Supplying demands: a response to Wayne Price on demands

A graffiti writer in London prefers Crimethinc's approach to Price's.

I recently stumbled upon a pair of articles by the US anarchist Wayne Price on the subject of demands. I think they’re worth reading and thinking seriously about, but I also have serious disagreements with his approach. These two pieces, which I’ll reply to together, are essentially an argument for anarchists to take up the Trotskyist idea of “transitional demands”. While this idea is by no means the worst thing to come out of the Trotskyist tradition*, I really don’t think there’s much use to be had from it either, for reasons I’ll set out below.

I’m not opposed to demands as an absolute principle, but I have serious differences with the approach advocated in Wayne Price’s articles. For one, I deeply disagree with the statement in the first article that “anarchists too should be for full employment demands, which speak to the existing needs of people.” We should be absolutely clear about this: employment – wage labour – is not a need that has to be met. Housing, food, and other resources are things that people need, and in this society the only way to meet those needs is through money, which for proletarians usually means employment, but it is a complete mystification to confuse the things we actually need with the wage labour we have to perform in order to get the money we need in order to buy the things we need.

This isn’t just abstract pedantry for the sake of it: this kind of card trick, shuffling up our actual needs with the work we have to perform to meet them, is a key part of capitalist ideology in the current era, one that has sadly infected much of the left, and anarchists should be absolutely clear in our rejection of it. The actual experience of job creation programmes in the current era shows that the only way we can expect governments to deliver “full employment” is by the creation of more low-waged and even unwaged work (as in the example of “workfare” programmes that make workfare recipients work for their benefits). “Full employment”, in the hands of the state, would inevitably become a weapon to force work on those too ill to work, those unable to work due to unpaid caring commitments, and – let’s be honest about this – those proletarians who just prefer to try and meet their material needs without selling their time to the bosses. On this point, it’s worth considering the fate of the slogan “right to work”, which is used equally happily by UK leftists demanding full employment and US right-wingers wanting to bust unions.

Do full employment demands “speak to the existing needs of people”? Well, yes and no. For instance, someone who is out of work, unable to pay their rent, and in danger of losing their house, would definitely benefit from finding employment that would enable them to pay their rent and keep their house; but this need could also be met by a state housing benefit scheme that guarantees rent payments for those unable to afford them, or by the development of a mass squatting movement that would enable people to live rent-free, and would be capable of resisting attempts by landlords and the state to evict them. All these solutions are alike, in that they would help this individual meet their need for a home; at the same time, there are differences between them, and the first one, as the only one that ties the right to a house directly to our ability to produce value for capital, seems by far the least desirable.

The next point of difference with Price’s article is a fairly complex one, so it’s worth quoting at length:

“Also funding should be provided for groups of workers to start their own non-profit cooperatives. For this, businesses should be expropriated (confiscated, taken away from their owners) without compensation. This should be done, the program should say, if they cannot provide employment, or if they pollute, or if they mainly make armaments, etc.. Who is being called on to take the firms away from the capitalists and turn them over to their workers and local communities? Most people will look to the existing state. After all, it has a lot of money and power, and it claims to represent the community. Why not challenge it to live up to its claims, they ask? And indeed, just as working people can make demands on a firm’s management (raise wages, recognize a union, etc.), they can make demands on the state, which is the overall management of capitalist society.

It is even possible that the government might make some minor reforms in this direction (say, tax breaks for worker-owned businesses). But the state would never carry out the main parts of this program, which would threaten the existence of capitalism. For the program to happen, workers and their allies would have to form a federation of workplace committees and neighborhood assemblies to replace the state with a self-managed society. Revolutionary anarchists must not try to fool people. They would need to openly say that this program would require a libertarian-socialist revolution—even as they expect people’s own experience to demonstrate that they are right.”

