Kód: Vybrať všetko

Samospráva pracujúcich - FAQ

Samospráva pracujúcich. Pri spomenutí takejto formy usporiadania práce sa často stretnem s apriórnou skepsou až odmietavým postojom. Ľudia ma ihneď začnú presviedčať ako také čosi nemôže fungovať. Háčik je v tom, že funguje. 
Najväčší rozmach zaznamenalo toto hnutie v Argentíne na prelome tisícročí po krachu štátu, kedy vyhodení pracujúci začali zaberať skrachované továrne (takto riadené sú však napr. aj nemocnice či hotely) a znova ich uvádzali do chodu. Tento článok stručne a zrozumiteľne podáva obraz o tom, ako a na akých princípoch funguje samospráva pracujúcich – teda bez hierarchického usporiadania pracovných vzťahov,  odborného manažmentu či šéfov. Treba upozorniť, že samotný koncept samosprávy pracujúcich nie je všeliekom - je ohraničený mantinelmi kapitalizmu a teda nie úplne rieši problém námezdnej práce či konkurencie na trhu. Avšak jeho dôležitosť spočíva tom, že v praxi dokazuje funkčnosť antiautoritárskych princípov.

Čo je to samospráva pracujúcich?

	Samospráva pracujúcich je spôsob riadenia pracoviska bez šéfov alebo pevnej manažérskej hierarchie. Namiesto toho je pracovisko riadené demokraticky samotnými pracujúcimi. Demokraciou nemyslíme to, že by si pracovníci volili manažérov, ktorí by za nich rozhodovali. Myslíme tým to, že pracovníci sami rozhodujú ako budú riadiť veci ako skupina. Nikto v samosprávne riadenom pracovisku nemá kontrolu nad žiadnym iným pracovníkom – rozhodujúca právomoc je rovnomerne rozložená medzi všetkých pracovníkov.
Ako to funguje? 
	Každé samosprávne pracovisko je spravované stretávaním pracovníkov na tzv. ´pracovných schôdzkach.´ Pracovníci každého podniku robia všetky manažérske rozhodnutia kolektívne na báze „jeden pracovník, jeden hlas“ alebo konsenzu. Pracovníci každého oddelenia majú svoje menšie schôdzky, na ktorých robia rozhodnutia ovplyvňujúce iba ich oddelenie a takto to ide ďalej až najmenšie pracovné kolektívy. 

Nie je to časovo veľmi náročné?

	Nie tak celkom. Manažéri sa často sťažujú, ako je ich práca časovo náročná, ale väčšinu ich času strávia robením administratívnej práce. Relatívne malé percento času vynaložia na veľké manažérske rozhodnutia. 
	Avšak, vo veľkých továrňach je príliš veľa pracovníkov na to, aby sa stretávali na veľkých schôdzach každý deň. Preto sa tieto celopodnikové pracovné schôdze uskutočňujú napríklad raz za týždeň alebo za mesiac. Sú zameriavané na hlavné „politické“ rozhodnutia, inými slovami na tie, o ktorých pracovníci rozhodnú, že  sú najdôležitejšie.

Ako je práca koordinovaná na dennej báze?

	Pracovníci sa stretnú na schôdzi v rámci svojho oddelenia a malé pracovné skupiny robia tisíce dennodenných rozhodnutí pri problémoch, ktoré sa ukážu. Každé oddelenie posiela delegáta na ´pracovný výbor´ na koordináciu ich aktivít. 
	Delegáti nie sú profesionálni manažéri: sú to obyčajní pracovníci, ktorí boli vyslaní z pracovnej schôdzky oddelenia so špeciálnymi inštrukciami (mandátom) aby sa následne vrátili a podali správu o diskusii a jej výsledku; a po ďalšom dojednaní ten istý alebo iný delegát odchádza s novými inštrukciami. Hneď ako pracovný výbor skončí, vrátia sa ku svojej každodennej práci. 
	Akékoľvek kompromisy dosiahnuté na pracovnom výbore musia byť ratifikované  schôdzkou oddelenia a delegáti môžu odvolaní a nahradení kedykoľvek. Preto pracovné výbory nehovoria pracovníkom aká bude politika – ale pracovníci to hovoria im. Nie je to správna rada, ale prostriedok na komunikáciu medzi rôznymi oddeleniami. Navyše, pracovné výbory nie sú stálym orgánom, pretože rôzni delegáti môžu byť zvolení, takže každý na pracovisku si vyskúša túto rolu. 

