File: secB1.html

package info (click to toggle)
anarchism 11.7-1
links: PTS
area: main
in suites: etch, etch-m68k, lenny
size: 19,196 kB
ctags: 601
sloc: makefile: 38
file content (1904 lines) | stat: -rw-r--r-- 121,738 bytes
<html>
<head>

<title>B.1 Why are anarchists against authority and hierarchy?</title>
</head>

<body>

<h1>B.1 Why are anarchists against authority and hierarchy?</h1>

First, it is necessary to indicate what kind of authority anarchism
challenges. While it is customary for some opponents of anarchism to
assert that anarchists oppose all kinds of authority, the reality of
the situation is more complex. While anarchists have, on occasion, 
stated their opposition to "all authority" a closer reading quickly
shows that anarchists reject only one specific form of authority, 
what we tend to call hierarchy (see <a href="secH4.html">section H.4</a> 
for more details). This can be seen 
when Bakunin stated that <i>"the principle of <b>authority</b>"</i> was the 
<i>"eminently theological, metaphysical and political idea that the 
masses, <b>always</b> incapable of governing themselves, must submit at 
all times to the benevolent yoke of a wisdom and a justice, which 
in one way or another, is imposed from above."</i> [<b>Marxism, Freedom 
and the State</b>, p. 33] 
<p>
Other forms of authority are more acceptable to anarchists, it depends 
whether the authority in question becomes a source of <b>power</b> over 
others or not. That is the key to understanding the anarchist 
position on authority -- if it is <b><i>hierarchical</i></b> authority, then 
anarchists are against it. . The reason is simple: 
<p><blockquote>
<i>"[n]o one should be entrusted
with power, inasmuch as anyone invested with authority must . . . 
became an oppressor and exploiter of society."</i> [Bakunin, <b>The 
Political Philosophy of Bakunin</b>, p. 249]
</blockquote><p>
This distinction between forms of authority is important. As Erich Fromm pointed out, <i>"authority"</i> 
is <i>"a broad term with two entirely different meanings: it can be either
'rational' or 'irrational' authority. Rational authority is based on
competence, and it helps the person who leans on it to grow. Irrational
authority is based on power and serves to exploit the person subjected to
it."</i> [<b>To Have or To Be</b>, pp. 44-45] The same point was made by Bakunin 
over 100 years earlier when he indicated the difference between authority 
and <i>"natural influence."</i> For Bakunin, individual freedom <i>"results from 
th[e] great number of material, intellectual, and moral influences
which every individual around him [or her] and which society . . . 
continually exercise . . . To abolish this mutual influence would be
to die."</i> Consequently, <i>"when we reclaim the freedom of the masses, we
hardly wish to abolish the effect of any individual's or any group of
individual's natural influence upon the masses. What we wish is to 
abolish artificial, privileged, legal, and official influences."</i> [<b>The
Basic Bakunin</b>, p. 140 and p. 141]
<p>
It is, in other words, the difference between taking part in a decision 
and listening to alternative viewpoints and experts (<i>"natural influence"</i>) 
before making your mind up and having a decision <b>made for you</b> by a 
separate group of individuals (who may or may not be elected) because 
that is their role in an organisation or society. In the former, the
individual exercises their judgement and freedom (i.e. is based on
rational authority). In the latter, they are subjected to the wills of 
others, to hierarchical authority (i.e. is based on irrational authority).
This is because rational authority <i>"not only permits but requires 
constant scrutiny and criticism . . . it is always temporary, its
acceptance depending on its performance."</i> The source of irrational 
authority, on the other hand, <i>"is always power over people . . . 
Power on the one side, fear on the other, are always the buttresses 
on which irrational authority is built."</i> Thus former is based upon 
<i>"equality"</i> while the latter <i>"is by its very nature based upon 
inequality."</i> [Erich Fromm, <b>Man for Himself</b>, pp. 9-10]
<p>
This crucial point is expressed in the difference between <b>having</b>
authority and <b>being</b> an authority. Being an authority just means that a
given person is generally recognised as competent for a given task, based
on his or her individual skills and knowledge. Put differently, it is
socially acknowledged expertise. In contrast, having authority is a social
relationship based on status and power derived from a hierarchical
position, not on individual ability. Obviously this does not mean that
competence is not an element for obtaining a hierarchical position; it 
just means that the real or alleged initial competence is transferred 
to the title or position of the authority and so becomes independent 
of individuals, i.e. institutionalised (or what Bakunin termed <i>"official"</i>). 
<p>
This difference is important because the way people behave is more a product
of the institutions in which we are raised than of any inherent nature. In 
other words, social relationships <b>shape</b> the individuals involved. This
means that the various groups individuals create have traits, behaviours and 
outcomes that cannot be understood by reducing them to the individuals 
within them. That is, groups consist not only of individuals, but also 
relationships between individuals and these relationships will effect those
subject to them. For example, obviously <i>"the exercise of power by some 
disempowers others"</i> and so through a <i>"combination of physical intimidation, 
economic domination and dependency, and psychological limitations, social 
institutions and practices affect the way everyone sees the world and her 
or his place in it."</i> This, as we discuss in the 
<a href="secB1.html#secb11">next section</a>, impacts on 
those involved in such authoritarian social relationships as <i>"the exercise 
of power in any institutionalised form -- whether economic, political or 
sexual -- brutalises both the wielder of power and the one over whom it is 
exercised."</i> [Martha A. Ackelsberg, <b>Free Women of Spain</b>, p. 41] 
<p>
Authoritarian social relationships means dividing society into (the few) 
order givers and (the many) order takers, impoverishing the individuals 
involved (mentally, emotionally and physically) and society as a whole.  
Human relationships, in all parts of life, are stamped by authority, not 
liberty. And as freedom can only be created by freedom, authoritarian social 
relationships (and the obedience they require) do not and cannot educate a 
person in freedom -- only participation (self-management) in all areas of 
life can do that. <i>"In a society based on exploitation and 
servitude,"</i> in Kropotkin's words, <i>"human nature itself is degraded"</i> and
it is only <i>"as servitude disappears"</i> shall we <i>"regain our rights."</i>
[<b>Anarchism</b>, p. 104]
<p>
Of course, it will be pointed out that in any collective undertaking there
is a need for co-operation and co-ordination and this need to "subordinate"
the individual to group activities is a form of authority. Therefore, it
is claimed, a democratically managed group is just as "authoritarian" as
one based on hierarchical authority. Anarchists are not impressed by such
arguments. Yes, we reply, of course in any group undertaking there is a 
need make and stick by agreements but anarchists argue that to use the 
word "authority" to describe two fundamentally different ways of making 
decisions is playing with words. It obscures
the fundamental difference between free association and hierarchical 
imposition and confuses co-operation with command (as we note in 
<a href="secH4.html">section H.4</a>, Marxists are particularly fond of this fallacy). Simply put, there 
are two different ways of co-ordinating individual activity within 
groups -- either by authoritarian means or by libertarian means. Proudhon, 
in relation to workplaces, makes the difference clear:
<p><blockquote>
<i>"either the workman. . . will be simply the employee of the 
proprietor-capitalist-promoter; or he will participate. . . [and] have a
voice in the council, in a word he will become an associate.
<p>
"In the first case the workman is subordinated, exploited: his permanent
condition is one of obedience. . . In the second case he resumes his
dignity as a man and citizen. . . he forms part of the producing 
organisation, of which he was before but the slave; as, in the town, he
forms part of the sovereign power, of which he was before but the subject
. . . we need not hesitate, for we have no choice. . . it is necessary
to form an ASSOCIATION among workers . . . because without that, they would
remain related as subordinates and superiors, and there would ensue two
. . . castes of masters and wage-workers, which is repugnant to a free and
democratic society."</i> [<b>General Idea of the Revolution</b>,
pp. 215-216]
</blockquote><p>
In other words, associations can be based upon a form of <b>rational</b> authority, 
based upon <b>natural influence</b> and so reflect freedom, the ability of 
individuals to think, act and feel and manage their own time and activity. 
Otherwise, we include elements of slavery into our relationships with others, 
elements that poison the whole and shape us in negative ways (see 
<a href="secB1.html#secb11">section B.1.1</a>). Only the reorganisation of society in a libertarian way (and, we may 
add, the mental transformation such a change requires and would create) will 
allow the individual to <i>"achieve more or less complete blossoming, whilst 
continuing to develop"</i> and banish <i>"that spirit of submission that has been 
artificially thrust upon him [or her]"</i> [Nestor Makhno, <b>The Struggle Against 
the State and Other Essays</b>, p. 62]
<p>
So, anarchists <i>"ask nothing better than to see [others]. . . exercise over
us a natural and legitimate influence, freely accepted, and never imposed
. . . We accept all natural authorities and all influences of fact, but 
none of right."</i> [Bakunin, <b>The Political Philosophy of Bakunin</b>, p. 255] Anarchist
support for free association within directly democratic groups is based upon
such organisational forms increasing influence and reducing irrational 
authority in our lives. Members of such organisations can create and present 
their own ideas and suggestions, critically evaluate the proposals and 
suggestions from their fellows, accept those that they agree with or 
become convinced by and have the option of leaving the association
if they are unhappy with its direction. Hence the influence of individuals
and their free interaction determine the nature of the decisions reached, and
no one has the right to impose their ideas on another. As Bakunin argued, 
in such organisations <i>"no function remains fixed and it will not remain
permanently and irrevocably attached to one person. Hierarchical order
and promotion do not exist. . . In such a system, power, properly speaking,
no longer exists. Power is diffused to the collectivity and becomes the
true expression of the liberty of everyone."</i> [<b>Bakunin on Anarchism</b>, 
p. 415]
<p>
Therefore, anarchists are opposed to <b>irrational</b> (e.g., illegitimate) 
authority, in other words, hierarchy -- hierarchy being the 
institutionalisation of authority within a society. Hierarchical social 
institutions include the state (see <a href="secB2.html">section B.2</a>), private property and
the class systems it produces (see <a href="secB3.html">section B.3</a>) and, therefore, capitalism (see <a href="secB4.html">section B.4</a>). Due to their hierarchical nature, anarchists oppose 
these with passion. <i>"Every institution, social or civil,"</i> argued 
Voltairine de Cleyre, <i>"that stands between man [or woman] and his [or 
her] right; every tie that renders one a master, another a serf; every 
law, every statue, every be-it-enacted that represents tyranny"</i> 
anarchists seek to destroy. However, hierarchy exists beyond these 
institutions. For example, hierarchical social relationships include 
sexism, racism and homophobia (see <a href="secB1.html#secb14">section B.1.4</a>), and anarchists oppose, and fight, them all. Thus, as well as fighting capitalism as being hierarchical (for workers <i>"slave in a factory,"</i> albeit 
<i>"the slavery ends with the working hours"</i>) de Cleyre also opposed 
patriarchal social relationships which produce a <i>"home that 
rests on slavery"</i> because of a <i>"marriage that represents the sale and 
transfer of the individuality of one of its parties to the other!"</i>
[<b>The Voltairine de Cleyre Reader</b>, p. 72, p.  17 and p. 72]
<p>
Needless to say, while we discuss different forms of hierarchy in 
different sections this does not imply that anarchists think they, 
and their negative effects, are somehow independent or can be easily 
compartmentalised. For example, the modern state and capitalism are
intimately interrelated and cannot be considered as independent of
each other. Similarly, social hierarchies like sexism and racism 
are used by other hierarchies to maintain themselves (for example,
bosses will use racism to divide and so rule their workers). From 
this it follows that abolishing one or some of these hierarchies,
while desirable, would not be sufficient. Abolishing capitalism while
maintaining the state would not lead to a free society (and vice versa) 
-- if it were possible. As Murray Bookchin notes: 
<p><blockquote>
<i>"there can be a decidedly classless, even a non-exploitative society 
in the <b>economic</b> sense that still preserves hierarchical rule and 
domination in the <b>social</b> sense -- whether they take the form of the 
patriarchal family, domination by age and ethnic groups, bureaucratic 
institutions, ideological manipulation or a pyramidal division of labour 
. . . classless or not, society would be riddles by domination and, with
domination, a general condition of command and obedience, of unfreedom
and humiliation, and perhaps most decisively, an abortion of each
individual's potentiality for consciousness, reason, selfhood, creativity,
and the right to assert full control over her or his daily live."</i>
[<b>Toward an Ecological Society</b>, pp. 14-5] 
</blockquote><p>
This clearly implies that anarchists <i>"challenge not only class formations 
but hierarchies, not only material exploitation but domination in every
form."</i> [Bookchin, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 15] Hence the anarchist stress on opposing
hierarchy rather than just, say, the state (as some falsely assert) or
simply economic class and exploitation (as, say, many Marxists do). As 
 noted earlier (in <a href="secA2.html#seca28">section A.2.8</a>), anarchists consider all hierarchies to be not only 
harmful but unnecessary, and think that there are alternative, more egalitarian 
ways to organise social life. In fact, we argue that hierarchical authority
creates the conditions it is presumably designed to combat, and thus tends
to be self-perpetuating. Thus hierarchical organisations erode the ability of those at the
bottom to manage their own affairs directly so requiring hierarchy
and some people in positions to give orders and the rest to follow
them. Rather than prevent disorder, governments are among its primary
causes while its bureaucracies ostensibly set up to fight poverty wind 
wind up perpetuating it, because without poverty, the high-salaried
top administrators would be out of work. The same applies to agencies
intended to eliminate drug abuse, fight crime, etc. In other words, the
power and privileges deriving from top hierarchical positions constitute a
strong incentive for those who hold them <b>not</b> to solve the problems
they are supposed to solve. (For further discussion see Marilyn French,
<b>Beyond Power: On Women, Men, and Morals</b>, Summit Books, 1985.) 

