File: sectionJ.txt

package info (click to toggle)
anarchism 9.5-1
links: PTS
area: main
in suites: woody
size: 12,192 kB
ctags: 493
sloc: makefile: 40; sh: 8
file content (14398 lines) | stat: -rw-r--r-- 849,301 bytes
Section J - What do anarchists do?

J.1 Are anarchists involved in social struggles?
	J.1.1 Why are social struggles important?
	J.1.2 Are anarchists against reforms?
	J.1.3 Why are anarchists against reformism?
	J.1.4 What attitude do anarchists take to "single-issue" campaigns?
	J.1.5 Why do anarchists try to generalise social struggles?

J.2 What is direct action?
	J.2.1  Why do anarchists favour using direct action to change things?
	J.2.2  Why do anarchists reject voting as a means for change?
	J.2.3  What are the political implications of voting?
	J.2.4  Surely voting for radical parties will be effective?
	J.2.5  Why do anarchists support abstentionism and what are its
	       implications?
	J.2.6  What are the effects of radicals using electioneering?
	J.2.7  Surely we should vote for reformist parties in order to show 
	       them up for what they are?
	J.2.8  Will abstentionism lead to the right winning elections?
	J.2.9  What do anarchists do instead of voting?
	J.2.10 Does rejecting electioneering mean that anarchists are 
	       apolitical?

J.3 What forms of organisation do anarchists build?
	J.3.1 What are affinity groups?
	J.3.2 What are "synthesis" federations?
	J.3.3 What is the "Platform"?
	J.3.4	Why do many anarchists oppose the "Platform"?
	J.3.5	Are there other kinds of anarchist federation?
	J.3.6 What role do these groups play in anarchist theory?
	J.3.7 Doesn't Bakunin's "Invisible Dictatorship" prove that 
		anarchists are secret authoritarians?
	J.3.8 What is anarcho-syndicalism?
	J.3.9 Why are many anarchists not anarcho-syndicalists?

J.4 What trends in society aid anarchist activity?
	J.4.1 Why is social struggle a good sign?
	J.4.2	Won't social struggle do more harm than good?
	J.4.3 Are the new social movements a positive development
		for anarchists?
	J.4.4 What is the "economic structural crisis"?
	J.4.5	Why is this "economic structural crisis" important 
		to social struggle?
	J.4.6 What are implications of anti-government and 
		anti-big business feelings?
	J.4.7 What about the communications revolution?
	J.4.8 What is the significance of the accelerating rate 
		of change and the information explosion?
	J.4.9 What are Netwars?

J.5 What alternative social organisations do anarchists create?
	J.5.1  What is community unionism?
	J.5.2  Why do anarchists support industrial unionism?
	J.5.3  What attitude do anarchists take to existing unions?
	J.5.4  What are industrial networks?
	J.5.5  What forms of co-operative credit do anarchists support?
	J.5.6  What are the key features of mutual credit schemes?
	J.5.7  Do most anarchists think mutual credit is sufficient to abolish
	       capitalism?
	J.5.8  What would a modern system of mutual banking look like? 
	J.5.9  How does mutual credit work?
	J.5.10 Why do anarchists support co-operatives?
	J.5.11 If workers really want self-management, why aren't there more
	       producer co-operatives? 
	J.5.12 If self-management is more efficient, surely capitalist firms 
	       will be forced to introduce it by the market?
	J.5.13 What are Modern Schools?
	J.5.14 What is Libertarian Municipalism?
	J.5.15 What attitude do anarchists take to the welfare state?
	J.5.16 Are there any historical examples of collective self-help?

J.6 What methods of child rearing do anarchists advocate?
	J.6.1 What are the main principles of raising free children and 
	      the main obstacles to implementing those principles?
	J.6.2 What are some examples of libertarian child-rearing methods
	      applied to the care of newborn infants?
	J.6.3 What are some examples of libertarian child-rearing methods
	      applied to the care of young children? 
	J.6.4 If children have nothing to fear, how can they be good? 
	J.6.5 But how can children learn *morality* if they are not given
	      punishments, prohibitions, and religious instruction?  
	J.6.6 But how will a free child ever learn unselfishness?
	J.6.7 Isn't what you call "libertarian child-rearing" just another 
	      name for spoiling the child?
	J.6.8 What is the anarchist position on teenage sexual liberation? 
	J.6.9 But isn't this concern with teenage sexual liberation just a 
	      distraction from  issues that should be of more concern to 
	      anarchists, like restructuring the economy?

J.7 What do anarchists mean by "social revolution"?
	J.7.1 Are all anarchists revolutionaries?
	J.7.2 Is social revolution possible? 
	J.7.3 Doesn't revolution mean violence?
	J.7.4 What would a social revolution involve?
	J.7.5 What is the role of anarchists in a social revolution?
	J.7.6 How could an anarchist revolution defend itself?

Section J - What do anarchists do?

This section discusses what anarchists get up to. There is little point
thinking about the world unless you also want to change it for the better.
And by trying to change it, you change yourself and others, making radical
change more of a possibility. Therefore anarchists give their whole-hearted 
support to attempts by ordinary people to improve their lives by their 
own actions. As Max Stirner pointed out, "The true man does not lie in 
the future, an object of longing, but lies, existent and real, in the
present." [_The Ego and Its Own_, p. 327]

For anarchists, the future is *already appearing in the present* and is
expressed by the autonomy of working class self-activity. Anarchy is
not some-day-to-be-achieved utopia, it is a living reality whose growth
only needs to be freed from constraint. As such anarchist activity 
is about discovering and aiding emerging trends of mutual aid which
work against capitalist domination (i.e. what is actually developing), 
so the Anarchist "studies society and tries to discover its *tendencies*, 
past and present, its growing needs, intellectual and economic, and in 
his [or her] ideal he merely points out in which direction evolution 
goes." [Peter Kropotkin, _Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_, p. 47] 

The kinds of activity outlined in this section are a general overview
of anarchist work. It is by no means exclusive as we are sure to have
left something out. However, the key aspect of *real* anarchist
activity is *direct action* - self-activity, self-help, self-liberation 
and solidarity. Such activity may be done by individuals (for example, 
propaganda work), but usually anarchists emphasis collective activity. This 
is because most of our problems are of a social nature, meaning that their 
solutions can only be worked on collectively. Individual solutions to 
social problems are doomed to failure (for example green consumerism). 

In addition, collective action gets us used to working together, promoting 
the experience of self-management and building organisations that will allow
us to activity manage our own affairs. Also, and we would like to emphasis 
this, it's *fun* to get together with other people and work with them, 
it's fulfilling and empowering.

Anarchists do not ask those in power to give up that power. No, they
promote forms of activity and organisation by which all the oppressed
can liberate themselves by their own hands. In other words, we do not
think that those in power will altruistically give up that power or
their privileges. Instead, the oppressed must take the power *back*
into their own hands by their own actions. We must free ourselves,
no one else can do it for use.

As we have noted before, anarchism is more than just a critique of statism
and capitalism or a vision of a freer, better way of life. It is first and
foremost a movement, the movement of working class people attempting to 
change the world. Therefore the kind of activity we discuss in this 
section of the FAQ forms the bridge between capitalism and anarchy. By 
self-activity and direct action, people can change both themselves and 
their surroundings. They develop within themselves the mental, ethical and 
spiritual qualities which can make an anarchist society a viable option. 

As Noam Chomsky argues: 

"Only through their own struggle for liberation will ordinary people 
come to comprehend their true nature, suppressed and distorted within 
institutional structures designed to assure obedience and subordination. 
Only in this way will people develop more humane ethical standards, 'a 
new sense of right', 'the consciousness of their strength and their 
importance as a social factor in the life of their time' and their 
capacity to realise the strivings of their 'inmost nature.' Such direct
engagement in the work of social reconstruction is a prerequisite for
coming to perceive this 'inmost nature' and is the indispensable 
foundations upon which it can flourish." [preface to Rudolf Rocker's 
_Anarcho-Syndicalism_, p. viii]

In other words, anarchism is not primarily a vision of a better future, but 
the actual social movement which is fighting within the current unjust and 
unfree society for that better future and to improve things in the here and 
now. Without standing up for yourself and what you believe is right, nothing 
will change. Therefore anarchists would agree whole-heartedly with Frederick 
Douglass (an Abolitionist) who stated that:

"If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favour 
freedom and yet deprecate agitation are people who want crops without plowing 
up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. That struggle 
might be a moral one; it might be a physical one; it might be both moral and 
physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. 
It never did and never will. People might not get all that they work for in 
this world, but they must certainly work for all they get." 

In this section of the FAQ we will discuss anarchist ideas on struggle, 
what anarchists actually (and, almost as importantly, do not) do in the
here and now and the sort of alternatives anarchists try to build within
statism and capitalism in order to destroy them. As well as a struggle 
against oppression, anarchist activity is also struggle for freedom. As 
well as fighting against material poverty, anarchists combat spiritual 
poverty. By resisting hierarchy we emphasis the importance of *living* 
and of *life as art.* By proclaiming "Neither Master nor Slave" we urge 
an ethical transformation, a transformation that will help create the 
possibility of a truly free society. 

This point was argued by Emma Goldman after she saw the defeat of the 
Russian Revolution by a combination of Leninist politics and capitalist 
armed intervention:

"the ethical values which the revolution is to establish must be 
*initiated* with the revolutionary activities. . . The latter can 
only serve as a real and dependable bridge to the better life if 
built of the same material as the life to be achieved" [_Red Emma 
Speaks_, p. 358]

In other words, anarchist activity is more than creating libertarian
alternatives and resisting hierarchy, it is about building the new
world in the shell of the old not only with regards to organisations
and self-activity, but also within the individual. It is about transforming
yourself while transforming the world - both processes obviously interacting
and supporting each other -- "the first aim of Anarchism is to assert and 
make the dignity of the individual human being." [Charlotte Wilson, _Three
Essays on Anarchism_, p. 17]

And by direct action, self-management and self-activity we can make the 
words first heard in Paris, 1968 a living reality:

				"All power to the imagination!"

Words, we are sure, the classic anarchists would have whole-heartedly
agreed with. There is a power in humans, a creative power, a power to alter 
what is into what should be. Anarchists try to create alternatives that will
allow that power to be expressed, the power of imagination.

In the sections that follow we will discuss the forms of self-activity and 
self-organisation (collective and individual) which anarchists think will 
stimulate and develop the imagination of those oppressed by hierarchy, build 
anarchy in action and help create a free society.

J.1 Are anarchists involved in social struggles?

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 "spirit of revolt" 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.

Anarchists consider socialistic tendencies to develop within society, 
as people see the benefits of co-operation and particularly when mutual 
aid develops within the struggle against authority, oppression and
exploitation. Anarchism, as Kropotkin argues, "originated in everyday
struggles." [_Environment and Revolution_, p.58] Therefore, anarchists 
do not place anarchy abstractly against capitalism, but see it as a 
tendency within (and against) the system -- a tendency created by struggle
and which can be developed to such a degree that it can *replace* the 
dominant structures and social relationships with new, more liberatory 
and humane ones. This perspective indicates why anarchists are involved
in social struggles -- they are an expression of this tendency within but
against capitalism which can ultimately replace it. 

However, there is another reason why anarchists are involved in social 
struggle -- namely the fact that we are part of the oppressed and, 
like other oppressed people, fight for our freedom and to make our
life better in the here and now. It is not in some tomorrow that we
want to see the end of oppression, exploitation and hierarchy. It is
today, in our own life, that the anarchist wants to win our freedom,
or at the very least, to improve our situation, reduce oppression,
domination and exploitation as well as increasing individual liberty. 
We are aware that we often fail to do so, but the very process of 
struggle can help create a more libertarian aspect to society:

"Whatever may be the practical results of the struggle for immediate
gains, the greatest value lies in the struggle itself. For thereby
workers [and other oppressed sections of society] learn that the
bosses interests are opposed to theirs and that they cannot improve
their conditions, and much less emancipate themselves, except by
uniting and becoming stronger than the bosses. If they succeed in
getting what they demand, they will be better off: they will earn
more, work fewer hours and will have more time and energy to
reflect on the things that matter to them, and will immediately
make greater demands and have greater needs. If they do not
succeed they will be led to study the reasons of their failure
and recognise the need for closer unity and greater activity
and they will in the end understand that to make victory
secure and definite, it is necessary to destroy capitalism.
The revolutionary cause, the cause of moral elevation and
emancipation of the workers [and other oppressed sections of
society] must benefit by the fact that workers [and other
oppressed people] unite and struggle for their interests."
[Errico Malatesta, _Life and Ideas_, p. 191]

Therefore, "we as anarchists and workers, must incite and
encourage them [the workers and other oppressed people] to
struggle, and join them in their struggle." [Malatesta, 
Op. Cit., p. 190] This is for three reasons. Firstly, struggle 
helps generate libertarian ideas and movements which could 
help make existing society more anarchistic and less oppressive.
Secondly, struggle creates people, movements and organisations
which are libertarian in nature and which, potentially, can replace 
capitalism with a more humane society. Thirdly, because anarchists 
are part of the oppressed and so have an interest in taking part in
and showing solidarity with struggles and movements that can improve
our life in the here and now ("an injury to one is an injury to all").

As we will see later (in section J.2) 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:

"civil disobedience. . . is *not* our problem. Our problem is civil
*obedience.* 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." [_Failure to Quit_, p. 45]

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, self-management and direct action.

Anarchists do not engage in abstract propaganda (become an anarchist, 
wait for the revolution -- if we did that, in Malatesta's words, "that
day would never come." [Op. Cit., p. 195]). 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.

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 hierarchical and exploitative nature of the capitalist system is only 
part of the story -- other forms of oppression are needed in order to keep 
it going (such as those associated with the state) and have resulted from 
its workings (in addition to those inherited from previous hierarchical 
and class systems). Like the bug in work, domination, exploitation, hierarchy  
and oppression soon spreads and infests our homes, our friendships and our 
communities. They need to be fought everywhere, not just in work.

Therefore, anarchists are convinced that human life (and the struggle against
oppression) cannot be reduced to mere money and, indeed, the "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."
[Murray Bookchin, _The Modern Crisis_, pp. 125-126]

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. Hence Bookchin:

"The class struggle does not centre around material exploitation alone
but also around spiritual exploitation. In addition, entirely new issues
emerge: coercive attitudes, the quality of work, ecology (or stated
in more general terms, psychological and environmental oppression). . .
Terms like 'classes' and 'class struggle,' conceived of almost entirely
as economic categories and relations, are too one-sided to express the
*universalisation* of the struggle. . . the target is still a ruling
class and a class society . . . but this terminology, with its
traditional connotations, does not reflect the sweep and the
multi-dimensional nature of the struggle . . . [and] fail to 
encompass the cultural and spiritual revolt that is taking place
along with the economic struggle." 

[. . . ]

"Exploitation, class rule and happiness, are the *particular* within the 
more *generalised* concepts of domination, hierarchy and pleasure." 
[_Post-Scarcity Anarchism_, pp.229-30 and p. 243]

As the anarchist character created by the science-fiction writer Ursula
Le Guin (who is an anarchist) points out, capitalists "think if people have
enough things they will be content to live in prison." [_The Dispossessed_,
p. 120] Anarchists disagree, and the experience of social revolt in the
"affluent" 1960s proves their case. 

This is unsurprising for, ultimately, the "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." [Errico Malatesta, _Life and Ideas_,
p. 79]

J.1.1 Why are social struggles important?

Social struggle is an expression of the class struggle, namely the struggle 
of working class people *against* their exploitation, oppression and
alienation and *for* 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.

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.

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.

In addition, social struggle helps break people from their hierarchical
conditioning. Anarchists view people not as fixed objects to be classified
and labelled, 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.

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.

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 ("Self-management of the struggle comes 
first, then comes self-management of work and society," in the words of 
Alfredo Bonnano ["Self-Management", _Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed_, 
no. 48, Fall-Winter 1999-2000, p. 35-37, p. 35]). So self-activity is a 
key factor in self-liberation, self-education and the creating of 
anarchists. In a nutshell, people learn in struggle.

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.

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.

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
"schools of anarchy" within the current system and lay the foundations of
something better. Revolutionary tendencies and movements, in other words, 
must create the organisations that contain, in embryo, the society of
the future. These organisations, in turn, further the progress of radical
change by providing social spaces for the transformation of individuals
(via the use of direct action, practising self-management and solidarity,
and so on). Therefore, social struggle aids the creation of a free society
by accustoming the marginalised to govern themselves within self-managed
organisations and empowering the (officially) disempowered via the use
of direct action and mutual aid.

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 life, 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, its days are numbered. Social struggle indicates that
some of the oppressed see that by using their power of disobedience they
can challenge, perhaps eventually end, hierarchical power.

Ultimately, anarchy is not just something you believe in, it is not a cool 
label you affix to yourself, it is 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.

J.1.2 Are anarchists against reforms?

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).

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.

In the words of the revolutionary syndicalist Emile Pouget (who is 
referring to revolutionary/libertarian unions but whose words can be 
generalised to all social movements):

"Trade union endeavour has a double aim: with tireless persistence, it
must pursue betterment of the working class's current conditions. But,
without letting themselves become obsessed with this passing concern,
the workers should take care to make possible and imminent the 
essential act of comprehensive emancipation: the expropriation of
capital.

"At present, trade union action is designed to won partial and gradual
improvements which, far from constituting a goal, can only be considered
as a means of stepping up demands and wresting further improvements
from capitalism. . .

"This question of partial improvements served as the pretext for attempts
to sow discord in the trades associations. Politicians . . . have tried
to . . . stir up ill-feeling and to split the unions into two camps,
by categorising workers as reformists and as revolutionaries. The 
better to discredit the latter, they have dubbed them 'the advocates
of all or nothing' and the have falsely represented them as supposed
adversaries of improvements achievable right now.

"The most that can be said about this nonsense is that it is witless.
There is not a worker . . . who, on grounds of principle or for
reasons of tactics, would insist upon working tend hours for an
employer instead of eight hours, while earning six francs instead
of seven. . .

"What appears to afford some credence to such chicanery is the
fact that the unions, cured by the cruel lessons of experience
from all hope in government intervention, are justifiably 
mistrustful of it. They know that the State, whose function is
to act as capital's gendarme, is, by its very nature, inclined
to tip the scales in favour of the employer side. So, whenever
a reform is brought about by legal avenues, they do not fall
upon it with the relish of a frog devouring the red rag that 
conceals the hook, they greet it with all due caution, especially
as this reform is made effective only of the workers are
organised to insist forcefully upon its implementation.

"The trade unions are even more wary of gifts from the government
because they have often found these to be poison gifts. . .

"But, given that the trade unions look askance at the government's
benevolence towards them, it follows that they are loath to go
after partial improvements. Wanting real improvements . . . instead
of waiting until the government is generous enough to bestow them,
they wrest them in open battle, through direct action.

"If, as sometimes is the case, the improvement they seek is subject
to the law, the trade unions strive to obtain it through outside 
pressure brought to bear upon the authorities and not by trying
to return specially mandated deputies to Parliament, a puerile
pursuit that might drag on for centuries before there was a
majority in favour of the yearned-for reform.

"When the desired improvement is to be wrestled directly from the
capitalist, the trades associations resort to vigorous pressure
to convey their wishes. Their methods may well vary, although the
direct action principle underlies them all. . . 

"But, whatever the improvement won, it must always represent a
reduction in capitalist privileges and be a partial expropriation.
So . . . the fine distinction between 'reformist' and 'revolutionary'
evaporates and one is led to the conclusion that the only really
reformist workers are the revolutionary syndicalists." [_No Gods,
No Masters_, pp. 71-3]

By seeking improvements from below by direct action, solidarity and the 
organisation of those who directly suffer the injustice, anarchists can 
make reforms more substantial, effective and long lasting than "reforms" 
made from above by reformists. By recognising that the effectiveness of 
a reform is dependent on the power of the oppressed to resist those who 
would dominate them, anarchists seek change from the bottom-up and so make
reforms real rather than just words gathering dust in the law books. 

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.

Therefore, anarchists are of the opinion that "[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." [Errico Malatesta, _Life and Ideas_
p. 195]

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.

The recent "health care crisis" in the United States is a prime example of
reformism at work.

The reformist says, "how can we make health care more affordable to people? 
How can we keep those insurance rates down to levels people can pay?"

The anarchist says, "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?"

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 are 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. And, in the end,
the proposed reforms were defeated by the power of big business -- without
a social movement with radical aims such a result was a forgone conclusion.

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.

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:

"the subject is not whether we accomplish Anarchism today, tomorrow or
within ten centuries, but that we walk towards Anarchism today, tomorrow
and always." ["Towards Anarchism,", _Man!_, M. Graham (Ed.), p. 75]

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.

J.1.3 Why are anarchists against reformism?

Firstly, it must be pointed out that the struggle for reforms within
capitalism is *not* 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 and until that happens any
reforms will not get to the root of social problems.

In addition, particularly in the old social democratic labour movement,
reformism also meant the belief that social reforms could be used to
*transform* 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 co-operative
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.

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 did not
tackle them in the first place. To use Alexander Berkman's excellent
analogy:

"If you should carry out [the reformers] ideas in your personal
life, you would not have a rotten tooth that aches pulled out all
at once. You would have it pulled out a little to-day, some more
next week, for several months or years, and by then you would
be ready to pull it out altogether, so it should not hurt so much.
That is the logic of the reformer. Don't be 'too hasty,' don't
pull a bad tooth out all at once." [_What is Communist Anarchism?_, 
p. 53]

Rather than seek to change the root cause of the problems (namely in 
a hierarchical, oppressive and exploitative system), reformists try 
to make the symptoms better. In the words of Berkman again:

"Suppose a pipe burst in your house. You can put a bucket under the
break to catch the escaping water. You can keep on putting buckets
there, but as long as you do not mean the broken pipe, the leakage
will continue, no matter how much you may swear about it . . . the
leakage will continue until you repair the broken social pipe." 
[Op. Cit., p. 56]

What reformism fails to do is fix the underlying causes of the real
problems society faces. Therefore, reformists try to pass laws which
reduce the level of pollution rather than work to end a system in
which it makes economic sense to pollute. Or they pass laws to improve
working conditions and safety while failing to get rid of the wage
slavery which creates the bosses whose interests are served by them 
ignoring those laws and regulations. The list is endless. Ultimately,
reformism fails because reformists "believe in good faith that it is
possible to eliminate the existing social evils by recognising and
respecting, in practice if not in theory, the basic political and 
economic institutions which are the cause of, as well as the prop
that supports these evils." [Errico Malatesta, _Life and Ideas_, 
p. 82] 

Reformists, in other words, are like people who think that
treating the symptoms of, say, cholera is enough in and of itself.
In practice, of course, the causes that create the disease as well
as the disease itself must be combated before the symptoms will
disappear. While most people would recognise the truth of this in 
the case of medicine, fewer apply it to social problems. 

Revolutionaries, in contrast to reformists, fight both symptoms *and* 
the root causes. They recognise that as long as the cause of the evil
remains, any attempts to fight the symptoms, however necessary, will
never get to the root of the problem. There is no doubt that we have
to fight the symptoms, however revolutionaries recognise that this
struggle is not an end in itself and should be considered purely as
a means of increasing working class strength and social power within 
society until such time as capitalism and the state (i.e. the root
causes of most problems) can be abolished.

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. Freedom cannot be given and so any attempt to impose reforms
from above cannot help but ensure that people are treated as children,
incapable of making their own decisions and, ultimately, dependent on 
bureaucrats to govern them. This can be seen from public housing. As 
Colin Ward  argues, the "whole tragedy of publicly provided non-profit 
housing for rent and the evolution of this form of tenure in Britain is 
that the local authorities have simply taken over, though less flexibly, 
the role of the landlord, together with all the dependency and resentment 
that it engenders." [_Housing: An Anarchist Approach_, p. 184] This feature 
of reformism was skilfully used by the right-wing to undermine publicly 
supported housing and other aspects of the welfare state. The reformist 
social-democrats reaped what they had sown.

Reformism often amounts to little more than an altruistic contempt for 
the masses, who are considered as little more than victims who need to
be provided for by state. The idea that we may have our own visions of
what we want is ignored and replaced by the vision of the reformists
who enact legislation *for* us and make "reforms" from the top-down.
Little wonder such reforms can be counter-productive -- they cannot
grasp the complexity of life and the needs of those subject to them.

Reformists may mean well, but they do not grasp the larger picture -- by 
focusing exclusively on narrow aspects of a problem, they choose to believe 
that is the whole problem. In this wilfully narrow examination of pressing 
social ills, reformists are, more often than not, counter-productive. 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.

Logically, it makes no sense. Why dance around a problem when you can 
attack it directly? Reformists dilute social 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 
channelling labour activity and taking the power from the workers 
themselves, where it belongs, and placing it the hands of a bureaucracy. 
The British Labour Party, after over 100 years of reformist practice, 
has done little more than manage capitalism, seen most of its reforms
eliminated by right-wing governments (and by the following Labour 
government!) and the creation of a leadership of the party (in the 
shape of Tony Blair) which is in most ways as right-wing as the 
Conservative Party (if not more so). Bakunin would not have been 
surprised.

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 will not let them "help" them.

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-centred 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? 
Surely any reforms passed by the state will not solve the problem? As
Malatesta pointed out, "[g]overnments and the privileged classes are
naturally always guided by instincts of self-preservation, of 
consolidation and the development of their powers and privileges;
and when they consent to reforms it is either because they consider
that they will serve their ends or because they do not feel strong
enough to resist, and give in, fearing what might otherwise be a
worse alternative" (i.e. revolution) [Op. Cit., p. 81] Therefore,
reforms gained by direct action are of a different quality and
nature than reforms passed by reformist politicians -- these latter
will only serve the interests of the ruling class as they do not
threaten their privileges while the former have the potential of
real change.

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 *its*
interests, not theirs. As Kropotkin put it:

"We maintain that the State organisation, having been the force to
which the minorities resorted for establishing and organising their
power over the masses, cannot be the force which will serve to 
destroy these privileges . . . the economic and political liberation
of man will have to create new forms for its expression in life,
instead of those established by the State.

"Consequently, the chief aim of Anarchism is to awaken those
constructive powers of the labouring masses of the people which
at all great moments of history came forward to accomplish the
necessary changes . . .

"This is also why the Anarchists refuse to accept the functions of
legislators or servants of the State. We know that the social
revolution will not be accomplished by means of *laws.* Laws only
*follow* the accomplished facts . . . [and] remains a dead letter
so long as there are not on the spot the living forced required
for making of the *tendencies* expressed in the law an accomplished
*fact.*

"On the other hand . . . the Anarchists have always advised taking
an active part in those workers' organisations which carry on
the *direct* struggle of Labour against Capital and its protector,
-- the State.

"Such a struggle . . . better than any other indirect means, permits
the worker to obtain some temporary improvements in the present
conditions of work [and life in general], while it opens his [or
her] eyes to the evil that is done by Capitalism and the State
that supports it, and wakes up his thoughts concerning the
possibility of organising consumption, production, and exchange
without the intervention of the capitalist and the State." 
[_Environment and Evolution_, pp.82-3]

Therefore, while seeking reforms, anarchists are against reformism
and reformists. Reforms are not an end in themselves but rather a
means of changing society from the bottom-up and a step in that
direction:

"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." [Kropotkin, Op. Cit., p. 95]

However, no matter what, anarchists "will never recognise the institutions;
we will take or win all possible reforms with the same spirit that one
tears occupied territory from the enemy's grasp in order to keep advancing,
and we will always remain enemies of every government." Therefore, "[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." [_Life and Ideas_, 
p. 81 and p. 83]

Only by working class people, by their own actions and organisation, getting 
the state and capital out of the way can produce an improvement in their 
lives, indeed it is the only thing that will lead to *real* fundamental 
changes for the better. Encouraging people to rely on themselves instead 
of the state or capital 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.

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.

Ultimately, there are two options:

"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." [Errico Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 81]

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?

J.1.4 What attitude do anarchists take to "single-issue" campaigns?

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.

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.

In addition, many "single-issue" campaigns desire to be "apolitical",
concentrating purely on the one issue which unites the campaign and
so refuse to analyse 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.

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.

For anarchists these problems all stem from the fact that social
problems cannot be solved as single issues. As Larry Law argues:

"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." [_Bigger Cages, Longer
Chains_, pp. 17-20].

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.

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.

J.1.5 Why do anarchists try to generalise social struggles?

Basically, we do it in order to encourage and promote solidarity. This
is *the* 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:

"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." [Alexander Berkman, _The ABC of
Anarchism_, pp. 53-54]

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.

As the I.W.W. put it, "An injury to one is an injury to all." By generalising
struggles, by practising 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.

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 *this* injustice or *that* boss but against *all* injustice and
*all* bosses.

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:

"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." [J. Romero Maura, 
"The Spanish Case", in _Anarchism Today_, D. Apter and J. Joll (eds.), p. 75]

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).

Also, by uniting struggles together, we can see that there are really no
"single issues" - that all various different problems are inter-linked. For 
example, ecological problems are not just that, but have a political and
economic basis and that economic and social domination and 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 and so encourage solidarity and mutual aid. 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.

Murray Bookchin presents a concrete example of this process of linking
issues and widening the struggle:

"Assume there is a struggle by welfare mothers to increase their
allotments . . . Without losing sight of the concrete issues that
initially motivated the struggle, revolutionaries would try to
catalyse an order of relationships between the mothers entirely
different from [existing ones] . . . They would try to foster a
deep sense of community, a rounded human relationship that would
transform the very subjectivity of the people involved . . . Personal
relationships would be intimate, not merely issue-orientated.
People would get to *know* each other, to *confront* each other;
they would *explore* each other with a view of achieving the
most complete, unalienated relationships. Women would discuss
sexism, as well as their welfare allotments, child-rearing as
well as harassment by landlords, their dreams and hopes as
human beings as well as the cost of living.

"From this intimacy there would grow, hopefully, a supportive
system of kinship, mutual aid, sympathy and solidarity in
daily life. The women might collaborate to establish a rotating
system of baby sitters and child-care attendants, the co-operative
buying of good food at greatly reduced prices, the common cooking
and partaking of meals, the mutual learning of survival skills
and the new social ideas, the fostering of creative talents, 
and many other shared experiences. Every aspect of life that 
could be explored and changed would be one part of the kind 
of relationships . . .

"The struggle for increased allotments would expand beyond the
welfare system to the schools, the hospitals, the police, the
physical, cultural, aesthetic and recreational resources of the
neighbourhood, the stores, the houses, the doctors and lawyers
in the area, and so on - into the very ecology of the district.

"What I have said on this issue could be applied to every issue --
unemployment, bad housing, racism, work conditions -- in which an
insidious assimilation of bourgeois modes of functioning is
masked as 'realism' and 'actuality.' The new order of relationships
that could be developed from a welfare struggle . . . [can ensure
that the] future penetrates the present; it recasts the way people
'organise' and the goals for which they strive." [Op. Cit., pp.
231-3]

As the anarchist slogan puts it, "Resistance is Fertile." Planting
the seed of autonomy, direct action and self-liberation can result, 
potentially, in the blossoming of a free individual due to the
nature of struggle itself (see also section A.2.7) Therefore, the 
generalisation of social struggle is not only a key way of winning
a specific fight, it can (and should) also spread into different 
aspects of life and society and play a key part in developing free
individuals who reject hierarchy in all aspects of their life. 

Social problems are not isolated from each other and so struggles 
against them cannot be. The nature of struggle is such that once 
people start questioning one aspect of society, the questioning
of the rest soon follow. So, anarchists seek to generalise
struggles for these three reasons -- firstly, to ensure the 
solidarity required to win; secondly, to combat the many social 
problems we face as *people* and to show how they are inter-related; 
and, thirdly, to encourage the transformation of those involved into 
unique individuals in touch with their humanity, a humanity eroded 
by hierarchical society and domination.

J.2 What is direct action?

Direct action, to use Rudolf Rocker's words, is "every method of
immediate warfare by the workers [or other sections of society] against
their economic and political oppressors. Among these the outstanding are:
the strike, in all its graduations from the simple wage struggle to the
general strike; the boycott; sabotage in all its countless forms;
[occupations and sit-down strikes;] anti-militarist propaganda, and 
in particularly critical cases, . . . armed resistance of the people for 
the protection of life and liberty." [_Anarcho-Syndicalism_, p. 66]

Not that anarchists think that direct action is only applicable within
the workplace. Far from it. Direct action must occur everywhere! So, in 
non-workplace situations, direct action includes rent strikes, consumer 
boycotts, occupations (which, of course, can include sit-in strikes by 
workers), eco-tage, individual and collective non-payment of taxes, 
blocking roads and holding up construction work of an anti-social nature 
and so forth. Also direct action, in a workplace setting, includes strikes 
and protests on social issues, not directly related to working conditions 
and pay. Such activity aims to ensure the "protection of the community 
against the most pernicious outgrowths of the present system. The social 
strike seeks to force upon the employers a responsibility to the public. 
Primarily it has in view the protection of the customers, of whom the 
workers themselves [and their families] constitute the great majority." 
[Op. Cit., p. 72]

Basically, direct action means that instead of getting someone else to act 
for you (e.g. a politician) you act for yourself. Its essential feature is 
an organised protest by ordinary people to make a change by their own efforts.
Thus Voltairine De Cleyre's excellent statement on this topic:

"Every person who ever thought he had a right to assert, and went boldly and
asserted it, himself, or jointly with others that shared his convictions,
was a direct actionist. Some thirty years ago I recall that the Salvation
Army was vigorously practicing direct action in the maintenance of the
freedom of its members to speak, assemble, and pray. Over and over they were
arrested, fined, and imprisoned; but they kept right on singing, praying,
and marching, till they finally compelled their persecutors to let them
alone. The Industrial Workers [of the World] are now conducting the same 
fight, and have, in a number of cases, compelled the officials to let them 
alone by the same direct tactics.

