File: secJ1.html

package info (click to toggle)
anarchism 8.0-2
links: PTS
area: main
in suites: potato
size: 7,880 kB
ctags: 313
sloc: makefile: 40; sh: 8
file content (565 lines) | stat: -rw-r--r-- 33,799 bytes
<HTML>
<HEAD>

<TITLE>J.1 Are anarchists involved in social struggles?</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<H1>J.1 Are anarchists involved in social struggles?</H1>
<p>
Yes. Anarchism, above all else, is a movement which aims to not only
analyse the world but also to change it. Therefore anarchists aim to
participate in and encourage social struggle. Social struggle includes
strikes, marches, protests, demonstrations, boycotts, occupations and so
on. Such activities show that the <i>"spirit of revolt"</i> is alive and well,
that people are thinking and acting for themselves and against what
authorities want them to do. This, in the eyes of anarchists, plays a
key role in helping create the seeds of anarchy within capitalism.
<p>
Anarchists consider socialistic tendencies to develop within society, as
people see the benefits of cooperation and particularly when mutual aid
develops within the struggle against authority, oppression and
exploitation. Therefore, anarchists do not place anarchy abstractly against
capitalism, but see it as a tendency within (and against) the system - a
tendency which can be developed to such a degree that it can <b>replace</b>
the dominant structures and social relationships with new, more liberatory 
and humane ones. This perspective indicates why anarchists are involved
in social struggle - they are an expression of this tendency within but
against capitalism which can ultimately replace it.
<p>
As we will see later (in section <a href="secJ2.html">J.2</a>) anarchists encourage direct action
within social struggles as well as arguing anarchist ideas and theories.
However, what is important to note here is that social struggle is a sign 
that people are thinking and acting for themselves and working together to
change things. Anarchists agree with Howard Zinn when he points out that:
<p>
<i>"civil disobedience. . . is <b>not</b> our problem. Our problem is civil
<b>obedience.</b> Our problem is that numbers of people all over the world
have obeyed the dictates of the leaders of their government and have
gone to war, and millions have been killed because of this obedience. . .
Our problem is that people are obedient all over the world in the face
of poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war, and cruelty. Our
problem is that people are obedient while the jails are full of petty
thieves, and all the while the grand thieves are running the country.
That's our problem."</i> [<b>Failure to Quit</b>, p. 45]
<p>
Therefore, social struggle is an important thing for anarchists and we
take part in it as much as we can. Moreover, anarchists do more than just
take part. We are fighting to get rid of the system that causes the
problems which people fight again. We explain anarchism to those who are
involved in struggle with us and seek to show the relevance of anarchism to 
people's everyday lives through our work in such struggles and the popular
organisations which they create (in addition to trade unions, campaigning 
groups and other bodies). By so doing we try to popularise the ideas and
methods of anarchism, namely solidarity, direct democracy and direct action.
<p>
Anarchists don't engage in abstract propaganda (become an anarchist, wait for
the revolution). We know that our ideas will only win a hearing and respect 
when we can show both their relevance to people's lives in the here and now,
and show that an anarchist world is both possible and desirable. In other
words, social struggle is the "school" of anarchism, the means by which
people become anarchists and anarchist ideas are applied in action. Hence 
the importance of social struggle and anarchist participation within it.
<p>
Before discussing issues related to social struggle, it is important to
point out here that anarchists are interested in struggles against all
forms of oppression and do not limit ourselves to purely economic issues. 
The exploitative nature of the capitalist system is only part of the story 
- other forms of oppression are needed in order to keep it going and have 
resulted from its workings. Like the bug in work, exploitation and oppression 
soon spreads and invests our homes, our friendships and our communities.
<p>
Therefore, anarchists are convinced that human life (and the struggle against
oppression) cannot be reduced to mere money and, indeed, the <i>"proclivity
for economic reductionism is now actually obscurantist. It not only shares
in the bourgeois tendency to render material egotism and class interest
the centrepieces of history it also denigrates all attempts to transcend
this image of humanity as a mere economic being. . . by depicting them as
mere 'marginalia' at best, as 'well-intentioned middle-class ideology' at
worse, or sneeringly, as 'diversionary,' 'utopian,' and 'unrealistic.' . . .
