1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
|
<html>
<head>
<title> Section I - Introduction</title>
</head>
<body>
<h1>Section I - What would an anarchist society look like?</h1>
<p>
So far this FAQ has been largely critical, focusing on hierarchy,
capitalism, the state and so on, and the problems to which they have
led, as well as refuting some bogus "solutions" that have been offered
by authoritarians of both the right and the left. It is now time to
examine the constructive side of anarchism -- the libertarian-socialist
society that anarchists envision. This is important because anarchism
is essentially a <b>constructive</b> theory, in stark contradiction to the
picture of usually painted of anarchism as chaos or mindless destruction.
</p><p>
In this section of the FAQ we will give an outline of what an
anarchist society might look like. Such a society has basic features --
such as being non-hierarchical, decentralised and, above all else,
spontaneous like life itself. To quote Glenn Albrecht, anarchists <i>"lay
great stress on the free unfolding of a spontaneous order without the use
of external force or authority."</i> [<i>"Ethics, Anarchy and Sustainable
Development"</i>, pp. 95-117, <b>Anarchist Studies</b>, vol. 2, no. 2,
p. 110] This type of
development implies that anarchist society would be organised from the
simple to the complex, from the individual upwards to the community, the
bio-region and, ultimately, the planet. The resulting society, which
would be the outcome of nature freely unfolding toward greater
diversity and complexity, is ethically preferable to any other
sort of order simply because it allows for the highest degree of organic
solidarity and freedom. Kropotkin described this vision of a truly free
society as follows:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"We foresee millions and millions of groups freely constituting themselves
for the satisfaction of all the varied needs of human beings . . . All
these will be composed of human beings who will combine freely . . .
'Take pebbles,' said Fourier, 'put them in a box and shake them, and
they will arrange themselves in a mosaic that you could never get by
instructing to anyone the work of arranging them harmoniously.'"</i>
[<b>The Place of Anarchism in Socialistic Evolution</b>, pp. 11-12]
</blockquote></p><p>
Anarchist opposition to hierarchy is an essential part of a
"spontaneously ordered" society, for authority stops the free
development and growth of the individual. From this natural growth
of individuals, groups and society as a whole anarchists expect a
society which meets the needs of all -- for individual and social
freedom, material goods to meet physical needs and free and equal
social relationships that meet what could be termed "spiritual needs"
(i.e., mental and emotional wellbeing, creativity, ethical development
and so on). Any attempt to force society or individuals
into a pre-determined structure which restricts their liberty
will produce <b>dis</b>-order as natural balances and development
is hindered and distorted in anti-social and destructive directions.
Thus an anarchist society must be a free society of free individuals,
associating within libertarian structures, rather than a series of
competing hierarchies (be they political or economical). Only in
freedom can society and individuals develop and create a just and
fair world. In Proudhon's words, <i>"liberty is the mother of order,
not its daughter."</i>
</p><p>
As the individual does not exist in a social vacuum, appropriate
social conditions are required for individual freedom to develop and
blossom according to its full potential. The theory of anarchism
is built around the central assertion that individuals and their
organisations <b>cannot</b> be considered in isolation from each
other. That is, social structures shape us, <i>"that there is an
interrelationship between the authority structures of institutions and
the psychological qualities and attitudes of individuals"</i> and that
<i>"the major function of participation is an educative one."</i> [Carole
Pateman, <b>Participation and Democratic Theory</b>, p. 27] Anarchism
presents this position in its most coherent and libertarian form. In
other words, freedom is only sustained and protected by activity under
conditions of freedom, namely self-government. Freedom is the only
precondition for acquiring the maturity required for continued freedom:
<i>"Only in freedom can man grow to his full stature. Only in freedom
will be learn to think and move, and give the very best in him."</i>
[Emma Goldman, <b>Red Emma Speaks</b>, p. 72]
</p><p>
As individual freedom can only be created, developed and defended
by self-government and free association, a system which encourages
individuality must be decentralised and participatory in order for
people to develop a psychology that allows them to accept the
responsibilities of self-management. Living under the state or
any other authoritarian system produces a servile character, as
the individual is constantly placed under hierarchical authority,
which blunts their critical and self-governing abilities by lack
of use. Such a situation cannot promote freedom, and so anarchists
<i>"realise that power and authority corrupt those who exercise
them as much as those who are compelled to submit to them."</i>
[Bakunin, <b>The Political Philosophy of Bakunin</b>, p. 249]
</p><p>
Looking at capitalism, we find that under wage labour
people sell their creative energy and control over their
activity for a given period. The boss does not just take
surplus value from the time employees sell, but the time itself
-- their liberty, their ability to make their own decisions,
express themselves through work and with their fellow workers.