I think there’s a tension here: On one hand, the phrase “funding should be provided” makes it sound like this funding is going to come from an external actor (the state) rather than being raised by workers themselves, and Price adds that “just as working people can make demands on a firm’s management…, they can make demands on the state, which is the overall management of capitalist society. It is even possible that the government might make some minor reforms in this direction” – all of which seems to suggest that making demands on the state is a reasonable thing to do and something anarchists should support. On the other, there’s the statement that “Revolutionary anarchists must not try to fool people. They would need to openly say that this program would require a libertarian-socialist revolution.” Clearly, there’s a contradiction between encouraging people to demand something from the state as a plausible reform that might well be granted, and saying something is a demand that the state will never meet and that “workers and their allies” need to organise ourselves to fulfil it directly, without expecting any external body to do it. The latter option is perfectly legitimate, if that’s what you want to do; but it seems wholly compatible with the “dual power” strategy that Price is apparently writing to criticise, and very far from a “mass movement” strategy, if the latter is defined by making demands of the state.

In the second piece, there’s a further example of where Price’s position appears not so far different from the arguments he aims to criticise:

“Instead Crimethinc proposes that we “implement the changes we desire ourselves, bypassing the official institutions.” (1) I am all for building alternate institutions, such as coop groceries, credit unions, community centers, bike clubs, worker-run enterprises, etc. They are good in themselves. But, as a strategy, these do not threaten the capitalist class enough to force it to implement changes. Our resources are just too limited as against the class which controls the market and the state (which is why it is called the ruling class). It is another matter when workers take over, occupy, and start to run, factories and other workplaces! That really would threaten the ruling class and force it to make deals—or, if widespread enough, lead to a revolution.”

This is a particularly bizarre example: Price rejects the idea that we should “implement the changes we desire ourselves, bypassing the official institutions”, and, as an alternate strategy, proposes workplace occupations – that is to say, a strategy that bypasses the official institutions and involves taking action ourselves. It’s hard to see what, if anything, Crimethinc could disagree with here – occupying workplaces is, in itself, not a demand made of the state, even if it can be a way of backing them up.

Another point of convergence is, ironically, in the section headed “What is Wrong with Crimethinc’s Statement.” Here, Price picks out a statement that he thinks sums up the problems with Crimthinc’s approach:

“Crimethinc concludes this section by asserting that it “believe[s] that the fundamental problem is the unequal distribution of power and agency in our society…. No corporate initiative is going to halt climate change…no police force is going to abolish white privilege.” (3) This gets to the heart of what is wrong with Crimethinc’s statement. Sure, Crimethincers believe this, and I believe it, and all revolutionary anarchists agree with this view. But most people do not believe it. This includes the hundreds of thousands who marched against global warming as well as the militant demonstrators who protested angrily in Baltimore. It is not enough for a marginal minority of radicals to be super-militant; it is necessary for broad numbers of people to participate in militant action. There is virtually nothing in this document which discusses what can be done to win over the majority of working and oppressed people. They too should “believe that the fundamental problem is the unequal distribution” of power and wealth, and that significant, lasting, reforms cannot be won through the system. Crimethinc’s statement is all self-centered: what actions should be done by the few people who already agree that the system needs to be overthrown. Instead, the question is how can this anti-capitalist minority win over the many who are oppressed and exploited so that they too will believe that the system needs to be overthrown.”

The problem is, this section feels not so far different from Price’s earlier statement that “Revolutionary anarchists must not try to fool people. They would need to openly say that [their] program would require a libertarian-socialist revolution.” In particular, I’d be impressed if anyone can explain why saying “the state would never carry out [our demands]” (Price) is fine, but saying “No corporate initiative is going to halt climate change…no police force is going to abolish white privilege” (Crimethinc) is self-centered. If Crimethinc stating that fundamental change is needed means that they’re not interested with communicating with other people who don’t share their views, then surely the same goes for Price’s statement that a revolution is required; on the other hand, if Price can argue the need for revolution as part of an attempt to “win over the majority of working and oppressed people”, then surely Crimethinc’s statements can be viewed in the same light.

Price then sets out a taxonomy of three different kinds of demands:

“the reformist or liberal version of demands: only demand things which the bosses can deliver… Alternately, there is the view which is (perhaps unfairly) ascribed to the Trotskyists, of making demands which they know cannot be won. The aim is to devilishly trick the workers into making such demands and thus being forced to learn that only a revolution will solve their problems.

