The (Anarcho-Capitalist) Big Society

Prof. Grave Riddle: University of Strategic Optimism

Introduction
What is The Big Society? Well, there is a strong mystical ingredient to this
new government concept, and much of this essay will be an uncovering of
what lies beneath the surface of this opaque lump of ideological mass by
bashing it against anarchist philosophy. This might seem like a strange move,
until we remember that there exists a deep and disturbing link between both
conservativism and anarchism, which I will call ‘anarcho-capitalism’ 1. The aim
is to reveal that David Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ 2 is a potentially anarcho-
capitalist one, and that once the hyperbole is dismantled, both here and in the
‘real world’, what will remain is a naked power structure who’s sole purpose is
to protect the interests of the ruling class (the rich, the aristocracy, the
capitalists etc) – i.e. private property.
I say ‘both here and in the real world’ because one hope that we (by which I
suggest an emerging solidarity between the student movement, the
unemployed, anti-capitalists and the left in general, the new underclass of
precarious workers who have yet to achieve their ‘class consciousness’) can
extract from this essay and from the physical results of the new conservative
brutalism is that the world will become clearer; power will become more
obvious and disgusting. Activism should push the Big Society to its absolute
limit.

Demystifying ‘The Big Society’

‘The Big Society’ is an abstract idea, vague enough to justify all manner of
internal contradictions and abrupt changes in the direction of its application. It
is the desired end-goal or happy ending of David Cameron’s first foray into
science fiction: the politically efficient use of a future-fictional ‘utopia’ to strive
for (which we won’t know until we get there). The Big Society is under-
explained and is, of course, a myth, mobilised to rally together society’s hope
for a better world in which we are all friends and yet free to do and exploit
each other as we please:
"We want to give citizens, communities and local government the power and
information they need to come together, solve the problems they face and
build the Britain they want. We want society – the families, networks,
neighbourhoods and communities that form the fabric of so much of our
everyday lives – to be bigger and stronger than ever before. Only when

1
I adopt this terminology directly from Peter Marshall’s “Demanding The
Impossible: A History of Anarchism”.
2
My omission of what’s-his-name-joint-leader from this essay is of course ironic;
the Liberal Democrats has now ceased to exist as a political party.
people and communities are given more power and take more responsibility
can we achieve fairness and opportunity for all." 3
The Big Society wants to decentralize power from ‘the state’ and give it to ‘the
people’, trickling it down through the relevant structures from local
government to the citizens themselves. This is great, and we would all
welcome some real power to directly change our local community. Yet, this is
all traditionally conservative, in that the individual is empowered to achieve
his/her own potential through ingenuity, hard work and fair competition. Never
mind the existing inequality strongly biased in favour of the already rich and
powerful.
We can easily dismiss the rhetoric of ‘making society stronger than before’ as
political codswallop, knowing full well that what the government wants is less
responsibility on behalf of the state to intervene in an intensifying division of
wealth and opportunities. However, what we should watch for are the
moments when the rhetoric unmasks itself, as we see when Cameron starts
to explain what this decentralisation might practically mean:
“…The re-imagined state should not stop at creating opportunities for people
to take control of their lives. It must actively help people take advantage of this
new freedom. This means a new role for the state: actively helping to create
the big society; directly agitating for, catalysing and galvanising social
renewal."4

The remaining power of the state must be used to ‘agitate, catalyse and
galvanise’ social renewal. Of course, this means that the state must, for
example, force people on jobseeker’s allowance to go back to work by
punishing them - if there is no good reason for you not to take a job offered to
you by the Jobcentre, and you refuse, you will be taken off jobseeker’s for
three months (first offence; second: six months, third: one year, and so on).
This is how anyone actually implicated within the day-to-day application of
The Big Society can translate this ‘new role’ for the state.
For the purpose of this essay, it is crucial to note what still remains after the
apparent decentralization of power: ‘the state’ is still responsible for helping
people make the right decisions: "...I believe that in general, a simplistic
retrenchment of the state which assumes that better alternatives to state
action will just spring to life unbidden is wrong. Instead we need a thoughtful
re-imagination of the role, as well as the size, of the state." 5 The people’s new
power does not extend to opting out of The Big Society. We do not have the
freedom to make the ‘wrong choice’ (we haven’t got any real or practical
power to disagree).