Existujú manažéri? 

	Nie. Samospráva pracujúcich ruší trvalé rozdelenie medzi manažérmi a pracovníkmi. Namiesto toho ľudia, ktorí aktuálne vykonávajú produktívnu prácu – vyrábanie produktov, dizajnovanie ich, udržiavanie strojov, zbieranie informácií atď. – kolektívne manažujú ich vlastnú prácu. Samospráva pracujúcich znamená doslovne to, že pracovnici riadia samých seba a preto tu nie sú žiadni profesionálni manažéri alebo manažérska hierarchia – iba obyčajní pracovníci rovnocenne kooperujúci.
	Treba podotknúť, že odmietnutie pevnej manažérskej hierarchie neznamená nutné odmietnutie vedenia. Ak balenie batožiny do lietadla potrebuje tímového lídra, tak nech je. Ale neexistuje dôvod na to, prečo by to mala byť tá istá osoba dnes a následne aj zajtra. Podobne, kniha si môže vyžadovať hlavného editora, ale nie je dôvod na to, aby táto osoba zostala vo vedení potom, ako sa kniha publikuje. Iný člen danej pracovnej skupiny môže prevziať editovanie ďalšej knihy na seba. A kde si tím vyžaduje lídra pre špecifickú úlohu, mal by byť zvolený a odvolateľný celým tímom a následne by mal pracovať v rámci demokratických rozhodnutí vytváraných celým tímom. 

Ale ak aj majú upratovači plné právo voliť a ovplyvniť rozhodnutia v továrni, ako môžu mať rovnaký vplyv ako tí, ktorí vyvíjajú rozpočty alebo dizajnujú produkty?

	Máte pravdu. Napriek rovnakým právam, upratovacie práce s nimi nemôže súťažiť ohľadom intelektuálnej kapacity alebo poskytovať informácie o technologických možnostiach  alebo poskytnúť takú zručnosť v robení rozhodnutí.
	Jedným prístupom je pravidelná rotácia takejto práce, čo zabezpečí, že aj inžinieri robia upratovacie činnosť. Najviac nepríjemné pracovné miesta môžu byť rotované naprieč celým pracoviskom, takže nikto nestrávi celý pracovný život robením ponižujúcich úloh. Avšak, hierarchia moci nemôže byť celkom zničená dočasným miešaním, ak sa kvalita a splnomocnenie dennodennej práce ľudí výrazne líši. 
	Namiesto delenia pracovníkov na intelektuálnych a manuálnych, bolo navrhnuté, že každý pracovník má tzv. vyvážený komplex pracovných úloh. Každý pracovník má sadu úloh zloženú s porovnateľne obsiahnutej zodpovednosti. To neznamená, že každý musí robiť všetko. Znamená to, že polovicu úloh, ktoré pravidelne robím, musím robiť nahrubo ako splnomocnené a druhú polovicu úloh vykonávam pravidelne. Každý musí mať porovnateľné vyváženie koncepčných a rotujúcich úloh. Takže namiesto toho, že sekretárky zdvíhajú telefóny a diktujú poznámky, niektorí pracovníci odpovedajú na telefonáty a robia kalkulácie, zatiaľ čo iní robia poznámky a dizajnujú produkty. 
	Netvrdíme, že každý má úplne rovnaké schopnosti, hoci viac edukácie a menej chudoby by urobilo veľa, aby sa vyrovnali stav v tejto oblasti. Intelektuálnu  a manuálnu prácu nikdy nebudeme robiť rovnako dobre, ale všetci budeme robiť dostatočne dobre na to, aby sme priniesli naše jedinečné skúsenosti a postrehy vo vytváraní rozhodnutí. Predsa, dobré nápady nie sú monopolom nejakého jednotlivca či skupiny. Pri sexe alebo športe takisto netvrdíme, že iba „najlepší“ sa môžu zúčastniť a to isté by malo platiť pri použití niečej hlavy.

Ale aké budú vzťahy na pracovisku? 