Instead our idea is to demand what the people need—whether or not the system could provide it. The people need a decent standard of living. Since the capitalists claim the right to run society, we demand that they provide jobs or a guaranteed income for all. If the capitalist state provides what we demand (or at least some improvements), then great! The people will have learned that mass pressure works, and anyway life will be better. If the state says it cannot provide such (needed) benefits, then revolutionaries argue that the capitalists and their state must be replaced by institutions which can provide them (that is, by the self-organized working people).”

There’s a problem with this: when we issue any specific demand, we need to have some kind of idea as to whether it can be met or not. There are lots of demands that we can issue and think it’s reasonably likely we’ll be able to win them: for instance, a lot of syndicalist and solidarity network activity, like fighting wage theft or demanding landlords make repairs, falls into this category. But these clearly aren’t what Price views as truly radical demands, since they can be met short of a revolution. He also rejects the traditional Trotskyist model of transitional demands – that is, asking for impossible things while presenting them as possible. But it’s hard to say what that leaves: should we demand things from the state that we know the state can’t provide, while openly saying that the state won’t be able to provide it? This might be more honest than a traditional Trot transitional demand, but it still sounds hopelessly confused – “What do we want? [This demand!] When do we want it? Whenever, we know we’re never actually going to win it anyway!” is hardly the most inspiring of slogans. On the other hand, if we accept that the state and capital can’t meet our needs, and look for ways to fulfil them directly together… we seem to be back at the “dual power”/Crimethinc model Price is polemicising against.

In summary, Price seems to waver between two different models: the absurd “transitional demand” method of encouraging people to demand things we’re confident they won’t get, and then the method that he alternately warns against and embraces, of organising directly to meet our own needs without making demands of external forces. If Crimethinc’s inflexible hostility to demands cuts them off from tactics that can be useful in building a movement, Price’s revolutionary ambitions seem to point to either some confused sub-Trot idea of raising impossible demands, or back to Crimethinc’s decision to favour “goals and objectives” over external demands.

This ambiguity comes up again and again: despite stating earlier on that he rejects the idea that we must “devilishly trick the workers into making such demands and thus being forced to learn that only a revolution will solve their problems”, in his conclusion he claims that “to build a militant, participatory, and angry movement of many people who are prepared to fight against the capitalist class and its state… requires a willingness to openly demand a better life for all from those who rule, and when people see that they cannot provide it, to overturn and dismantle all their institutions”, which sounds suspiciously similar.

To be clear about my own views on this matter: On the question of short-term, immediate demands, I do agree with Price’s view that “overall, I think that it is better for a movement to win its demands than to fail to get them. When it comes to building a movement, winning is better than losing!” That’s precisely why, when it comes to bigger, more ambitious objectives, I favour the Crimethinc approach of relying on our own abilities to find ways to meet our own needs, instead of asking the state for things that it can’t and won’t give. The “transitional demand” seems like a simultaneously confused and cynical idea, an unhelpful inheritance left over from the many twentieth-century groups that aimed to offer a leadership no-one wanted or needed.

A post-script: Although Price deals mainly with demands made of the state, there are, of course, other forces that one can make demands on. In the approach of most Trot groups, the correct way to escalate a dispute is always to “call on” the official union leaderships to do this, that or the other: “call on the unions to make this wildcat dispute official… to organise nationally to support this local strike… to turn this sectional dispute into a general strike” and so on, even when this course of action would involve breaking the law and so would put these institutions in serious trouble, something they’re clearly not willing to do. In contrast, the strategy favoured by anarchists and syndicalists has usually to been to try and bypass official union structures as much as possible and reach out to other rank-and-file workers directly. It would be interesting to hear Price’s views on this subject.
*for a much worse example, see this exchange between US anarchists the Utopian and May 1st, which features an attempt to argue that anarchists should adopt the utterly ludicrous idea of offering the Ukrainian government something called “military support” that doesn’t actually involve any actual military support.

Advertisements

About nothingiseverlost

"The impulse to fight against work and management is immediately collective. As we fight against the conditions of our own lives, we see that other people are doing the same. To get anywhere we have to fight side by side. We begin to break down the divisions between us and prejudices, hierarchies, and nationalisms begin to be undermined. As we build trust and solidarity, we grow more daring and combative. More becomes possible. We get more organized, more confident, more disruptive and more powerful."
This entry was posted in Anarchists, Bit more thinky, Debate, The left and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Supplying demands: a response to Wayne Price on demands

  1. Wayne Price says:

    Comments on “Cautiously Pessimistic’s” Response to My Essay on Demands

    I appreciate that “Cautiously Pessimistic” has thought about and responded to my essays on whether anarchists should raise and/or support demands. While I do not intend to write a third essay here, I will make some brief comments.