3
“Building the Big Society” by the Cabinet Office – available at:
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/news/building-big-society
4
David Cameron’s ‘Big Society Speech’, available at
http://www.conservatives.com/News/Speeches/2009/11/David_Cameron_The
_Big_Society.aspx
5
ibid.
A large part of David Cameron’s political rhetoric is aimed negatively at the
New Labour inheritance. He would expect us to believe that the financial crisis
is entirely New Labour’s fault, and that any brutality on the new government’s
part is a necessary evil to fix the mess we are in. This is rhetoric because this
financial crisis is largely inherited from the previous conservative government
under Thatcher, due to her almost religious belief in capitalism and the
therefore logical privatization of absolutely everything – and any orthodox
Marxist knew that this current crisis was inevitable. Cameron, in relation to the
‘bloated socialist state’ of New Labour, therefore also articulates the Big
Society negatively. Cameron spends a big chunk of his Big Society speech
outlining the positives and negatives of the twentieth century Labour
movement in Britain.
We shouldn’t engage in this petty argument, except to note that Cameron is
playing on the linguistic and cultural connotations of ‘the State’ (the historical
failures and horrors of 20th century Communism). Cameron is almost arguing
for a differentiation of ‘state’ and ‘government’ – the former being the failed,
corrupted and expensive socialist (communist) apparatus 6; the latter being the
necessary, positive (agitating, catalysing and galvanising) and streamlined
organization behind The Big Society. Unfortunately, Cameron doesn’t go this
far, as he wants to pretend that there is still some kind of welfare and public
service responsibility for the new conservative government 7.

Social action
“The paradox at the heart of big government is that by taking power and
responsibility away from the individual, it has only served to individuate them. 
What is seen in principle as an act of social solidarity, has in practice led to
the greatest atomisation of our society.  The once natural bonds that existed
between people - of duty and responsibility - have been replaced with the
synthetic bonds of the state - regulation and bureaucracy.”
An important idea that David Cameron associates with a successful ‘Big
Society’ is social action. ‘Social action’ is articulated through ideas of ‘duty
and responsibility’, and once again in a negative relation to the ‘big
government evils of regulation and bureaucracy’. Cameron claims that
individualisation leads to atomisation, which in turn leads to an erosion of duty
and responsibility. Yet it is individual, citizen responsibility that Cameron
wants The Big Society to run on; we all know what traditional conservativism
means in terms of rampant individualism. And what of the “new role for the
state: actively helping to create the big society; directly agitating for,