<a name="secb11"><H2>B.1.1 What are the effects of authoritarian social relationships?</h2>

Hierarchical authority is inextricably connected with the marginalisation
and disempowerment of those without authority. This has negative effects 
on those over whom authority is exercised, since <i>"[t]hose who have these 
symbols of authority and those who benefit from them must dull their
subject people's realistic, i.e. critical, thinking and make them believe
the fiction [that irrational authority is rational and necessary], . . . 
[so] the mind is lulled into submission by cliches . . . [and] people are
made dumb because they become dependent and lose their capacity to trust
their eyes and judgement."</i> [Erich Fromm, <b>To Have or To Be?</b>, p. 47] 
<p>
Or, in the words of Bakunin, <i>"the principle of authority, applied to men 
who have surpassed or attained their majority, becomes a monstrosity, a 
source of slavery and intellectual and moral depravity."</i> [<b>God and the 
State</b>, p. 41]
<p>
This is echoed by the syndicalist miners who wrote the classic <b>The Miners' 
Next Step</b> when they indicate the nature of authoritarian organisations and 
their effect on those involved. Leadership (i.e. hierarchical authority) 
<i>"implies power held by the leader. Without power the leader is inept. The 
possession of power inevitably leads to corruption. . . in spite of. . . good 
intentions . . . [Leadership means] power of initiative, this sense of 
responsibility, the self-respect which comes from expressed manhood [sic!], 
is taken from the men, and consolidated in the leader. The sum of their 
initiative, their responsibility, their self-respect becomes his . . . 
[and the] order and system he maintains is based upon the suppression of the 
men, from being independent thinkers into being 'the men' . . . In a word, he 
is compelled to become an autocrat and a foe to democracy."</i> Indeed, for the 
<i>"leader,"</i> such marginalisation can be beneficial, for a leader <i>"sees no need 
for any high level of intelligence in the rank and file, except to applaud 
his actions. Indeed such intelligence from his point of view, by breeding 
criticism and opposition, is an obstacle and causes confusion."</i> 
[<b>The Miners' Next Step</b>, pp. 16-17 and p. 15]
<p>
Anarchists argue that hierarchical social relationships will have a negative 
effect on those subject to them, who can no longer exercise their critical, 
creative and mental abilities <b>freely</b>. As Colin Ward argues, people <i>"do 
go from womb to tomb without realising their human potential, precisely
because the power to initiate, to participate in innovating, choosing, judging,
and deciding is reserved for the top men"</i> (and it usually <b>is</b> men!) [<b>Anarchy
in Action</b>, p, 42]. Anarchism is based on the insight that there is an 
interrelationship between the authority structures of institutions and the 
psychological qualities and attitudes of individuals. Following orders all 
day hardly builds an independent, empowered, creative personality (<i>"authority 
and servility walk ever hand in hand."</i> [Peter Kropotkin, <b>Anarchism</b>, p. 81]). As Emma 
Goldman made clear, if a person's <i>"inclination and judgement are subordinated 
to the will of a master"</i> (such as a boss, as most people have to sell their 
labour under capitalism) then little wonder such an authoritarian relationship 
<i>"condemns millions of people to be mere nonentities."</i> [<b>Red Emma Speaks</b>, 
p. 50] 
<p>
As the human brain is a bodily organ, it needs to be used regularly in
order to be at its fittest. Authority concentrates decision-making in the
hands of those at the top, meaning that most people are turned into
executants, following the orders of others. If muscle is not used, it
turns to fat; if the brain is not used, creativity, critical thought and
mental abilities become blunted and side-tracked onto marginal issues,
like sports and fashion. This can only have a negative impact: 
<p><blockquote>
<i>"Hierarchical institutions foster alienated and exploitative
relationships among those who participate in them, disempowering people
and distancing them from their own reality. Hierarchies make some people
dependent on others, blame the dependent for their dependency, and then
use that dependency as a justification for further exercise of authority.
. . . Those in positions of relative dominance tend to define the very
characteristics of those subordinate to them . . . Anarchists argue that
to be always in a position of being acted upon and never to be allowed to
act is to be doomed to a state of dependence and resignation. Those who
are constantly ordered about and prevented from thinking for themselves
soon come to doubt their own capacities . . . [and have] difficulty acting
on [their] sense of self in opposition to societal norms, standards and
expectations."</i> [Martha Ackelsberg, <b>Free Women of Spain</b>, pp. 40-1]
</blockquote><p>
And so, in the words of Colin Ward, the <i>"system makes its morons, then despises
them for their ineptitude, and rewards its 'gifted few' for their rarity."</i>
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 43]
<p>
In a nutshell, <i>"[h]ierarchies, classes, and states warp the creative
powers of humanity."</i> However, that is not all. Hierarchy, anarchists 
argue, also twists our relationships with the environment. Indeed, 
<i>"all our notions of dominating nature stem from the very real domination
of human by human . . . And it is not until we eliminate domination in 
all its forms . . . that we will really create a rational, ecological
society."</i> For <i>"the conflicts within a divided humanity, structured 
around domination, inevitably leads to conflicts with nature. The 
ecological crisis with its embattled division between humanity and
nature stems, above all, from divisions between human and human."</i>
While the <i>"rise of capitalism, with a law of life based on competition,
capital accumulation, and limitless growth, brought these problems --
ecological and social -- to an acute point,"</i> anarchists <i>"emphasise 
that major ecological problems have their roots in social problems
-- problems that go back to the very beginnings of patricentric 
culture itself."</i> [Murray Bookchin, <b>Remaking Society</b>, p. 72, p. 44, 
p. 72 and pp. 154-5] 
<p>
Thus, anarchists argue, hierarchy impacts not only on us but also our
surroundings. The environmental crisis we face is a result of the 
hierarchical power structures at the heart of our society, structures 
which damage the planet's ecology at least as much as they damage humans. 
The problems within society, the economic, ethnic, cultural, and gender 
conflicts, among many others, lie at the core of the most serious 
ecological dislocations we face. The way human beings deal with each 
other as social beings is crucial to addressing the ecological crisis.
Ultimately, ecological destruction is rooted in the organisation of our 
society for a degraded humanity can only yield a degraded nature (as 
capitalism and our hierarchical history have sadly shown).
<p>
This is unsurprising as we, as a species, shape our environment and,
consequently, whatever shapes us will impact how we do so. This means
that the individuals produced by the hierarchy (and the authoritarian 
mentality it produces) will shape the planet in specific, harmful, 
ways. This is to be expected as humans act upon their environment 
deliberately, creating what is most suitable for their mode of existence.
If that mode of living is riddled with hierarchies, classes, states and 
the oppression, exploitation and domination they create then our relations
with the natural world will hardly be any better. In other words, social 
hierarchy and class legitimises our domination of the environment, 
planting the seeds for the believe that nature exists, like other 
people, to be dominated and used as required. 
<p>
Which brings us to another key reason why anarchists reject hierarchy.
In addition to these negative psychological effects from the denial of 
liberty, authoritarian  social relationships also produce social inequality. 
This is because an individual subject to the authority of another has to 
obey the orders of those above them in the social hierarchy. In capitalism 
this means that workers have to follow the orders of their boss (see 
<a href="secB1.html#secb12">next 
section</a>), orders that are designed to make the boss richer. And richer
they have become, with the Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) of big firms 
earning 212 times what the average US worker did in 1995 (up from a mere
44 times 30 years earlier). Indeed, from 1994 to 1995 alone, CEO 
compensation in the USA rose 16 percent, compared to 2.8 percent for 
workers, which did not even keep pace with inflation, and whose 
stagnating wages cannot be blamed on corporate profits, which rose a 
healthy 14.8 percent for that year. 
<p>
Needless to say, inequality in terms of power will translate itself 
into inequality in terms of wealth (and vice versa). The effects of 
such social inequality are wide-reaching. For example, health is 
affected significantly by inequality. Poor people are more likely 
to be sick and die at an earlier age, compared to rich people. 
Simply put, <i>"the lower the class, the worse the health. Going beyond
such static measures, even interruptions in income of the sort caused
by unemployment have adverse health effects."</i> Indeed, the sustained 
economic hardship associated with a low place in the social hierarchy
leads to poorer physical, psychological and cognitive functioning
(<i>"with consequences that last a decade or more"</i>). <i>"Low incomes, 
unpleasant occupations and sustained discrimination,"</i> notes Doug
Henwood, <i>"may result in apparently physical symptoms that confuse
even sophisticated biomedical scientists . . . Higher incomes are
also associated with lower frequency of psychiatric disorders, as
are higher levels of asset ownership."</i> [<b>After the New Economy</b>, 
pp. 81-2] 
<p>
Moreover, the <b><i>degree</i></b> of inequality 
is important (i.e. the size of the gap between rich and poor). According to 
an editorial in the <b>British Medical Journal</b> <i>"what matters in determining
mortality and health in a society is less the overall wealth of that society
and more how evenly wealth is distributed. The more equally wealth is
distributed the better the health of that society."</i> [vol. 312, April 20,
1996, p. 985]
<p>
Research in the USA found overwhelming evidence of this. George Kaplan and 
his colleagues measured inequality in the 50 US states and compared it to 
the age-adjusted death rate for all causes of death, and a pattern emerged: 
the more unequal the distribution of income, the greater the death rate.
In other words, it is the gap between rich and poor, and not the average 
income in each state, that best predicts the death rate in each state.
[<i>"Inequality in income and mortality in the United States: analysis of 
mortality and potential pathways,"</i> <b>British Medical Journal</b>, vol. 312, 
April 20, 1996, pp. 999-1003]
<p>
This measure of income inequality was also tested against other social
conditions besides health. States with greater inequality in the
distribution of income also had higher rates of unemployment, higher 
rates of incarceration, a higher percentage of people receiving income 
assistance and food stamps, a greater percentage of people without 
medical insurance, greater proportion of babies born with low birth weight, 
higher murder rates, higher rates of violent crime, higher costs per-person
for medical care, and higher costs per person for police protection.
Moreover states with greater inequality of income distribution 
also spent less per person on education, had fewer books per person in the
schools, and had poorer educational performance, including worse reading
skills, worse mathematics skills, and lower rates of completion of high 
school.
<p>
As the gap grows between rich and poor (indicating an increase in social 
hierarchy within and outwith of workplaces) the health of a people 
deteriorates and the social fabric unravels. The psychological hardship of 
being low down on the social ladder has detrimental effects on people, 
beyond whatever effects are produced by the substandard housing, nutrition, 
air quality, recreational opportunities, and medical care enjoyed by the 
poor (see George Davey Smith, <i>"Income inequality and mortality: why are 
they related?"</i> <b>British Medical Journal</b>, Vol. 312, April 20, 
1996, pp. 987-988).