"Every person who ever had a plan to do anything, and went and did it, or who
laid his plan before others, and won their co-operation to do it with him,
without going to external authorities to please do the thing for them, was a
direct actionist. All co-operative experiments are essentially direct
action.

"Every person who ever in his life had a difference with anyone to settle,
and went straight to the other persons involved to settle it, either by a
peaceable plan or otherwise, was a direct actionist. Examples of such action
are strikes and boycotts; many persons will recall the action of the
housewives of New York who boycotted the butchers, and lowered the price of
meat; at the present moment a butter boycott seems looming up, as a direct
reply to the price-makers for butter.

"These actions are generally not due to any one's reasoning overmuch on the
respective merits of directness or indirectness, but are the spontaneous
retorts of those who feel oppressed by a situation. In other words, all
people are, most of the time, believers in the principle of direct action,
and practicers of it. . ." [_Direct Action_]

So direct action means acting for yourself against injustice and oppression.
It can, sometimes, involve putting pressure on politicians or companies, for 
example, to ensure a change in an oppressive law or destructive practices. 
However, such appeals are direct action simply because they do not assume
that the parties in question we will act for us -- indeed the assumption is
that change only occurs when we act to create it. Regardless of what the
action is, "if such actions are to have the desired empowerment effect,
they must be largely self-generated, rather than being devised and 
directed from above." [Martha Ackelsberg, _Free Women of Spain_, p. 33]

So, in a nutshell, direct action is any form of activity which people
themselves decide upon and organise themselves which is based on their 
own collective strength and does not involve getting intermediates to act 
for them. As such direct action is a natural expression of liberty, of
self-government for "[d]irect action against the authority in the shop,
direct action against the authority of the law, direct action against 
the invasive, meddlesome authority of our moral code, is the logical,
consistent method of Anarchism." [Emma Goldman, _Red Emma Speaks_, 
pp. 62-63] It is clear that by acting for yourself you are expressing 
the ability to govern yourself. Thus its a means by which people can
take control of their own lives. It is a means of self-empowerment and
self-liberation:

"Direct action meant that the goal of any and all these activities was 
to provide ways for people to get in touch with their own powers and 
capacities, to take back the power of naming themselves and their lives."
[Martha Ackelsberg, Op. Cit., p. 32]

In other words, anarchists reject the view that society is static and that
people's consciousness, values, ideas and ideals cannot be changed. Far from 
it and anarchists support direct action *because* it actively encourages
the transformation of those who use it. Direct action is the means of
creating a new consciousness, a means of self-liberation from the chains
placed around our minds, emotions and spirits by hierarchy and oppression.

Because direct action is the expression of liberty, the powers that be are 
vitally concerned only when the oppressed use direct action to win its 
demands, for it is a method which is not easy or cheap to combat. Any 
hierarchical system is placed into danger when those at the bottom start 
to act for themselves and, historically, people have invariably gained more 
by acting directly than could have been won by playing ring around the 
rosy with indirect means.

Direct action tore the chains of open slavery from humanity. Over the 
centuries it has established individual rights and modified the life and 
death power of the master class. Direct action won political liberties
such as the vote and free speech. Used fully, used wisely and well, 
direct action can forever end injustice and the mastery of humans 
by other humans.

In the sections that follow, we will indicate why anarchists are in
favour of direct action and why they are against electioneering as
a means of change.

J.2.1 Why do anarchists favour using direct action to change things?

Simply because it is effective and it has a radicalising impact on those
who practice it. As it is based on people acting for themselves, it
shatters the dependency and marginalisation created by hierarchy. As
Murray Bookchin argues, "[w]hat is even more important about direct action 
is that it forms a decisive step toward recovering the personal power 
over social life that the centralised, over-bearing bureaucracies have 
usurped from the people . . . we not only gain a sense that we can control 
the course of social events again; we recover a new sense of selfhood 
and personality without which a truly free society, based in self-activity 
and self-management, is utterly impossible." [_Toward an Ecological 
Society_, p. 47]

By acting for themselves, people gain a sense of their own power and 
abilities. This is essential if people are to run their own lives. As
such, direct action is *the* means by which individuals empower themselves,
to assert their individuality, to make themselves count as individuals. It 
is the opposite of hierarchy, within which individuals are told again and 
again that they are nothing, are insignificant and must dissolve themselves 
into a higher power (the state, the company, the party, the people, etc.) and
feel proud in participating in the strength and glory of this higher power.
Direct action, in contrast, is the means of asserting ones individual
opinion, interests and happiness, of fighting against self-negation:

"man has as much liberty as he is willing to take. Anarchism therefore
stands for direct action, the open defiance of, and resistance to, all 
laws and restrictions, economic, social and moral. But defiance and
resistance are illegal. Therein lies the salvation of man. Everything
illegal necessitates integrity, self-reliance, and courage. In short, it
calls for free independent spirits, for men who are men, and who have
a bone in their back which you cannot pass your hand through." [Emma
Goldman, _Red Emma Speaks_, pp. 61-62]

In addition, because direct action is based around individuals solving 
their own problems, by their own action, it awakens those aspects of 
individuals crushed by hierarchy and oppression - such as initiative, 
solidarity, imagination, self-confidence and a sense of individual and 
collective power, that you do matter and count as an individual and that 
you, and others like you, *can* change the world. Direct Action is the 
means by which people can liberate themselves and educate themselves in 
the ways of and skills required for self-management and liberty. Hence:

"anarchists insisted that we learn to think and act for ourselves by 
joining together in organisations in which our experience, our perception 
and our activity can guide and make the change. Knowledge does not precede
experience, it flows from it. . . People learn to be free only by 
exercising freedom. [As one Spanish Anarchist put it] 'We are not going 
to find ourselves. . . with people ready-made for the future. . . Without
continued exercise of their faculties, there will be no free people. . .
The external revolution and the internal revolution presuppose one
another, and they must be simultaneous in order to be successful.'"
[Martha Ackelsberg, _Free Women of Spain_, pp. 32-33]

So direct action, to use Murray Bookchin's words, is "the means whereby 
each individual awakens to the hidden powers within herself and himself, 
to a new sense of self-confidence and self-competence; it is the means 
whereby individuals take control of society directly." [Op. Cit., p. 48] 

In addition, direct action creates the need for new forms of social 
organisation. These new forms of organisation will be informed and shaped
by the process of self-liberation, so be more anarchistic and based upon
self-management. Direct action, as well as liberating individuals, can also
create the free, self-managed organisations which can replace the current
hierarchical ones. In other words, direct action helps create the new world
in the shell of the old:

"direct action not only empowered those who participated in it, it also
had effects on others. . . [including] exemplary action that attracted 
adherents by the power of the positive example it set. Contemporary
examples. . . include food or day-care co-ops, collectively run businesses,
sweat equity housing programmes, women's self-help health collectives, urban
squats or women's peace camps [as well as traditional examples as industrial
unions, social centres, etc.]. While such activities empower those who
engage in them, they also demonstrate to others that non-hierarchical
forms of organisation can and do exist - and that they can function
effectively." [Martha Ackelsberg, Op. Cit., p. 33]

Also, direct action such as strikes encourage and promote class consciousness
and class solidarity. According to Kropotkin, "the strike develops the
sentiment of solidarity" while for Bakunin it "is the beginnings of the
social war of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie. . . Strikes are a
valuable instrument from two points of view. Firstly, they electrify the
masses, invigorate their moral energy and awaken in them the feeling of
the deep antagonism which exists between their interests and those of
the bourgeoisie. . . secondly they help immensely to provoke and establish
between the workers of all trades, localities and countries the consciousness
and very fact of solidarity: a twofold action, both negative and positive, 
which tends to constitute directly the new world of the proletariat, 
opposing it almost in an absolute way to the bourgeois world." [cited
in Caroline Cahm, _Kropotkin and the Rise of Revolutionary Anarchism
1872-1886_, p. 256, pp. 216-217]

Direct action and the movements that used it (such as unionism) would be 
the means to develop the "revolutionary intelligence of the workers" and 
so ensure "emancipation through practice" (to use Bakunin's words). 

Direct action, therefore, helps to create anarchists and anarchist
alternatives within capitalism and statism. As such, it plays an 
essential role in anarchist theory and activity. For anarchists, 
direct action "is not a 'tactic'. . . it is a moral principle, an 
ideal, a sensibility. It should imbue every aspect of our lives and 
behaviour and outlook." [Murray Bookchin, Op. Cit., p. 48]

J.2.2 Why do anarchists reject voting as a means for change?

Simply because electioneering does not work. History is littered with 
examples of radicals being voted into office only to become as, or even
more, conservative than the politicians they replaced.

As we have discussed previously (see B.2 and related sections) any 
government is under pressure from two sources of power, the state 
bureaucracy and big business. This ensures that any attempts at 
social change would be undermined and made hollow by vested 
interests, assuming they even reached that level of discussion 
to begin with (the de-radicalising effects of electioneering is 
discussed below in section J.2.6). Here we will highlight the 
power of vested interests within democratic government.

In section B.2 we only discussed the general nature of the state and 
what its role within society is (i.e. "the preservation of the economic
'status quo,' the protection of the economic privileges of the ruling
class," in the words of Luigi Galleani). However, as the effectiveness of 
the vote to secure change is now the topic we will have to discuss how and
why the state and capital restricts and controls political action.

Taking capital to begin with, if we assume that a relatively
reformist government was elected it would soon find itself facing 
various economic pressures. Either capital would disinvest, so forcing 
the government to back down in the face of economic collapse, or the 
government in question would control capital leaving the country and so 
would soon be isolated from new investment and its currency would become 
worthless. Either way, the economy would be severely damaged and the 
promised "reforms" would be dead letters. In addition, this economic 
failure would soon result in popular revolt which in turn would lead 
to a more authoritarian state as "democracy" was protected from the 
people.

Far fetched? No, not really. In January, 1974, the FT Index for the 
London Stock Exchange stood at 500 points. In February, the miner's went 
on strike, forcing Heath to hold (and lose) a general election. The new 
Labour government (which included many left-wingers in its cabinet) talked 
about nationalising the banks and much heavy industry. In August, 74, Tony 
Benn announced Plans to nationalise the ship building industry. By December
of that year, the FT index had fallen to 150 points. By 1976 the British
Treasury was spending $100 million a day buying back of its own money to 
support the pound [_The London Times_, 10/6/76]. The economic pressure 
of capitalism was at work:

"The further decline in the value of the pound has occurred despite the high 
level of interest rates. . . dealers said that selling pressure against the 
pound was not heavy or persistent, but there was an almost total lack of 
interest amongst buyers. The drop in the pound is extremely surprising in 
view of the unanimous opinion of bankers, politicians and officials that the 
currency is undervalued" [_The London Times_, 27/5/76]

The Labour government faced with the power of international capital ended up 
having to receive a temporary "bailing out" by the I.M.F. who imposed a 
package of cuts and controls which translated to Labour saying "We'll do 
anything you say", in the words of one economist [Peter Donaldson, _A 
Question of Economics_, p. 89]. The social costs of these policies was
massive, with the Labour government being forced to crack down on strikes
and the weakest sectors of society (but that's not to forget that they "cut 
expenditure by twice the amount the I.M.F. were promised." [Ibid.]). In
the backlash to this, Labour lost the next election to a right-wing, 
pro-free market government which continued where Labour had left off.

Or, to use a more recent example, "The fund managers [who control the 
flow of money between financial centres and countries] command such vast
resources that their clashes with governments in the global marketplace
usually ends up in humiliating defeat for politicians. . . In 1992, US
financier George Soros single-handedly destroyed the British government's
attempts to keep the pound in the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM). 
Soros effectively bet, and won, that he could force the British government
to devalue. Using his huge resources, he engineered a run on the pound,
overwhelming the Bank of England's attempts to use its reserves to keep
sterling within its ERM band. The British government capitulated by
suspending sterling's membership of the ERM (an effective devaluation) and
Soros came away from his victory some $1bn richer. Fund managers then 
picked off other currencies one by one, derailing the drive for European
monetary union, which would, incidentally, have cut their profits by making
them unable to buy and sell between the different European currencies."
[Duncan Green, _The Silent Revolution_, p. 124]

The fact is that capital will not invest in a country which does not meet 
its approval and this is an effective weapon to control democratically 
elected governments. And with the increase in globalisation of capital over
the last 30 years this weapon is even more powerful (a weapon we may add 
which was improved, via company and state funded investment and research in 
communication technology, precisely to facilitate the attack on working class 
reforms and power in the developed world, in other words capital ran away
to teach us a lesson -- see sections C.8.1, C.8.2, C.8.3 and D.5.3).

As far as political pressures go, we must remember that there is a difference 
between the state and government. The state is the permanent collection of 
institutions that have entrenched power structures and interests. The 
government is made up of various politicians. It's the institutions that 
have power in the state due to their permanence, not the representatives 
who come and go. In other words, the state bureaucracy has vested interests
and elected politicians cannot effectively control them. This network
of behind the scenes agencies can be usefully grouped into two parts:

"By 'the secret state' we mean. . . the security services, MI5 [the FBI in 
the USA], Special Branch. . . MI6 [the CIA]. By 'the permanent government' 
. . . we mean the secret state plus the Cabinet Office and upper echelons 
of Home and Foreign and Commonwealth Offices, the Armed Forces and Ministry 
of Defence, the nuclear power industry and its satellite ministries; and
the so-called 'Permanent Secretaries Club,' the network of very senior
civil servants - the 'Mandarins.' In addition. . . its satellites"
including M.P.s (particularly right-wing ones), 'agents of influence' in 
the media, former security services personnel, think tanks and opinion
forming bodies, front companies of the security services, and so on.
[Stephen Dorril and Robin Ramsay, _Smear! Wilson and the Secret State_,
p. X, XI]

These bodies, while theoretically under the control of the elected government,
can effectively (via disinformation, black operations, bureaucratic slowdowns,
media attacks, etc.) ensure that any government trying to introduce policies 
which the powers that be disagree with will be stopped. In other words
the state is *not* a neutral body, somehow rising about vested interests
and politics. It is, and always will be, a institution which aims to protect
specific sections of society as well as its own. 

An example of this "secret state" at work can be found in _Smear!_, where 
Dorril and Ramsay document the campaign against the Labour Prime Minister of 
Britain, Harold Wilson, which resulted in his resignation. They also indicate 
the pressures which Labour M.P. Tony Benn was subjected to by "his" Whitehall
advisers:

"In early 1985, the campaign against Benn by the media was joined by the
secret state. The timing is interesting. In January, his Permanent Secretary
had 'declared war' and the following month began the most extraordinary
campaign of harassment any major British politician has experienced. While
this is not provable by any means, it does look as though there is a clear
causal connection between withdrawal of Prime Ministerial support, the
open hostility from the Whitehall mandarins and the onset of covert
operations." [Stephen Dorril and Robin Ramsay, Op. Cit., p. 279]

Not to mention the role of the secret state in undermining reformist and 
radical organisations and movements. Thus involvement goes from pure 
information gathering on "subversives", to disruption and repression. 
Taking the example of the US secret state, Howard Zinn notes that in 1975 
"congressional committees.  . . began investigations of the FBI and CIA.

"The CIA inquiry disclosed that the CIA had gone beyond its original mission
of gathering intelligence and was conducting secret operations of all kinds
. . . [for example] the CIA - with the collusion of a secret Committee of
Forty headed by Henry Kissinger - had worked to 'destabilize' the 
[democratically elected, left-wing] Chilean government. . .

"The investigation of the FBI disclosed many years of illegal actions to
disrupt and destroy radical groups and left-wing groups of all kinds. The
FBI had sent forged letters, engaged in burglaries. . . opened mail 
illegally, and in the case of Black Panther leader Fred Hampton, seems to
have conspired in murder. . .

"The investigations themselves revealed the limits of government willingness
to probe into such activities. . . [and they] submitted its findings 
on the CIA to the CIA to see if there was material the Agency wanted 
omitted." [_A People's History of the United States_, pp. 542-3]

Also, the CIA secretly employs several hundred American academics to write
books and other materials to be used for propaganda purposes, an important
weapon in the battle for hearts and minds. In other words, the CIA, FBI
[and their equivalents in other countries] and other state bodies can hardly 
be considered neutral bodies, who just follow orders. They are a network of 
vested interests, with specific ideological viewpoints and aims which usually 
place the wishes of the voting population below maintaining the state-capital 
power structure in place.

This can be seen most dramatically in the military coup in Chile against
the democratically re-elected (left-wing) Allende government by the military,
aided by the CIA, US based corporations and the US government cutting economic
aid to the country (specifically to make it harder for the Allende regime). 
The coup resulted in tens of thousands murdered and years of terror and 
dictatorship, but the danger of a pro-labour government was stopped and the 
business environment was made healthy for profits. An extreme example, we 
know, but important ones for any believer in freedom or the idea that the 
state machine is somehow neutral and can be captured and used by left-wing 
parties. 

Therefore we cannot expect a different group of politicians to react in 
different ways to the same economic and institutional influences and 
interests. Its no coincidence that left-wing, reformist parties have 
introduced right-wing, pro-capitalist ("Thatcherite/Reaganite") policies 
at the same time as right-wing, explicitly pro-capitalist parties introduced 
them in the UK and the USA. As Clive Ponting (an ex-British Civil Servant) 
points out, this is to be expected:

"the function of the political system in any country in the world is to
regulate, but not alter radically, the existing economic structure and
its linked power relationships. The great illusion of politics is that
politicians have the power to make whatever changes they like. . . On a
larger canvas what real control do the politicians in any country have 
over the operation of the international monetary system, the pattern of
world trade with its built in subordination of the third world or
the operation of multi-national companies? These institutions and the
dominating mechanism that underlies them - the profit motive as a sole
measure of success - are essentially out of control and operating on
autopilot." [quoted in _Alternatives_, # 5, p. 10]

Of course there have been examples of quite extensive reforms which
did benefit working class people in major countries. The New Deal in 
the USA and the 1945-51 Labour Governments spring to mind. Surely these
indicate that our claims above are false? Simply put, no, they do not.
Reforms can be won from the state when the dangers of not giving in
outweigh the problems associated with the reforms. Reforms can therefore
be used to save the capitalist system and the state and even improve their
operation (with, of course, the possibility of getting rid of the reforms
when they are no longer required). 

For example, both the reformist governments of 1930s USA and 1940s UK
were under pressure from below, by waves of militant working class
struggle which could have developed beyond mere reformism. The waves 
of sit-down strikes in the 1930s ensured the passing of pro-union laws 
which while allowing workers to organise without fear of being fired. 
This measure also involved the unions in running the capitalist-state 
machine (and so making them responsible for controlling "unofficial"
workplace action and so ensuring profits). The nationalisation of roughly 
20% of the UK economy during the Labour administration of 1945 (the 
most unprofitable sections of it as well) was also the direct result of 
ruling class fear. As Quintin Hogg, a Tory M.P. at the time, said, 
"If you don't give the people social reforms they are going to give you 
social revolution". Memories of the near revolutions across Europe after 
the first war were obviously in many minds, on both sides. Not that 
nationalisation was particularly feared as "socialism." Indeed it was
argued that it was the best means of improving the performance of the 
British economy. As anarchists at the time noted "the real opinions of 
capitalists can be seen from Stock Exchange conditions and statements of 
industrialists than the Tory Front bench . . . [and from these we] see that 
the owning class is not at all displeased with the record and tendency of 
the Labour Party" [_Neither Nationalisation nor Privatisation: Selections 
from Freedom 1945-1950_, Vernon Richards (ed.), p. 9]

So, if extensive reforms have occurred, just remember what they were in
response to militant pressure from below and that we could have got so
much more.

Therefore, in general, things have little changed over the one hundred years 
since this anarchist argument against electioneering was put forward:

"in the electoral process, the working class will always be cheated and
deceived. . . if they did manage to send, one, or ten, or fifty of
them[selves to Parliament], they would become spoiled and powerless.
Furthermore, even if the majority of Parliament were composed of workers,
they could do nothing. Not only is there the senate . . . the chiefs of
the armed forces, the heads of the judiciary and of the police, who would
be against the parliamentary bills advanced by such a chamber and would
refuse to enforce laws favouring the workers (it has happened [for example
the 8 hour working day was legally created in many US states by the 1870s,
but workers had to strike for it in 1886 as it as not enforced]; but 
furthermore laws are not miraculous; no law can prevent the capitalists
from exploiting the workers; no law can force them to keep their factories
open and employ workers at such and such conditions, nor force shopkeepers
to sell as a certain price, and so on." [S. Merlino, quoted by L. Galleani,
_The End of Anarchism?_, p. 13]

Moreover, anarchists reject voting for other reasons. The fact is 
that electoral procedures are the opposite of direct action - they 
are *based* on getting someone else to act on your behalf. Therefore, 
far from empowering people and giving them a sense of confidence and 
ability, electioneering *dis*-empowers them by creating a "leader" figure 
from which changes are expected to flow. As Martin observes:

"all the historical evidence suggests that parties are more a drag 
than an impetus to radical change. One obvious problem is that parties 
can be voted out. All the policy changes they brought in can simply be 
reversed later. 

"More important, though, is the pacifying influence of the radical party 
itself. On a number of occasions, radical parties have been elected to 
power as a result of popular upsurges. Time after time, the 
'radical' parties have become chains to hold back the process of radical 
change." ["Democracy without Elections," _Reinventing Anarchy, Again_, 
Howard J. Ehrlich (ed.), p. 124]

This can easily be seen from the history of the various left-wing parties.
Ralph Miliband points out that labour or socialist parties, elected in
periods of social turbulence, have often acted to reassure the ruling
elite by dampening popular action that could have threatened capitalist
interests [_The State in Capitalist Society_, Weidenfeld and Nicolson,
1969]. For example, the first project undertaken by the Popular Front,
elected in France in 1936, was to put an end to strikes and occupations
and generally to cool popular militancy, which was the Front's strongest
ally in coming to power. The Labour government elected in Britain in 1945
got by with as few reforms as it could, refusing to consider changing
basic social structures. In addition, within the first week of taking office
it sent troops in to break the dockers' strike. Labour has used troops to 
break strikes far more often than the Conservatives have. 

These points indicate why existing power structures cannot effectively be
challenged through elections. For one thing, elected representatives are 
not *mandated,* which is to say they are not tied in any binding way to 
particular policies, no matter what promises they have made or what voters 
may prefer. Around election time, the public's influence on politicians is
strongest, but after the election, representatives can do practically
whatever they want, because there is no procedure for *instant recall.* 
In practice it is impossible to recall politicians before the next
election, and between elections they are continually exposed to pressure
from powerful special-interest groups -- especially business lobbyists,
state bureaucracies and political party power brokers. 

Under such pressure, the tendency of politicians to break campaign
promises has become legendary. Generally, such promise breaking is blamed
on bad character, leading to periodic "throw-the-bastards-out" fervour --
after which a new set of representatives is elected, who also mysteriously
turn out to be bastards! In reality it is the system itself that
produces "bastards," the sell-outs and shady dealing we have come to
expect from politicians. As Alex Comfort argues, political office
attracts power-hungry, authoritarian, and ruthless personalities, or 
at least tends to bring out such qualities in those who are elected
(see his classic work _Authority and Delinquency in the Modern State: 
A Criminological Approach to the Problem of Power_). 

In light of modern "democracy", it is amazing that anyone takes the system
seriously enough to vote at all. And in fact, voter turnout in the US and
other nations where "democracy" is practised in this fashion is typically
low. Nevertheless, some voters continue to participate, pinning their
hopes on new parties or trying to reform a major party. For anarchists,
this activity is pointless as it does not get at the root of the problem.
It is not politicians or parties which are the problem, its a system
which shapes them into its own image and marginalises and alienates 
people due to its hierarchical and centralised nature. No amount of party
politics can change that.

However, we should make it clear that most anarchists recognise there is a 
difference between voting for a government and voting in referendum. Here 
we are discussing the former, electioneering, as a means of social 
change. Referenda are closer to anarchist ideas of direct democracy 
and are, while flawed, far better than electing a politician to office 
once every four years or so.

In addition, Anarchists are not necessarily against all involvement in 
electoral politics. Bakunin thought it could sometimes be useful to 
participate in local elections in relatively small communities where 
regular contact with representatives can maintain accountability. This
argument has been taken up by such Social Ecologists such as Murray
Bookchin who argues that anarchists, by taking part in local elections,
can use this technique to create self-governing community assemblies.
However, few anarchists support such means to create community assemblies 
(see section J.5.14 for a discussion on this).

However, in large cities and in regional or national elections, certain 
processes have developed which render the term "democracy" inappropriate. 
These processes include mass advertising, bribery of voters through government 
projects in local areas, party "machines," the limitation of news coverage to 
two (or at most three) major parties, and government manipulation of the news. 
Party machines choose candidates, dictate platforms, and contact voters by 
phone campaigns. Mass advertising "packages" candidates like commodities,
selling them to voters by emphasising personality rather than policies,
while media news coverage emphasise the "horse race" aspects of campaigns
rather than policy issues. Government spending in certain areas (or more
cynically, the announcement of new projects in such areas just before
elections) has become a standard technique for buying votes. And we have
already examined the mechanisms through which the media is made dependent
of government sources of information (see section D.3), a development that
obviously helps incumbents. 

Therefore, for these related reasons anarchists reject the voting as a
means of change. Instead we wholeheartedly support direct action as
the means of getting improvements in the here and now as well as the
means of creating an alternative to the current system.

J.2.3 What are the political implications of voting?

At its most basic, voting implies agreement with the status quo. It
is worth quoting the Scottish libertarian socialist James Kelman at
length on this:

"State propaganda insists that the reason why at least 40 percent of
the voting public don't vote at all is because they have no feelings one 
way or the other. They say the same thing in the USA, where some 85
percent of the population are apparently 'apolitical' since they don't
bother registering a vote. Rejection of the political system is 
inadmissible as far as the state is concerned. . . Of course the one
thing that does happen when you vote is that someone else has endorsed an
unfair political system. . . A vote for any party or any individual is
always a vote for the political system. You can interpret your vote in
whichever way you like but it remains an endorsement of the apparatus. . .
If there was any possibility that the apparatus could effect a change 
in the system then they would dismantle it immediately. In other words
the political system is an integral state institution, designed and
refined to perpetuate its own existence. Ruling authority fixes the 
agenda by which the public are allowed 'to enter the political arena'
and that's the fix they've settled on" [_Some Recent Attacks_, p.87]

We are taught from an early age that voting in elections is right and a
duty. In US schools, children elect class presidents and other officers. 
Often mini-general elections are held to "educate" children in "democracy".
Periodically, election coverage monopolises the media. We are made to
feel guilty about shirking our "civic responsibility" if we don't vote. 
Countries that have no elections, or only rigged elections, are regarded
as failures [Benjamin Ginsberg, _The Consequences of Consent: Elections,
Citizen Control and Popular Acquiescence_, Addison-Wesley, 1982]. As a
result, elections have become a quasi-religious ritual.

As Brian Martin points out, however, "elections in practice have served
well to maintain dominant power structures such as private property, the
military, male domination, and economic inequality. None of these has been
seriously threatened through voting. It is from the point of view of
radical critics that elections are most limiting." ["Democracy without
Elections", _Reinventing Anarchy, Again_, Howard J. Ehrlich (ed.), p. 124]

Benjamin Ginsberg has noted other ways in which elections serve the
interests of state power. Firstly, voting helps to legitimate government;
hence suffrage has often been expanded at times when there was little
popular demand for it but when mass support of government was crucial, as
during a war or revolution. Secondly, since voting is organised and
supervised by government, it comes to be seen as the only legitimate form
of political participation, thus making it likely that any revolts by
oppressed or marginalised groups will be viewed by the general public as
illegitimate (see his book _The Consequences of Consent_).

In addition, Ginsberg argues that, historically, by enlarging the number
of people who participate in 'politics,' and by turning this participation
into the "safe" activities of campaigning and voting, elections have
reduced the risk of more radical direct action. That is, voting
disempowers the grassroots by diverting energy from grassroots action. 
After all, the goal of electoral politics is to elect a representative 
who will act *for* us. Therefore, instead taking direct action to solve
problems ourselves, action becomes indirect, though the government. This
is an insidiously easy trap to fall into, as we have been conditioned in
hierarchical society from day one into attitudes of passivity and
obedience, which gives most of us a deep-seated tendency to leave
important matters to the "experts" and "authorities." 

Anarchists also criticise elections for giving citizens the false
impression that the government serves, or can serve, the people. As
Martin puts it, "the founding of the modern state a few centuries ago 
was met with great resistance: people would refuse to pay taxes, to 
be conscripted or to obey laws passed by national governments. The
introduction of voting and the expanded suffrage have greatly aided the
expansion of state power. Rather than seeing the system as one of ruler
and ruled, people see at least the possibility of using state power to
serve themselves. As electoral participation has increased, the degree of
resistance to taxation, military service, and the immense variety of laws
regulating behaviour, has been greatly attenuated." [Op. Cit., p. 126]

Ironically, however, voting has legitimated the growth of state power to
such an extent that the state is now beyond any real popular control by
the form of participation that made that growth possible. Nevertheless,
as Ginsberg observes, the idea that electoral participation means popular
control of government is so deeply implanted in people's psyches "that
even the most overtly sceptical cannot fully free themselves from it."
[_The Consequences of Consent_, Op. Cit., p. 241]

Therefore, voting has the important political implication of encouraging
people to identify with state power and to justify the status quo. In 
addition, it feeds the illusion that the state is neutral and that
electing parties to office means that people have control over their
own lives. Moreover, elections have a tendency to make people passive,
to look for salvation from above and not from their own self-activity.
As such it produces a division between leaders and led, with the voters
turned into spectators of activity, not the participants within it. 

All this does not mean, obviously, that anarchists prefer dictatorship 
or an "enlightened" monarchy. Far from it, democratising state power
can be an important step towards abolishing it. All anarchists agree
with Bakunin when he argued that "the most imperfect republic is a 
thousand times better that even the most enlightened monarchy." [cited
by Guerin, _Anarchism_, p. 20] But neither does it mean that anarchists 
will join in with the farce of electioneering, particularly when there 
are more effective means available for changing things for the better.

J.2.4 Surely voting for radical parties will be effective?

There is no doubt that voting can lead to changes in policies, which can
be a good thing as far as it goes. But such policies are formulated and
implemented within the authoritarian framework of the hierarchical
capitalist state -- a framework which itself is never open to challenge by
voting. To the contrary, voting legitimates the state framework, ensuring
that social change will be mild, gradual, and reformist rather than rapid 
and radical. Indeed, the "democratic" process has always resulted in (and
will always result in) all successful political parties becoming committed 
to "more of the same" or tinkering with the details at best (which is 
usually the limits of any policy changes). 

However, given the need for radical systemic changes as soon as possible 
due to the exponentially accelerating crises of modern civilisation, working 
for gradual reforms within the electoral system must be seen as a potentially 
deadly tactical error. In addition, it can never get to the root causes of
our problems. Anarchists reject the idea that our problems can be solved by 
the very institutions that cause them in the first place! What happens in 
our communities, workplaces and environment is too important to be left 
to politicians - or the ruling elite who control governments.

Because of this anarchists reject political parties and electioneering. 
Electioneering has always been the death of radicalism. Political parties 
are only radical when they don't stand a chance of election. However, many
social activists continue to try to use elections, so participating in the
system which disempowers the majority and so helps create the social problems
they are protesting against.

"It should be a truism that elections empower the politicians and not the
voters," Brian Martin writes, "yet many social movements continually are
drawn into electoral politics." There are a number of reasons for this. 
"One is the involvement of party members in social movements. Another is 
the aspirations for power and influence by leaders in movements. Having 
the ear of a government minister is a heady sensation for many; getting 
elected to parliament oneself is even more of an ego boost. What is 
forgotten in all this 'politics of influence' is the effect on ordinary 
activists." ["Democracy without Elections", _Reinventing Anarchy, Again_, 
Howard J. Ehrlich (ed.),p. 125] 

Rudoph Bahro gives an example of how working "within the system"
disempowered grassroots Green activists in Germany during the early
eighties, pointing out that the coalitions into which the Greens entered
with Social Democrats in the German legislature often had the effect of
strengthening the status quo by co-opting those whose energies might
otherwise have gone into more radical and effective forms of activism
[_Building the Green Movement_, New Society Publishers, 1986]. 
 
No doubt the state is more complicated than the simple "executive
committee of the ruling class" pictured by Marxists. There are
continual struggles both within and without the state bureaucracies,
struggles that influence policies and empower different groups of people. 
Because of this, many radical parties believe that it makes sense to work
within the state -- for example, to obtain labour, consumer, and
environmental protection laws. However, this reasoning ignores the fact
that the organisational structure of the state is not neutral.

To quote Martin again, the "basic anarchist insight is that the structure
of the state, as a centralised administrative apparatus, is inherently
flawed from the point of view of human freedom and equality. Even though
the state can be used occasionally for valuable ends, as a means the state
is flawed and impossible to reform. The nonreformable aspects of the state
include, centrally, its monopoly over 'legitimate' violence and its
consequent power to coerce for the purpose of war, internal control,
taxation and the protection of property and bureaucratic privilege.

"The problem with voting is that the basic premises of the state are never
considered open for debate, much less challenge. The state's monopoly over
the use of violence for war is never at issue. Neither is the state's use
of violence against revolt from within. The state's right to extract
economic resources from the population is never questioned. Neither is 
the state's guarantee of either private property (under capitalism) or
bureaucratic prerogative (under state socialism) -- or both" [Op. Cit., 
p. 127]

But, it may be said, if a new political group is radical enough, it will
be able to use state power for good purposes. While we discuss this in
more detail later in section J.2.6, let us consider a specific case:
that of the Greens, many of whom believe that the best way to achieve 
their aims is to work within the representative political system. 