6
"State socialism is attacked [by neo-conservatives] not so much because it is
egalitarian but because it seeks to accrue more powers for the State to exercise
centrally." Peter Marshall, “Demanding The Impossible”: p. 559
7
‘Unfortunate’ because this would make unmasking the anarcho-capitalist
ideology behind The Big Society quicker and easier: The State = socialist,
progressive and anti-capitalist intervention; The Government = police force
protecting the interests of ruling class, i.e. private property.
catalysing and galvanising social renewal”? Is this not achieved through
‘regulation’ and ‘bureaucracy’?
Once again, in the interest of this essay, we can acknowledge contradictions
and push on. Suffice to say that Cameron would like to have a minimized the
state in terms of its financial responsibility, balanced by privatised and
responsible community initiatives (charities, housing co-ops, etc). As far as
what Cameron means by ‘social action’, we have already seen what kinds of
social action are not sanctioned by this new ‘minimised state’: aggressive
political (student) protests8 and organised tube/fire service strikes are just
recent examples.
In the case of the student protests, there has been a real attempt to take
power back from central government by demanding their removal from
parliament on the grounds of total hypocrisy. A central demand of protesters
is that politicians should be held accountable for lying to get into power – it is
not a matter of desiring ‘anarchy’, only accountability. Protest in this case is
exemplary ‘social action’, even in Cameron’s sense, because it demands that
democracy be respected and that the corrupt government should be removed.
The positive result would be a renewed idea of politics where participation
mattered, government listened and social action was respected.
"This decentralisation of power from the central to the local will not just
increase responsibility, it will lead to innovation, as people have the freedom
to try new approaches to solving social problems, and the freedom to copy
what works elsewhere...Running parents groups, organising beat meetings
with the police, getting people together in a front room to discuss ways to
improve the neighbourhood. All this goes on today, but not enough. We need
more community activism, and more community activists." 9
As we pointed out earlier, the state is stripped back to a ‘police force’ that
‘helps people make the right choices’. ‘Social action’ for Cameron clearly must
be the right social action, and the right social action is the kind that does the
dirty work that the government (or State) was once expected to do: house the
homeless, feed and clothe the poor, provide social housing, provide free and
adequate healthcare, maintain clean and safe streets and city areas, prevent
exploitation and make sure wealth is redistributed equally, provide a decent
education, encourage a sustainable and progressive industry, and so on.
The examples Cameron provides are embarrassingly naive, yet totally
revealing: “running parents groups, organising beat meetings with the police,
8
I’m talking here of ‘occupation’ strategies, which I insist are peaceful. The
potentially peaceful occupation of Millbank turned nasty because of police
intervention. Yes, it was illegal, and therefore inevitable that the police would
intervene, but this does not mean that the tactic of ‘occupation’ is therefore in
any way violent. The adjacent Millbank building had been occupied the whole
time without any damage to property. The police intervention was symbolic, in
that it was a protection of powers in charge, and the student protest was ‘violent’
(according to those in charge) because it dared to efface the private property of
those in charge.
9
Ibid.
getting people together in a front room to discuss ways to improve the
neighbourhood.” We are beginning to unravel the ideology behind The Big
Society and the kind of government that David Cameron would like to keep in
place. The one thing that a conservative government must protect is private
property, and it already has the power to do this with the police force.

Decentralisation: An Anarchist Approach

So what will this new ‘minimised government’ look like? We think that it must
look something like a government minimised to a police force, which protects
the interests of the ruling class, i.e. private property. To get to this apparently
extreme and clearly polemic conclusion, we must first look at an essay by
Errico Malatesta called “Anarchism and Government” 10 – which reveals
similarities, but more importantly crucial differences, between anarchist and
the new conservative visions of society.
The similarities between Malatesta’s essay and David Cameron’s speech are
quite startling at first, as we can see from this quote from the former:
"In order to understand how society could exist without a government, it is
sufficient to turn our attention for a short space to what actually goes on in our
present society. We shall see that in reality the most important social
functions are fulfilled even nowadays outside the intervention of
government...Men work, exchange, study, travel, follow as they choose the
current rules of morality or hygiene; they profit by the progress of science and
art, have numberless mutual interests without ever feeling the need of any
one to direct them how to conduct themselves in regard to these matters." 11
Both Malatesta and Cameron are arguing for a reduction in the role of a
government which has become bloated and which interferes in the affairs and
freedoms of citizens who are quite capable of looking after themselves. In
fact, Malatesta wants to point out that they already do look after themselves,
and important community initiatives run (better) without the involvement of the
State. For Malatesta, this is an important fact for us to notice. Anarchism isn’t
about chaos or disorder, it is about self-rule and mutual cooperation. For a
progressive anarchist thinker like Malatesta, the future anarchist utopia
already exists in the natural cooperation of people and their creative pursuits,
independent from government interference. A huge weight on the shoulder of
any anarchist thinker is to show how without government, society can still
function and will not necessarily devolve into a dog-eat-dog situation resulting
in violence and crime. It is a common anarchist premise that human beings
are ‘naturally’ good, and it is our current repressive form of society that makes