<p>
So wealth does not determine health. What does is the gap between 
the rich and the poor. The larger the gap, the sicker the society. 
Countries with a greater degree of socioeconomic inequality show 
greater inequality in health status; also, that middle-income groups 
in relatively unequal societies have worse health than comparable, or 
even poorer, groups in more equal societies. Unsurprisingly, this is
also reflected over time. The widening income differentials in both 
the USA and the UK since 1980 have coincided with a slowing down of 
improvements in life-expectancy, for example.
<p>
Inequality, in short, is bad for our health: the health of a population 
depends not just on the size of the economic pie, but on how the pie is 
shared.
<p>
This is not all. As well as inequalities in wealth, inequalities in 
freedom also play a large role in overall human well-being. According 
to Michael Marmot's <b>The Status Syndrome: How Social Standing Affects 
Our Health and Longevity</b>, as you move up any kind of hierarchy your 
health status improves. Autonomy and position in a hierarchy are 
related (i.e. the higher you are in a hierarchy, the more autonomy 
you have). Thus the implication of this empirical work is that 
autonomy is a source of good health, that the more control you have 
over your work environment and your life in general, the less likely 
you are to suffer the classic stress-related illnesses, such as heart 
disease. As public-Health scholars Jeffrey Johnson and Ellen
Hall have noted, the <i>"potential to control one's own environment is
differentially distributed along class lines."</i> [quoted by Robert
Kuttner, <b>Everything for Sale</b>, p. 153]
<p>
As would be expected from the very nature of hierarchy, to <i>"be in a
life situation where one experiences relentless demands by others,
over which one has relatively little control, is to be at risk of
poor health, physically as well as mentally."</i> Looking at heart
disease, the people with greatest risk <i>"tended to be in occupations
with high demands, low control, and low social support. People in
demanding positions but with great autonomy were at lower risk."</i>
Under capitalism, <i>"a relatively small elite demands 
and gets empowerment, self-actualisation, autonomy, and other work
satisfaction that partially compensate for long hours"</i> while 
<i>"epidemiological data confirm that lower-paid, lower-status workers
are more likely to experience the most clinically damaging forms 
of stress, in part because they have less control over their work."</i> 
[Kuttner, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 153 and p. 154]
<p>
In other words, the inequality of autonomy and social participation 
produced by hierarchy is itself a cause of poor health. There would 
be positive feedback on the total amount of health -- and thus of 
social welfare -- if social inequality was reduced, not only in terms 
of wealth but also, crucially, in power. This is strong evidence in 
support of anarchist visions of egalitarianism. Some social structures 
give more people more autonomy than others and acting to promote social 
justice along these lines is a key step toward improving our health. 
This means that promoting libertarian, i.e. self-managed, social 
organisations would increase not only liberty but also people's health 
and well-being, both physical and mental. Which is, as we argued above, 
to be expected as hierarchy, by its very nature, impacts negatively on 
those subject to it.
<p>
This dovetails into anarchist support for workers' control. Industrial 
psychologists have found that satisfaction in work depends on the "span 
of autonomy" works have. Unsurprisingly, those workers who are continually 
making decisions for themselves are happier and live longer. It is the 
power to control all aspects of your life -- work particularly -- that 
wealth and status tend to confer that is the key determinant of health. 
Men who have low job control face a 50% higher risk of new illness: heart 
attacks, stroke, diabetes or merely ordinary infections. Women are at 
slightly lower risk but low job control was still a factor in whether 
they fell ill or not. 
<p>
So it is the fact that the boss is a boss that makes the employment 
relationship so troublesome for health issues (and genuine libertarians). 
The more bossy the boss, the worse, as a rule is the job. So part of 
autonomy is not being bossed around, but that is only part of the story. 
And, of course, hierarchy (inequality of power) and exploitation (the
source of material inequality) are related. As we indicate in the 
<a href="secB1.html#secb12">next 
section</a>, capitalism is based on wage labour. The worker sell their liberty 
to the boss for a given period of time, i.e. they loose their autonomy. 
This allows the possibility of exploitation, as the worker can produce 
more wealth than they receive back in wages. As the boss pockets the 
difference, lack of autonomy produces increases in social inequality 
which, in turn, impacts negatively on your well-being. 
<p>
Then there is the waste associated with hierarchy. While the proponents 
of authority like to stress its "efficiency," the reality is different. 
As Colin Ward points out, being in authority <i>"derives from your rank in 
some chain of command . . . But knowledge and wisdom are not distributed 
in order of rank, and they are no one person's monopoly in any undertaking. 
The fantastic inefficiency of any hierarchical organisation -- any factory, 
office, university, warehouse or hospital -- is the outcome of two almost 
invariable characteristics. One is that the knowledge and wisdom of the 
people at the bottom of the pyramid finds no place in the decision-making 
leadership hierarchy of the institution. Frequently it is devoted to 
making the institution work in spite of the formal leadership structure, 
or alternatively to sabotaging the ostensible function of the institution, 
because it is none of their choosing. The other is that they would rather 
not be there anyway: they are there through economic necessity rather than 
through identification with a common task which throws up its own shifting 
and functional leadership."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 41]
<p>
Hierarchy, in other words, blocks the flow of information and knowledge.
Rulers, as Malatesta argued, <i>"can only make use of the forces that 
exist in society -- except for those great forces"</i> their action <i>"paralyses
and destroys, and those rebel forces, and all that is wasted through
conflicts; inevitable tremendous losses in such an artificial system."</i>
And so as well as individuals being prevented from developing to their 
fullest, wasting their unfulfilled potentialities, hierarchy also harms 
society as a whole by reducing efficiency and creativity. This is because
input into decisions are limited <i>"only to those individuals who form 
the government [of a hierarchical organisation] or who by reason of
their position can influence the[ir] policy."</i> Obviously this means <i>"that
far from resulting in an increase in the productive, organising and
protective forces in society,"</i> hierarchy <i>"greatly reduce[s] them, 
limiting initiative to a few, and giving them the right to do everything
without, of course, being able to provide them with the gift of being
all-knowing."</i> [<b>Anarchy</b>, p. 38 and p. 39]
<p>
Large scale hierarchical organisations, like the state, are also marked 
by bureaucracy. This becomes a necessity in order to gather the necessary 
information it needs to make decisions (and, obviously, to control those 
under it). However, soon this bureaucracy becomes the real source of 
power due to its permanence and control of information and resources.
Thus hierarchy cannot <i>"survive without creating around itself a new
privileged class"</i> as well as being a <i>"privileged class and cut off from 
the people"</i> itself. [Malatesta, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 37 and p. 36] This means
that those at the top of an institution rarely know the facts on the 
ground, making decisions in relative ignorance of their impact or the 
actual needs of the situation or people involved. As economist Joseph 
Stiglitz concluded from his own experiences in the World Bank, <i>"immense 
time and effort are required to effect change even from the inside, in 
an international bureaucracy. Such organisations are opaque rather than
transparent, and not only does far too little information radiate from
inside to the outside world, perhaps even less information from outside
is able to penetrate the organisation. The opaqueness also means that
it is hard for information from the bottom of the organisation to
percolate to the top."</i> [<b>Globalisation and its Discontents</b>, p. 33]
The same can be said of any hierarchical organisation, whether a 
nation state or capitalist business.
<p>
Moreover, as Ward and Malatesta indicate, hierarchy provokes a struggle 
between those at the bottom and at the top. This struggle is also a source 
of waste as it diverts resources and energy from more fruitful activity 
into fighting it. Ironically, as we discuss in <a href="secH4.html#sech44">section H.4.4</a>, one weapon
forged in that struggle is the <b><i>"work to rule,"</i></b> namely workers bringing
their workplace to a grinding halt by following the dictates of the boss 
to the letter. This is clear evidence that a workplace only operates 
because workers exercise their autonomy during working hours, an autonomy 
which authoritarian structures stifle and waste. A participatory workplace, 
therefore, would be more efficient and less wasteful than the hierarchical 
one associated with capitalism. As we discuss in <a href="secJ5.html#secj512">section J.5.12</a>, hierarchy 
and the struggle it creates always acts as a barrier stopping the increased 
efficiency associated with workers' participation undermining the autocratic 
workplace of capitalism. 
<p>
All this is not to suggest that those at the bottom of hierarchies are
victims nor that those at the top of hierarchies only gain benefits -- far 
from it. As Ward and Malatesta indicated, hierarchy by its very nature 
creates resistance to it from those subjected to it and, in the process, 
the potential for ending it (see <a href="secB1.html#secb16">section B.1.6</a> 
for more discussion). 
Conversely, at the summit of the pyramid, we also see the evils of 
hierarchy. 
<p>
If we look at those at the top of the system, yes, indeed they often do 
<b>very</b> well in terms of material goods and access to education, leisure,
health and so on but they lose their humanity and individuality. As 
Bakunin pointed out, <i>"power and authority corrupt those who exercise them as 
much as those who are compelled to submit to them."</i> [<b>The Political Philosophy 
of Bakunin</b>, p. 249] Power operates destructively, even on those who have
it, reducing their individuality as it <i>"renders them stupid and brutal, 
even when they were originally endowed with the best of talents. One who 
is constantly striving to force everything into a mechanical order at last 
becomes a machine himself and loses all human feeling."</i> [Rudolf Rocker, 
<b>Anarcho-Syndicalism</b>, pp. 17-8]
<p>
When it boils down to it, hierarchy is self-defeating, for if <i>"wealth is other 
people,"</i> then by treating others as less than yourself, restricting their 
growth, you lose all the potential insights and abilities these individuals 
have, so impoverishing your own life and <b>restricting your own growth.</b>
Unfortunately in these days material wealth (a particularly narrow form
of "self-interest") has replaced concern for developing the whole person and
leading a fulfilling and creative life (a broad self-interest, which places 
the individual <b>within</b> society, one that recognises that relationships with 
others shape and develop all individuals). In a hierarchical, class based
society everyone loses to some degree, even those at the "top."
<p>
Looking at the environment, the self-defeating nature of hierarchy also becomes
clear. The destiny of human life goes hand-in-hand with the destiny of the 
non-human world. While being rich and powerful may mitigate the impact of
the ecological destruction produced by hierarchies and capitalism, it will
not stop them and will, eventually, impact on the elite as well as the many.
<p>
Little wonder, then, that <i>"anarchism . . . works to destroy authority 
in all its aspects . . . [and] refuses all hierarchical organisation."</i> 
[Kropotkin, <b>Anarchism</b>, p. 137]