Wage labour equals wage slavery as you sell your time and skills
(i.e. liberty) everyday at work and you will never be able to
buy that time back for yourself. Once it is gone; it is gone for
good. It also generates, to quote Godwin, a <i>"sense of dependence"</i>
and a <i>"servile and truckling spirit"</i>, so ensuring that the
<i>"feudal spirit still survives that reduced the great mass of
mankind to the rank of slaves and cattle for the service of the
few."</i> [<b>The Anarchist Writings of William Godwin</b>,
pp. 125-6] This is why anarchists see the need to <i>"create
the situation where each person may live by working freely,
without being forced to sell his [or her] work and his [or her]
liberty to others who accumulate wealth by the labour of their
serfs."</i> [Kropotkin, <b>Words of a Rebel</b>, p. 208]
</p><p>
Thus the aim of anarchism is to create a society in which every
person <i>"should have the material and moral means to develop
his humanity"</i> and so to <i>"<b>organise society in such a
way that every individual . . . should find . . . approximately
equal means for the development of [their] various faculties
and for their utilisation in [their] work</b>; to create a
society which would place every individual . . . in such a
position that it would be impossible for [them] to exploit
the labour of anyone else"</i> and be <i>"enabled to participate
in the enjoyment of social wealth"</i> as long as they
<i>"contributed directly toward the production of that wealth."</i>
[Bakunin, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 409] As such, anarchists would
agree with George Orwell: <i>"The question is very simple. Shall
people . . . be allowed to live the decent, fully human life
which is now technically achievable, or shan't they? Shall the
common man be pushed back into the mud, or shall he not?"</i>
[<b>Orwell on Spain</b>, p. 361]
</p><p>
Anarchism, in summary, is about changing society and abolishing all
forms of authoritarian social relationship, putting life before the
soul-destroying "efficiency" needed to survive under capitalism;
for the anarchist <i>"takes his stand on his positive right to life
and all its pleasures, both intellectual, moral and physical. He
loves life, and intends to enjoy it to the full."</i> [Bakunin,
<b>Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings</b>, p. 101] Thus, to quote
Emma Goldman, <i>"all human-beings, irrespective of race, colour,
or sex, are born with the equal right to share at the table of life;
that to secure this right, there must be established among men economic,
social, and political freedom."</i> [<b>A Documentary History of the
American Years</b>, vol. 2, p. 450] This would be a classless and
non-hierarchical society, one without masters and servants, one based
on the free association of free individuals which encourages and
celebrates individuality and freedom:
</p><p>
<blockquote>
<i>"The phrase, 'a classless society', no doubt has terrors for
any thoughtful person. It calls up immediately the image of dull
mediocrity . . . all one uniform scale of self-sufficient
individuals, living in model-houses, travelling in uniform Fords
along endless uniform roads . . . But . . . the sharing of this
wealth would not produce a uniformity of life, simply because
there is no uniformity of desire. Uniformity is an unintelligent
nightmare; there can be no uniformity in a free human society.
Uniformity can only be created by the tyranny of a totalitarian
regime."</i> [Herbert Read, <b>Anarchy and Order</b>, pp. 87-8]
</blockquote>
</p><p>
Anarchists think that the essential social values are human values, and
that society is a complex of associations which express the wills of
their members, whose well-being is its purpose. We consider that it is
not enough that the forms of association should have the passive or
"implied" consent of their members, but that the society, and the
individuals who make it up, will be healthy only if it is in the full
sense libertarian, i.e. self-governing, self-managed, and egalitarian.
This implies not only that all the members should have a right to
influence its policy if they so desire, but that the greatest possible
opportunity should be afforded for every person to exercise this right.
Anarchism involves an active, not merely passive, citizenship on the part
of society's members and holds that this principle is not only applied to
some "special" sphere of social action called "politics" but to any and
every form of social action, including economic activity.
