Principle #1

[Rosalux]

"To obtain democratic workers' control over the means of production via communal ownership and decision-making."

I'm interested in discussing this, in-character & out.
How does this work in your nation? What real world, theoretical, & fictional models did you consider when you decided this? What experience do you have in coop, commune, & collective production?

I'm especially interested in the distinction between long term, fulltime, committed collective members ("core collective") and short-term, part-time, or less committed labor. There has to be both; people will have family or personal commitments that take them away from fulltime work, or will have more than one project or group identity, or will be new members, or be about to retire, or be travelling - how do they have a position of social equality in a group, how are their ideas and labor used productively without exploiting them *or* allowing short-term members to cause group instability? How do we prevent this distinction to cause permanent class distinctions?

[Sacco & Vanzetti]

As part of this debate (and in no way trying to find a glib answer) can I suggest that the capitalist "work ethic" is a culturally negative factor in our understanding of these issues. It's very difficult to overcome the instilled belief that we are valued - even defined - by the work we do and the way we do it.

Personally, I have very little experience of working in communes, collectives or coops. (Although I could stretch my imagination to cover times when I have worked communally, collectively or co-operatively).

From reading real-case scenarios during times of anarchist organisation of production around the world, it is also difficult to find answers to these issues. Most of these times where periods of war, where the dynamic is obviously very different.

I'd like to hear more from other people on this. Rosalux, do you feel able to throw in any real world, personal examples which could help?

I'm not sure it's entirely relevant and I'm pretty sure you've read it before Rosa, but I'll chuck in this piece below as it's all I've ever written directly related to workplace organisation in S&V:

Shindira Ferguson enjoyed teaching poetry – but he relished the days he worked the lathe in the transport manufactory. There was something about the vibrations of the metal, the shake of creation through his fingers. It was poetry in its most physical form. The buzz and the hum, a certain other worldliness behind the goggles, an introspective space where words seemed mere shadows of the vibrancy of life.

Although his colleagues encouraged him to work with a view of the final product, he loved becoming absorbed solely in the shape that was his to create. Yeah well maybe it was a part of a bike or a boat or a bus but never mind that, the single shape he was working was thus, and the shaping of it, again and again, enraptured him. Each shape had its own soul, he thought of some as angels, others were devils, or flowers or hearts, not because that is how they looked but because that is how the working of them made him feel.

The only time he ever looked up from his work was when the girl-with-no-name happened along the path outside the window.

Sure, the others laughed at him, surrounded in his little world of sparks – and he laughed with them and he knew that he really should be working towards the communal enterprise of the finished product, but these shapes sang to him and while they sang, he would listen.

He glanced up at the clock, turned off his machine and wandered into the canteen to fulfil his tea-making duties.

Moments later and his colleagues were crowding into the little room.

“What’s the steel saying today Shindira?” said Ramon, who’d worked in the manufactory for decades, it seemed.

“Today, comrade,” said Shindira, “it is saying - beware of comrades who wish to teach you how to become deaf.”

Ramon roared with laughter and slapped his protégé on the back. “Good answer, good answer. I will be your apprentice poet as you are my apprentice miller. The young are always so full of magic and we olders are so dry! Perhaps our magic seeps into the metal over the years, perhaps you are right with your singing steels!”

And maybe, thought Shindira, there is enough magic in the world for the girl-with-no-name to walk past the manufactory window this afternoon, as she has walked past every afternoon, with the dance of sun on her hair.

[FreeLandofAIM]

I certainly don't believe there should be a difference in treatment of the full time and part time worker, because that is surely the beginnings of inequality.

The equality of the people should not be solely for people who 'work', because there are people who can not work for whatever reason, illness and disability.

A commune would strive to help them, as well as the workers too.

[Walter and Theodor]

I have only been in a few collectives and this issue always come up. I have yet to see a successful resolution. Sometimes I think secondary status allows people to abnegate more responsibilities than simply those tied to quantities of labour and I wonder if this always spells the doom of a collective.

I wouldn’t make hard and fast rules based on the three collectives I have been in but next time I think I would resist the idea of secondary status. I would propose the core collective was open to those with the commitment but that everyone else should simply ‘federate’ or ‘free associate’ and be mindful that criticisms are welcome as long as they are constructive. If the collective makes decision we dislike so much then we should join the decision making process entirely. I think people who are half in are less willing to negotiate – less willing to struggle towards resolution and more willing to walk away and let their problems or disappointments fester. Everyone does this but people who are half in seem to think that such festering has some righteous foundation rather than being part of the problem that comes from being spread to thin.