<a name="secb12"><h2>B.1.2 Is capitalism hierarchical?</h2> 

Yes. Under capitalism workers do not exchange the products of their labour
they exchange the labour itself for money. They sell themselves for a
given period of time, and in return for wages, promise to obey their
paymasters. Those who pay and give the orders -- owners and managers --
are at the top of the hierarchy, those who obey at the bottom. This
means that capitalism, by its very nature, is hierarchical. 
<p>
As Carole Pateman argues:
<p><blockquote>
<i>"Capacities or labour power cannot be used 
without the worker using his will, his understanding and experience, 
to put them into effect. The use of labour power requires the presence 
of its 'owner,' and it remains mere potential until he acts in the manner 
necessary to put it into use, or agrees or is compelled so to act; that 
is, the worker must labour. To contract for the use of labour power 
is a waste of resources unless it can be used in the way in which the
new owner requires. The fiction 'labour power' cannot be used; what is
required is that the worker labours as demanded. The employment contract 
must, therefore, create a relationship of command and obedience between
employer and worker . . . In short, the contract in which the worker 
allegedly sells his labour power is a contract in which, since he cannot 
be separated from his capacities, he sells command over the use of his
body and himself. To obtain the right to use another is to be a (civil)
master."</i> [<b>The Sexual Contract</b>, pp. 150-1]
</blockquote><p>
You need only compare this to Proudhon's comments quoted in 
<a href="secB1.html">section B.1</a> to see that anarchists have long recognised that capitalism 
is, by its very nature, hierarchical. The worker is subjected to the 
authority of the boss during working hours (sometimes outside work too).
As Noam 
Chomsky summarises, <i>"a corporation, factory of business is the economic 
equivalent of fascism: decisions and control are strictly top-down."</i> 
[<b>Letters from Lexington</b>, p. 127] The worker's choices are extremely
limited, for most people it amount to renting themselves out to a
series of different masters (for a lucky few, the option of being a
master is available). And master is the right word for, as David Ellerman 
reminds us, <i>"[s]ociety seems to have 'covered up' in the popular 
consciousness the fact that the traditional name [for employer and 
employee] is '<b>master and servant.'</b>"</i> [<b>Property and Contract in 
Economics</b>, p. 103]
<p>
This hierarchical control of wage labour has the effect of alienating
workers from their own work, and so from themselves. Workers no longer
govern themselves during work hours and so are no longer free. And so, 
due to capitalism, there is <i>"an oppression in the land,"</i> a <i>"form of 
slavery"</i> rooted in current <i>"property institutions"</i> which produces 
<i>"a 
social war, inevitable so long as present legal-social conditions 
endure."</i> [Voltairine de Cleyre, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 54-5]
<p>
Some defenders of capitalism are aware of the contradiction between 
the rhetoric of the system and its reality for those subject to it.
Most utilise the argument that workers consent to this form of 
hierarchy. Ignoring the economic conditions which force people to
sell their liberty on the labour market (see 
<a href="secB4.html#secb43">section B.4.3</a>), the 
issue instantly arises of whether consent is enough in itself to
justify the alienation/selling of a person's liberty. For example, 
there have been arguments for slavery and monarchy (i.e.
dictatorship) rooted in consent. Do we really want to say that 
the only thing wrong with fascism or slavery is that people do not 
consent to it? Sadly, some right-wing "libertarians" come to that 
conclusion (see <a href="secB4.html">section B.4</a>).
<p>
Some try to redefine the reality of the command-and-obey of wage
labour. <i>"To speak of managing, directing, or assigning workers to 
various tasks is a deceptive way of noting that the employer 
continually is involved in re-negotiation of contracts on terms 
that must be acceptable to both parties,"</i> argue two right-wing
economists. [Arman Alchian and Harold Demsetz, quoted by Ellerman,
<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 170] So the employer-employee (or, to use the old, 
more correct, terminology, master-servant) contract is thus a 
series of unspoken contracts. 
<p>
However, if an oral contract is not worth the paper it is 
written on, how valuable is an unspoken one? And what does 
this <i>"re-negotiation of contracts"</i> amount to? The employee 
decides whether to obey the command or leave and the boss 
decides whether the employee is obedient and productive enough 
to remain in under his or her control. Hardly a relationship
based on freedom between equal partners! As such, this capitalist
defence of wage labour <i>"is a deceptive way of noting"</i> that the 
employee is paid to obey. The contract between them is simply
that of obedience on one side and power on the other. That both
sides may break the contract does not alter this fact. Thus the
capitalist workplace <i>"is not democratic in spite of the 'consent 
of the governed' to the employment contract . . . In the 
employment contract, the workers alienate and transfer their 
legal rights to the employer to govern their activities 'within 
the scope of the employment' to the employer."</i> [David Ellerman, 
<b>The Democratic Worker-Owned Firm</b>, p. 50]
<p>
Ultimately, there is <b><i>one</i></b> right that cannot be ceded or abandoned, 
namely the right to personality. If a person gave up their personality 
they would cease to be a person yet this is what the employment contract 
imposes. To maintain and develop their personality is a basic right 
of humanity and it cannot be transferred to another, permanently or 
temporarily. To argue otherwise would be to admit that under certain 
circumstances and for certain periods of time a person is not a 
person but rather a thing to be used by others. Yet this is precisely
what capitalism does due to its hierarchical nature.
<p>
This is not all. Capitalism, 
by treating labour as analogous to all other commodities denies the key 
distinction between labour and other "resources" - that is to say its 
inseparability from its bearer - labour, unlike other "property," 
is endowed with will and agency. Thus when one speaks of selling labour 
there is a necessary subjugation of will (hierarchy). As Karl Polanyi
writes:
<p><blockquote>
<i>"Labour is only another name for human activity which goes with
life itself, which is in turn not produced for sale but for entirely
different reasons, nor can that activity be detached from the rest of
life itself, be stored or mobilised . . . To allow the market mechanism
to be sole director of the fate of human beings and their natural 
environment . . . would result in the demolition of society. For the
alleged commodity 'labour power' cannot be shoved about, used 
indiscriminately, or even left unused, without affecting also the
human individual who happens to be the bearer of this peculiar 
commodity. In disposing of a man's labour power the system would,
incidentally, dispose of the physical, psychological, and moral
entity 'man' attached to that tag."</i> [<b>The Great Transformation</b>, p. 
72]
</blockquote><p>
In other words, labour is much more than the commodity to which
capitalism tries to reduce it. Creative, self-managed work is a source 
of pride and joy and part of what it means to be fully human. Wrenching 
control of work from the hands of the worker profoundly harms his or her 
mental and physical health. Indeed, Proudhon went so far as to argue that 
capitalist companies <i>"plunder the bodies and souls of the wage-workers"</i> 
and were an <i>"outrage upon human dignity and personality."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
p. 219] This is because wage labour turns productive activity and the
person who does it into a commodity. People <i>"are not human <b>beings</b>
so much as human <b>resources</b>. To the morally blind corporation, they
are tool to generate as much profit as possible. And 'the tool can be
treated just like a piece of metal -- you use it if you want, you 
throw it away if you don't want it,' says Noam Chomsky. 'If you can
get human beings to become tool like that, it's more efficient by some
measure of efficiency . . . a measure which is based on dehumanisation.
You have to dehumanise it. That's part of the system.'"</i> [Joel Bakan,
<b>The Corporation</b>, p. 69]
<p>
Separating labour from other activities of life and subjecting it to the
laws of the market means to annihilate its natural, organic form of
existence -- a form that evolved with the human race through tens of
thousands of years of co-operative economic activity based on sharing and
mutual aid -- and replacing it with an atomistic and individualistic one
based on contract and competition. Unsurprisingly, this relationship
is a very recent development and, moreover, the product of substantial 
state action and coercion (see <a href="secF8.html">section F.8</a> 
for some discussion of this).
Simply put, <i>"the early labourer . . . abhorred the factory, where he
[or she] felt degraded and tortured."</i> While the state ensured a steady
pool of landless workers by enforcing private property rights, the 
early manufacturers also utilised the state to ensure low wages, 
primarily for social reasons -- only an 
overworked and downtrodden labourer with no other options would agree 
to do whatever their master required of them. <i>"Legal compulsion and
parish serfdom as in England,"</i> noted Polanyi, <i>"the rigors of an 
absolutist labour police as on the Continent, indented labour as in
the early Americas were the prerequisites of the 'willing worker.'"</i>
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 164-5]
<p>
Ignoring its origins in state action, the social relationship of wage 
labour is then claimed by capitalists to be a source of "freedom," 
whereas in fact it is a form of (in)voluntary servitude (see sections <a href="secB4.html">B.4</a> and <a href="secA2.html#seca14">A.2.14</a> for more discussion). Therefore a libertarian who did 
not support economic liberty (i.e. self-government in industry, 
libertarian socialism) would be no libertarian at all, and no believer in liberty. Capitalism is based upon hierarchy and the denial of liberty. To 
present it otherwise denies the nature of wage labour. However, supporters 
of capitalism try to but -- as Karl Polanyi points out -- the idea that wage 
labour is based upon some kind of "natural" liberty is false: 
<p><blockquote> 
<i>"To represent this principle [wage labour] as one of non-interference 
[with freedom], as economic liberals were wont to do, was merely the 
expression of an ingrained prejudice in favour of a definite kind of 
interference, namely, such as would destroy non-contractual relations 
between individuals and prevent their spontaneous re-formation."</i> 
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p.163]
</blockquote><p>
As noted above, capitalism itself was created by state violence and
the destruction of traditional ways of life and social interaction was
part of that task. From the start, bosses spent considerable time and
energy combating attempts of working people to join together to resist
the hierarchy they were subjected to and reassert human values. Such
forms of free association between equals (such as trade unions) were
combated, just as attempts to regulate the worse excesses of the system
by democratic governments. Indeed, capitalists prefer centralised, elitist 
and/or authoritarian regimes precisely because they are sure to be outside
of popular control (see <a href="secB2.html#secb25">section B.2.5</a>). They are the only way that contractual
relations based on market power could be enforced on an unwilling population.
Capitalism was born under such states and as well as backing fascist 
movements, they made high profits in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Today
many corporations <i>"regularly do business with totalitarian and authoritarian
regimes -- again, because it is profitable to do so."</i> Indeed, there is
a <i>"trend by US corporations to invest in"</i> such countries. [Joel Bakan, 
<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 89 and p. 185] Perhaps unsurprisingly, as such regimes are
best able to enforce the necessary conditions to commodify labour fully.

<a name="secb13"><h2>B.1.3 What kind of hierarchy of values does capitalism create?</h2>

Anarchists argue that capitalism can only have a negative 
impact on ethical behaviour. This flows from its hierarchical 
nature. We think that hierarchy must, by its very nature, 
always impact negatively on morality. 
<p>
As we argued in <a href="secA2.html#seca219">section A.2.19</a>, 
ethics is dependent on 
both individual liberty and equality between individuals. 
Hierarchy violates both and so the <i>"great sources of moral 
depravity"</i> are <i>"capitalism, religion, justice, government."</i> 
In <i>"the domain of economy, coercion has lead us to industrial 
servitude; in the domain of politics to the State . . . 
[where] the nation . . . becomes nothing but a mass of obedient 
<b>subjects</b> to a central authority."</i> This has <i>"contributed and 
powerfully aided to create all the present economic, political, 
and social evils"</i> and <i>"has given proof of its absolute impotence 
to raise the moral level of societies; it has not even been able 
to maintain it at the level it had already reached."</i> This is
unsurprising, as society developed <i>"authoritarian prejudices"</i> 
and <i>"men become more and more divided into governors and governed, 
exploiters and exploited, the moral level fell . . . and the spirit 
of the age declined."</i> By violating equality, by rejecting social
co-operation between equals in favour of top-down, authoritarian,
social relationships which turn some into the tools of others, 
capitalism, like the state, could not help but erode ethical 
standards as the <i>"moral level"</i> of society is <i>"debased by the 
practice of authority."</i> [Kropotkin, <b>Anarchism</b>, pp. 137-8, p. 106 
and p. 139]
<p>
However, as we as promoting general unethical behaviour, capitalism 
produces a specific perverted hierarchy of values -- one that 
places humanity below property. As Erich Fromm argues: 
<p><blockquote>
<i>"The use [i.e.
exploitation] of man by man is expressive of the <b>system of values</b> 
underlying the capitalistic system. <b>Capital, the dead past, employs
labour -- the living vitality and power of the present.</b> In the
capitalistic hierarchy of values, capital stands higher than labour,
amassed things higher than the manifestations of life. Capital employs
labour, and not labour capital. The person who owns capital commands the
person who 'only' owns his life, human skill, vitality and creative
productivity. 'Things' are higher than man. The conflict between capital
and labour is much more than the conflict between two classes, more than
their fight for a greater share of the social product. It is the conflict
between two principles of value: <b>that between the world of things, and
their amassment, and the world of life and its productivity</b>."</i> [<b>The Sane
Society</b>, pp. 94-95]
</blockquote><p>
Capitalism only values a person as representing a certain amount of the
commodity called "labour power," in other words, as a <b>thing</b>. Instead of
being valued as an individual -- a unique human being with intrinsic moral
and spiritual worth -- only one's price tag counts. This replacement of human relationships by economic ones soon results in
the replacement of human values by economic ones, giving us an "ethics" of
the account book, in which people are valued by how much they earn. It
also leads, as Murray Bookchin argues, to a debasement of human values: 
<p><blockquote>
<i>"So deeply rooted is the market economy in our minds that its grubby
language has replaced our most hallowed moral and spiritual expressions.
We now 'invest' in our children, marriages, and personal relationships, a
term that is equated with words like 'love' and 'care.' We live in a world
of 'trade-offs' and we ask for the 'bottom line' of any emotional
'transaction.' We use the terminology of contracts rather than that of
loyalties and spiritual affinities."</i> [<b>The Modern Crisis</b>, p. 79]
</blockquote><p>
With human values replaced by the ethics of calculation, and with only the
laws of market and state "binding" people together, social breakdown is
inevitable. Little wonder modern capitalism has seen a massive increase in crime and 
dehumanisation under the freer markets established by "conservative"
governments, such as those of Thatcher and Reagan and their transnational 
corporate masters. We now live in a society where people live in 
self-constructed fortresses, "free" behind their walls and defences 
(both emotional and physical). 
<p>
Of course, some people <b>like</b> the "ethics" of mathematics. But this is 
mostly because -- like all gods -- it gives the worshipper an easy rule 
book to follow. "Five is greater than four, therefore five is better" 
is pretty simple to understand. John Steinbeck noticed this when he wrote: 
<p><blockquote>
<i>"Some of them [the owners] hated the mathematics that drove them [to kick 
the farmers off their land], and some were afraid, and some worshipped 
the mathematics because it provided a refuge from thought and from feeling."</i> 
[<b>The Grapes of Wrath</b>, p. 34]
</blockquote>
<p>
The debasement of the individual in the workplace, where so much time is
spent, necessarily affects a person's self-image, which in turn carries over
into the way he or she acts in other areas of life. If one is regarded as 
a commodity at work, one comes to regard oneself and others in that way 
also. Thus all social relationships -- and so, ultimately, <b>all</b> 
individuals -- are commodified. In capitalism, literally nothing 
is sacred -- "everything has its price" -- be it dignity, self-worth, 
pride, honour -- all become commodities up for grabs. Such debasement produces a number of social pathologies. "Consumerism" is
one example which can be traced directly to the commodification of the
individual under capitalism. To quote Fromm again, <i>"<b>Things</b> have no self,
and men who have become things [i.e. commodities on the labour market] can
have no self."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 143]
<p>
However, people still feel the <b>need</b> for selfhood, and so try to fill the
emptiness by consuming. The illusion of happiness, that one's life will be
complete if one gets a new commodity, drives people to consume. Unfortunately, 
since commodities are yet more things, they provide no substitute for 
selfhood, and so the consuming must begin anew. This process is, of course,
encouraged by the advertising industry, which tries to convince us to buy
what we don't need because it will make us popular/sexy/happy/free/etc.
(delete as appropriate!). But consuming cannot really satisfy the needs
that the commodities are bought to satisfy. Those needs can only be
satisfied by social interaction based on truly human values and by
creative, self-directed work.
<p>
This does not mean, of course, that anarchists are against higher living
standards or material goods. To the contrary, they recognise that liberty
and a good life are only possible when one does not have to worry about
having enough food, decent housing, and so forth. Freedom and 16 hours of
work a day do not go together, nor do equality and poverty or solidarity
and hunger. However, anarchists consider consumerism to be a distortion
of consumption caused by the alienating and inhuman "account book"
ethics of capitalism, which crushes the individual and his or her sense 
of identity, dignity and selfhood.