By pledging to use the electoral system to achieve change, Green parties
necessarily commit themselves to formulating their proposals as
legislative agendas. But once legislation is passed, the coercive
mechanisms of the state will be needed to enforce it. Therefore, Green
parties are committed to upholding state power. However, our analysis 
in section B.2 indicated that the state is a set of hierarchical
institutions through which a ruling elite dominates society and
individuals. And, as we have seen in the introduction to section E,
ecologists, feminists, and peace activists -- who are key constituencies
of the Green movement -- all need to *dismantle* hierarchies and
domination in order to achieve their respective aims. Therefore, since
the state is not only the largest and most powerful hierarchy but also
serves to maintain the hierarchical form of all major institutions in
society (since this form is the most suitable for achieving ruling-class
interests), the state itself is the main obstacle to the success of key
constituencies of the Green movement. Hence it is impossible *in
principle* for a parliamentary Green party to achieve essential objectives
of the Green movement. A similar argument would apply to any radical
party whose main emphasis was social justice, which like the goals of 
feminists, radical ecologists, and peace activists, depends on dismantling
hierarchies. 
 
And surely no one who even is remotely familiar with history will
suggest that 'radical' politicians, even if by some miracle they were to
obtain a majority in the national legislature, might dismantle the state. 
It should be axiomatic by now that when a 'radical' politician (e.g. a
Lenin) says to voters, "Give me and my party state power and we will
'wither away'" it's just more campaign rhetoric (in Lenin's case, the 
ultimate campaign promise), and hence not to be taken seriously. And, as
we argued in the previous section, radical parties are under pressure
from economic and state bureaucracies that ensure that even a sincere
radical party would be powerless to introduce significant reforms.

The only real response to the problems of representative democracy is to 
urge people not to vote. This can be a valuable way of making others aware 
of the limitations of the current system, which is a necessary condition 
for their seriously considering the anarchist alternative, as we have
outlined in this FAQ. The implications of abstentionism are discussed
in the next section.

J.2.5 Why do anarchists support abstentionism and what are its
      implications?

At its most basic, anarchists support abstentionism because "participation
in elections means the transfer of one's will and decisions to another,
which is contrary to the fundamental principles of anarchism." [Emma
Goldman, "Anarchists and Elections", _Vanguard_ III, June-July 1936,
p. 19]

If you reject hierarchy and government then participating in a system
by which you elect those who will govern you is almost like adding insult
to injury! And as Luigi Galleani points out, "[b]ut whoever has the political
competence to choose his own rulers is, by implication, also competent
to do without them." [_The End of Anarchism?_, p. 37] In other words,
because anarchists reject the idea of authority, we reject the idea 
that picking the authority (be it bosses or politicians) makes us free.
Therefore, anarchists reject governmental elections in the name of
self-government and free association. We refuse to vote as voting is
endorsing authoritarian social structures. We are (in effect) being asked
to make obligations to the state, not our fellow citizens, and so anarchists
reject the symbolic process by which our liberty is alienated from us.

For anarchists, then, when you vote, you are choosing between rulers. 
Instead of urging people to vote we raise the option of choosing to rule 
yourself, to organise freely with others - in your workplace, in your 
community, everywhere - as equals. The option of something you cannot
vote for, a new society. And instead of waiting for others to do make some 
changes for you, anarchists urge that you do it yourself. This is the 
core of the anarchist support for abstentionism.

In addition, beyond this basic anarchist rejection of elections from a
anti-statist position, anarchists also support abstentionism as it allows
us to put across our ideas at election time. It is a fact that at election
times individuals are often more interested in politics than usual. So,
by arguing for abstentionism we can get our ideas across about the
nature of the current system, how elected politicians do not control
the state bureaucracy, now the state acts to protect capitalism and so
on. In addition, it allows us to present the ideas of direct action and
encourage those disillusioned with political parties and the current
system to become anarchists by presenting a viable alternative to the
farce of politics.

And a sizeable percentage of non-voters and voters are disillusioned
with the current set-up. According to the US paper _The Nation_
(dated February 10, 1997):

"Protest is alive and well in the growing non-electorate, now the majority
(last fall's turnout was 48.8 percent). According to a little-noticed
post-election survey of 400 nonvoters conducting by the Polling Company, a
Washington-based firm, 38 percent didn't vote for essentially political
reasons: they 'did not care for any of the candidates' (16 percent), they
were 'fed up with the political system' (15 percent) or they 'did not feel
like candidates were interested in people like me' (7 percent). That's at 
least 36 million people--almost as many as voted for Bob Dole. The nonvoting 
majority is also disproportionately liberal-leaning, compared with those 
who did vote."

So, anarchist abstentionism is a means of turning this negative reaction
to an unjust system into positive activity. So, anarchist opposition to 
electioneering has deep political implications which Luigi Galleani addresses 
when he writes that the "anarchists' electoral abstentionism implies not 
only a conception that is opposed to the principle of representation 
(which is totally rejected by anarchism), it implies above all an absolute 
lack of confidence in the State. . . Furthermore, anarchist abstentionism 
has consequences which are much less superficial than the inert apathy 
ascribed to it by the sneering careerists of 'scientific socialism' 
[i.e. Marxism]. It strips the State of the constitutional fraud with 
which it presents itself to the gullible as the true representative
of the whole nation, and, in so doing, exposes its essential character 
as representative, procurer and policeman of the ruling classes.

"Distrust off reforms, of public power and of delegated authority, can 
lead to direct action [in the class struggle]. . . It can determine the 
revolutionary character of this . . . action; and, accordingly, anarchists 
regard it as the best available means for preparing the masses to manage their 
own personal and collective interests; and, besides, anarchists feel that even 
now the working people are fully capable of handling their own political and
administrative interests." [_The End of Anarchism?_, pp. 13-14]

Therefore abstentionism stresses the importance of self-activity and
self-libertarian as well as having an important educational effect in
highlighting that the state is not neutral, but serves to protect class
rule, and that meaningful change only comes from below, by direct action. 
For the dominant ideas within any class society reflect the opinion of the 
ruling elite of that society and so any campaign at election times which 
argues for abstentionism and indicates why voting is a farce will obviously 
challenge these dominant ideas. In other words, abstentionism combined with 
direct action and the building of socialist alternatives is a very effective 
means of changing people's ideas and encouraging a process of self-education 
and, ultimately, self-liberation.

Anarchists are aware that elections serve to legitimate government. We
have always warned that since the state is an integral part of the system 
that perpetuates poverty, inequality, racism, imperialism, sexism, 
environmental destruction, and war, we should not expect to solve
any of these problems by changing a few nominal state leaders every four
or five years (see P. Kropotkin, "Representative Government," _The
Commonweal_, Vol. 7, 1892; Errico Malatesta, _Vote: What For?_, Freedom
Press, 1942). Therefore anarchists (usually) advocate abstentionism
at election time as a means of exposing the farce of "democracy", the
disempowering nature of elections and the real role of the state.

Therefore, anarchists urge abstentionism in order to *encourage* activity,
not apathy. The reasons *why* people abstain is more important than the act.
The idea that the USA is closer to anarchy because around 50% of people
do not vote is nonsense. Abstentionism in this case is the product of
apathy and cynicism, not political ideas. So anarchists recognise that 
apathetic abstentionism is *not* revolutionary or an indication of anarchist
sympathies. It is produced by apathy and a general level of cynicism at 
*all* forms of political ideas and the possibility of change. 

Not voting is *not* enough, and anarchists urge people to *organise* and 
*resist* as well. Abstentionism must be the political counterpart of class
struggle, self-activity and self-management in order to be effective - 
otherwise it is as pointless as voting is.

J.2.6 What are the effects of radicals using electioneering?

While many radicals would be tempted to agree with our analysis of the
limitations of electioneering and voting, few would automatically
agree with anarchist abstentionist arguments. Instead, they argue that
we should combine direct action with electioneering. In that way (it is
argued) we can overcome the limitations of electioneering by invigorating
the movement with self-activity. In addition, it is argued, the state
is too powerful to leave in the hands of the enemies of the working
class. A radical politician will refuse to give the orders to crush
social protest that a right-wing, pro-capitalist one would.

This reformist idea met a nasty end in the 1900s (when, we may note, social 
democracy was still considered revolutionary). In 1899, the Socialist 
Alexandre Millerand joined the cabinet of the French Government. The 
Marxian-Socialist Second International approved of this with such leaders 
as Lenin and Kautsky supporting it at the 1904 conference. However, nothing
changed:

"thousands of strikers. . . appealed to Millerand for help, confident that,
with him in the government, the state would be on their side. Much of this
confidence was dispelled within a few years. The government did little 
more for workers than its predecessors had done; soldiers and police were
still sent in to repress serious strikes." [Peter N. Stearns, _Revolutionary
Syndicalism and French Labour_, p. 16]

In 1910, the Socialist Prime Minister Briand used scabs and soldiers to again 
break a general strike on the French railways. And these events occurred 
during the period when social democratic and socialist parties were 
self-proclaimed revolutionaries and arguing against anarcho-syndicalism 
by using the argument that working people needed their own representatives
in office to stop troops being used against them during strikes!

Looking at the British Labour government of 1945 to 1951 we find the same
actions. What is often considered the most left-wing Labour government 
ever used troops to break strikes in every year it was in office, starting 
with a dockers' strike days after it became the new government. And again 
in the 1970s Labour used troops to break strikes. Indeed, the Labour Party 
has used troops to break strikes more often than the right-wing Conservative 
Party. 

In other words, while these are important arguments in favour of radicals
using elections, they ultimately fail to take into account the nature of 
the state and the corrupting effect it has on radicals. If history is 
anything to go by, the net effect of radicals using elections is that by 
the time they are elected to office the radicals will happily do what they 
claimed the right-wing would have done. Many blame the individuals elected
to office for these betrayals, arguing that we need to elect *better* 
politicians, select *better* leaders. For anarchists nothing could be more
wrong as its the means used, not the individuals involved, which is the 
problem.

At its most basic, electioneering results in the party using it becoming
more moderate and reformist - indeed the party often becomes the victim 
of its own success. In order to gain votes, the party must appear "moderate"
and "practical" and that means working within the system. This has meant
that (to use Rudolf Rocker words):

"Participation in the politics of the bourgeois States has not
brought the labour movement a hair's-breadth nearer to Socialism, but
thanks to this method, Socialism has almost been completely crushed
and condemned to insignificance. . . Participation in parliamentary
politics has affected the Socialist Labour movement like an insidious
poison. It destroyed the belief in the necessity of constructive Socialist
activity, and, worse of all, the impulse to self-help, by inoculating 
people with the ruinous delusion that salvation always comes from above." 
[_Anarcho-Syndicalism_, p. 49]

This corruption does not happen overnight. Alexander Berkman indicates how 
it slowly develops when he writes:

"[At the start, the Socialist Parties] claimed that they meant to use politics
only for the purpose of propaganda . . . and took part in elections on order
to have an opportunity to advocate Socialism

"It may seem a harmless thing but it proved the undoing of Socialism. 
Because nothing is truer than the means you use to attain your object soon
themselves become your object . . . [so] There is a deeper reason for this
constant and regular betrayal [than individual scoundrels being elected]
. . . no man turns scoundrel or traitor overnight.

"It is *power* which corrupts . . . Moreover, even with the best intentions
Socialists [who get elected] . . . find themselves entirely powerless to
accomplishing anything of a socialistic nature . . . The demoralisation and
vitiation [this brings about] take place little by little, so gradually
that one hardly notices it himself . . . [The elected Socialist] perceives
that he is regarded as a laughing stock [by the other politicians] . . .
and finds more and more difficulty in securing the floor . . . he knows
that neither by his talk nor by his vote can he influence the proceedings
. . . His speeches don't even reach the public . . . [and so] He appeals to 
the voters to elect more comrades . . . Years pass . . . [and a] number . . .
are elected. Each of them goes through the same experience. . . [and]
quickly come to the conclusion . . . [that] They must show that they are
practical men . . . that they are doing something for their constituency. . .
In this manner the situation compels them to take a 'practical' part in the
proceedings, to 'talk business,' to fall in line with the matters actually
dealt with in the legislative body . . . Spending years in that atmosphere,
enjoying good jobs and pay, the elected Socialists have themselves become
part and parcel of the political machinery . . . With growing success in
elections and securing political power they turn more and more conservative
and content with existing conditions. Removal from the life and suffering
of the working class, living in the atmosphere of the bourgeoisie . . . they
have become what they call 'practical' . . . Power and position have
gradually stifled their conscience and they have not the strength and
honesty to swim against the current . . . They have become the strongest
bulwark of capitalism."[_What is Communist Anarchism?_, pp. 78-82]

And so the "political power which they had wanted to conquer had gradually
conquered their Socialism until there was scarcely anything left of it."
[Rudolf Rocker, Op. Cit., p. 50] Not that these arguments are the result
of hindsight, we may add. Bakunin was arguing in the early 1870s that
the "inevitable result [of using elections] will be that workers' deputies,
transferred to a purely bourgeois environment, and into an atmosphere
of purely bourgeois political ideas. . . will become middle class in their
outlook, perhaps even more so than the bourgeois themselves." [_The
Political Philosophy of Bakunin_, p. 216] History proved Bakunin's 
prediction correct (as it did with his prediction that Marxism would
result in elite rule).

History is littered with examples of radical parties becoming a part of
the system. From Marxian Social Democracy at the turn of the 19th
century to the German Green Party in the 1980s, we have seen radical
parties, proclaiming the need for direct action and extra-parliamentary
activity denouncing these activities once in power. From only using
parliament as a means of spreading their message, the parties involved
end up considering votes as more important than the message. Janet
Biehl sums up the effects on the German Green Party of trying to combine 
radical electioneering with direct action:

"the German Greens, once a flagship for the Green movement worldwide, 
should now be considered stink normal, as their *de facto* boss himself
declares. Now a repository of careerists, the Greens stand out only for
the rapidity with which the old cadre of careerism, party politics, and
business-as-usual once again played itself out in their saga of 
compromise and betrayal of principle. Under the superficial veil of their
old values - a very thin veil indeed, now - they can seek positions and
make compromises to their heart's content. . . They have become 'practical,'
'realistic' and 'power-orientated.' This former New Left ages badly, not
only in Germany but everywhere else. But then, it happened with the S.P.D."
[The German Social Democratic Party] in August 1914, then why not with
Die Grunen in 1991? So it did." ["Party or Movement?", _Greenline_, no.
89, p. 14]

This, sadly, is the end result of all such attempts. Ultimately, 
supporters of using political action can only appeal to the good 
intentions and character of their candidates. Anarchists, however, 
present an analysis of the structures and other influences that 
will determine how the character of the successful candidates will 
change. In other words, in contrast to Marxists and other radicals, 
anarchists present a materialist, scientific analysis of the dynamics 
of electioneering and its effects on radicals. And like most forms of 
idealism, the arguments of Marxists and other radicals flounder on the 
rocks of reality as their theory "inevitably draws and enmeshes its 
partisans, under the pretext of political tactics, into ceaseless 
compromises with governments and political parties; that is, it pushes 
them toward downright reaction." [Bakunin, Op. Cit., p. 288]

However, many radicals refuse to learn this lesson of history and keep 
trying to create a new party which will not repeat the saga of compromise 
and betrayal which all other radical parties have suffered. And they say
that anarchists are utopian! In other words, its truly utopian to
think that "You cannot dive into a swamp and remain clean." [Alexander 
Berkman, Op. Cit., p. 83] Such is the result of rejecting (or 
"supplementing" with electioneering) direct action as the means to
change things, for any social movement "to ever surrender their commitment 
to direct action for 'working within the system' is to destroy their 
personality as socially innovative movements. It is to dissolve back 
into the hopeless morass of 'mass organisations' that seek respectability 
rather than change." [Murray Bookchin, _Toward an Ecological Society_, 
p. 47]

Moreover, the use of electioneering has a centralising effect on the
movements that use it. Political actions become considered as parliamentary
activities made *for* the population by their representatives, with the
'rank and file' left with no other role than that of passive support.
Only the leaders are actively involved and the main emphasis falls upon
the leaders and it soon becomes taken for granted that they should
determine policy (even ignoring conference decisions when required - how
many times have politicians turned round and done the exact opposite of
what they promised or introduced the exact opposite of party policy?). In
the end, party conferences become simply like parliamentary elections,
with party members supporting this leader against another.

Soon the party reflects the division between manual and mental labour
so necessary for the capitalist system. Instead of working class
self-activity and self-determination, there is a substitution and
a non working class leadership acting *for* people replaces self-management
in social struggle and within the party itself. Electoralism strengthens
the leaders dominance over the party and the party over the people it
claims to represent. And, of course, the real causes and solutions to
the problems we face are mystified by the leadership and rarely discussed
in order to concentrate on the popular issues that will get them elected.

And, of course, this results in radicals "instead of weakening the false 
and enslaving belief in law and government . . . actually work[ing] to
*strengthen* the people's faith in forcible authority and government."
[A. Berkman, Op. Cit., p. 84] Which has always proved deadly to encouraging
a spirit of revolt, self-management and self-help -- the very keys to 
creating change in a society. 

Thus the 1870 resolution of the Spanish section of the _First International_
seems to have been proven to be totally correct:

"Any participation of the working class in the middle class political
government would merely consolidate the present state of affairs and
necessarily paralyse the socialist revolutionary action of the proletariat.
The Federation [of unions making up the Spanish section of the International]
is the true representative of labour, and should work outside the political
system." [quoted by Jose Pierats, _Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution_, 
p. 169]

Instead of trying to gain control of the state, for whatever reasons, 
anarchists try to promote a culture of resistance within society that
makes the state subject to pressure from without. Or, to quote Proudhon,
we see the "problem before the labouring classes . . . [as] consist[ing of]
not in capturing, but in subduing both power and monopoly, -- that is, in
generating from the bowels of the people, from the depths of labour, a
greater authority, a more potent fact, which shall envelop capital and
the state and subjugate them." For, "to combat and reduce power, to 
put it in its proper place in society, it is of no use to change the
holders of power or introduce some variation into its workings: an
agricultural and industrial combination must be found by means of which
power, today the ruler of society, shall become its slave." [_System of 
Economical Contradictions_, p. 398 and p. 397]

To use an analogy, the pro-election radical argues that the state is like 
an person with a stick that intends to use it against you and your friends. 
Then you notice that their grasp of that stick is uncertain, and you can 
grab that stick away from them. If you take the stick away from them, that 
does not mean you have to hit them. After you take the weapon away from 
them, you can also break it in half and throw it away. They will have 
been deprived of its use, and that is the important thing.

In response the anarchist argues that instead of making plans to take 
their stick, we develop our muscles and skill so that we don't need a 
stick, so that we can beat them on our own. It takes longer, sure, to 
build up genuinely libertarian working class organs, but it's worth it 
simply because then our strength is part of us, and it can't be taken 
away by someone offering to "wield it on our behalf" (or saying that 
they will break the stick when they get it). And what do socialist and 
radical parties do? Offer to fight on our behalf and if we rely on others 
to act for us then we will be disarmed when they do not (and instead use
the stick against us). Given the fact that power corrupts, any claim
that by giving the stick of state power to a party we can get rid of
it once and for all is naive to say the least.

And, we feel, history has proven us right time and time again.

J.2.7 Surely we should vote for reformist parties in order to show
      them up for what they are?

Some Leninist socialists (like the British Socialist Workers Party and their
offshoots like ISO in the USA) argue that we should urge people to vote for
Labour and other social democratic parties. This is because of two reasons.

Firstly, it is argued, radicals will be able to reach more people by 
being seen to support popular, trade union based parties. If they do not,
then they are in danger of alienating sizeable sections of the working class 
by arguing that such parties will be no better than explicitly pro-capitalist 
ones. 

The second argument, and the more important one, is that by electing reformist 
parties into office the experience of living under such a government will 
shatter whatever illusions its supporters had in them. In other words, by 
getting reformist parties elected into office they will be given the test of 
experience. And when they betray their supporters to protect the status 
quo the experience will radicalise those who voted for them, who will then 
seek out *real* socialist parties (namely the likes of the SWP and ISO).

Anarchists reject these arguments for three reasons. 

Firstly, it is a deeply dishonest tactic as it hides the true thoughts of 
those who support the tactic. To tell the truth is a revolutionary act. 
Radicals should not follow the capitalist media by telling half-truths or 
distorting the facts or what they believe. They should not hide their 
politics or suggest they support a system or party they are opposed to. If 
this means being less popular in the short run, then so be it. Attacking 
capitalism, religion, or a host of other things can alienate people but few 
radicals would be so opportunistic as to hold their tongues attacking these.
In the long run being honest about your ideas is the best way of producing
a movement which aims to get rid of a corrupt social system. Starting such
a movement with half-truths is doomed to failure.

Secondly, anarchists reject the logic of this theory. The logic underlying
this argument is that by being disillusioned by their reformist leaders
and party, voters will look for *new,* "better" leaders and parties. However,
this fails to go to the root of the problem, namely the dependence on
leaders which hierarchical society creates within people. Anarchists do not
want people to follow the "best" leadership, they want them to govern 
themselves, to be *self*-active, manage their own affairs and not follow 
any would-be leaders. If you seriously think that the liberation of the 
oppressed is the task of the oppressed themselves (as these Leninists claim 
to do) then you *must* reject this tactic in favour of ones that promote 
working class self-activity.

And the third reason is that this tactic has been proven to fail time and
time again. What most of its supporters seem to fail to notice is that 
voters have indeed put reformist parties into office many times (for example, 
there have been 7 Labour Party governments in Britain before 1997, all of 
whom attacked the working class) and there has been no movement away from 
them to something more radical. Lenin suggested this tactic over 70 
years ago and there has been no general radicalisation of the voting 
population by this method, nor even in reformist party militants. Indeed, 
ironically enough, most such activists have left their parties when its 
been out of office and they have become disgusted by the party's attempts 
to appear "realistic" in order to win the next election! And this disgust
often expresses itself as a demoralisation with socialism *as such*, 
rather than with their party's watered down version of it.

This total failure, for anarchists, is not surprising, considering the
reasons why we reject this tactic. Given that this tactic does not attack
hierarchy or dependence on leaders, does not attack the ideology and
process of voting, it will obviously fail to present a real alternative 
to the voting population (who will turn to other alternatives available
at election time and not embrace direct action). Also, the sight of a 
so-called "socialist" or "radical" government managing capitalism, imposing 
cuts, breaking strikes and generally attacking its supporters will damage the 
credibility of any form of socialism and discredit all socialist and radical
ideas in the eyes of the population. And if the experience of the Labour
Government in Britain during the 1970s is anything to go by, it may result 
in the rise of the right-wing who will capitalise on this disillusionment. 

By refusing to argue that no government is "on our side," radicals who urge 
us to vote reformist "without illusions" help to disarm theoretically the 
people who listen to them. Working class people, surprised, confused and 
disorientated by the constant "betrayals" of left-wing parties may turn 
to right wing parties (who can be elected) to stop the attacks rather 
than turn to direct action as the radical minority within the working 
class did not attack voting as part of the problem.

How many times must we elect the same party, go through the same process,
the same betrayals before we realise this tactic does not work? And, if
it *is* a case of having to experience something before people reject it, few
state socialists take this argument to its logical conclusion. We rarely
hear them argue we must experience the hell of fascism or Stalinism or the
nightmare of free market capitalism in order to ensure working class people
"see through" them.

Anarchists, in contrast, say that we can argue against reformist politics 
without having to associate ourselves with them by urging people to vote for 
them. By arguing for abstentionism we can help arm theoretically people who 
will come into conflict with these parties once they are in office. By arguing 
that all governments will be forced to attack us (due to the pressure from 
capital and state) and that we have to reply on our own organisations and 
power to defend ourselves, we can promote working class self-confidence in 
its own abilities, and encourage the rejection of capitalism, the state and 
hierarchical leadership as well as encouraging the use of direct action.

And, we may add, it is not required for radicals to associate themselves with 
the farce of parliamentary propaganda in order to win people over to our 
ideas. Non-anarchists will see us use *direct action,* see us *act,* see 
the anarchistic alternatives we create and see and read our propaganda. 
Non-anarchists can be reached quite well without taking part or associating 
ourselves with parliamentary action.

J.2.8 Will abstentionism lead to the right winning elections?

Possibly. However anarchists don't just say "don't vote", we say "organise"
as well. Apathy is something anarchists have no interest in encouraging. So,
"[i]f the anarchists could persuade half the electorate to abstain from
voting this would, from an electoral point of view, contribute to the 
[electoral] victory of the Right. But it would be a hollow victory, for 
what government could rule when half the electorate by not voting had 
expressed its lack of confidence in all governments?" [Vernon Richards,
_The Impossibilities of Social Democracy_, p. 142]

In other words, whichever party was in office would have to rule over a
country in which a sizeable minority, even a majority, had rejected 
government as such. This would mean that the politicians "would be 
subjected to real pressures from people who believed in their own power" 
and acted accordingly. So anarchists call on people *not* to vote,
but instead organise themselves and be conscious of their own power 
both as individuals and as part of a union with others. Only this 
"can command the respect of governments, can curb the power of government 
as millions of crosses on bits of paper never will." [Ibid.]

As Emma Goldman pointed out, "if the Anarchists were strong enough to
swing the elections to the Left, they must also have been strong enough
to rally the workers to a general strike, or even a series of strikes. . .
In the last analysis, the capitalist class knows too well that officials,
whether they belong to the Right or the Left, can be bought. Or they are
of no consequence to their pledge." [_Vision on Fire_, p. 90]

The mass of the population, however, cannot be bought off and if they
are willing and able to resist then they can become a power second to none. 
Only by organising, fighting back and practising solidarity where we live 
and work can we *really* change things. That is where *our* power lies, that 
is where we can create a *real* alternative. By creating a network of 
self-managed, pro-active community and workplace organisations we can 
impose by direct action that which politicians can never give us from 
Parliament. And only such a movement can stop the attacks upon us by whoever 
gets into office. A government (left or right) which faces a mass movement 
based upon direct action and solidarity will always think twice before 
proposing cuts or introducing authoritarian laws.

Of course, all the parties claim that they are better than the others
and this is the logic of this question -- namely, we must vote for the
lesser evil as the right-wing in office will be terrible. But what this 
forgets is that the lesser evil is still an evil. What happens is that 
instead of the greater evil attacking us, we get the lesser evil doing 
what the right-wing was going to do. And, since we are discussing the
"lesser evil," let us not forget it was the "lesser evil" of the Democrats 
(in the USA) and Labour (in the UK) who introduced the monetarist and
other policies that Reagan and Thatcher made their own (and we may add
that the US Air Traffic Controllers union endorsed Reagan against Carter
in 1980 because they thought they would get a better deal out of the
Republicans. Reagan then went on to bust the union once in office). Simply 
put, we cannot expect a different group of politicians to react differently 
to the same economic and political pressures and influences.

So, voting for other politicians will make little difference. The reality
is that politicians are puppets. As we argued above (in section J.2.2) 
real power in the state does not lie with politicians, but instead within 
the state bureaucracy and big business. Faced with these powers, we have 
seen left-wing governments from Spain to New Zealand introduce right-wing
policies. So even if we elected a radical party, they would be powerless 
to change anything important and soon be forced to attack us in the 
interests of capitalism. Politicians come and go, but the state bureaucracy 
and big business remain forever!

Therefore we cannot rely on voting for the lesser evil to safe us from 
the possible dangers of a right-wing election victory brought about by
abstentionism. All we can hope for is that no matter who gets in, the
population will resist the government because it knows and can use its
real power - direct action. For the "only limit to the oppression of
government is the power with which the people show themselves capable
of opposing it." [Errico Malatesta, _Life and Ideas_, p. 196] Hence
Vernon Richards:

"If the anarchist movement has a role to play in practical politics
it is surely that of suggesting to, and persuading, as many people
as possible that their freedom from the Hilters, Francos and the
rest, depends not on the right to vote or securing a majority of
votes 'for the candidate of ones choice,' but on evolving new
forms of political and social organisation which aim at the direct
participation of the people, with the consequent weakening of the
power, as well of the social role, of government in the life of
the community." [_The Raven_, no. 14, pp. 177-8]

We discuss what new forms of political and social organisations 
anarchists encourage in section J.5.

J.2.9 What do anarchists do instead of voting?

While anarchists reject electioneering and voting, it does not mean
that we are politically apathetic. Indeed, part of the reason why
anarchists reject voting is because we think that voting is not part of 
the solution, its part of the problem. This is because it endorses an 
unjust and unfree political system and makes us look to others to fight 
our battles for us. It *blocks* constructive self-activity and direct 
action. It *stops* the building of alternatives in our communities and 
workplaces. Voting breeds apathy and apathy is our worse enemy. 

Given that we have had universal suffrage for well over 50 years in many
countries and we have seen the rise of Labour and Radical parties aiming
to use that system to effect change in a socialistic manner, it seems
strange that we are probably further away from socialism than when 
they started. The simple fact is that these parties have spent so much
time trying to win elections that they have stopped even thinking about
creating socialist alternatives in our communities and workplaces. That
is in itself enough to prove that electioneering, far from eliminating
apathy, in fact helps to create it.

So, because of this, anarchists argue that the only way to not waste your 
vote is to spoil it! We are the only political movement who argue that 
nothing will change unless you act for yourself, take back the power 
and fight the system *directly.* Only direct action breaks down apathy 
and gets results -- and its the first steps towards real freedom, towards 
a free and just society.

Therefore anarchists are the first to point out that not voting is not 
enough -- we need to actively struggle for an alternative to both voting 
*and* the current system. Just as the right to vote was won after a long 
series of struggles, so the creation of a free, decentralised, self-managed, 
libertarian socialist society will be the product of social struggle. 

Anarchists are the last people to deny the importance of political
liberties or the importance in wining the right to vote. The question we
must ask is whether it is a more a fitting tribute to the millions of people 
who used direct action, fought and suffered for the right to vote to use 
that victory to endorse a deeply unfair and undemocratic system or to use 
other means (indeed the means they used to win the vote) to create a system
based upon true popular self-government? If we are true to our (and
their) desire for a real, meaningful democracy, we would have to reject 
political action in favour of direct action. So, if we desire a truly 
libertarian and democratic society then its clear that the vote will not 
achieve it (and indeed put back the struggle for such a society).

This obviously gives an idea of what anarchists do instead of voting,
we agitate, organise and educate. While we will discuss the various
alternatives anarchists propose and attempt to organise in more detail
in section J.5 ( What alternative social organisations do anarchists 
create?) it is useful to give a brief introduction to anarchist activity
here, activity which bases itself on the two broad strategies of encouraging
direct action and building alternatives where we live and work.

Taking the first strategy, anarchists say that by using direct action we
can force politicians to respect the wishes of the people. For example,
if a government or boss tries to limit free speech, then anarchists would
try to encourage a free speech fight to break the laws in question until
such time as they were revoked. If a government or landlord refuses to
limit rent increases or improve safety requirements for accommodation, 
anarchists would organise squats and rent strikes. In the case of 
environmental destruction, anarchists would support and encourage attempts
at halting the damage by mass trespassing on sites, blocking the routes 
of developments, organising strikes and so on. If a boss refuses to 
introduce an 8 hour day, then workers should form a union and go on 
strike or stop working after 8 hours. Unlike laws, the boss cannot ignore
direct action (and if such action is successful, the state will hurry to
pass a law about it).

Similarly, strikes combined with social protest would be effective means of 
stopping authoritarian laws being passed. For example anti-union laws would 
be best fought by strike action and community boycotts (and given the utterly
ineffectual defence pursued by pro-labour parties using political action
to stop anti-union laws who can seriously say that the anarchist way would
be any worse?). And of course collective non-payment of taxes would ensure
the end of unpopular government decisions. The example of the poll tax
rebellion in the UK in the late 1980s shows the power of such direct
action. The government could happily handle hours of speeches by opposition
politicians but they could not ignore social protest (and we must add
that the Labour Party which claimed to oppose the tax happily let the
councils controlled by them introduce the tax and arrest non-payers). 

As Noam Chomsky argues, "[w]ithin the constraints of existing state
institutions, policies will be determined by people representing
centres of concentrated power in the private economy, people who,
in their institutional roles, will not be swayed by moral appeals
but by the costs consequent upon the decisions they make -- not
because they are 'bad people,' but because that is what the 
institutional roles demands." He continues by arguing that "[t]hose
who own and manage the society want a disciplined, apathetic and
submissive public that will not challenge their privilege and the
orderly world in which it thrives. The ordinary citizen need not
grant them this gift. Enhancing the Crisis of Democracy by organisation
and political engagement is itself a threat to power, a reason to
undertake it quite apart from its crucial importance in itself as an
essential step towards social change." [_Turning the Tide_, pp. 251-2]

In this way, by encouraging social protest, any government would think 
twice before pursuing authoritarian, destructive and unpopular policies. In
the final analysis, governments can and will ignore the talk of opposition
politicians, but they cannot ignore social action for very long. In
the words of a Spanish anarcho-syndicalist, anarchists 

"do not ask for any concessions from the government. Our mission and our 
duty is to impose from the streets that which ministers and deputies are 
incapable of realising in parliament." [quoted by Graham Kelsey, 
_Anarchosyndicalism, Libertarian Communism and the State_, p. 79]

The second strategy of building alternatives flows naturally from the
first. Any form of campaign requires organisation and by organising in
an anarchist manner we build organisations that "bear in them the living
seed of the new society which is replace the old world" (to use Bakunin's
words). In organising strikes in the workplace and community we can create a 
network of activists and union members who can encourage a spirit of revolt 
against authority. By creating assemblies where we live and work we can create 
an effective countering power to the state and capital. Such a union, as the 
anarchists in Spain and Italy proved, can be the focal point for recreating 
self-managed schools, social centres and so on. In this way the local 
community can ensure that it has sufficient independent, self-managed 
resources available to educate its members. Also, combined with credit 
unions (or mutual banks), co-operative workplaces and stores, a self-managed 
infrastructure could be created which would ensure that people can directly 
provide for their own needs without having to rely on capitalists or 
governments.

