through competition from capital concentration and mobility. The absence of capital means that the profit/wealth motive is no longer a concern, and factories or even entire industries can operate in the red. Running at a loss allows industry to provide cheap goods to the rest of the economy, for example basic commodities, which would be impossible under capitalism, which requires predatory competitors in capital markets to make a profit or be shut down or overtaken by competitors.
Anarchism does not mean absolute freedom from discrimination, as the interests of the majority may run contrary to the interests of the minority. However, if free associations function properly they will be minimally coercive, thus allowing dissatisfied parties the flexibility to reinvest their efforts into other forms of operation.
Therefore, it is my belief that orders of free association are superior in maximizing individual choice while providing the essential amount of collective action to create beautiful and healthy civilizations. Free associations can allow government to function in providing the regulation of private commerce, the securing of the domestic order, defense from extrinsic threats, the prevention of disparate resource allocation by provision of equal opportunity, and the protection of basic social welfare all while maintaining human dignity and freedom by operating in a minimally imposing manner. Anton Pannekoek described this "new world" thusly:
Once the workers are masters over the shops, the capitalists lose their power of leaving in disuse the machines, these riches of mankind, precious product of the mental and manual exertion of so many generations of workers and thinkers...When the workers have command over the machines they will apply them for the production of all that life requires...The connection that under capitalism is the fortuitous outcome of blind competition and marketing, depending on purchase and sale, is then the object of conscious planning. Then, instead of the partial and imperfect attempts at organization of modern capitalism, that only lead to fiercer fights and destruction, comes the perfect organization of production, growing into a world-wide system of collaboration. For the producing classes cannot be competitors, only collaborators. These...characteristics of the new production mean a new world. The cessation of profit for capital, the cessation of unemployment of machines and men, the conscious adequate regulation of production, the increase of the produce through efficient organization, give to each worker a larger quantity of product with less labor. Now the way is opened for the further development of productivity. (13)
Pannekoek, Anton. 1948. Workers’ Councils. Edinburgh/Oakland: AK Press.