<a name="secb14"><h2>B.1.4 Why do racism, sexism and homophobia exist?</h2>

Since racism, sexism and homophobia (hatred/fear of homosexuals) are 
institutionalised throughout society, sexual, racial and gay oppression are 
commonplace. The primary cause of these three evil attitudes is the need for 
ideologies that justify domination and exploitation, which are inherent in 
hierarchy -- in other words, "theories" that "justify" and "explain" 
oppression and injustice. As Tacitus said, <i>"We hate those whom we injure."</i> 
Those who oppress others always find reasons to regard their victims as 
"inferior" and hence deserving of their fate. Elites need some way to 
justify their superior social and economic positions. Since the social 
system is obviously unfair and elitist, attention must be distracted to other, 
less inconvenient, "facts," such as alleged superiority based on biology 
or "nature." Therefore, doctrines of sexual, racial, and ethnic superiority 
are inevitable in hierarchical, class-stratified societies.
<p>
We will take each form of bigotry in turn.
<p>
From an economic standpoint, racism is associated with the exploitation of
cheap labour at home and imperialism abroad. Indeed, early capitalist 
development in both America and Europe was strengthened by the bondage of 
people, particularly those of African descent. In the Americas, Australia and
other parts of the world the slaughter of the original inhabitants and the 
expropriation of their land was also a key aspect in the growth of capitalism. 
As the subordination of foreign nations proceeds by force, it appears to 
the dominant nation that it owes its mastery to its special natural qualities, 
in other words to its "racial" characteristics. Thus imperialists have 
frequently appealed to the Darwinian doctrine of "Survival of the Fittest" 
to give their racism a basis in "nature." 
<p>
In Europe, one of the first theories of racial superiority was proposed by
Gobineau in the 1850s to establish the natural right of the aristocracy to
rule over France. He argued that the French aristocracy was originally of
Germanic origin while the "masses" were Gallic or Celtic, and that since
the Germanic race was "superior", the aristocracy had a natural right to
rule. Although the French "masses" didn't find this theory particularly
persuasive, it was later taken up by proponents of German expansion and
became the origin of German racial ideology, used to justify Nazi
oppression of Jews and other "non-Aryan" types. Notions of the "white
man's burden" and "Manifest Destiny" developed at about the same time 
in England and to a lesser extent in America, and were used to rationalise 
Anglo-Saxon conquest and world domination on a "humanitarian" basis.
<p>
Racism and authoritarianism at home and abroad has gone hand in
hand. As Rudolf Rocker argued, <i>"[a]ll advocates of the race doctrine 
have been and are the associates and defenders of every political and
social reaction, advocates of the power principle in its most brutal
form . . . He who thinks that he sees in all political and social 
antagonisms merely blood-determined manifestations of race, denies all 
conciliatory influence of ideas, all community of ethical feeling, 
and must at every crisis take refuge in brute force. In fact, race
theory is only the cult of power."</i> Racism aids the consolidation of 
elite power for by attacking <i>"all the achievements . . . in the 
direction of personal freedom"</i> and the idea of equality <i>"[n]o better 
moral justification could be produced for the industrial bondage 
which our holders of industrial power keep before them as a picture 
of the future."</i> [<b>Nationalism and Culture</b>, pp. 337-8]
<p>
The idea of racial superiority was also found to have great domestic
utility. As Paul Sweezy points out, <i>"[t]he intensification of social
conflict within the advanced capitalist countries. . . has to be directed
as far as possible into innocuous channels -- innocuous, that is to say,
from the standpoint of capitalist class rule. The stirring up of
antagonisms along racial lines is a convenient method of directing
attention away from class struggle,"</i> which of course is dangerous to
ruling-class interests. [<b>Theory of Capitalist Development</b>, p. 311] 
Indeed, employers have often deliberately fostered divisions among 
workers on racial lines as part of a strategy of "divide and rule"
(in other contexts, like Northern Ireland or Scotland, the employers
have used religion in the same way instead).
<p>
Employers and politicians have often deliberately fostered divisions 
among workers on racial lines as part of a strategy of "divide and 
rule." In other contexts, like Tzarist Russia, Northern Ireland or 
Scotland, the employers have used religion in the same way. In 
others, immigrants and native born is the dividing line. The net
effect is the same, social oppressions which range from the extreme
violence anarchists like Emma Goldman denounced in the American South
(<i>"the atrocities rampant in the South, of negroes lynched, tortured
and burned by infuriated crowds without a hand being raised or a 
word said for their protection"</i> [<b>Emma Goldman: A Documentary History
of the American Years</b>, vol. 1, p. 386]) or the pogroms against Jews
in Tsarist Russia to discrimination in where people can live, what 
jobs people can get, less pay and so on.
<p>
For those in power, this makes perfect sense as racism (like other 
forms of bigotry) can be used to split and divide the working class 
by getting people to blame others of their class for the conditions 
they all suffer. In this way, the anger people feel about the problems 
they face are turned away from their real causes onto scapegoats. Thus 
white workers are subtly (and sometimes not so subtly) encouraged, 
for example, to blame unemployment, poverty and crime on blacks or 
Hispanics instead of capitalism and the (white, male) elites who run 
it and who directly benefit from low wages and high profits. 
Discrimination against racial minorities and women makes sense for 
capitalism, for in this way profits are enlarged directly and indirectly. 
As jobs and investment opportunities are denied to the disadvantaged 
groups, their wages can be depressed below prevailing levels and profits, 
correspondingly, increased. Indirectly, discrimination adds capitalist 
profits and power by increasing unemployment and setting workers 
against each other. Such factors ensure that capitalism will never 
"compete" discrimination way as some free-market capitalist economists 
argue.
<p>
In other words, capitalism has benefited and will continue to benefit 
from its racist heritage. Racism has provided pools of cheap labour for 
capitalists to draw upon and permitted a section of the population to 
be subjected to worse treatment, so increasing profits by reducing 
working conditions and other non-pay related costs. In America, blacks 
still get paid less than whites for the same work (around 10% less 
than white workers with the same education, work experience, occupation 
and other relevent demographic variables). This is transferred into 
wealth inequalities. In 1998, black incomes were 54% of white incomes 
while black net worth (including residential) was 12% and nonresidential 
net worth just 3% of white. For Hispanics, the picture was similar with 
incomes just 62% of whites, net worth, 4% and nonresidential net worth 0%. 
While just under 15% of white households had zero or negative net worth, 
27% of black households and 36% Hispanic were in the same situation. Even
at similar levels of income, black households were significantly less
wealthy than white ones. [Doug Henwood, <b>After the New Economy</b>, p. 99
and pp. 125-6] 
<p>
All this means that blacks are <i>"subjected to oppression and exploitation on 
the dual grounds of race and class, and thus have to fight the extra battles 
against racism and discrimination."</i> [Lorenzo Kom'boa Ervin, 
<b>Anarcho-syndicalists of the world unite</b>]
<p>
Sexism only required a "justification" once women started to act for
themselves and demand equal rights. Before that point, sexual oppression
did not need to be "justified" -- it was "natural" (saying that, of course,
equality between the sexes was stronger before the rise of Christianity as
a state religion and
capitalism so the "place" of women in society has fallen over the last 
few hundred years before rising again thanks to the women's movement). 
<p>
The nature of sexual oppression can be seen from marriage. Emma Goldman
pointed out that marriage <i>"stands for the sovereignty of the man over the 
women,"</i> with her <i>"complete submission"</i> to the husbands <i>"whims and commands."</i> 
[<b>Red Emma Speaks</b>, p. 164] As Carole Pateman notes, until <i>"the late 
nineteenth century the legal and civil position of a wife resembled that of a 
slave. . . A slave had no independent legal existence apart from his 
master, and husband and wife became 'one person,' the person of the 
husband."</i> Indeed, the law <i>"was based 
on the assumption that a wife was (like) property"</i> and only the 
marriage contract <i>"includes the explicit commitment to obey."</i> 
[<b>The Sexual Contract</b>, p. 119, p. 122 and p. 181] 
<p>
However, when women started to question the assumptions of male domination, 
numerous theories were developed to explain why women's oppression and 
domination by men was "natural." Because men enforced their rule over women 
by force, men's "superiority" was argued to be a "natural" product of their 
gender, which is associated with greater physical strength (on the premise 
that "might makes right"). In the 17th century, it was argued that women 
were more like animals than men, thus "proving" that women had as much right 
to equality with men as sheep did. More recently, elites have embraced 
socio-biology in response to the growing women's movement. By "explaining" 
women's oppression on biological grounds, a social system run by men and 
for men could be ignored. 
<p>
Women's subservient role also has economic value for capitalism (we should
note that Goldman considered capitalism to be another <i>"paternal arrangement"</i>
like marriage, both of which robbed people of their <i>"birthright,"</i> <i>"stunts"</i>
their growth, <i>"poisons"</i> their bodies and keeps people in <i>"ignorance, in
poverty and dependence."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 210]). Women often provide necessary 
(and unpaid) labour which keeps the (usually) male worker in good condition; 
and it is primarily women who raise the next generation of wage-slaves (again 
without pay) for capitalist owners to exploit. Moreover, women's subordination 
gives working-class men someone to look down upon and, sometimes, a convenient 
target on whom they can take out their frustrations (instead of stirring up 