[theyellowspot]

A few years ago, i worked with a collecitvely-run infoshop/meeting space/radical library type thing. in the beginning it was really wonderful, but after awhile there arose a lot of problems with people's institutionalized sexism, women not feeling like they were being taken seriously, alpha-males dominating debates, etc. as well, i think the collective grew too fast in too short of a time. we were cajoled into moving into a space that was a lot of (physical and economic) work, just to make it a desirable space to use. there was only a couple of people that were basically contributing all the money for rent and such, and we got to a point where a good portion of the group wanted to close the space and regroup. But another goodsize portion of the group was very hostile to this, and decided to just take over the space while the other half decided to use the right to free-association to leave the group. Unfortunately, all the folks with the money pulled out, and after a few months of not being able to pay the bills the group imploded.

What could we have done better? Ideally, the money would have been taken care of by doing more grant-writing (some was done), more fund-raising, and more of peole just being conscious that it was basically a couple of people taking care of the bills. As for the sexism, this stuff was worked on, but unfortunately a lot of the men got really offended and defensive about their actions, and a lot of the women just got sick of dealing with the men's shit. I really wish that this stuff could've come out better, that EVERYONE was more aware of the shit that we all perpetuate, and trying to honestly work on it, while other's would try to work on ways of dealing with problems without completely alienating people. Compromise all around!

In addition, I lived in a squat in Barcelona for about a year, and it worked out mostly great. there was tons of work to do on this building, and most people were really good about sharing the work load, we were really successful about having meetings that weren't too bad, taking care of business. there were a couple of boys who were really bad about sharing the cooking/dishes duties, but i think we shamed them into realizing it, and trying to pitch in more. in the beginning some people were really excited about making rules about dishes, work, cleaning and all that. i pushed really hard to not make rules and just see how it works, trying to work on the guilting of people into pulling their weight, and i think it worked out mostly well without having to make schedules and regulations and such.

[vequalsv0plusat]

Rosalux said:

I'm especially interested in the distinction between long term, fulltime, committed collective members ("core collective") and short-term, part-time, or less committed labor. There has to be both; people will have family or personal commitments that take them away from fulltime work, or will have more than one project or group identity, or will be new members, or be about to retire, or be travelling - how do they have a position of social equality in a group, how are their ideas and labor used productively without exploiting them *or* allowing short-term members to cause group instability? How do we prevent this distinction to cause permanent class distinctions?

Given an anarchist society, there's no reason why a long-term member or someone better able to contribute to humanity would be considered "better" than someone with less ability in the first place. After all, in an anarchist society, the "to each according to his ability" principle would have already been overcome and replaced with "to each according to his need." Well, at least in an anarchist society as I interpret the phrase.

[Rosalux]

I've been a peripheral member of 2 grocery coops (one worker-owned, one customer/member owned), one communal farm (as a short-term intern), an anarchist bookstore (non-meeting-attending working member). I'm a core member of a cooperative-living household that is working on transitioning to cooperative ownership & have been core member of a legal action collective. Oh, & both a peripheral & core member of Food Not Bombs collectives.

There definitely *is* a power differential between those who do a lot of the work and those who are low commitment. I don't just mean physical work - planning, organizing, publicizing, emotional work, just showing up, all that stuff is work. And there needs to be - otherwise the group can be coopted, or have random shifts of purpose, or easily become overcommitted.

On the other hand, that power differential can be antidemocratic, tied into unhealthy power-over structures and stifling informal hierarchies.

I like the idea of a core collective and then "free associates" - our grocery collective works that way and it seems to work pretty well. But over time I can see it dumping more and more work on the core collective, because the "free associates" shrug and say "not my job." And it also (because the core collective are "managers" and some of the "free associates" are waged workers) has the seeds of permanent status differences.

Also, the idea that even people who are physically, socially, or mentally disabled should be equal is great. But how do you avoid developing a charity or client relatioship structure? One group I see doing really well with that is Camphill, but that's a separate community dedicated to integrating mentally disabled people, not a collective workplace that happens to include them.