Anarkismo.net: An Essay on Collectivist Economics by BrunoL

This essay is the beginning of an attempt to develop a left libertarian approach toward an 
economic model, specifically to a model which is compatible with the political formations 
of Democratic Confederalism, also referred to as Libertarian Municipalism. At this stage 
the goal is the development of a working set of tools of analysis, and foster learning 
among the Libertarian Left. To this end I submit this relatively simple text to provide 
accessible notions for those struggling to build a society based on Democratic 
Confederalism. ---- This essay is the beginning of an attempt to develop a left 
libertarian approach toward an economic model, specifically to a model which is compatible 
with the political formations of Democratic Confederalism, also referred to as Libertarian 
Municipalism.

Some ideas have already been defined by others, I will try to explain what is consensus 
among militants and scholars committed to similar projects. We must accumulate knowledge 
through real experiences like the ones during the Spanish Revolution (specifically the 
experiments in Catalonia and Aragón) or during the Russian Revolution (placing primary 
attention on Ukraine). I recognize that the debate cannot be finished so quickly as the 
didactic and brief tone of this article, but this first essay part is not meant to close 
the discussion it relates to, but to open it.

A system of economic institutions, be they placed in a revolutionary project or not, must 
perform specific functions. It must organize production, distribution, consumption, and 
reinvestment. An economy fit for a self-managed society must pay special attention to 
justly remunerating (paying) the workers engaged in production. All of these functions 
require exchange, which begs the question, what will be the medium of exchange. And as 
such, we must enter the debate that stalks us like a bad hangover from the 20th century - 
the debate over the role of currency, of money and market mechanisms. And, if a 
revolutionary project implementing Democratic Confederalism is to allow for the use of 
money, a second set of questions have to be answered, delineating how far the currency can 
circulate, and what aspects of the economy will be subjected to "market" mechanisms. Will 
there be a market for goods and services, limited to primarily personal consumption? Or 
will we allow money to represent also the productive value in the economy, and allows the 
means of production to be bought and sold? In other words will we allow money to circulate 
such that we allow private investment for private profit (capitalism at its most basic scale)?

So, the starting point is that money's role must be limited to exchange of consumer goods. 
Furthermore, private ownership of either the means of production, or nonproductive 
speculative assets must not be allowed. Money's role is to support a locally based system 
of exchanges and not a tool to produce private wealth.

Relying on the work of Abraham Guillem, I propose the beginnings of a model where by money 
would be used in the local communes (referred to as cantons), but that each of these 
communes would have their own currency and no market based exchanges would take place 
between "companies" - in a Business to Business scale - in one canton with another. 
Rather, the economic exchange between cantons would take place through agreement at the 
canton level, or through fairs for the exchange of goods (goods for goods, as opposed to 
goods for currency). Furthermore the productive assets would be controlled locally and 
socially at the canton level. Through these institutional relations a market for consumer 
goods and services would fostered within the canton, but democratic federated social 
control would prevail at the production level and at the level of exchange between 
cantons. Furthermore, as specific cantons saw fit, they could intervene in regulating the 
"pricing" inside their canton "level market". I recognize that key-concepts must be 
translated to new words, but to avoid representing a false consensus to these "new words", 
we will still using the terms already recognized in hegemonic economics. What we are 
attempting here is to fashion a new collectivism for a new time and new setting.

We start with the analysis of some premises that may provide direction and parameters to 
the discussion. As implied earlier this model is explicitly based on and attempting to 
elaborate the confluences of two coincident theories: social anarchism (not individual 
anarchism as a philosophical way of thought) and Democratic Confederalism as the leading 
new (or renewed) theory to produce a different society. In this text I analyze points from 
the ground and the bottom-up, by placing attention to local institutions.

In the first premise we affirm that Democratic Confederalism is based people operating on 
local and human scales. For example, let us assume that the minimum scale of society, in 
which we can find a form of distribution, is a commune of 10 families. Then, we must 
imagine production at this level, as well as distribution at this level. This basic 
commune will produce will either share in the spoils of this production through direct 
planning or will pay workers engaged in this production with a local currency or 
consumption credit system.

Production at this commune level which is not consumed at the commune level may be traded 
in exchanging fairs organized by federations to mediate work between communes. Similar 
fairs for exchange occurred in Ferias de Trueque that occurred in Argentina and Uruguay 
during the worst neoliberal crisis years.

In this sense I assume that there is a role for the individual, individuality, and 
creative work. We can combat "black markets" by institutionalizing open fairs, but never 
allowing that essential goods are uniquely distributed in the local fairs, but through 
Canton scale institutionalized distribution.

In the second premise, this same local entity must assure, through a system of 
self-management, organized by these people, that all essential institutions are sustained 
by collective work. So, currency - local canton money - exists only as a market for 
consumer goods and services, and not as private investment capital or private ownership of 
the means of production.

In the third premise, as we can verify, this theory allows individuals and small groups to 
produce goods to be exchanged for other goods on a small scale. And, this theory also 
assures that the essential institutions are not estimated in a monetary calculus, being 
sustained by the collective. The concept of essential institutions is something decided 
and classified by the people's power, people's assembly, in a participatory way of making 
decisions.

In the fourth premise, we assure that the "money" is the accountable unit for exchanging 
goods (not all goods, but some of them) inside a canton, and not wider than that. So, 
"local canton money" is not portable, like financial capital or printed dollars, euros or 
pounds. It would not be used for banking transactions. For example: if a citizen goes from 
one canton to another, he would receive an amount of other local canton money for his 
private use, being assured that essential needs are provided by collective work and social 
institutions.

In the fifth premise, local canton money must have an equivalence to other "local canton 
money" but cannot circulate outside of the federal unit where its value was produced and 
accounted.

In the sixth premise we assume that time dedicated to social institutions must be "paid" - 
remunerated. However, we must not allow large disparities in remuneration between types of 
labor, so that a full-fledged market in labor does not reappear. It is not a good 
rationality in socialist terms to think about a difference in wage, but if we consider the 
role of individual liberty, there could exist some (or a decent amount of) individuals 
that would not consider full adherence to collectivization.

In the seventh premise we assume that time and dedication are two of the basic theory 
tools for feminist critiques of political economy, and of course, the basics of feminist 
economics, considering essential the question of "invisible work", and not compensated 
working force in capitalism and patriarchate, for example house keepers, maids and wives. 
This - in the majority - female work-force produces richness but stays "invisible" in 
capitalism. One of the problems is, that they do not get paid, not even a small 
recognition in the unjust wage system. So, as the project must go on the other way of 
capitalism, this "invisible" work must be substituted by collective work and become

http://www.anarkismo.net/article/27987