    CP’s opinions are somewhat different from Crimethinc’s views, in that he or she believes that “short-term, immediate, demands” —demands which might be won in the near-term—are okay to raise. But CP rejects “bigger, more ambitious” demands that “the state…can’t and won’t give.” Instead “I favor the Crimethinc approach of relying on our own abilities to find ways to meet our own needs.” He or she claims that “Price seems to waver between…the absurd ‘transitional demand’ method of encouraging people to demand things we’re confident they won’t get, and then the method…of organizing directly to meet our own needs without making demands of external forces.”

    Actually I reject both approaches. Without repeating the examples I used in my articles, I am for making demands of what the people actually need, and can see that they need. Period. Whether the system can grant these demands is not the criterion. Nor do we always know if it can. However, I think that the system is sinking into greater difficulties (economically, politically, and ecologically). It will become harder to win even the limited demands which CP supports. Reforms can still be won, but more and more the fight for even limited reforms will have revolutionary implications. Which we should point out.

    CP is confused about the concept of “organizing people directly to meet our own needs.” He/she mixes two ideas: one is that of building alternate institutions, such as worker-run cooperatives. I argued that neither the “movement” nor the working class as a whole has the resources to create enough alternate institutions to challenge the capitalists’ domination of the market and the state. The other idea is that workers and others might take over factories, offices, and other workplaces, and manage them on our own. This is not being independent “of external forces.” It is a direct challenge to “external forces”, to the capitalists and to the state! They will take the workers to court and send in police and military forces. It will be a fight—unlike the alternate institution approach (“dual power”) which is a cop-out, an attempt to somehow maneuver around the rulers without directly confronting them. (See my essay, “Workers’ Self-Directed Enterprises: A Revolutionary Program” http://www.anarkismo.net/article/26931?search_text=Wayne+Price)

    CP is against demands for full employment (“Jobs or Income Now!”). After all, under anarchist-communism there will be no direct connection between work and income. “Income” will be non-monetary, and based solely on need, not effort. All of which I agree with. (Which does not mean the immediate end of people working.)

    But here and now, what do we advocate for immediate improvement? Is CP against workers currently demanding better pay and working conditions from the bosses, among the “short-term, immediate, demands” that he or she finds acceptable? Or is it okay to demand better pay for existing jobs but not to demand more and better-paying jobs? Can we demand good government housing but not that the government pay workers to build good housing? Why is it okay to demand that the state pay the rent but not pay for necessary work to be done? Or does nothing satisfy CP but an immediate call to leap to full communism?

    I do agree with Crimethinc, and with CP, that only a revolution will solve society’s problems in a consistent and thorough-going fashion. And I am for saying so. But unlike Crimethinc and (to a degree) CP, I am in favor of fighting for immediate improvements in people’s lives, making demands on the state and the capitalists, while pointing out the limitations of such demands (win or lose) and the need to go further. Despite all CP’s references to “Trotskyism,” this is the tradition of revolutionary mass-struggle anarchism.

    A final note: CP refers to an exchange between two groups of US anarchists (neither of which am I a member of). I won’t comment on the exchange myself, or the jargonistic use of terms like “military support.” But surely the issue is whether anarchists are neutral between the people of Ukraine and Russian imperialism, or even on the side of the Russian state, as is much of the Left (perhaps out of Soviet-era nostalgia). Or whether we are in solidarity with the Ukrainian people (not the Ukrainian state) against the Russian aggressor (and centures-old oppressor of Ukrainians)—as I am.

