Box 89, Item 1900: Draft of Towards a social theory for ecotopia

Box 89, Item 1900: Draft of Towards a social theory for ecotopia

Typescript (photocopy) draft, with handwritten emendations.

The University of Queensland's Richard Sylvan Papers UQFL291, Box 89, Item 1900

For all enquiries about this work, please contact the Fryer Library, The University of Queensland Library.

[79] leaves. 55.77 MB.

Manuscript

Australian National University - Far Bookcase - Second Bay - Second Shelf - Pile 4

. .. .

,

TOWARDS A SOCIAL THEORY FOR ECOTOPIA
Participation in attempts at social change often has the

..

effect of revealing to participants the structure of the soci e ty
in which they live.

It is hard to be a practical environmentalist

th1/:: i v.: J

_e:ng;a~eEl in or s1.,1pporting a range of environmental batt le s without
observing that most environmental problems in our sort of soci a l
system are generated basically by the domination of the society by

J
corporate interests, which have a strong interest in ma i ntaining an
industrial and consumption system which appears to produce environmental problems as a matter of necessity.

If one is not directly

engaged in opposing the plans or activities of sawrnillers , miningcompanies, power and energy compan ie s, transport firms, chemic al
and pesticide comp a nies, p a ckaging companies, real-estate developers
and tourist-resor t promoters, to name a few, one is engaged in
battling thei r political or bureaucratic advocates and protecto rs
(nominally 'regulators') in the sh ape of forestry commissi on s,
mining departments or authorities, hydro-electricity authorities,
energy authori ties, transport corm iss ions, l and commissions,
politicians and the l i ke.

' Usually t h e battles by citizen environ-

/qsr1~j

mental groups h ave littleAsuc c ess, and the chances o f success appear
highly cor related with the degree of corporate domination within
the political unit concerned.

Even where environmental problems

appear to a rise from the interests of non-corpor ate groups, for
example workers or consumers, it can be conv incingly argued that
the y are still primarily a reflection of corporate domination and
st r ucturing of both the employment and consumption a n d life-s t yle
choices ope n to peopl e , that is, of indirect cor po rate or capitalist
influence in shaping the social structtlre values. :
Environmental issues throw up sharply again the question as to
whether it is possib le to devise a social structure which does not
have this feature of direct or indirect cciporate domination, without
..--·--·
----·-·•··-•·--·-·--·-·· · · - - - - - - - - - - - - _... . --···------x-

2.

r~placing it

by some

-1

other equally or e~e? __ more _undesirab_l _e ____~_ind of domina tion-=__s_~E~ as

-/

bureaucratic or totalitarian domination-which is such that replacement would be unlikely to produce anything which could be described
as a solution or improvement.

Our belief is that we can devise a

better system which dispenses with this disastrous element, and
furthermore

that we must do so if environmental problems, as well

as a whole set of other problems which are also consequences of the
same structure of domination, are to be resolved at any but a superficia½ temporary and inadequate level.
wa ys to see the problem.
or size.

There are of course other

We might see it as just one of technology

But the technology we have seems to be a consequence

of

other features of our society, rather than the ca use ·_ al though it
is certainly true that there is an

inte~a ctive process and certain

kinds of technology strengthen certain interests in the society over
others~ :~S for smallness, we might remember that the industries
of'

I

IISu}

d... I

, ::___

currently destroying the Border Ranges rainforesi~(' in relative terms)
quite small.

Or we might feel that we are in the grip~ of a

runaway or out o f control machine - a point of view put forward
first by Jacques Ellu./

[

] •

Or as Peter van Dresser very nicely

puts it ''We have built a Frankenstein monster of industrial and
commercial relationships which is almos t totally running our lives."
True ~but the machine was was not built on random lines, and it
systematically serves the interests of some groups at the expense
of others.

So the machine is not 'out of control' in one sense -

it is doing the job it was designed for.

ff-some environmentalists,

espe ci ally of the more cons ervative kind, do believe that the system
in which they live is basically sound, but that it consistently
delivers mainly destructive results and decisions either because
-th.2.-

it is run by the wrong people ('Oh!

for a statesman'; seeABorder

Ranges sheet), or because we do not yet have go od mechanisms for

3.

takin g accou nt of envir onme ntal inter ests, which .is
seen as a
new

consi derat ion.

Such an appro ach tends to overl ook the limit ation
.C'.'f>·''}~i=t

on resu lts throu gh. polit ical/ burea ucrat i c actio n or
mecha nisms
which resul t from the exist ing struc tu re of corpo rate
domin ation of
the socie ty, and to the exten t
that it is succe ssful it would
depen d upon reduc ing or balan cing that domi nation anywa
y. ·-

Some

impro ved mecha nisms may enabl e some impro vemen ts in
limit ed areas ,
but they will not be able to chang e a basic ally destr
uctiv e lifestyle based on conti nuous and growi ng indu stria l produ
ction and
consu mptio n, and so unles s more basic chang es in the
socia l struc ture
are sough t, will proba bly only succe ed as delay ing
tacti cs in the
inevi t a ble destr uctio n of what remai ns of the natur
al world and
l , · ·¥;1

/ >fr'J I a H lr-.rt r? t 1~
reaso nable socia l enviro nrnen t. · \'\ J rn this neces sarily
rathe r
A
paper we want to try to devel op sorre of the basis for
a socia l
theor y which might be descr ibed as a form of Liber tar
i an or SelfManag e d Socia lism.
J~~~

\

~- It migh t seem odd that anyon e shoul d advoc
ate a basic ally

+i.1/

liber taria n type of posit ion as neces sary for aAso lution
to envir onmenta l probl ems, since envir onme nta lists are mostl y
seen to be
advoc ates of great er restr i cti ons, mor~_ rules and regul
ation s,
legis latio n, burea ucrat ic contr ol and plann ing, to
restr ict and
reduc e the damag e peopl e can do by their consw ning
and produ cing
activ ities .

This restr ictiv e appro ach seems to be dicta ted to a

large exten t by the failu re to quest ion the basic soci~l
struc ture
which makes peopl e ' s produ cing and consu ming so destr
uctiv e in the
first place .
If a frame work o f essen tially damag ing life- style s
is accep ted as 'natu ral' and uncha ngeab le, then of
cours e envir onmenta l prote ction will seem to be a matte r of limit
ing these sorts
of a llege d freedo ms by furth er restr ictio n;

but if the probl em is

"-r

se e n rathe r as one of struc: ;\ing socie ty so as to remov
e the force s
which make peop le's
1

,...

~-y"\

.._

_

__

_

'"'"\

...

a

·

pro ucing and consu ming so destr uctiv e, the

3. 1.

Pootnot e 1 from page 3.
J_

We don't of course wish to suggest that working within the
system is a just a waste of time, and we should watch it all
But in each
go while we sit back and wait for the revoluti on.
1
each hard
that
fgct
of
urgent battle it s easy to lose sight
necessit y
urgent
won victory is on l y temporar y, to lose sightJcff
will IJ_Ot
they
to; begin construc ting the sort of society in which
imposing
of
This is not and canno.t be a matter
be~ t emp o rary.
some sort of Boy Scout 'Conserv ation Ethic' or minor changes in
the directio n of energy savtng on a soci~y which produces
environm ental degrada tion a~ a matt.er of its fundame ntal :?__!:_ructu_r.:-_ e .
0

2

4.
need for a restrictive approach is less obvious.

The problem

of how to reconcile environmental aims with the aim of a free
society and with other goals is essentially one of obtaining an
1
~ b

1
.
J.
environmenta

~ o f 1 1. f-e. -.
.
.
society/way
enign

The restrictive approach then) is a cons equence of accepting
C

the existing se c. in/

f

framework and,,\ attempts to graft environmental

considerations onto a basically hostile structure
restrictions.

as

further

The situation might be compared to what happens

when an attempt is made to enlarge an o ld theory which has encountered
data it cannot _handle - the initial reaction is to try to maintain
theoretical framework and ac count for the further

the

material by the 'enlargement' of the theor ~ usually through a
series of ad hoe further assumptions or makeshift subsidiary theories
which have the effect of restricting the application of the theory.
We arrive at a vast and complicated structure , such as the Ptolemai c
theory or certain fashionable mod ern logico-semantical theories
of natural language, which for a time may appear adequate and succeed
in delay,j the realisation that the original theory itself is in
need of fundame ntal revision.

The existing mass of environmental

an d planning legislation and proliferation of bureaucratic procedures
J---J-

s uchf Environment al Impact Statements plays much the same role in
modifying a fundamentally environmentally-hostile social struc tur e
and life-style a s the addition o f further epicycles did in Ptolemaic
the ory.
X

The env:ironmentalist who appreciates the need for basic change
finds himself however confronted by rather unattr a ctive conventional
choices.
dom inat ed

On the one hand capitalism offers a system wru'ch

,-s

by private capital interests which depend crucially h;'resou r ces\and where unequa l economic

5.

is seen

~ri d other power

On the other side of the

as ad essential condition for freedom.

conventional choice we are presented with a system which does not
appear t o offer an essentially different life style and which
,,~. .
(_~ f f( I~ I

1: t/

1

clearly endorses many of the ~ame values - industrialisation ~~~ogress,
J 11 .i 111/, r / /4./,,-;..Jf p1J'. J i:,. ,·i,.{;,,<f,c'. ,,
high technology 1,and so forth, as the capit alist o !tu/'lt, f-,c. e:_ .
I

In addition I the conventional Marxist alternative offers an account
of t he role of the individual and society which provides many reasons
for libertarian concern.
We a re faced in fact with the option of opposing distortions,
one offeri ng a distorted and re duced account of community and
communal life forms, and the other of the individual and individual
life forms.

Although the pure, theoretical form of capitalism is

supposed to operate on the basis of purely individual activity,
decision and production, in existing forms of capitalism thi s

has

long since been abandoned in favour of a 'mi xed' economy, with
community control through elected government and public sector
activities ensuring that we collectively control the collective
part o f our destinies, and that communi ty is represented as well
l"r cJ

At least that's/the mythology has it.

as individuality.

In

practice however these communal life forms are v ery largely a sham,
and do not amount to !eal recognition of c ommunity.

Usually these

forms are forced into an individual reductionist model so that

the

instead of 9, v _i ng,\ community control

I~~J merely give a further set

of individuals who then make the decisions ~,
is the case with the institution

of

This

government by Representative

Individuals, for ,instance, which instead of providing community
control over the

framework, merely selects a further set

of individuals who then control 'or manage' the community. · In
Victorian times women who inherited property were obliged to have

6.

a male executor to manage it for them.

Later this was liberalised

to allow them a say in selecting him.

It is better to be able to

choose an executor or managerth a n to have one imposed on you, but
no one who has to operate under such a system should deceive themselves that they are really managing or controlling things themselves.
l People in our soci~ty are of course largely blind to the fact that
real con@unity control has quite a different form, a ~cl regard such
individual reductionism in corr@unity decision - making
inevitable.

as natural and

People now accept as normal political phenomena such

a s systematical ly broken election promises, government manipulation
of sources of information, deception and s1'!.ights of hand such as
wa iting until public interest has died down or worn itself out
before proceeding with unpopular moves, and so on.

What these

phenomena seem to indicate is that the amount of real communal
control which can be exercised through the system of representativ e
individuals is not very large, even if the fact that the political
system tends largely to reflect the economic system and economic
power rather than to control it 1 is ignored.
The 'public sector' which is supposed to express the common
will, is not community controlled either in any realistic sense.

'

L ' I,{

'~

Thus bureaucra~ managing public resources or allegedly regulating
industries normally operate largely in the interests of private
corporations , as anyone who has worked on issues like forestry or
nuclear power is aware.

Crucial information is kept secre t from

the cornmuni ty, ma de inaccessible, or handed out selectively> usually
to commercial interests. ( we won't go through all the points that
could beQ;sed here in detail - they are too well known - we just
want to set the points in a certain light ~

Even where they compete

with private corporations instead of me rely serving them,

'nationa-

lised' public sector organisation s act like further corporations
or powerful individuals, and there is very little real community

1
. -1,,.c)

1:,t---2i--t

~,t
P.--t1

I

, le-,__,~L-,

{\

~ c,.j-

- . ~~ s-:
~

- -··
C~~ -~
~

-c - ~

L-:..

~..zx/\_, _~)

\..A.,,\.

•

[ ..:....}--{c ~ c

•1J,-.-,{',,/_,,t C
_A

A,i4- (_,~

l-r-:1
(f't-o-~---l)-v'--0

f) -

- V'---'2,

dl>--Cf-

0

'l[..z_

cZt,__...,...--14_)_1

( , D .___ t

~ -r ,c.,.__

C~-z_ __

7•

control.

Finall~ those individuals or corporations who control the

means of production can exe rcise enormous power, both through these
alle9ed 'community' institutions, and through their abi l ity to
control what will be produced, how much, how and where, and their
monopolisation of the abi~ity t? direct productive labour ,
-.;(K_,t:.\

their control of the pro ductio~,
(\

control the

in short

~ ,:· ._• c..::., .:'.' \'

Those who

.

means of production are thus able to obtain a very

large measure of control over the social framewor~ which comes to
be structured largely in their interests.

This domination through

4/. I

structuring now extends to almost/areas of life, and has been
documented independently in many areas, from the food we eat to the
way we travel1 from the houses we live in.i to the way we re lax.

The

control does not of course, take the form of control of individual
decisions at the individual level; they do not decide that you or
I will purchase a purple~ a green car, for example, but the social
i

framework in which the places in which peo~le live and many other
aspects of their lives are structured around cars is determined
in their interests, and so is the kind of car the market provides.
The fact that individuals are

free at the individual level, and

that such mechanisms operate at the level of controlling the largely
(.•\ i!

~ i.A""\.'• I n.S

invisi ble social framework which coT$,-a-ins and channels the choices
/1l 1My

the individual can make, explains why people retain the

iJ/ 1,<;, ~ ,.1
1

,\

freedom and of full control over the ir lives in such a system.
These distortions are not merely occasional

of

1

'abuses' or

aberrati ons - they are structural features which occur systematically
1

in all capitalist societies which have free ~ublic life forms.
rI'hey are the result of a reduction of communal life forms to various

extensions of individual life forms;of the fact that communal life
.

rv IC ,_.. .l.{1\,

1

forms occur in a reduced and impoverished indi vidualist) ,A.H3fttr.
The result ~tha t commun al control of the social framework

is

~)j~~

et ineffective. and that some individuals and group s are able to
I

8•

obtain great power through their capture and control of the
social forces of organisation and production.
If capitalism offers a distorted,individualised account of
community which allows for no genuine co,1,,,1u11ttl

control over the

social framework of li fe . on the Marxist side we are offered a
matc hing and impoverished distorted account of individual which
allows for no genuine individual control over individual life!
Marxist~ very commonly present
line account of ~cc.;cfj

(f

what is in effe_~t a r,~oduction

A:,-

- (.,,cl.. - - ~) /(.

individuals -

l(c role of t he individual is

Iv)

\

.1 -~f):Or- r,·(;e ~-&

their concept

constantly and revealingly

illustrated by appealing to the individual as a unit in a production
.- - 1

line.

Accordi.ng to this account the individual IS
I

l.'v\:. l~ji/,1 1 ~ •. IJ,2

,,K{1~•,i{uii. /

L-_

t;:: 1

no·+h ing, the soc~fty
h, _

is entirely a social product/,,\is no

more than his role in the pro duction line, he has no separate 'self '
but only the characteri~tics he acq uir es as a re sult of his
...___.
membership of a society or class ~ Indiv iduals are in effect to be

. l ,\·~
We don't make any cla im to be Marx scholars, we shall be making
('
heavy use i n elucidating and criticizing the a ccount, of the
S . U. Gene ral Philosophy Department recent publication

Paper Tigers

Although this book will be a major target in much of what follows
we would like to record that it ·seems to us a valuable piece of
work, which does a great deal to illuminate the nature of the
conventional ideological choice and expose their philosophical base~ .
It is also an ad ])t i r ably clear piece of work (in contrast to most
Marxist scholarshi~ which casts lig~t into many dark corners,
including some which, from the point of view of the attractiveness
of the Marxist a lte rnative , might perhaps better h ave been kept
a little dimmer.

.

conten -t J.o n that

The acco unt offered makes it clear that the
·(> (_ ~)

S:l::-Fl-ee

a p osition is 'totalitarian' is by no means

a capitalist p lot but h as an important point.

I

I

3

Any per son can fill role in the production li ne as well as any
other (Ste ve ns). Quote from

9.

treated as cells in the group body, and the only legitimate
formso f individual expression are through community life forms.

·c·

·L

,.

·

·

rtf; ,- TIL), H t.'.•t1tf-• •'.r , (·

r,

·1

, ~

• 1'1, 1, ,•,,U,/ ♦ :,4,

)

The al t ernative to such a position
- I~dividualism A - is
.
seen by Marxist s as the position underlying capitalism, which
holds that indivi duals contain no social influences which are
not ultimately re duced to individual forms o f influence.
Individualism - which is taken as the alternative to the view
pres e nted above - is seen as the source of c a pitalism and
inevi tably lea d s to a ll the excesses and distorts of that
,\
system.

Individ ualism must be stamped out r oo t and branch if

'- L

/;I ,~...-f.

it•

al·te,nutive to ca1;,alism is to be built 1fthe failures and
admittedly authoritarian cha~acter of existing Marxist systems
ii-tti.._,1·lif-·}
are, according to this line of~traced to the failure to do a
thorough e r1 o tl3 A

job of stamping it out in spheres other than

that of economic life. ! Indeed Individualism in this variety
of Marxist theory seems to play much the same role as sex did
in Christian theory - it is the source of all evil, and the
f'I\ ['

\- f '

mojification of the individual ego and its submission to the
~'
group replaces the mortification of the flesh and its subjection
to the spirit.

f\ v' J
(\

To condemn all individ_ualism because some

distorti'ons of i t produce bad results is like condemning sex
on a ccount of the objectionable nature of, sa~ prostitution.
J./( ;d /, Ii
I ), .
-~
<; ~-.. :~ ., . ,, :.:.
1'11\ .~ ~ , I~\ t :,
h
Howeve r , on€=.ffiay.:-==inc-l-ineL::::to-·:··be' j t wo u 1 d be
10
(

I,.. , '

<

/1

n a ive to s ee no connecti on between such a doctrine, and the
actual p r act i ce of Marxist societies (as /lli(n/

r.

Blackburn).

Marxists do

J

(- ,J -

Such a position must if followed out consist1

ently, be suspicious o f e v ery sort of individual independence
and activity which cannot be subsum_.ed in some sort of collective
interest, even something as simple and ap p arently non-capitalist
as producing your own food becomes suspect (see for example
the Kronstadt man i festo).