	To záleží na tom, ako si ľudia prajú robiť veci. Samosprávne pracoviská môžu súťažiť na trhu ako kapitalistické pracoviská dnes, hoci toto môže stále vytvárať nespočetné množstvo nespravodlivostí.
	Ostatní argumentujú, že pracoviská by sa mali pripojiť ku ´konfederácii´ - slobodnej a rovnej asociácii pracovísk, ktorá by nahradila súťaženie kooperáciou. Mala by byť riadená cez konferencie delegátov volených každým pracoviskom, ktorí by spoločne vytvárali rozhodnutia ovplyvňujúce ekonomiku ako celok. Boli by kontrolovaní zdola, pretože delegáti by mali mandát a podliehali by okamžitej možnosti odvolania pracovníkmi, ktorí by ich zvolili. Všetky rozhodnutia urobené na konferencii by museli podliehať ratifikácii pracovných schôdzok na jednotlivých pracoviskách. Teda fakticky rozhodnutia ovplyvňujúce celú ekonomiku by boli robené všetkými, pričom delegáti by boli skôr veľvyslancami ako tými, čo rozhodujú.
	Na týchto konfederáciách by pracoviská odsúhlasili spravodlivú cenu pre každý produkt, pravdepodobne založenú na dĺžke práce potrebnej na výrobu daného produktu. Alebo inak, pracoviská by mohli urobiť vzájomnú dohodu o tom, že by poskytovali svoje produkty zdarma.

Kód: Vybrať všetko

4.3 Priama demokracia zdola prostredníctvom delegátskeho systému

PA funguje ako federácia lokálnych skupín. Základným prvkom organizácie je jednotlivec, ktorý rozhoduje a koná v rámci svojej skupiny. Rozhodnutia týkajúce sa celej organizácie sa prijímajú na zjazdoch, na ktorých sú prítomní delegáti jednotlivých skupín. Skupiny sú vo svojej činnosti od seba nezávislé. Riadia sa stanovami a pravidlami, ktoré boli prijaté na zjazde, a teda sú záväzné pre všetky skupiny.

Ak sa na niečom potrebuje dohodnúť viacero skupín, vychádza sa z rozhodnutí prijatých na stretnutiach jednotlivých skupín. Tie si zo svojich radov zvolia tzv. delegáta, ktorý je kedykoľvek odvolateľný, a poveria ho, aby vyjadril názory skupiny na stretnutí delegátov. Dávajú mu tým záväzný mandát, ktorý určuje, čo môže robiť. Dĺžka platnosti mandátu a jeho voľnosť je na rozhodnutí každej skupiny. Mandát sa však väčšinou obmedzuje na vykonanie danej úlohy. Delegáti nemajú žiadnu výkonnú právomoc, sú iba „hovorcami“ svojej skupiny alebo organizácie. Nehovoria za seba.

Kód: Vybrať všetko

Ale zákazy nič nezmenia. Pozri sa na dnešný stav, to je najlepšia odpoveď na to, či to dnes funguje.

Kód: Vybrať všetko

Thus, while anarchism as a political theory is an
expression of working class struggle and self-activity
against capitalism and the modern state, the ideas of
anarchism have continually expressed themselves in action
throughout human existence. Many indigenous peoples in
North America and elsewhere, for example, practised
anarchism for thousands of years before anarchism as a
specific political theory existed. Similarly, anarchistic
tendencies and organisations have existed in every major
revolution -- the New England Town Meetings during the
American Revolution, the Parisian 'Sections' during the
French Revolution, the workers' councils and factory
committees during the Russian Revolution to name just a
few examples (see Murray Bookchin's The Third
Revolution for details).

Kód: Vybrať všetko

A.2.4 Are anarchists in favour of
"absolute" liberty?
No. Anarchists do not believe that everyone should be able
to "do whatever they like," because some actions invariably
involve the denial of the liberty of others.
For example, anarchists do not support the "freedom" to
rape, to exploit, or to coerce others. Neither do we tolerate
authority. On the contrary, since authority is a threat to
liberty, equality, and solidarity (not to mention human
dignity), anarchists recognise the need to resist and
overthrow it.
The exercise of authority is not freedom. No one has a
"right" to rule others. As Malatesta points out, anarchism
supports "freedom for everybody . . . with the only limit of
the equal freedom for others; which does not mean . . .
that we recognise, and wish to respect, the 'freedom' to
exploit, to oppress, to command, which is oppression and
certainly not freedom." [Errico Malatesta: His Life and
Ideas, p. 53]
In a capitalist society, resistance to all forms of
hierarchical authority is the mark of a free person -- be it
private (the boss) or public (the state). As Henry David
Thoreau pointed out in his essay on "Civil Disobedience"
(1847)
"Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty.
The obedient must be slaves."