</p><p>
So, as will be seen, the key concept underlying both the social/political
and the economic structure of libertarian socialism is <i>"self-management,"</i>
a term that implies not only workers control of their workplaces
but also citizens' control of their communities (where it becomes
<i>"self-government"</i>), through direct democracy and voluntary federation.
Thus self-management is the positive implication of anarchism's
"negative" principle of opposition to hierarchical authority. For through
self-management, hierarchical authority is dissolved as self-managing
workplace and community assemblies/councils are decentralised, "horizontal"
organisations in which each participant has an equal voice in the
decisions that affect his or her life, instead of merely following orders
and being governed by others. Self-management, therefore, is the essential
condition for a world in which individuals will be free to follow their
own dreams, in their own ways, co-operating together as equals without
interference from any form of authoritarian power (such as government
or boss).
</p><p>
Perhaps needless to say, this section is intended as a heuristic device
<b>only</b>, as a way of helping readers envision how anarchist principles
might be embodied in practice. It is not (nor is it intended to be, nor is
it desired to be) a definitive statement of how they <b>must</b> be embodied.
The idea that a few people could determine exactly what a free society would
look like is contrary to the anarchist principles of free growth and thought,
and is far from our intention. Here we simply try to indicate some of the
structures that an anarchist society may contain, based on the what ideals
and ideas anarchists hold, informed by the few examples of anarchy in action
that have existed and our critical evaluation of their limitations and successes.
As Herbert Read once put it, <i>"it is always a mistake to build <b>a priori</b>
constitutions. The main thing is to establish your principles -- the principles
of equity, of individual freedom, of workers' control. The community then aims
at the establishment of these principles from the starting-point of local needs
and local conditions."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 51]
</p><p>
Moreover, we must remember that, the state has changed over time and, indeed,
has not always existed. Thus it is possible to have a social organisation
which is not a state and to confuse the two would be a <i>"confusion"</i>
made by those <i>"who cannot visualise Society without a concentration of the
State."</i> Yet this <i>"is to overlook the fact that Man lived in Societies
for thousands of years before the State had been heard of"</i> and that
<i>"large numbers of people [have] lived in communes and free federations."</i>
These were not states as the state <i>"is only one of the forms assumed by
society in the course of history. Why then make no distinction between what
is permanent and what is accidental?"</i> [Kropotkin, <b>The State: Its
Historic Role</b>, pp. 9-10] Similarly, the axioms of capitalist economics
<b>not</b> withstanding, capitalism is but latest of a series of economies.
Just as serfdom replaced slavery and capitalism replaced serfdom, so
free (associated) labour can replace hired labour. As Proudhon noted,
the <i>"period through which we are now passing . . . is distinguished
by a special characteristic, - WAGES."</i> Capitalism, this system
of wage-labour, has not always existed nor need it continue. Thus
<i>"the radical vice of political economy"</i>, namely <i>"affirming as a
definitive state a transitory condition - namely, the division of society
into patricians and proletares."</i> [<b>System of Economic Contradictions</b>,
p. 198 and p. 67] Anarchists seek to make that transitory condition shorter
rather than longer.
</p><p>
Ultimately, a free society based on self-managed communities and associated
labour is, in many ways, a natural evolution of tendencies <b>within</b>
existing society. For example, the means of production can only be used
collectively, so suggesting that relations of equality and freedom based
on associations of workers are a sensible alternative to ones based on
hierarchy, exploitation and oppression based on masters and servants.
It is the struggle against those oppressive social relationships which
creates the very associations (workplace strike assemblies) which could
expropriate the workplaces and make that possibility a reality.
</p><p>
So an anarchist society will not be created overnight nor without
links to the past, and so it will initially be based on structures
created in social struggle (i.e. created <b>within</b> but
<b>against</b> capitalism and the state) and will be marked
with the ideas that inspired and developed within that struggle.
For example, the anarchist collectives in Spain were organised in
a bottom-up manner, similar to the way the C.N.T. (the
anarcho-syndicalist labour union) was organised before the
revolution. In this sense, anarchy is not some distant goal
but rather an expression of working class struggle. The creation
of alternatives to the current hierarchical, oppressive, exploitative
and alienated society is a necessary part of the struggle and
the maintaining of your liberty and humanity in the insane world of
hierarchical society. As such, an anarchist society will be the
generalisation of the various types of <b><i>"anarchy in action"</i></b>
created in the various struggles against all forms of oppression and
exploitation (see <a href="secI2.html#seci23">section I.2.3</a>).