It appears to provide a justification

tc,,l

10.
for any amount of suppression of individual views and dis s ent
And
where these are seen as being opposed to class interest.
"~Yth1 '>
(V if 1
~ social products)-t:.My_.. appeaL to provid e
if individuals are
/'

a justification for manipulation of individuals for collective
e nds, as bad

or worse th<3n the indirect manipulation for

pri vate interests of capitalism. ,,Such a do c trine seem s indee-d to make life very easy for
the capital is t, who does not have to exert himself greatly
I

its ,~1,uthortarian potential f or the individual.

to demonstrate?,

as a free individual, freedom

For if there is no such th1ny
-J

and if there is no such thing

cannot be taken f!:;,9JTI someone ;

as individual choice, individual choices cannot be qbr c7d te d or
is that individuals just

trodden upon.

don't matter, except of course insofar,_,, as the production line
There are few people who can fail to

is short of hands.

be repelled by such a position once it is stated in its stark
simplicity - which of course it usually is not.

From an

individual point of view such a situation would have many of
the drawbacks of capitalism, and in some ways might even be
worse - goals, modes of re ~hi ng them and suchlike would all
be externally imposed on individuals.

i r-£ ttr±-s==±s_ i 11 de. e-d·--ctre--nas±c-t-1a r x is L sociai- theury----:;:.md
- -

I

~--_,,,,..,

-------

I

------

--

ever the v a r i a t i o n s ~-hl-e._ under the label------.-Marxisrn' /
I

~

- -

----

/ tf .f erqn
--:::-......... ___1
------h
.
.
an - entiu::=~,tl:_to se e now- J:.bey can alL--na:ve
s hard ----::-:---...._,
~t_
V •

,::i •

--------1

~--- -------

----------

t h ore t i ~GU.Qd at i o Tl------~ ~ s ± e n _ Q J an En 1 i g h ten ea /
!1 LX.i.Sln~ ~ e ~ _ Q l l t to

k

:,
It is difficult to see how

~~ t ofAmora l

to concern

I

----------

------~

11S.

,.,,~
(

\."\.

by the _Nf'W
,·......

\_,

~\.... ....

~J

-..-.~~

with any
..:.- can be compatible
.
~~ -'-/'

concern for individuals and their fa te, as opposed
for

daiJ C ~

.

or

societies.

It is difficult in

fact to see how the.re_ can be room for any but the most

11.

attenuated moral considerations at all i n such a view, since
even the comparison of societies in te~~s of the sort of
suffering they inflict on individuals i5 . th~ illegitimate.

It does however seem to be individuals who su.t fer ,...__whQ__.a re
,)~ :;

~,_

,--t :... , ,.. \ t

".I

f

b ..:. ' "'f

.

·-

.

-~ exploited or ~ominated, so unless an attempt

..
(

is made to give an al terna ti ve a(:count of these in t e rn1·s of
I \

the Class Mind ; it is difficult to see how such a position tould
even justify the choice of one soci·cil S~S}t?-,n.

over the other on

v '

moral grounds.
If this is indeed the basic Marxist social theory - and
whatever the variations available under the label 'Marxism•
it is hard to see how they can all have an entirely different
theoretical foundation - then the vision of an Enlightened
0 .._,..__ .

~t: L: • r

."" -, ( ·' ,!

Marxi sm which has been held out to us by the New Left is a
t--

mirage.
The consequences of this system can be seen then as the
1

•

,iJ I Ov\

el , m:nt.~ of
A

u.r;C.'tf..lf-<

j

V

f

power - or individuals (as in capitalism)

in

favour of their having no power at all as individuals, but only
through their membership of some collective,
class

or community.

For anyone who does not accept the

,d

reduction of legitimate indi1ual life forms to group life forms,
such a system of power must be seen as oppressive.

From the

I

point of view of the individual$ power to control his own life,
Q S

opposed to participating in controlling group life, to opt

such a position app ea~

to be oph~ , for the exchange of one set
J

of masters for another, of one form of domination for another,
~

and possibly ~~worse formo
C

l
J
./

following una ttrativ.e t er ,rs:
~

So then our choice appears in the

_./

if capitalism allows some individuals

,\

to dominate over others and control collective life through
the social framework,

1.1kr-,

11•, • •

the Marxist alternative allows collective-.

hc,,,

C\

12.
control o f collective life, bu t also collective control of
indi v id u a l

life, allowing no ~ep,:-1, rate

legitimate individu al

{,c.....;_

life forms.

If Marxist s are right in point in g t o the disas t rous
I'
i

H'--'

results o f covert domin ation of ,.,social f ramework by private
capi talist interest

the capita l ist is su rely also right in pointing to the
oppressive character t o th e individual o f their 0 lternat ive.

*

Of course both sides would dt~Y that the problem can be set up

this way , the capitalists bec auIB
social framework to dominate

the/ de11_1/ that there is a

(because o f the i r reductionist

- the Marxists, because th ey would deny
1,

th at there is any legitimate f o rm of individua l control to lose
in collective domination.

a 3rd point of view.
,r - ~
',(.
f
l(
,;,,
·K ·
It is di ffic ult t o accept that we are face d with such

.J
f

J f:i,

The problem i s seen esse ntially from

-' -- - -· - --- - -

(111 f 11/" ,j'('

unpalatab le choices .

}(' / .;
ii1C..-

And indeed lo ~] ic and,, coit,tJ

strate that we are not.

to demon-

There have been, and in a fe w places

where l1es te rn cul tur--al destruction is not yet compl ete, the re rc, ,.:.,,1
1

soc iet ies which a r e not capitalistic , wh ich are anti1~.n

capitalistis but where a vigorous individual\ is va lued o r not
I

dis cour ~ged and for ms o f independent individual economic activity
n1 ;, y

,:

,·

\

/1

~j°> \

,,

\'( .{ .'~f. \j
(

"· . T-~,i,.!

·-; ,

f

·,

:~: '{!.

~-"1
'1 /
., I

J,

,:

f

::·

and lead t o

1

cap ifo1, iSr.> ·

, in the way the Mar xi st critiaue

it must, and which coexists wit h true co:u1munal

ins is t s

life-forms.

1

~;0c:~ 1~•- :~ s~:h ~~~·~~ti~; •;~~p(:\~ ; ;e'd as individuals, co ll-

~-1abora ted

\ ·; ··:
'I

In such societ ies th ere is a form

'\ of in di vidualism whi ch does not inevitably undermine the socie tie s

.
I

proc eed and even dominate .

'

._._)

in groups, or as whole communities, more or less as

the . o~-;~·~ion demand~d~:,yw hile s ome of the

, product .,' } ;>,d, :.'j

,~

~

\ might be given to those who had no thing, it was not u s u a lly

-J

13.
regarded as a purely communal product unless commu~=ally

use

produce~b~ t was primarly for the

of he who had

t

f

J

obtained it or his kin.

(See HOWftt

in t~e~ Aboriginal case;

The t=orest Peo2-J.-~ ;

for the rules
_Wai-Wai ) ,

I,.

some g ar dening societies too, such as that of Melanesia,
individual eco n omic activity of a certain kind migh t even be
th e dominan : t mode of production, yet the society is not
capi t alist, and is even strongly opposed to the attitudes
of ~apitalism.*

The existence of such societies seems to show

* See

the failure of individually owned

Waiko,

11

trade

stfs

[encouraged by the Australian adm i nistration] was ... mainly
because such individualism ,

_t_u_,._t_i..__
_ _ _---=-p_r_o_f_i_t_a_c
___c_r_u_1_·n--"'-g_t_o__o_n_e

person, was disapproved of by the villagers" , p.418.

that it is possible to obtain both communal control of
c o 111munal life and individual control of individual life, that
the one does not necessarily drive out the other.
It seems clear fhm the anthropol o gical facts that the
Marxis t critique that individualism produc~ s capi t alism has
failed to make some important d1'stinctions between kinds of
individualism.

It may of course

claim

to allow ade quately for individuals and distinguish a kind of
'individualism' which is legitimate in the Marxist view.
On further inquiry it turns out to be the case that what is
labell e d individual activity in

:.:i 'q cl1

c .A s-2.s

is the kind of

secondary and derived life forms the individual may engage
in as part of the group collectivity or class, as in the Marxist
/

distinction between what is called 'Individualism'and'Possessive
Individ~1ism'

(see MacPherson}

But since this continues to

14.
,.
'
M S 15

only legitimate forms of individual life are

.t that the·

those which can be reduced to collective life forms and that no
dist1 n -:.. C:-, independent economic individual life forms I for example,
are legitirnate 1 it is a dist,n.ction in net me on:i:y
perpetuates the false J~hdnm~
.J

.Jt

iin fact : merely

, now as the choice between

Possessive Individualism (as in capitalism) and 'Legitimate
The latter is however only another and misleading

Individualism' ..

name for the participa tton of the individual production units 111
the production line.

Since it continues to admit no legitimate

individual independent activity , espe cially economic activity,
distinct from or not reducible to that of the group, it
-

cannot e xplain our anthropological facts

that these

so c 1c ties do al low some i,·1d7K',k·l~ ,d in divi dual life forms,
am/

-

JS

v ----

including economic ones _merely as in attempt to dispel the
.A

uneasy feeling the

.

,...------··· -- a-

(t hrough confusing
--.

..

,\

.

-

production line theory arouses in most of us ,

te i-minological

.

'

,r

-r,,

, Marxises in fact
shuffle.
/

dd.Sthe same trick with this sort of recognition of legitimate
individualism as Social Democracy does with the reco0nition of
the social - it offers a terminological label which pretends
µ

to recognise a distinct life form but iryfact reduces it to an
.impoverished and limited subvoJ--i<=:1-J

of the dominant life form.

77The Marxist cr.i tique appears to have confused

· the recognition

of distinct individual life forms - distinct that is from those
of the collectivity - with the attempt to reduce all legitimate
life forms to in dividual life forms or constructions from them.
It has confused Individual i sm, in the sense of the recognition
of individuals, with Individual Reductionism, which is the
recognition of nothing els~ but individuals.

It is not the

former but the latter which underlies capitalism and its
variations.

On the economic level the Marxist critique has

failed to recognize that not all forms of individual economic

15.
1(r

activity lead , capitalism, and at the soci al that not all
forms of individual power le~d to power over
rrh e triba l s oc iet ies

~...; ~

~

others.

considered were examples of

societies which had individu alism - distinct individual life
forms and economic activity - without individual reduction- i j m ~
')

,,

1((.1{ ,

1l'J

Individ u al reductionism produces distortions and gre~t
inequality of power because the social forces and means of
decision-making, of organi~ ation and of production, are turned
into concentrated power for the selected individuals who
. ff

represenithose forces in the indi vidualisa/ forms.

In the

tribal societies we considered this did not happen - decision

r

.

P

making was not usually the preogative of an individual h~d
'

A

or chief, organisation and production were not directed and
controlled by bureaucrats and powerful individual capitalis ~ or
groups such as corporations.
In societies which took a similar form, individuals would
have secure ind i vidual use right s for certain limited purposes
to the means of produc ti on , for example the land, which would
give them the right to produce for their own needs but not the
rights they have in a property system~

For example, they

would not have the right to dispose of it as they saw fit,
or the corresponding right to accumulate larger shares of the
means of production

than

others, or the right which in practice

arises from this last, to employ another person's labour.
The mean'.,;"

communJal ly,

11

of production wou/.-{

como, o m

be seen as basically held

t.c: al 1 for the use of each".

Individuals

would have, as individ uals, secure access rights to the
communal means of production to produce for their own needs.
Var ious forms of mixed individual, group and community production
could develop, based on mutual interes~as people see fit, but
the important point is that access rights to produce oould
accrue to individuals as su ch.

Provided th7

ao

not encroach on

16.
others,

1ndi vidudfs

could set their own goals, decide (A,·hu.. t

_,.\

they, as individuals need and like to work on, and pursue these
goals in their own way at their own time.
each could·

In such a situation,

pu~sue his own way, instead of all marching in
<~ I tl' j. ,,

step - the situ,it,;,1

in whic "'h all must pursue a .. -& . i ~ and

collectively determined set of goals, at a collectively determined time, place and in a collectively determined wa~ would
I

be avoidedQ

C!S""'

Such a system would Ado tribal land tenure

3ys tems, involve two levels of decision-ma~ ~ing and of life
forms.

On the one hand decisions at the social framework level

would be determined through communal decision-mak ing processes/
wh r( h would normally, ~nvol ve communal participati.,1:y
't---(__y •-<.. i

:r

~ , ,t -1 ., ' \ (

forms

,...._

rather than i-04-i -v~:r-. methods.

The sorts of decisions which

would come up here concerning the use and creation of

1hL

t{0_

means of production would be those that

affected,\ community

( e.g. in the Melanesian case the; included the
t/«2.
issue of whether Acommunal
for es t land cou}cl be wood
chippe~ w~ -~l,

could not be decided by individuals and holders),
( u't

:I

1 ( / If ..

1u. "'-J; 1

f\ I'

• ,

I :) / .. . , '

) /

f

in our case, what sort of public transport systemsAto have, all
sorts of social framework and infrastructur e questions, question~
abou t the sort of c c mmunally-ope rated production enterpri ___ses

tc

have/ and so on~
This sort of society could admit a form of vigorous
individualism ,
capitalism.

b ut

it would not be and could not lead to

The sort of individualism admitted here would be

one which could coexist with a great deal of rich communal
life, and which did not eliminate or reduce communal life forms.
rrhe indi vid·;_,iJd s in such a society would have the rnJps to control
their own lives, both as distinct individuals
diff[-:.J-0.,,-ff.J _, as members of a cornmuni ty.

and also, but
1

have would be the means to cont;.~\ ,~.~e ..li '-'.t s_ ~~-·othe; s
!' C
(r

r": ,tu,-,. • (,~·{, ,_-,,

11;

,· i

ifr ,.:

.I- ,<

/1

,, ('
·,

(

jJ~' ,.,_

F J

! '' //, ,., ,

<

~

(.

,•

//, 7 r ..-_ ; ,
7

2-f
' .

.·

'

"/',.

1

.,

, /·;,, ""?(.

, .1.·1~ . "· ·. .

rr~~.

What they woul~ !1ot

.

4

,

,
1
.

'
lc .

{
..rf,t '.

<

17.
The sort of po sition embodie d in these so r ts of societies

is in many ways a very natural one.
two levels -

It allows for control at

the social framework level is controlled communally,

and the level o f p rod uction for i nd i vidual nee~s is controlled
by individuals~

It i s the n a mixed picture.

(but a very different

one t o that whi ch appears in th e capitalistl' mixed econo my ').
4,1.,{

In such a picture, people ar e both individua~A· members of
communiti es.

For a f ree society in which peopl e control th c.. L1

own lives both sor t s of control are needed.
(.(

,v·

So, if y ou ask someone in China what occupation he
would l i k e . to f ollow , he replies, according to report, that h e

0

has no des ire s of his own in this respect, he would l ike t o be
whatever t h e community wa n t s or n eeds him to be .
,1 .,

( A very p ro pe r

answer according to the th eo ry set out in ' P a per Tiger s ').
If you ask someone here

what he woul d like to be, you

would very likely get th e reply that he woul d like to be what
or
ever he can find a job in,,\ if h e is inr t t)
a mbitious,
whate v er pays best or offers the best long-term monitary prospects ;
i.e. whatever capitali sm needs him to be.

(A good an swer also

syst em) .

acconli-1'1 '. 1 t o t h e

In neither c ase does the answer indicate a person who is

I

(I

in control of his own li fe, who do es what he wants to do, or
J\- ·- ·
tk~
what he finds s_ati_~_fying . _
At the ,; be st A distortion:;

L

---~ap.i tali sm a nd Marxism offer us, in each cas e on e kind of
con fr ol wi thout t h e other, or the other l evel o nly

I

-J,;,

I

i mpo verished and

\

qt"t-c•,li1. i:1/-r..rl.

f orm.

Bu t

,

\

(

\

\

\

( , , I~

,I

C(

i •Ii I

; I ii,

an

since the l e vels
.

j

'

t ,/ ,._- tf

)

I

of con trol have a large level of interdependence1
. each
11,,
1

lev el of control become s in fi,:,~it irnpover irlr- d
t :--· ,·· -._...,/ .. \S
. h
·"l, -r c . v~' .
wi 7'~ut its compl~=:.m ent....-;_,.. 'rhu s for example, mo st individual s

1

cannot live a fully free or satisfying individual life in a
society structured at the frame work or inf~s t rat~r ·e

18.

·fo
leve\ provide

mainly dr~~~7 , repetitive work, or no work at

all, and so on.

Both sorts of control are necessary, and to

achieve this a society must first control the social framework,
including the means of production, communally, and second ;
give each individual secure acce~to the means of production
for his own use to enable the individual to control his own
life at the individual level.

Su6h a society would be 'self-

managed' at both crucial levels.

* (from page 17)
Of course./,. - t hat is what these positions offer at their best,.,
f thi:-; ·---is an idealisa~i~

In practice most capitalist countries

-• •--•--•·-•---•-•---•••---•--•--•-••-- --•--•---•••n------••--

do not offer even individual control

(that is they do not have

the individual freedoms appropriate to liberal capita l ism),
and most communist countries do not practice genuine commun ity
control or self-management on the social framework level
(that is collective life

Ain fact controlled by individuals

in the ·:; ha pe of bureaucrats or politic al codu11 ,lie~-' .c

An alternative of this basic
,.,

f c,·
.-·;;'/t .... .J, -t"

.
I; 1 J fr1_

1~ <- J_

) •

sort_,\ has been_

J

by a few thinkers, mo~s::tiA recently in a modified form by Ernest
'" ,, c , ~ ,

C~11lenbach~ in
~arly ,.- b<:t{::).k

Ecotopia

,,.r/, '<i. r

, and a c~l:so,\ by Bertrand Russer! in h-i-~

Roads to Freedom .

have been the intention

It may

behind a few others,e.g. William Morris in _News from Nowhere
(although there are serious
discrepancies here, which we will
,,
~ ( "()•;\)_

,,;

mention later), and in ~the work of Proudh. on, and there are
~

some points i n common with some forms of anachism - again with
A

S ignificant d i 'i.<ilp{,{11(,C J

we shall discuss later.

Neverthelsss

it seems to have l)e·en largely overlook· ·:ea, and we are normally
.

-

A

~

con fr onted with a ba sic false d; dwt or"'y -capitalism in some 1 orm

19.
versus some ve r·sion of ~a~x ,s t ·

socialism.

This

ba1!c fa lse dichotomy is backed up by a systematic series of
false dicho t omies in the subsia'ary notions of each theory,
1\

which reinforc e and perpetua·. ~te the basic false dichotomy.

)

There are at least

r,1/--:;~,,, I(;

/c.--u.._r

·

/\

sets of reasons why we a re

conventionally presented with this <; .yst("t,.~ 1-i11c. false dichotomy.
a third position is sytem~
at ically discounted~suppressed} by both sides of the conventional confrontation because it is very much in their
inte r ests that it should be.

The r~ esent co~batants
i

do very well out of a game where each can point to the
opposition as the only option and can play off the drawbacks
of the opposing system to counter dissatisfac t [on with it s
o ~n - system

- an ideological or theoretical version of the

balance of power, to to speak ,,

/n which

tlJ t!-

$/:d<1r quo is maintained

by the tension between these two ideological cor,1 6 atants.