trouble at work). As Lucy Parsons pointed out, a working class woman is <i>"a 
slave to a slave."</i>
<p>
Sexism, like all forms of bigotry, is reflected in relative incomes and
wealth levels. In the US women, on average, were being paid 57% the amount 
men were in 2001 (an improvement than the 39% 20 years earlier). Part of 
this is due to fewer women working than men, but for those who do work 
outside the home their incomes were 66% than of men's (up from 47% in 1980 
and 38% in 1970). Those who work full time, their incomes 76% of men's,
up from the 60% average through most of the 1970s. However, as with the
black-white gap, this is due in part to the stagnant income of male workers 
(in 1998 men's real incomes were just 1% above 1989 levels while women's
were 14% above). So rather than the increase in income being purely the 
result of women entering high-paying and largely male occupations and 
them closing the gender gap, it has also been the result of the intense 
attacks on the working class since the 1980s which has de-unionised and 
de-industrialised America. This has resulted in a lot of high-paying male 
jobs have been lost and more and more women have entered the job market to 
make sure their families make ends. [Henwood, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 91-2]
<p>
Turning away from averages, we discover that sexism results in women 
being paid about 12% less than men during the same job, with the same
relative variables (like work experience, education and so forth). 
Needless to say, as with racism, such "relevant variables" are 
themselves shaped by discrimination. Women, like blacks, are less 
likely to get job interviews and jobs. Sexism even affects types of 
jobs, for example, "caring" professions pay less than non-caring ones 
because they are seen as feminine and involve the kinds of tasks which 
women do at home without pay. In general, female dominated industries 
pay less. In 1998, occupations that were over 90% male had a median 
wage almost 10% above average while those over 90% female, almost 25% 
below. One study found that a 30% increase in women in an occupation 
translated into a 10% decline in average pay. Needless to say, having 
children is bad economic news for most women (women with children earn 
10 to 15% less than women without children while for men the opposite 
is the case). Having maternity level, incidentally, have a far smaller 
motherhood penalty. [Henwood, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 95-7]
<p>
The oppression of lesbians, gays and bisexuals is inextricably linked 
with sexism. A patriarchal, capitalist society cannot see homosexual 
practices as the normal human variations they are because they blur 
that society's rigid gender roles and sexist stereotypes. Most young 
gay people keep their sexuality to themselves for fear of being kicked 
out of home and all gays have the fear that some "straights" will try 
to kick their sexuality out of them if they express their sexuality 
freely. As with those subject to other forms of bigotry, gays are 
also discriminated against economically (gay men earning about 4-7% 
less than the average straight man [Henwood, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 100]). Thus 
the social oppression which result in having an alternative sexuality 
are experienced on many different levels, from extreme violence to 
less pay for doing the same work.
<p>
Gays are not oppressed on a whim but because of the specific need of 
capitalism for the nuclear family. The nuclear family, as the primary 
- and inexpensive - creator of submissive people (growing up within the 
authoritarian family gets children used to, and "respectful" of, hierarchy 
and subordination - see <a href="secB1.html#secb15">section B.1.5</a>) as well as provider and carer for 
the workforce fulfils an important need for capitalism. Alternative 
sexualities represent a threat to the family model because they provide 
a different role model for people. This means that gays are going to 
be in the front line of attack whenever capitalism wants to reinforce 
"family values" (i.e. submission to authority, "tradition", "morality"
and so on). The introduction of Clause 28 in Britain is a good example 
of this, with the government making it illegal for public bodies to 
promote gay sexuality (i.e. to present it as anything other than a 
perversion). In American, the right is also seeking to demonise 
homosexuality as part of their campaign to reinforce the values of
the patriarchal family unit and submission to "traditional" authority. 
Therefore, the oppression of people based on their sexuality is unlikely 
to end until sexism is eliminated.
<p>
This is not all. As well as adversely affecting those subject to them, 
sexism, racism and homophobia are harmful to those who practice them 
(and in some way benefit from them) within the working class itself. 
Why this should be the case is obvious, once you think about it. All
three divide the working class, which means that whites, males and 
heterosexuals hurt themselves by maintaining a pool of low-paid 
competing labour, ensuring low wages for their own wives, daughters,
mothers, relatives and friends. Such divisions create inferior conditions 
and wages for all as capitalists gain a competitive advantage using this
pool of cheap labour, forcing all capitalists to cut conditions and wages
to survive in the market (in addition, such social hierarchies, by undermining 
solidarity against the employer on the job and the state possibly create a 
group of excluded workers who could become scabs during strikes). Also, 
"privileged" sections of the working class lose out because their wages and 
conditions are less than those which unity could have won them. Only the 
boss really wins.
<p>
This can be seen from research into this subject. The researcher Al Szymanski 
sought to systematically and scientifically test the proposition that white 
workers gain from racism [<i>"Racial Discrimination and White Gain"</i>, in 
<b>American Sociological Review</b>, vol. 41, no. 3, June 1976, pp. 403-414]. 
He compared the situation of "white" and "non-white" (i.e. black, Native 
American, Asian and Hispanic) workers in United States and found several 
key things:
<p><ol>
	(1) the narrower the gap between white and black wages in an American 
	    state, the higher white earnings were relative to white earnings 
	    elsewhere. This means that <i>"whites do not benefit economically by
	    economic discrimination. White workers especially appear to benefit 
	    economically from the <b>absence</b> of economic discrimination. . .
	    both in the absolute level of their earnings <b>and</b> in relative 
	    equality among whites."</i> [p. 413] In other words, the less wage 
	    discrimination there was against black workers, the better were 
	    the wages that white workers received.<br>
<p>
	(2) the more "non-white" people in the population of a given 
	    American State, the more inequality there was between whites. 
	    In other words, the existence of a poor, oppressed group of 
	    workers reduced the wages of white workers, although it did 
	    not affect the earnings of non-working class whites very much
	    (<i>"the greater the discrimination against [non-white] people,
	    the greater the inequality among whites"</i> [p. 410]). So white 
	    workers clearly lost economically from this discrimination.<br>
<p>
	(3) He also found that <i>"the more intense racial discrimination is, 
	    the lower are the white earnings <b>because</b> of . . . [its effect
	    on] working-class solidarity."</i> [p. 412] In other words, racism 
	    economically disadvantages white workers because it undermines 
	    the solidarity between black and white workers and weakens 
	    trade union organisation.<br>
</ol><p>
So overall, these white workers receive some apparent privileges from racism, 
but are in fact screwed by it. Thus racism and other forms of hierarchy 
actually works against the interests of those working class people who 
practice it -- and, by weakening workplace and social unity, benefits the
ruling class.
<p>
In addition, a wealth of alternative viewpoints, insights, experiences, 
cultures, thoughts and so on are denied the racist, sexist or homophobe. 
Their minds are trapped in a cage, stagnating within a mono-culture -- and 
stagnation is death for the personality. Such forms of oppression are 
dehumanising for those who practice them, for the oppressor lives as a
<b>role</b>, not as a person, and so are restricted by it and cannot express 
their individuality <b>freely</b> (and so do so in very limited ways). This
warps the personality of the oppressor and impoverishes their own life and
personality. Homophobia and sexism also limits the flexibility of all 
people, gay or straight, to choose the sexual expressions and relationships 
that are right for them. The sexual repression of the sexist and homophobe 
will hardly be good for their mental health, their relationships or general 
development. 
<p>
From the anarchist standpoint, oppression based on race, sex or sexuality will 
remain forever intractable under capitalism or, indeed, under any economic 
or political system based on domination and exploitation. While individual members of
"minorities" may prosper, racism as a justification for inequality is too
useful a tool for elites to discard. By using the results of racism (e.g.
poverty) as a justification for racist ideology, criticism of the status
quo can, yet again, be replaced by nonsense about "nature" and "biology."
Similarly with sexism or discrimination against gays. 
<p>
The long-term solution is obvious: dismantle capitalism and the hierarchical, 
economically class-stratified society with which it is bound up. By getting 
rid of capitalist oppression and exploitation and its consequent imperialism 
and poverty, we will also eliminate the need for ideologies of racial or 
sexual superiority used to justify the oppression of one group by another 
or to divide and weaken the working class. However, struggles against 
bigotry cannot be left until after a revolution. If they were two things 
are likely: one, such a revolution would be unlikely to happen and, two,
if it were then these problems would more than likely remain in the new
society created by it. Therefore the negative impacts of inequality can 
and must be fought in the here and now, like any form of hierarchy. Indeed, 
as we discuss in more detail <a href="secB1.html#secb16">section B.1.6</a> by doing so we make life a bit 
better in the here and now as well as bringing the time when such 
inequalities are finally ended nearer. Only this can ensure that we can 
all live as free and equal individuals in a world without the blights 
of sexism, racism, homophobia or religious hatred.
 