In other words, an essential part of anarchist activity is (in the
words of a C.N.T. militant):

"We must create that part of libertarian communism which can be created 
within bourgeois society and do so precisely to combat that society with 
our own special weapons." [quoted Op. Cit., p. 79] 

So, far from doing nothing, by not voting the anarchist actively encourages 
alternatives. As the British anarchist John Turner argued, anarchists "have
a line to work upon, to teach the people self-reliance, to urge them to
take part in non-political [i.e. non-electoral] movements directly started
by themselves for themselves. . . as soon as people learn to rely upon
themselves they will act for themselves. . . We teach the people to place
their faith in themselves, we go on the lines of self-help. We teach them
to form their own committees of management, to repudiate their masters,
to despise the laws of the country. . ." [quoted by John Quail, _The
Slow Burning Fuse_, p. 87] In this way we encourage self-activity,
self-organisation and self-help -- the opposite of apathy and doing
nothing.

But what about government policies which actually do help people? 
While anarchists would "hesitate to condemn those measures taken by 
governments which obviously benefited the people, unless we saw the 
immediate possibility of people carrying them out for themselves. This
would not inhibit us from declaring at the same time that what initiatives
governments take would be more successfully taken by the people themselves
if they put their minds to the same problems. . . to build up a hospital
service or a transport system, for instance, from local needs into a national
organisation, by agreement and consent at all levels is surely more
economical as well as efficient than one which is conceived at top level
[by the state]. . . where Treasury, political and other pressures, not
necessarily connected with what we would describe as *needs*, influence the
shaping of policies." [_The Raven_, no. 14, p. 179]

Ultimately, what the state and capital gives, they can also take away.
What we build by our own self-activity can last as long as we want it
to and act to protect it. And anarchists are convinced that:

"The future belongs to those who continue daringly, consistently, to fight
power and governmental authority. The future belongs to us and to our
social philosophy. For it is the only social ideal that teaches independent
thinking and direct participation of the workers in their economic struggle
[and working class people in their social struggles, we may add]. For it is
only through he organised economic [and social] strength of the masses that
they can and will do away with the capitalist system and all the wrongs 
and injustices it contains. Any diversion from this stand will only retard
our movement and make it a stepping stone for political climbers." [Emma
Goldman, _Vision on Fire_, p. 92]

J.2.10 Does rejecting electioneering mean that anarchists are apolitical?

No. Far from it. The "apolitical" nature of anarchism is Marxist nonsense. 
As it desires to fundamentally change society, anarchism can be nothing
but political. However, anarchism does reject (as we have seen) "normal"
political activity as ineffectual and corrupting. However, many (particularly
Marxists) imply this reject of the con of capitalist politics means
that anarchists concentration on purely "economic" issues like wages,
working conditions and so forth. And, by so doing, Marxists claim that
anarchists leave the political agenda to be dominated by capitalist
ideology, with disastrous results for the working class.

This view, however, is *totally* wrong. Indeed, Bakunin explicitly rejected
the idea that working people could ignore politics and actually agreed
with the Marxists that political indifference only led to capitalist 
control of the labour movement:

"[some of] the workers in Germany . . . [were organised in] a kind of 
federation of small associations. . . 'Self-help'. . .  was its slogan,
in the sense that labouring people were persistently advised not to 
anticipate either deliverance or help from the state and the government,
but only from their own efforts. This advise would have been excellent
had it not been accompanied by the false assurance that liberation for
the labouring people is possible under *current conditions of social
organisation* . . . Under this delusion. . . the workers subject to [this]
influence were supposed to disengage themselves systematically from all
political and social concerns and questions about the state, property,
and so forth. . . [This] completely subordinated the proletariat to the
bourgeoisie which exploits it and for which it was to remain an obedient
and mindless tool." [_Statism and Anarchy_, p. 174]

In addition, Bakunin argued that the labour movement (and so the anarchist
movement) would have to take into account political ideas and struggles
but to do so in a working class way:

"The International does not reject politics of a general kind; it
will be compelled to intervene in politics so long as it is forced
to struggle against the bourgeoisie. It rejects only bourgeois
politics." [_The Political Philosophy of Bakunin_, p. 313]

So, anarchists reject capitalist politics (i.e. electioneering), but we 
do not ignore politics nor wider political discussion. Anarchists have 
always recognised the importance of political debate and ideas in social 
movements. As Bakunin argued should "the International [an international 
organisation of working class unions and groups]. . . cease to concern itself 
with political and philosophical questions? Would [it] . . . ignore progress 
in the world of thought as well as the events which accompany or arise from 
the political struggle in and between states[?] . . . We hasten to say that it 
is absolutely impossible to ignore political and philosophical questions. An 
exclusive pre-occupation with economic questions would be fatal for the 
proletariat. . . [I]t is impossible for the workers to stop there without 
renouncing their humanity and depriving themselves of the intellectual and 
moral power which is so necessary for the conquest of their economic rights." 
[_Bakunin on Anarchism_, p. 301]

Nor do anarchists ignore elections. As Vernon Richards argues, anarchists
"cannot be uninterested in . . . election results, whatever their view 
about the demerits of the contending Parties. The fact that the anarchist
movement has campaigned to persuade people not to use their vote is
proof of our commitment and interest. If there is, say, a 60 per cent.
poll we will not assume that the 40 per cent. abstentions are anarchists,
but we would surely be justified in drawing the conclusion that among
the 40 per cent. there are a sizeable minority who have lost faith in
political parties and were looking for other instruments, other values."
[_The Impossibilities of Social Democracy_, p. 141] 

Thus the charge anarchists are apolitical or indifferent to politics
(even capitalist politics) is a myth. Rather, "we are not concerned 
with choosing between governments but with creating the situation
where government can no longer operate, because only then will we
organise locally, regionally, nationally and internationally to
satisfy real needs and common aspirations." For "so long as we 
have capitalism and government, the job of anarchists is to fight
both, and at the same time encourage people to take what steps 
they can to run their own lives." [Vernon Richards, _The Raven_,
no. 14, p. 179] 

Part of this process will be the discussion of political, social and 
economic issues in whatever self-managed organisations people create 
in their communities and workplaces (as Bakunin argued) and the use 
of these organisations to fight for (political, social and economic)
improvements and reforms in the here and now using direct action and 
solidarity. 

This means, as Rudolf Rocker points out, anarchists desire a 
unification of political and economic struggles as the two as 
inseparable:

"The Anarchists represent the viewpoint that the war against capitalism 
must be at the same time a war against all institutions of political power,
for in history economic exploitation has always gone hand in hand with
political and social oppression. The exploitation of man by man and the
domination of man over man are inseparable, and each is the condition
of the other." [_Anarcho-Syndicalism_, p. 15]

Such a unification must take place on the social and economic field, not
the political, as that is where the working class is strongest. In other 
words anarchists "are not in any way opposed to the political struggle, but 
in their opinion this struggle. . . must take the form of direct action. . .
It would. . . be absurd for them [the working class] to overlook the
importance of the political struggle. Every event that affects the live of
the community is of a political nature. In this sense every important
economic action. . . is also a political action and, moreover, one of
incomparably greater importance than any parliamentary proceeding."
[Rudolf Rocker, Op. Cit., pp. 65-66] Hence the comments in the 
C.N.T.'s newspaper _Solidaridad Obrera_:

"Does anyone not know that we want to participate in public life? Does
anyone not know that we have always done so? Yes, we want to participate.
With our organisations. With our papers. Without intermediaries, delegates
or representatives. No. We will not go to the Town Hall, to the Provincial
Capitol, to Parliament." [quoted by Jose Pierats, _Anarchists in the
Spanish Revolution_, p. 173]

So, anarchists reject the idea that political and economic struggles can
be divided. Such an argument just reproduces the artificially created
division of labour between mental and physical activity of capitalism
within working class organisations and within anti-capitalist movements.
We say that we should not separate out politics into some form of
specialised activity that only certain people (i.e. our "representatives")
can do. Instead, anarchists argue that political struggles, ideas and
debates must be brought into the *social* and *economic* organisations
of our class where they must be debated freely by all members as they
see fit and that political and economic struggle and change must go
hand in hand.

History indicates that any attempt at taking social and economic issues 
into political parties has resulting in wasted energy and the watering down
of these issues into pure reformism. In the words of Bakunin, such activity
suggests that "a political revolution should precede a social revolution . . . 
[which] is a great and fatal error, because every political revolution taking 
place prior to and consequently without a social revolution must necessarily 
be a bourgeois revolution, and a bourgeois revolution can only be instrumental 
in bringing about bourgeois Socialism", i.e. State Capitalism. [_The Political 
Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 289] 

We have discussed this process of socialist parties becoming reformist in
section J.2.6 and will not repeat ourselves here. Only by rejecting the
artificial divisions of capitalist society can we remain true to our
ideals of liberty, equality and solidarity. Anarchists "maintain that
the State organisation, having been the force to which minorities resorted
for establishing and organising their power over the masses, cannot be
the force which will serve to destroy these privileges." [Peter Kropotkin,
_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_, p. 170]. Every example of radicals 
using the state has resulted in them being changed by the system instead of 
them changing it and, to use Bakunin's words, "tied the proletariat to
the bourgeois towline" (i.e. resulted in working class movements becoming
dominated by capitalist ideas and activity - becoming "realistic" and 
"practical").

Therefore Anarchist argue that such a union of political ideas and social 
organisation and activity is essential for promoting radical politics as it 
"digs a chasm between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat and places the 
proletariat outside the activity and political conniving of all parties 
within the State. . . in placing itself outside all bourgeois politics, the 
proletariat necessarily turns against it." So, by "placing the proletariat 
outside the politics in the State and of the bourgeois world, [the union 
movement] thereby constructed a new world, the world of the united 
proletarians of all lands." [Michael Bakunin, Op. Cit., p. 303, p. 305]

In addition, so-called "economic" struggles do not occur in a social vacuum. 
They take place in a social and political context and so, necessarily, there 
can exist an separation of political and economic struggles only in the 
mind. Strikers or eco-warriors, for example, face the power of the state
enforcing laws which protect the power of employers and polluters. This
necessarily has a "political" impact on those involved in struggle. As
Bakunin argued social struggle results in "the spontaneous and direct 
development of philosophical and sociological in the International [i.e. 
union/social movement], ideas which inevitably develop side by side with and
are produced by the first two movements [of strikes and union organising]." 
[Op. Cit., p. 304] By channeling any "political" conclusions drawn by 
those involved in struggle into electoral politics, this development of
political ideas and discussion will be distorted into discussions of what
is possible in the current system, and so the radical impact of direct
action and social struggle is weakened.

Therefore anarchists reject electioneering not because they are "apolitical"
but because they do not desire to see politics remain a thing purely for
politicians and experts. Political issues are far too important to leave to
such people. Anarchists desire to see political discussion and change
develop from the bottom up, this is hardly "apolitical" - in fact with our
desire to see ordinary people directly discuss the issues that affect them,
act to change things by their own action and draw their own conclusions 
from their own activity anarchists are very "political." The process of
individual and social liberation is the most political activity we can think
of!

J.3 What kinds of organisation do anarchists build?

Anarchists are well aware of the importance of building organisations. 
Organisations allow those within them to multiply their strength and 
activity, becoming the means by which an individual can see their ideas,
hopes and dreams realised. This is as true for getting the anarchist
message across as for building a home, running a hospital or creating 
some useful product like food. Anarchists support two types of 
organisation -- organisations of anarchists and popular organisations 
which are not made up exclusively of anarchists such as industrial 
unions, co-operatives and community assemblies. In this section of 
the FAQ we will discuss the kinds, nature and role of the first type 
of organisation, namely explicitly anarchist organisations. In addition, 
we discuss anarcho-syndicalism, a revolutionary unionism which aims to 
create an anarchist society by anarchist tactics, as well as why many 
anarchists are not anarcho-syndicalists. The second type of organisations, 
popular organisations, are discussed in detail in section J.5 which gives 
specific examples of the kinds of social alternatives anarchists support 
and create under capitalism (community and industrial unions, mutual banks, 
co-operatives and so on).

Both forms of organisation, however, share the anarchist commitment to 
confederalism, decentralisation, self-management and decision making 
from the bottom up. In such organisations the membership play the 
decisive role in running them and ensuring that power remains in their 
hands. They express the anarchist vision of the power and creative 
efficacy people have when they are self-reliant, when they act for 
themselves and manage their own lives directly. Anarchists insist that
people must manage their own affairs (individually and collectively)
and have both the right and the ability to do so. Only by organising
in this way can we create a new world, a world worthy of human beings 
and unique individuals.

Anarchist organisation in all its forms reflects the anarchist desire 
to "build the new world in the shell of the old" and to empower 
the individual. We reject the notion that it does not really matter 
how we organise to change society. Indeed, nothing could be further 
from the truth. We are all the products of the influences and social 
relationships in our lives, this is a basic idea of (philosophical) 
materialism. Thus the way our organisations are structured has an 
impact on us. If the organisation is centralised and hierarchical (no
matter how "democratically" controlled any officials or leaders are) 
then those subject to it will, as in any hierarchical organisation, 
see their abilities to manage their own lives, their creative thought 
and imagination eroded under the constant stream of orders from above. 
This in turn justifies the pretensions to power of those at the top, 
as the capacity of self-management of the rank and file is weakened 
by authoritarian social relationships.

This means anarchist organisations are so structured so that they 
allow everyone the maximum potential to participate. Such participation 
is the key for a free organisation. As Malatesta argued:

"The real being is man, the individual. Society or the collectivity. . . 
if it is not a hollow abstraction, must be made up of individuals. And it 
is in the organism of every individual that all thoughts and human actions
inevitably have their origin, and from being individual they become 
collective thoughts and acts when they are or become accepted by many
individuals. Social action, therefore, is neither the negation nor the
complement of individual initiative, but is the resultant of initiatives,
thoughts and actions of all individuals who make up society."[_Anarchy_, 
p. 36]

Anarchist organisations exist to allow this development and expression
of individual initiatives. This empowering of the individual is an 
important aspect of creating viable solidarity for sheep cannot express
solidarity, they only follow the shepherd. Therefore, "to achieve their
ends, anarchist organisations must, in their constitution and operation,
remain in harmony with the principles of anarchism; that is, they must 
know how to blend the free action of individuals with the necessity and 
the joy of co-operation which serve to develop the awareness and initiative
of their members and a means of education for the environment in which
they operate and of a moral and material preparation for the future we
desire." [Errico Malatesta, _The Anarchist Revolution_, p. 95]

As such, anarchist organisations reflect the sort of society anarchists
desire. We reject as ridiculous the claim of Marxists and Leninists that
the form of organisation we build is irrelevant and therefore we must
create highly centralised parties which aim to become the leadership
of the working class. No matter how "democratic" such organisations 
are, they just reflect the capitalist division of labour between brain 
and manual work and the Liberal ideology of surrendering our ability to 
govern ourselves to an elected elite. In other words, they just mirror
the very society we are opposed to and so will soon produce the very
problems *within* so-called anti-capitalist organisations which originally
motivated us to oppose capitalism in the first place. Because of this,
anarchists regard "the Marxist party as another statist form that, if it
succeeded in 'seizing power,' would preserve the power of one human
being over another, the authority of the leader over the led. The Marxist
party. . . was a mirror image of the very society it professed to oppose,
an invasion of the camp of revolutionaries by bourgeois values, methods,
and structures." [_The Spanish Anarchists_, pp. 179-80] As can be seen
from the history of the Russian Revolution, this was the case with the
Bolsheviks soon taking the lead in undermining workers' self-management,
soviet democracy and, finally, democracy within the ruling party itself.
Of course, from an anarchist (i.e. materialist) point of view, this was
highly predictable -- after all, "facts are before ideas; yes, the ideal, 
as Proudhon said, is but a flower whose root lies in the material conditions
of existence." [Bakunin, _God and the State_, p.9] -- and so it is 
unsurprising that hierarchical parties helped to maintain a hierarchical
society. In the words of the famous Sonvillier Circular (issued by the
libertarian sections of the First International):

"How could one want an egalitarian and free society to issue from 
an authoritarian organisation? It is impossible." 

We must stress here that anarchists are *not* opposed to organisation
and are *not* opposed to organisations of anarchists (i.e. *political*
organisations, although anarchists generally reject the term "party" due
to its statist and hierarchical associations). Murray Bookchin makes the 
issues clear when he wrote that the "real question at issue here is 
not 0organisation versus non-organisation, but rather what *kind* of 
organisation . . . [anarchist] organisations . . . [are] organic 
developments from below . . . They are social movements, combing a 
creative revolutionary lifestyle with a creative revolutionary 
theory . . . As much as is humanly possibly, they try to reflect 
the liberated society they seek to achieve . . . [and] are built 
around intimate groups of brothers and sisters - affinity groups 
. . . [with] co-ordination between groups . . . discipline, planning, 
and unity in action. . . achieved *voluntarily,* by means of a 
self-discipline nourished by conviction and understanding."
[_Post-Scarcity Anarchism_, pp. 214-215]

In the sections that follow, we discuss the nature and role of anarchist
organisation. Anarchists would agree totally with these words of the
Situationist Guy Debord that a "revolutionary organisation must always 
remember that its objective is not getting people to listen to speeches 
by expert leaders, but getting them to speak for themselves" and 
organise their groups accordingly. Section J.3.1 discusses the basic
building block of specifically anarchist organisations, the "affinity 
group." Sections J.3.2, J.3.3, J.3.4 and J.3.5, we discuss the main 
types of federations of "affinity groups" anarchist create to help 
spread our message and influence. Then section J.3.6 highlights the role 
these organisations play in our struggles to create an anarchist society. 
Many Marxists fail to understand the nature of anarchist organisation and, 
because of this, misunderstand Bakunin's expression "Invisible Dictatorship" 
and paint a picture of him (and, by implication, all anarchists)as a 
hierarchical would-be dictator. Section J.3.7 analyses these claims 
and shows why they are wrong. Finally, in section J.3.8 and J.3.9 we 
discuss anarcho-syndicalism and other anarchists attitudes to it.

The power of ideas cannot be under estimated, for "if you have an idea 
you can communicate it to a million people and lose nothing in the 
process, and the more the idea is propagated the more it acquires in 
power and effectiveness" [_The Anarchist Revolution_, p. 46]. The right 
idea at the right time, one that reflects the needs of individuals and 
of required social change, can have a transforming effect on those who 
hold the idea and the society they live in. That is why organisations 
that anarchists create to spread their message are so important and 
why we devote a whole section to them.

Anarchist organisations, therefore, aim to enrich social struggle 
by their ideas and suggestions but also, far more importantly, enrich 
the idea by practical experience and activity. In other words, a two 
way process by which life informs theory and theory aids life. The 
means by which this social dynamic is created and developed is the 
underlying aim of anarchist organisation and is reflected in its 
theoretical role we highlight in the following sections.

J.3.1 What are affinity groups?

Affinity groups are the basic organisation which anarchists 
create to spread the anarchist idea. The term "affinity group" 
comes from the Spanish F.A.I. (_Iberian Anarchist Federation_) 
and refers to the organisational form devised by the Spanish 
Anarchists in their struggles. It is the English translation 
of "grupo de afinidad." At its most basic, it is a (usually 
small) group of anarchists who work together to spread their 
ideas to the wider public, using propaganda, initiating or 
working with campaigns and spreading their ideas *within* 
popular organisations (such as unions) and communities. 
It aims not to be a "leadership" but to give a lead, to 
act as a catalyst within popular movements. Unsurprisingly 
it reflects basic anarchist ideas:

"Autonomous, communal and directly democratic, the group 
combines revolutionary theory with revolutionary lifestyle 
in its everyday behaviour. It creates a free space in which 
revolutionaries can remake themselves individually, and also 
as social beings." [Murray Bookchin, _Post-Scarcity Anarchism_, 
p. 221]

The reason for this is simple, for a "movement that sought 
to promote a liberatory revolution had to develop liberatory 
and revolutionary forms. This meant . . . that it had to 
mirror the free society it was trying to achieve, not the 
repressive one it was trying to overthrow. If a movement 
sought to achieve a world united by solidarity and mutual aid, 
it had to be guided by these precepts; if it sought to achieve 
a decentralised, stateless, non-authoritarian society, it had 
to be structured in accordance with these goals." [_The Spanish 
Anarchists_, p. 180]

The aim of an anarchist (i.e. anti-authoritarian) organisation 
is to promote a sense of community, of confidence in ones own 
abilities, to enable all to be involved in the identification, 
initiation and management of group/communal needs and decisions. 
Moreover, they must ensure that individuals are in a position 
(both physically, as part of a group/community, and mentally, as 
an individual) to manage their own lives and take direct action 
in the pursuit of individual and communal needs and desires.

Anarchist organisation is about empowering all, to develop 
"integral" or whole individuals and a community that encourages 
individuality (not abstract "individualism") and solidarity. It 
is about collective decision making from the bottom up, that 
empowers those at the "base" of the structure and only delegates 
the work of co-ordinating and implementing the members decisions 
(and not the power of making decisions for people). In this way 
the initiative and power of the few (government) is replaced by 
the initiative and empowerment of all (anarchy).

Affinity groups exist to achieve these aims and are structured to 
encourage them.

The local affinity group is the means by which anarchists 
co-ordinate their activities in a community, workplace, social 
movement and so on. Within these groups, anarchists discuss their 
ideas, politics and hopes, what they plan to do, write leaflets 
and organise other propaganda work, discuss how they are going to 
work within wider organisations like unions, how their strategies 
fit into their long term plans and goals and so on. It is the 
basic way that anarchists work out their ideas, pull their resources 
and get their message across to others. There can be affinity groups 
for different interests and activities (for example a workplace 
affinity group, a community affinity group, an anarcha-feminist 
affinity group, etc., could all exist within the same area, with 
overlapping members). Moreover, as well as these more "political" 
activities, the "affinity group" also stresses the "importance of 
education and the need to live by Anarchist precepts -- the need 
. . . to create a counter-society that could provide the space 
for people to begin to remake themselves." [Bookchin, Ibid.] In 
other words, "affinity groups" aim to be the "living germs" of 
the new society in *all* aspects, not purely in a structurally way.

These basic affinity groups are not seen as being enough in themselves. 
Most anarchists see the need for local groups to work together with others 
in a confederation. Such co-operation aims to pull resources and reduce 
duplicating efforts, in other words, expanding the options for the 
individuals and groups who are part of the federation. Such a federation
is based upon the "[f]ull autonomy, full independence and therefore full
responsibility of individuals and groups; free accord between those who
believe it useful to unite in co-operating for a common aim; moral duty to
see through commitments undertaken and to do nothing that would contradict
the accepted programme. It is on these bases that the practical structures,
and the right tools to give life to the organisation should be build and
designed." [Errico Malatesta, _The Anarchist Revolution_, p. 101]

Therefore, affinity groups are self-managed, autonomous groupings of
anarchists who unite and work on specific activities and interests. They
are a key way for anarchists to co-ordinate their activity and spread
their message of individual freedom and voluntary co-operation. However,
the description of what an "affinity group" is does not explain *why*
anarchists organise in that way. For a discussion on the role these groups 
play in anarchist theory, see section J.3.6. Essentially, these "affinity 
groups" are the means by which anarchists actually intervene in social 
movements and struggles in order to win people to the anarchist idea and 
so help transform them from struggles *against* injustice into struggles 
*for* a free society, as we will discuss later.

To aid in this process of propaganda, agitation, political discussion 
and development, anarchists organise federations of affinity groups. 
These take three main forms, "synthesis" federations (see section 
J.3.2), "Platformist" federations (see section J.3.3 and section 
J.3.4 for criticism of this tendency) and "class struggle" groups 
(see section J.3.5). However, we must note here that these types 
of federation are not mutually exclusive  Synthesis type federations 
often have "class  struggle" and  "platformist" groups within them 
(although, as will  become clear, Platformist federations do not 
have synthesis groups within them) and most countries have different 
federations representing the different political perspectives within 
the movement. Moreover, it should also be noted that no federation 
will be a totally "pure" expression of each tendency. "Synthesis" 
groups merge in "class struggle" ones, platformist groups do not 
subscribe totally to the Platform and so on. We isolate each 
tendency to show its essential features. In real life few, if 
any, federations will exactly fit the types we highlight. It 
would be more precise to speak of organisations which are 
descended from a given tendency, for example the French Anarchist 
Federation is obviously mostly influenced by the synthesis tradition 
but it is not, strictly speaking, 100% synthesis. Lastly, we must 
also note that the term "class struggle" anarchist group in no way 
implies that "synthesis" and "platformist" groups do not support 
the class struggle, they most definitely do -- the technical term 
"class struggle" organisation we use, in other words, does *not* 
mean that other kinds of organisations are not class-struggle!
 
All the various types of federation are based on groups of anarchists 
organising themselves in a libertarian fashion. This is because anarchists 
try to live by the values of the future to the extent that this is possible 
under capitalism and try to develop organisations based upon mutual aid 
and brotherhood, in which control would be exercised from below upward, 
not downward from above.

It must be stressed anarchists do not reduce the complex issue of 
political organisation and ideas into *one* organisation but instead 
recognise that different threads within anarchism will express 
themselves in different political organisations (and even within 
the same organisation). Therefore a diversity of anarchist groups 
and federations is a good sign and expresses the diversity of 
political and individual thought to be expected in a movement 
aiming for a society based upon freedom. All we aim in the next
four sections is paint a broad picture of the differences between 
different perspectives on anarchist organising. However, the
role of these federations is as described here, that of an "aid"
in the struggle, not a new leadership wanting power.

J.3.2 	What are "synthesis" federations?
 
As noted in the last section, there are three main types of affinity 
group federation -- "synthesis", "class struggle" (our term) and  
"platformist." In this section we discuss "synthesis" federations. 

The "synthesis" group acquired its name from the work of the 
Russian anarchist Voline and the French anarchist Sebastien 
Faure. Voline published in 1924 a paper calling for "the 
anarchist synthesis" and was also the author of the article 
in Faure's _Encyclopedie Anarchiste_ on the very same topic. 
However, its roots lie in the Russian revolution and the _Nabat_ 
federation (or the "Anarchist Organisations of the Ukraine") 
created in 1918. The aim of the _Nabat_ was "organising all 
of the life forces of anarchism; bringing together through a 
common endeavour all anarchists seriously desiring of playing 
an active part in the social revolution which is defined as a 
process (of greater or lesser duration) giving rise to a new form 
of social existence for the organised masses." [_No Gods, 
No Masters_, vol. 2, p. 117]

The "synthesis" organisation is based on uniting all kinds of 
anarchists in one federation as there is, to use the words of 
the _Nabat_, "validity in all anarchist schools of thought. We 
must consider all diverse tendencies and accept them." [cited 
in "The Reply," _Constructive Anarchism_, p. 32] The "synthesis" 
organisation attempts to get different kinds of anarchists 
"joined together on a number of basic positions and with the 
awareness of the need for planned, organised collective effort 
on the basis of federation." [Ibid.] These basic positions 
would be based on a synthesis of the viewpoints of the 
members of the organisation, but each tendency would be 
free to agree their own ideas due to the federal nature 
of the organisation.

An example of this synthesis approach is provided by the differing
assertions that anarchism is a theory of classes (as stated by the
Platform, among others), that anarchism is a humanitarian ideal
for all people (supporters of such a position sometimes accuse 
those who hold a class based version of anarchism of Marxism) 
and that anarchism is purely about individuals (and so essentially
individualist and having nothing to do with humanity or with 
a class). The synthesis of these positions would be as 
follows:

"We must create a synthesis and state that anarchism contains
class elements as well as humanism and individualist principles 
. . . Its class element is above all its means of fighting for 
liberation; its humanitarian character is its ethical aspect, 
the foundation of society; its individualism is the goal of 
humanity." [Ibid.]

So, as can be seen, the "synthesis" tendency aims to unite 
all anarchists (be they individualist, mutualist, syndicalist 
or communist) into one common federation. Thus the "synthesis" 
viewpoint is "inclusive" and obviously has affinities with the 
"anarchism without adjectives" approach favoured by many anarchists 
(see section A.3.8 for details). However, in practice many
"synthesis" organisations are more restrictive (for example, 
they could aim to unite all *social* anarchists like the French
Anarchist Federation does). This means that there can be a 
difference between the general idea of the synthesis and how 
it is actually and concretely applied.

The basic idea behind the synthesis is that the anarchist 
scene (in most countries, at most times, including France 
in the 1920s and Russia during the revolution and at this 
time) is divided into three main tendencies: communist 
anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism, and individualist anarchism. 
This division can cause severe damage to the anarchist 
movement, simply because of the many (and often redundant) 
arguments and diatribes on why "my anarchism is best" can 
get in the way of working in common in order to fight our 
common enemies, known as state, capitalism and authority. 
The "synthesis" federations are defined by agreeing what is 
the common denominator of the various tendencies within 
anarchism and agreeing a minimum programme based on this
for the federation. This would allow a "certain ideological 
and tactical unity among organisations" within the "synthesis" 
federation. [Op. Cit., p. 35]

Moreover, as well as saving time and energy for more important 
tasks, there are technical and efficiency reasons for unifying into 
one organisation, namely allowing the movement to have access 
to more resources and being able to co-ordinate them so as to 
maximise their use and impact. The "synthesis" federation, like
all anarchist groups, aims to spread anarchist ideas within 
society as a whole. They believe that their role is to "assist the
masses only when they need such assistance. . . the anarchists
are part of the membership in the economic and social mass
organisations [such as trade unions, for example]. They act 
and build as part of the whole. An immense field of action is
opened to them for ideological [sic!], social and creative 
activity without assuming a position of superiority over the
masses. Above all they must fulfil their ideological [sic!] and
ethical influence in a free and natural manner. . . [they] only 
offer ideological assistance, but not in the role of leaders." 
[Op. Cit., p. 33] This, as we shall see in section J.3.6, is the 
common anarchist position as regards the role of an anarchist 
group. And, just to stress the point, this also shows that 
"synthesist" federations are usually class-struggle organisations
(i.e. support and take part in the class-struggle as the key
means of creating an anarchist society and making the current
one freer and fairer).

The great strength of "synthesis" federations, obviously, is that 
they allow a wide and diverse range of viewpoints to be expressed 
within the organisation (which can allow the development of 
political ideas and theories by constant discussion and debate). 
In addition, they allow the maximum amount of resources to be
made available to individuals and groups within the organisation.

This is why we find the original promoters of the "synthesis" arguing
that "that first step toward achieving unity in the anarchist movement
which can lead to serious organisation is collective ideological work
on a series of important problems that seek the clearest possible
collective solution. . . [discussing] concrete questions [rather than
"philosophical problems and abstract dissertations"]. . . [and] suggest
that there be a publication for discussion in every country where the 
problems in our ideology [sic!] and tactics can be fully discussed, 
regardless of how 'acute' or even 'taboo' it may be. The need for
such a printed organ, as well as oral discussion, seems to us to be
a 'must' because it is the practical way, to try to achieve 'ideological
unity', 'tactical unity', and possibly organisation. . . A full and 
tolerant discussion of our problems. . . will create a basis for
understanding, not only among anarchists, but among different
conceptions of anarchism." [Ibid., p. 35]

The "synthesis" idea for anarchist organisation was taken up by those 
who opposed the Platform (see next section). For both Faure and Voline, 
the basic idea was the same, namely that the historical tendencies in 
anarchism (communist, syndicalist and individualist) must co-operate 
and work in the same organisation. However, there are differences 
between Voline's and Faure's points of view. The latter saw these 
various tendencies as a wealth in themselves and advocated that 
each tendency would gain from working together in a common 
organisation. From Voline's point of view, the emergence of these 
various tendencies was historically needed to discover the in-depth 
implications of anarchism in various settings (such as the economical, 
the social and individual life). However, it was the time to go back to 
anarchism as a whole, an anarchism considerably empowered by what 
each tendency could give it, and in which tendencies as such should 
dissolve. Moreover, these tendencies co-existed in every anarchist 
at various levels, so all anarchists should aggregate in an organisation
where these tendencies would disappear (both individually and 
organisationally, i.e. there would not be an "anarcho-syndicalist" 
specific tendency inside the organisation, and so forth).

The "synthesis" federation would be based on complete autonomy 
(within the basic principles of the Federation and Congress decisions, 
of course) for groups and individuals, so allowing all the different 
trends to work together and express their differences in a common 
front. The various groups would be organised in a federal structure,
combining to share resources in the struggle against state, capitalism
and all other forms of oppression. This federal structure is organised 
at the local level through a "local union" (i.e. the groups in a town or
city), at the regional level (i.e. all groups in, say, Strathclyde are 
members of the same regional union) up to the "national" level (i.e. 
all groups in France, say) and beyond.

As every group in the federation is autonomous, it can discuss, 
plan and initiate an action (such as campaign for a reform, against 
a social evil, and so on) without having to others in the federation 
(or have to wait for instructions). This means that the local groups 
can respond quickly to local issues. This does not mean that each 
group works in isolation. These initiatives may gain federal support 
if local groups see the need. The federation can adopt an issue if 
it is raised at a federal conference and other groups agree to 
co-operate on that issue. Moreover, each group has the freedom 
*not* to participate on a specific issue while leaving others to do 
so. Thus groups can concentrate on what they are interested in most.

The programme and policies of the federation would be agreed at 
regular delegate meetings and congresses. The "synthesis" federation 
is "managed" at the federal level by "relations committees" made up
of people elected and mandated at the federation congresses. These
committees would have a purely administrative role, spreading 
information, suggestions and proposals coming from groups and 
individuals within the organisation, for example, or looking after
the finances of the federation and so on. They do not have any more
rights in regards to this than any other member of the federation 
(i.e. they could not make a proposal as a committee, just as members
of their local group or as individuals). These administrative committees
are accountable to the federation and subject to both mandates and 
recall.