The

intrusion of a third position, especially one which seems to
have many of the advantages of both sides and the drawbacks
of neither, could spoil this strategy completely.

As someone

else, ;f we remember rightly, hasr~rnar ' ked, capitalism and
Marxism are li ke two sides of an a:c h - they prop one another
A

up by the match1•'.J weight of the - dis cu-lvantages of each side.
~

Both sides, insof ar
'-../

as they ad,1,:-l

such an option
{:!.-

exists at all 1 strive to present it as either a subv;1r\ty of
their own
one.

so<:_ 1Q(

theory

or as a subvc1.riety of the opposigng

Thus Chom. sky in his introduction to Dan1 .el GL-Lq:-,;-.n' s

_bnarchism

in effect assumes a false choice between the means

of production being cont rolled by individuals, and there being
no individual control of the means of pr?duction and no distinc ~
individual economic activity.

Thus

that any position which is genuinely

iu...

Wti\•

t.'~

-~e able to conclude

a~t~ -capitalist must

ultimately be in agreement with the go\~ of the Marxist vari e ty
of socialism, and is differing only about details like the
position of the state.

But the non - reductionist sort of

position will not fit into such a simple and loaded classification which writes in the false dict:'Ptomy -· since it allows the mean.:~
of production to be, Q_Oth communally and individually (~-=-/"\ 1::-li\ i :~- - -1 ,....' , '
' f r ~ - -"
{J.r..i"ll~.J..:A cont ro 11 e dA It is L 11 e c t i ve l~ i_~ --d±ti~re~~~~~y_~~; ;:

co

controlled at the social framework level but is individually
controlled at the level of the individual's production for his
ow n needs.

rrhe other option open to Cht,,1\. sky and co.

is to

characteriz e suc h an alternative as mend y a form (perhaps
,,
~
~
{~~r
as a p.: .: e t it-b<Y.1tgu, 01s ,fo rm, a charge remi 11.scc 1.(-.;1 that levelled
I

•

'

•

'

1

1

o,,,[

against

1·

1.J.·( ,~ ~/ ../

.

_.,

. --

.,

.,, his followers ) ,I

Proud!-,c n by Marx
'

r;(tf...!:.::!,tf ( -,/,.,1 :·,!1,,r-J\

I

capi talism/A in terms 'of th~ ~eary._s of production not being
,n

r-t

"h-

c:,

.,

t

collectively owned and allowing some individual economi c
/ ·,

activity.

But since this will lnake the tribal societies which

do not fit into this loaded classification capitalist also, it

il).

hardly seems a convincing move. __ In the same vein B I.-~ ckburn
•, 1· · , / ' (
•; 1?
r
;,'?'
.- <, ri-r 1:., _ rt/,)(( I<<
' values in the Social Sciences/ presehtr thEf
only

11 1.

1

alternative t o capital.ism as Marxism, while 'Paper Tigers'
( __;tp,_;c,,1.r )

asser~' s that there is no th1 i-· d position - social

p l1~ nomena are to be accounted for i n terms of one or other o f
the two main social theories.

Simi lar strategies are of cours ~.
,_ .' L_._ -· '-.__

adopted on the capitalist side, wh-e- vr-i--1-l--e rnploy-- the criterion
is.,

of individual pro perty ownership
'
a 1 t-e rna t-iveS.A·

j

'

) ('

v,1 ., ~\

v,. ('., \'

\1 ·}.'. I

~'"' '--

: ·- . _ -1l"-' f:. ,➔

~

t

11 h

\

1

~efin~ 'so ci""alis~t /
, ' • \__ .t.

(._. \i1 I
\)

---

.... __..,,-

/'

_

' ,,.

~ I . I/ -

1

'>

_t ;

i'. \

There are however more substan tial philosphica l r e ason s
f or the false dictptomy, which lie in the basic reduction
p os i t ions underlying capitalism and Marxism,
1,,-•,

/ •;; ,
,/

1c'?.

• {_

.c ·( .

t.

/j Io 7;'t,J

•/ i(,,: , I '/
I/

t:t,,

d

~iR/o:,a,.J

21.

The basic reduction underlyi ng the ideology of
capitalism is the reduction of communal life forms to certain
sorts of individual life forms, or mere rough~ J.y, of communities
to individuals, while that underly ing Marx,sr:11 is a reduction
of individual life forms to certain sorts of communal life
forms, that is , of individuals to elements of certain sorts
wholes .

*

*

Burnheim in rpaper Tigers' points out that the usual contras ~f

between individualism and
reduction of

'

i-l~_>f15'~--. \

in the sense of a

!) ' • 1)

dr 1.A,.-t.-ctt/.J' to parts of societies which are then

1,·1

-t-

.

c,t1 .__: ho·~c1•-·; .,

treated is fu \ her individuals, is a f u/:;e_ <!l~a.ti:Gn"'.
He points out t h h t Marxists want to reduce individuals to
elem t n J s of only certain sor~-~ of wholes (v iz. classes, which
are not then treated as f uf- /!1-.er indi vid~ls) .
ever goe s on to set up a further,

He then how-

ore basic false dichotomy

r'H

between this position and a capitalist reduction to individuals.

1·

----

How are such reduktions justifjea?

,,"'

appeal t

The argume t involves

/

the subsidizations tvupport the reductions.

systematic .:. lse dictatomie9---~i~h.__ justify
/
'-,
,./
as follows:
'

"

(1) capita~
//

( 2)

/4

t ineifidualism -~~sus

ind'i~idual c l,_; , (

/

alter c· ~·/, .> f r~~nershipf
/1

//

/

.j_,._,

of

,,tc.,·

'·-

/

/

'-.C-~

<_ __.../

~ ..... ;

/

/

o

ollectivism.

proquction versus

"',,, ~
~

·~-

22.

According to the third theory, both these sets of reduction
alternatives should be rejected. ! A non-reductionist position,
accordin g to which there are legitimate in~i vidual life forms
which are not reducible to soc ~ / life forms, and legitimate
soc~ I life forms which are not reducible to individual life

forms, can give a more adequate account of t he data than
either of the reductions and s ynthesi ze much of the material

eac.lt uses to support his case t.<-•!1 ; le

,',· I•~,·\//

avoiding -~

difficulties the reductions engender.

of the

Individualism, in the

sense of recognition of legitimate non-reducible individu~/
forms, is one th ir1J - the

lif~

individual reduction position that all

life f orms ultimately can be reduced to these, is a very
different thing.
How are th e.

reductions justified·?

The argument involves

appeal to the subsidiary notions to support the reductions.
The systematic false d;~otomies which justify them in argument
are as follows:

(1) capitalist
( 2)

;ndividualism - versus coll e ctivism.

individual c' l<)1<..,2,t s--ly) of means of production versus

'· ., • ) : '

Cl

a-l--t erna ti ve ownership.

versus

( 3)

(a)

indivi (L..c als as not SO'Cil~/ly determined at all

(b)

the individual is completely soc io. l ly determined.

(4)

{a) 'obse rvational data' as theory-free versus
(.} 5,.

( b)

1

o bservational data' the or- y - depend ~_nt.
t,
(5) (a) individuals as completely free , versus

(b) indiv iduals as complo tely determined (atl choices ,ndividuals
make are in fact d etermined) .
( 6)

(a) The free soc iety as one .in which individuals

can control individual life, versus (b) the free society a s
one in which people collectively determine collective life.
All these false dkl1 0 tomies are reje.c ted by the nonreductionist postiion ..

2 3.

(1) and (2) we have already partly dealt with.

To

j,.,i-1_1.I /

,. ;~ / sum up, the false dichotomy over fo L/3

the alternative of a mixed

form of control of the m eaus of production which does not fit
into the simple classification, which enables the form of
:c ~ m,v-~Aily
the infrastructure to be cG-Jd..ect~ controlled
-<-0.!id

H~

use of it to be

individually-controlled, as advocated by the non-reductionist
position.
The presentation of the individual as not soc✓(~ ,,/;;_'
ci I/
l
determined P'~ at 11 appears quite freql.lntly in capitalist

7

( 3) (a)

,

I'

\' \

arguments, espec rct. lly in the economi"l c sphere.

Most capitalist

'-.. /

e conomic a rguments depend upon taking ind i vidual choices as
'raw', as not in any way in £ lue n ced by o r dependent upon a social
framework.

They appear to presuppose an absolute indiv i dual

who would make the same choic es in any society.

Th~s for

example env ironmentallsts who suggest that things like a~r tT

condi tio~s are u 1-w1 ,:c_,.,:__~sct"1/

and wasteful of energy are ,n<? t with

the response from status-qua supporting economists
just choose to
r~-..i:>

11~ H:

\f 4 , 1 {,

raw, and

The choice is represented_

have air -cond itioners.
a

that peopl e

rreducible - to interfere with it would be

...~~ .A. "'

authorita~ because it is presented as a choice at the level
of individua l li f e-control, instead of as a social framewor k dependent choice,

A

good e xamp le is McCracken [

]

.

This is

part of the strate gy of reduction to individuals through trying
does not exist, or if
it does, i s

a lso chosen by the individual on the level of

personal 'raw' choice -

('a legally elected government determined

it'.).
Environmentalists are always encountering the related,
arg ument that a certain predicted level o f
consumption, say for forest products, energy demand,

24.
space, must be met , no matter how disastrous its environmental consequences'.

'Demand'

is treated as expressing

the individual~ raw needs or choices, which are

,coN.:.e.11J.ed

as lacking a social context, and therefore, it is argued,
as being essential to meet

a ~d authoritarian not to meet.

To deny such demands would be to abrogate individual freedom.
rrhis is the basic argument for Cons1u1,:r ism, and it is widely
employed by those who wish to promote industrial growth t o
meet alleged cop (_.il.i,, 1 t: r--

~ eeds ' reg a rdless of the consequences.

Courses of action which fail to accommo date cons!-< 11-iu; i nl

t hus

ruled out, and

are

consumerism and its

consequences repre s ented as necessary and inevitable.
Of course many people,especially environmentalists,
realise there is something wrong with this argument.
do not just up a,vJ ' demand' expres~~~ays,

People

junk paper f or

packaging, or energy capacity to power hea~ed swimming pools
or electric toothbrushes.

All these 'needs' are the product

[ 1,.r7 -'·-

of a certain sort of;\ social co ntext, which the Con sume .ri sin
igno r es, or presents as inevitable, wh e n it is

/lrgument

not, or chosen by people ge1rally/when

>r

is not.

The

Consomerist Argument, then, is a pa.rt of the capitalist reduction
choices to individual choices, which is pJrt of -the~
reduction of

: so c ~I

life forms to individual life forms.

[Accompanying th=js r e duction is a picture of th e individ tt~ l s
~ s c ontaining no s 6 cial elements which are not i n some way
f}-1·
1--<. l.·-~\. C --- ~
t,; :_+ ,. : -~: _,, ; c ..{ · ,) , ,.)_ --·· l ~reducible to p- roperties
of individuals &'\, l] \
.
(b)

On the oth er side of the conventi on al battle we are

presented with an equally distorted and reductionist picture
o f the individual os completely so c. ; -= ally determined.

I :f

the capitalist picture presents social choices as just certain
kinds of individual choices, the Marxist picture tells us
that there are no individual choices which · at-e..

,H·[

reducible,

2 5.

orl exarnina,tion, to socja/ choices.

Marxists

,uj}if- (r
l-

reject the

'J

capitalist a ccount of the individual and society and ~s ~st on the
importan ce of the social fram ewo rk, but in th e process eliminate#
the i ndividu al .

In 'Paper Tiger ~' two main arguments are

presented for this positi o n .

·

(i) The Invariance Argument:

This argument appears in

several pap ers in the 'Paper Tigers' coll ection and seems to be
central.

Essentially it argues that the individual does not him-

self d ete rmine his own choice unless the determination would b e
invariant in any social framework. , Thu s Steve ns, SuchtiJ
Chal;,1, ers, and Burnheim.

and

In Burnheim's paper the argument

appears in the f orm of the demand for

cor e

an

of self, which would be unchanged under any variation of social
U11 k'.;:;
co ntext or framework,~ t his can be provided 1 there is
tJ;1( re,\/ s. 1,>
as J 'the sear ch for the real self proves illusory' ,
1

)

,7 nd the pictu re of individuals as completely s-r, ,,,,;/l
mi ned is e stab l ish~<l.

deter-

Of course if the de P1 J nd for our

core Abefore i ndependent no n-reduc i ble individual
self-hood were admitted). was correct, i t wou ld be very ea s y to
demonst r ate the Ma rxist reducti on .

Bu t the demand is far too

stron g, and the argument is thoroughly fallacious; for it
a~sumes that the relevant proper ties of individua l s mus t be
purely individually determined befo re the re can be a non- reduqible
indiv i dual.

All that is required howe ve r is that the re should .

be an i ndividual eleme:nt in their d etermination, a nd. thL:; would
not lead to the expectation of an invct~t--~,,..it:

class of

I

sel f

i

properties which were unchanged in ~QY soc i al context.
The f allacy in th e argument is perhaps best illustrate d
/1 ,'.'

by an analogy.

;,£'

J

We know t hat the genetic inheritance of indivi duals
;\

can determine within a broad range wh a t they can become or cannot
become, e.g. if they are genetically male they cannot become mothers,
,r:1""/;,

(, ,,r:, ,,,,., (( •.
/

i· (:·

,.(''

-.·; .--:. ,,-· ...,.. .f"
.

.,,,/'.,,

26.
if they are genetica lly members of the c o rr o t

fam i ly they

and so on.
will grow in a different way from 1egu"mes,
.....__,,

Any

g i ven property an individual has will pro bably be the result
of both genetic ~nd environmenta l factors, and will vary as
So we cannot argue that individuals

either factor is changed.

are completely environmenta lly determined unless there i s a
class of 'core' properties which are invariant under genetic
Of course there are no such properties.

change!

But that is

what the invariance argument demands - that before we can
claim an independ~t individuality ,

'a 'real self' other

than the soc i4 tly determined self, there must be a class of
purely self-determin ed properties which would be the same
regardless of different social environments .

There are, of

course, no such prope !··ties, so, th e argument con c_.l udes fallw:;u~rd,1,
there are no real individuals.
is a mi x ture of soc ;cd/11

But if an individual's cha racter

determined and individu a lly determined

. .J

f eatures, and if any one pro perty showed in fact the influen c e
of both i n t~ ~es, then we could no t

expect such invaricince.

But t he case of social versus individual determination does in
fact seem to b e in the crucial respect a good analogy to the
genetic/envir onmental case - the social context, like the
th

genetic inheritance, deterines, in a broad way what the
A

individual Lan -Or cannot become, what he ca n
CL..

do or choose , *

*
<!

1

The analogy also throws an interesTin

on the individual' s

i

light on the Lysen Ko

that genetic inheritance -:_,,·..!_,/ ·IJ,._
the theo:rJ
6,-,;1 L,d ft f ,!(_·k , J l.//,t/4,, k,dk,y;I
C/ A
~
rh . flfi?i1~11_'-!f.
11.,',/'t"fllr;e.~ {·.,/{J _
the u(gts of the social reduction, as required in Marxi~t theories.
I/~ ,.: ,/.l;"r,.i /.-....
lr l r,/' l ·:-n , :,,-,,-,. 2 '"'<· ...... /,•. ( ;rt',: ~' .O>' ,.'--,fZf ,'J(~, L;"'I ,:'" (~ . ..,. fc.:
J ,,.;1 ,· /. ..,· 11/J " ''j,., lc.-,J c./
Pr~suP1l,4 7

affair.

.

.
1

constraint
It acts a j A
...,. - -··

1

,(..' ( ! [

0

. -•...,

•

'

, / u,..
vrt;.( /(C /J

I

'\\

',"'·,..__ ____ __ p:t.h
~

•

,

I I/..-,

~

r\..i.- ,

I)

_, /::

(·,/ - · ~t'""

(, / ,

II/1/Jt

of development, and its influence will therefo r e be seen

(

27.

in all the properties he displays, without1 of course, being the
l/is actual

complete determinant of those properties.

development involves as well his own indi viduallj de termine d

-f~L1/u:--r1 .,·

in the same way that the actual development of aH individual
with a certain genetic inher i tance also involves environmental
fa ctors .

This is the sort of picture of the individual in

relation

to h is social context which u..r1de-rl ;e. s the non-

re:1uctionist position , and it is in most respect s a fai-r!J
natural one.

In contrast the two reductionist positions

present, in term s of the analogy, a false d ic hotomy picture
1./

of t he individua l as comple tel yg·enet ic ally determined i-:!'11- -- ' ~-,
·t~ .--• - l ~

the one han d

.

(Marxism\ and as comp.J:_etely
,1'fl-

environmental ly

determined on the other (cap ita lism).
(ii) The second set of arguments for the complete
social de te rminat ion of the individual f is
L

papero

presented in

It is an interesti n g a nd
,,

sugges tive but l ikewi s e fallacious argument , which proceeds
fr om the assumed theory= ..c:=-_aepen d en t characte r o f al l
data, to the conclusion that ' individual'

obscrv.d r<' ;u, {

C'< '~t

obs e rvation, \ entire ly dependent on shared social

,.tr tifact s;

1

I.e.

theor ie s, is a social and not an ind ividual phenomenon.

{u e.nce and
duct s .

knowledge I tfw

11.

,

are social and no t individual pro-

It is p ointed out that the phenomenol o gy and epistem-

ology associated wi th capitalism - empiricism and th e
individua lis t red ucti on - holds that observation al data
is completely theory - indepe nden t, and this approach is
correctly rej e ct~~ d as in compatible with th e,
o f theory forma ._,___
r--- ti on

/At1(l

actual process

fa lsification .

Even if the o ther connections in the argument are
admi tte d, we contin ue to be p resented with a f alse contrast,
this time between obs ervation a~

completrly 'hard' or as

2 8.

completely 'soft', a s compl etely theory - depe ndent, or as
comple t e l y th eo ry - independe nt.

Again the obvious p osi ti on s ee ms

to b e overlooked by the opp os ing reduc tio nist c a mps.
gi Ve L--t.

The point n eeds more elabora tion than c..an b ....:.

h· ,f l0 ½~ , but briefly, what i s o verlooke d in the a rgume nt
is the po ssibility of saying that some observations are theorydependent, and some are not ,\ that is, that there
'so ft'

da t a.

cffe~

'ha rd' and

the comple te

Su c h a position would explain wh a t

theory-depen dent theses cannot explain,the unden~b/e
fact that some theories are fals ,; fied.

It can also explain -

what t he e mpirici st position cannot - ~ hy theories are not
nearly as f alsifi a bl e as t he e mp iricist takes them to be, and
some not falsifiable at all, and why in many cases what is
n ee ded is a c once pt ual shift, that is a shift to
rei,1 h--rpreJ1,4f,;,, of the theory·-depend e.nt area of data along the
li nes presen fo,l.

b...J

a dif ferent theory.