<p>
Needless to say, anarchists totally reject the kind of "equality" that 
accepts other kinds of hierarchy, that accepts the dominant priorities of
capitalism and the state and accedes to the devaluation of relationships and 
individuality in name of power and wealth. There is a kind of "equality" in
having "equal opportunities," in having black, gay or women bosses and 
politicians, but one that misses the point. Saying "Me too!" instead of
"What a mess!" does not suggest real liberation, just different bosses and
new forms of oppression. We need to look at the way society is organised,
not at the sex, colour, nationality or sexuality of who is giving the orders!

<a name="secb15"><h2>B.1.5  How is the mass-psychological basis for authoritarian civilisation created? </h2>

We noted in <a href="secA3.html#seca36">section A.3.6</a> that hierarchical, authoritarian institutions
tend to be self-perpetuating, because growing up under their influence
creates submissive/authoritarian personalities -- people who both
"respect" authority (based on fear of punishment) and desire to exercise
it themselves on subordinates.  Individuals with such a character
structure do not really want to dismantle hierarchies, because they are
afraid of the responsibility entailed by genuine freedom.  It seems
"natural" and "right" to them that society's institutions, from the
authoritarian factory to the patriarchal family, should be pyramidal, with
an elite at the top giving orders while those below them merely obey. 
Thus we have the spectacle of so-called "Libertarians" and "anarcho"
capitalists bleating about "liberty" while at the same time advocating
factory fascism and privatised  states.  In short, authoritarian
civilisation reproduces itself with each generation because, through an
intricate system of conditioning that permeates every aspect of society,
it creates masses of people who support the status quo. 
<p>
Wilhelm Reich has given one of the most thorough analyses of the
psychological processes involved in the reproduction of authoritarian
civilisation.  Reich based his analysis on four of Freud's most solidly
grounded discoveries, namely, (1) that there exists an unconscious part of
the mind which has a powerful though irrational influence on behaviour; (2)
that even the small child develops a lively "genital" sexuality, i.e. a
desire for sexual pleasure which has nothing to do with procreation; (3)
that childhood sexuality along with the Oedipal conflicts that arise in
parent-child relations under monogamy and patriarchy are usually repressed
through fear of punishment or disapproval for sexual acts and thoughts;
(4) that this blocking of the child's natural sexual activity and
extinguishing it from memory does not weaken its force in the unconscious,
but actually intensifies it and enables it to manifest itself in various
pathological disturbances and anti-social drives; and (5) that, far from
being of divine origin, human moral codes are derived from the educational
measures used by the parents and parental surrogates in earliest
childhood, the most effective of these being the ones opposed to childhood
sexuality.  
<p>
By studying Bronislaw Malinowsli's research on the Trobriand Islanders, a
woman-centred (matricentric) society in which children's sexual behaviour
was not repressed and in which neuroses and perversions as well as
authoritarian institutions and values were almost non-existent, Reich came
to the conclusion that patriarchy and authoritarianism originally
developed when tribal chieftains began to get economic advantages from a
certain type of marriage ("cross-cousin marriages") entered into by their
sons.  In such marriages, the brothers of the son's wife were obliged to
pay a dowry to her in the form of continuous tribute, thus enriching her
husband's clan (i.e. the chief's).  By arranging many such marriages for
his sons (which were usually numerous due to the chief's privilege of
polygamy), the chief's clan could accumulate wealth.  Thus society began
to be stratified into ruling and subordinate clans based on wealth. 
<p>
To secure the permanence of these "good" marriages, strict monogamy was
required.  However, it was found that monogamy was impossible to maintain
without the repression of childhood sexuality, since, as statistics show,
children who are allowed free expression of sexuality often do not adapt
successfully to life-long monogamy.  Therefore, along with class
stratification and private property, authoritarian child-rearing methods
were developed to inculcate the repressive sexual morality on which the
new patriarchal system depended for its reproduction. Thus there is a
historical correlation between, on the one hand, pre-patriarchal society,
primitive libertarian communism (or <i>"work democracy,"</i> to use Reich's
expression), economic equality, and sexual freedom, and on the other,
patriarchal society, a private-property economy, economic class
stratification, and sexual repression.  As Reich puts it:     
<p><blockquote>
<i>"Every tribe that developed from a [matricentric] to a patriarchal
organisation had to change the sexual structure of its members to produce
a sexuality in keeping with its new form of life.  This was a necessary
change because the shifting of power and of wealth from the democratic
gens [maternal clans] to the authoritarian family of the chief was mainly
implemented with the help of the suppression of the sexual strivings of
the people.  It was in this way that sexual suppression became an essential
factor in the division of society into classes.
<p>
"Marriage, and the lawful dowry it entailed, became the axis of the
transformation of the one organisation into the other.  In view of the
fact that the marriage tribute of the wife's gens to the man's family
strengthened the male's, especially the chief's, position of power, the
male members of the higher ranking gens and families developed a keen
interest in making the nuptial ties permanent.  At this stage, in other
words, only the man had an interest in marriage.  In this way natural
work-democracy's simple alliance, which could be easily dissolved at any
time, was transformed into the permanent and monogamous marital
relationship of patriarchy.   The permanent monogamous marriage became the
basic institution of patriarchal society -- which it still is today.  To
safeguard these marriages, however, it was necessary to impose greater and
greater restrictions upon and to depreciate natural genital strivings."</i> 
[<b>The Mass Psychology of Fascism</b>, p. 90]
</blockquote><p>
The suppression of natural sexuality involved in this transformation from
matricentric to patriarchal society created various anti-social drives
(sadism, destructive impulses, rape fantasies, etc.), which then
also had to be suppressed through the imposition of a compulsive morality,
which took the place the natural self-regulation that one finds in
pre-patriarchal societies.  In this way, sex began to
be regarded as "dirty," "diabolical," "wicked,"  etc.  -- which it had 
indeed become through the creation of secondary drives. Thus:
<p><blockquote>
<i>"The patriarchal- authoritarian sexual order that resulted from the
revolutionary processes of latter-day [matricentrism] (economic
independence of the chief's family from the maternal gens, a growing
exchange of goods between the tribes, development of the means of
production, etc.) becomes the primary basis of authoritarian ideology by
depriving the women, children, and adolescents of their sexual freedom,
making a commodity of sex and placing sexual interests in the service of
economic subjugation.  From now on, sexuality is indeed distorted; it
becomes diabolical and demonic and has to be curbed."</i>  [Reich, 
<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 88]
</blockquote><p>
Once the beginnings of patriarchy are in place, the creation of a fully
authoritarian society based on the psychological crippling of its members
through sexual suppression follows:  
<p><blockquote>
<i>"The moral inhibition of the child's natural sexuality, the last stage of
which is the severe impairment of the child's <b>genital</b> sexuality, makes
the child afraid, shy, fearful of authority, obedient, 'good,' and
'docile' in the authoritarian sense of the words.  It has a crippling
effect on man's rebellious forces because every vital life-impulse is now
burdened with severe fear; and since sex is a forbidden subject, thought
in general and man's critical faculty also become inhibited.  In short,
morality's aim is to produce acquiescent subjects who, despite distress
and humiliation, are adjusted to the authoritarian order.   Thus, the
family is the authoritarian state in miniature, to which the child must
learn to adapt himself as a preparation for the general social adjustment
required of him later.  Man's authoritarian structure -- this must be
clearly established -- is basically produced by the embedding of sexual
inhibitions and fear."</i> [Reich, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
p. 30] 
</blockquote><p>
In this way, by damaging the individual's power to rebel and think for
him/herself, the inhibition of childhood sexuality -- and indeed other
forms of free, natural expression of bioenergy (e.g. shouting, crying,
running, jumping, etc.) -- becomes the most important weapon in creating
reactionary personalities.  This is why every reactionary politician puts
such an emphasis on "strengthening the family" and promoting "family
values" (i.e. patriarchy, compulsive monogamy, premarital chastity,
corporal punishment, etc.). In the words of Reich:
<p><blockquote>
<i>"Since authoritarian society reproduces itself in the individual
structures of the masses with the help of the authoritarian family, it
follows that political reaction has to regard and defend the authoritarian
family as <b>the</b> basis of the 'state, culture, and civilisation. . . .' 
[It is] <b>political reaction's germ cell</b>, the most important centre for
the production of reactionary men and women.  Originating and developing
from definite social processes, it becomes the most essential institution
for the preservation of the authoritarian system that shapes it."</i> [<b>Op.
Cit.</b>, pp. 104-105]
</blockquote><p>
The family is the most essential institution for this purpose because
children are most vulnerable to psychological maiming in their first few
years, from the time of birth to about six years of age, during which time
they are mostly in the charge of their parents.  The schools and churches 
then continue the process of conditioning once the children are old enough
to be away from their parents, but they are generally unsuccessful if the
proper foundation has not been laid very early in life by the parents. 
Thus A.S. Neill observes that <i>"the nursery training is very like the
kennel training.  The whipped child, like the whipped puppy, grows into an
obedient, inferior adult.  And as we train our dogs to suit our own
purposes, so we train our children.  In that kennel, the nursery, the
human dogs must be clean; they must feed when we think it convenient for
them to feed.  I saw a hundred thousand obedient, fawning dogs wag their
tails in the Templehof, Berlin, when in 1935, the great trainer Hitler
whistled his commands."</i> [<b>Summerhill:  a Radical Approach to Child 
Rearing</b>, p. 100]
<p>
The family is also the main agency of repression during adolescence, when
sexual energy reaches its peak.  This is because the vast majority
of parents provide no private space for adolescents to pursue undisturbed 
sexual relationships with their partners, but in fact actively discourage
such behaviour, often (as in fundamentalist Christian families) demanding
complete abstinence -- at the very time when abstinence is most
impossible!  Moreover, since teenagers are economically dependent on their
parents under capitalism, with no societal provision of housing or
dormitories allowing for sexual freedom, young people have no
alternative but to submit to irrational parental demands for abstention
from premarital sex.  This in turn forces them to engage in furtive sex in
the back seats of cars or other out-of-the-way places where they cannot
relax or obtain full sexual satisfaction.  As Reich found, when sexuality
is repressed and laden with anxiety, the result is always some degree of
what he terms  <i>"orgastic impotence"</i>:  the inability to fully surrender to
the flow of energy discharged during orgasm.  Hence there is an 
incomplete release of sexual tension, which results in a state of chronic
bioenergetic stasis.  Such a condition, Reich found, is the breeding
ground for neuroses and reactionary attitudes.  (For further details see 
the <a href="secJ6.html">section J.6</a>).  
<p>
In this connection it is interesting to note that "primitive" societies,
such as the Trobriand Islanders, prior to their developing
patriarchal-authoritarian institutions, provided special community houses
where teenagers could go with their partners to enjoy undisturbed sexual
relationships -- and this with society's full approval.  Such an
institution would be taken for granted in an anarchist society, as it is
implied by the concept of freedom.  (For more on adolescent sexual
liberation, see <a href="secJ6.html#secj68">section J.6.8.</a>) 
<p>
Nationalistic feelings can also be traced to the authoritarian family.  A
child's attachment to its mother is, of course, natural and is the basis
of all family ties.  Subjectively, the emotional core of the concepts of
homeland and nation are mother and family, since the mother is the
homeland of the child, just as the family is the "nation in miniature." 
According to Reich, who carefully studied the mass appeal of Hitler's
"National Socialism," nationalistic sentiments are a direct continuation of
the family tie and are rooted in a <b>fixated</b> tie to the mother.  As Reich
points out, although infantile attachment to the mother is natural,
<b>fixated</b> attachment is not, but is a social product.  In puberty, the tie
to the mother would make room for other attachments, i.e., natural sexual
relations, <b>if</b> the unnatural sexual restrictions imposed on adolescents
did not cause it to be eternalised.  It is in the form of this socially
conditioned externalisation that fixation on the mother becomes the basis
of nationalist feelings in the adult; and it is only at this stage that it
becomes a reactionary social force. 
<p>
Later writers who have followed Reich in analysing the process of creating
reactionary character structures have broadened the scope of his analysis
to include other important inhibitions, besides sexual ones, that are
imposed on children and adolescents.   Rianne Eisler, for example, in her
book <b>Sacred Pleasure</b>, stresses that it is not just a sex-negative
attitude but a <b>pleasure</b>-negative attitude that creates the kinds of
personalities in question.  Denial of the value of pleasurable sensations
permeates our unconscious, as reflected, for example, in the common idea
that to enjoy the pleasures of the body is the "animalistic" (and hence
"bad") side of human nature, as contrasted with the "higher" pleasures of
the mind and "spirit."  By such dualism, which denies a spiritual aspect
to the body, people are made to feel guilty about enjoying any
pleasurable sensations -- a conditioning that does, however, prepare them
for lives based on the sacrifice of pleasure (or indeed, even of life
itself) under capitalism and statism, with their requirements of mass
submission to alienated labour, exploitation, military service to protect
ruling-class interests, and so on.  And at the same time, authoritarian
ideology emphasises the value of suffering, as for example through the
glorification of the tough,  insensitive warrior hero, who suffers (and
inflicts "necessary" suffering on others ) for the sake of some pitiless
ideal.  
<p>
Eisler also points out that there is <i>"ample evidence that people
who grow up in families where rigid hierarchies and painful punishments
are the norm learn to suppress anger toward their parents.  There is also
ample evidence that this anger is then often deflected against
traditionally disempowered groups (such as minorities, children, and
women)."</i> [<b>Sacred Pleasure</b>, p. 187] This repressed anger then becomes fertile ground
for reactionary politicians, whose mass appeal usually rests in part on
scapegoating minorities for society's problems.  
<p>
As the psychologist Else Frenkel-Brunswick documents in <b>The Authoritarian
Personality</b>,  people who have been conditioned through childhood abuse to
surrender their will to the requirements of feared authoritarian parents,
also tend to be very  susceptible as adults to surrender their will and
minds to authoritarian leaders.  <i>"In other words,"</i> Frenkel-Brunswick 
summarises, <i>"at the same time that
they learn to deflect their repressed rage against those they perceive as
weak, they also learn to submit to autocratic or 'strong-man' rule. 
Moreover, having been severely punished for any hint of rebellion (even
'talking back' about being treated unfairly), they gradually also learn to
deny to themselves that there was anything wrong with what was done to
them as children -- and to do it in turn to their own children."</i> [<b>The Authoritarian Personality</b>, p. 187]
<p>
These are just some of the mechanisms that perpetuate the status quo by
creating the kinds of personalities who worship authority and fear 
freedom.  Consequently, anarchists are generally opposed to traditional
child-rearing practices, the patriarchal-authoritarian family (and its
"values"), the suppression of adolescent sexuality, and the
pleasure-denying, pain-affirming attitudes taught by the Church and in
most schools.  In place of these, anarchists favour non-authoritarian,
non-repressive  child-rearing practices and educational methods (see 
sections <a href="secJ6.html">J.6</a> and <a href="secJ5.html#secJ513">
secJ.5.13</a>, respectively) whose purpose is to prevent, or at least
minimise, the psychological crippling of individuals, allowing them
instead to develop natural self-regulation and self-motivated learning. 
This, we believe, is the only way to for people to grow up into happy,
creative, and truly freedom-loving individuals who will provide the
psychological ground where anarchist economic and political institutions
can flourish.