Capitalism, to be sure, did not create the 'economy' or 'class interest,' 
but it subverted all human traits - be they speculative thought, love,
community, friendship, art, or self-governance - with the authority of
economic calculation and the rule of quantity. Its 'bottom line' is the
balance sheet's sum and its basic vocabulary consists of simple numbers."</i>
[Murray Bookchin, <b>The Modern Crisis</b>, pp. 125-126]
<p>
In other words, issues such as freedom, justice, individual dignity, quality
of life and so on cannot be reduced to the categories of capitalist economics.
Anarchists think that any radical movement which does so fails to understand
the nature of the system they are fighting against. Indeed, economic
reductionism plays into the hands of capitalist ideology. So, when anarchists
take part in and encourage social struggle they do not aim to restrict or
reduce them to economic issues (however important these are). The anarchist
knows that the individual has more interests than just money and we consider
it essential to take into account the needs of the emotions, mind and spirit
just as much as those of the belly.
<p>
As the anarchist character created by the science-fiction writer Ursula
Le Guin (who is an anarchist) points out, capitalists <i>"think if people have
enough things they will be content to live in prison."</i> [<b>The Dispossessed</b>,
p. 120] Anarchists disagree, and the experience of social revolt in the
"affluent" 1960s proves their case.
<p>
This is unsurprising for, ultimately, the <i>"antagonism [between classes] is 
spiritual rather than material. There will never be a sincere understanding 
between bosses and workers. . . because the bosses above all want to remain
bosses and secure always more power at the expense of the workers, as well 
as by competition with other bosses, whereas the workers have had their fill
of bosses and don't want any more."</i> [Errico Malatesta, <b>Life and Ideas</b>,
p. 79]
<p>
<a name="secj11"><h2>J.1.1 Why are social struggles important?</h2>
<p>
Social struggle is an expression of the class struggle, namely the struggle 
of working class people <b>against</b> their exploitation, oppression and
alienation and <b>for</b> their liberty from capitalist and state authority.
It is what happens when one group of people have hierarchical power over
another. Where there is oppression, there is resistance and where there
is resistance to authority you will see anarchy in action. For this reason
anarchists are in favour of, and are involved within, social struggles.
Ultimately they are a sign of individuals asserting their autonomy and
disgust at an unfair system.
<p>
When it boils down to it, our actual freedom is not determined by the law
or by courts, but by the power the cop has over us in the street; the
judge behind him; by the authority of our boss if we are working; by the
power of teachers and heads of schools and universities if we are students; 
by the welfare bureaucracy if we are unemployed or poor; by landlords if we 
are tenants; by prison guards if we are in jail; by medical professionals if
we are in a hospital. These realities of wealth and power will remain unshaken
unless counter-forces appear on the very ground our liberty is restricted 
- on the street, in workplaces, at home, at school, in hospitals and so
on.
<p>
Therefore social struggles for improvements are important indications of
the spirit of revolt and of people supporting each other in the continual
assertion of their (and our) freedom. They show people standing up for
what they consider right and just, building alternative organisations,
creating their own solutions to their problems - and are a slap in the
face of all the paternal authorities which dare govern us. Hence their
importance to anarchists and all people interested in extending freedom.
<p>
In addition, social struggle helps break people from their hierarchical
conditioning. Anarchists view people not as fixed objects to be classified
and labeled, but as human beings engaged in making their own lives. They
live, love, think, feel, hope, dream, and can change themselves, their
environment and social relationships. Social struggle is the way this
is done collectively.