The _French Anarchist Federation_ is a good example of a successful
federation which is heavily influenced by "synthesis" ideas (as is
the _Italian Anarchist Federation_ and many other anarchist federations
across the world). Obviously, how effective a "synthesis" federation 
is depends upon how tolerant members are of each other and how 
seriously they take their responsibilities towards their federations 
and the agreements they make.

Of course, there are problems involved in most forms of organisation,
and the "synthesis" federation is no exception. While diversity can
strengthen an organisation by provoking debate, a diverse grouping 
can often make it difficult to get things done. Platformist and other
critics of the "synthesis" federation argue that it can be turned 
into a talking shop and any common programme difficult to agree, 
never mind apply. For example, how can mutualists and communists 
agree on the ends, never mind the means, their organisation supports? 
One believes in co-operation within a (modified) market system and 
reforming capitalism and statism away, while the other believes in 
the abolition of commodity production and money and revolution as 
the means of so doing. Ultimately, all they could do would be to agree 
to disagree and thus any joint programmes and activity would be 
somewhat limited. It could, indeed, by argued that both Voline 
and Faure forgot essential points, namely what is this common 
denominator between the different kinds of anarchism, how do 
we achieve it and what is in it ? For without this agreed common 
position, many so-called "anarchist synthesist organisations" end 
up becoming little more than talking shops, escaping from any 
social perspective or any organisational perspective and soon 
becoming neither organisations, nor anarchist, nor synthesist 
as both Faure and Voline meant by the term. 

It is this (potential) disunity that lead the authors of 
the Platform to argue that "[s]uch an organisation having 
incorporated heterogeneous theoretical and practical elements, 
would only be a mechanical assembly of individuals each having 
a different conception of all the questions of the anarchist 
movement, an assembly which would inevitably disintegrate on 
encountering reality." [_The Organisational Platform of the 
Libertarian Communists_, p. 12] The Platform suggested 
"Theoretical and Tactical Unity" as a means of overcoming 
this problem, but that term provoked massive disagreement 
in anarchist circles (see section J.3.4). In reply to the 
Platform, supporters of the "synthesis" counter by 
pointing to the fact that "Platformist" groups are usually
very small, far smaller that "synthesis" federations (for 
example, compare the size of the French Anarchist Federation 
with, say, the Irish based Workers Solidarity Movement or
the French Alternative Libertaire). This means, they argue,
that the Platform does not, in fact, lead to a more effective
organisation, regardless of the claims of its supporters.
Moreover, they argue that the requirements for "Theoretical
and Tactical Unity" help ensure a small organisation as 
differences would express themselves in splits than 
constructive activity. Needless to say, the discussion
continues within the movement on this issue!

What can be said is that this potential problem within 
"synthesisism" has been the cause of some organisations
failing or becoming little more than talking shops, with 
each group doing its own thing and so making co-ordination 
pointless as any agreements made would be ignored (according 
to many this was a major problem with the _Anarchist 
Federation of Britain_, for example). Most supporters of 
the synthesis would argue that this is not what the theory 
aims for and that the problem lines in a misunderstanding 
of the theory rather than the theory itself (as can be 
seen from the FAF and FAI, "synthesis" inspired federations
can be *very* successful). Non-supporters are more critical, 
with some supporting the "Platform" as a more effective means 
of organising to spread anarchist ideas and influence (see 
the next section). Other social anarchists create the 
"class struggle" type of  federation  (this is a common 
organisational form in Britain, for example) as discussed 
in section J.3.5.

J.3.3 	What is the "Platform"?

The Platform is a current within anarcho-communism which has specific 
suggestions on the nature and form which an anarchist federation takes. Its
roots lie in the Russian anarchist movement, a section of which published
"The Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists" when in exile 
from the Bolshevik dictatorship in Paris, in 1926. The authors of the work
included Nestor Makhno, Peter Archinov and Ida Mett. At the time it provoked
intense debate (and still does in most anarchist) circles between supporters
of the Platform (usually called "Platformists") and those who oppose it
(which includes other communist-anarchists,  anarcho-syndicalists and
supporters of the "synthesis"). We will discuss why many anarchists 
oppose the Platform in the next section. Here we discuss what the 
Platform argued for.

Like the "synthesis" federation (see last section), the Platform 
was created in response to the experiences of the Russian Revolution. 
The authors of the Platform (like Voline and other supporters of the 
"synthesis") had participated in that Revolution and saw all their 
work, hopes and dreams fail as the Bolshevik state triumphed and 
destroyed any chances of socialism by undermining soviet democracy, 
workers' self-management of production, trade union democracy as 
well as fundamental individual freedoms and rights (see section H 
for details). Moreover, the authors of the Platform had been leading 
activists in the Makhnovist movement in the Ukraine, which had 
successfully resisted both White and Red armies in the name of 
working class self-determination and anarchism. Facing the same 
problems of the Bolshevik government, the Makhnovists had actively 
encouraged popular self-management and organisation, freedom of 
speech and of association, and so on, whereas the Bolsheviks had 
not. Thus they were aware that anarchist ideas not only worked 
in practice, but that the arguments of Leninists who maintained 
that Bolshevism (and the policies it introduced at the time) 
was the only "practical" response to the problems facing a 
revolution were false.

They wrote the pamphlet in order to examine why the anarchist movement 
had failed to build on their successes in gaining influence within the 
working class. As can be seen from their work in the factory committees, 
where workers organised their own workforces and had began to build a 
society based on both freedom and equality, anarchist ideas had proven 
to be both popular and practical. While repression by the Bolsheviks 
(as documented by Voline in his classic history of the Russian Revolution, 
_The Unknown Revolution_, for example) did play a part in this failure, 
it did not explain everything. Also important, in the eyes of the Platform 
authors, was the lack of anarchist organisation *before* the revolution. 
In the first paragraph they state:

"It is very significant that, in spite of the strength and incontestably 
positive character of libertarian ideas, and in spite of the facing up to 
the social revolution, and finally the heroism and innumerable sacrifices 
borne by the anarchists in the struggle for anarchist communism, the 
anarchist movement remains weak despite everything, and has appeared, 
very often, in the history of working class struggles as a small event, an 
episode, and not an important factor." [_Organisational Platform of the 
Libertarian Communists_, p. 11]

This weakness in the movement derived from a number of causes, the main 
one being "the absence of organisational principles and practices" within 
the anarchist movement. Indeed, they argued, "the anarchist movement is 
represented by several local organisations advocating contradictory theories
and practices, having no perspectives for the future, nor of a continuity in 
militant work, and habitually disappearing, hardly leaving the slightest 
trace behind them." This explained the "contradiction between the positive
and incontestable substance of libertarian ideas, and the miserable state in
which the anarchist movement vegetates." [Ibid.] For anyone familiar with 
the anarchist movement in many countries, these words will still strike home.
Thus the Platform still appears to many anarchists a relevant and important
document, even if they are not Platformists.

The author's of the Platform proposed a solution to this problem, namely 
the creation of certain type of anarchist organisation. This organisation 
would be based upon communist-anarchist ideas exclusively, while 
recognising syndicalism as a principal method of struggle. Like most
anarchists, the Platform placed class and class struggle as the centre 
of their analysis, recognising that the "social and political regime of 
all states is above all the product of class struggle. . . The slightest 
change in the course of the battle of classes, in the relative locations 
of the forces of the class struggle, produces continuous modifications 
in the fabric and structure of society." [Op. Cit., p. 14] And, again, 
like most anarchists, the Platform aimed to "transform the present 
bourgeois capitalist society into a society which assures the workers 
the products of the labours, their liberty, independence, and social 
and political equality," one based on a "federalist system of workers 
organisations of production and consumption, united federatively and 
self-administering." In addition, they argued that the "birth, the 
blossoming, and the realisation of anarchist ideas have their roots 
in the life and the struggle of the working masses and are inseparable 
bound to their fate." [Op. Cit., p. 15, p. 19 and p. 15] Again, most 
anarchists (particularly social anarchists) would agree -- anarchist 
ideas will (and have) wither when isolated from working class life 
since only working class people, the vast majority,  can create a 
free society and anarchist ideas are expressions of working class 
experience (remove the experience and the ideas do not develop as 
they should).

In order to create such a free society it is necessary, argue the 
Plaformists, "to work in two directions: on the one hand towards 
the selection and grouping of revolutionary worker and peasant 
forces on a libertarian communist theoretical basis (a specifically 
libertarian communist organisation); on the other hand, towards 
regrouping revolutionary workers and peasants on an economic base 
of production and consumption (revolutionary workers and peasants 
organised around production [i.e. syndicalism, unionism]; workers 
and free peasants co-operatives)" [Op. Cit., p. 20] Again, most 
anarchists would agree with this along with the argument that 
"anarchism should become the leading concept of revolution. . . 
The leading position of anarchist ideas in the revolution 
suggests an orientation of events after anarchist theory. 
However, this theoretical driving force should not be confused 
with the political leadership of the statist parties which 
leads finally to State Power." [Op. Cit., p. 21] The "synthesis"
critics of the Platform also recognised the importance of spreading
anarchist ideas within popular and revolutionary movements and
supporting the class struggle, for example, although they expressed 
the concept in a different way.

This "leadership of ideas" (see also section J.3.6 for more on this) 
would aim at developing and co-ordinating libertarian feelings already 
existing within social struggle. "Although the masses," explains the 
Platform, "express themselves profoundly in social movements in terms 
of anarchist tendencies and tenets, these . . . do however remain 
dispersed, being uncoordinated, and consequently do not lead to 
the . . . preserving [of] the anarchist orientation of the social 
revolution." [p. 21] The Platform argued that a specific anarchist 
organisation was required to ensure that the libertarian tendencies 
initially expressed in any social revolution or movement (for example, 
free federation, self-management in mass assemblies, mandating of
delegates, decentralisation, etc.) do not get undermined by 
statists and authoritarians who have their own agendas.

However, these principles do not, in themselves, determine a Platformist 
organisation. After all, most anarcho-syndicalists and non-Platformist 
communist-anarchists would agree with these positions. The main point 
which distinguishes the Platform is its position on how an anarchist 
organisation should be structured and work. This is sketched in the 
"Organisational Section," the shortest and most contentious section 
of the whole work. They call this the _General Union of Anarchists_. 
This is where they introduce the concepts of "Theoretical and Tactical 
Unity " and "Collective Responsibility," concepts which are unique 
to the Platform.

The first concept, obviously, has two parts. Firstly the members of 
these organisations are in theoretical agreement with each other. 
Secondly they agree that if a certain type of work is prioritised, 
all should take part. Even today within the anarchist movement 
these are contentious ideas so it is worth exploring them in a 
little more detail.

By "Theoretical Unity" the Platform meant any anarchist organisation 
must come to an agreement on the theory upon which it is based. In 
other words, that members of the organisation must agree on a certain
number of basic points, such as class struggle, anti-capitalism and 
anti-statism, and so on. An organisation in which half the members
thought that union struggles were important and the other half that 
they were a waste of time would not be effective as the membership
would spend all their time arguing with themselves.  While most 
Platformists agreed that everyone will not agree with everything,
they think its important to reach as much agreement as possible,
and to translate this into action. Once a theoretical position is
reached, the members have to argue it  in public (even if they 
initially opposed it within the organisation but they do have
the right to get the decision of the organisation changed by 
internal discussion).

Which brings us to "Tactical Unity." By "Tactical Unity" the 
Platform meant that the members of an organisation should struggle 
together *as an organised force* rather than as individuals. Once 
a strategy has been agreed by the Union, all members would work 
towards ensuring its success (even if they initially opposed it). 
In this way resources and time are concentrated in a common 
direction, towards an agreed objective.

Thus "Theoretical and Tactical Unity" means an anarchist organisation
that agrees specific ideas and the means of applying those ideas. The 
Platform's basic assumption is that there is a link between coherency 
and efficiency. By increasing the coherency of the organisation by 
making collective decisions and applying them, the Platform argues
that this will increase the influence of anarchist ideas. Without this,
they argue, better organised groups (such as Leninist ones) would
be in a better position to have their arguments heard and listened to 
than anarchists would. Anarchists cannot be complacent, and rely on 
the hope that the obvious strength and rightness of our ideas will shine 
through and win the day. As history shows, this rarely happens and 
when it does, the authoritarians are usually in positions of power to
crush the emerging anarchist influence (this was the case in Russia,
for example). Platformists argue that the world we live in is the 
product of struggles between competing ideas of how society should 
be organised and if the anarchist voice is weak, quiet and disorganised, 
it will not be heard, and other arguments, other perspectives will win 
the day.

Which brings us to "Collective Responsibility," which the Platform 
defines as "the entire Union will be responsible for the political 
and revolutionary activity of each member; in the same way, each 
member will be responsible for the political and revolutionary 
activity of the Union." [Op. Cit., p. 32]

By this term, the Platform meant that each member should support 
the decisions made by the organisation and that each member should
take part in the process of collective decision making process. 
Without this, argue Platformists, any decisions made will be 
paper decisions only as individuals and groups would ignore the 
agreements made by the federation (the Platform calls this "the 
tactic of irresponsible individualism" [Ibid.]). However, with 
"Collective Responsibility," the strength of all the individuals 
that make up the group is magnified and collectively applied. 
However, as one supporter of the Platform notes:

"The Platform doesn't go into detail about how collective 
responsibility works in practice. There are issues it leaves 
untouched such as the question of people who oppose the majority 
view. We would argue that obviously people who oppose the view of 
the majority have a right to express their own views, however in 
doing so they must make clear that they don't represent the view 
of the organisation. If a group of people within the organisation 
oppose the majority decision they have the right to organise 
and distribute information so that their arguments can be heard 
within the organisation as a whole. Part of our anarchism is the 
belief that debate and disagreement, freedom and openness strengthens 
both the individual and the group to which she or he belongs." 
[_Red and Black Revolution_, no. 4, p. 30]

The last principle in the "Organisational Section" of the Platform is 
"Federalism," which it defines as "the free agreement of individuals
and organisations to work collectively towards a common objective"
and allows the "reconcil[ing] the independence and initiative of 
individuals and the organisation with service to the common cause."
[Op. Cit., p. 33] However, the Platform argues that this principle has
been "deformed" within the movement to mean the "right" to "manifest
one's 'ego,' without obligation to account for duties as regards the
organisation" one is a member of. [Ibid.] In order to overcome this
problem, they stress that "the federalist type of anarchist organisation,
while recognising each member's rights to independence, free opinion,
individual liberty and initiative, requires each member to undertake
fixed organisation duties, and demands execution of communal
decisions." [Op. Cit., pp. 33-4]

As part of their solution to the problem of anarchist organisation, 
the Platform suggested that each group would have "its secretariat, 
executing and guiding theoretically the political and technical
work of the organisation." [Op. Cit., p. 34] Moreover, the Platform 
suggests that "a special organ [must] be created: *the executive 
committee of the Union*" which would "be in charge" of "the
execution of decisions taken by the Union with which it is
entrusted; the theoretical and organisational orientation of the
activity of isolated organisations consistent with the theoretical
positions and the general tactical lines of the Union; the monitoring
of the general state of the movement; the maintenance of working and
organisational links between all the organisations in the Union; 
and with other organisation." The rights, responsibilities and practical
tasks of the executive committee are fixed by the congress of the 
Union. [Ibid.] This suggestion, unsurprisingly, meet with strong 
disapproval by most anarchists, as we will see in the next section,
who argued that this would turn the anarchist movement into a
centralised, hierarchical party similar to the Bolsheviks. Needless
to say, supporters of the Platform reject this argument and point
out that the Platform itself is not written in stone and needs to
be discussed fully and modified as required. In fact, few, if any,
Platformist groups, do have this "secretariat" structure (it could, 
in fact, be argued that there are no actual "Platformist" groups, 
rather groups influenced by the Platform, namely on the issues
of "Theoretical and Tactical Unity" and "Collective Responsibility").

Similarly, most modern day Platformists reject the idea of gathering
all anarchists into one organisation. The original Platform seemed 
to imply that the _General Union_ would be an umbrella organisation, 
which is made up of different groups and individuals. Most Platformists 
would argue that not only will there never be one organisation which 
encompasses everyone, they do not think it necessary. Instead they
envisage the existence of a number of organisations, each internally 
unified, each co-operating with each other where possible, a much 
more amorphous and fluid entity than a General Union of Anarchists.

As well as the original Platform, most Platformists place the 
_Manifesto of Libertarian Communism_ by Georges Fontenis and 
_Towards a Fresh Revolution_ by the "Friends of Durruti" as landmark 
texts in the Platformist tradition. A few anarcho-syndicalists 
question this last claim, arguing that the "Friends of Durruti" 
manifesto has strong similarities with the CNTs pre-1936 position 
on revolution and thus is an anarcho-syndicalist document, going 
back to the position the CNT ignored after July 19th, 1936. 

There are numerous Platformist and Platformist influenced organisations 
in the world today. These include the Irish based _Workers Solidarity 
Movement_, the British _Anarchist Communist Federation_, the French 
_Libertarian Alternative_, the Swiss _Libertarian Socialist 
Organisation_, the Italian _Federation of Anarchist Communists_ 
and the South African _Workers Solidarity Federation_.

In the next section we discuss the objections that most anarchists 
have towards the Platform.

J.3.4	Why do many anarchists oppose the "Platform"?

When the "Platform" was published it provoked a massive amount of debate
and comment, the majority of it critical. The majority of famous anarchists
rejected the Platform. Indeed, only Nestor Makhno (who co-authored the
work) supported its proposals, with (among others) Alexander Berkman, 
Emma Goldman, Voline, G.P. Maximoff, Luigi Fabbri, Camilo Berneri and
Errico Malatesta rejecting its suggestions on how anarchists should 
organise. All argued that the Platform was trying to "Bolshevise
anarchism" or that the authors were too impressed by the "success" 
of the Bolsheviks in Russia. Since then, it has continued to provoke 
a lot of debate in anarchist circles. So why did so many anarchists 
then, and now, oppose the Platform?

While many of the anti-Platformists made points about most parts of the
Platform (both Maximoff and Voline pointed out that while the Platform
denied the need of a "Transitional Period" in theory, they accepted it 
in practice, for example) the main bone of contention was found in the
"Organisational Section" with its call for "Tactical and Theoretical Unity,"
"Collective Responsibility" and group and executive "secretariats" guiding
the organisation. Here most anarchists found ideas they considered 
incompatible with anarchist ideas. We will concentrate on this issue as
it is usually considered as the most important.

Today, in some quarters of the libertarian movement, the Platformists are 
often dismissed as 'want-to-be leaders'. Yet this was not where Malatesta 
and other critics of the Platform took issue. Malatesta and Maximoff both
argued in favour of, to use Maximoff's words, anarchists "go[ing] into the
masses. . . , work[ing] with them, struggle for their soul, and attempt to win
it *ideologically* [sic!] and give it guidance." [_Constructive Anarchism_, 
p. 19] Moreover, as Maximoff notes, the "synthesis" anarchists come to the
same conclusion. Thus all sides of the debate accepted that anarchists should 
take the lead. The question, as Malatesta and the others saw it, was not whether 
to lead, but rather how you should lead - a fairly important distinction in the 
argument. Following Bakunin, Maximoff argued that the question was "not the
rejection of *leadership,* but making certain it is *free* and *natural.*" 
[Ibid.] Malatesta made the same point and posed two 'alternatives': Either 
we "provide leadership by advice and example leaving people themselves 
to . . . adopt our methods and solutions if these are, or seem to be, 
better than those suggested and carried out by others....'"or we "can 
also direct by taking over command, that is by becoming a government." 
He asked the Platformists, "In which manner do you wish to direct?" 
[_The Anarchist Revolution_, p. 108]

He goes on to say that while he thought, from his knowledge of Makhno and
his work, that the answer must be the second way, he was "assailed by doubt
that [Makhno] would also like to see, within the general movement, a central
body that would, in an authoritarian manner, dictate the theoretical and 
practical programme for the revolution." This was because of the "Executive
Committee" in the Platform which would "give ideological and organisational
direction to the [anarchist] association." [Op. Cit., p. 110]

Maximoff makes the same point when he notes that when the Platform 
argues that anarchists must "enter into revolutionary trade unions as an
organised force, responsible to accomplish work in the union before
the general anarchist organisation and orientated by the latter" [_The
Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists_, p. 25] this
implies that anarchists in the unions are responsible to the anarchist
federation, *not* to the union assemblies that elected them. As he
puts it, according to the Platform, anarchists "are to join the Trades
Unions with ready-made recipes and are to carry out their plans, if
necessary, against the will of the Unions themselves." [_Constructive
Anarchism_, p. 19] However, Maximoff's argument may be considered 
harsh as the Platform argues that anarchism "aspires neither to political 
power nor dictatorship" [Op. Cit., p. 21] and so they would hardly be
urging the opposite principles within the trade union movement. If
we take the Platform's comments within a context informed by the
"leadership of ideas" concept (see section J.3.6) then what they meant
was simply that the anarchist group would convince the union members 
of  the validity of their ideas by argument and so the disagreement 
becomes one of unclear (or bad) use of language by the Platform's 
authors. Something Maximoff would not have disagreed with, we are
sure.

Despite many efforts and many letters on the subject (in particular 
between Malatesta and Makhno) the question of "leadership" could 
not be clarified to either side's satisfaction, in part because there 
was an additional issue for dispute. This was the related issue of 
organisational principles (which in themselves make up the defining 
part of the original Platform). Malatesta argued that this did not conform
with anarchist methods and principles, and so could not "help bring
about the triumph of anarchism." [_The Anarchist Revolution_, p. 97]
This was because of two main reasons, the first being the issue of the 
Platform's "secretariats" and "executive committee" and the issue of
"Collective Responsibility." We will take each in turn.

With an structure based round "secretariats" and "executive committees"
the "will of the [General] Union [of Anarchists] can only mean the will
of the majority, expressed through congresses which nominate and 
control the *Executive Committee* and decide on all important issues.
Naturally, the congresses would consist of representatives elected by
the majority of member groups . . . So, in the best of cases, the 
decisions would be taken by a majority of a majority, and this could 
easily, especially when the opposing opinions are more than two, 
represent only a minority."  This, he argues, "comes down to a pure 
majority system, to pure parliamentarianism" and so non-anarchist 
in nature. [Op. Cit., p. 100]

As long as a Platformist federation is based on "secretariats" 
and "executive committees" directing the activity and development 
of the organisation, this critique is valid. In such a system, as 
these bodies control the organisation and members are expected to 
follow their decisions (due to "theoretical and tactical unity" 
and "collective responsibility") they are, in effect, the 
government of the association. While this government may be
elected and accountable, it is still a government simply because 
these bodies have executive power. As Maximoff argues, individual 
initiative in the Platform "has a special character . . . Each 
organisation (i.e. association of members with the right to individual
initiative) has its secretariat which . . . *directs* the ideological, 
political and technical activities of the organisation . . . In what, 
then, consists the self-reliant activities of the rank-and-file members? 
Apparently in one thing: initiative to obey the secretariat and carry
out its directives." [_Constructive Anarchism_, p. 18] This seems to
be the logical conclusion of the structure suggested by the Platform. 
"The spirit," argued Malatesta, "the tendency remains authoritarian 
and the educational effect would remain anti-anarchist." [_The
Anarchist Revolution_, p. 98] 

Malatesta, in contrast, argued that an anarchist organisation must be
based on the "[f]ull autonomy, full independence and therefore the
full responsibility of individuals and groups" with all organisational
work done "freely, in such a way that the thought and initiative of
individuals is not obstructed." The individual members of such an
organisation "express any opinion and use any tactic which is not
in contradiction with accepted principles and which does not harm
the activities of others." Moreover, the administrative bodies such
organisations nominate would "have no executive powers, have no
directive powers" leaving it up to the groups and their federal 
meetings to decide their own fates. While they may be representative
bodies, the congresses of such organisations would be "free from
any kind of authoritarianism, because they do not lay down the law;
they do not impose their own resolutions on others. . . and do not
become binding and enforceable except on those who accept them."
[Op. Cit., p. 101, p. 102, p. 101] Such an organisation does not 
exclude collective decisions and self-assumed obligations, rather
it is based upon them.

Most groups inspired by the Platform, however, seem to reject this
aspect of its organisational suggestions. Instead of "secretariats" and
"executive committees" they have regular conferences and meetings
to reach collective decisions on issues and practice unity that way.
Thus the *really* important issue is of "theoretical and tactical unity" 
and "collective responsibility," not in the structure suggested by the
Platform. Indeed, this issue was the main topic in Makhno's letter 
to Malatesta, for example, and so we would be justified in saying 
that this is the key issues dividing "Platformists" from other anarchists. 

So in what way did Malatesta disagree with this concept? As we 
mentioned in the last section, the Platform defined the idea of 
 "Collective Responsibility" as "the entire Union will be responsible 
for the political and revolutionary activity of each member; in the 
same way, each member will be responsible for the political and 
revolutionary activity of the Union." To which Malatesta commented
as follows:

"But if the Union is responsible for what each member does, how 
can it leave to its members and to the various groups the freedom 
to apply the common programme in the way they think best? How can
one be responsible for an action if it does not have the means to
prevent it? Therefore, the Union and in its name the Executive
Committee, would need to monitor the action of the individual
member and order them what to do and what not to do; and since
disapproval after the event cannot put right a previously accepted
responsibility, no-one would be able to do anything at all before
having obtained the go-ahead, the permission of the committee.
And, on the other hand, can an individual accept responsibility
for the actions of a collectivity before knowing what it will do
and if he cannot prevent it doing what he disapproves of?" [Op. 
Cit., p. 99]

In other words, the term "collective responsibility" (if taken 
literally) implies a highly inefficient and somewhat authoritarian 
mode of organisation. Before any action could be undertaken, the
organisation would have to be consulted and this would crush
individual, group and local initiative. The organisation would
respond slowly to developing situations, if at all, and this response
would not be informed by first hand knowledge and experience. 
Moreover, this form of organisation implies a surrendering of
individual judgement, as members would have to "submit to the 
decisions of the majority before they have even heard what those 
might be."[Op. Cit., 101] In the end, all a member could do 
would be to leave the organisation if they disagree with a tactic
or position and could not bring themselves to further it by their
actions.

This structure also suggests that the Platform's commitment to
federalism is in words only. As most anarchists critical of the 
Platform argued, while its authors affirm federalist principles 
they, in fact, "outline a perfectly centralised organisation with 
an Executive Committee that has responsibility to give ideological 
and organisational direction to the different anarchist organisations, 
which in turn will direct the professional organisations of the 
workers." ["The Reply", _Constructive Anarchism_, pp. 35-6] 

Thus it is likely that "Collective Responsibility" taken to its logical
end would actually *hinder* anarchist work by being too bureaucratic
and slow. Let us assume that by applying collective responsibility 
as well as tactical and theoretical unity, anarchist resources and time 
will be more efficiently utilised. However, what is the point of being 
"efficient" if the collective decision reached is wrong or is inapplicable 
to many areas? Rather than local groups applying their knowledge of 
local conditions and developing theories and policies that reflect 
these conditions (and co-operating from the bottom up), they may
be forced to apply inappropriate policies due to the "Unity" of the 
Platformist organisation. It is true that Makhno argued that the 
"activities of local organisations can be adapted, as far as possible, 
to suit local conditions" but only if they are "consonant with the 
pattern of the overall organisational practice of the Union of 
anarchists covering the whole country." [_The Struggle Against 
the State and Other Essays_, p. 62] Which still begs the question 
on the nature of the Platform's unity (however, it does suggest 
that the Platform's position may be less extreme than might be 
implied by the text, as we will discuss). That is why anarchists have 
traditionally supported federalism and free agreement within their 
organisations, to take into account the real needs of localities.

However, if we do not take the Platform's definition of "Collective
Responsibility" literally or to its logical extreme (as Makhno's
comments suggest) then the differences between Platformists
and non-Platformists may not be that far. As Malatesta pointed
out in his reply to Makhno's letter:

"I accept and support the view that anyone who associates and
co-operates with others for a common purpose must feel the need
to co-ordinate his [or her] actions with those of his [or her] 
fellow members and do nothing that harms the work of others . . . 
and respect the agreements that have been made. . . [Moreover] I
maintain that those who do not feel and do not practice that
duty should be thrown out the of the association.

"Perhaps, speaking of collective responsibility, you mean precisely
that accord and solidarity that must exist among members of an
association. And if that is so, your expression amounts. . . to
an incorrect use of language, but basically it would only be an
unimportant question of wording and agreement would soon be
reached." [Op. Cit., pp. 107-8]

This, indeed, seems to be the way that most Platformist organisation
do operate. They have agreed broad theoretical and tactical positions 
on various subjects (such as, for example, the nature of trade unions
and how anarchists relate to them) while leaving it to local groups
to act within these guidelines. Moreover, the local groups do not
have to report to the organisation before embarking on an activity.
In other words, most Platformist groups do not take the Platform
literally and so many differences are, to a large degree, a question 
of wording.

While many anarchists are critical of Platformist groups for being
too centralised for their liking, it is the case that the Platform has
influenced many anarchist organisations, even non-Platformist ones
(this can be seen in the "class struggle" groups discussed in the next
section). This influence has been both ways, with the criticism the 
original Platform was subjected to having had an effect on how 
Platformist groups have developed. This, of course, does not imply 
that there is little or no difference between Platformists and other 
anarchists. Platformist groups tend to stress "collective responsibility" 
and "theoretical and tactical unity" more than others, which has
caused problems when Platformists have worked within "synthesis"
organisations (as was the case in France, for example, which resulted
in much bad-feeling between Platformists and others).

_Constructive Anarchism_ by the leading Russian anarcho-syndicalist 
G.P. Maximoff gathers all the relevant documents in one place. As well 
as Maximoff's critique of the Platform, it includes the "synthesis"  
reply and the exchange of letters between Malatesta and Makhno on the 
former's critical article on the Platform (which is also included).
_The Anarchist Revolution_ also contains Malatesta's article and 
the exchange of letters between him and Makhno.

J.3.5	Are there other kinds of anarchist federation?

Another type of anarchist federation is what we term the "class 
struggle" group. Many local anarchist groups in Britain, for 
example organise in this fashion. They use the term "class 
struggle" to indicate that their anarchism is based on collective 
working class resistance as opposed to reforming capitalism 
via lifestyle changes and the support of, say, co-operatives 
(many "class struggle" anarchists do these things, of course, 
but they are aware that they cannot create an anarchist society 
by doing so). We follow this use of the term here. And just to 
stress the point again, our use of "class struggle" to describe
this type of anarchist federation and group does not imply
that "synthesis" or "Platformist" do not support the class 
struggle. They do!

This kind of group is half-way between the "synthesis" and the 
"Platform." The "class struggle" group agrees with the "synthesis" 
in so far as it is important to have a diverse viewpoints within 
a federation and that it would be a mistake to try to impose a 
common-line on different groups in different circumstances as the 
Platform does. However, like the "Platform," the class struggle 
group recognises that there is little point in creating a forced 
union between totally different strands of anarchism. Thus the 
"class struggle" group rejects the idea that individualist or 
mutualist anarchists should be part of the same organisation 
as anarchist communists or syndicalists or that anarcho-pacifists 
should join forces with non-pacifists. Thus the "class struggle" 
group acknowledges that an organisation which contains viewpoints 
which are dramatically opposed can lead to pointless debates and 
the paralysis of action due to the impossibilities of overcoming 
those differences.

Instead, the "class struggle" group agrees a common set of "aims and 
principles" which are the basic terms of agreement within the federation. 
If an individual or group does not agree with this statement then they
cannot join. If they are members and try to change this statement and 
cannot get the others to agree its modification, then they are morally 
bound to leave the organisation. In other words, the aims and principles 
is the framework within which individuals and groups apply their 
own ideas and their interpretation of agreed policies. It means that 
individuals in a group and the groups within a federation have 
something to base their local activity on, something which has been 
agreed collectively. Hence, there would be a common thread to 
activities and a guide to action (particularly in situations were a 
group or federation meeting cannot be called). In this way individual
initiative and co-operation can be reconciled, without hindering 
either. In addition, the "aims and principles" would show potential 
members where the anarchist group was coming from. 

Such a federation, like all anarchist groups, would be based upon regular
assemblies locally and in frequent regional, national, etc., conferences 
to continually re-evaluate policies, tactics, strategies and goals. In
addition, such meetings prevent power from collecting in the higher
administration committees created to co-ordinate activity. The regular
conferences aim to create federation policies on specific topics and
agree common strategies. Such policies, once agreed, are morally binding
on the membership, who can review and revise them as required at a later
stage but cannot take action which would hinder their application (they
do not have to apply them themselves, if they consider them as a big
mistake). In other words, "[i]n an anarchist organisation the individual 
members can express any opinion and use any tactic which is not in 
contradiction with accepted principles and which does not harm the 
activities of others." [Errico Malatesta, _The Anarchist Revolution_, 
p. 102]

For example, minorities in such a federation can pursue their own policies 
as long as they clearly state that theirs is a minority position and does
not contradict the federation's aims and principles. In this way the anarchist 
federation combines united action and dissent, for no general policy will 
be applicable in all circumstances and it is better for minorities to make
mistakes than for them to pursue policies which they know will make even
greater problems in their area. As long as their actions and policies do 
not contradict the federations basic political ideas, then diversity is an
essential means for ensuring that the best tactic and ideas are be 
identified. The problem with the "synthesis" grouping is that any such
basic political ideas would be hard to agree and be so watered down as to
be almost useless (for example, a federation combining individualist and
communist anarchists would find it impossible to agree on such things as
the necessity for communism, communal ownership, and so on).