10
In “The Anarchists” ed. Irving L. Horowitz, 1964: pp. 70-86.
11
Errico Malatesta, “Anarchism and Government”, In “The Anarchists” ed. Irving
L. Horowitz, 1964: p. 84
us ‘bad’.12 This is contrary to the ideology of repressive power, which claims
that government is needed in order to protect us from each other. 13
It seems that David Cameron also wants to found his argument for the
minimization of ‘State’ interference on a similar idea of ‘natural’ goodness. 14
This is commendable, and I personally have a deep respect for the anarchist
belief in human kind. We should also be very sceptical, however, of the ability
for this natural order to manifest itself within, or out of the existing situation in
this country (or anywhere). Aside from the obvious criticism of whether or not
such an idea of ‘human nature’ is at all philosophically justifiable, it is unclear
whether this is a state of being that we can ever ‘get back to’. However,
Malatesta’s argues that there is proof of this ‘natural order’ already within
society:
“Men work, exchange, study, travel, follow as they choose the current rules of
morality or hygiene; they profit by the progress of science and art, have
numberless mutual interests without ever feeling the need of any one to direct
them how to conduct themselves in regard to these matters…Nor is
government more necessary for large undertakings, or for those public
services which require the constant co-operation of many people of different
conditions and countries. Thousands of these undertakings are even now the
work of voluntarily formed associations. And these are, by the
acknowledgement of everyone, the undertakings that succeed the best." 15
Even the postal service should be privatised, according to Malatesta: "The
government takes charge, for instance, of the postal and telegraph services.
But in what way does it really assist them? When the people are in such a
condition as to be able to enjoy and feel the need of such services they will
think about organising them, and the man with the necessary technical
knowledge will not require a certificate from government to enable him to set
to work...Wherever a government exists, it must wait until the people have first
organised everything, and then come with its laws to sanction and exploit
what has already been done. It is evident that private interest is the great
motive for all activity."
We can see real similarities with the anarchist and conservative positions on
public services. David Cameron’s argument is that these services are better
provided locally and by already existing institutions such as “voluntary formed
associations.” Cameron would also claim that these are “the undertakings that
succeed the best”. We have also seen Cameron claim that ‘big government’

12
Malatesta, p. 73. See also “Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism”
by Peter Marshall, pp. 14-17 for a brief, preliminary discussion of this. Similar
insights can be found in non-anarchist writings such as Sigmund Freud’s
“Civilisation and it’s Discontents”, Michel Foucault’s “Madness and Civilisation”,
and also Deleuze and Guatarri’s “Anti-Oedipus”.
13
Malatesta, p. 77
14
“Human kindness, generosity and imagination are steadily being squeezed out
by the work of the state.” – David Cameron’s ‘Big Society Speech’
15
Ibid, p.84
has eroded “the once natural bonds that existed between people - of duty and
responsibility.”16
So is David Cameron an anarchist? Well, no. This is where we arrive at the
crucial difference between The Big Society and the anarchist utopia: "That
[private interest is the great motive for all activity] being so, when the interest
of every one becomes the interest of each (and it necessarily will become so
as soon as private property is abolished), then all will be active." 17
The issue of private property is absolutely the difference between
conservativism and anarchism. Private property is the one thing that David
Cameron, as a representative of the conservative party, can never justify
giving up. My argument is that we should see through all the hyperbole of The
Big Society, its emphasis on ‘social action’, ‘decentralisation’, ‘community’, to
the ideology which lies deep behind it: that government is necessary for the
protection of private property. Malatesta knows that ‘”the interest of every one
becoming the interest of each” will never happen unless “private property is
abolished”18.
Whether or not David Cameron actually believes in the fundamental goodness
of human kind we will never know, but the point is that ‘The Big Society’ as a
positive and progressive idea is an impossible one while there is private
property. This therefore means that we can dismiss all the progressive
connotations of ‘The Big Society’ as bullshit – we do not have to feel anxious
every time we fight for ‘decentralization of power’ and ‘community
transformation’ using ‘social action’. These are not conservative ideas, they
are good ideas appropriated by David Cameron to legitimize his bad
intentions for the future of British society. Social action, decentralization and
community activism will not necessarily lead to The Big Society as envisioned
by David Cameron.
The Anarcho-Capitalist Big Society
In a section called “The New-Right and Anarcho-capitalism” in his book,
“Demanding The Impossible: A History of Anarchism”, Peter Marshall begins
by claiming that “Anarcho-capitalism has recently had a considerable vogue in
the West where it has helped put the role of the State back on the political
agenda.”19 He then goes on to claim that neo-Conservatives in the United
Kingdom have adopted this position ‘in theory, if not always in practice’ and in
particular, through Margaret Thatcher. Now, it is unclear how much David

