Against exclusion, dualistic self-management
Of all the difficulties of our current company, the major problem is the exclusion of the « market » of employment. Would anarchistic self-management make it possible to reabsorb this plague completely? On the basis of the principle that the right of each one to consume is strictly conditioned to the duty of each one to take part in the collective production, this question should be logically settled. However the things are differently more complex. Because the obligation of activity for an individual in self-management cannot be fulfilled that if there is in parallel approval of the structure to accomodate it and to keep it durably. The only difference compared to the current system, it that the employer is in this case the totality of the workers of this structure, possibly is represented by delegates, instead of being only one person (undertaken) or a restricted group individuals (company) called the owner. Indeed, what would prevent the community of the workers of a structure brought together in general assembly to vote for X reason « against » the integration of un(e) certain(e) nouveau(elle) or for the exclusion of (e) as of theirs at a given time? The cost of non-existent work in the absence of money? Not, since this possibility of refusal of integration and exclusion also currently exists within the framework of the associative voluntary help.
An obligation thus being worth only by its reciprocity, it is naive to believe that this only change of social organization would be enough to put an end to the problem exclusion. Let us be realistic: in the current company, the self-management claim can only imperatively be accompanied by a fight for a radical change of mentalities among our fellow-citizens accepting very badly the difference and it except standard. Because if there is of course one or two completely legitimate reasons with the refusal of integration and the work of certain individuals, like in particular the constant idleness and the serious fault, there is another which I find with my completely unjust direction: he nonconformity of the person to the socially allowed standards. She gathers inter alia these some characteristics: look not à.la.mode of the moment or that affectionne the person although it badly carrying, practices of life or personal manners different from those of the others (visible in the public sphere), temperament independent of strong individuality not conceding anything of its opinions (but without carrying damage to the collective), and some very light physical handicaps (because not recognized like such by the mass).
Except with perhaps thinking that the self-management company would be completely made up of convinced anarchists (and still, I suppose that we do not gather either only perfect people) ? Then there, companions, we do not delude. Let us consider the results of the elections for a few years: they release from the majorities much closer to 50 % (and even below!) that of 90 % and not very stable over the duration: « a blow on the right, a blow on the left » became a quasi ritual practice. Then we do not make an illusion: if our fellow-citizens decide one day « to also test us » by joining us on alternative projects, t will be in these same proportions and with also the intention to assert at the end of a certain time a return to the old system if the experiment did not satisfy them. Thus let us leave rather on the idea that the self-management company at the beginning will comprise « a small majority of anarchists » and « a large minority of people of other convictions » and that it will be necessary for us well to make with their design of the things even if that will not be always obvious. But this fight for the change of mentalities, although essential, insofar as according to our principles it can take only one inciting and nonobligatory form, does not comprise of course either any guarantee of success.
I thus think that it is necessary for us to re-examine and amend our self-management project in the direction of a solution making impossible the exclusion of anyone. Yes it is possible if we agree to take with c?ur this question, to classify it among the priorities and I have of course something to propose. Until now when one speaks about self-management, one hears « federalistic » self-management, what supposes the presence from at least two or three people constituting the various structures of production. Federalistic self-management is thus necessarily a collective management. My proposal is to found an individual self-management in parallel, thus giving the people not having succeeded in nowhere being integrated the possibility of only settling : to establish the equivalent of the current statute of self-employed worker, to some extent. In the absence of money in this new company, the argument of the risk of accumulation of personal profit is inevitably obsolete. There remains of course that of the personal appropriation of the structure, will rétorquerez me you. How to prevent that with time the independent person does not feel finally owner of the manufacturing unit which it manages for the benefit of the only common good ? And to prevent it well, it is simply enough to establish principles put in?uvre each time necessary to the political level. One can agree very well, at the political level inter federal, of following measurements :
– the self-employed worker, recognizing the fact that it is alone in its structure « failing to have found people with whom to federate », must leave his door permanently open to whoever would like one day to join it to found a federal structure.
– as well as these last, it must entrust the management and the distribution of its stock to the organizations of consumers.
– It engages, except valid reason official statement with the consumers (disease, holidays etc…), with a regular physical presence in its structure (except if the nature of its activity requires displacements) and with the effective exercise of its activity.
– It should not in no case to use its own production at ends of personal use. In other words it will have to go to buy elsewhere than « at his place » the product which it manufactures itself (this is worth of course only for the activity carried on within « its structure of work », keeping of course a whole freedom of artisanal manufacture of all kinds for its own personal satisfaction « in its property with use of dwelling »).
– In the event of will to cease this activity, it will have to inform of them the delegates of the commune on which the structure is established so that they can as fast as possible make any decision as for becoming infrastructure remained vacant.
In the event of persistent refusal to respect its principles, the communal delegates could then, in full agreement with one of AG citizen, to decide to put an end to the activity of this person having made « abuse individualism ». Of this manner, I am persuaded that no self-employed worker could « chopper the mentality of owner of the manufacturing unit which it manages » and to fall down thus in through current of the accumulation of personal goods. And this individual self-management would thus constitute a way of help for the few individuals that nobody wants to make the effort support on the spot of activity, rather than to faultily let them « make the turn of the world » until finding a structure which accepts them! Because wouldn’t this be then a new form of arbitrary? Not having asked to come in the world, I leave personally the principle which they have the right to work and to consume like the others.
These two forms of self-management put in?uvre: federal self-management and independent individual self-management would thus form what I call « dualistic self-management » (this name holding of course only with me).
I subject this idea to the reflexion of all the anarchists, electrons free and members of organizations.
Aucun commentaire pour l’instant.