Thus, supporters of the "class struggle" group agree with Malatesta
when he argued that anarchist groups must be founded on "[f]ull
autonomy, full independence and therefore full responsibility of
individuals and groups; free accord between those who believe it
is useful to unite in co-operating for a common aim; moral duty to
see through commitments undertaken and to do nothing that would
contradict the accepted programme. It is on these bases that the 
practical structures, and the right tools to give life to the 
organisation should be built and designed. Then the groups, the 
federations of groups, the federations of federations, the meetings, 
the congresses, the correspondence committees and so forth. But all 
this must be done freely, in such a way that the thought and 
initiative of individuals is not obstructed, and with the sole 
view of giving greater effect to efforts which, in isolation, 
would be either impossible or ineffective." [Op. Cit., p. 101]

The "class struggle" group, like all anarchist groupings, is convinced 
that  (to use Murray Bookchin's words) "anarcho-communism cannot 
remain a mere mood or tendency, wafting in the air like a cultural 
ambience. It must be organised -- indeed *well-organised* -- if it is 
effectively articulate and spread this new sensibility; it must have a 
coherent theory and extensive literature; it must be capable of 
duelling with the authoritarian movements [capitalist or state 
socialist] that try to denature the intuitive libertarian impulses 
of our time and channel social unrest into hierarchical forms of 
organisation." ["Looking Back at Spain," pp. 53-96, _The Radical 
Papers_, p. 90]

J.3.6 What role do these groups play in anarchist theory?

The aim of these groups and federations is to spread anarchist ideas 
within society and within social movements. They aim to convince 
people of the validity of anarchist ideas and analysis, of the need for 
a libertarian transformation of society and of themselves. They do so 
by working with others as equals and "through advice and example, 
leaving people . . . to adopt our methods and solutions if these are, 
or seem to be, better than those suggested and carried out by others." 
[Errico Malatesta, _The Anarchist Revolution_, p. 108] 

The role of "affinity groups" and their federations play a key role in
anarchist theory. This is because anarchists are well aware that there 
are different levels of knowledge and consciousness in society. While 
it is a basic element of anarchism that people learn through struggle 
and their own experiences, it is also a fact that different people 
develop at different speeds, that each individual is unique and 
subject to different influences. As one anarchist pamphlet puts 
it, the "experiences of working class life constantly lead to the 
development of ideas and actions which question the established 
order . . . At the same time, different sections of the working 
class reach different degrees of consciousness." [_The Role of 
the Revolutionary Organisation_, p.3] This can easily be seen 
from any group of individuals of the same class or even community. 
Some are anarchists, others Marxists, some social democrats/labourites, 
others conservatives, other liberals, most "apolitical," some support 
trade unions, others are against and so on.

Because they are aware that they are one tendency among many, 
anarchists organise as anarchists to influence social struggle. Only
when anarchists ideas are accepted by the vast majority will an 
anarchist society be possible. We wish, in other words, to win the 
most widespread understanding and influence for anarchist ideas 
and methods in the working class and in society, primarily because
we believe that these alone will ensure a successful revolutionary
transformation of society. Hence Malatesta's argument that
anarchists "must strive to acquire overwhelming influence in order 
to draw the movement towards the realisation of our ideals. But 
such influence must be won by doing more and better than others, 
and will be useful of won in that way . . . [therefore] we must deepen, 
develop and propagate our ideas and co-ordinate our forces in a 
common action. We must act within the labour movement to 
prevent it being limited to and corrupted by the exclusive pursuit 
of small improvements compatible with the capitalist system. . . 
We must work with . . . [all the] masses to awaken the spirit of 
revolt and the desire for a free and happy life. We must initiate 
and support all movements that tend to weaken the forces of 
the State and of capitalism and to raise the mental level
and material conditions of the workers." [_Life and Ideas_, 
p. 109]

Anarchist organisation exists to help the process by which people 
come to anarchist conclusions. It aims to make explicit the feelings 
and thoughts that people have (such as, wage slavery is hell, that the 
state exists to rip people off and so on) by exposing as wrong 
common justifications for existing society and social relationships 
by a process of debate and providing a vision of something better. In 
other words, anarchist organisations seek to explain and clarify what 
is happening in society and show why anarchism is the only real 
solution to social problems. As part of this, we also have combat 
false ideas such as Liberalism, Social Democracy, right-wing 
Libertarianism, Leninism and so on, indicating why these 
proposed solutions are not real ones. In addition, an anarchist 
organisation must also be a 'collective memory' for the oppressed, 
keeping alive and developing the traditions of the labour movement 
and anarchism so that new generations of anarchists have a body 
of experience to build upon and use in their struggles.

Anarchist organisations see themselves in the role of aiders, *not* 
leaders. As Voline argued, the minority which is politically aware 
minority "should intervene. But, in every place and under all 
circumstances, . . . [they] should freely participate in the common 
work, *as true collaborators, not as dictators.* It is necessary that 
they especially create an example, and employ themselves. . . without 
dominating, subjugating, or oppressing anyone. . . Accordingly to 
the libertarian thesis, it is the labouring masses themselves, who, 
by means of the various class organisations, factory committees, 
industrial and agricultural unions, co-operatives, et cetera, federated. . . 
should apply themselves everywhere, to solving the problems of 
waging the Revolution. . . As for the 'elite' [i.e. the politically aware],
their role, according to the libertarians, is to *help* the masses, 
enlighten them, teach them, give them necessary advice, impel them 
to take initiative, provide them with an example, and support them 
in their action -- *but not to direct them governmentally.*" [_The 
Unknown Revolution_, pp. 177-8]

This role is usually called providing a "leadership of ideas" 
(Bakunin used the unfortunate term "invisible dictatorship" 
to express approximately the same idea -- see section J.3.7 
for details).

Anarchists stress the difference of this concept with authoritarian 
notions of "leadership" such as Leninist ideas about party leadership 
where in members of the vanguard party are elected to positions of 
power or responsibility within an organisation. While both anarchist
and Leninist organisations exist to overcome the problem of "uneven
development" within the working class (i.e. the existence of many
different political opinions within it), the aims, role and structure of
these groups could not be more different. Essentially, Leninist parties
(as well as reproducing hierarchical structures within the so-called
"revolutionary" organisation) see socialist politics as arising *outside*
the working class, in the radical intelligentsia (see Lenin's _What is to 
be Done_ for details) rather than as the product of working class 
experience (in this, we must add, Lenin was following standard 
Social Democratic theory and the ideas of Karl Kautsky -- the 
"Pope of Marxism" -- in particular). 

Anarchists, on the other hand, argue that rather than being the product 
of "outside" influence, (libertarian) socialist ideas are the natural product 
of working class life. In other words, (libertarian) socialist ideas come 
from *within* the working class. Bakunin, for example, constantly 
referred to the "socialist instinct" of the working classes and argued 
that the socialist ideal was "necessarily the product of the people's 
historical experience" and that workers "most basic instinct and their 
social situation makes them . . . socialists. They are socialists because 
of all the conditions of their material existence."[quoted by Richard 
B. Saltman, _The Social and Political Thought of  Michael Bakunin_, 
p. 100, _The Basic Bakunin_, pp. 101-2] 

Needless to say, instinct in itself is not enough (if it was, we would be 
living in an anarchist society!) and so Bakunin, like all anarchists, stressed 
the importance of self-liberation and self-education through struggle in
order to change "instinct" into "thought." He argued that there was "but a 
single path, that of *emancipation through practical action* . . . [by] 
workers' solidarity in their struggle against the bosses. It means *trade 
unions, organisation, and the federation of resistance funds* . . . [Once the 
worker] begins to fight, in association with his comrades, for the reduction 
of his working hours and for an increase in his salary. . .and become[s] 
increasingly accustomed to relying on the collective strength of the 
workers . . . The worker thus enlisted in the struggle will necessarily 
. . . recognise himself [or herself] to be a revolutionary socialist." 
[_The Basic Bakunin_, p. 103]

In addition to recognising the importance of popular organisations 
(such as trade unions) and of direct action in developing libertarian 
socialist thought, Bakunin also stressed the need for anarchist groups 
to work with these organisations and on the mass of the population in 
general. These groups would play an important role in helping to 
clarify the ideas of those in struggle and undermining the internal
and external barriers against these ideas. The first of these are
what Emma Goldman termed the "internal tyrants," the "ethical and
social conventions" of existing, hierarchical society which accustom
people to authoritarian social relationships, injustice, lack of 
freedom and so on. External barriers are what Chomsky terms "the 
Manufacture of Consent," the process by which the population at 
large are influenced to accept the status quo and the dominant elites 
viewpoint via the education system and media. It is this "manufacture 
of consent" which helps explain why, relatively speaking, there are 
so few anarchists even though we argue that anarchism is the natural 
product of working class life. While, objectively, the experiences of 
life drives working class people to resist domination and oppression, 
they enter that struggle with a history behind them, a history of 
education in capitalist schools, of reading pro-capitalist papers, 
and so on. 

This means that while social struggle is radicalising, it also has 
to combat years of pro-state and pro-capitalist influences. So even 
if an anarchist consciousness springs from the real conditions of 
working class life, because we life in a class society there are numerous 
counter-tendencies that *inhibit* the development of that consciousness
(such as religion, current morality the media, pro-business and pro-state 
propaganda, state and business repression and so on). This explains the 
differences in political opinion within the working class, as people 
develop at different speeds and are subject to different influences and 
experiences. However, the numerous internal and external barriers to 
the development of anarchist opinions created our "internal tyrants" 
and by the process of "manufacturing consent" can be, and are, weaken 
by rational discussion as well as social struggle and self-activity.
Indeed, until such time as we "learned to defy them all [the internal 
tyrants], to stand firmly on [our] own ground and to insist upon
[our] own unrestricted freedom" we can never be free or successfully
combat the "manufacture of consent." [Emma Goldman, _Red Emma Speaks_,
p. 140] And this is where the anarchist group can play a part, for 
there is an important role to be played by those who have been through 
this process already, namely to aid those going through it.

Of course the activity of an anarchist group does not occur in a vacuum.
In periods of low class struggle, where there is little collective action,
anarchist ideas will seem to be utopian and so dismissed by most. In
these situations, only a few will become anarchists simply because the
experiences of working people do not bred confidence that an alternative
is possible to the current system. In addition, if anarchist groups are
small, many who are looking for an alternative may join other groups
which are more visible and express a libertarian sounding rhetoric
(such as Leninist groups, who often talk about workers' control, 
workers' councils and so on while meaning something distinctly
different from what anarchists mean by these terms). However, as
the class struggle increases and people become more inclined to
take collective action, they can become empowered and radicalised 
by their own activity and be more open to anarchist ideas and the
possibility of changing society. In these situations, anarchist groups
grow and the influence in anarchist ideas increases. This also explains
why anarchist ideas are not as widespread as they could be. It also
indicates another important role for the anarchist group, namely to
provide an environment and space where those drawn to anarchist
ideas can meet and share experiences and ideas during periods of
reaction.

The role of the anarchist group, therefore, is *not* to import 
a foreign ideology into the working class, but rather to help 
develop and clarify the ideas of those working class people 
who are moving from "instinct" to the "ideal" and so aid those 
undergoing that development. They would aid this development by 
providing propaganda which exposes the current social system 
(and the rationales for it) as bankrupt as well as encouraging 
resistance to oppression and exploitation. The former, for 
Bakunin, allowed the "bringing [of] a more just general expression, 
a new and more congenial form to the existent instincts of the 
proletariat . . . [which] can sometimes facilitate and precipitate 
development . . . [and] give them an awareness of what they have, 
of what they feel, of what they already instinctively desire, but 
never can it give to them what they don't have." The latter "is 
the most popular, the most potent, and the most irresistible form 
of propaganda" and "awake[s] in the masses all the social-revolutionary 
instincts which reside deeply in the heart of every worker" so 
allowing instinct to become transformed into "reflected socialist 
thought." [cited by Richard B. Saltman, _The Social and Political 
Thought of Michael Bakunin_, p. 107, p. 108 and p. 141]

In other words, "the [anarchist] organisation cannot see itself 
solely as a propaganda group. Above all it is an assembly of 
activists. It must actively work in all the grassroots organisations 
of the working class such as rank and file [trade union] groups, 
tenants associations, squatters and unemployed groups as well 
as women's, black and gay groups . . . It does not try to make 
these movements into an appendage of the revolutionary organisation 
just as it respects the autonomy and self-organisation of the rank 
and file workers movement that may develop. . . [while] spread[ing] 
its ideas in these movements." [_The Role of the Revolutionary 
Organisation_, p.5] Such an organisation is not vanguardist in 
the Leninist sense as it recognises that socialist politics 
derive from working class experience, rather than "science" 
(as Lenin and Kautsky argued), and that it does not aim to 
dominate popular movements but rather work within them as equals.

Indeed, Bakunin (in his discussion of the evils of the idea of god) 
presents an excellent summary of why Leninist ideas of vanguardism 
always end up created the dictatorship of the party rather than 
socialism. As he put it:

"[F]rom the moment that the natural inferiority of man and his 
fundamental incapacity to rise by his own effort, unaided by 
any divine inspiration, to the comprehension of just and true 
ideas, are admitted. it becomes necessary to admit also all 
the theological, political, and social consequences of the
positive religions. From the moment that God, the perfect 
supreme being, is posited face to face with humanity, divine 
mediators, the elect, the inspired of God spring from the 
earth to enlighten, direct, and govern in his name the 
human race." [_God and the State_, p. 37]

In _What is to be Done?_, Lenin argued that socialist "consciousness 
could only be brought to [the workers] from without. . . the working 
class, exclusively by its own efforts, is able to develop only trade 
union consciousness" and that the "theory of socialism" was developed 
by "the educated representatives of the propertied classes, the 
intellectuals" and, in so doing, replaced God with Marxism [_The 
Essential Works of Lenin_, p. 74] Hence Trotsky's comments at the 
Communist Party's 1921 congress that "the Party [is] entitled to 
assert its dictatorship even if that dictatorship temporarily 
clashed with the passing moods of the workers' democracy!" and 
that it is "obliged to maintain its dictatorship . . . regardless 
of temporary vacillations even in the working class" come as no 
surprise [quoted by M. Brinton, _The Bolsheviks and Workers' 
Control_, p. 78]. They are just the logical, evil consequences 
of vanguardism (and, of course, it is the Party -- upholders of 
the correct ideology , of "scientific" socialism-- which 
determines what is a "passing mood" or a "temporary vacillation" 
and so dictatorship is the logical consequence of Leninism). The 
validity of Bakunin's argument can easily be recognised. Little 
wonder anarchists reject the concept of vanguardism totally. 

So while we recognise that "advanced" sections do exist within 
the working class and that anarchists are one such section, we 
also recognise that *central* characteristic of anarchism is 
that its politics are derived from the concrete experience of 
fighting capitalism and statism directly -- that is, from the 
realities of working class life. This means that anarchists must 
also learn from working class people in struggle. If we recognise 
that anarchist ideas are the product of working class experience 
and self-activity and that these constantly change and develop in 
light of new experiences and struggles then anarchist theory *must 
be open to change by learning from non-anarchists.* Not to recognise 
this fact is to open the door to vanguardism and dogma. Because 
of this fact, anarchists argue that the relationship between 
anarchists and non-anarchists must be an egalitarian one, based 
on mutual interaction and the recognition that no one is infallible 
or have all the answers -- particularly anarchists!  With this 
in mind, while we recognise the presence of "advanced" groups 
within the working class (which obviously reflects the uneven 
development within it), anarchists aim to minimise such 
unevenness by the way anarchist organisations intervene 
in social struggle, intervention based on involving *all*
in the decision making process (as we discuss below).

Thus the general aim of anarchist groups is to spread ideas -- such as 
general anarchist analysis of society and current events, libertarian 
forms of organisation, direct action and solidarity and so forth -- and 
win people over to anarchism (i.e. to "make" anarchists). This involves
both propaganda and participate as equals in social struggle and 
popular organisation. Anarchists do not think that changing leaders 
is a solution to the problem of (bad) leadership. Rather, it is a question
of making leaders redundant by empowering all. As Malatesta argued,
we "do not want to *emancipate* the people; we want the people to
*emancipate themselves.*" [Op. Cit., p. 90] Thus anarchists 
"advocate and practise direct action, decentralisation, autonomy 
and individual initiative; they should make special efforts to help 
members [of popular organisations] learn to participate directly in 
the life of the organisation and to dispense with leaders and 
full-time functionaries." [Op. Cit., p. 125]

This means that anarchists reject the idea that anarchist groups and 
federations must become the "leaders" of organisations. Rather, we 
desire anarchist ideas to be commonplace in society and in popular
organisations, so that leadership by people from positions of power 
is replaced by the "natural influence" (to use Bakunin's term) of
activists within the rank and file on the decisions made *by* the 
rank and file. While we will discuss Bakunin's ideas in more detail 
in section J.3.7, the concept of "natural influence" can be gathered 
from this comment of Francisco Ascaso (friend of Durruti and an
influential anarchist militant in the CNT and FAI in his own right):

"There is not a single militant who as a 'FAIista' intervenes in 
union meetings. I work, therefore I am an exploited person. I pay
my dues to the workers' union and when I intervene at union meetings
I do it as someone who us exploited, and with the right which is
granted me by the card in my possession, as do the other militants,
whether they belong to the FAI or not." [cited by Abel Paz, 
_Durruti: The People Armed_, p. 137]

This shows the nature of the "leadership of ideas." Rather than be elected
to a position of power or responsibility, the anarchist presents their ideas
at mass meetings and argues his or her case. This means obviously implies
a two-way learning process, as the anarchist learns from the experiences
of others and the others come in contact with anarchist ideas. Moreover,
it is an egalitarian relationship, based upon discussion between equals
rather than urging people to place someone into power above them. And 
it ensures that everyone in the organisation participants in making, 
understands and agrees with the decisions reached. This obviously
helps the political development of all involved (including, we must
stress, the anarchists). As Durruti argued, "the man [or woman] who 
alienates his will, can never be free to express himself and follow his 
own ideas at a union meeting if he feel dominated by the feeblest 
orator. . . As long as a man doesn't think for himself and doesn't 
assume his own responsibilities, there will be no complete liberation 
of human beings." [Op. Cit., p. 184]

Because of our support for the "leadership of ideas", anarchists think
that all popular organisations must be open, fully self-managed and 
free from authoritarianism. Only in this way can ideas and discussion 
play an important role in the life of the organisation. Since anarchists
"do not believe in the good that comes from above and imposed by
force. . .[and] want the new way of life to emerge from the body of
the people and advance as they advance. It matters to use therefore
that all interests and opinions find their expression in a conscious
organisation and should influence communal life in proportion
to their importance." [Errico Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 90] Bakunin's 
words with regards the first International Workers Association 
indicate this clearly:

"It must be a people's movement, organised from the bottom up by 
the free, spontaneous action of the masses. There must be no secret
governmentalism, the masses must be informed of everything . . .  
All the affairs of the International must be thoroughly and openly 
discussed without evasions and circumlocutions." [_Bakunin on
Anarchism_, p. 408]

(Such a assertion by Bakunin may come as a surprise to some readers
who are aware -- usually via Marxist sources -- that Bakunin argued
for a "invisible dictatorship" in some of his letters. As we discuss
in section J.3.7, the claims that Bakunin was a closest authoritarian
are simply wrong.)

Equally as important as *how* anarchists intervene in social struggles
and popular organisations and the organisation of those struggles and
organisations, there is the question of the nature of that intervention. 
We would like to quote the following by the British libertarian 
socialist group _Solidarity_ as it sums up the underlying nature 
of anarchist action and the importance of a libertarian perspective 
on social struggle and change and how politically aware minorities 
work within them:

"*Meaningful action,* for revolutionaries, is whatever increases the 
confidence, the autonomy, the initiative, the participation, the
solidarity, the egalitarian tendencies and the self-activity of the
masses and whatever assists in their demystification. *Sterile and
harmful action* is whatever reinforces the passivity of the masses,
their apathy, their cynicism, their differentiation through hierarchy,
their alienation, their reliance on others to do things for them and
the degree to which they can therefore be manipulated by others - 
even by those allegedly acting on their behalf." [_As We See it_] 

Part of this "meaningful action" involves encouraging people to
"act for yourselves" (to use Kropotkin's words). As we noted
in section A.2.7, anarchism is based on *self*-liberation and 
self-activity is key aspect of this. Hence Malatesta's argument:

"Our task is that of 'pushing' the people to demand and to seize all
the freedom they can and to make themselves responsible for providing
their own needs without waiting for orders from any kind of authority.
Our task is that of demonstrating the uselessness and harmfulness of
government, provoking and encouraging by propaganda and action, all
kinds of individual and collective activities.

It is in fact a question of education for freedom, of making people 
who are accustomed to obedience and passivity consciously aware of 
their real power and capabilities. One must encourage people to do 
things for themselves. . . " [Op. Cit., pp. 178-9]

This "pushing" people to "do it themselves" is another key role for 
any anarchist organisation. The encouragement of direct action is just
as important as anarchist propaganda and popular participation within
social struggle and popular organisations.

As such social struggle developments, the possibility of revolution
becomes closer and closer. While we discuss anarchists ideas on social 
revolution in section J.7, we must note here that the role of the 
anarchist organisation does not change. As Murray Bookchin argues, 
anarchists "seek to persuade the factory committees, assemblies 
[and other organisations created by people in struggle] . . . to 
make themselves into *genuine organs of popular self-management*, 
not to dominate them, manipulate them, or hitch them to an 
all-knowing political party." [_Post-Scarcity Anarchism_, 
p. 217] In this way, by encouraging self-management in 
struggle, anarchist lay the foundations of a self-managed 
society.

J.3.7 Doesn't Bakunin's "Invisible Dictatorship" prove that anarchists 
         are secret authoritarians?

This claim is often made by Leninists and other Marxists and expresses a 
distinct, even wilful, misunderstanding of the role revolutionaries should play 
in popular movements and the ideas of Bakunin on this issue. In actual fact, 
the term "invisible dictatorship" does not prove that Bakunin or anarchists
are secret authoritarians, for reasons we will explain.

Marxists quote Bakunin's terms "invisible dictatorship" and "collective 
dictatorship" out of context, using it to "prove" that anarchists are secret 
authoritarians, seeking dictatorship over the masses. More widely, the 
question of Bakunin and his "invisible dictatorship" finds its way into 
the most sympathetic accounts of anarchist ideas. For example, Peter 
Marshall writes that it is "not difficult to conclude that Bakunin's 
invisible dictatorship would be even more tyrannical than a . . . Marxist 
one" and that it expressed a "profound authoritarian and dissimulating 
streak in his life and work." [_Demanding the Impossible_, p. 287] So, 
the question of setting the record straight about this aspect of Bakunin's 
theory is of more importance than just correcting a few Leninists. In 
addition, to do so will help clarify the concept of "leadership of ideas" 
we discussed in the last section. For both these reasons, this section, 
while initially appearing somewhat redundant and of interest only to 
academics, is of a far wider interest.

It is particularly ironic that Leninists (followers of a person who 
created an actual, *very visible*, dictatorship) accuse anarchists of 
seeking to create a "dictatorship" -- but then again, irony and a sense 
of humour is not usually noted in Leninists and Trotskyists. In a similar 
fashion, they (quite rightly) attack Bakunin for being anti-Jewish but 
keep quiet strangely quiet on Marx and Engels anti-Slavism. Indeed, Marx 
once published an article by Engels which actually preached race hatred 
and violence -- "that hatred of the Russians was and remains the primary 
revolutionary passion of the Germans; and since the revolution it extends 
to the Czechs and the Croatians . . . we . . . can safeguard the revolution 
only by the most determined terrorism against these Slavic peoples" and 
that the "stubborn Czechs and the Slovaks should be grateful to the 
Germans, who have taken the trouble to civilise them." [cited in 
_Bakunin on Anarchism_, p.432] Obviously being anti-Slavic is okay, 
being anti-Jewish is not (they also keep quiet on Marx's anti-Jewish 
comments). The hypocrisy is clear.

Actually, it is in their attempts to smear anarchism with closet 
authoritarianism that the authoritarianism of the Marxists come to 
the fore. For example, in the British Socialist Workers Party journal 
_International Socialism_ number 52, we find this treat of "logic." 
Anarchism is denounced for being "necessarily deeply anti-democratic" 
due to its "thesis of the absolute sovereignty of the individual ego." 
Then Hal Draper is quoted arguing that "[o]f all ideologies, anarchism 
is the most fundamentally anti-democratic in principle." [p. 145] So, 
because anarchism favours individuals being free and making their own 
decisions, it is *less* democratic than Fascism, Nazism and Stalinism! 
Makes you wonder what they mean by democracy if ideologies which actively 
promote leader worship and party/leader dictatorships are more "democratic" 
than anarchism! Of course, in actuality, for most anarchists individual 
sovereignty implies direct democracy in free associations (see, for
example, section A.2.11 or Robert Graham's excellent essay "The 
Anarchist Contract" in _Reinventing Anarchy, Again_). Any "democracy" 
which is not based on individual freedom is too contradictory to be 
take seriously. 

But to return to our subject. Anarchists have two responses to 
claims that Bakunin (and, by implication, all anarchists) seek 
an "invisible" dictatorship and so are not true libertarians. 
Firstly, and this is the point we will concentrate upon in
this section, Bakunin's expression is taken out of context 
and when placed within its context it takes on a radically 
different meaning than that implied by critics of Bakunin and
anarchism. Secondly, even *if* the expression means what the 
critics claim it does, it does not refute anarchism as a political 
theory (any more than Bakunin's racism or Proudhon's sexism and 
racism). This is because anarchists are *not* Bakuninists (or 
Proudhonists or Kropotkinites or any other person-ist). We 
recognise other anarchists as what they are, human beings who 
said lots of important and useful things but, like any other 
human being, they make mistakes and often do not live up to 
all of their ideas. For anarchists, it is a question of 
extracting the useful parts from their works and rejecting 
the useless (as well as the downright nonsense!). Just because 
Bakunin said something, it does not make it right! This 
common-sense approach to politics seems to be lost on Marxists. 
Indeed, if we take the logic of these Marxists to its conclusion, 
we must reject everything Rousseau wrote (he was sexist), Marx 
and Engels (their comments against Slavs spring to mind, along 
with numerous other racist comments) and so on. But, of course, 
this never happens to non-anarchist thinkers when Marxists 
write their articles and books.

However, to return to our main argument, that of the importance 
of context. What does the context around Bakunin's term "invisible 
dictatorship" bring to the discussion? Simply that whenever Bakunin 
uses the term "invisible" or "collective" dictatorship he also 
explicitly states his opposition to government (or official) power 
and *in particular* the idea that anarchist organisations should 
take such power. For example, the _International Socialist_ review 
mentioned above quotes the following passage from "a Bakuninist 
document" to "prove" that the "principle of anti-democracy was 
to leave Bakunin unchallenged at the apex of power":

"It is necessary that in the midst of popular anarchy, which will 
constitute the very life and energy of the revolution, unity of 
thought and revolutionary action should find an organ. This organ 
must be the secret and world-wide association of the international 
brethren." 

This passage is from point 9 of Bakunin's "Programme and Purpose 
of the Revolutionary Organisation of International Brothers." In 
the sentence *immediately before* those quoted, Bakunin stated that 
"[t]his organisation rules out any idea of dictatorship and custodial 
control." [_Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings_, p. 172] Strange that 
this part of point 9 of the programme was not quoted! Nor do they quote 
Bakunin when he wrote, in point 4 of the same programme, "[w]e are the 
natural enemies of those revolutionaries -- future dictators, regimentors 
and custodians of revolution -- who. . . [want] to create new revolutionary 
States just as centralist and despotic as those we already know . . ." Nor, 
in point 8, that since the "revolution everywhere must be created by the 
people, and supreme control must always belong to the people organised 
into a free federation of agricultural and industrial associations . . . 
organised from the bottom upwards by means of revolutionary delegations . . . 
[who] will set out to administer public services, not to rule over peoples." 
[Op. Cit., p. 169, p. 172] 

(As an aside, we can understand why Leninists would not willing to
quote point 8, as Bakunin's position is far in advance of Marx's on 
the structure of revolutionary society. Indeed, it was not until 
1917, when Lenin supported the spontaneously created Soviets as the 
framework of his socialist state -- at least in rhetoric, in practice, 
as we saw in section H, he did not -- that Marxists belatedly 
discovered the importance of workers' councils. In other words, 
Bakunin predicted the rise of workers' councils as the framework 
of a socialist revolution -- after all the Russian soviets were, 
originally, "a free federation of agricultural and industrial 
associations." It must be embarrassing for Leninists to have
one of what they consider as a key contribution to Marxism 
predicted over 50 years beforehand by someone Marx called 
an "ignoramus" and a "non-entity as a theoretician.")

Similarly, when we look at the situations where Bakunin uses the 
terms "invisible" or "collective" dictatorship (usually in letters 
to comrades) we find the same thing -- the explicit denial *in these
same letters* that Bakunin thought the revolutionary association 
should take state/governmental power. For example, in a letter to 
Albert Richard (a fellow member of the anarchist "Alliance of 
Social Democracy") Bakunin states that "[t]here is only one 
power and one dictatorship whose organisation is salutary and 
feasible: it is that collective, invisible dictatorship of those 
who are allied in the name of our principle." He then immediately 
adds that "this dictatorship will be all the more salutary and 
effective for not being dressed up in any official power or 
extrinsic character." Earlier in the letter he argues that 
anarchists must be "like invisible pilots in the thick of the 
popular tempest. . . steer[ing] it [the revolution] not by any 
open power but by the collective dictatorship of all the allies 
-- a dictatorship without insignia, titles or official rights, 
and all the stronger for having none of the paraphernalia 
of power." Explicitly opposing "Committees of Public Safety 
and official, overt dictatorship" he explains his idea of a 
revolution based on "workers hav[ing] joined into associations . . .
armed and organised by streets and *quartiers*, the federative 
commune." [Op. Cit., p. 181, p. 180 and p. 179] Hardly 
what would be expected from a would-be dictator?

As Sam Dolgoff notes, "an organisation exercising no overt authority, 
without a state, without official status, without the machinery of 
institutionalised power to enforce its policies, cannot be defined as 
a dictatorship. . . Moreover, if it is borne in mind that this passage 
is part of a letter repudiating in the strongest terms the State and 
the \zauthoritarian statism of the 'Robespierres, the Dantons, and the 
Saint-Justs of the revolution,' it is reasonable to conclude that 
Bakunin used the word 'dictatorship' to denote preponderant 
influence or guidance exercised largely by example. . .  In line 
with this conclusion, Bakunin used the words 'invisible' and 
'collective' to denote the underground movement exerting this 
influence in an organised manner." [_Bakunin on Anarchism_, 
p. 182]

This analysis is confirmed by other passages from Bakunin's letters.
In a letter to the Nihilist Sergi Nechaev (within which Bakunin 
indicates exactly how far apart politically they where -- which is 
important as, from Marx onwards, many of Bakunin's opponents 
quote Nechaev's pamphlets as if they were "Bakuninist," when 
in fact they were not) we find him arguing that:

"These [revolutionary] groups would not seek anything for 
themselves, neither privilege nor honour nor power. . . [but] 
would be in a position to direct popular movements . . . [via] 
*the collective dictatorship* of a secret organisation. . . The 
dictatorship. . . does not reward any of the members. . . or the 
groups themselves. . . with any. . . official power. It does not 
threaten the freedom of the people, because, lacking any official
character, it does not take the place of State control over the 
people, and because its whole aim. . . consists of the fullest 
realisation of the liberty of the people.

"This sort of dictatorship is not in the least contrary to the 
free development and the self-development of the people, nor its 
organisation from the bottom upward. . . for it influences the 
people exclusively through the natural, personal influence of 
its members, who have not the slightest power. . .to direct the 
spontaneous revolutionary movement of the people towards. . .
the organisation of popular liberty. . . This secret dictatorship 
would in the first place, and at the present time, carry out a 
broadly based popular propaganda. . . and by the power of this 
propaganda and also by *organisation among the people 
themselves* join together separate popular forces into
a mighty strength capable of demolishing the State." 
[_Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings_, pp. 193-4]

The key aspect of this is the term "natural influence." In a 
letter to Pablo, a Spanish member of the Alliance, we find 
Bakunin arguing that the Alliance "will promote the Revolution 
only through the *natural but never official influence* of all 
members of the Alliance. . ." [_Bakunin on Anarchism_, p. 387] 
This term was also used in his public writings. For example, we 
find in one of his newspaper articles Bakunin arguing that the 
"very freedom of every individual results from th[e] great number 
of material, intellectual, and moral influences which every 
individual around him and which society. . . continually exercise 
on him" and that "everything alive . . . intervene[s] . . . in 
the life of others. . . [so] we hardly wish to abolish the 
effect of any individual's or any group of individuals' 
natural influence upon the masses." [_The Basic Bakunin_, 
p. 140, p. 141] 

Thus "natural influence" simply means the effect of communicating
which others, discussing your ideas with them and winning them over
to your position, nothing more. This is hardly authoritarian, and so
Bakunin contrasts this "natural" influence with "official" influence,
which replaced the process of mutual interaction between equals
with a fixed hierarchy of command and thereby induced the 
"transformation of natural influence, and, as such, the perfectly 
legitimate influence over man, into a right." [cited by Richard B. 
Saltman, _The Social and Political Thought of Michael Bakunin_,
p. 46] 

As an example of this difference, consider the case of a union
militant (as will become clear, this is the sort of example Bakunin
had in mind). As long as they are part of the rank-and-file, arguing
their case at union meetings or being delegated to carry out the 
decisions of these assemblies then their influence is "natural." 
However, if this militant is elected into a position with executive
power in the union (i.e. becomes a full-time union official, for
example, rather than a shop-steward) then their influence becomes
"official" and so, potentially, corrupting for both the militant and
the rank-and-file who are subject to the rule of the official.