The theory - depende nc e

aspect might be s een a s gi ving a certain cl~~
(the 'so ft data'), or it

d ependi~t data

['
01

mjh~

theory-

be seen as

giving certain t heory-depe nd e nt constraints on observati on,
while still leaving room f o r a no n - the ory depende nt area to
op.~rate within those constraints, t h at is, an area in which
, ,n

~

peop le opercit1 11t , with
J

c/,fl c, (:~1f-

theories can reac h agreement .

(Neither of the two reduct ion ist theories can adequately expla in
agreement and di~agreemen t

be tween people h ol ding different

of such a non-reductio nist account of

theor i esV_/)

observation an d theory would be that they are seen as both
u 11d_

social and individual - scienceA knowledge have
but they s

sooQI

elements

;;-l 1 1 occur at the individual level, they are both
f1lfd .

social ~nd ind iv idual products.

AA

similar account in all

o f free-will and determinism would see individuals as partly
4..

•

f r ee, a n d a s Pftly determined -

.

•

the latter determination

occ urri ng as constraints on individual action rather than as

29.
giving an area of completely determined action and another
different area of completely free action.
i,..J., £

~;(b) '1 he notion of freed(l.m and of a free society is A one
of the most important suffering from systematic ambiguity .
1

Each position defines the notion in accordanc e with its own
concept of individua l and society;

thus the capitalis t

position ck~hes freedom as the control by the individua l of
his own life (with appropria te safeguard s), the Marxist as the
con t rol by the collective or class of its own life and so on.
The non-reduc tionist position would reject the notions of
l,

'J C'{ ,r·1

freedom which each reduction position offers, and would see
1\,

the choice as involving

a false dichotomy .

According to

the non-reduc tionist position, to be free is to be free as
an individua l and also as a member of a community , to be able
to control one's own individua l life as an individua l, and
also to be able to act freely with others in controllin g and
determinin g the social framework .
;,<

'f.

¥-

-~ ---

~

~"I:-~

The false dichotomi es presented by the two-reduc tion
cire..
reason
positionsA clearly systemati c in nattire.
for them lies in a logical assumption and approach which is

com m on to both theories - the reduction positions are the
result of extension alism

'm. 2~te:rlalisrn ') in logic and

metaphysi cs,oper~ti ng both through the accounts of the subsidiary
n otion ~ and resul6~ . i n the the basic reduction position of
individua ls reduced to eleme nfr of

cul u,,,~ sorts of social wholes

versus social wholes as reduced to constructi ons out of
certain sorts of elements.

29 .
Those who do not appreciate that everything is connected to
everything else, and that relevant logic particularly is connected
to everything else, would probably be surprised to learn that the
basis of these false dichot.01les lies in logical theory.

The two

,{

reductionist positions apply in social theory a particular set of
reductionist doctrines a bot.ft the whole-part relation.
The individual reduction position which underlies basic capitalism
is that the whole is reduced to no more than the sum of its parts the parts are the thing and the whole i s a mere fiction or certain
sort of construction.
The opposite reduction holds that the whole is the thing and
that the parts are no more than components of the whole - the y have
no real function or role of their own except to make up the

whole.

This is of course the approach which matches the Marxist reduction
of individuals, and it results from buying~~l~same logical
assumptions about wholes and parts and applying the reduction move
in the opposite direction.
The logical assumption behind the reductionist approach is that
the social whole-part relation is extensional, as it is treated in
standard mereology.

<.? r o ./r:,.·_ .~"' '-··• ,.
/

:J.. ti ·,

r•
i

J
("~

\., C

l'

l

•'-·\.. )

C

• .

~\__(_ ___ · '-- '-- 'c l ...
•

:

,: · -

v•~,1-.

.__,, :;>>··\-

', '.\
I

(_,-..._

....

l-··"'
'-

-

It is the seeing of th e whole~ part relation as extensional
which forces the choice be.tween seeing wholes as just aggregations
of parts, as on t he capitalist side, and seeing parts as j ust bits
of wholes, as on the Marx ist side.

If the relation

is extensional,

then one or the other reduction is inevitable, so th at someone who
w, she~ to reject one reduction, say the re duction of wholes to parts,

Cf!JD -fi,'j

is ob li ged to embrace the

one, the reduction of parts to wholes

so that the Marxist reduction of individuals is an outcome of sharing
s uch an extensional outlook.
With an intensional relation this choic e can be avoided, there
can be both wholes and parts, each with properties not reducible to
those of the oth er.

Consider;for example, the

/mplicational case

where we represent the proposition that A as the class of sta temen ts
implied by A, or equivalently the class of consequences of A.
Then if the notion of consequence is treated e xtensi onally, for

oF

example as material implication, the joint consequences ~ A & BJ that

r:F -1 i 42..,

is the consequences~ proposition {A

& B}

will just be the sum

of the separate con sequences of A and the separate consequences of B.
That is {A & B}

= {A} U {B},

or, in terms of wholes and parts, the

whole {A & B} is just the extensional sum of the parts {A} and {B},
and is therefore reducible t o it in a straightforward and common sense.
If on the other hand, the notion of cons£ },enc(;,. is treated

1

intensionally as in re levant implication, the n the joint conseque nces
of A & B exceed and are not reducible to the sum of the separate
consequences of A plus the separa te consequences of B.

That is

i'

B} · not just and can 11c: t be reduc ed to the
,'
The residue or
sum of its part~ proposition A and proposition B.
the whole proposition {A

&

difference between the joint consequences of A & Band the sum of
their s _e parate consequences might then cal led an emergent fea t ure; ·\ k __:-.
The relation between suc h

emergence results from intensionality.

reductionisrn · of the whole-part relation and extensional treatment
'
'
.1 Cr./) N,!/- , !f,dvhr//l-7
'/)_ft. ('.

. . J1l7'UJ

1

11

//i,c✓ t'1. d(c: -, {

l

•

A

•

r:-.I /)c!tf.·c·.:JlA~/,-. 1/J)7

1.

of it is so close that the {A & B}
for the

~

= {A} U {B} feature is sufficient

•
of the whole,-_- '_part relation.
extensional~

In opposition

to this 1 it is possible to develop a theory for an intensional
whole_:-:._~ part relation in an intensional mereol og y which models the
whole ·-- -~part relation in terms of an intensional implication relation
such as entailment.
It would be rather surprising if the social whole ~~ part relation
.

--

,.,,.--

an extensional one which enabled simple summation except in

were

certain special cases.

It is after all rather well-known that people

can do in combination what they cannot do separately, not just in the
to

extensional sense in which they can sum their joint forces (e . g.
I
.
lift a rock), but al.so in the more important sense which is no~_
extensional in which what they can produce i n cc-mbination may be
far more than (and different from ) the sum of the separate efforts
of each (e.g. in writing a joint paper).

Such

emergence seems

especially to be a feature of activities which involve combined
inte nsion ~ __,.lity l as many activities which are characteristically
social seem to.
The simple reduction of social wholes to sums of individual
parts is the basic reduction of basic capitalism.

The position is

"({ f:t-•c·

,·1 ( , __

very important from a theoretical standpoint as the crucial r--e-l-e.v~nee
point for the understanding of other positions / .just as are the Basic
Reference Theory and Basic Empiricism to the understanding oV pos~tions
~

in epitemology
. and logic.
. 1,

However as with the Basic Reference Theory

and Basic Empiricism, the numerous difficulties the primitive form
encounters lead to many refinements, elaborations and extensions,
and there are few who now hold the basic primitive position.

The

reduction of social wholes to individuals view points is liberalised
correspondingly -

[thus it is no good identifying the position of

Jf.4.
capitalism with the primitive reduction and attaching t~at,
in the fashion of Bwnheirn. ref

J.

One lih.eralisrd reduction

position, which appears to correspond to the extension of
capitalism in Social !Je111ocracy, holds that social wholes can
be reduced through anal:'.{Sing them in ten:ns of a theory
concerning the assumed components and their interrelations.
Thus the reduction is liberalised hyond a simple whole-part one,
to provide a theoretical explanation and to take account of
yet furt her features of wholes in terms of th e behaviour and
interrelations of their compon e nts.

Such a th eo ry would

however be extensional, in accordance with the usual assumptions
motivating this kind of reduction, so that the essential,
non-reducible emergent features of the social will still be
missed.

The reduction - although i t will be ab le to take

account of a more complex set of interrelations, between
comp onents, will con tinue to be inadeouate and to leaitimise
/\ (::,
an impoverished version of communal life "orns ~ ".'here is
·'

j

strong logical case that such reductions cannot be made.

This

~

is provided by such results as I] rrow' s the:erem ancl.
pa ral lel results in voting theory. *

The fact oi complex

interdependence between the individual and the social whole
also provides a strong prima facie case against a reduction,
since if some characteristics o ~ individuals depend essentially
on the social whole, the latter obviously plays an irreducible
role.

But some characteristics of individuals do seem to

depend on and be modified by the social framework,

tn the same

vwy that the growth and species composition of the plants in a
f)'lic<O
rainforest is modified by a partly determined by the
. climate
,\

*

~

See P.ou t.ley [

J'

)The Impossibi lity of General

ionist Social Theory.'

1\

Reduct-

and other matters which a r e determ ined by the biolo g ical
commun it y .
The irredu cibilit y of the social , of soci al levels
of exp lanatio n and occ urrenc e seems to parall el very closely
~

the irr e duc l bi li ty of th e i.n tension al, and th e relat ed

i rred ucibil ity of non-re ferenti al to refer e ntial occ urrenc es
el the irredu cibilit v,. of commun a l
in semant ics. seems to narall
)

life forms to individ ual life forms .

The

non-re ducti onist

t he sis in logic and metaph ysics, that objects have b oth
e xten sion al and irreduc ible int e nsiona l prooer ties,
. l;t -{

I,

I

"~'i

oarall els in a Away that the non-re ductio nist thesis in
social theory , that the proper ties of individ uals are
determ ined by both individ ual and irreduc ible social
forces, that is, are both individ u a l a nd social.

There

seems in fact to be a close and direct conn e ction betwee n
the social and the int ension al - as we noted earlie r,
on l y

intensi onal relatio ns between the i ndivi dua l and

the commun ity seem t o be ab le to c apture the e me r~en t
feature s which charac teri.se the social.

It seems impo ssibl e

to charac terise the notion of a social commun ity withou t
.~) ~ \ .'...,-' . ..J

appeal ing t o inte n sional notions - .~ ims, shared p r op os es ,
shared commu nication and sha red values .

Not a ll int ensio n al

not ions are related to th e so c ia l of course , but if some
are essent ial to it , as we have s uggeste d, then the d e ni a l
or reducti on of the i nt e nsiona l, on e of th e l eadi n g thesis
of the lo g ical and metaph ysical theorie s as s o c i a t ed with
empiric ism, is the denial or reducti on of the basis of the
social .

The proble ms and positi ons relati ng to th e attenp ted
so
reduc tion of the intens ional to the exte nsion al parall e l
closel y and str,i,.. l<ingly

those relati ng to the attemp ted

reduc tion of the socia l to the indi vi- -dual that it is

tempti ng

to conclu de that they are in fact differ ent aspec ts of the
ons
sawe positi ons, that such interr elated pro bl ems and positi
reapp earing in differ ent areas form a world view.

:!?or a

o fte n
worke r in the mode1-n. philos ophic al produ ction line, it is
diffic ult to see where and how the little piece of the puzzle
he is workin g on fits in to the who le.

*
And as Smal le n.t.p .f :ound ,

journe ys of inqu iry to discov er conne ctions and overa ll
signif icanc e are not encou raged.

It becom es possib le to see

er s
as little more than a coinci dence the fact that the found
of emp iricis m and of its logica l count erpart ~ the Refere nce
-4:,..--

Theory ;,

*

Locke , Hume , :"'!il l, and so on-r were also the found ers

Refere n c e

Smal l creep 's Day.

Los I(_

~

r 1-

- - - ---\,-·- ' ~ M . . . . . · h \} ----- -------....____

a.,,_P .. v,
n . ~
'~
.;,.

·~

(\.-• ..__ 1_

~,~

\r---c v,

fZ..:.. \ .~~-.:.._~,~( ~
-:-i\.

.., _... \.¼,·\J':,

\ C

~-,

~--t---t

~(?'..I-" (''
\ ': ~ • --L(_

l (_

; 1-z

Y\ l.",--v ...... v~

!. .

'A· \ \

~ ~ -H v--'1,,. ,

0:-v-...i-h_

~'""'- l)
t\'I -+"'- l.. , .1·,·•,

-~

' ~°'o \.~ ~ (>..' -..:....
Ob 'i,• ' ..,' "·- 1\~' ·'- ,~ .. -.. . .,.\

0

-(-,-( \

"'r-~s,.~
...: ."' n,~\

_c....:i ......

Ct.C...

(),

1._, ~,

1
•

f ~t "'- _,,") 1\0,-h\..t.

l)<A'~H ,,,u__ 'Tkt-.~t-/

N

r:

:~ w f

\

tN
. t-r

~t.J....

cA\ ~\-'"c. ,.,.__l\-

-NO\ ~..N-

, -.k· t_(;\

\::- ~-( I,

..__1..,c_,

A.~

(

t ,_;,_· \

..:t.. 1-~ --~- \.~

-\h--t -'.,-t-·y '""
o b\4

,,,

(

~

~h~

....... .,Y, i__t.,., (( , . \.

. , _ ( _, \._ ."'-- (_ \ \ (l V

·~

('.{ -

·" -'.c \ '·,-.._;_.__.\ .,.__\

\,.. , ..

'(' ~\....(_

\

)

C·,

v,

(t__1, , _'-:,

l

C

>'\ <- \

v, \·'- Ot -...- ."' \
• •1
.,., ,._._,~6' \ .,,.__ ,,,..,.:~•·, ...._..,

's. \

<

h

1

C ,, ,

.._ (

<.. .:.- <.. '-- '

·-

J

le·

0 \·

's..

\_-<::'

bd.~ ~. \- -

'{\. (:- .__ '-

-

~-'"'- ~ . t~ -,_,'--\ -'.c. \

/

~\.,~---c\-r ~

-\ .t

1

f...

'""· '-~~

<-\ \., '· \ 'i ; LA.

( \ \ ::,.
'

\~\v. .~~ 'I
C.).,\ ~

'-'--;Lt~\

r-t

\,.~-, L~ --.

'-C..

,::.

p

t

~ ~;,-..;:
Ic. -...,',

~1..• v'-l..-L)

~/

l.1. - -t- \-li.r··

\

\.'. ,I._,

t' 'b :; ✓ ~ · - r:__ ..."- .._

Ct.....,: -,,.._..:__

(t:... .... ...5.

..\'N-,

c ( c•-~ v--- ~.:. ,"\
bz)

:l e
't ,tlJ1..." .J.1..~ I

t)..:...~ \ ( c .. ll '/1

\"'-1,.!'.- ,~'"l' ,l?;~

~\\

ohv--.-0c -hc~,"'\ , Ot:>Y-h)

r•!:ot1 •+1 .:~ . .

16

"1----'('-."-'--l~

u ,/\ . .._ _ ·- ··•--···· . .. ·- __·---~-~-\~~--::?_.\~~-\_~~::

f\ c... .~ \ L

·~1-L
F\..(. ~-"'l'-'/
-.
/

Ci.!"'l..
b"- ':s; C ( 01'\~~l\ v,t,'\~~
c.,\\y11..\..', c~t -t-'< \ C/J< -q_;~

.,.,~ .'.'HC\)

tJV\\'/

___---•·••··
--···---·- .,,.~---··-··- ··-·--(,
,.,.,_

1..,,J

"'-.olz.

C, V\ \

ci

'j

IJ<,o \

:

~t.t) .;

I

..L
4 ..

..) <;::. ·-· i :; -

\\. e-, -

\'-'( 1.1..t (

i :-,::, Y' .. ,

:.

Lc~,: c,;>-....'

- l!

l1.,~\ .

('r._.--\-YV-. ~":I

-

0 6)l

c\ s.

0-d·

~

',-. .,._, _u._J

i"lov,

\---( ~(::-.(_ \.'- \,;__ i ( \ V''I

-t-,-( _(\A."-( \. \ C-V\ \'

r◊s

-'-

>\

\.i\ OV'I ,

b\JH"

r~ e----'-\. \..:...1 ,.

'-

y\.. C \-

.\ \.,~~ \--

~\.c._.. .: ----cc~ -'

---1..t..~ . _:.. :-,..-1,._.\..., ;_,
(

')

\ ""'-

h,t ~

--1✓-'~•-C '~b \ .(_

l " \ "''- '

~

f·, c-.. ,

\ \I\ U..v, it vl'\ 1\.. i \
~
. ./
...C-~~~ ----h_ e·,J
('- "\. C-cl. t_

4<:-

n. ~~,,

( lp-'.).,;:,,: -'-',1 .\·\C' v,

\~

lA..

~\..C'v, - -

,~....:..v,.l,.,... \ ---t-t- L- h :-""' \-.,t..~-'-~~:::..v-\..
.\-1,,..:·e \\-{•"""'-~ ) ~ '/' ·e.\c\.i 1v:i..t1,-_ '.;.1t);-,
a... \
(1·t<>d1,\v'-.\-( .~~ c, 'p~ ~ I \- .1'..1.·---Ca,_..__ ~c ('\.-W-( c1r\
o'b ~'..:~-~A

1~

I

y, o \

r-

1 -;, \ )

e~- - )

1

C lA Sc~

'

,·.=

C
(> \'.°"

f)l-llL. (' _;; ,') P H '(

or;·)- (-,\. (' ,\., _'::: ----~ \\

C\ t-- ~-'-

\-·'v ·--<. DH· \ ,

'fl,C

Tv , (\, ,),('l_._,. _>,•\

\~

\)1"1 \ ,,

Y\t--t--tA '/ ob:.. ~r . ) --- IL ::-'"• \

' n~~

J

, :_: \ ..t__ vu V\ \- .

C ,,_ \

1 \I\.

~ C'C \ r~ \

i \--\·'Z (1-·' (;
(/ \

I !

II\

'·1

I 1,, ( · \

v,

\ 1~

,_,.'k c\z

v)k, ci, ,

\ kt

(\ b.S

, -.. . .;__ ()i '-- U'~

'

{✓(

1

O Lv-:l.1__

f,__1_!~C,._ t:)..( .,..._J}

\.-

,

\v\

\ ktc,.,...,
·2i (-) :

~

~J-~.

\'{)

L \ _1"'- d

hz. ~-..J.."'--0",
co\\.I c~--: J·t

I '-'- •

L

(,;__l'()\ i ,-. \ u . . . ,
~)

(

: . 0 C.

1..

1.
~

:·,

-i ~

(1-·C c 'v-~ ;___ \·,

:': --\,

.:: .;,

~

t-\

\

-{ C '

v-,<. • ._

J

0- ·\......_

,\ •

,\.t._

\

r,.J'\ (/

I V\ ( \1\.!< C\.1.\,. \ ,

\::t..