Kód: Vybrať všetko

A.2.3 Are anarchists in favour of
organisation?

Yes. Without association, a truly human life is impossible.
Liberty cannot exist without society and organisation. As
George Barrett pointed out:
"To get the full meaning out of life we must cooperate,
and to co-operate we must make
agreements with our fellow-men. But to suppose
that such agreements mean a limitation of
freedom is surely an absurdity; on the contrary,
they are the exercise of our freedom.
"If we are going to invent a dogma that to make
agreements is to damage freedom, then at once
freedom becomes tyrannical, for it forbids men to
take the most ordinary everyday pleasures. For
example, I cannot go for a walk with my friend
because it is against the principle of Liberty that I
should agree to be at a certain place at a certain
time to meet him. I cannot in the least extend my
own power beyond myself, because to do so I
must co-operate with someone else, and cooperation
implies an agreement, and that is
against Liberty. It will be seen at once that this
argument is absurd. I do not limit my liberty, but
simply exercise it, when I agree with my friend to
go for a walk.
"If, on the other hand, I decide from my superior
knowledge that it is good for my friend to take
exercise, and therefore I attempt to compel him to
go for a walk, then I begin to limit freedom. This
is the difference between free agreement and
government." [Objections to Anarchism, pp.
348-9]
As far as organisation goes, anarchists think that "far from
creating authority, [it] is the only cure for it and the only
means whereby each of us will get used to taking an active
and conscious part in collective work, and cease being
passive instruments in the hands of leaders." [Errico
Malatesta, Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 86]
Thus anarchists are well aware of the need to organise in a
structured and open manner. As Carole Ehrlich points out,
while anarchists "aren't opposed to structure" and simply
"want to abolish hierarchical structure" they are "almost
always stereotyped as wanting no structure at all." This is
not the case, for "organisations that would build in
accountability, diffusion of power among the maximum
number of persons, task rotation, skill-sharing, and the
spread of information and resources" are based on "good
social anarchist principles of organisation!" ["Socialism,
Anarchism and Feminism", Quiet Rumours: An
Anarcha-Feminist Reader, p. 47 and p. 46]
The fact that anarchists are in favour of organisation may
seem strange at first, but it is understandable. "For those
with experience only of authoritarian organisation," argue
two British anarchists, "it appears that organisation can
only be totalitarian or democratic, and that those who
disbelieve in government must by that token disbelieve in
organisation at all. That is not so." [Stuart Christie and
Albert Meltzer, The Floodgates of Anarchy, p. 122] In
other words, because we live in a society in which virtually
all forms of organisation are authoritarian, this makes them
appear to be the only kind possible. What is usually not
recognised is that this mode of organisation is historically
conditioned, arising within a specific kind of society -- one
whose motive principles are domination and exploitation.
According to archaeologists and anthropologists, this kind
of society has only existed for about 5,000 years, having
appeared with the first primitive states based on conquest
and slavery, in which the labour of slaves created a surplus
which supported a ruling class.
Prior to that time, for hundreds of thousands of years,
human and proto-human societies were what Murray
Bookchin calls "organic," that is, based on co-operative
forms of economic activity involving mutual aid, free
access to productive resources, and a sharing of the
products of communal labour according to need. Although
such societies probably had status rankings based on age,
there were no hierarchies in the sense of institutionalised
dominance-subordination relations enforced by coercive
sanctions and resulting in class-stratification involving the
economic exploitation of one class by another (see Murray
Bookchin, The Ecology of Freedom).
It must be emphasised, however, that anarchists do not
advocate going "back to the Stone Age." We merely note
that since the hierarchical-authoritarian mode of
organisation is a relatively recent development in the
course of human social evolution, there is no reason to
suppose that it is somehow "fated" to be permanent. We do
not think that human beings are genetically "programmed"
for authoritarian, competitive, and aggressive behaviour, as
there is no credible evidence to support this claim. On the
contrary, such behaviour is socially conditioned, or
learned, and as such, can be unlearned (see Ashley
Montagu, The Nature of Human Aggression). We are not
fatalists or genetic determinists, but believe in free will,
which means that people can change the way they do
things, including the way they organise society.