Indeed, this notion of "natural" influence (or authority) was also termed
"invisible" by Bakunin -- "[i]t is only necessary that one worker in ten join 
the [International Working-Men's] Association *earnestly* and *with full 
understanding of the cause* for the nine-tenths remaining outside its 
organisation nevertheless to be influenced invisibly by it. . ." [_The Basic 
Bakunin_, p. 139] So, as can be seen, the terms "invisible" and "collective"
dictatorship used by Bakunin in his letters is strongly related to the
term "natural influence" used in his public works and seems to be used 
simply to indicate the effects of an organised political group on the 
masses. To see this, it is worthwhile to quote Bakunin at length about
the nature of this "invisible" influence:

"It may be objected that this. . . [invisible] influence. . . suggests the
establishment of a system of authority and a new government. . . [but
this] would be a serious blunder. The organised effect of the International
on the masses. . . is nothing but the entirely natural organisation -- 
neither official nor clothed in any authority or political force whatsoever
-- of the effect of a rather numerous group of individuals who are inspired
by the same thought and headed toward the same goal, first of all on the
opinion of the masses and only then, by the intermediary of this opinion
(restated by the International's propaganda), on their will and their deeds.
But the governments. . . impose themselves violently on the masses,
who are forced to obey them and to execute their decrees. . . The 
International's influence will never be anything but one of opinion
and the International will never be anything but the organisation of
the natural effect of individuals on the masses." [Op. Cit., pp. 139-40]

Therefore, from both the fuller context provided by the works and 
letters selectively quoted by anti-anarchists *and* his other writings, 
we find that rather than being a secret authoritarian, Bakunin was, 
in fact, trying to express how anarchists could "naturally influence" 
the masses and their revolution. As he himself argues:

"We are the most pronounced enemies of every sort of *official
power*. . . We are the enemies of any sort of publicly declared
dictatorship, we are social revolutionary anarchists. . . if we are
anarchists, by what right do we want to influence the people, and
what methods will we use? Denouncing all power, with what sort
of power, or rather by what sort of force, shall we direct a people's
revolution? *By a force that is invisible. . . that is not imposed
on anyone. . . [and] deprived of all official rights and significance.*"
[_Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings_, pp. 191-2]

Continually opposing "official" power, authority and influence, 
Bakunin used the term "invisible, collective dictatorship" to 
describe the "natural influence" of organised anarchists on mass 
movements. Rather than express a desire to become a dictator, it in
fact expresses the awareness that there is an "uneven" political 
development within the working class, an unevenness that can only
be undermined by discussion within the mass assemblies of popular
organisations. Any attempt to by-pass this "unevenness" by seizing or
being elected to positions of power (i.e. by "official influence") would
be doomed to failure and result in dictatorship by a party -- "triumph
of the Jacobins or the Blanquists [or the Bolsheviks, we must add]
would be the death of the Revolution." [Op. Cit., p. 169]

This analysis can be seen from Bakunin's discussion on union 
bureaucracy and how anarchists should combat it. Taking the Geneva
section of the IWMA, Bakunin notes that the construction workers' 
section "simply left all decision-making to their committees . . . 
In this manner power gravitated to the committees, and by a species 
of fiction characteristic of all governments the committees substituted 
their own will and their own ideas for that of the membership." 
[_Bakunin on Anarchism_, p. 246] To combat this bureaucracy, "the 
construction workers. . . sections could only defend their rights
and their autonomy in only one way: the workers called general
membership meetings. Nothing arouses the antipathy of the committees
more than these popular assemblies. . . In these great meetings of the
sections, the items on the agenda was amply discussed and the most
progressive opinion prevailed. . ." [Op. Cit., p. 247]

Given that Bakunin considered "the federative Alliance of all working
men's [sic!] associations. . . [would] constitute the Commune" made
up of delegates with "accountable and removable mandates" we can
easily see that the role of the anarchist federation would be to intervene
in general assemblies of these associations and ensure, through debate,
that "the most progressive opinion prevailed." [_Michael Bakunin: 
Selected Writings_, p. 170, p. 171] Rather than seek power, the 
anarchists would seek *influence* based on the soundness of their 
ideas, the "leadership of ideas" in other words. Thus the anarchist
federation "unleashes their [the peoples] will and gives wider 
opportunity for their self-determination and their social-economic 
organisation, which should be created by them alone from the bottom 
upwards . . . The [revolutionary] organisation . . . [must] not in any 
circumstances. . . ever be their [the peoples] master . . . What is to 
be the chief aim and pursue of this organisation? *To help the people 
towards self-determination on the lines of the most complete equality 
and fullest human freedom in every direction, without the least 
interference from any sort of domination. . . that is without any sort 
of government control.*" [Op. Cit., p. 191]

Having shown that the role of Bakunin's revolutionary organisations
is drastically different than that suggested by the selective quotations
of Marxists, we need to address two more issues. One, the so-called
hierarchical nature of Bakunin's organisations and, two, their secret
nature. Taking the issue of hierarchy first, we can do no better than
quote Richard B. Saltman's summary of the internal organisation of
these groups:

"The association's 'single will,' Bakunin wrote, would be determined
by 'laws' that every member 'helped to create,' or at a minimum 'equally
approved' by 'mutual agreement.' This 'definite set of rules' was to be
'frequently renewed' in plenary sessions wherein each member had the
'duty to try and make his view prevail,' but then he must accept fully
the decision of the majority. Thus the revolutionary association's 
'rigorously conceived and prescribed plan,' implemented under the
'strictest discipline,' was in reality to be 'nothing more or less than
the expression and direct outcome of the reciprocal commitment
contracted by each of the members towards the others.'" [_The Social
and Political Thought of Michael Bakunin_, p. 115]

While many anarchists would not agree 100 per cent with this set-up
(although we think that most supporters of the "Platform" would) all
would agree that it is *not* hierarchical. If anything, it appears 
quite democratic in nature. Moreover, comments in Bakunin's letters 
to other Alliance members support the argument that his revolutionary
associations were more democratic in nature than Marxists suggest. 
In a letter to a Spanish comrade we find him suggesting that "all 
[Alliance] groups. . . should. . . from now on accept new members 
not by majority vote, but unanimously." In a letter to Italian members 
of the IWMA he argued that in Geneva the Alliance did not resort 
to "secret plots and intrigues." Rather:

"Everything was done in broad daylight, openly, for everyone to 
see . . . The Alliance had regular weekly open meetings and everyone 
was urged to participate in the discussions. . . The old procedure 
where members sat and passively listened to speakers talking down 
to them from their pedestal was discarded.

"It was established that all meetings be conducted by informal 
round-table conversational discussions in which everybody felt 
free to participate: not to be talked *at*, but to exchange 
views . . . "[_Bakunin on Anarchism_, p. 386, pp. 405-6]

Moreover, we find Bakunin being out-voted within the Alliance,
hardly what we would expect if they *were* top-down dictatorships
run by Bakunin (as Marxists claim). The historian T.R. Ravindranathan
indicates that after the Alliance was founded "Bakunin wanted 
the Alliance to become a branch of the International [Worker's
Association] and at the same time preserve it as a secret society. The
Italian and some French members wanted the Alliance to be totally
independent of the IWA and objected to Bakunin's secrecy. Bakunin's
view prevailed on the first question as he succeeded in convincing
the majority of the harmful effects of a rivalry between the Alliance
and the International. On the question of secrecy, he gave way to his
opponents. . ." [_Bakunin and the Italians_, p. 83]

These comments and facts suggest that the picture painted by Marxists 
of Bakunin and his secret societies is somewhat flawed. Moreover,
if Bakunin *did* seek to create a centralised, hierarchical organisation, 
as Marxists claim, he did not do a good job. We find him complaining 
that the Madrid Alliance was breaking up ("The news of the dissolution 
of the Alliance in Spain saddened Bakunin. he intensified his letter-writing
to Alliance members whom he trusted. . . He tried to get the Spaniards
to reverse their decision") and we find that while the "Bakuninist" Spanish 
and Swiss sections of the IWMA sent delegates to its infamous Hague
congress, the "Bakuninist" Italian section did not (and these "missing"
votes may have been enough to undermine the rigged congress). Of 
course, Marxists could argue that these facts show Bakunin's cunning 
nature, but the more obvious explanation is that Bakunin did not create 
(nor desire to create) a hierarchical organisation with himself at the 
top. As Juan Gomez Casa notes, the Alliance "was not a compulsory or 
authoritarian body . . . [I]n Spain [it] acted independently and was 
prompted by purely local situations. The copious correspondence 
between Bakunin and his friends . . . was at all times motivated by 
the idea of offering advice, persuading, and clarifying. It was never 
written in a spirit of command, because that was not his style, nor 
would it have been accepted as such by his associates." Moreover, 
there "is no trace or shadow or hierarchical organisation in a letter 
from Bakunin to Mora . . . On the contrary, Bakunin advises 'direct' 
relations between Spanish and Italian Comrades." The Spanish 
comrades also wrote a pamphlet which "ridiculed the fable of orders 
from abroad." [_Anarchist Organisation_, pp. 37-8, p.25 and p. 40] 
This is confirmed by George R. Esenwein who argues that "[w]hile 
it is true that Bakunin's direct intervention during the early 
days of the International's development in Spain had assured the 
pre-dominance of his influence in the various federations and 
sections of the FRE [Spanish section of the International], it 
cannot be said that he manipulated it or otherwise used the 
Spanish Alliance as a tool for his own subversive designs." 
Thus, "though the Alliance did exist in Spain, the society did
not bear any resemblance to the nefarious organisation that the 
Marxists depicted." [_Anarchist Ideology and the Working Class 
Movement in Spain_, p. 42] Indeed, as Max Nettlau points out, 
those Spaniards who did break with the Alliance were persuaded 
of its "hierarchical organisation. . . not by their own direct 
observation, but by what they had been told about the conduct 
of the organisation in the above mentioned countries" (which 
included England, where no evidence of any Alliance group has 
ever been recorded!) [cited by Casa, Op. Cit., pp. 39-40]. In
addition, "[f]rom what we know about the Alliance in Spain,
the largest such branch of the society, we can safely say
that Bakunin was never in a position to exercise such a
dictatorship." In addition, if Bakunin *did* run the Alliance
under his own personal dictatorship we would expect it to
change or dissolve upon his death. However the opposite
happened --  "the Spanish Alliance survived Bakunin, who 
died in 1876, yet with few exceptions it continued to 
function in much the same way it had during Bakunin's 
lifetime." [George R. Esenwein, Op. Cit., p. 43]

Moving on to the second issue, the question of why should the 
revolutionary organisation be secret? Simply because, at the
time of Bakunin's activism, many states where despotic monarchies,
with little or no civil rights. As he argued, "nothing but a secret
society would want to take this [arousing a revolution] on, for
the interests of the government and of the government classes
would be bitterly opposed to it." [_Michael Bakunin: Selected
Writings_, p. 188] For survival, Bakunin considered secrecy an
essential. As Juan Gomez Casas notes, "[i]n view of the difficulties
of that period, Bakunin believed that secret groups of convinced
and absolutely trustworthy men were safer and more effective.
They would be able to place themselves at the head of developments
at critical moments, but only to inspire and to clarify the issues."
[Op. Cit., p. 22] Even Marxists, faced with dictatorial states, have
organised in secret. And as George R. Esenwein points out, the
"claim that Bakunin's organisation scheme was not the product
of a 'hard-headed realism' cannot be supported in the light of
the experiences of the Spanish Alliancists. It is beyond doubt 
that their adherence to Bakunin's program greatly contributed
to the FRE's [Spanish section of the First International] 
ability to flourish during the early part of the 1870s and
to survive the harsh circumstances of repression in the period 
1874-1881." [Op. Cit., p. 224f] However, few, if any, anarchists 
would agree with this position now, shaped as it was by Bakunin's 
personal experiences in Tsarist Russia and other illiberal states 
(and let us not forget that Bakunin had been imprisoned in the Peter
and Paul prison for his activities).

This is not to suggest that all of Bakunin's ideas on the role and
nature of anarchist groups are accepted by anarchists today. Most
anarchists would reject Bakunin's arguments for secrecy and love
of conspiracy, for example (particularly as secrecy cannot help 
but generate an atmosphere of deceit and, potentially, manipulation). 
Anarchists remember that anarchism did not spring fully formed 
and complete from Bakunin's (or any other individual's) head. 
Rather it was developed over time and by many individuals, 
inspired by many different experiences and movements. Because 
of this, anarchists recognise that Bakunin was inconsistent in 
some ways, as would be expected from a theorist breaking new 
ground, and this applies to his ideas on how anarchist groups 
should work within, and the role they should play, in popular 
movements. Most of his ideas are valid, once we place them 
into context, some are not. Anarchists embrace the valid ones 
and voice their opposition to the invalid ones.

In summary, any apparent contradiction (a contradiction which 
Marxists try hard to maintain and use to discredit anarchism by 
painting Bakunin as a closet dictator) between the "public" and 
"private" Bakunin disappears once we place his comments into 
context within both the letters he wrote and his overall political
theory. In fact, rather than promoting a despotic dictatorship 
over the masses his concept of "invisible dictatorship" is very 
similar to the "leadership of ideas" concept we discussed
in section J.3.6. As Brian Morris argues, those who, like
Leninist Hal Draper, argue that Bakunin was in favour of 
despotism only come to "these conclusions by an incredible 
distortion of the substance of what Bakunin was trying to 
convey in his letters to Richard and Nechaev" and "[o]nly the 
most jaundiced scholar, or one blinded by extreme antipathy
towards Bakunin or anarchism, could interpret these words
as indicating that Bakunin conception of a secret society
implied a revolutionary dictatorship in the Jacobin sense,
still less a 'despotism'" [_Bakunin: The Philosophy of 
Freedom_, p. 144, p. 149]

J.3.8 What is anarcho-syndicalism?

Anarcho-syndicalism (as mentioned in section A.3.2) is a form of 
anarchism which applies itself (primarily) to creating industrial 
unions organised in an anarchist manner, using anarchist tactics 
(such as direct action) to create a free society. Or, in the words 
of the International Workers' Association:

"Revolutionary Syndicalism basing itself on the class-war, aims at 
the union of all manual and intellectual workers in economic fighting 
organisations struggling for their emancipation from the yoke of
wage slavery and from the oppression of the State. Its goal consists
in the re-organisation of social life on the basis of free Communism,
by means of the revolutionary action of the working-class itself. It
considers that the economic organisations of the proletariat are alone
capable of realising this aim, and, in consequence, its appeal is 
addressed to workers in their capacity of producers and creators
of social riches, in opposition to the modern political labour
parties which can never be considered at all from the points of
view of economic re-organisation." [_The Principles of 
Revolutionary Syndicalism_, point 1]

The word "syndicalism" is basically an English rendering of the French 
for "revolutionary trade unionism" ("syndicalisme revolutionarie"). In the
1890s many anarchists in France started to work within the trade union
movement, radicalising it from within. As the ideas of autonomy, direct 
action, the general strike and political independence of unions which 
where associated with the French _Confederation Generale du Travail_ 
(General Confederation of Labour) spread across the world (partly 
through anarchist contacts, partly through word of mouth by non-anarchists
who were impressed by the militancy of the CGT), the word "syndicalism" 
was used to describe movements inspired by the example of the CGT. 
Thus "syndicalism," "revolutionary syndicalism" and "anarcho-syndicalism" 
all basically mean "revolutionary unionism" (the term "industrial unionism"
used by the IWW essentially means the same thing). 

The main difference is between revolutionary syndicalism and 
anarcho-syndicalism, with anarcho-syndicalism arguing that 
revolutionary syndicalism concentrates too much on the workplace 
and, obviously, stressing the anarchist roots and nature of 
syndicalism more than revolutionary syndicalism. In addition, 
particularly in France, anarcho-syndicalism is considered compatible
with supporting a specific anarchist organisation to complement the
work of the revolutionary unions. Revolutionary syndicalism, in contrast,
argues that the syndicalist unions are sufficient in themselves to
create libertarian socialism and rejects anarchist groups along with
political parties. However, the dividing line can be unclear (and,
just to complicate things even more, *some* syndicalists support
political parties and are not anarchists -- there have been a 
few Marxist syndicalists, for example. We will ignore these
syndicalists in our discussion and concentrate on the libertarian
syndicalists). We will use the term syndicalism to describe what
each branch has in common.

Syndicalism is different from ordinary trade unionism (sometimes called
business unionism by anarchists and syndicalists as it treats the union's 
job purely as the seller of its members labour power and acts like any 
other business). Syndicalism, in contrast with trade unionism, is based 
on unions managed directly by the rank and file membership rather than 
by elected officials and bureaucrats. The syndicalist union is not based 
on where the worker lives (as is the case with many trade unions). Instead, 
the union is based and run from the workplace. It is there that union
meetings are held, where workers are exploited and oppressed and where
their economic power lies. Syndicalism is based on local branch autonomy,
with each branch having the power to call and end strikes and organise its
own affairs. No union officials have the power to declare strikes "unofficial" 
as every strike decided upon by the membership is automatically "official" 
simply because the branch decided it in a mass meeting. Power would be
decentralised into the hands of the union membership, as expressed in 
local branch assemblies. 

To co-ordinate strikes and other forms of action, these autonomous 
branches are part of a federal structure. The mass meeting in the 
workplace mandates delegates to express the wishes of the membership 
at "labour councils" and "industrial unions." 

The labour council is the federation of all workplace branches of 
all industries in a geographical area (say, for example, in a city 
or region) and it has the tasks of, among other things, education, 
propaganda and the promotion of solidarity between the different 
union branches in its area. Due to the fact it combines all workers 
into one organisation, regardless of industry or union, the labour 
council plays a key role in increasing *class* consciousness and 
solidarity. This can be seen from both the Italian USI and the 
Spanish CNT, to take two examples. In the later case, the "territorial 
basis of organisation linkage brought all the workers from one 
area together and fomented working-class solidarity over and 
before corporate solidarity." [J. Romero Maura, "The Spanish Case", 
contained in _Anarchism Today_, D. Apter and J. Joll (eds.), p. 75] 
The example of the USI also indicates the validity of French syndicalist
Fernand Pelloutier's passionate defence of the _Bourse du Travail_ as
a revolutionary force (see Carl Levy, "Italian Anarchism: 1870-1926" in
_For Anarchism_, David Goodway (ed.), pp. 48-9). 

The industrial union, on the other hand, is the federation of union 
branches *within the same industry* in a given area (there would be a 
coal miners industry wide union, a software workers industrial union 
and so on). These councils would organise industry wide struggles and 
solidarity. In this way workers in the same industry support each
other, ensuring that if workers in one workplace goes on strike, 
the boss cannot swap production to another workplace elsewhere
and so weaken and defeat the action (see Berkman's _ABC of 
Anarchism_, p. 54, for a fuller discussion of why such industrial 
unionism is essential to win strikes).

In practice, of course, the activities of these dual federations 
would overlap: labour councils would support an industry wide 
strike or action while industrial unions would support action 
conducted by its member unions called by labour councils. However, 
we must stress that both the industrial federations and the 
cross-industry (territorial) labour councils are "based on the 
principles of Federalism, on free combination from below upwards, 
putting the right of self-determination of every member above 
everything else and recognising only the organic agreement of 
all on the basis of like interests and common convictions." 
[Rudolf Rocker, _Anarcho-Syndicalism_, p. 53]

As well as being decentralised and organised from the bottom up, 
the syndicalist union differs from the normal trade union by having 
no full-time officials. All union business is conducted by elected 
fellow workers who do their union activities after work or, if it 
has to be done during work hours, they get the wages they lost while 
on union business. In this way no bureaucracy of well paid officials 
is created and all union militants remain in direct contact with 
their fellow workers. Given that it is their wages, working 
conditions and so on that are effected by their union activity 
they have a real interest in making the union an effective 
organisation and ensuring that it reflects the interests of 
the rank and file. In addition, all part-time union "officials"
are elected, mandated and recallable delegates. If the fellow 
worker who is elected to the local labour council or other 
union committee is not reflecting the opinions of those who
mandated him or her then the union assembly can countermand their
decision, recall them and replace them with someone who *will* 
reflect the decisions of the union.

The syndicalist union is committed to *direct action* and refuses links
with political parties, even labour or "socialist" ones. A key idea of
syndicalism is that of union autonomy -- the idea that the workers'
organisation is capable of changing society by its own efforts and
that it must control its own fate and not be controlled by any party
or other outside group (including anarchist federations). This is
sometimes termed "workerism" (from the French "ouverierisme"), i.e.
workers' control of the class struggle and their own organisations. 
Rather than being a cross-class organisation like the political party, 
the union is a *class* organisation and is so uniquely capable of 
representing working class aspirations, interests and hopes. There 
is "no place in it for anybody who was not a worker. Professional 
middle class intellectuals who provided both the leadership and 
the ideas of the socialist political movement, were therefore 
at a discount. As a consequence the syndicalist movement was, 
and saw itself as, a purely working class form of socialism . . . 
[S]yndicalism appears as the great heroic movement of the 
proletariat, the first movement which took seriously . . . [the 
argument] that the emancipation of the working class must be 
the task of labour unaided by middle class intellectuals or 
by politicians and aimed to establish a genuinely working class 
socialism and culture, free of all bourgeois taints. For the 
syndicalists, the workers were to be everything, the rest, 
nothing." [Geoffrey Ostergaard, _The Tradition of Workers'
Control_, p. 38]

Therefore syndicalism is "consciously anti-parliamentary and 
anti-political. It focuses not only on the realities of power 
but also on the key problem of achieving its disintegration. 
Real power in syndicalist doctrine is economic power. The way 
to dissolve economic power is to make every worker powerful, 
thereby eliminating power as a social privilege. Syndicalism 
thus ruptures all the ties between the workers and the state. 
It opposes political action, political parties, and any
participant in political elections. Indeed it refuses to 
operate in the framework of the established order and the 
state . . . .[S]yndicalism turns to direct action -- strikes, 
sabotage, obstruction, and above all, the revolutionary general 
strike. Direct action not only perpetuates the militancy of the 
workers and keeps alive the spirit of revolt, but awakens in 
them a greater sense of individual initiative. By continual
pressure, direct action tests the strength of the capitalist 
system at all times and presumably in its most important arena -- 
the factory, where ruled and ruler seem to confront each other 
most directly." [Murray Bookchin, _The Spanish Anarchists_, 
p. 121]

This does not mean that syndicalism is "apolitical" in the sense 
of ignoring totally all political issues. This is a Marxist myth.
Syndicalists follow other anarchists by being opposed to all forms 
of authoritarian/capitalist politics but do take a keen interest
in "political" questions as they relate to the interests of working 
people. Thus they do not "ignore" the state, or the role of the state.
Indeed, syndicalists are well aware that the state exists to protect
capitalist property and power. For example, the British syndicalists'
"vigorous campaign against the 'servile state' certainly disproves the
notion that syndicalists ignored the role of the state in society. On
the contrary, their analysis of bureaucratic state capitalism helped
to make considerable inroads into prevailing Labourist and state
socialist assumptions that the existing state could be captured by
electoral means and used as an agent of through-going social
reform." [Bob Holton, _British Syndicalism: 1900-1914_, p. 204]

Indeed, Rudolf Rocker makes the point very clear. "It has often 
been charged against Anarcho-Syndicalism," he writes, "that it
has no interest in the political structure of the different countries,
and consequently no interest in the political struggles of the time,
and confines its activities entirely to the fight for purely economic
demands. This idea is altogether erroneous and springs either from
outright ignorance or wilful distortion of the facts. It is not the
political struggle as such which the Anarcho-Syndicalist from
the modern labour parties, both in principle and tactics, but form
of this struggle and the aims which it has in view. . . their efforts
are also directed, even today, at restricting the activities of the
state . . . The attitude of Anarcho-Syndicalism towards the political
power of the present-day state is exactly the same as it takes towards
the system of capitalist exploitation . . .[and] pursue the same tactics
in their fight against . . . the state . . . [T]he worker cannot be 
indifferent to the economic conditions of life . . . so he cannot 
remain indifferent to the political structure of his [or her] 
country . . ." [Op. Cit., p.63]

Thus syndicalism is not indifferent to or ignores political 
struggles and issues. Rather, it fights for political change 
and reforms as it fights for economic ones -- by direct action 
and solidarity. If revolutionary and anarcho-syndicalists "reject 
any participation in the works of bourgeois parliaments, it is 
not because they have no sympathy with political struggles in 
general, but because they are firmly convinced that parliamentary 
activity is for the workers the very weakest and most hopeless 
form of the political struggles." [Op. Cit., p. 65] Syndicalists 
(like other anarchists) argue that the political and the economic 
must be *integrated* and that integration must take place in 
working class organisations, which, for syndicalists, means 
their unions (or union-like organisations such as workplace
councils or assemblies). Rather than being something other 
people discuss on behalf of working class people, syndicalists,
again like all anarchists, argue that politics must no longer 
be in the hands of so-called experts (i.e. politicians) but 
instead lie in the hands of those directly affected by it. Also, 
in this way the union encourages the political development of its 
members by the process of participation and self-management.

In other words, political issues must be raised in economic and
social organisations and discussed there, where working class
people have real power. In this they follow Bakunin who argued
that an "it would be absolutely impossible to ignore political
and philosophical questions" and that an "exclusive preoccupation
with economic questions would be fatal for the proletariat." 
Therefore, the unions must be open to all workers, be independent
of all political parties and be based on economic solidarity with 
all workers, in all lands, but there must be "free discussion of 
all political and philosophical theories" "leaving the sections 
and federations to develop their own policies" since "political
and philosophical questions . . . [must be] posed in the International
. . . [by] the proletariat itself . . ." [_Bakunin on Anarchism_, 
p. 301, p. 302, p. 297, p. 302]

Thus revolutionary and anarcho-syndicalism are deeply political 
in the widest sense of the word, aiming for a radical change in 
political, economic and social conditions and institutions. Moreover, 
it is political in the narrower sense of being aware of political 
issues and aiming for political reforms along with economic ones. 
They are only "apolitical" when it comes to supporting political 
parties and using bourgeois political institutions, a position 
which is "political" in the wider sense of course! This is 
obviously identical to the usual anarchist position (see section
J.2)

Which indicates another importance difference between syndicalism
and trade unionism. Syndicalism aims at changing society rather than
just working within it. Thus syndicalism is revolutionary while trade
unionism is reformist. For syndicalists the union "has a double aim:
with tireless persistence, it must pursue betterment of the working
class's current conditions. But, without letting themselves become
obsessed with this passing concern, the workers should take care to
make possible and imminent the essential act of comprehensive
emancipation: the expropriation of capital." [Emile Pouget, _No
Gods, No Masters_, p. 71] Thus syndicalism aims to win reforms
by direct action and by this struggle bring the possibilities of a
revolution, via the general strike, closer. Indeed any "desired 
improvement is to be wrested directly from the capitalist. . . [and]
must always represent a reduction in capitalist privileges and be 
a partial expropriation." [Op. Cit., p. 73] Thus Emma Goldman:

"Of course Syndicalism, like the old trade unions, fights for 
immediate gains, but it is not stupid enough to pretend that 
labour can expect humane conditions from inhumane economic 
arrangements in society. Thus it merely wrests from the enemy 
what it can force him to yield; on the whole, however, Syndicalism 
aims at, and concentrates its energies upon, the complete overthrow 
of the wage system.

"Syndicalism goes further: it aims to liberate labour from every
institution that has not for its object the free development of 
production for the benefit of all humanity. In short, the ultimate 
purpose of Syndicalism is to reconstruct society from its present 
centralised, authoritative and brutal state to one based upon the 
free, federated grouping of the workers along lines of economic 
and social liberty.

"With this object in view, Syndicalism works in two directions: first, 
by undermining the existing institutions; secondly, by developing 
and educating the workers and cultivating their spirit of solidarity, 
to prepare them for a full, free life, when capitalism shall have been 
abolished. . .

"Syndicalism is, in essence, the economic expression of Anarchism..."
[_Red Emma Speaks_, p. 68]

Which, in turn, explains why syndicalist unions are structured in 
such an obviously libertarian way. On the one hand, it reflects the 
importance of empowering every worker by creating a union which 
is decentralised and self-managed, a union which every member 
plays a key role in determining its policy and activities. Participation 
ensures that the union becomes a "school for the will" (to use 
Pouget's expression) and allows working people to learn how 
to govern themselves and so do without government and state. On 
the other hand, "[a]t the same time that syndicalism exerts this 
unrelenting pressure on capitalism, it tries to build the new social 
order within the old. The unions and the 'labour councils' are not 
merely means of  struggle and instruments of social revolution; 
they are also the very structure around which to build a free 
society. The workers are to be educated [by their own activity 
within the union] in the job of destroying the old propertied 
order and in the task of  reconstructing a stateless, libertarian 
society. The two go together." [Murray Bookchin, Op. Cit., 
p. 121] The syndicalist union is seen as prefiguring the future
society, a society which (like the union) is decentralised and
self-managed in all aspects.

Thus, as can be seen, syndicalism differs from trade unionism in
its structure, its methods and its aims. Its structure, method and
aims are distinctly anarchist. Little wonder the leading syndicalist
theorist Fernand Pelloutier argued that the trade union, "governing
itself along anarchic lines," must become "a practical schooling in 
anarchism." [_No Gods, No Masters_, p. 55, p. 57] In addition, most
anarcho-syndicalists support community organisations and struggle 
alongside the more traditional industry based approach usually
associated within syndicalism. While we have concentrated on the
industrial side here (simply because this is a key aspect of 
syndicalism) we must stress that syndicalism can and does lend 
itself to community struggles, so our comments have a wider 
application (for example, in the form of community unionism 
as a means to create community assemblies -- see section J.5.1). 
It is a myth that anarcho-syndicalism ignores community struggles 
and organisation, as can be seen from the history of the Spanish 
CNT for example (the CNT helped organise rent strikes, for example).

It must be stressed that a syndicalist union is open to all 
workers regardless of their political opinions (or lack of them). 
The union exists to defend workers' interests as workers and 
is organised in an anarchist manner to ensure that their 
interests are fully expressed. This means that an syndicalist 
organisation is different from an organisation of syndicalists. 
What makes the union syndicalist is its structure, aims and 
methods. Obviously things can change (that is true of any 
organisation which has a democratic structure) but that is
a test revolutionary and anarcho-syndicalists welcome and 
do not shirk from. As the union is self-managed from below 
up, its militancy and political content is determined by 
its membership. As Pouget put it, the union "offers employers a 
degree of resistance in geometric proportion with the resistance 
put up by its members." [Op. Cit.,  p. 71] That is why syndicalists 
ensure that power rests in the members of the union.

Syndicalists have two main approaches to building revolutionary
unions -- "dual unionism" and "boring from within." The former 
approach involves creating new, syndicalist, unions, in opposition 
to the existing trade unions. This approach was historically
and is currently the favoured way of building syndicalist unions 
(American, Italian, Spanish, Swedish and numerous other syndicalists 
built their own union federations in the heyday of syndicalism between 
1900 and 1920). "Boring from within" simply means working within the 
existing trade unions in order to reform them and make them syndicalist. 
This approach was favoured by French and British syndicalists, plus a few 
American ones. See also sections J.5.2 and J.5.3 for more on industrial 
unionism and anarchist perspectives on existing trades unions.

However, these two approaches are not totally in opposition. Many 
of the dual unions were created by syndicalists who had first worked 
within the existing trade unions. Once they got sick of the bureaucratic 
union machinery and of trying to reform it, they split from the reformist 
unions and formed new, revolutionary, ones. Similarly, dual unionists 
will happily support trade unionists in struggle and often be "two 
carders" (i.e. members of both the trade union and the syndicalist one). 
Rather than being isolated from the majority of trade unionists, 
supporters of dual unionism argue that they would be in contact 
with them where it counts, on the shop floor and in struggle rather 
than in trade union meetings which many workers do not even attend. 
Dual unionists argue that the trade unions, like the state, are too 
bureaucratic to be changed and that, therefore, trying to reform 
them is a waste of time and energy (and it is likely that rather than 
change the trade union, "boring from within" would more likely 
change the syndicalist by watering down their ideas). 

However, syndicalists no matter what tactics they prefer, favour 
autonomous workplace organisations, controlled from below. Both
tend to favour syndicalists forming networks of militants to spread
anarchist/syndicalist ideas within the workplace. Indeed, such a
network (usually called "Industrial Networks -- see section J.5.4
for more details) would be an initial stage and essential means 
for creating syndicalist unions. These groups would encourage 
syndicalist tactics and rank and file organisation during
struggles and so create the potential for building syndicalist
unions as syndicalist ideas spread and are seen to work.

While the names "syndicalism" and  "anarcho-syndicalism" date 
from the 1890s in France, the ideas associated with these names 
have a longer history. Anarcho-syndicalist ideas have developed 
independently in many different countries and times. As Rudolf 
Rocker notes, anarcho-syndicalism itself was "a direct continuation 
of those social aspirations which took shape in the bosom of the First 
International and which were best understood and most strongly 
held by the libertarian wing of the great workers' alliance . . . 
Its theoretical assumptions are based on the teachings of Libertarian 
or Anarchist Socialism, while its form of organisation is largely 
borrowed from revolutionary Syndicalism." [_Anarcho-Syndicalism_, 
p. 49]

Indeed, anyone familiar with Bakunin's work will quickly see that
much of his ideas prefigure what was latter to become known as
syndicalism. Bakunin, for example, argued that the "organisation 
of the trade sections, their federation in the International, 
and their representation by the Chambers of Labour, not only 
create a great academy, in which the workers of the International, 
combining theory and practice, can and must study economic science, 
they also bear in themselves the living germs of *the new social 
order,* which is to replace the bourgeois world. They are creating 
not only the ideas but also the facts of the future itself." 
[quoted by Rocker, Op. Cit., p. 45] Bakunin continually stressed 
that trade unions were the "only really efficacious weapons the 
workers now can use against" the bourgeoisie, as well as the 
importance of solidarity and the radicalising and empowering 
effect of strikes and the importance of the general strike as 
a means of "forc[ing] society to shed its old skin." [_The 
Basic Bakunin_, p. 153, p. 150] 

(We must stress that we are *not* arguing that Bakunin 
"invented" syndicalism. Far from it. Rather, we are arguing 
that Bakunin expressed ideas already developed in working 
class circles and became, if you like, the "spokes-person" 
for these libertarian tendencies in the labour movement as 
well as helping to clarifying these ideas in many ways. 
As Emma Goldman argued, the "feature which distinguishes 
Syndicalism from most philosophies is that it represents 
the revolutionary philosophy of labour conceived and born 
in the actual struggle and experience of workers themselves 
-- not in universities, colleges, libraries, or in the 
brain of some scientists." [Op. Cit., pp. 65-6] This 
applies equally to Bakunin and the first International).