16
David Cameron’s ‘Big Society Speech’
17
Malatesta, p. 85
18
A whole other essay can be written about the counter-productive effects of
private property on ‘the local community’. I’m thinking here in particular of East
London, where I live, in which the twin evils of gentrification and extortionate
rents are driving the poor out. There can never be a ‘community’ when the
members of that community have no stakes (i.e. security) in that community.
Private property in the form of (totally exploitative) ‘property investment’
destroys local communities.
19
Peter Marshall’, “Demanding The Impossible: A History of Anarchism”: p. 559
Cameron can be aligned with Thatcherism 20, but it the argument is irrelevant
once we see that the shared investment in private property reduces all
conservativism to the same ideology.
“The anarcho-capitalists also ask, like Locke in his Second Treatise, ‘If Man in
the state of Nature be so free as has been said, if he be absolute lord of his
own person and possessions, equal to the greatest and subject to nobody,
why will he part with his freedom?’ Unlike Locke, however, the anarcho-
capitalists do not find such a state of nature without a common judge
inconvenient or uncertain. They maintain that even a minimal State is
unnecessary since the defence of person and property can be carried out by
private protection agencies.”21
The question that is put forward by both Locke (the liberal) and the anarcho-
capitalist is: if people have private property, why should they give up their
freedom? Freedom is grounded in private property, quite literally in the case
of anarcho-capitalists, who will defend their property by force if necessary. As
long as there is private property, society will be constructed and maintained
around self-interest. The problem for Locke is how to reconcile this important
foundation for freedom with the fact that not everyone is entitled to private
property, and the feeling that the people without the freedom afforded by
private property should be protected somehow. This is the unfortunate insight
afforded by this argument: that without private property there is no freedom.
The anarcho-capitalist has no conscience in this regard. “Life is unfair; get
over it.”
David Cameron is in a similar position to John Locke, except that he is a
politician, not a philosopher. Practically, this means he doesn’t have to accept
the uncomfortable results of critical thinking, he can just lie. Cameron would
have to accept that even now, not everyone has access to private property
(and here private property means houses, flats, land etc.). In principle,
everyone has access to this foundation for freedom, but in reality, this is not at
all the case. The ‘average person’ will never be able to afford to buy a house;
most people rent at extortionate prices, there is not even anywhere near
enough social housing for those who can’t afford to rent from a private
landlord.
David Cameron would never call himself an anarcho-capitalist, but we say he
may as well be. This is because he wants to ‘minimise’ the State so that it no
longer has to interfere financially in the massive inequality of wealth in this
country, an inequality that is maintained by the right to private property (for
those who can afford it).