</p><p>
This means that how an anarchist society would look like and work is not
independent of the specific societies it is created from nor the means
used to create it. In other words, an anarchist society will reflect
the economic conditions inherited from capitalism, the social struggles
which preceded it and the ideas which existed within that struggle
as modified by the practical needs of any given situation. Therefore
the vision of a free society indicated in this section of the
FAQ is not some sort of abstraction which will be created
overnight. If anarchists did think that then we would rightly be
called utopian. No, an anarchist society is the outcome of social
struggle, self-activity which helps to create a mass movement which
contains individuals who can think for themselves and are willing and able
to take responsibility for their own lives.
</p><p>
So, when reading this section please remember that this is not a blueprint
but only possible suggestions of what anarchy would look like. It is
designed to provoke thought and indicate that an anarchist society is
possible. We hope that our arguments and ideas presented in this
section will inspire more debate and discussion of how a free society
could work and, equally as important, help to inspire the struggle which
will create that society. After all, anarchists desire to build the new world
in the shell of the old. Unless we have some idea of what that new society
will be like it is difficult to pre-figure it in our activities today! A point
not lost on Kropotkin who argued that it is difficult to build <i>"without
extremely careful consideration beforehand, based on the study of social
life, of <b>what</b> and <b>how</b> we want to build -- we must reject
[Proudhon's] slogan [that "in demolishing we shall build"] . . .
and declare: 'in building we shall demolish.'"</i> [<b>Conquest of
Bread</b>, p. 173f] More recently, Noam Chomsky argued that <i>"[a]lternatives
to existing forms of hierarchy, domination, private power and social control
certainly exist in principle. . . But to make them realistic will require a
great deal of committed work, including the work of articulating them
clearly."</i> [Noam Chomsky, <b>Turning the Tide</b>, p. 250] This
section of the FAQ can be considered as a contribution to the articulating
of libertarian alternatives to existing society, of what we want to build
for the future.
</p><p>
We are not afraid that many will argue that much of the vision we present
in this section of the FAQ is utopian. Perhaps they are right, but, as
Oscar Wilde once said:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth glancing at,
for it leaves out the one country at which Humanity is always landing. And
when Humanity lands there, it looks out and, seeing a better country, sets
sail. Progress is the realisation of Utopias."</i> [<b>The Soul of Man Under
Socialism</b>, p. 1184]
</blockquote></p><p>
However, we have attempted to be as practical as we are visionary, presenting
realistic problems as well as presenting evidence for our solutions to these
problems from real life where possible, rather than present a series of
impossible assumptions which dismiss possible problems by definition.
It is better to consider the worse possible cases for if they do not appear
then nothing has been lost and if they do at least we have a starting point
for possible solutions. So, all in all, we have tried to be practical utopians!
</p><p>
We must stress, however, that anarchists do not want a "perfect" society
(as is often associated with the term <i>"utopia"</i>). This would be as
impossible as the neo-classical economic vision of perfect competition. Rather
we want a free society and so one based on real human beings and so one with its
own problems and difficulties. Our use of the word <i>"utopia"</i> should not
be taken to imply that anarchists assume away all problems and argue
that an anarchist society would be ideal and perfect. No society has ever
been perfect and no society ever will be. All we argue is that an anarchist
society will have fewer problems than those before and be better to live
within. Anyone looking for perfection should look elsewhere. Anyone
looking for a better, but still human and so imperfect, world may find
in anarchism a potential end for their quest.
