Whether it's the railways or schools, refuse collection or the NHS, there is always much political argument about how public services should be run. This is part of a wider debate about how "production" as a whole should be organised. Traditionally, there are two main camps: the Right, who argue for private ownership of industries and services; and the Left who argue for nationalisation, that is, state control.
Anarchists oppose privatisation, such as private sector involvement in Waltham Forest's education and health services. Private companies exist to create a profit for their owners or shareholders. Profits are increased by cutting costs and increasing charges. This is done by providing a poorer service to many, especially the most needy, and by attacking the conditions of workers within the industry.
The key to anarchist objections to nationalisation is that private and state industries look much the same: they both have rigid hierarchies of overpaid bosses and poorly rewarded workers. As well as being hierarchical, state run industries still exploit workers economically. Royal Mail, for example, has made millions of quid profit for years - and even if they didn't make a profit they would still be exploiting workers, they just wouldn't be very good at it! This is because the fundamental relationship between worker and employer hasn't changed at all. The worker is still selling her labour to someone who gives them less than the value of it in return - she is still a wage slave. It is still capitalism.
If you have read Robert Tressell's classic book 'The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists', you will be familiar with the argument that the ruling class, through the state, deliberately create crap public services. The left (fulfilling their allotted role in the capitalist structure) go round telling everyone that these crap services are 'Socialism' - that is, that they are the alternative to Capitalism. Between them, the left and the capitalists create highly effective anti-oppositional propaganda. When, for example, some lefty group or another tell people to "Defend the NHS" they are telling us to defend the right to wait 2 years for a hip operation. And they are surprised when people don't join their pointless campaigns!
We argue for "workers' control of all work-places" as an alternative to any form of hierarchical management and economic exploitation. Workers are better placed than anyone else to decide what and how to do/make, and are quite capable of making these decisions in a democratic way, and working co-operatively without being constantly bullied by bosses.
Some people think this is far-fetched, but in the bits of our lives we still have some control over, we often operate like this. Imagine organising a picnic with friends and family: someone agrees to make sandwiches, someone else brings drinks, someone brings games for the kids, everything can be sorted in a voluntary, co-operative way.
At various points in history, Catalonia in 1936, France 1968, Clyde shipyards 1972, workers have occupied work-places, and organised production along these lines. Likewise, in the 60s the Black Panthers, set up their own schools and food halls to make up for a lack of provision by both private companies and the welfare state. Today, workers' co-operatives and fully mutual housing co-ops attempt to practice a similar model of workers' or tenants' control. Such examples are limited because of the harsh capitalist climate they must operate in, but those involved tell of the joy of taking control of an area of their lives.
Let's not get brow-beaten into believing that the only possible ways of organising our world are either letting private individuals get away with murder, or allowing the state to impose a repressive order. All power to communities and workers' collectives: make bosses and politicians redundant!
|
|