    Wayne Price

    • Likewise, I appreciate your response.
      “However, I think that the system is sinking into greater difficulties (economically, politically, and ecologically). It will become harder to win even the limited demands which CP supports. Reforms can still be won, but more and more the fight for even limited reforms will have revolutionary implications. Which we should point out.”
      I’d be interested to know how this view fits with the growth of the “New Reformism”, as Syriza/Podemos in mainland Europe, Corbynmania and the Scottish Nationalists in the UK, and Bernie Sanders in the US all seem to be pushing variations on lefty social-democratic politics and making these politics much more prominent than they’ve been for a long time. It’d be good to see more serious anarchist analysis of these phenomena in general, but for the time being, until they hit their limitations, they seem to suggest that it’s very possible to fight for limited reforms in an entirely reformist manner.
      On alternate institutions/dual power vs confrontational mass movements, I increasingly think this is a false dichotomy. Surviving the lockouts, the waves of repression and all the rest will require the ability to take care of ourselves and each other on a mass scale, and we can’t wait until we’re strong enough to take over workplaces to start building these capabilities. I think Occupy and the various squares movements showed this quite well – for more historical examples, I’d point at things like the support groups that fed the British miners for a year while they took on Thatcher’s police state, or the Black Panthers free breakfast programmes. Workers’ co-ops and the like certainly aren’t a strategy for getting rid of capitalism, but any combative movement that doesn’t have enough “alternate institutions” set up to cope when capital cuts off the supply of money is going to fall very hard very quickly.
      On specific demands: I tend to think that what does and doesn’t make sense tends to vary according to the specific situation – a demand that perfectly expresses a mood on one occasion might be hopelessly over-ambitious in another situation, or far too moderate and conservative in another. Having said all that, I tend to think that making demands on the state is a lot like wishing on the proverbial genie’s lamp or monkey’s paw: you might get your wish, but you want to be very careful about how it’s granted, because as long as the state’s in control of granting it it’s out of your hands. Having said all that, my problem with calls for full employment is less to do with a purist objection to anything short of full communism and more with recognition of the way that “boosting employment” has been used as an excuse for attacks on the working class time and time again, because our selfish inconvenient desire to protect our living standards always turns out to be the problem – from the French CPE in 2006 to the mass roll-out of workfare and the attacks on disabled claimants in the UK to the “right to work” in the USA, not forgetting all those prison labour programmes making sure that prisoners don’t miss out on their right to work… not to sound like a cliched ultraleftist, but when it comes to the right to a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work, Marx and the IWW preamble both had it spot on.

      On Ukraine: I support the Ukrainian people and the Russian people against their enemies in the Kremlin and in Kiev. I can’t see how the logic of supporting Ukranian independence from Russia trumps the logic of supporting the Donbass republic’s independence from Ukraine, and the whole thing smacks a little too much of supporting brave little Belgium against the militarist aggression of German imperialism, and so on… Then as now, the only “side” for us to take is the side of deserters, mutineers, saboteurs and all the rest who refuse to sacrifice themselves for the interests of the nation, whichever nation that is.

      In solidarity,
      CP

  2. Wayne Price says:

    (1) “they seem to suggest that it’s very possible to fight for limited reforms in an entirely reformist manner.” Um, yeah. The question is whether it’s still possible to WIN “reforms in an entirely reformist manner.” The recent record of, say, Syriza is not exactly encouraging in that regard.
    (2) ““boosting employment” has been used as an excuse for attacks on the working class” And so? What hasn’t been used to attack the working class? Meanwhile, if we want to build a movement, we have to raise proposals which ordinary people see the need for.
    (3) So you are neutral between the oppressors and the oppressed in Ukraine. I think that revolutionary anarchists should be on the side of the oppressed, in this case the Ukrainians and against their immediate oppressors, the imperialist Russian state. Despite your disclaimer, you seem to have a consistent tendency to be morally “pure” and to ignore the issue of how to build a movement (not that neutrality between the oppressors and oppressed is a moral position).