20
"We have to show, sincerely, that we do think there's such a thing as society -
it's just not the same thing as the state." David Cameron quoted in The
Independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cameron-
thatcher-was-right-on-role-of-government-432317.html. This directly (and
ironically) contradicts Margaret Thatcher’s famous assertion: “There is no such
thing as society.”
21
Peter Marshall’, “Demanding The Impossible: A History of Anarchism”: p. 560
‘The community’ will never have any power to change anything as long as it
has no physical investment in that community. As long as private landlords
dominate a community, this community has no right to where it lives. The
government has not only reduced their commitment to providing social
housing, it now wants to reduce their commitment to protecting people against
being pushed out of their community. How can a member of a community do
anything against the brute fact of not being able to afford their rent anymore?
If they get evicted, where will they go? If they can’t afford their rent, it is
unlikely that they will be able to afford to live anywhere else in that
community; there are nowhere near enough council properties. What do they
do? Who will fight on their behalf? The whole community is in the same
position!
What if they started squatting? Squatting is a form of radical (peaceful) social
action, which has a rich and recognised history in this country (and across the
world). Would David Cameron encourage such ‘social action’? Squatting is
after all an exemplary form of ‘social action’, and one of the only things you
could do as a tenant threatened with eviction without anywhere to go.
However: “Squatters can be evicted much more easily than most other people
and in most cases the landlord doesn't have to get a court order first. If a court
order is needed, the landlord can apply for one at any time and doesn't have
to give you any notice. In most cases the court will automatically give her/him
the right to get back into the property.”22
This is how the law protects private property against squatting, that is, against
social action. We have come all the way back to the point where we see
‘social action’ meaning the kind of social action which is acceptable to David
Cameron. This happens to be the kind of social action that doesn’t threaten
private property, and preferably does the positive and progressive work that
‘the State’ used to do.
Once we whittle The Big Society down to the two principles of ‘social action’
and ‘private property’, we see it collapse under the weight of its own
contradictions. Out of the rubble, emerges the true picture of David
Cameron’s conservative future: a police force which protects private property;
a government ‘minimized’ to the ‘servicing’ of the already rich and already
powerful. The crucial difference between the conservatives and anarcho-
capitalists is that the former see no need to abolish government all together –
it will be cheaper and easier to keep the system which is already effective in
protecting private property in place:
"However libertarian in appearance, there are some real difficulties in the
anarcho-capitalists' position. If laws and courts are replaced by arbitration
firms, why should an individual accept their verdict? If the verdicts are
enforced by private protection agencies, it would seem likely, as Robert
Nozick has pointed out, that a dominant protection agency (the one offering
the most powerful and comprehensive protection) would eventually emerge
through free competition. A de facto territorial monopoly would thus result

22
http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/homelessness/squatting
from the competition among protective agencies which would then constitute
a proto-State.”23
After all, a society ordered according to brute strength won’t necessarily be
ordered the same as now – there would probably be some pretty nasty
‘protection agencies’ who would soon realise they could just take what they
wanted, as money would be meaningless to such an ‘apocalyptic’ society.
Cameron know full well that we already live in a society that protects the
interest of a few people with a ridiculous amount of money 24; past a certain
point ‘the underclass’ all become the same, just in degrees of poverty and
insecurity. Exploitative capitalism and private property go hand in hand, that is
why both socialists and anarchists agree that private property needs to go if
we ever have any hope for utopia (which we don’t any more).
There is a current exhaustion of utopias (i.e. hope) and an assumption by
conservatives and capitalists that no one will do anything about anything
anymore. This situation has encouraged David Cameron to put forward one of
the most vacuous and dangerous ideas in the history of ‘progressive politics’:
The Big Society.
"In the utopias of the anarcho-capitalists, there is little reason to believe that
the rich and powerful will not continue to exploit and oppress the powerless
and poor as they do at present. It is difficult to imagine that protective services
could impose their ideas of fair procedure without resorting to coercion. With
the free market encouraging selfishness, there is no assurance that 'public
goods' like sanitation and clean water would be provided for all. Indeed, the
anarcho-capitalists deny the very existence of collective interests and
responsibilities."
Let’s just say that another advantage of ‘maintaining the status-quo’ would be
to keep ‘servile class’ who will preserve the important daily ‘necessities’ of the
rich – because otherwise who would clean their houses? Take the dog for a
walk? Cook the dinner (or organise, package and deliver it premade to their
door)? Maintain the garden? Make sure the city park was a safe and clean
place to go for a walk? Provide electricity, water, gas, the Internet,
telecommunications, Sky TV, etc?

Conclusion
"If the government should reach the point of becoming hostile, if the hope of
democracy should ever be more than a delusion deceiving the people [i.e. in
the apocalypse/utopia], the proprietary class, menaced in its interests would
at once rebel and would use all the force and influence that come from the
possession of wealth, to reduce the government to the simple function of

23
Peter Marshall, “Demanding The Impossible: A History of Anarchism”: p. 562
24
According to Prof Greg Philo, the wealthiest 6 million have an average of £4m
of private wealth per household:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/dec/16/thatcher-legacy-social-
attitudes-tax-wealth
acting as policemen."25

We can fight David Cameron by taking back our ideas. We can then use them
against his ideology. We engage in social action by occupying banks and
using them as a place of education. We, the public, own large shares in some
of these banks anyway26; Northern Rock was entirely nationalized on 22
February 2008. In this way we use the ideas of The Big Society against
conservative ideology, thus revealing that ideology (when the police come and
force us to leave our own land).
We should engage in community activism; Cameron has no intention of
helping the poor, so we still need to. In the end, if we prove that we don’t need
the government to provide for each other, we can ignore them until they go
away – unless Malatesta is right and they “would use all the force and
influence that come from the possession of wealth, to reduce the government
to the simple function of acting as policemen.” In which case, there will be civil
war, and we will remove them from power, along with the Queen and the
appalling aristocracy.