J
J

f'

\ \ ~-{'.__

-\ u~

.._,.,,d,,--'. :.. \,,'

1,-.. _

o ~L. :__....

_s,

t

( l!..--v..__

(), c.

1

<\..

.\--a

\,\t

{o\- . . . . ~

~)-- kc l e l

~

h .___. . . .__,-

-., ( '..1. ....' \.(\.. •- ~ -\

0'-'1\-J

L.l

_ _ _ _ _ _ ____.

o/

c'-'-'-' -~

\ \,--{' \.

_

\,---..,', '-;.:., It)\(_

\(t .--,.J.

\-\~ '- \.-

I v'-{\_ '-,} - \

f

'() 0

-r ,_.__ L L -!~
r/.L \..tJ-- , - , 1,,-:.... d

I

() '(\ \ I

_

r5 · -·-- ::,

\ \,,' ' \. ' '-'

(\.'--'

_

__. .,..._ C \.,...,'--,_ t l _ .r_ '-

\S ,.. /

,

1

\ V\

~

t

A ' \.,.., (\.. --"...r. l '..

':. oc. , "- 1I
I~~

......~ ,

C.. ( \...

~c)._,_..._L '-Y:J\..{'._

r
\ ·,

"'-\

\

,:,. ,-1<:__

_

\')(;_~\ ,(.

c \..(. -, --.;,.,_\-

'-

'::.. O C \;_\

·...:::,·-""1
- 'yt.,-'-_

~···--------~('-'½..- •-"-----·-o~.. .

, -~ \ \ ....... 1.,1 ~

f·' ->--h ,;_ \..

~ {; l · \--~
1\-

.

c( , ->--'- r t ...,._,A,, ~

NI'.'.> ~ o c.., c_\
;

i').i,.j...~ ':,

'SY ': . TL~. r)

·-•····-- ··•····--·--- --·--·· - - - - - -- - --

(

1

-'-,:._(f.,..,_~~

t{,. .__.\.: ~"'(

0 '.'. -~ I ~) ! /

c I,.. _., :.

l l".)VI

C....c-- c.. v . [

r ~)

I~

~ C ~ L \-- 1 ,0 ,,,._

b (>)..,___ v,

r-•. -~

o\-),;.,,._-t~c .Li ~ '{\.: .\

'.,tf C--:•h ·,\.t.. 'r \.t'_\t,

o., ,.,- .A,

ti...t g.~~- h c...- \ t le_~ -... __ \..1,.
~'---'--l t...,- ·-.i·- -<= \.•~·, t.. .._ \:) '--t -\-c
0 \-- 1.--~..:-- ,

boH\
\' Iv.. ll 1 ·-le

0 6 ._ ~- h~- \.
0
Dh ~"" ,.) <-J-;::0 V-..(,J

\ ' ( ,- \

\ .(

L , 6 :.

b ~ \ 1,

u ..\ - ,1.. 1...- ~

Y..·--" .-- \:-->-

"\
'.:> oc, ~\

. :- t

\?> c)\

" -'\. (,

•

~

!,

\.....:\t;\.-\-· .,.-.. :. t.'-, v, ._-.l ' 1.h c\.. ,.,_, .i \ i \ ':t_
\ tH
S () (A,:.. \
\ I\ ..:_ ~ l , \ · \r-,.s.
y-...c;_ i \,,...t__:'\ • 1 ~ •. \. ! , \· ,\ .(
\ ('I \ -~ '--l' ;)H . J.__, .. .
1-)

1,,,.-~

.

\ ....., c

~ 0(. 1 c:_\

-\-t

\ .c.....~~, ::.
ci.....

~ ....,-1,i--L..,

~

~

I1 \ -~
C\

1•V '(\

,. •

(..:h-- , ~"~~..,-...,(', 1

c,.._

..,j-h.C· \J' S,

~--,~ t-

-

,

,J , , 'vwcJ

0 (... \(•-1

1 -,,

(--hi._ ·~
\

(l , ,._'--, c\..L.___.-_,

S.:, c , ~~-~~:-~~
•. ,;,. __:G-::'I
~-· .'.t.t-- \.-...._

l ::,. - ~'-.:-~I

.' :'+

"-:- \ ..-

of the reductionist social ideo logy of capitalism.
We suggest that it is not a coincidence, and that the
following rough connections and correspondences hold which
provide mappings between positions in different areas of
intensional (in logic)- non-

philosophy:
referential (in semantics)

- theoretical (in philosophy of
( 0

- extensional (in logic) -

/t,

v-J!,J Jl

t:t

I

A referential

science) - social ( in social theory) j

observational (philosophy of

individual (in social theory).

science)

( in semantics)-

Some of the

routes connecting these concepts are fairly clear, others are
less so.

Some of them, for example the epistemological-logical

connections, are elucidated in
Beyond

]

~ ~ ploring ~einong's Jungle and

.

These correspondences give rise to the table on the
previous page.

This table should not be read as indicating

that people who hold one of the positions on the line hold
the others, or even that they logically should.

For first most
/

of the connections have been overlooked, especially in
this century, and second, the positions do not even ehtail
one another because the

ronnecting links are suppressed; and

these , even if logically necessary, may be rejected by peGple
who hold one but not another position in the line.

Positions

do however form closely linked ways of looking at the world they are world views.
~~st of the positions can be seen as modifications of or
responses to~l

, the basic reference world view position,

within its own intellectual framework.

This is especially true

o f 1 's conventional ~pponent, Marxist socialism.

In 3,

the necessity and rationale for the ~arxist converse reduction
is created by the acceptance of the main intellectual apparatus of
the basic individual reductionist worldview, and ~~arxism

challenges ea! i talisrn very
intellectual framework.

·1tHtd1

from within its own

In contrast postion 5, the non-

reductionist position, challenges 1 from a auite different
s tandpo in t.
The table should make it possible to distinguish clearly
between two positions which, although entirely different, might
on some theories (e.g. a r~arxist thecry) run some risk of
confusion, that is, between the Libertarian Socialist position
and the Social Democratic one.

The difference parallels

that between .the Fregean Double Referenre theory and the
non-reductionist position regarding intensionality.

Social

De mocracy must be seen as an liberalisation or extension
of basic capitalism, in the same way that the Double Reference
theory is an extension of the Reference Theory which enables
it to take account, albeit in a quite inadequate way, of
much further material which the basic Referenm Theory cannot
,-

.. ! ,..

handle.

~

.

:> t•(

·f\

t1•~ l

..J,.J.._

.,,.._ ..;· '

! ,·, '· /

This is done through setting. up individualised substitutes

fo;-- communal life forms,

usually through the medium o:f so-called
w-

~epresentative' or 'public' individualp institutions
which control the 'publid sector and much of the social
framework.

,';',i I ~!.:'•
.I

Given an individual reduction1),...(such as that of

Mill, the major theorist of representative government)

such

representativeness appears inevitable, the only possible and
logical way to handle communal life forms insofaras they can
exist at all.
is far

From the standpoint of a different theory, it

from inevitable; and the increasing destruction of

communal life forms in :f:avour of such 'public' ones is dama g ing,
impoverishing, and leads to great concentration of power.
Social Democracy operates normally with a capitalist basis
and grafts the 'public' sector on as an extension J just as the
Double Re f erence theory operates with the Reference Theory for

the normal case and extends the theory to d ea l with difficult
cases.

The Double Reference Theory employs a substitute

reference, the sense, for cases whe re the
will not work, just as Social Democracy employs substitute
individuals to represent community life forms for cases where a
purely 'private' approach does not work.
sense, is treated as a

The second mode, the

further sort of reference, just

as the 'public' sector in Social Democracy is treated as a
f urther sort of individual life form.

Both these positions

extend and liberalize the reduction of the basic position,
rather than providing a genuine alternative to it.
)'I.

How do the reductions connect with the basic position
.. of each theory? -----,
I

l_

/--------✓

~- Each position uses its reduction

to vindicate

i t's own vision of a satisfactory societ~_L,{'~he capitalist

30.

-

reduction..---_:-· to-individuals position vindi cates capilalist
' .

society through the following

CJ1'v
'
j\,

/v

I

-

Ayn Bandish type of argument:-

If individuals are entirely self-made, and none of
their properties are the result of the social framework, then
the fact that some people are superior to others in certain
respec ts must simply be due to their being inherently superior
individuals in those respects.

But if some individuals, by

being more able than others, are able to acquire more power or
more advantages for themselves, this is only right and
( C? 1,'f-isrn)
Such inequality is unjust to no one, and
prope~.
I\

the result is the admirable one that the better are better
rewarded and have more control over the shape of society.
w, #1

Th~s the individualist reduction lead~ only a
AH.:,.

l\

with few further assumptions which not implausible, to a
/\

position justi fyi ng inequality of power ..
The Marxist position, equally, uses its reduction to
vindicate

,ts

vision of the social order, as one in which

the individual can express himself or exercise power only through
participation in the whole, the collectivity.

Individuals can,

in this soDq( and especially~ economic order, exercise n~
power as individuals, and power is held only by the collective,
or class o rganisation .
In contrast to these positions of inequality of power
for the .individual on the one side, and of no power for the
individual as such, on the other side, the non- reduc tionist
theory co rresponds to a position of equality of power for
individuals, both as individuals 9 n~ through the social framework.

In its vision of the good society, individuals have

equal power to determine the social framework, and equal
power to control thsir own lives at the individual level .
The social frame(,J c•rk 1 for example insti tutions1 should allow

31.

life and deve lop
each indiv idua l to maxi mize cont rol of his own
comm unal
his own disti nct pote ntial , as well as optim ise
pote ntial .

ccftr ol of comm unal life is commLJJl._~3 1, o.tic:l. that

of indiv id ual life is indiv idua l.
l
Capi talis m is view ed as a disto rtion of indiv idua
The oppo site
uctio nism .
life forms whic h is impo sed by indiv idua l-redA.>hrll'o
,,.1-,,:t._
c
JJ
,•
6 · c i.l(,,t ( [nr.n:n,t:;,.J (dfi'f( ,:,..- /i h - f/,('_ h.·t ·fto abs orb th e
pt\
attem
1
rrti~~J?
h
whic
es a disto rtion
r\
redu ction prod~
A

~+·

1

renc es in goQI~
indiv idua l comp letel y, to swal lo~ up, deny diffe
and need s.

This is an equal . dist o rt ion.

iced
The disto rtion s have some para llel wi t ~ othe ~not
in rece nt w

~1

Cing .

For exam ple / there is a para llel with the

and oppo site
forci ng of peop le's char acter s into disto rted
the m expr essio n,
sex role stere otyp e s whic h frus trate and deny
thei r lives .
and impo veris h and limi t thei r oppo rtuni ties and
force d by the
Ther e is a para llel also with the disto rtion s
In the
d.
sepa ratio n of sexu ality and love notic ed by Freu
that the
same way the non- redu ction ist posi tion woul d hold
t were ove rcom e
good socie ty could be acA1e..,.: e cl only if the spli

and the two sides reun ited:-\

~~~•·:~~"gl~c

i :~i:i~u :~\:~ '

~~~•h

:~ · ,, , .

- -~ f\

s, and part of a
disti nct 'self ' with disti nct need s and goal
,.,. . .
.,,._~ I . .
\vr. J. • r .}
,' / , . . , ,.: , . _ ,7 ;,t '
Both must be r ecogn ise d
comm unity with common need s and goal s.
,\
IJ

/. •·

t -' I'

j

1

in the struc ture of the s ocie ty.
up some
Such a non- redu ction ist posi tion can then take
redu ction of the data that each side uses to supp ort its
with out howe ver
redu ction .

1,1cui- t i ~

J_

___

t he pena l ties impo sed by the

Thus it can claim s~pe rior expl anato ry powe r.

as we have
For exam ple, the non- redu ction ist posi ti o n can
s of each othe r,
po i nte d out, acce pt each side~ basic criti cisma11c{
-, also thei r
it can re cogn ise the claim s of the indiv idua ls I
.
limi tatio ns.
limi tatio ns , an d the claim s of the soci al its
d criti que.
It can admi t th e va l idity of much Marx ist-in spire

32 .
For instance , it can agree that in capitalism people are
frequently unaware of the real social determinants of their
actions and values a nd see as free choices on the individual
level what are in fact determined at the framework level.
It can agree that the utility of the invisibility of the
manipulated social framework to capitalism is to dis~uise the
existence of other options and make a situation~ which is to
the advantage of so~e gr oups, appear necessary or ine scapable ,
~
*
or to the advantage~and chosen by all.
This is however
not evidence for the Marxist theory as opposed to th e nonreductionist theory which it supports just as well or better/
1
a nd it does not show that there is no such thin g as free
individual choic e .

S imil arly most of the valuabl e part of

the Marxist critique of capitalism can be seen as evidence
for the lack of re al communal control at the social framework level, rather than as .,or··· supporting the thesis ~hat that

N,·11

/Je_: on!_y level on which anythi n r; really occurs.

is

Thus also

the t heury can take accou nt of classes without bein~ stuck
with the ~l g iditi es and difficulties of a class reduction
or a class view of history .
., ,1, ·; ..\
•~ ~
'

I\'-\

\

~~

Class explanations for ind ividual action can be

used where they a.re required, but individual

aL.+1cr1

C<.H

o.lso

be reco gnized and there is no need to explain all the a. r:t ions
of in di v i cl u a 1 s in his t or y
forces and so on .

,1

s u 1 t j_ mat e 1 y the pro c/cL d

of c 1 as s

Such a theory can also provide t h e basis

for - what is lacking in Marxist theory -

* For documentation of this thesis, see
Conscio usness .
t

Captains of

Thus also some, but not all, of the

>.I...

Marxist critµq~ of the last twenty years remains of
value to the non-reductionist position .

32.1
a critique of socia l Democracy which distinguis hes i t
clearly from Basic ( apitalism .

Th e majo r the oretical

feature of ,ocial Democracy is th e attemnt to take
account of communal LLfe for rns and other cases wh1 eh
obviously cannot be accoun ted for adequately in basic
capitalism , in terms of an individua l subs tit w~s for
them-as in the ' publ ic' sector , Governmen t by represent ative
A Marxist-ty pe theory cannot take

individua ls , and so on.

adequate account of this individua lisation , because it is
committed to seeing all the actions of individua ls as
represent ative of class forces, so that the indivi dual ' captt!Ye '
of social life fo rms in Social Democracy ' becomes for
them just their capture by various class forces.
measures bt.d'('t<Gtcratic

'

fv4:.,/c,i;a-n..

The welfare

and so on of Social

J

'

Democracy must they be written down as cynical manoevres
by the capitalis t with th e intention of keeping the working
J.t ,u/._

classes quie t removin~ obvious sources of grievance , while
I\

' public ' sector activity is seen as merelJ
re~ulatory for caoitalism .

This may be an aspect, but it

is not adequate as an a nal ysis .
In reassessin g the Marxist critique in the light
of the non-reduc tionist positio n, it is crucial to
distinguis h , as the Marxist critique Joes not, between
individua l reductioni sm a n d individua lism, in the broader
sense of the recognitio n of individua ls and distinct nonreducible individua l life forms .

Privatisat ion , Elitism ,

Encroachin g Individ ua li sm , etc. , the way in which what
people can choose to consume, produce, and do , is g overned
at the framework level by the machinery of

33.
private profits, th e great inequalities of power an d of
wearth

resulting from that - all these are prod ucts of

Individual reductionism, not of individualism as such .
r.Jr.{. p.: r

Jl

;'/f .

jt:..

;--

,¥-

'Jf-

-~

.,>f'....

A'--.

.;i«:

From a~philoso p hical viewpoint the reduction positions
have their bas i s i n a part icular,and ~~dequate,but widespread
logical and me taphy s ical theory.

It would be surprising
--...,_

how ever if these b a sic redrutions, wh oi~ distor.___.,.tions underlie
n_ early all tHcc/.r,,r,1_

social thought, originated entirely i n

a particular logic al theory .

The logical theories ct.U--rt:,z. t at a

particular time indirectly reflect social values and
intellectual currents a t

that time, like every other sort of

theory, and do not stand in some unique way above and
beyond them.

If a different kind of logic has been needed,

it would probably have been developed.

The prev~knL c

of this now established logical theory may explain why few
now see through the reductions, but it does not entirely explain
why they we r e developed.

A / "" J'&"'

/.~r</'~·- ,i(1/"7°

of reasons for the overlooking

of the non-reductionist position lies in a s et of SC'C;r -··
•
( di;,,,1.,':r; fu;.__ t[ !{~.,- -✓ ..1.f;, ,1 0-k d',c.__ l -,- t;, ,1.,/-(;/(_)
• .
economic assumptions,\ common to the red_u ction posit.ions.
p o.r..11½; 1 ,

'-

1

Our confidence that the non-reductionist position was a ~eal and
A'

not merely a theoretical pos s ib li ty or utopi aJt'f'aritcdJ; lay

in

the fact that the tribal societies we considered in the early
part of the pape r had a structure which enabled Individualism
a nd some individual economic actively to
munal ly-controlle d social framework.

with a u -n1.-

Such societies clearly

had structural features which meant that t hey did not have to
make the U.Yt.palatable choice between the o prc) .S. ·ing disto :.:-tions
o f totally collective o r totally individualisti c..
life.

control of

There are other advantageous characteristics also which
(>-,l.. fl'/

are common to such socie t ies, L/1.d racteristics which
('

34.
sophisticated ~0cttd
despite the rising

d eM•cracies to-day seek, but which

~DP

and the 'high standard of living', which

is supposed to provide justice and the good life for all / always
The l ow level of environ-

seem to be further off than before .
~" 1 P-,

r,y

mental d e struction cl /\ t-r; ~u(
conscious life-style) ·

'·'-·~

and the environmenta lly-

src;~{~i;.1

-_ . frctture.~ which ha~( often been noticed,

t-... s

ha l~? the almost total lack of in ;.,~uali ty and poverty-' the
")...•'-·◄ }'-'- \,._:, \ '-,__-\

V·' ,:.

c.l-11,·, ·,•-7'

high level of equa1, ·7 of power and relative lack of ~e\fe-r-R-me-Ft-t-r ,..._
domination; the considerable level of leisure
( o fte:ri, as SaA/eAl .f . /1 as pointed out, greater than that in modern
western

societies) and the frequerlly rich cultural

and

communal l ife [Ref. Sahlens?].
These features have been attributed to various things th e..

low level of technology, the communal living feature,

the

hunting -- 3ei fttc;..ing life- s-fJ Jc: and the norn a ti ic life ,~hich was
1

The first we can definitely ru le
out.

The mountain forests of Gr e ece were destroyed, the Middleof its rich topsoil

and stri_: ppped of J1'HidZ
by erosion,

(r e f . Lowdermilk~b y a people with a 7 uite low
(9

1 e v e l o:E technology by

u,..;---

QWa

standards, who also had a culture
:). .,.._J.._

which was Mark .ea by great inequality -e-:r en s/cpJ<.:'...-.me nt.
...(_., \ ,.''1-/·,

,,_: ..