Kód: Vybrať všetko

A.2.5 Why are anarchists in favour of equality?

As mentioned in above, anarchists are dedicated to social equality because it is the only context in which individual liberty can flourish. However, there has been much nonsense written about "equality," and much of what is commonly believed about it is very strange indeed. Before discussing what anarchist do mean by equality, we have to indicate what we do not mean by it.

Anarchists do not believe in "equality of endowment," which is not only non-existent but would be very undesirable if it could be brought about. Everyone is unique. Biologically determined human differences not only exist but are "a cause for joy, not fear or regret." Why? Because "life among clones would not be worth living, and a sane person will only rejoice that others have abilities that they do not share." [Noam Chomsky, Marxism, Anarchism, and Alternative Futures, p. 782]

That some people seriously suggest that anarchists means by "equality" that everyone should be identical is a sad reflection on the state of present-day intellectual culture and the corruption of words -- a corruption used to divert attention from an unjust and authoritarian system and side-track people into discussions of biology. "The uniqueness of the self in no way contradicts the principle of equality," noted Erich Fromm, "The thesis that men are born equal implies that they all share the same fundamental human qualities, that they share the same basic fate of human beings, that they all have the same inalienable claim on freedom and happiness. It furthermore means that their relationship is one of solidarity, not one of domination-submission. What the concept of equality does not mean is that all men are alike." [The Fear of Freedom, p. 228] Thus it would be fairer to say that anarchists seek equality because we recognise that everyone is different and, consequently, seek the full affirmation and development of that uniqueness.

Nor are anarchists in favour of so-called "equality of outcome." We have no desire to live in a society were everyone gets the same goods, lives in the same kind of house, wears the same uniform, etc. Part of the reason for the anarchist revolt against capitalism and statism is that they standardise so much of life (see George Reitzer's The McDonaldisation of Society on why capitalism is driven towards standardisation and conformity). In the words of Alexander Berkman:

    "The spirit of authority, law, written and unwritten, tradition and custom force us into a common grove and make a man [or woman] a will-less automation without independence or individuality. . . All of us are its victims, and only the exceptionally strong succeed in breaking its chains, and that only partly." [What is Anarchism?, p. 165] 

Anarchists, therefore, have little to desire to make this "common grove" even deeper. Rather, we desire to destroy it and every social relationship and institution that creates it in the first place.

"Equality of outcome" can only be introduced and maintained by force, which would not be equality anyway, as some would have more power than others! "Equality of outcome" is particularly hated by anarchists, as we recognise that every individual has different needs, abilities, desires and interests. To make all consume the same would be tyranny. Obviously, if one person needs medical treatment and another does not, they do not receive an "equal" amount of medical care. The same is true of other human needs. As Alexander Berkman put it:

    "equality does not mean an equal amount but equal opportunity. . . Do not make the mistake of identifying equality in liberty with the forced equality of the convict camp. True anarchist equality implies freedom, not quantity. It does not mean that every one must eat, drink, or wear the same things, do the same work, or live in the same manner. Far from it: the very reverse in fact."

    "Individual needs and tastes differ, as appetites differ. It is equal opportunity to satisfy them that constitutes true equality.

    "Far from levelling, such equality opens the door for the greatest possible variety of activity and development. For human character is diverse . . . Free opportunity of expressing and acting out your individuality means development of natural dissimilarities and variations." [Op. Cit., pp. 164-5]

For anarchists, the "concepts" of "equality" as "equality of outcome" or "equality of endowment" are meaningless. However, in a hierarchical society, "equality of opportunity" and "equality of outcome" are related. Under capitalism, for example, the opportunities each generation face are dependent on the outcomes of the previous ones. This means that under capitalism "equality of opportunity" without a rough "equality of outcome" (in the sense of income and resources) becomes meaningless, as there is no real equality of opportunity for the off-spring of a millionaire and that of a road sweeper. Those who argue for "equality of opportunity" while ignoring the barriers created by previous outcomes indicate that they do not know what they are talking about -- opportunity in a hierarchical society depends not only on an open road but also upon an equal start. From this obvious fact springs the misconception that anarchists desire "equality of outcome" -- but this applies to a hierarchical system, in a free society this would not the case (as we will see).