“Suppose that…the Scotch miners come to the conclusion that the time has
arrived to take possession of the Scotch mines, and elaborate some scheme
as to the working out of these mines, sharing the produce of their labour with
none of the land-grabbers, nor profit-grabbers…Is it not preferable that they
should act for themselves, make a new start, lay down the basis of a new
organization, and preach by example?”27

Replace ‘Scotch miners’ with ‘McDonalds workers and imagine the following
scenario: One day, in the near future, the staff in the Hackney Central of
McDonalds decide to ‘take possession’ of their branch. A recent addition to
the ‘team’ has been distributing a left-wing pamphlet consisting of quotations
from Marxist and Anarchist radical literature, describing the necessity for
‘social action’. The McDonalds workers take over full responsibility for the
daily running of the branch, including wage distribution and delivery of stock
for food production.

A week passes before the McDonalds central management realise what is

going on (because we assume that their contribution is to accumulate profits
at the end of the week in a big pile of cash, which they then roll around it
according to capitalist traditions). The McDonalds in Hackney Central
functions just as smoothly as before, if not a little smoother. The staff sees a
massive increase in wages, as the enormous profits are redistributed fairly
between themselves at the end of the week.

Clearly, the McDonalds scenario I have just described is a ludicrous utopian

fantasy. But is it? Why is it so ridiculous? Why is it ok for us to accept the
25
Errico Malatesta, p. 80
26
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/163850bn-official-cost-of-
the-bank-bailout-1833830.html
27
Peter Kropotkin, “Act For Yourselves: Articles from Freedom 1886-1907”: pp.
44-45
miner’s strikes and Paris communes of the previous centuries? If we really try
hard to imagine what it must have been like for a miner to consider the
possibility of taking over the whole functioning of his workplace with his
comrades, we realise it must have seemed an impossible fantasy. We can
also imagine that these heroic McDonalds workers would be arrested and
prosecuted for some kind of harsh corporate form of ‘fraud’ or ‘grand theft
capital’.

However, this will still be far less brutal than the punishment the
revolutionaries of the Paris Commune of 1871 received; the figures for the
number of Communards or suspected sympathizers who were executed by
the Versailles vary between 20,000 and 70,000 people. 28 The worst result of
the ‘McDonalds Commune’ that we can imagine will be the public
condemnation of the act – the majority of people will agree (with the media)
that the workers had no right to take all that money.

“The revolution in Paris generated a vibrant response throughout the world

and a powerful movement of international solidarity. In the spring and summer
of 1871, mass meetings and demonstrations were staged by workers in
Britain, Germany, Belgium and the United States and other countries in
support of the Commune, in protest against the atrocities committed by its
suppressors and in defense of refugees. This movement was led by the
world’s first mass revolutionary proletarian organization, the International
Working Men’s Association – the First International – which was headed by
Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, the founders of scientific communism.” 29

Bibliography

Kropotkin, Peter. Act For Yourselves: Articles from Freedom 1886-1907.

London: Freedom Press, 1998

Malatesta, Errico. “Anarchism and Government”.” The Anarchists. Ed. Irving

L. Horowitz. New York. Dell Publishing C., Inc, 1964. 70-86

Marshall, Peter. Demanding The Impossible: A History of Anarchism. London:

Harper Perennial, 2008.

Marx, Karl and Engels, Frederick. On The Paris Commune. Moscow:

Progress Publishers, 1985.

28
See K. Marx and F. Engels “On The Paris Commune”
29
Ibid, pp. 9-10