<a name="secb16"><h2>B.1.6 Can hierarchy be ended?</h2>

Faced with the fact that hierarchy, in its many distinctive forms, has 
been with us such a long time and so negatively shapes those subject to 
it, some may conclude that the anarchist hope of ending it, or even 
reducing it, is little more than a utopian dream. Surely, it will be 
argued, as anarchists acknowledge that those subject to a hierarchy 
adapt to it this automatically excludes the creation of people able 
to free themselves from it?
<p>
Anarchists disagree. Hierarchy can be ended, both in specific forms and
in general. A quick look at the history of the human species shows that
this is the case. People who have been subject to monarchy have ended 
it, creating republics where before absolutism reigned. Slavery and 
serfdom have been abolished. Alexander Berkman simply stated the obvious
when he pointed out that <i>"many ideas, once held to be true, have come
to be regarded as wrong and evil. Thus the ideas of divine right of 
kings, of slavery and serfdom. There was a time when the whole world
believed those institutions to be right, just, and unchangeable."</i>
However, they became <i>"discredited and lost their hold upon the people,
and finally the institutions that incorporated those ideas were 
abolished"</i> as <i>"they were useful only to the master class"</i> and <i>"were
done away with by popular uprisings and revolutions."</i> [<b>What is 
Anarchism?</b>, p. 178] It is unlikely, therefore, that current forms 
of hierarchy are exceptions to this process. 
<p>
Today, we can see that this is the case. Malatesta's comments of over
one hundred years ago are still valid: <i>"the oppressed masses . . . 
have never completely resigned themselves to oppression and poverty 
. . . [and] show themselves thirsting for justice, freedom and 
wellbeing."</i> [<b>Anarchy</b>, p. 33] Those at the bottom are constantly 
resisting both hierarchy and its the negative effects and, equally 
important, creating non-hierarchical ways of living and fighting. 
This constant process of self-activity and self-liberation can be 
seen from the labour, women's and other movements -- in which, 
to some degree, people create their own alternatives based upon 
their own dreams and hopes. Anarchism is based upon, and grew out 
of, this process of resistance, hope and direct action. In other
words, the libertarian elements that the oppressed continually 
produce in their struggles within and against hierarchical systems 
are extrapolated and generalised into what is called anarchism. It is
these struggles and the anarchistic elements they produce which make
the end of all forms of hierarchy not only desirable, but possible.
<p>
So while the negative impact of hierarchy is not surprising, neither
is the resistance to it. This is because the individual <i>"is not a blank 
sheet of paper on which culture can write its text; he [or she] is an 
entity charged with energy and structured in specific ways, which, 
while adapting itself, reacts in specific and ascertainable ways to 
external conditions."</i> In this <i>"process of adaptation,"</i> people develop
<i>"definite mental and emotional reactions which follow from specific
properties"</i> of our nature. [Eric Fromm, <b>Man for Himself</b>, p. 23 and 
p. 22] For example:
<p><blockquote><i>
"Man can adapt himself to slavery, but he reacts to it by lowering 
his intellectual and moral qualities . . . Man can adapt himself to 
cultural conditions which demand the repression of sexual strivings, 
but in achieving this adaptation he develops . . . neurotic symptoms. 
He can adapt to almost any culture pattern, but in so far as these 
are contradictory to his nature he develops mental and emotional 
disturbances which force him eventually change these conditions 
since he cannot change his nature. . . . If . . . man could adapt 
himself to all conditions without fighting those which are against 
his nature, he would have no history. Human evolution is rooted in 
man's adaptability and in certain indestructible qualities of his 
nature which compel him to search for conditions better adjusted 
to his intrinsic needs."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 22-23]
</blockquote><p>
So as well as adaptation to hierarchy, there is resistance. This 
means that modern society (capitalism), like any hierarchical society, 
faces a direct contradiction. On the one hand, <i>"capitalism divides 
society into a narrow stratum of directors (whose function is to 
decide and organise everything) and the vast majority of the population,
who are reduced to carrying out (executing) the decisions made
by these directors. As a result of this very fact, most people
experience their own lives as something alien to them . . . The
result is not only an enormous waste due to untapped capacity.
The system does more: It <b>necessarily</b> engenders opposition, 
a struggle against it by those upon whom it seeks to impose 
itself. Long before one can speak of revolution or political 
consciousness, people refuse in their everyday working lives to
be treated like objects . . . The net result is not only waste
but perpetual conflict."</i> [Cornelius Castoriadis, <b>Political
and Social Writings</b>, vol. 2, p. 93]
<p>
For the inequality in wealth and power produced by hierarchies, 
between the powerful and the powerless, between the rich and 
the poor, has not been ordained by god, nature or some other 
superhuman force. It has been created by a specific social system, 
its institutions and workings -- a system based upon authoritarian 
social relationships which effect us both physically and mentally. So 
there is hope. Just as authoritarian traits are learned, so can they 
be <b>unlearned.</b> As Carole Pateman summarises, the evidence supports 
the argument <i>"that we do learn to participate by participating"</i> and 
that a participatory environment <i>"might also be effective in 
diminishing tendencies toward non-democratic attitudes in the 
individual."</i> [<b>Participaton and Democratic Theory</b>, p. 105]
So oppression reproduces resistance and the seeds of its own
destruction.
<p>
It is for this reason anarchists stress the importance of 
self-liberation (see <a href="secA2.html#seca27">section A.2.7</a>) 
and <i>"support all struggles 
for partial freedom, because we are convinced that one learns 
through struggle, and that once one begins to enjoy a little 
freedom one ends by wanting it all."</i> [Malatesta, <b>Errico 
Malatesta: His Life and Ideas</b>, p. 195]  By means of direct 
action (see <a href="secJ2.html">section J.2</a>), people exert themselves and stand up 
for themselves. This breaks the conditioning of hierarchy, breaks 
the submissiveness which hierarchical social relationships both 
need and produce. Thus the daily struggles against oppression 
<i>"serve as a training camp to develop"</i> a person's <i>"understanding 
of [their] proper role in life, to cultivate [their] self-reliance 
and independence, teach him [or her] mutual help and co-operation, 
and make him [or her] conscious of [their] responsibility. [They] 
will learn to decide and act on [their] own behalf, not leaving 
it to leaders or politicians to attend to [their] affairs and 
look out for [their] welfare. It will be [them] who will determine, 
together with [their] fellows . . . , what they want and what 
methods will best serve their aims."</i> [Berkman, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 206]
<p>
In other words, struggle encourages all the traits hierarchy erodes 
and, consequently, develop the abilities not only to question and
resist authority but, ultimately, end it once and for all. This means 
that any struggle <b>changes</b> those who take part in it, politicising 
them and transforming their personalities by shaking off the servile
traits produced and required by hierarchy. As an example, after 
the sit-down strikes in Flint, Michigan, in 1937 one eye-witness 
saw how <i>"the auto worker became a different human being. The women 
that had participated actively became a different type of women 
. . . They carried themselves with a different walk, their heads 
were high, and they had confidence in themselves."</i> [Genora (Johnson) 
Dollinger, contained in <b>Voices of a People's History of the United 
States</b>, Howard Zinn and Anthony Arnove (eds.), p. 349] Such changes 
happen in all struggles (also see <a href="secJ4.html#secj42">section J.4.2</a>). Anarchists are not 
surprised for, as discussed in <a href="secJ1.html">section J.1</a> 
and <a href="secJ2.html#secj21">J.2.1</a>, we have long 
recognised the liberating aspects of social struggle and the key role 
it plays in creating free people and the other preconditions for 
needed for an anarchist society (like the initial social structure 
-- see <a href="secI2.html#seci23">section I.2.3</a>).
<p>
Needless to say, a hierarchical system like capitalism cannot 
survive with a non-submissive working class and the bosses spend a 
considerable amount of time, energy and resources trying to break the 
spirits of the working class so they will submit to authority (either
unwillingly, by fear of being fired, or willingly, by fooling them 
into believing that hierarchy is natural or by rewarding subservient 
behaviour). Unsurprisingly, this never completely succeeds and so 
capitalism is marked by constant struggles between the oppressed and 
oppressor. Some of these struggles succeed, some do not. Some are 
defensive, some are not. Some, like strikes, are visible, other less 
so (such a working slowly and less efficiently than management desires). 
And these struggles are waged by both sides of the hierarchical divide. 
Those subject to hierarchy fight to limit it and increase their autonomy 
and those who exercise authority fight to increase their power over 
others. Who wins varies. The 1960s and 1970s saw a marked increase in
victories for the oppressed all throughout capitalism but, unfortunately,
since the 1980s, as we discuss in <a href="sec83.html#secc83">section C.8.3</a>, there has been a 
relentless class war conducted by the powerful which has succeeded in 
inflicting a series of defeats on working class people. Unsurprisingly, 
the rich have got richer and more powerful since.
<p>
So anarchists take part in the on-going social struggle in society 
in an attempt to end it in the only way possible, the victory of the
oppressed. A key part of this is to fight for partial freedoms, for
minor or major reforms, as this strengthens the spirit of revolt and
starts the process towards the final end of hierarchy. In such struggles
we stress the autonomy of those involved and see them not only as the 
means of getting more justice and freedom in the current unfree system
but also as a means of ending the hierarchies they are fighting once 
and for all. Thus, for example, in the class struggle we argue for 
<i>"[o]rganisation from the bottom up, beginning with the shop and factory, 
on the foundation of the joint interests of the workers everywhere, 
irrespective of trade, race, or country."</i> [Alexander Berkman, 
<b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
p. 207] Such an organisation, as we discuss in <a href="secJ5.html#secj52">section J.5.2</a>, would 
be run via workplace assemblies and would be the ideal means of replacing 
capitalist hierarchy in industry by genuine economic freedom, i.e. 
worker's self-management of production (see 
<a href="secI3.html">section I.3</a>). Similarly, 
in the community we argue for popular assemblies (see 
<a href="secJ5.html#secj51">section J.5.1</a>) 
as a means of not only combating the power of the state but also 
replaced it with by free, self-managed, communities (see 
<a href="secI5.html">section I.5</a>).
<p>
Thus the current struggle itself creates the bridge between what is
and what could be:
<p><blockquote><i>
"Assembly and community must arise from within the revolutionary process 
itself; indeed, the revolutionary process must <b>be</b> the formation of 
assembly and community, and with it, the destruction of power. Assembly
and community must become 'fighting words,' not distant panaceas. They
must be created as <b>modes of struggle</b> against the existing society, 
not as theoretical or programmatic abstractions."</i> [Murray Bookchin, 
<b>Post-Scarcity Anarchism</b>, p. 104]
</blockquote><p>
This is not all. As well as fighting the state and capitalism, we also
need fight all other forms of oppression. This means that anarchists 
argue that we need to combat social hierarchies like racism and sexism 
as well as workplace hierarchy and economic class, that we need to oppose 
homophobia and religious hatred as well as the political state. Such 
oppressions and struggles are not diversions from the struggle against 
class oppression or capitalism but part and parcel of the struggle for 
human freedom and cannot be ignored without fatally harming it.
<p>
As part of that process, anarchists encourage and support all sections 
of the population to stand up for their humanity and individuality by
resisting racist, sexist and anti-gay activity and challenging such views 
in their everyday lives, everywhere (as Carole Pateman points out, <i>"sexual 
domination structures the workplace as well as the conjugal home"</i> [<b>The 
Sexual Contract</b>, p. 142]). It means a struggle of all working class people
against the internal and external tyrannies we face -- we must fight against 
own our prejudices while supporting those in struggle against our common 
enemies, no matter their sex, skin colour or sexuality. Lorenzo Kom'boa 
Ervin words on fighting racism are applicable to all forms of oppression:
<p><blockquote><i>
"Racism must be fought vigorously wherever it is found, even if in
our own ranks, and even in ones own breast. Accordingly, we must end the
system of white skin privilege which the bosses use to split the class, and
subject racially oppressed workers to super-exploitation. White workers,
especially those in the Western world, must resist the attempt to use one
section of the working class to help them advance, while holding back the
gains of another segment based on race or nationality. This kind of class
opportunism and capitulationism on the part of white labour must be directly
challenged and defeated. There can be no workers unity until the system of
super-exploitation and world White Supremacy is brought to an end."</i> 
[<b>Anarcho-syndicalists of the world unite</b>] 
</blockquote><p>
Progress towards equality can and has been made. While it is still true that 
(in the words of Emma Goldman) <i>"[n]owhere is woman treated according to the 
merit of her work, but rather as a sex"</i> [<b>Red Emma Speaks</b>, p. 177] and that
education is still patriarchal, with young women still often steered away 
from traditionally "male" courses of study and work (which teaches children 
that men and women are assigned different roles in society and sets them up 
to accept these limitations as they grow up) it is also true that the position 
of women, like that of blacks and gays, <b>has</b> improved. This is due to the 
various self-organised, self-liberation movements that have continually 
developed throughout history and these are <b>the</b> key to fighting oppression 
in the short term (and creating the potential for the long term solution of 
dismantling capitalism and the state).
<p>
Emma Goldman argued that emancipation begins <i>"in [a] woman's soul."</i> Only
by a process of internal emancipation, in which the oppressed get to know
their own value, respect themselves and their culture, can they be in a 
position to effectively combat (and overcome) external oppression and 
attitudes. Only when you respect yourself can you be in a position to
get others to respect you. Those men, whites and heterosexuals who are 
opposed to bigotry, inequality and injustice, must support oppressed 
groups and refuse to condone racist, sexist or homophobic attitudes 
and actions by others or themselves. For anarchists, <i>"not a single 
member of the Labour movement may with impunity be discriminated against, 
suppressed or ignored. . . Labour [and other] organisations must be built 
on the principle of equal liberty of all its members. This equality means 
that only if each worker is a free and independent unit, co-operating with 
the others from his or her mutual interests, can the whole labour 
organisation work successfully and become powerful."</i> [Lorenzo Kom'boa 
Ervin, <b>Op. Cit.</b>]
<p>
We must all treat people as equals, while at the same time respecting their
differences. Diversity is a strength and a source of joy, and anarchists
reject the idea that equality means conformity. By these methods, of
internal self-liberation and solidarity against external oppression, we
can fight against bigotry. Racism, sexism and homophobia can be reduced, 
perhaps almost eliminated, before a social revolution has occurred by those 
subject to them organising themselves, fighting back <b>autonomously</b> and 
refusing to be subjected to racial, sexual or anti-gay abuse or to allowing 
others to get away with it (which plays an essential role in making others
aware of their own attitudes and actions, attitudes they may even be
blind to!). 
<p>
The example of the <i><b>Mujeres Libres</b></i> (Free Women) in Spain during 
the 1930s shows what is possible. Women anarchists involved in the 
C.N.T. and F.A.I. organised themselves autonomously to raise the 
issue of sexism in the wider libertarian movement, to increase women's
involvement in libertarian organisations and help the process of 
women's self-liberation against male oppression. Along the way they 
also had to combat the (all too common) sexist attitudes of their 
"revolutionary" male fellow anarchists. Martha A. Ackelsberg's book 
<b>Free Women of Spain</b> is an excellent account of this movement and 
the issues it raises for all people concerned about freedom. Decades
latter, the women's movement of the 1960s and 1970s did much the same
thing, aiming to challenge the traditional sexism and patriarchy of 
capitalist society. They, too, formed their own organisations to fight
for their own needs as a group. Individuals worked together and drew 
strength for their own personal battles in the home and in wider
society. 
<p>
Another essential part of this process is for such autonomous groups
to actively support others in struggle (including members of the 
dominant race/sex/sexuality). Such practical solidarity and 
communication can, when combined with the radicalising effects of 
the struggle itself on those involved, help break down prejudice 
and bigotry, undermining the social hierarchies that oppress us 
all. For example, gay and lesbian groups supporting the 1984/5 
UK miners' strike resulted in such groups being given pride of 
place in many miners' marches. Another example is the great strike 
by Jewish immigrant workers in 1912 in London which occurred at the 
same time as a big London Dock Strike. <i>"The common struggle brought 
Jewish and non-Jewish workers together. Joint strike meetings were held, 
and the same speakers spoke at huge joint demonstrations."</i> The Jewish 
strike was a success, dealing a <i>"death-blow to the sweatshop system. The 
English workers looked at the Jewish workers with quite different eyes 
after this victory."</i> Yet the London dock strike continued and many dockers'
families were suffering real wants. The successful Jewish strikers started
a campaign <i>"to take some of the dockers' children into their homes."</i> This
practical support <i>"did a great deal to strengthen the friendship between
Jewish and non-Jewish workers."</i> [Rudolf Rocker, <b>London Years</b>, p. 129
and p. 131] This solidarity was repaid in October 1936, when the dockers
were at the forefront in stopping Mosley's fascist blackshirts marching
through Jewish areas (the famous battle of Cable street).
<p>
For whites, males and heterosexuals, the only anarchistic approach is to 
support others in struggle, refuse to tolerate bigotry in others and to 
root out their own fears and prejudices (while refusing to be uncritical 
of self-liberation struggles -- solidarity does not imply switching your 
brain off!). This obviously involves taking the issue of social oppression
into all working class organisations and activity, ensuring that no
oppressed group is marginalised within them. 
<p>
Only in this way can the hold of these social diseases be weakened and 
a better, non-hierarchical system be created. An injury to one is an 
injury to all. 

</html>
</body>