<p>
Struggle promotes attributes within people which are crushed by hierarchy 
(attributes such as imagination, organisational skills, self-assertion,
self-management, critical thought, self-confidence and so on) as people
come up against practical problems in their struggles and have to solve
them themselves. This builds self-confidence and an awareness of
individual and collective power. By seeing that their boss, the state
and so on are against them they begin to realise that they live in a
class ridden, hierarchical society that depends upon their submission
to work. As such, social struggle is a politicising experience.
<p>
Struggle allows those involved to develop their abilities for self-rule
through practice and so begins the process by which individuals assert
their ability to control their own lives and to participate in social life 
directly. These are all key elements of anarchism and are required for
an anarchist society to work. So self-activity is a key factor in
self-liberation, self-education and the creating of anarchists. In a 
nutshell, people learn in struggle.
<p>
A confident working class is an essential factor in making successful
and libertarian improvements within the current system and, ultimately, in
making a revolution. Without that self-confidence people tend to just
follow "leaders" and we end up changing rulers rather than changing
society.
<p>
Part of our job as anarchists is to encourage people to fight for
whatever small reforms are possible at present, to improve our/their
conditions, to give people confidence in their ability to start taking
control of their lives, and to point out that there is a limit to whatever
(sometimes temporary) gains capitalism will or can concede. Hence the need
for a revolutionary change.
<p>
Until anarchist ideas are the dominant/most popular ones, other ideas will
be the majority ones. If we think a movement is, all things considered, a
positive or progressive one then we should not abstain but should seek to
popularise anarchist ideas and strategies within it. In this way we create
<i><b>"schools of anarchy"</i></b> within the current system and lay the foundations of
something better.
<p>
Hence the importance of social (or class) struggle for anarchists (which,
we may add, goes on all the time and is a two-sided affair). Social struggle
is the means of breaking the normality of capitalist and statist live, a
means of developing the awareness for social change and the means of
making life better under the current system. The moment that people refuse 
to bow to authority, it ceases to exist. Social struggle indicates that
some of the oppressed see that by using their power of disobedience they
can challenge, perhaps eventually end, hierarchical power.
<p>
Ultimately, anarchy is not just something you believe in, it is not a cool 
label you affix to yourself, it's something you do. You participate. If you 
stop doing it, anarchy crumbles. Social struggle is the means by which we 
ensure that anarchy becomes stronger and grows.
<p>
<a name="secj12"><h2>J.1.2 Are anarchists against reforms?</h2>
<p>
No, we are not. While most anarchists are against reformism (namely the
notion that we can somehow reform capitalism and the state away) they are
most definitely in favour of reforms (i.e. improvements in the here and now).
<p>
The claim that anarchists are against reforms and improvements in the here
and now are often put forth by opponents of anarchism in an effort to paint 
us as extremists. Anarchists are radicals; as such, they seek the root causes
of societal problems. Reformists seek to ameliorate the symptoms of societal
problems, while anarchists focus on the causes.
<p>
For example, a reformist sees poverty and looks at ways to lessen the
destructive and debilitating effects of it: this produced things like the
minimum wage, affirmative action, and the projects in the USA and similar
reforms in other countries. An anarchist looks at poverty and says, "what 
causes this?" and attacks that source of poverty, rather than the symptoms. 
While reformists may succeed in the short run with their institutional
panaceas, the festering problems remain untreated, dooming reform to
eventual costly, inevitable failure--measured in human lives, no less. 
Like a quack that treats the symptoms of a disease without getting rid of 
what causes it, all the reformist can promise is short-term improvements 
for a condition that never goes away and may ultimately kill the sufferer.
The anarchist, like a real doctor, investigates the causes of the illness
and treats them while fighting the symptoms.
<p>
Therefore, anarchists are of the opinion that <i>"[w]hile preaching against
every kind of government, and demanding complete freedom, we must 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. We must always be with the people. . . [and] get
them to understand. . . [what] they may demand should be obtained
by their own efforts and that they should despise and detest whoever is
part of, or aspires to, government."</i> [Errico Malatesta, <b>Life and Ideas</b>
p. 195]
<p>
Anarchists keep the spotlight on the actual problems, which of course
alienates them from their "distinguished" reformists foes. Reformists are
uniformly "reasonable" and always make use of "experts" who will make
everything okay - and they are always wrong in how they deal with a problem.