Living

,Jt ;. d , 1)\ -(_

\. \ l ,y

r ant e es/\ th e se features, as
by no means gua
..
a/

modern cities demonstrate · &Fra the success of communism appears
.I

t.t.

c (J'(t t:< ( --1~1.rl; ,Je__ i

I\

to be a consequentia l rather than;\. wh ile the
no roadie life

{;,Jic-<.u;f,:tl

with the hunting/gath ering
,:S;

style cannot be the whole story
~(J """'-

t{

7 I\

YI L ~

some societies which

gardened also had or have I' these features
feature seems to be one
Th! f~

)

(e.g. Melanesia).

of soC;Ct( structure.

if t ·;-ut:-}s very good ner~,d for us, because we can hope

to work for a di f ferent so C~Q/

structure, whereas we cannot

r e alistically hope to obtain a collective
and arrow, the woo :1en

\t-1()-(_ ' .

return to the bow

or the hunting-gath ering way of life•

;

35
The structural feature which makes possible th e
combination of collectivity and individuality and the other

>v,v'-(

,,

attr active features of tribal life, is, we suggest, the fact
that the dominant mod e of production in su ch societies is that
the producer of an item is, in general, also the person or group
who uses or consumes it.

People produce for their own needs,
It

and not , in general, for other people or for exchaDg_~. -

is this feature which makes it possible for tribal people to
live in a collective framework which is nevertheless not

----

oppressive to · individuality, for while the structure is collect-

,..,,...--

, , - - -----··-

i vely determined and '\::ollecti vely h e l ~ ~ land, for ~~~_p_le_-,)
·h•. ri 1 fr: 11n .~, ('... ·i ht., ; r (' \:: n.

their own
it is p ossible for individuals or groups 1.\ needs,set
.
I

goo , s,

and how best to pursue them.

J(\I

This featureApr~ t-~ -cons umer identitv ; is in fact
a feature which i s closely associated with, or even necessary

to, a hunting-gathering way of life, but it is not
confined to such a

of life

(that is , it is not af s0

su ff icient

f or it) .
l1t{J I(.

C'lt

The condition of producer-consumer identity oJ the/\ ckn ..:.r~f\;-/, f, ·<.
\S

-

dominant)mode of produ -~tion~ the condition upon which the
,

.

socJ~ty which is self-managed at

all levels can be obtained.

When production and consumption become S'e/!).Jr. f .;_ ,L and production
f o r other people's :n:eds becomes the dominant mode of production,
the choice between private or individual control of the means
of production,or collective contr~= l/is forced on us
and we are back again to

ec,t

other th an the producer mvst

r u npalatable choices.
~~n

.?om~ody·

control production, decide

and organise what will be produced and used, and control
~ r,\~+-t (-1

,ml;; l;.r c ('

other people's labour.

/

Whether the 'somebody'

is

l

an individual or group of individuals ( as in CC/< ·fl{ 1t ·1 ;,,l· )
Cc,rnintu1t,t j

et

,

or

class collectively deciding what will be produced

and how, we have the situation where not all individ uals can

a_.

36.

determine their

. ctol\.

what it produces.

distinct needs or control tried- CLC•\

Iv 110,,.r
- and

A.

The separation of production CinrL

consumptio n then forces the choices which underlie the
reductions and distortion s of capitalism and Marxism, and
the resulting split between the individua l as
Hte

separate and

individua l 21.s a mQmbt:?.-t· of a community .
Capitalism and Marxist socialism have in common a

commitmen t to this separation o f production and consumpti on,
di ,ht_,,,1 r•r
\ fragmenta tion of lcJJc,lr which reac_h ~s its
resulting;
and to the
highest pitch . in the production line sys tems of modern
indu,stry.

Such systems of production were of course devised ancl

implement ed first by capitalis ts, but were, as we know f~m
Marx's works, greatly admired by Marx, who saw them as necessary
to lift humanity f rom its previous condition of rural i db cy.
{ ~~eals itself clearly
In this respect the Marxist posi tio~·';I\
as accepting a great deal of the intellectu al and eronomic
framework o f c ~pitalism . )
I

I

The positive Marxist attj tud~

\

to the fragmentat ~on

of labour is not just an optional extra tacked onto the
theory because of Marx's own personal prejudice s.

It is a

feature of the theory, which basically views proauction in a fragmented way.

*The

theory arose

*

The Marxist picture of the tota i

h~torical l y arnong1 and was supported

primarily byJ the labour forces engaged in fragmented production
in capitalis t enterpris es, rather than among independe nt workers.

dependenc e of each individua l element on the other elements of
the whole obviously is closely connected with a model of pro-

d(cf.;.:. ,~
b.,.l c ,1

7

37.
ducers.

The reduction positions appear in fact to be

very closely connected with the way in which production
l' IGH•; :/

is A

andfupecia lly with the attitudes to the fragmenta tion
for the Marxist reduction of individual to ~

of labour;

of a class or collectivi~

C.:i . ._ ~-

derives its motivation precisely

from the acceptance of the capitalist production t<PP«rat~s .
For the fragmentation of labour means that what the individual
worker does makes sense only in the context of the total
production of the collective.

,~}<

Thus · the capitalist and Marxist both share a vision
of work in terms of the production /i;1c, but interpret it

differently.

(The production line is an excellent repres-

entation of the dominance of the fragmentation of labour,
the assumption which both the reductionist positions accept)
The capitalist view
is

production line

o:f the

for the purpose of production)of the workers or operators

/

extensions of the machines - their goals , their
intentio ns are irrelevant, they are not part of the production.

The object

of the production line system~to be understood

in terms of t he qoals of the Q,;,,,~-e~~--t ov;;:\h~f
~

A

t~~~~~,~;

of the goods.

'rhese are of course the characteristics of capitalist society
and especially of typical work in capitalist society.

Work is

((\:. ~, meaningless, directed from above by someone else ,
goals are external, to be understood in terms of the goals
of individual capitalists or consumers)

c\ c~ (~.,... J.

I}:-

b,___,. f'--.i'. r;L ~~ c:-~,.Js•.•

The Marxist also has a production line image, but
for him the work of the production line, which is not
meaningful when each worker is viewed in isolation, c a n be
understood in terms of the goal of the totality of wor kers.
Each individual can make only a part of the ~hole, and everyone
is needed to make the whole ,tern.
/1

i :·:.,-:v--.\,·,__l ~

v

~

Work is mechanical, so

38.
there is no place for individual differences and so on.
There is plainly no place for 'individualism' in any shape or
f
.
1 1.ne.
.
t
_..:orrn
on th. e pro d uction

Mind,

rh e

.
i
.
mind,
b1e
goa 1 , is
a C1 ass

1

to the workers on the production line.

purpose of production must be viewed

e n f, ;-(~.I

,,,,

1

The

terms

''J

/1 u.r/1(> f C

sha r ed

or goal of the whole group.

k-

But for those of us who regard the production line
as a degraded and distorted form of labou~, to empl'?y ,-~~eh .·. _ ). __
(u.-1,~( c \.\ ' ,1

<I

; ~(I_

c,u,un,.,, (,,(,,~,

d

J,. /l(' y_, (-·.{4l'

c:.. \
---

'

an image as the model of product io n and of society;\ is simply('.'' 1.T:'--~:'.L.:·
amazing!

For these are precisely the characteristics that

make the production line an detested and oppressive form of
work.

The image - like the assumption of the ffrl-1"- Jmentation

o f labour itself -:- betrays the basic capitalist origins of th e
Marxist social model extremely clearly.

In this as in other

respects much Marxist thought is the basf :..ril..
capitalist parents.

child of

For the fragmentation of labour seen in

one form in the production line was set up by cap i talists
for their own b e nefit, and is neither more rewarding for
the workers, or More productive for the consumers, than other
forms of work.
The non-reductionist position would simply reject the
{Ill

model o f work or of society,

production l i ne asAappropriate

Si nce the production line is not a form of work in which the
1,.._, .... ,c

h

1>\-\~-1.. \

individual worker has (\ control - it is ,,the form in which he
.
·1 ~ ~_:Sy,"s. ~has J...l..t..t..1..-~ ~r--=ne- control.

The image of production, the non-

reductionist position would employ would be that of a person or group of persons - making something f or hi .s

0UJ1L

o. se.

The work is purposeful and not undertaken for external
re Lc,·cu l-L

or exchange/the goals are inter l\t<

producing a whole piece of work.

!

I.

The worker~

If he is working with a

?Np/,_
group of people, some differentAp1ay be doing different parts
of the task, but all the work ers will share in the final product.
_\,;

.

(.

39.

In the non-reductionist position the intention or
purpose of the work is ~ - that of the individual workers,
that is~work is viewed in an intentional rather than in an
mechanical way.

Here is another important source of the

reductionist positions which lies in the treatment of
intensionality.
cc,nJ1'cfL?,.r

If

WE\ work

a:. s

relation between the maker and the

c.c

made_, the three positions come out as follows:
the relation between the individual

1. Capitalist:

worker and the made object is not a ~®WHXfMi purposeful one,
the purpose is someone else 's.

In short the maker - made

relation is rna.cl1r7t, n,\::o( , and extensional.

The hired worker

is an extension of the machine and th e purpose or int en tion
'1--\l \ _.::,.·1

of the work is exter-te-€d to it.
2.

Marxist:

the relation between the individual

worker and the made object is still seen as not purposeful,
the purpose is in the w_tio l_s?. production line, the society.
The maker - made relation, as such, is still viewed as
extensional.
3.

3rd position:

the relation between the maker and

t he made is inteniional, it is purposeful, the goal is
directly in the work itself.

What differenh~t r

work (e.g. under take n by a machine)

mechanical

and meaningful work is

t he lack of intention in case of the former.

The relation

between t he creat iJe artist and what he makes - the only
Ui!t-

- sort o.fl\ in which capitalism admits this k1',1 cL of
intentionality - is the ~ypical work
A designs B _1

A

case ♦

The model is:

creates B.

If the mechaniqal, extensional picture of the maker/
made relation is to be rejected, along with the unpalatable
l

reductionist choices which it creates, : it is essential to

4 0.

i~fuse the individual worker back again into the picture as
the creator and designer of whole objects, as the initiator anA.
goal setter of h i s own work.

This implies a theory which

recognises irreducible individual life forms, and thus again,
The fact that the

a theory which is not Marxist in character .

commitment to the fragmentation of l.a.bour cannot be dropped
J.:.f h 1,;..,.. 1.,~t /
from Marxist theory without ft eornplet~ reconstruction (so
great as to render it no longer a Marxist theory) means that
the Marxist position is, from the environmental point of view,
At bottom it buys the same production apparatus

a dead-- end.

c..:,.

an-a- capitalism, and therefore it can be expected that, even
if the management of the firm is changed,

it

w i 11 turn .

out essentially the same line of go~ds.

y,,u~(! ,t ( l)J.Y

l~-r

b411c or ( Acl-1<1.:l; n· ·,!i'c..
the ,\
as
Producer-consumer identity'>.
O:'

b~ Ii

d, ,,rf) /

mode of

production does not of course mean that every individual
produces everything he needs for himself entirely on his
It means that people produce for their own needs,

own.

in the combinations they choose.

Individuals could of

course do so, and some harct-.Y soul s

no doubt would want to;

provided that they do not interfere with other people's
equal entitlements or use more than their fair share of
(';'{ IJ .,./.i (Lk,,1:.§

production-land or other commu~~( resources, there is no
'\

reason why they should not.

Many more pe o.ple, given free

choice in the matter, would probably want to produce some
I

for their own or their households use~and
some in common work with others for common needs or interests.
/thittZ.--

S ince

some activities are more bothAefficient

and more enjoyably done with other people, and some are less
r ,1 1 (Ji

h~

so, it ee-e4-d be expected that most people would work in a mixed
system of individual
(I

M

c cllei: I , iN.

or communal work ) perhaps

varying the combintions at different stages of their lives.
/\

41.

But there is a great deal of individual variation in the
degree of contact with other people that is

~~~¥iN~

pleasing.

Some people at the other end of the spectrum might want to do
everything in conjunction with other people.

What is essential

however/ if the combinations are to be freely chosen, is that
the individual option should be open.

Freedom and independence

is enhanced rather than destroyed by Choosing to work with
others,

b~t

such a choice is free only if there is an option.

People do not control their own lives if they cannot set
their own goals and determine their own needs, choose what to
work o n, with whom and when, how mu ch contact with other·
people is op t imal, and so forth.

Real control of one's life

would be impossible .in a system which envisaged only
most

collective or communal production, as m0sxx~MiXMXX
alternatives to capitalism do.

The option o f individual
,, /I

production, even if it should t urn out that it was not of t en ft;, ._,}
used, is essential to ensure that people remained
in control of their own lives

~~~~~i~~

in crucial respects.

We have already suggested that a s oc iety in which DIY as the
c/1.Cttiu._ (u; 1tic. n-:

ode of production would have the conditions which are

necessary for and wo uld tend to lead to a truly free s o ciety, one
1

all levels both the oellcctive and the
which was self-managed at /
and the principle
individual ., To complete the conditions self management
.
~

of DIY must of course extend a lso through the rest of the institutional
Ivan Illich has made a substantial start on suggesting

strudure.

what some self-managed in'i hfv1.l,c'iir

might be like, and on exposing the

institutions they are to replace~ although
structure of the existing
ct.,_!\.- t-he seems to lack a f\ vision of how they fit into a larger framework.
This is

not the only area ill which DIY would appear to deliver a

superior society;

t h ere are many ot h ers,

1 d
·
. t o concen t ra t e
but we 1nten

At the production

here on those relevant to environmental issues.

level the basic features of such society have already been suggested
A c ommuna/ly control l ed infrastructure would

by a number of people.

provi de t he basis for prod uction of common basic needs and make
these available on a fair basis to any individuals or gro ups who

,,

to use them to produce for their own needs.
wished
__,,

We want to stress

that DIY is not a proposal for a return to a primitive life-style,

,·

1r

1 1

abandonment of technology, endless hours of grinding labour as a
ff /)J y fou "e.~ eu>4..ld ;-i f1t.d- 6rL. ~ '/,"1TQ_ -fad>t(JtliJILCto/ .!'of>,U.d,c~t. k)<...ie.-J:J. It wo>1.h/
of course involve and
subsi~te~c-~ _fa'.·1ne~>and so forth.).
_

,Jre.,·.:,,.J{..r- ,1c;.,__ /t!(i __,-!)._/ ,: L1,. t.J.l ~ , 7J,.,_,-J. if1..<- ifti ~------ ------------ - - ----- - - -

d.,Pi-e.f"Tl11..-t

result in a ·a ifferent life-styl~ a Akind of technolo gy1 and a different

kind of ap proach to work.
d ;l, ,,,'\

beneficial.

Moit of these changes would appe3r to be
/ , f:. ( ~j

!l e.(

For example most peof~le could provide for theh- _l~c:l.__§_~c
I

/\

1i·J1 '.7. standard in a more satisfqctory way than at present, with perhaps
1

li, f, ,·

. l l

-.

,-.,,,{_

4 hours

..jk'V'{_l, .,-..i)

1 l· 1:,· ,:.:,./J

/i..(

f t, za•I I

J

';,._.,• /-4..

per day of work, and probably 1-ers--S;,/as nt.Dre appropriate

technology develops and for people wh o work in larger communal groups.

1

The typical feature of solutions to the problem in our society or
Marxist soci ety is that~o nesolves one set of problems by creating
a nother . oft~n more formR-ble , e. ._~· as one 'sol v:es' . the p~oblern of
pciJt.:.r~ y . · in a rather inadequate way by utc,cdi 1-y cm environmental
This £eatur~ is avoided to a reasonable
probl~rns or some o t her problem.
further problems created appear much
the
where
system,
DIY
a
in
t
ext e n
that in the or y constructt_on parallels
The situation
less formibl e .
thi~almost invariab~ ~
of
kind
t
th
eory
th
wrong
where on~ has the
or equally bad one
hap!?3ns, a problem resolved in one area :r.eapr:ears as a worse

B

(2)

A crucial question for a DIY society is:
sort of s ub s titu t ion s of labour can be made?

what

A be ginnin g

on answering this question is s u ggested by construin g
sub s t i tut ion ·~ -.-the. __ s..ub s t i _t _1Jt,j__prl' as the s u b s t it i on of an
·~

equivale nt economic oroduct.

Thus su bstitui
on in
,f-

economics parallels and reflects identity theory in logic.
[Expla in ~it uation in identity theory and intensional
lo g ic].

The DIY economic system will plainly re q uire

much greater r estriction on substitutivity of identic als ,
j ust as i t s corresponding intensional logical counterpart
does.

In contrast the economic theory of the existing

system can be seen as extensional, it allows un restricted
substitutio n, and the same way it leaves a hu~e range of
important factors out of acc ount which are taken account of
without diff i culty in a n in tensional system.

Unrestricted

exchange (or substitution) and the associated division of
labour c reates these difficulties , in part thr ou gh the
(!f,

t rans fer of costs of product i ~ and be n e Lit s from
consumption onto different par t ies, and in part through
the fact t hat equivalent products~ in the weaker sense of
the standard economic theory may !:1~?_!;_ be eq uiv alent in
social and environmental respects .
1V\ •·-

c(; ~1

'-'

Moves such as environmental

t:.___,

p ricin g are i G . ~ efforts to qualify such substituU.on.

B.

The most important de fections from pure DIY lie in
qualLfied s ub stitutio ns, s ubs titut io n of on e pe r t:;on ' s
labou r for a nother' s in particular.

Labour exchan ge i s

admissible provided it does not int erfere with o th er
va lu es , e. g . does not dest r oy o r things the co mm unit y val ues.
C 11

rrhe restrictions~ substitution may profitably be comp ,1,red
with th ose in extens ional identity , whi ch excl ud e int e n sional
conte~t-s as ille gi tima te for sub s titution.,e-x-tensimLo.i'
i n d i..v i d-u.al--m-e-an-S

I

Such an estimate would presuppose retaining some limited kinds

,vI 1 J · / •
•'

it\)

of

lar :)J t · -· :,:tc./L.
','\ production, perhaps communally owned., and operated perhaps
by those who would use the product~or by people working on a

\storage' system, for example, the mass production of cheap durable
Cc,--

NPl

basic clothing and housing as proposed tn ._~topia. __Jro suggest that
hi/J ,~ <.,,., <-l1u.,/r..(,{.:. -1(ft(c_,
/"<.rlcv-.__ • e/
DI Y should be the\
v
·
mode o~ production is also not to suggest
1
1 Vil\ " ~l ~-, ?- bLe__
that it should be the -~-- -- _,__ ·- - . mode of productioni
the system

;: ,;,n

J)}

/t<.J<..

j

can be liberalised, to allow for some limited kinds of exchange
1\

production and some limited kinds of free communal productio~without
destroying its overall character, in the same way that the present
system allows for certain limited kinds of DIY -

'Do-it-yourself' -

product ion without lo..s.ing its overall character as a system of exchange
f.rJJ .-· _
:;;) The'. Dr.'/ tf -~ fc,,11... /"" l ~ 1f,;
production.
~A could also/be extended
to allow people who
wished to concentrate heavily on some project and needed a lot of free

!1·11,~J

time to 'store' basic

credits o ver a time period.