    • 1) It certainly isn’t. I’m not particularly making any big calls either way as to what capital’s capacity to grant reforms at the moment is. It’s certainly not looking in particularly healthy shape, but I think it’s worth bearing in mind the long line of revolutionaries who’ve come before us and were convinced that they were seeing the big final crisis that it couldn’t come back from. But even assuming that the political space for reformism to achieve anything at all is completely zero, that doesn’t mean reformism won’t still happen.
      2) I think there’s a difference between something that we need being used against us, and us actively taking up a demand that only makes sense as a suggestion for fixing capital’s problems. Demanding more work is qualitatively different to demanding more pay or more housing, imo. I’m also not sure that there is actually that much popular demand for Keynesian full employment programmes. Like, if there was a mass movement calling for a new New Deal or something, then fair enough, you’ve got to figure out how to relate to that, but as far as I’m aware there isn’t.
      3) On the side of… the Ukranians? Which Ukranians? The Azov battalion? The Autonomous Workers’ Union? The Right Sector? The Ukranian coal miners who struggled at Kryviy Rih, or their Ukranian bosses? Not all these oppressed people have the same interests. Of course I’m against the imperialist adventures of the Russian state, but I’m not going to call on Ukranians to get killed for the defence of the homeland either.

    • On the off-chance that you’re still paying attention to this conversation, a piece of relevant news: http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/callous-tory-iain-duncan-smith-6313075 Another step towards full employment, so good news from a revolutionary anarchist perspective, right? Seriously, when you demand the state provides full employment, this, this is what you’re asking for.

      Also, I happened to stumble across this great old socialist feminist text, which speaks to the issue of “full employment” very well: https://libcom.org/library/women-unions-work-or%E2%80%A6what-not-be-done
      “First of all, we know that only rich women are unemployed -that is, do no work. Whether or not we’re in jobs, most of us work like hell. The only thing is that we are wageless if we don’t formally hire ourselves out to a particular capitalist and just work in our kitchens creating and servicing workers for the capitalist class in general…
      some workers thought that an unwork-in was a better idea than a work-in. No need to say where the unions stand on this when they are desperately trying to shove “We want jobs” placards into workers’ hands. You would think it is immoral to be disengaged from exploita­tion. The only thing “wrong” with unemployment is that you don’t get paid.

      And this is the heart of the issue. The government, acting in the interests of the capitalist class in general, has cre­ated unemployment in the hope that, instead of fighting for more pay and less work, we will be glad for the crumbs that the master lets fall from his table. So that the “coun­try” can “progress” over our dead and dying minds and bodies. The unions tell us to worry about productivity and exports while the capitalists are busy exporting their cap­ital all over the world… The unions are trying to lead exactly the kind of struggle that would make Ted Heath… a happy man: they are demanding jobs. It is the threat of closure of the mines that the gov­ernment thought would keep the mining community quiet. Instead the people from the mine areas made clear from their strike that they didn’t consider spending your life in a mine or scrubbing filthy clothes and nursing people with silicosis was an ideal existence. Their strike meant that they were saying: Take your mines and shove them. They refused to beg for the right to be exploited.”

      Given a choice between Selma James’ demand for more pay and less work, and Iain Duncan Smith’s plans to work sick people back to health, I know which one sounds more appealing to me, as well as more like a principled socialist position. Still, your views may differ.

  3. Wayne Price says:

    If you think that the capitalist system (through its government or other mechanism) can create full employment (in any meaningful sense), then you have a much more hopeful opinion of capitalism than I do.
    While I think that the government may increase or decrease unemployment by various fiscal and monetary measures, it does not “create” unemployment. Capitalism needs a pool of unemployed workers (the “reserve army of labor”) in order to function.
    I have no idea why you counterpose a demand for “more pay and less work” to a demand for full employment. A shorter work day/week without a cut in pay has long been one demand for creating full employment.
    If you think the striking miners did not care whether they had good-paying jobs, I wonder where you get your information.
    You may be interested in my most recent essay:

    In Defense of the Anarchist Use of Marx’s Economic Theory
    Anarchist Views of Marx’s Critique of Political Economy
    by Wayne Price
    http://www.anarkismo.net/article/28438

    • I don’t particularly think that capitalism’s capable of creating full employment, although stranger things have happened. My points are, roughly, 1) the result of any attempt to pursue full employment through the state under current conditions will involve further horrors like Iain Duncan Smith’s plans to “help the sick” through work – our task should be to fight the ideology that makes these things possible, and 2) if you’re so convinced that full employment is impossible under capitalism, then surely to demand it – and, more importantly, to encourage others to do the same – is either dishonest or self-defeating?

  4. Pingback: Anarchism or Vanguardism? Critique of Guerrilla Ideology of the IRPGF | The Free

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s