<p>
The recent "health care crisis" in the United States is a prime example of
reformism at work...
<p>
The reformist says, <i>"how can we make health care more affordable to people? 
How can we keep those insurance rates down to levels people can pay?"</i>
<p>
The anarchist says, <i>"should health care be considered a privilege or
a right? Is medical care just another marketable commodity, or do living
beings have an inalienable right to it?"</i>
<p>
Notice the difference? The reformist has no problem with people paying for
medical care-business is business, right? The anarchist, on the other hand,
has a big problem with that attitude - we're talking about human lives, here!
For now, the reformists have won with their "managed care" reformism, which
ensures that the insurance companies and medical industry continue to rake
in record profits - at the expense of people's lives.
<p>
Reformists get acutely uncomfortable when you talk about genuinely bringing
change to any system - they don't see anything wrong with the system itself,
only with a few pesky side effects. In this sense, they are stewards of the
Establishment, and are agents of reaction, despite their altruistic
overtures. By failing to attack the sources of problems, and by hindering
those who do, they ensure that the problems at hand will only grow over
time, and not diminish.
<p>
So, anarchists are not opposed to struggles for reforms and improvements
in the here and now. Indeed, few anarchists think that an anarchist society 
will occur without a long period of anarchist activity encouraging and
working within social struggle against injustice. Thus Malatesta's words:
<p>
<i>"the subject is not whether we accomplish Anarchism today, tomorrow or
within ten centuries, but that we walk towards Anarchism today, tomorrow
and always."</i> [<i>"Towards Anarchism,"</i>, <b>Man!</b>, M. Graham (ed.), p. 75]
<p>
So, when fighting for improvements anarchists do so in an anarchist way,
one that encourages self-management, direct action and the creation of
libertarian solutions and alternatives to both capitalism and the state.
<p>
<a name="secj13"><h2>J.1.3 Why are anarchists against reformism?</h2>
<p>
Firstly, it must be pointed out that the struggle for reforms within
capitalism is <b>not</b> the same as reformism. Reformism is the idea
that reforms within capitalism are enough in themselves and
attempts to change the system are impossible (and not desirable).
As such all anarchists are against this form of reformism - we think 
that the system can be (and should be) changed.
<p>
In addition, particularly in the old social democratic labour movement,
reformism also meant the belief that social reforms could be used to
<b>transform</b> capitalism into socialism. In this sense, only the Individualist
anarchists and Mutualists can be considered reformist as they think
their system of mutual banking can reform capitalism into a cooperative
system. However, in contrast to Social Democracy, such anarchists
think that such reforms cannot come about via government action, but
only by people creating their own alternatives and solutions by their
own actions.
<p>
So, anarchists oppose reformism because it takes the steam out of revolutionary
movements by providing easy, decidedly short-term "solutions" to deep social
problems. In this way, reformists can present the public with they've done
and say "look, all is better now. The system worked." Trouble is that over
time, the problems will only continue to grow, because the reforms didn't
tackle them in the first place.
<p>
Reformists also tend to objectify the people whom they are "helping;" they 
envision them as helpless, formless masses who need the wisdom and guidance 
of the "best and the brightest" to lead them to the Promised Land. Reformists
mean well, but this is altruism borne of ignorance, which is destructive over
the long run. As Malatesta put it, <i>"[i]t is not true to say . . . [that
anarchists] are systematically opposed to improvements, to reforms. They
oppose the reformists on the one hand because their methods are less
effective for securing reforms from government and employers, who only give
in through fear, and because very often the reforms they prefer are those
which not only bring doubtful immediate benefits, but also serve to
consolidate the existing regime and to give the workers a vested interest
in its continued existence."</i> [<b>Life and Ideas</b>, p. 81]
<p>
Reformists are scared of revolutionaries, who are not easily controlled;
what reformism amounts to is an altruistic contempt for the masses.