For example,,

u ,:,ii(:/\_

in 'Communita s' ;

. ,"

A in the late 1940' s/'Paul Goodman estimated that ;;-

+l.1.

plant, equipment a n d technology avai lable were used efficiently
~

~

people could provide for their basic needs for an entire lifetime in
two years,
,:, and could then organise the rest of their time freel y~
_,,1 ----- -·-

c ~~ce~t;ated

- ~~0

That is a high tech_. picture,, even allowing for

the increase in productivity since he wrote•but the basic idea is
,J

adaptable to a lower tech. one, albei t with a larger time period.
MX<'S Most people though would probably prefer to provide for their

basic ne~~ by production outside the basic community ·~ - ~ontrolled
A

-

_,,-

mass-production system.,1as in Ecotopia, obtaining both more pleasing
goods and more satisfying work in doing so; and even many of those
\,v o.~......-ttQi

who w-c • -:-Gl to have a large amount of time free for the

pursuit

of some project might find the production of part of their own food
on a daily basis an enjoyable and satisfying form

of relaxation.

Production beyond that for basic needs is an optional extra which
-,)

people can pursue as and how they desi re.
( It will certainly be objected that such a system would not
all ow sufficient leisure or free time.

The sharp distinction

between 'leisure' and 'work' is of course to a product of a system
'

r-...

where work is typically q l·1e,_;,_ nated

tfl

the sense that those who work

on it do not control it and its gon./J are extetll(d. to to process in
that the m6tivation for doing it is to obtain something other than
the fina l product or the satisfaction of the work.
working on wh at

Someone who is

he enjoys do ing and finds satisfying to do to produce

for his own need~does not draw a sharp distinction between 'work'
and

1

leisure 1

•

Furthermore it would appear that such a society could

allow for a great deal more 'leisure' in the sense of time not spe nt
on the basic needs for living, than the present one and such leisure
would be in principle avai lable to all, which is not the case in the
present system.

The price which would be _paid for free time would

however be quite different.

The price of free time for non-production

Uc~ J ities e.g . intellectual or artistic projects, or just to contemplate
the universe, would not be the price of inequalityJo f being able to
rely on other peqie lower down the scale to do the basic need:; production
in an alienated way.

The pri ce would be simplicity of life.

In the

same way the price of indepen dence from other people is not a private
income which enables one to made use of the labou r of others, but an
\ {'.:. - :, ~:, I(

,c~,\

independent, self-reliant mode of ~roduction.

The ob;,J e c tion that such

I\

a society would extinguish the intel lectual and creative lights which
are alleg edly fostered so well in this society does no t hold water,

t

but it is sure to be made much of because a major justification for
1,, equa lity and for production for exchange is that i s is supposed to
\)t

--? -

release some specially gifted individuals w-~ \ sufficient full-time
leisure to pursue such things.]

/lcf. 1

,,/J r. c

, 1cf,1

rr,,

A DIY system will of course be pronounced by economists to
be 'inefficient' and therefore denounced as one which 'lowered
living standards'~

t1c,1

It is fairly well known to Rconomists that

efficiency is a relative and evaluative notion that is that if it is
4f

measuredAthe total output of value per unit of imput then the

term

'value' cannot be explicated in terms of the market as just
1'141

what the market deliver s without ernplOYJtt he

J_ .

t1Clfu--(Qi;111c

fallacy.

It is not sufficiently often realised that it is also a relatiV istic
notion,

that is, that it is relative to the socio-economic framework
I

adopted, and that appeal s to 'e ff iciency' ~n t err> i S of the present
system are really appeals back to a fo~m of individual reductionism.
It is not a question of abandoning the concept of efficiency, but
of realisation of the dependenc e on a

J·t

1

U1

f 1") C; r

- econonomic base.

For some things which are efficient to produce in the present
centralised structure based on a high degree of fragmentation of
labour would be extremely inefficient to produce in a DIY system,
and some things which are inefficient to produce in the present
system would be efficient to produce in a DIY system.

Centrai; \cftion

depends upon fragmentation of labour, and therefore on the social
and political choices which are forced by it.

A DIY system would

have a radical form of decentralisation as a natural consequence
for people who have regai~ed control of their productive force would
<"( ~

naturally combine in smaller decentralised groups a.n d suited their
needs and interests.

Th~s in a DIY system smaller scale or ga nic

gardening, which makes use of local organic material instead of
wasting them, would be more efficient than gardening which depended
upon imputs from a high energy, cf11fr4./,· ru/ fertilise,·-plant, for
instance,.If the people who wanted to use something

hcttl

time producing it, then anything requiring a large measure of transport
or manufacture elsewh ere away from the
in effi cient compared with a n

(, .te of use would tend to be

Q/~rnat ive way of doing something which

could be produced or made locally from local materials and which did
t

unpleasan t work processes .
materials would then be

t>l i{(

t\

)i,f U-/ .", f l <(

In general ' 1 available loc al
-i lt (')

L

}·n ore efficient to use thar, which
/\

required a high level of manufactu re, low technical processes would
1
usua lly tend to be more efficient than high level ones, and .so on.
These chan ges are
strengths·

pre· c;seiy

the sources of its environme nt; and other

and to suggest that such a system can sim; 1J

be written

off as 'inefficie nt' to try to wri te a social framework into economics
and absolute in a quite invalid way.
A DIY society would be as naturally decentral ised as ours is
natural l y c entralised ~

The role of this kind of radical decentral isation

in reducing enviro nment al impact through encouragem ent of a decentralised small- S,cE)_/e;. low impact technology has o ften been pointed o ut.
Another consequen ce which i s not so often remarked on but is equally
important is the role of s uch decentral isation in enabling a natural
accounting of many sorts ~f environme ntal costs occ urin g as a result
of productio n.

Local production for local needs means that normally

the environme ntal costs associated with production are borne by the
local population whic h uses and produces the items concerned .

There

is thus a strong natural basis for taking such costs as the destructio n
of local ame nity into account as part of the perceived cost of
producing that destructiv e sort of item.

Accounting of costs which

takes account of environme ntal values is extremely difficult to do
in a n a tural way in a system which spreads costs around in a widesprea d

1 The dividing line between self-manag ed technology and the opposite
does not however entirely coincide with the high tech/low tech
For example, good two-way commun ications system coul~ ~
distinctio n.
have an invaluable role in cre at ing a network of flexible cornrnuni t i,_ es,
other than the spatially local community , in which individua ls could
Computers could, as Illich points ou~be used to
participa te.
further and create such a network of communiti es and cit'-<__ invaluable
aids in self-manag ed education medical and legal systems J IAJh...(l,t--(1_ they
could be used to overcome the ~onoDolis ations of skills, knowledge ,
In ::,_ short some
and informatio n by professio nalg and technocra ts.
power, instead of
of
co uld serve decentral isation
high-techn olo gJ
being used to increase the concentra tion of power as in the present
system .

fashion as centralised integrated production - for example, the
commonly encountered situation of concentrated major benefit going
to a small numbf~r of people and s ma l ler but very widespread costs
accruing to a very large number of people.

This situation typifies

the subtle way in which environmental degradation occurs in such
systems.

If the environmental costs of production occur in the

same region as and accrue

to the same people as the benefits, we

could expect that the environment costs of producing certain destructive
items would be much less easily overlooked or shrugged off.

A DIY system would be 'pluralistic' in the sense that it could
provide for a very large range of different
diversity in gords and needs.

life-styles and a great

There are however a number of bu~lt-in
.i. -n1.t' ;,· : •.

..,/f

features which would work strongly against environmen~llyAdestructive
life-styles ..

It is important to realise that these features are the

result of DIY and are not obtained simply by the feature of comr:u.mo..l
control of the means of production.

1 , , Consume. rism and Waste~ --·-· ·--,
...
~ ~

I]

feature of DIY

_,..,.

rs a built-in defence against the complex of

problems known as consumerism{ t ha~is 1 the taking o f satisfaction in
accumulating unneeded goods).

Consumerism arises primarily when people find little
which they do not control,

satisfaction in their work,

and which is frequently, for most peopl~repetitious and boring
a 1 iv, ~~J

and undertaken only to mak:1

.,

or for reward s mainly

12 1', t J. 111.)(

Satisfaction must be found outside

to the production process.

the production process, in consuming the products of other people's
labour . Such consumption is the reward of work, and the consumer
society rewards its members for the unpleasantness of their work
mainly in terms of opportunities for increased consumption .

In

lead to a situation where goals

contrast, since DIY wc ,dd.

were mostly internal to work, satisfaction in such a society would
be obtained though the work process itself and not in a never-ending
chase for satisfaction through consumption.

Reward s would be through

the production process I not !_rom work ·- lying just in the product.
Work would be undertaken in part because it was satisfying itself,
As any self-

and not usually tu_st to obtain the final product.

builder knows, even apparently mundane projects such as building
o n e's own hous e can become,if the worker can control his own labour
and match what he does to his needs, a source of great satisfaction
and of self-expression.

1

In this situation people express themselves

a nd their individuality through what they make, not through consumption
of mass-produced items e.g. buying a new model car . of the make the
individual thin'k fits his /n1ccge .
11

In a DIY system, these sorts of

satisfactions are available to everyone, not just a few people
selected and designated as "gifted" or "creative

11
,

and allowed to

work creatively, as in capitalism.
Secondly, there are in fact very substantial limits to the extent
to which one could be an indiscriminate consumer in a DIY society Je cD~1Jone wanted to , lonsum e rism depends upon other people 's labour to
If people have to make their g ood s themselves

a crc;cial extent.

(for example 1 if you have to go and work in a bicycle works for a while
/1
._,.,.

t.' '

,....,

J'/ ;.. ;\). . . ~ -· .. ' 0-11"'.
t: ,
rL. .... t ,.....___ \:: • _

1
• •,

•

_• - ,

/ ) ,:,..:_ ..

,,
.... -t

~

l_

-~A. ,_\.
\ 1.

. • C /- 1
·,._ ).•.•.•. 0\1

r .

.

tl ·'t-y

\\ . _/_

if you want a bicycle), then there will be a serious trade -of f
b e twe en work time and consumption, which would act as a built - in
The more goods are accumulated, the less

brake to overconsumpt ion.

time one would have to use them .
leisure would have fe~r~oods.

People who want large amounts of

Many people even in the present society ,

standard " - ·fh,., ·t
. givife) such a choice, might in fact prefer a "lower l1vii1j
/;(e
i.r > tt n m1 h.-r
The work situation in
and more free time for their own pursuits.
capitalism encourage consumerism in man_y ways, one of the most important
being that people do !:"lot usually have a choice to obtain shorter
work hours, have fewer consumer goods and more leAsure or more time
for their own projects.

They have to work certain hours, they h a ve

a surplus, so they might as well use it to obtain the customary rewards.
DIY would allow the 1wd,hi"J

of work

in a flexible way to needs,

rff-'

for more free time, which

and e ncourage such a tradeAof fewer go ods

could be spent on non-consumer pr ojec ts. \ Thirdly, a DIY society
would be a noh-waste socie ty.

No one would work to make things he

did not really need when there were othe r I thi n gs he could be doing
I )

(

instead.

'

', '--: ,. , -

.,-, : , ' A.:

,◄

\

)

As Brian Martin has pointed ou~many presently environmenta ] y

damaging systems, such as the private car system, would tend to
disappear if people has to make their own, repair them, and help
the roads.

Buses, bicycles and horses, or other

transport systems would b e more efficient in such a society.

One

cannot imagine people in a DIY society.work ing for a month a year,
for example, in a packaging factory to make a lot o f unnecessary
package s th~yhad to throw away as soon as the item was unwrapped/and
then/fur ther had dispose of by their own efforts.

The goods they

/

would manufacture for themselves would be as durable as they could
be made, and would be made to be easily repaired.

Materials would

be made to go as far as they possibly could - technology would be
developed which would do as much as possible with as little as possible "

could not be manufactured in a l~cal area would tend to be replaced

[0,

th ose which did not have these characteristics.

Since high-

..~;.f . _ l ,_ \\/

technology materials eq\1aLly- have the characteristics, the y would
t e nd to be replaced by low tech materials, with consequent benefit
to the environment.
fNlf

The DIY society would Abe a low-consumption/low resource-use
Since waste represents unnecessary and avoidable
.1.. ·:
u- (\J ,-.. r 1": ·-:- l c, b,~ , ..,. k I
uld avoid it.
labour/wo
own
their
controlled
who
people
labour,

no-waste society .
~

t

c ,....t (A.

I,._• .. •J -

"

.

• ---

,

•

2. Poverty a nd ~nequality . l t present the main capitalist argument
for never-ending growth and the production of environmentally
b,,f i.f ,1fl(}_ ( C Jj(~
damaging ~E:J~goods is that it is necess ary to help the poor.
This is supposed to occur through "Trickle Down", a process whereby
people at the top of t he

must 3et far more than they need

hcnp

reach those at t he bottom of the he a p.

so that a few drops can

A more ;n.efficien t or envi6nmentally damaging system for providing
,{

for the poor can hardly be conceived.
Different people have many different ab ili ties and capaci ~e_i but
people who are not very young or very old and are in a norma! state
(l,

J '\

,

' ;

/ ;

'

.,/

;,

-'

f

• ,'

1·,

,,·

f ,·

(

of health 1are basically fairly equal in their ability to provide
I

for themselves the basics they need for a g ood life.

At present

V poor p e o p ~

poverty and inequality come about primaril y

are prevented from providing themselves with what they need in a
s ati sfactory way.

(Three cheers for Winstanley!) They are prevented

b e cause the right to use the means of production is made scarce,

,I:

(usually by private property), and the skills to use efficieJly are
A

also made scarce ( usually by the bureacra tic

cJqfl-1)

1

Restriction in access to use of the means of production is also
tt.t. ( I J1J l I Ji!. l( /

{;J

L

,

Rr 1(

a main source of 1nequality throughAso on, since the restrictions are
used to disadvantage thrue people not in certain favoured categories.
2

f

\

,_.

h,_.•

2

' • \ I >/-

,

The point is driven here in all of Il l ichs work especially Dese-Fe#trg
Society /and 'Energy and Equity' and of course the older school of
(\~ ,_',A.· . .._, ,
anarchist w_i ll also stres s ed it. ~l'..ti 'fhc,N,:~----