Equality, in anarchist theory, does not mean denying individual diversity or uniqueness. As Bakunin observes:

    "once equality has triumphed and is well established, will various individuals' abilities and their levels of energy cease to differ? Some will exist, perhaps not so many as now, but certainly some will always exist. It is proverbial that the same tree never bears two identical leaves, and this will probably be always be true. And it is even more truer with regard to human beings, who are much more complex than leaves. But this diversity is hardly an evil. On the contrary. . . it is a resource of the human race. Thanks to this diversity, humanity is a collective whole in which the one individual complements all the others and needs them. As a result, this infinite diversity of human individuals is the fundamental cause and the very basis of their solidarity. It is all-powerful argument for equality." ["All-Round Education", The Basic Bakunin, pp. 117-8] 

Equality for anarchists means social equality, or, to use Murray Bookchin's term, the "equality of unequals" (some like Malatesta used the term "equality of conditions" to express the same idea). By this he means that an anarchist society recognises the differences in ability and need of individuals but does not allow these differences to be turned into power. Individual differences, in other words, "would be of no consequence, because inequality in fact is lost in the collectivity when it cannot cling to some legal fiction or institution." [Michael Bakunin, God and the State, p. 53]

Kód: Vybrať všetko

Solidarity, or mutual aid, is a key idea of anarchism. It is the link between the individual and society, the means by which individuals can work together to meet their common interests in an environment that supports and nurtures both liberty and equality. For anarchists, mutual aid is a fundamental feature of human life, a source of both strength and happiness and a fundamental requirement for a fully human existence.

Erich Fromm, noted psychologist and socialist humanist, points out that the "human desire to experience union with others is rooted in the specific conditions of existence that characterise the human species and is one of the strongest motivations of human behaviour." [To Be or To Have, p.107]

Therefore anarchists consider the desire to form "unions" (to use Max Stirner's term) with other people to be a natural need. These unions, or associations, must be based on equality and individuality in order to be fully satisfying to those who join them -- i.e. they must be organised in an anarchist manner, i.e. voluntary, decentralised, and non-hierarchical.

Solidarity -- co-operation between individuals -- is necessary for life and is far from a denial of liberty. Solidarity, observed Errico Malatesta, "is the only environment in which Man can express his personality and achieve his optimum development and enjoy the greatest possible wellbeing." This "coming together of individuals for the wellbeing of all, and of all for the wellbeing of each," results in "the freedom of each not being limited by, but complemented -- indeed finding the necessary raison d'etre in -- the freedom of others." [Anarchy, p. 29] In other words, solidarity and co-operation means treating each other as equals, refusing to treat others as means to an end and creating relationships which support freedom for all rather than a few dominating the many. Emma Goldman reiterated this theme, noting "what wonderful results this unique force of man's individuality has achieved when strengthened by co-operation with other individualities . . . co-operation -- as opposed to internecine strife and struggle -- has worked for the survival and evolution of the species. . . . only mutual aid and voluntary co-operation . . . can create the basis for a free individual and associational life." [Red Emma Speaks, p. 118]

Solidarity means associating together as equals in order to satisfy our common interests and needs. Forms of association not based on solidarity (i.e. those based on inequality) will crush the individuality of those subjected to them. As Ret Marut points out, liberty needs solidarity, the recognition of common interests:

    "The most noble, pure and true love of mankind is the love of oneself. I want to be free! I hope to be happy! I want to appreciate all the beauties of the world. But my freedom is secured only when all other people around me are free. I can only be happy when all other people around me are happy. I can only be joyful when all the people I see and meet look at the world with joy-filled eyes. And only then can I eat my fill with pure enjoyment when I have the secure knowledge that other people, too, can eat their fill as I do. And for that reason it is a question of my own contentment, only of my own self, when I rebel against every danger which threatens my freedom and my happiness. . ." [Ret Marut (a.k.a. B. Traven), The BrickBurner magazine quoted by Karl S. Guthke, B. Traven: The life behind the legends, pp. 133-4] 

To practice solidarity means that we recognise, as in the slogan of Industrial Workers of the World, that "an injury to one is an injury to all." Solidarity, therefore, is the means to protect individuality and liberty and so is an expression of self-interest. As Alfie Kohn points out:

    "when we think about co-operation. . . we tend to associate the concept with fuzzy-minded idealism. . . This may result from confusing co-operation with altruism. . . Structural co-operation defies the usual egoism/altruism dichotomy. It sets things up so that by helping you I am helping myself at the same time. Even if my motive initially may have been selfish, our fates now are linked. We sink or swim together. Co-operation is a shrewd and highly successful strategy - a pragmatic choice that gets things done at work and at school even more effectively than competition does. . . There is also good evidence that co-operation is more conductive to psychological health and to liking one another." [No Contest: The Case Against Competition, p. 7] 

Kód: Vybrať všetko

Liberty, by its very nature, cannot be given. An individual cannot be freed by another, but must break his or her own chains through their own effort. Of course, self-effort can also be part of collective action, and in many cases it has to be in order to attain its ends. As Emma Goldman points out:

    "History tells us that every oppressed class [or group or individual] gained true liberation from its masters by its own efforts." [Red Emma Speaks, p. 167] 

This is because anarchists recognise that hierarchical systems, like any social relationship, shapes those subject to them. As Bookchin argued, "class societies organise our psychic structures for command or obedience." This means that people internalise the values of hierarchical and class society and, as such, "the State is not merely a constellation of bureaucratic and coercive instituions. It is also a state of mind, an instilled mentality for ordering reality . . . Its capacity to rule by brute force has always been limited . . . Without a high degree of co-operation from even the most victimised classes of society such as chattel slaves and serfs, its authority would eventually dissipate. Awe and apathy in the face of State power are products of social conditioning that renders this very power possible." [The Ecology of Freedom, p. 159 and pp. 164-5] Self-liberation is the means by which we break down both internal and external chains, freeing ourselves mentally as well as physically.

Between man and his social environment there is a reciprocal action. Men make society what it is and society makes men what they are, and the result is therefore a kind of vicious circle. To transform society men [and women] must be changed, and to transform men, society must be changed . . . Fortunately existing society has not been created by the inspired will of a dominating class, which has succeeded in reducing all its subjects to passive and unconscious instruments of its interests. It is the result of a thousand internecine struggles, of a thousand human and natural factors . . .

"From this the possibility of progress . . . We must take advantage of all the means, all the possibilities and the opportunities that the present environment allows us to act on our fellow men [and women] and to develop their consciences and their demands . . . to claim and to impose those major social transformations which are possible and which effectively serve to open the way to further advances later . . . We must seek to get all the people . . . to make demands, and impose itself and take for itself all the improvements and freedoms it desires as and when it reaches the state of wanting them, and the power to demand them . . . we must push the people to want always more and to increase its pressures [on the ruling elite], until it has achieved complete emancipation." [Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, pp. 188-9]

Society, while shaping all individuals, is also created by them, through their actions, thoughts, and ideals. Challenging institutions that limit one's freedom is mentally liberating, as it sets in motion the process of questioning authoritarian relationships in general. This process gives us insight into how society works, changing our ideas and creating new ideals. To quote Emma Goldman again: "True emancipation begins. . . in woman's soul." And in a man's too, we might add. It is only here that we can "begin [our] inner regeneration, [cutting] loose from the weight of prejudices, traditions and customs." [Op. Cit., p. 167] But this process must be self-directed, for as Max Stirner notes, "the man who is set free is nothing but a freed man. . . a dog dragging a piece of chain with him." [The Ego and Its Own, p. 168] By changing the world, even in a small way, we change ourselves.

For anarchists, in the words of a Scottish Anarchist militant, the "history of human progress [is] seen as the history of rebellion and disobedience, with the individual debased by subservience to authority in its many forms and able to retain his/her dignity only through rebellion and disobedience." [Robert Lynn, Not a Life Story, Just a Leaf from It, p. 77] This is why anarchists stress self-liberation (and self-organisation, self-management and self-activity). Little wonder Bakunin considered "rebellion" as one of the "three fundamental principles [which] constitute the essential conditions of all human development, collective or individual, in history." [God and the State, p. 12] This is simply because individuals and groups cannot be freed by others, only by themselves. Such rebellion (self-liberation) is the only means by which existing society becomes more libertarian and an anarchist society a possibility.