Reformists mean well, but they don't grasp the larger picture--by focusing
exclusively on narrow aspects of a problem, they choose to believe that is
the whole problem. In this willfully narrow examination of pressing social
ills, reformists are, in effect, counter-revolutionary. The disaster of the
urban rebuilding projects in the United States (and similar projects in
Britain which moved inter-city working class communities into edge of
town developments during the 1950s and 1960s) are an example of reformism 
at work: upset at the growing slums, reformists supported projects that
destroyed the ghettos and built brand-new housing for working class people 
to live in. They looked nice (initially), but they did nothing to
address the problem of poverty and indeed created more problems by
breaking up communities and neighbourhoods.
<p>
Logically, it makes no sense. Why dance around a problem when you can attack
it directly? Reformists dilute revolutionary movements, softening and
weakening them over time. The AFL-CIO labour unions in the USA, like the
ones in Western Europe, killed the labour movement by narrowing and channeling
labour activity and taking the power from the workers themselves, where it 
belongs, and placing it the hands of a bureaucracy. And that's precisely
what reformists do; they suck the life from social movements until the
people who are supposed to be in a better situation because of the reformists
end up in a worse situation.
<p>
Reformists say, "don't do anything, we'll do it for you." You can see why
anarchists would loathe this sentiment; anarchists are the consummate
do-it-yourselfers, and there's nothing reformists hate more than people who
can take care of themselves, who won't let them "help" them.
<p>
Also, it is funny to hear left-wing "revolutionaries" and "radicals" put
forward the reformist line that the capitalist state can help working people
(indeed be used to abolish itself!). Despite the fact that leftists blame 
the state and capitalism for most of the problems we face, they usually
turn to the state (run primarily by rich - i.e. capitalist - people) to
remedy the situation, not by leaving people alone, but by becoming more
involved in people's lives. They support government housing, government
jobs, welfare, government-funded and regulated child care, government-funded
drug "treatment," and other government-centered programmes and activities. If
a capitalist (and racist/sexist/authoritarian) government is the problem, 
how can it be depended upon to change things to the benefit of working class
people or other oppressed sections of the population like blacks and women? 
<p>
Instead of encouraging working class people to organise themselves and
create their own alternatives and solutions to their problem (which can
supplement, and ultimately replace, whatever welfare state activity which 
is actually useful), reformists and other radicals urge people to get the 
state to act for them. However, the state is not the community and so
whatever the state does for people you can be sure it will be in <b>its</b>
interests, not theirs. As Kropotkin put it:
<p>
<i>"each step towards economic freedom, each victory won over capitalism will
be at the same time a step towards political liberty - towards liberation
from the yoke of the state. . . And each step towards taking from the
State any one of its powers and attributes will be helping the masses to
win a victory over capitalism."</i> [<b>Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets</b>,
pp. 181-2]
<p>
Getting the state out of the way is the only thing that will lead to the
changes that can produce an improvement in the lives of working class people.
Encouraging people to rely on themselves instead of the state can lead to 
self-sufficient, independent, and, hopefully, more rebellious people - people
who will rebel against the real evils in society (capitalist and statist
exploitation and oppression, racism, sexism, ecological destruction, and
so on) and not their neighbours.
<p>
Working class people, despite having fewer options in a number of areas in 
their lives, due both to hierarchy and restrictive laws, still are capable 
of making choices about their actions, organising their own lives and are 
responsible for the consequences of their decisions, just as other people 
are. To think otherwise is to infantilise them, to consider them less fully 
human than other people and reproduce the classic capitalist vision of
working class people as means of production, to be used, abused, and
discarded as required. Such thinking lays the basis for paternalistic
interventions in their lives by the state, ensuring their continued dependence
and poverty and the continued existence of capitalism and the state.