.1

--\ l·j ...,• _

'\

A

syst em of comm unal con trol of the

of prod ucti on

tn:,[( 11.J

with ~cces s r ig hts for all who wan t them
a~:V in DIYJ
1

toge ther with the free disp,v
~~~1· of t ~{_
skil ls to use them pres entl y

"'

wou ld remo ve
this maJ· or sour ce of pov erty with out
the need for was tefu l
,.I
inef f i.cie nt and c: 1111 ,'rt-1111:~1tl&lj dam agin g econ
omic grow th.

The pure DIY society would

1 i t t 1 e r o o m f o r h :t e r a r c.1h yl and
from
a

t he

g uid e

wou ld
that

division of
to

be

sort

e qual
the

of

access

social

picture would

hiera r chy and

and

fact

that

without allowin g

the

of

pleasure,

Such a

position would be able

th at

but

to

not

misse s

th e

presuppos e

The

mark.

l evel

allow for

t o

needs,

or

the

( ,

for

f alse

individual a bilities

their

a

social

dif fe rences

differences,
capacities,
power

it

a nd

be

a
s ociety.

they

'level'

in ability,
that

and

people have

th at

this

level

objection

does

presupposes

not

only

,, /-,,, (

d i ffer e nces

in ability

of

be t ween

kind of capitalist

ability

d iversity

and

that

framework

a rea s;

Such

in present

i n dicat e s

pow e r

a nd

and

and

so

in a bili ty

on,

an d

as

relie s

a

the

inequality on

areas.

level
the

justification for
on

inequality a nd

false

dichotomy

an absolute

f ram ewo rk levels based on a

needs.

in oth e r

inequality on

justification for

inequalities

equal

level of

conservative

premiss

as

of

the

in

e q ua 1 r i g h t . a nd }a b·±--1-i.ty::=t:#> s take i n c on t r o 1. .,. ,
·1

whatever

at both indi vi dual

as

differences

of

this

level,

system could

s oci e t i es ,

ability in all

What

pow e r

people's

typical

i l legitimately uses

level,

equal

source of

pro f i t ,

The capitalist argument

framework

framework

goals

become a

picture

the

provide

goods is not required.

to me e t

Equality a t

p eo ple have a n

their own lives,

can

Equality on

on.

of power

·{-(,

th a t

social

produc t i on,

'egalitarian'

two

equality o f

th e

d iffere nt

on the

ar i si ng

p owe r

soci e ty would provide.

can

allow a d e qua tely

c apacit i es.

account

Exc el len ce in such a

egalitarianism is based

equal

it

differences

so urc e

do not

so

of

problem of how to allow for

in e qu a lities .

an d

of

individual

frame work

people

and

people h a v e

capitalist obj e ct i on

such a

elitism;

thes e

two-lev e l

the means

framework,

without
the

The

be equality on

to

resolve

i nequ a1 i t i e s

ot her

equality

individual production and
a

f or

labour.

r e quired would

is,

forming

the

ob vi o usly be one which had ver y

false

equalit y

assumption

:, /. 2.

In practice equality on the social framework level would
guarantee a

reasonable level of equality on the individual level,

since great differences
lisation CJ r
of

in

this

the means of production,

accumulation of

other people's

labour,

would reduce differences

area can arise only when monopo-

are possible.

Equality of

that

ex a mple

Jane likes

and asfemale Thorea u )

It

is

that

it

it

should do

can only be achieved if differences

carpentry,

household an especially fine house;

universe ,

but

in material goods or

i t is of cour~e undesirable

this kind

equal i ty

and

Anne

on the other hand

Suppose

builds herself and her
(whom we may envisage

likes

to

contemplate the

and wants only a minimum level of basic needs

i mpos s ible to obtain absolute equality without

satisfied.

either

preventing Jane from doing work she likes and exercising her
the benefit of hersel f

for

without

in

the demand

~_
?c

i..?-1__

or needs
for

to.

equality,

f r am e w o r k ... 1 e v e 1 ,

production and

skills

and others, or, what is equally undesirable

forcing or pressing Anne

than she wants

no t

to work more and consume more

What is
then,

legitimate and necessary

is ~q -~~it._y ___Q_f __ p_ o_w_e r:,

e q ua 1i t y a t

t he

1ev e 1 of

at

the

i n d iv :i. d u a 1

consumption.

Social Democracy often claims

,

1 e v e 1 o f " p u b 1 i. c

ri

1i f e •

to

deliver equality at

the

This claim should be rejected however

because:(1)

i t does not provide equal access

.
product lo n ,

(

1

.

·.

.-

..

to

the common means

treats

th

1

s

as an

in di v id u a 1 mat t er

~------------·-- ---···'/
ra t her

/I

than as

one for

/·

of

.

\--------,)

m 1 s taken 1 y \. but

so.

in

interests and needs are denied or discouraged.

abilities,
for

and

Social framework

in people's living standards,

would not guarantee absolute equality
ac h ievem e nts,

or employment

social

framework control

,.,

;; } 3

/I .

(2)

the individua l isation of comm LJ. n c1 / life forms

inequalities of power at
(3)
is

only,

and

in fact

opportunity is
all'

confusion.

in

though equality of opportunity

such equality occurs

in any case,

the concept of

to a

equality

this case defecti v e,

S l:\ C.<?-

to do so.*

priv ; leged and

through equal

i t is based on an

'each-

the rest of

the

except in an Alice-in-Wonderland sense,

even if the opportunities for

equal for each person

but clearly not _.§.Q

The opportunity to be selec ted as on e of a

powerful elite which controls

population does not,
equality,

very limited extent

Each person might have the theoretical opportunity

to become Prime Min ister or win the lottery,
can hope

to great

the framework level.

the claim to provide equality

specious;

leads

•

(which

provide

selection were in fact

they are not

in Social Democracy).

Real equality of opportunity and power requires ways o f

making

decisions and exercising power in which all can participate

to an

equal extent.

X

,,,.-

* Such 'equality of opp
ortunit y' arguments for the egalitarian
character of Social Democracy are a similar swindl e based on
a scope confusion.
So, for example, 'everyone has an equal
opportunity to do i t ' (win the lottery, become Prime Minister)
is ambiguous between (1) (x) Q fx and (2) ◊(x)fx.

.,,l

·-

)

_J

~·I

\

t~

\

'-

J
I

I

-.J

1

!

.•

'1

l
;b
)

)

<,

I

.~

( .~

·'

.J

, ..J

I

)

J

J

' :,

r'

J

r'
.

)
(J

)

)

J
)

)

r<'O

)

-·{
·1

{
,..l

--l--

(

~-

;

-j

/

...;,

s

I

-~

I

f _i

I

>'
.:";)

1--

.r
'/t,\/ -tp
~

j

)

. _)

-----s

~

)

·•J I
',I

:5 '

......

j

'

l

j

.J

<,}

.J

~

.

. ~-i ,
)

. ..>

.

...J

),

j

4 ) ',

-t)

j

\

l

~

✓

, J_

.

.{

..)
'1

l

u)

·.;,

r
?

'

I',

\~

..,

)

"

~

I

(,>

I

I

I

.

j

-

)

A

;

'1

_(

c..J\

JJ(
~

t
C,

_)

~

lJ

0
)
'l

.. )

)

~)

.J

-~

)

'J

)

. -(7
I

vj

t

}

1)

•..J

,J

f

)
I

>

)

)
)

,..

' .,)

(

:1
c..-i
<+,)
(_,)

c)

_.,.
)

'i
_,.)

.. L

)
l

I

r'

·-(f

r

... r-• :,

d

..I )

}

~

•.J

-;

)

.)

_j

,--,. -1

.
I

·t

j

}

',)

(1
)

j

(
·"

·'},,

',

)

-~

~

" )

t

-· l

,'l;

__l,

)

-,!

... J

)

( )

)

L

. J

J
..J , )

_)
,,\

~

'

)
I

...)

,.\

t~I

$

...)

.)

7XJ

J

)

.

),
-.),

_.._

J

~ -

),,1

.J..

f)

--r'

)

___,,,.
J

.,~

'j

< --

J

(~

(-::; r

j

,_,

~

)

l -

.J

t

_)

_.)

'-..I

( ·~.

_,,,,

)

~· )

.....l

r'

.1

r

I

-..,c7

\'

2

'

~

I)
)

'/

t-!

f,

\

\;

r,

l

~

\ I

·')

· "I

...,.. 1-=;
)

7 \,

(

.1.--

"

.J

.(

'.J

:~

'f

~~
)

";
:},..)

·,"-'

\

(>

-✓

,.,,.,
) ----...

uJ

'i

~I

1,

)

--.J~

,J

J

,.:'

"

·1

':./

")

)

~
~

·r

';
-~

__.)

tJ

,.,

'

J,,
\

~

,_)

;

.)

J

r:

\ _c

)

, -

J

01

,..
)

...)

< 1

;_;,

(

)....

7

..

,)

'l

1 )'

t::

• -

j

'.'j

,!)

I

I

J

'

.J,)

l

.J

I

_)

I

)

7

I )

• .J

)

}

..:.)

,,

_..)

')
~--....

' ,)

:(
I

1
?

··'I

·1

..J

J

~}

·1

'

(

• .>

c-:

:.,.._

~<r

\.~

....,_ .)
J

,j

,,,

-i
)

)

--·r-:i
I

,)

((
'(

. ->

- \··

--<

.J

' l
I

)

" )

l

/

..

j

r··s
~

\'\

~

~

\t

I
I

~

I

cuts straight through the problem which plagued Anarchist thought -

\ the problem of how production is to be organised , whether it was

... ..,

·,

,

\

to be communist ic as Kro p otkin wanted wi t.h each person w, rt(l;-.,_1 to
,_

""-'

;j

\)

1

"

"

........
~

...\)

the best of his ability and taking according to his needs from the
c01Tu11on store, or collecti \.,, i..st, as Bahu11, :1

~

~
. \)

J

..._,

, 'l

~

\

\I

'

The adoption of a system

I

-~

.

)(

·•·i·-.._

.\..

I

I.,

\

~

t

r e mun e... ·"rat.ion in the fonn of wages according to the amount of
.--------------= ~ DD1
r~~, £ ,~, ,:7 ,r-c-.jo r /'o ., 1'7 71 u [/ 7
✓·~work done;41
, allows a pluralist ic and flexible approach;- and, is
A
A

certainly ( ,'1Y1/?"1!,/41(i
I

/

ruHl others wanted, with

I

[j/l,' t

with the first,

1

and perhaps the second, as

hU ,.·.

the organisat ional

1\

of subgroups within the total society.

Each of these systems has serious disadvanta ges ~f applied
organising principles for the total society.
system, as

Kro;>d41'n

pointed out, would restore wage-slave ~y,

and lead to systems and kinds of work not

greatly different from

that in capitalis t society.
The communist system Kropot1::. 1,1

proposed was an attempt to get

away f·rom exc h ange pro d uction
· l an d appears to h a ve b e en a n attempt
to

production and consumpti on, which in the collecti ·/ ist

system remained split, thus Kropotl(,>1 writes "Common possession of
-,1,,

the necessarie s for production implies the common eJoyment of the
/\

fruits of the common productio n".

This seems to be an attempt to

reunite production and consumptio n at the level of the total
community 1 i.e. to a pply PCI at the community level.

Unfortuna tely

it cannot be effective at that leve l, because such common production
and cons umption also, implies identical production goals a nd identical
interests .

But to a ssume this at the total community level is

unr e asonable, and ult i mately 1~pressiv e.

It ties

e1d1

personfu

production to every oth e r~ n e ed and g o ~~ a nd each person' s n ee d t o
1

rrhe term "communis t" cannot of course accurately be applied to
the systems it is popularly applied to to-day.

to everyone elsis production, in a way which would plainly not allow
the sort of individual life control, the freedom to .~>1:eh one's
i:

work to one's godl ·i, and vice--versa, which a true.ly free socity
rm s t
1\
allow.
So for example, a person who wanted to work little and 1ri:·:,i,,f

a

si{( ple life with few gOl:cCs in order to have :free time for some
1

projec~would be unable to do so under this system, he would be
pressured into working "to the contribute to the common well-being
to the fullest extent of his capacities"

He would in effect have

to remove his own non-consumer gord to provide for someone else,
desire to consume at a much higher level.

I<ropott

in' s

suggestic,t

would plainly have required a very l a rge measure of soc i al conformity
and indirect social control or pressure to succeed.

Kropotl ~

of

course envisaged that people would willingly submerge their own
,}

gooi .s in the common goo/ because of his view of the
human nature.

u',l~C

1-ti~ness of

Nevertheless his system appeared to invole to a

larg e extent compulsory self- nlJ n ~·-,;,t! ,·/\( / , which is very different from
not allowing one person to exploit another.

He did of course envisage

that collabora tion in his common work system would be freely
and c1ose~ but since he nev~r appeared to envisage
any a l ternative, it is hard to know wh~t this comes to.
This problem is of course resolved by a sy s tem allowing flexible
The collecti y .ist principle - that the worker

/\

.

entitled to the

A

fru i ts of his labour - is retained ih such a system, but without
the problems of production for exchange and witho ut the wage-slavery
tha t drove the critics of that form of organisation to a communist
alternative.

The communist difficulty that people's work is

to the needs of others in a way which makes a self-managed life
/) I Y
difficult and would impose conformity, is resolved also.
.P-G~I ·
allows flexible production groups to form based on common go·;/.s and
needs, and allows each to be the judge of his own needs to direct

his own work.
i ~' !:' k'.

\j .

People with common go,ik., and interests and needs

mayA !i,ute to form such groups
bu t

(e.g. a hous e hold or a commune).

society is not envisaged as one big household, as appears to

be in Kropotlc i / 1' ' s s y stern.
Kropo6:.

1

11

would have rejected this of course, since he wished

to argue that there could be no individual entitlement even to the
fruits of one's own labour but only so:_cial ones.

In many ways his

arguments to the effect that no person do anything on his own, a re
reminisc~ nt of the Marxist arguments for total social determination
of individuals, a ·~.scussed later.

His argument that there can be no

such thing as an individual entitlement is not clearly stated in
•

'Anarchist Commun\ sn\:'
Quote.
The passage in effect assumes that work of previous generations
has been benificial, an assumption which seems to derive from
Kropotl~ i'il. 's fervent belief in modern progress.

It ignores the fact

that the clearing of the forest has often been, and has long since
become in most cases, the excessive clearing of the forest,

that

the results of the work of our ancestors is not only soil improvements
but also soil erosion, that perhaps our predecessors have not left
us the best of all possible worlds in respect of natural wealth.
At best then the work of the past can be seen as a mixed blessing.
This does a good deal to undermine Kropot~1~j argument which assumes
that any i n d ividual working on his own project has received help
from past human's but if it is a/50 hinderance, exactly what the
existence of past human work is supposed to show is notAclear.
Kropot~~

wanted to argue that people who created wealth entirely

by their own efforts were entit led to what they created, but that
in fact this was impossible.

No one could create wealth or indeed

do anything, entirely on their own, because their is always dependence
on other people at some point, therefore all wealth was enti1tBly

sou ;~i and should be shared in common.
distingu ish W~S

The argumen t fails to

of relative independ ence and appears to rest on a

high redefin ition of 'on your own' .

If someone clears and digs

his own vegetab le patch, manures it himself with his own wastes and
by green manuring , it see~s hard to suggest that he does not have
il 1;/r /, ,/
some special claim on the carrots he has sown and, or that his
1

A

g rowing of them for his own use is a selfish action which deprives
others of their due.

It might be objected that the carrot varietie s

he has sown are the product of vegetab le improvem ent by untold
generati ons of his predece ssors.

But that does not seem to be a good

reason for the claim that he has no special claim on the carrots,
an:zinore
than the fact that the author of a book did not invent from
·,
scratch the language in which it is written shows that he is not
the real author of his work and does not have any special entitlem ents
to make certain kinds of decision s regardin g it, because it is a
product.

Work can be distingu ished is primaril y that of

some person or group, even where they have made some use of the
precedin g work of others.

Kropotk,~ 's argumen t would show that no

one could ever do anything on his own, and depends upon adopting a
quite excessiv e standard for producti on being someone 's own - that it
should owe nothing wh__~-atever to the efforts of any other human being
instead of, what is more reasonab le, that it should be primari ly(In the case of the authorsh ip of a book even th r~
standard is probably excessiv e) . •.

No _ one acts in a social vacuum

there is always a framewor k or backgrou nd, but that does show everything is a social product.
rrhis

to

,,di ci;;.. 5

c.1,}';.111 0,. ,J - _ might suggest that Anarchis m adopted the reductio n
C i :._

i

which underlie s Marxist so~ism .

would be mistaken however.

Such an impressi on

Kropotki n .:;and other leading anarchi sts

constan tly emphasis ed the importan ce and autonomy of the individu al
and stressed that their aim was the optimum developm ent and maximum

liberty of the individual the maximisation of individual initiative
and so on.

It is quite clear that they did not subscribe to the

Marx ist reduction of individuals to bits of t:r:- l lecti ves or classes,
which they saw quite rightly, as ~ irnical to liberty.

The Marxist

reduction is quite expl icitly rejecte d in Malat'e Jtlc'1 (an important
and ,~K;~ ,Jc.

·,p , 'rl tLc h

i"tl'Jk '-

f.: "l. .

0 1tu .r

d~, :>'t

c..>1'1··{- ·,_ ,-- )

1

who also stressed the importance of individuals.

~ n ki nds of tribes

~-, ,

,
1

Often peo~hder (or gathered) as ina.":i-vj_duals, or t h e ri ght }yu=rt(--

'

'

---~

~
in col laborative ~
g r ~ of various sizes or were--~
~ a_.,t:r::-itie were

I

.."

><-

[ '-,--~.•, 1;1ore · ~r less a~ t he occasi~anded ( H ~-~
1

I

t ~ f groups

-or:,,tr ib al hunting procedure w o u l ~ be shared among the g - ~
of t ~ l tribe, but in ~ i v i d u a l c a se usually, a lthough some
~
~
'

might be given

regar~eing

l.

6se who had mostly the resulting produce was
-·1z__for the use of he

veo obtained it as

-~ k i.00-_(.s.e.eJT ow i t t far d ~i_J_s._in_ t b r=> A11 s t r a J ian_char.g.e..cLoneA-

It seems that the non-reductionist position we have sketched is in
fact the unde r lying philosophical base of most of the main stream
of anarchist thought from Proudho.rr through to

Ma kd-a-1.}1-✓.>_ _ ,,

that part

I
,,u
1
which was prepared to desc; ,?L itself as 'libertarian s61\ lism 1 •

There was also of course, the so called 'individualist' position of
and a number of Anarchists which is clearly an individuali s t
reduction position, and to that extent quite distinct from the main
tradition.

1

Footnote on 'News from Nowhere'

(7.
It is perhaps surp r ising that despite such a basic outlook
traditiona l anarchist thought remained stuck with an entirely
communist propos ed · for the organisation of production in which the
personal 'intiati ve' and 'individual' autonomy and originality
so stressed by anarchist thinkers would have to be directed ,n the
Jji/1(~ ;---f.>

of production entirely to commun.-~al or sh ared aims and

needs as the Marist positions, so in practice in the area of production
in this system despite its different th .eo;-i1:-~t~_::.cr/
base ;}om Marxism _. ,n //J>,r ,,
i >1-::i;•d~;1, at any
rate individual expression woul be confined to communal life
forms.

The positi on c onlVl. be said therefore to have worked out a

consistent position en the issue of the control of individual life
and in lifl king

i t _.i theory of production with its overall view of the

individual and the cormnuni ty.
have resolved .

There seem to be several reasons why traditional

an a rchist thought
problem .

This part of problem a DIY system could

~A~~

arrived at a convincing reso lution of this

First)anarchisrn never developed its philosophical foundations

and philosophical identity property in the way t hat Marxism was able
to do, and hence was always subject to corrupt ion by the influe nc e
of that position.

As Mai:a:kxx fltk11'--r.·Jhc_

puts is (quote)

Second, tr aditional anarchism was unable to resolve the problem of
individual production in a convin cing way because it brought the capit a list production machine and the fragmentation of labour it invol~d,
1\

,jA

as well as nearly all the associated Enl;?tenment values of Modernity
!) 3-1,• c/c; ,h ;._f-)
j,

.,

Science, Progress,
Profess ·.1c-rd ,\i,,, the Conquest of Natu.~ re and so on.
.
,
'v'

This is espei $ally clear in Kropotk1n· 's work.

Although anarchism

advocated regional decentralisation and was f 3 r more critical of
the division of labour than the Marxist school( see Kropot~1 ,1 's remat~s
on the rnanu f acture of r; "' h0cu,/ S
i

) it s till held that the fragmentation
i

of labour (which Kropoth' u; describes as 'our modern integrated system
of prod~ction')was politically neutral and held the key to progress and
the good life for all.

The sort of critique of this method of

production and of its associated values are encounters today seemed
1
to be entirely absent from anarchist thought.

Given such assumptions

the possibility of individuals and groups freely determining the
production gou ls and needs and achieving them for themselves as in DIY
disappears.

The capitalist production app /:nrh1 s

is not of course

as we now realise only to well, neutral with respect to social
structur~and the sort of social options it rules out are precisely
the ones needed to resolve the anarchist dilemma of the freedom of
the individual in the sphere of production.
The result of failing to resolve the problem in a convincing
way was always a serious source of conflict within anarchist ranks.
(.'.,

It is clear from Malatsta's writing that by the early decade of the
'\

century it had reached substantial proportions, and considerable effort
was dirtcted towards resolving it.

2

To as certain extent the

failure to resolve the problem may have contributed to the decline of
anarchism, since the position then lost much of its appeal for
peasants and the independent workers who formed a major part of its
constituency.
1

Although it is not missing from some contemporary anarchist thought,
see Brown 'Smallcreep's Day'.

2

M~latesta thought that individual production from the producer's own
needs was theoretically admissible provided the producer had only
He thought however that no
an equal share of communal resources.
one would be able to produce entirely for themselves at a reasonable
The obvious option
standard,an assumption which seems to be false.
o f partially individual and politicaly communal production was for
He also believed that it would be impossible
some reason overlooked.
to get an equal division of land because not all was equally
This problem is readily overcome using modern
watered and so on.
land system assessment techniques in which scores are allote~ for
different characteris~-t.ics.

57.2
Nonetheless in outlining features a DIY society
there is much that can be taken from anarchist and near. t so urces. 1
a n arc h is

For instance, the details of the

cooperation of network$ of communities in main,~ tTaining
.__. _..
such infrastructure or railway systems, quarantine
arrangements, and such like 1 can be taken over largely
intact.

What cannot be extracted, however, from

traditional anarchist sources i s much that is satisfactory
concerning the attitudes to the natural world that a
DIY society would find appropriate, 2

1

What need not be taken are some of the more controv ersi al
features of anar chism , in particular the usual proposals
for the (Tion) administration of justice.

There is no reason

in a DIY framework why a community, or set of communities
j _n

co:opara t ion, sho uld not evo 1 ve their own ( deprofe s s ional---

i sed) legal forms.
What wil l vanish, as in anarchism.are
rulers, nations and
I'
states, and more gene rally, hierar chial power structures.
However, a community will have an organisational structure,
and its political organisation may include components of
what would not inappropriately be called ' government' .
2

The us u a 1 an arch i s t view , e s p e c i a 11 y s t ro n g in Kr op o t k i rt , was
one of transformation of nature for human end.s.
view was quite exceptional.

~orris '