</p><p>
So anarchists are realistic in their hopes and dreams. We do not conjure
up hopes that cannot achieved but rather base our visions in an analysis
of what is wrong with society today and a means of changing the world for
the better. And even if some people call us utopians, we shrug off the
accusation with a smile. After all, dreams are important, not only because
they often the source of change in reality but because of the hope they
express:
<blockquote><i>
"People may . . . call us dreamers . . . They fail to see that dreams are
also a part of the reality of life, that life without dreams would be
unbearable. No change in our way of life would be possible without dreams
and dreamers. The only people who are never disappointed are those who
never hope and never try to realise their hope."</i> [Rudolf Rocker, <b>The
London Years</b>, p. 95]
</blockquote></p><p>
One last point. We must point out here that we are discussing the social
and economic structures of areas within which the inhabitants are
predominately anarchists. It is obviously the case that areas in which
the inhabitants are not anarchists will take on different forms depending
upon the ideas that dominate there. Hence, assuming the end of the current
state structure, we could see anarchist communities along with statist
ones (capitalist or socialist) and these communities taking different
forms depending on what their inhabitants want -- communist to individualist
communities in the case of anarchist ones, state socialist to private state
communities in the statist areas, ones based on religious sects and so
on. As Malatesta argued, anarchists <i>"must be intransigent in our opposition
to all capitalist imposition and exploitation, and tolerant of all social
concepts which prevail in different human groupings, so long as they
do not threaten the equal rights and freedom of others."</i> [<b>Errico
Malatesta: His Life and Ideas</b>, p. 174] Thus we respect the wishes
of others to experiment and live their own lives as they see fit,
while encouraging those in capitalist and other statist communities
to rise in revolution against their masters and join the free federation
of the anarchist community. Needless to say, we do not discuss non-anarchist
communities here as it is up to non-anarchists to present their arguments in
favour of their kind of statism.
</p><p>
So remember that we are not arguing that everyone will live in an
anarchist way in a free society. Far from it. There will be pockets
of unfreedom around, simply because the development of ideas varies
from area to area. Anarchists, needless to say, are against forcing
people to become anarchists (how can you force someone to be free?)
Our aim is to encourage those subject to authority to free themselves
and to work with them to create an anarchist society but, obviously,
how successful we are at this will vary. We can, therefore,
expect areas of freedom to co-exist with areas dominated by, say,
state socialism, religion or capitalism just as we can expect to
see different kinds of anarchism co-existing.
</p><p>
However, it would be a mistake to assume that just because there
are many choices of community available that it automatically
makes a society an anarchist one. For example, the modern world boasts
over 200 different states. For most of them, individuals can leave and
join another if it will let them. There is no world government as such.
This does not make this series of states an anarchy. Similarly, a system
based on different corporations is not an anarchy either, nor would be
one based on a series of company towns and neither would a (quasi-feudal
or neo-feudal?) system based on a multitude of landlords who hire their
land and workplaces to workers in return for rent. The nature of
the associations is just as important as their voluntary nature. As
Kropotkin argued, the <i>"communes of the next revolution will not only
break down the state and substitute free federation for parliamentary
rule; they will part with parliamentary rule within the commune itself
. . . They will be anarchist within the commune as they will be anarchist
outside it."</i> [<b>Selected Writings on Anarchism and Revolution</b>,
p. 132] Hence an anarchist society is one that is freely joined and left,
is internally non-hierarchical and non-oppressive and non-exploitative.
Thus anarchist communities may co-exist with non-anarchist ones but this
does <b>not</b> mean the non-anarchist ones are in any way anarchistic or
libertarian.
</p><p>
To conclude. Anarchists, to state the blindly obvious, do not aim for chaos,
anarchy in the popular sense of the word (George Orwell once noted how one
right-wing author <i>"use[d] 'Anarchism' indifferently with 'anarchy',
which is a hardly more correct use of words than saying that a Conservative
is one who makes jam."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 298]). Nor do
anarchists reject any discussion of what a free society would be like
(such a rejection is usually based on the somewhat spurious grounds
that you cannot prescribe what free people would do). In fact, anarchists
have quite strong opinions on the basic outlines of a free society, always
premised on the assumption that these are guidelines only. These suggestions
are based on libertarian principles, developments in the class struggle
and a keen awareness of what is wrong with class and hierarchical systems
(and so what <b>not</b> to do!).
</p><p>
When reading this section of the FAQ remember that an anarchist society
will be created by the autonomous actions of the mass of the population,
not by anarchists writing books about it. This means any real anarchist
society will make many mistakes and develop in ways we cannot predict.
This implies that this is only a series of suggestions on how things
<b>could</b> work in an anarchist society -- it is <b>not</b> a blueprint
of any kind. All anarchists can do is present what we believe and why we
think such a vision is both desirable <b>and</b> viable. We hope that
our arguments and ideas presented in this section of the FAQ will inspire
more debate and discussion of how a free society would work. In addition,
and equally as important, we hope it will help inspire the struggle that
will create that society.
</p>
</body>
</html>
|