<p>
Ultimately, there are two options:
<p>
<i>"The oppressed either ask for and welcome improvements as a benefit
graciously conceded, recognise the legitimacy of the power which is over
them, and so do more harm than good by helping to slow down, or divert . . .
the processes of emancipation. Or instead they demand and impose improvements
by their action, and welcome them as partial victories over the class
enemy, using them as a spur to greater achievements, and thus a valid
help and a preparation to the total overthrow of privilege, that is,
for the revolution."</i> [Errico Malatesta, <b>Ibid.</b>, p. 81]
<p>
Reformism encourages the first attitude within people and so ensures the
impoverishment of the human spirit. Anarchism encourages the second
attitude and so ensures the enrichment of humanity and the possibility
of meaningful change. Why think that ordinary people cannot arrange
their lives for themselves as well as Government people can arrange it
not for themselves but for others?
<p>
<a name="secj14"><h2>J.1.4 What attitude do anarchists take to "single-issue" campaigns?</h2>
<p>
Firstly, we must note that anarchists do take part in "single-issue"
campaigns, but do not nourish false hopes in them. This section
explains what anarchists think of such campaigns.
<p>
A "single-issue" campaign are usually run by a pressure group which
concentrates on tackling issues one at a time. For example, C.N.D.
(The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) is a classic example of
"single-issue" campaigning with the aim of getting rid of nuclear
weapons as the be all and end all of its activity. For anarchists,
however, single-issue campaigning can be seen as a source of false
hopes. The possibilities of changing one aspect of a totally
inter-related system and the belief that pressure groups can
compete fairly with transnational corporations, the military and
so forth, in their influence over decision making bodies can both
be seen to be optimistic at best.
<p>
In addition, many "single-issue" campaigns desire to be "apolitical",
concentrating purely on the one issue which unites the campaign and
so refuse to analyze or discuss the system they are trying to change.
This means that they end up accepting the system which causes the
problems they are fighting against. At best, any changes
achieved by the campaign must be acceptable to the establishment
or be so watered down in content that no practical long-term good
is done.
<p>
This can be seen from the green movement, where groups like
Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth accept the status quo as a given
and limit themselves to working within it. This often leads to them
tailoring their "solutions" to be "practical" within a fundamentally
anti-ecological political and economic system, so slowing down (at
best) ecological disruption.
<p>
For anarchists these problems all stem from the fact that social
problems cannot be solved as single issues. As Larry Law argues
<i>"single issue politics. . .deals with the issue or problem in
isolation. When one problem is separated from all other problems,
a solution really is impossible. The more campaigning on an issue
there is, the narrower its perspectives become. . .As the perspective
of each issue narrows, the contradictions turn into absurdities. . .
What single issue politics does is attend to 'symptoms' but does
not attack the 'disease' itself. It presents such issues as nuclear
war, racial and sexual discrimination, poverty, starvation, pornography,
etc., as if they were aberrations or faults in the system. In reality
such problems are the inevitable consequence of a social order based
on exploitation and hierarchical power. . .single issue campaigns
lay their appeal for relief at the feet of the very system which
oppresses them. By petitioning they acknowledge the right of those
in power to exercise that power as they choose"</i> [<b>Bigger Cages, Longer
Chains</b>, pp. 17-20].
<p>
Single issue politics often prolong the struggle for a free society
by fostering illusions that it is just parts of the capitalist system
which are wrong, not the whole of it, and that those at the top of
the system can, and will, act in our interests. While such campaigns
can do some good, practical, work and increase knowledge and education
about social problems, they are limited by their very nature and can
not lead to extensive improvements in the here and now, nevermind a
free society.
<p>
Therefore, anarchists often support and work within single-issue
campaigns, trying to get them to use effective methods of activity
(such as direct action), work in an anarchistic manner (i.e. from
the bottom up) and to try to "politicise" them into questioning
the whole of the system. However, anarchists do not let themselves
be limited to such activity as a social revolution or movement is
not a group of single-issue campaigns but a mass movement which
understands the inter-related nature of social problems and so the
need to change every aspect of life.
<p>
<a name="secj15"><h2>J.1.5 Why do anarchists try to generalise social struggles?
</h2><p>
Basically, we do it in order to encourage and promote solidarity. This
is <b>the</b> key to winning struggles in the here and now as well as creating 
the class consciousness necessary to create an anarchist society. At its
most simple, generalising different struggles means increasing the chances 
of winning them. Take, for example, a strike in which one trade or one
workplace goes on strike while the others continue to work:
<p>
<i>"Consider yourself how foolish and inefficient is the present form of labour
organisation in which one trade or craft may be on strike while the other
branches of the same industry continue to work. Is it not ridiculous that
when the street car workers of New York, for instance, quit work, the
employees of the subway, the cab and omnibus drivers remain on the job? . . .
It is clear, then, that you compel compliance [from your bosses] only when
you are determined, when your union is strong, when you are well organised,
when you are united in such a manner that the boss cannot run his factory
against your will. But the employer is usually some big . . . company that
has mills or mines in various places. . . If it cannot operate . . . in
Pennsylvania because of a strike, it will try to make good its losses by
continuing . . . and increasing production [elsewhere]. . . In that way
the company . . breaks the strike."</i> [Alexander Berkman, <b>The ABC of
Anarchism</b>, pp. 53-54]
<p>
By organising all workers in one union (after all they all have the same
boss) it increases the power of each trade considerably. It may be easy
for a boss to replace a few workers, but a whole workplace would be far
more difficult. By organising all workers in the same industry, the
power of each workplace is correspondingly increased. Extending this
example to outside the workplace, its clear that by mutual support between
different groups increases the chances of each group winning its fight.
<p>
As the I.W.W. put it, <i>"An injury to one is an injury to all."</i> By generalising
struggles, by practicing mutual support and aid we can ensure that when
we are fighting for our rights and against injustice we will not be
isolated and alone. If we don't support each other, groups will be picked
off one by one and if we are go into conflict with the system there will
be on-one there to support us and we may lose.
<p>
Therefore, from an anarchist point of view, the best thing about generalising
different struggles together is that it leads to an increased spirit of
solidarity and responsibility as well as increased class consciousness.
This is because by working together and showing solidarity those involved
get to understand their common interests and that the struggle is not
against <b>this</b> injustice or <b>that</b> boss but against <b>all</b> injustice and
<b>all</b> bosses.
<p>
This sense of increased social awareness and solidarity can be seen from the
experience of the C.N.T in Spain during the 1930s. The C.N.T. organised all 
workers in a given area into one big union. Each workplace was a union branch
and were joined together in a local area confederation. The result was that:
<p>
<i>"The territorial basis of organisation linkage [of the C.N.T. unions] brought
all the workers form one area together and fomented working class solidarity
over and before corporative [i.e. industrial] solidarity."</i> [J. Romero Maura, 
<i>"The Spanish Case"</i>, in <b>Anarchism Today</b>, D. Apter and J. Joll (eds)., p. 75]
<p>
This can also be seen from the experiences of the syndicalist unions in Italy
and France as well. The structure of such local federations also situates
the workplace in the community where it really belongs (particularly if
the commune concept supported by social anarchists is to be realistic).
<p>
Also, by uniting struggles together, we can see that there are really no
"single issues" - that all various different problems are interlinked. For 
example, ecological problems are not just that, but have a political and
economic basis and that economic exploitation spills into the environment.
Inter-linking struggles means that they can be seen to be related to other
struggles against capitalist exploitation and oppression. What goes on in
the environment, for instance, is directly related to questions of domination
and inequality within human society, that pollution is often directly
related to companies cutting corners to survive in the market or increase
profits. Similarly, struggles against sexism or racism can be seen as
part of a wider struggle against hierarchy, exploitation and oppression in 
all their forms. As such, uniting struggles has an important educational
effect above and beyond the benefits in terms of winning struggles.

<p>

</BODY>
</HTML>