Thus, rather than being some sort of revision of anarchism or 
some sort of "semi-Marxist" movement, syndicalism was, in fact, 
a reversion to the ideas of Bakunin and the anarchists in the first
International (although, as we discuss in the next section, with
some slight differences) after the disastrous experience of 
"propaganda by the deed" (see section A.2.18 and A.5.3). 
Given the utter nonsense usually written by Marxists (and 
liberals) about Bakunin, it is not hard to understand why 
Marxists fail to see the anarchist roots of syndicalism -- not 
being aware of Bakunin's ideas, they think that anarchism 
and syndicalism are utterly different while, in fact, (to use 
Emma Goldman's words) syndicalism "is, in essence, the 
economic expression of Anarchism" and "under Bakunin and
the Latin workers, [the International was] forging ahead along
industrial and Syndicalist lines." [_Red Emma Speaks_, p. 68, 
p. 66] Similarly, we find that the American _Black International_
(organised by anarchists in the 1880s) "anticipated by some 
twenty years the doctrine of anarcho-syndicalism" and "[m]ore
than merely resembling the 'Chicago Idea' [of the _Black 
International_], the IWW's principles of industrial unionism
resulted from the conscious efforts of anarchists . . . who 
continued to affirm . . . the principles which the Chicago
anarchists gave their lives defending." [Salvatore Salerno,
_Red November, Black November_, p. 51 and p. 79] Thus, 
ironically, many Marxists find themselves in the curious 
position of ascribing ideas and movements inspired by
Bakunin to Marx!

Moreover, ideas similar to anarcho-syndicalism were also developed 
independently of the libertarian wing of the IWMA nearly 40 years 
previously in Britain. The idea that workers should organise into 
unions, use direct action and create a society based around the trade 
union federation had been developed within the early labour movement 
in Britain. The Grand National Consolidated Trade Union of Great
Britain and Ireland had, as one expert on the early British Labour 
movement put it, a "vision [which] is an essentially syndicalist one
of decentralised socialism in which trade unions. . . have acquired. . .
the productive capacity to render themselves collectively self-sufficient
as a class" and a union based "House of Trades" would replace the
existing state [Noel Thompson, _The Real Rights of Man_, p.88]. 
This movement also developed Proudhon's ideas on mutual banks 
and labour notes decades before he put pen to paper. For an excellent 
history of this period, see E.P. Thompson's _The Making of the English 
Working Class_ and for a fuller history of proto-syndicalism Rudolf 
Rocker's _Anarcho-Syndicalism_ cannot be bettered.

Thus syndicalism and anarcho-syndicalism (or anarchist-syndicalism) 
is revolutionary labour unionism. Its theoretical assumptions and 
organisation are based on the teachings of libertarian socialism 
(or Anarchism). Syndicalism combines the day-to-day struggle for reforms
and improvements in working class life within the framework of existing 
capitalist society (reforms gained by direct action and considered as
partial expropriations) with the long term aim of the overthrown of 
capitalism and statism. The aim of the union is workers' self-management 
of production and distribution after the revolution, a self-management
which the union is based upon in the here and now.

Syndicalists think that such an organisation is essential
for the successful creation of an anarchist society as it 
builds the new world in the shell of the old, making a sizeable 
majority of the population aware of anarchism and the benefits 
of anarchist forms of organisation and struggle. Moreover, they 
argue that those who reject syndicalism "because it believes in 
a permanent organisation of workers" and urge "workers to organise 
'spontaneously' at the very moment of revolution" promote a 
"con-trick, designed to leave 'the revolutionary movement,'
so called, in the hands of an educated class. . . [or] so-called 
'revolutionary party'. . . [which] means that the workers are 
only expected to come in the fray when there's any fighting 
to be done, and in normal times leave theorising to the 
specialists or students." [Albert Meltzer, _Anarchism: 
Arguments for and Against_, p. 57] The syndicalist union 
is seen as a "school" for anarchism, "the germ of the 
Socialist economy of the future, the elementary school 
of Socialism in general. . . [we need to] plant these 
germs while there is yet time and bring them to the strongest
possible development, so as to make the task of the coming social
revolution easier and to insure its permanence." [Rudolf Rocker, 
Op. Cit., p. 52] A self-managed society can only be created by 
self-managed means, and as only the practice of self-management 
can ensure its success, the need for libertarian popular 
organisations is essential. Syndicalism is seen as the key 
way working people can prepare themselves for revolution and 
learn to direct their own lives. In this way syndicalism 
creates, to use Bakunin's terms, a true politics of the people, 
one that does not create a parasitic class of politicians and 
bureaucrats ("We wish to emancipate ourselves, to free ourselves', 
Pelloutier wrote, 'but we do not wish to carry out a revolution, 
to risk our skin, to put Pierre the socialist in the place of 
Paul the radical").

This does not mean that syndicalists do not support 
organisations spontaneously created by workers' in 
struggle  (such as workers' councils, factory committees 
and so on). Far from it. Anarcho-syndicalists and 
revolutionary syndicalists have played important parts 
in these kinds of organisation (as can be seen from the 
Russian Revolution, the factory occupations in Italy in
1920, the British Shop Steward movement and so on). This is 
because syndicalism acts as a catalyst to militant labour 
struggles and serves to counteract class-collaborationist 
tendencies by union bureaucrats and other labour fakirs. 
Part of this activity must involve encouraging self-managed 
organisations where none exist and so syndicalists support 
and encourage all such spontaneous movements, hoping that 
they turn into the basis of a syndicalist union movement or 
a successful revolution. Moreover, most anarcho-syndicalists 
recognise that it is unlikely that every worker, nor even 
the majority, will be in syndicalist unions before a 
revolutionary period starts. This means *new* organisations,
created spontaneously by workers in struggle, would have to be 
the framework of social struggle and the post-capitalist society 
rather than the syndicalist union as such. All the syndicalist 
union can do is provide a practical example of how to organise 
in a libertarian way within capitalism and statism and provide 
*part* of the framework of the free society, along with other 
spontaneously created organisations.

Hence spontaneously created organisations of workers in struggle 
play an important role in revolutionary and anarcho-syndicalist 
theory. Since syndicalists advocate that it is the workers, using 
their own organisations who will control their own struggles (and, 
eventually, their own revolution) in their own interests, not a 
vanguard party of elite political theorists, this is unsurprising. 
It matters little if the specific organisations are revolutionary 
industrial unions, factory committees, workers councils', or other 
labour formations. The important thing is that they are created and 
run by workers themselves. Meanwhile, anarcho-syndicalists are 
industrial guerrillas waging class war at the point of production 
in order to win improvements in the here and now and strengthen 
tendencies towards anarchism by showing that direct action and 
libertarian organisation is effective and can win partial 
expropriations of capitalist and state power.

Lastly, we must point out here that while syndicalism has anarchist roots, 
not all syndicalists are anarchists. A few Marxists have been syndicalists, 
particularly in the USA where the followers of Daniel De Leon supported 
Industrial Unionism and helped form the Industrial Workers of the World. 
The Irish socialist James Connelly was also a Marxist-syndicalist, as was 
Big Bill Haywood a leader of the IWW and member of the US Socialist 
Party. Marxist-syndicalists are generally in favour of more centralisation
within syndicalist unions (the IWW was by far the most centralised 
syndicalist union) and often argue that a political party is required to
complement the work of the union. Needless to say, anarcho-syndicalists
and revolutionary syndicalists disagree, arguing that centralisation kills
the spirit of revolt and weakens a unions real strength [Rudolf Rocker,
_Anarcho-Syndicalism_, p. 53] and that political parties divide labour
organisations needlessly and are ineffective when compared to militant
unionism [Op. Cit., p. 51] So not all syndicalists are anarchists and not 
all anarchists are syndicalists (we discuss the reasons for this in the 
next section). Those anarchists who are syndicalists often use the term 
"anarcho-syndicalism" to indicate that they are both anarchists and 
syndicalists and to stress the libertarian roots and syndicalism.

For more information on anarcho-syndicalist ideas, Rudolf Rocker's 
classic introduction to the subject, _Anarcho-Syndicalism_ is a good
starting place, as is the British syndicalist Tom Brown's _Syndicalism_.
Daniel Guerin's _No Gods, No Masters_ contains articles by leading
syndicalist thinkers and is also a useful source of information.

J.3.9 Why are many anarchists not anarcho-syndicalists?

Before discussing why many anarchists are not anarcho-syndicalists, 
we must clarify a few points first. Let us be clear, non-syndicalist 
anarchists usually support the ideas of workplace organisation and 
struggle, of direct action, of solidarity and so on. Thus most 
non-syndicalist anarchists do not disagree with anarcho-syndicalists 
on these issues. Indeed, many even support the creation of syndicalist 
unions. Thus many anarcho-communists like Alexander Berkman, Errico 
Malatesta and Emma Goldman supported anarcho-syndicalist organisations 
and even,like Malatesta, helped form such revolutionary union 
federations (he helped form the FORA in Argentina) and urged 
anarchists to take a leading role in organising unions. So when 
we use the term "non-syndicalist anarchist" we are not suggesting 
that these anarchists reject all aspects of anarcho-syndicalism. 
Rather, they are critical of certain aspects of anarcho-syndicalist 
ideas while supporting other aspects of it.

In the past, a few communist-anarchists *did* oppose the struggle for 
improvements within capitalism as "reformist." However, these were 
few and far between and with the rise of anarcho-syndicalism in the 
1890s, the vast majority of communist-anarchists recognised that 
only by encouraging the struggle for reforms would people take them
seriously. Only by showing the benefits of anarchist tactics and
organisation in practice could anarchist ideas grow in influence. Thus
syndicalism was a healthy response to the rise of "abstract revolutionarism"
that infected the anarchist movement during the 1880s, particularly in
France and Italy. Thus communist-anarchists agree with syndicalists
on the importance of struggling for and winning reforms and 
improvements within capitalism.

Similarly, anarchists like Malatesta also recognised the importance of
mass organisations like unions. As he argued, "to encourage popular
organisations of all kinds is the logical consequence of our basic 
ideas . . . An authoritarian party, which aims at capturing power 
to impose its ideas, has an interest in the people remaining an 
amorphous mass, unable to act for themselves and therefore easily 
dominated . . . But we anarchists do not want to *emancipate* the 
people; we want the people to *emancipate themselves* . . . we 
want the new way of life to emerge from the body of the people 
and correspond to the state of their development and advance 
as they advance." [_Life and Ideas_, p. 90] And this can only 
occur when there are popular organisations, like trade unions, 
within which people can express themselves, come to common 
agreements and act. Moreover, these organisations must be 
autonomous, self-governing, be libertarian in nature *and* be
independent of all parties and organisations (including anarchist 
ones). The similarity with anarcho-syndicalist ideas is striking.

So why, if this is the case, are many anarchists not 
anarcho-syndicalists? There are two main reasons for this. 
First, there is the question of whether unions are, by their 
nature, revolutionary organisations. Second, whether syndicalist 
unions are sufficient to create anarchy by themselves. We will
discuss each in turn.

As can be seen from any country, the vast majority of unions are deeply
reformist and bureaucratic in nature. They are centralised, with power
resting at the top in the hands of officials. This suggests that in 
themselves unions are not revolutionary. As Malatesta argued, this 
is to be expected for "all movements founded on material and immediate 
interests (and a mass working class movement cannot be founded on 
anything else), if the ferment, the drive and the unremitting efforts 
of men [and women] of ideas struggling and making sacrifices for an 
ideal future are lacking, tend to adapt themselves to circumstances, 
foster a conservative spirit, and fear of change in those who manage 
to improve their conditions, and often end up by creating new 
privileged classes and serving to support and consolidate the 
system one would want to destroy." [Op. Cit., pp. 113-4]

If we look at the *role* of the union within capitalist society we 
see that in order for it to work, it must offer a reason for the boss 
to recognise it and negotiate with it. This means that the union must
be able to offer the boss something in return for any reforms it
gets and this "something" is labour discipline. In return for an
improvement in wages or conditions, the union must be able to
get workers to agree to submit to the contracts the union signs
with their boss. In other words, they must be able to control
their members -- stop them fighting the boss -- if they are to
have anything with which to bargain with. This results in the
union becoming a third force in industry, with interests 
separate than the workers which it claims to represent. The role 
of unionism as a seller of labour power means that it often has
to make compromises, compromises it has to make its members
agree to. This necessities a tendency for power to be taken from
the rank and file of the unions and centralised in the hands of
officials at the top of the organisation. This ensures that "the
workers organisation becomes what it must perforce be in a 
capitalist society -- a means not of refusing to recognise and
overthrowing the bosses, but simply for hedging round and 
limiting the bosses' power." [Errico Malatesta, _The Anarchist
Revolution_, p. 29]

Anarcho-syndicalists are aware of this problem. That is why their
unions are decentralised, self-managed and organised from the
bottom up in a federal manner. As Durruti argued: 

"No anarchists in the union committees unless at the ground level. 
In these committees, in case of conflict with the boss, the militant 
is forced to compromise to arrive at an agreement. The contracts 
and activities which come from being in this position, push the 
militant towards bureaucracy. Conscious of this risk, we do not
wish to run it. Our role is to analyse from the bottom the different 
dangers which can beset a union organisation like ours. No 
militant should prolong his job in committees, beyond the time
allotted to him. No permanent and indispensable people." 
[_Durruti: The People Armed_, p. 183]

However, structure is rarely enough in itself to undermine the 
bureaucratic tendencies created by the role of unions in the 
capitalist economy. While such libertarian structures can slow 
down the tendency towards bureaucracy, non-syndicalist 
anarchists argue that they cannot stop it. They point to 
the example of the French CGT which had become reformist
by 1914 (the majority of other syndicalist unions were crushed 
by fascism or communism before they had a chance to develop 
fully). Even the Spanish CNT (by far the most successful
anarcho-syndicalist union) suffered from the problem of
reformism, causing the anarchists in the union to organise
the FAI in 1927 to combat it (which it did, very successfully).
According to Jose Peirats, the "participation of the anarchist 
group in the mass movement CNT helped to ensure that CNT's
revolutionary nature." [_Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution_,
p. 241] This indicates the validity of Malatesta's arguments
concerning the need for anarchists to remain distinct of the
unions organisationally while working within them (just as
Peirat's comment that "[b]linkered by participation in 
union committees, the FAI became incapable of a wider 
vision" indicates the validity of Malatesta's warnings 
against anarchists taking positions of responsibility in 
unions! [Op. Cit., pp. 239-40]).

Moreover, even the structure of syndicalist unions can cause 
problems. "In modelling themselves structurally on the bourgeois 
economy, the syndicalist unions tended to become the organisational 
counterparts of the very centralised apparatus they professed to 
oppose. By pleading the need to deal effectively with the tightly 
knit bourgeoisie and state machinery, reformist leaders in 
syndicalist unions often had little difficulty in shifting 
organisational control from the bottom to the top." [Murray
Bookchin, _The Spanish Anarchists_, p. 123] 

In addition, as the syndicalist unions grow in size and influence their 
initial radicalism is usually watered-down. This is because, "since 
the unions must remain open to all those who desire to win from
the masters better conditions of life, whatever their opinions may
be . . ., they are naturally led to moderate their aspirations, 
first so that they should not frighten away those they wish to have
with them, and because, in proportion as numbers increase, those
with ideas who have initiated the movement remain buried in
a majority that is only occupied with the petty interests of 
the moment." [Errico Malatesta, "Anarchism and Syndicalism", 
contained in Geoffrey Ostergaard, _The Tradition of Workers' 
Control_, p. 150]

Which, ironically given that increased self-management is the
means of reducing tendencies towards bureaucracy, means that
syndicalist unions have a tendency towards reformism simply
because the majority of their members will be non-revolutionary
if the union grows in size in non-revolutionary times. This can
be seen from the development of the Swedish syndicalist union
the SAC, which went from being a very militant minority union
to watering down its politics to retain members in non-revolutionary
times

So, if the union's militant strategy succeeds in winning reforms, 
more and more workers will join it. This influx of non-anarchists
and non-syndicalists must, in a self-managed organisation, exert
a de-radicalising influence on the unions politics and activities 
in non-revolutionary times. The syndicalist would argue that the 
process of struggling for reforms combined with the educational 
effects of participation and self-management will reduce this 
influence and, of course, they are right. However, non-syndicalist
anarchists would counter this by arguing that the libertarian influences
generated by struggle and participation would be strengthened by the
work of anarchist groups and, without this work, the de-radicalising
influences would outweigh the libertarian ones. In addition, the
success of a syndicalist union must be partly determined by the
general level of class struggle. In periods of great struggle, the
membership will be more radical than in quiet periods and it is 
quiet periods which cause the most difficulties for syndicalist unions.
With a moderate membership the revolutionary aims and tactics of
the union will also become moderated. As one academic writer on
French syndicalism put it, syndicalism "was always based on workers
acting in the economic arena to better their conditions, build
class consciousness, and prepare for revolution. The need to survive
and build a working-class movement had always forces syndicalists 
to adapt themselves to the exigencies of the moment." [Barbara
Mitchell, "French Syndicalism: An Experiment in Practical Anarchism",
contained in _Revolutionary Syndicalism: An International Perspective_,
Marcel can der Linden and Wayne Thorpe (eds.), p. 25]

As can be seen from the history of many syndicalist unions (and, 
obviously, mainstream unions too) this seems to be the case -- the 
libertarian tendencies are outweighed by the de-radicalising ones.
This can also be seen from the issue of collective bargaining:

"The problem of collective bargaining foreshadowed the difficulty
of maintaining syndicalist principles in developed capitalist
societies. Many organisations within the international syndicalist
movement initially repudiated collective agreements with employers
on the grounds that by a collaborative sharing of responsibility
for work discipline, such agreements would expand bureaucratisation
within the unions, undermine revolutionary spirit, and restrict
the freedom of action that workers were always to maintain
against the class enemy. From an early date, however, sometimes
after a period of suspicion and resistance, many workers gave
up this position. In the early decades of the century it
became clear that to maintain or gain a mass membership,
syndicalist unions had to accept collective bargaining." 
[Marcel van der Linden and Wayne Thorpe, Op. Cit., p. 19]

Thus, for most anarchists, "the Trade Unions are, by their 
very nature reformist and never revolutionary. The revolutionary 
spirit must be introduced, developed and maintained by the constant 
actions of revolutionaries who work from within their ranks as well 
as from outside, but it cannot be the normal, natural definition of 
the Trade Unions function." [Errico Malatesta, _Life and Ideas_, 
p. 117]

This does not mean that anarchists should not work within labour
organisations. Nor does it mean rejecting anarcho-syndicalist 
unions as an anarchist tactic. Far from it. Rather it is a case 
of recognising these organisations for what they are, reformist 
organisations which are not an end in themselves but one (albeit, 
an important one) means of preparing the way for the achievement 
of anarchism. Neither does it mean that anarchists should not try 
to make labour organisations as anarchistic as possible or have 
anarchist objectives. Working within the labour movement (at the 
rank and file level, of course) is essential to gain influence for 
anarchist ideas, just as working with unorganised workers is also 
important. But this does not mean that the unions are revolutionary 
by their very nature, as syndicalism suggests. As history shows, and 
as syndicalists themselves are aware, the vast majority of unions 
are reformist. Non-syndicalist anarchists argue there is a reason 
for that and syndicalist unions are not immune to these tendencies 
just because they call themselves revolutionary. Due to these 
tendencies, non-syndicalist anarchists stress the need to organise 
as anarchists first and foremost in order to influence the class 
struggle and encourage the creation of autonomous workplace and 
community organisations to fight that struggle. Rather than fuse 
the anarchist and working class movement, non-syndicalist anarchists 
stress the importance of anarchists organising as anarchists to 
influence the working class movement.

All this does not mean that purely anarchist organisations or 
individual anarchists cannot become reformist. Of course they
can (just look at the Spanish FAI which along with the CNT
co-operated with the state during the Spanish Revolution). 
However, unlike syndicalist unions, the anarchist organisation
is not pushed towards reformism due to its role within 
society. That is an important difference -- the institutional
factors are not present for the anarchist federation as they
are for the syndicalist union federation.

The second reason why many anarchists are not anarcho-syndicalists
is the question of whether syndicalist unions are sufficient in 
themselves to create anarchy. Pierre Monatte, a French syndicalist,
argued that "[s]yndicalism, as the [CGT's] Congress of Amiens 
proclaimed in 1906, is sufficient unto itself. . . [as] the working
class, having at last attained majority, means to be self-sufficient
and to reply on no-one else for its emancipation." [_The Anarchist
Reader_, p. 219]

This idea of self-sufficiency means that the anarchist and the syndicalist 
movement must be fused into one, with syndicalism taking the role of 
both anarchist group and labour union. Thus a key difference between 
anarcho-syndicalists and other anarchists is over the question of the 
need for a specifically anarchist organisation. While most anarchists 
are sympathetic to anarcho-syndicalism, few totally subscribe to 
anarcho-syndicalist ideas in their pure form. This is because, in 
its pure form, syndicalism rejects the idea of anarchist groups 
and instead considers the union as *the* focal point of social 
struggle and anarchist activism. However, this "pure" form of
syndicalism may be better described as revolutionary syndicalism rather 
than as anarcho-syndicalism. In France, for example, anarcho-syndicalism 
is used to describe the idea that unions can be complemented with
anarchist groups while revolutionary syndicalism is used to describe
the idea of union self-sufficiency. Thus an anarcho-syndicalist may
support a specific anarchist federation to work within the union and
outside. In the eyes of other anarchists anarcho-syndicalism in its
"pure" (revolutionary syndicalist) form makes the error of confusing 
the anarchist and union movement and so ensures that the resulting 
movement can do neither work well. As Malatesta put it, "[e]very 
fusion or confusion between the anarchist movement and the trade
union movement ends, either in rendering the later unable to 
carry out its specific task or by weakening, distorting, or 
extinguishing the anarchist spirit." [_Life and Ideas_, p. 123]

This is not to suggest that anarchists should not work in 
the labour movement. That would be a mistake. Anarchists 
should work with the rank and file of the labour movement
while keeping their own identity as anarchists and organising
as anarchists. Thus Malatesta: "In the past I deplored that 
the comrades isolated themselves from the working-class movement. 
Today I deplore that many of us, falling into the contrary extreme, 
let themselves be swallowed up in the same movement." [_The
Anarchist Reader_, p. 225] 

Most anarchists agree with Malatesta when he argued that "anarchists
must not want the Trade Unions to be anarchist, but they must act
within their ranks in favour of anarchist aims, as individuals, as
groups and as federations of groups. . . [I]n the situation as it is,
and recognising that the social development of one's workmates 
is what it is, the anarchist groups should not expect the workers'
organisation to act as if they were anarchist, but should make 
every effort to induce them to approximate as much as possible
to the anarchist method." [_Life and Ideas_, pp. 124-5] Given 
that it appears to be the case that labour unions *are* by nature
reformist, they cannot be expected to be enough in themselves
when creating a free society. Hence the need for anarchists to
organise *as anarchists* as well as alongside their fellow workers
as workers in order to spread anarchist ideas on tactics and aims.
This activity within existing unions does not mean attempting 
to "reform" the union in a libertarian manner (although some 
anarchists would support this approach). Rather it means 
working with the rank and file of the unions and trying to 
create autonomous workplace organisations, independent of
the trade union bureaucracy and organised in a libertarian way. 

This involves creating anarchist organisations separate from but 
which (in part) works within the labour movement for anarchist 
ends.  Let us not forget that the syndicalist organisation is the 
union, it organises all workers regardless of their politics. A 
"union" which just let anarchists joined would not be a union. 
It would be an anarchist group organised in workplace. As
anarcho-syndicalists themselves are aware, an anarcho-syndicalist
union is not the same as a union of anarcho-syndicalists. How can
we expect an organisation made up of non-anarchists be totally
anarchist? Which raises the question of the conflict between 
being a labour union or a revolutionary anarchist organisation. 
Because of this tendencies always appeared within syndicalist 
unions that were reformist and because of this most anarchists, 
including many anarcho-syndicalists we must note, argue that 
there is a need for anarchists to work within the rank and file
of the existing unions (along with workers who are *not* in a 
union) to spread their anarchist ideals and aims, and this implies 
anarchist organisations separate from the labour movement, each
if that movement is based on syndicalist unions. As Bakunin 
argued, the anarchist organisation "is the necessary complement 
to the International [i.e. the union federation]. But the 
International and the Alliance [the anarchist federation], 
while having the same ultimate aims, perform different functions. 
The International endeavours to unify the working masses . . . 
regardless of nationality or religious and political beliefs, 
into one compact body: the Alliance, on the other hand, tries 
to give these masses a really revolutionary direction." This 
did not mean that the Alliance is imposing a foreign theory 
onto the members of the unions, because the "programs of one 
and the other . . . differ only in the degree of their 
revolutionary development . . . The program of the Alliance 
represents the fullest unfolding of the International." 
[_Bakunin on Anarchism_, p. 157]

Which means for most anarchists that syndicalist unions need to be 
complemented by anarchist organisations. Which means that the
syndicalist union is not sufficient in itself to create an anarchist
society (needless to say, popular organisations of all sorts are
an essential part of creating an anarchist society, they are the
framework within which self-management will be practised). The 
anarchist group is required to promote anarchist tactics of
direct action and solidarity, anarchist types of organisation within
the union and anarchist aims (the creation of an anarchist society)
within the workplace, as well as outside it. This does not imply that 
anarchists think that unions and other forms of popular organisations 
should be controlled by anarchists. Far from it! Anarchists are the 
strongest supporters of the autonomy of all popular organisations. As 
we indicated in section J.3.6, anarchists desire to influence popular 
organisations by the strength of our ideas within the rank and 
file and *not* by imposing our ideas on them.

In addition to these major points of disagreement, there are minor ones 
as well. For example, many anarchists dislike the emphasis syndicalists
place on the workplace and see "in syndicalism a shift in focus from the
commune to the trade union, from all of the oppressed to the industrial
proletariat alone, from the streets to the factories, and, in emphasis at
least, from insurrection to the general strike." [Murray Bookchin, _The
Spanish Anarchists_, p. 123] However, most anarcho-syndicalists are
well aware that life exists outside the workplace and so this disagreement
is largely one of emphasis more than anything else. Similarly, many 
anarchists disagreed with the early syndicalist argument that a general
strike was enough to create a revolution. They argued, with Malatesta
in the forefront, that while a general strike would be "an excellent means
for starting the social revolution" it would be wrong to think that it made
"armed insurrection unnecessary" since the "first to die of hunger during
a general strike would not be the bourgeois, who dispose of all the stores,
but the workers." In order for this *not* to occur, the workers would
have to take over the stores and the means of production, protected by
the police and armed forces and this meant insurrection. [Errico 
Malatesta, _The Anarchist Reader_, pp. 224-5] Again, however, most 
modern syndicalists accept this to be the case and see the "expropriatory
general strike," in the words of French syndicalist Pierre Besnard, as 
"clearly *insurrectional.*" [cited by Vernon Richards, _Life and Ideas_,
p. 288] We mention this purely to counter Leninist claims that syndicalists
subscribe to the same ones they did in the 1890s.

Despite our criticisms we should recognise that the difference between
anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists are slight and (often) just a case 
of emphasis. Most anarchists support anarcho-syndicalist unions where
they exist and often take a key role in creating and organising them. 
Similarly, many self-proclaimed anarcho-syndicalists also support 
specific organisations of anarchists to work within and outwith the
syndicalist union. Anarcho-syndicalist and revolutionary unions, 
where they still exist, are far more progressive than any other union. 
Not only do they create democratic unions and create an atmosphere 
where anarchist ideas are listened to with respect but they also organise 
and fight in a way that breaks down the divisions into leaders and led, 
doers and watchers. On its own this is very good but not good enough. 
For non-syndicalist anarchists, the missing element is an organisation 
winning support for anarchist ideas and anarchist methods both within 
revolutionary unions and everywhere else working class people are 
brought together. 

For a further information on the anarchist critic of syndicalism, we
can suggest no better source than the writings of Errico Malatesta.
_The Anarchist Reader_ contains the famous debate between the
syndicalist Pierre Monatte and Malatesta at the International
Anarchist conference in Amsterdam in 1907. The books _Malatesta:
Life and Ideas_ and _The Anarchist Revolution_ contain Malatesta's 
viewpoints on anarchism , syndicalism and how anarchists should 
work within the labour movement.

J.4 What trends in society aid anarchist activity?

In this section we will examine some modern trends which we regard as
being potential openings for anarchists to organise. These trends are 
of a general nature, partly as a product of social struggle, partly 
as a response to economic and social crisis, partly involving people's 
attitudes to big government and big business partly in relation to the 
communications revolution we are currently living through, and so on. 
We do this because, as Kropotkin argued, the anarchist "studies human 
society as it is now and was in the past. . . He [or she] studies 
society and tries to discover its *tendencies,* past and present, 
its growing needs, intellectual and economical, and in his ideal 
he merely points out in which direction evolution goes." [_Anarchism 
and Anarchist Communism_, p. 24] In this section we highlight just a 
few of the tendencies in modern society which point in an anarchist 
direction.
 
Of course, looking at modern society we see multiple influences,
changes which have certain positive aspects in some directions but
negative ones in others. For example, the business-inspired attempts
to decentralise or reduce (certain) functions of governments. In the 
abstract, such developments should be welcomed by anarchists for they
lead to the reduction of government. In practice such a conclusion is
deeply suspect simply because these developments are being pursued 
to increase the power and influence of business and capital and
undermine working class power and autonomy. Similarly, increases 
in self-employment can be seen, in the abstract, as reducing wage 
slavery. However, if, in practice, this increase is due to corporations 
encouraging "independent" contractors to cut wages and worsen working 
conditions, increase job insecurity and undermine paying for health 
and other employee packages then is hardly a positive sign. Obviously 
increases in self-employment would be different if such an increase 
was the result of an increase in the number of co-operatives, for 
example. 

Thus few anarchists celebrate many apparently "libertarian" developments 
as they are not the product of social movements and activism, but are the 
product of elite lobbying for private profit and power. Decreasing the 
power of the state in (certain) areas while leaving (or increasing) the 
power of capital is a retrograde step in most, if not all, ways. Needless 
to say, this "rolling back" of the state does not bring into question its 
role as defender of property and the interests of the capitalist class -- 
nor could it, as it is the ruling class who introduces and supports these 
developments.
 
As an example of these multiple influences, we can point to the economic
crisis which has staggered on since 1973 in many Western countries. This
crisis, when it initially appeared, lead to calls to reduce taxation 
(at least for the wealthy, in most countries the tax-burden was shifted 
even more onto the working class -- as was the case in Thatcher's Britain). 
In most countries, as a result, government "got off the back" of the
wealthy (and got even more comfy on *our* back!). This (along with
slower growth) helped to create declining revenue bases in the advanced 
capitalist nations has given central governments an excuse to cut 
social services, leaving a vacuum that regional and local governments 
have had to fill along with voluntary organisations, thus producing a
tendency toward decentralisation that dovetails with anarchist ideals.
 
As Murray Bookchin points out, a sustainable ecological society must
shift emphasis away from nation-states as the basic units of administration
and focus instead on municipalities -- towns, villages, and human-scale
cities. Interestingly, the ongoing dismantling of the welfare state is
producing such a shift by itself. By forcing urban residents to fend
for themselves more than ever before in meeting transportation, housing,
social welfare, and other needs, the economic crisis is also forcing
them to relearn the arts of teamwork, co-operation, and self-reliance
(see his _Remaking Society: Pathways to a Green Future_, p. 183).
 
Of course the economic crisis also has a downside for anarchists. 
As hardships and dislocations continue to swell the ranks and 
increase the militancy of progressive social movements, the 
establishment is being provoked to use ever more authoritarian 
methods to maintain control (see D.9). As the crisis deepens over 
the next few decades, the reactionary tendencies of the state will 
be reinforced (particularly as the neo-liberal consensus helps
atomise society via the market mechanism and the resulting 
destruction of community and human relationships). However, 
this is not inevitable. The future depends on our actions in the
here and now. In this section of the FAQ we highlight some developments 
which do, or could, work to the advantage of anarchists. Many of 
these examples are from the US, but they apply equally to Britain 
and many other advanced industrial states. 
 
In this section, we aim to discuss tendencies from *below*, not
above -- tendencies which can truly "roll back" the state rather than
reduce its functions purely to that of the armed thug of Capital. The
tendencies we discuss here are not the be all nor end all of anarchist 
activism or tendencies. We discuss many of the more traditionally 
anarchist "openings" in section J.5 (such as industrial and community 
unionism, mutual credit, co-operatives, modern schools and so on) 
and so will not do so here. However, it is important to stress
here that such "traditional" openings are not being downplayed -- 
indeed, much of what we discuss here can only become fully 
libertarian in combination with these more "traditional" 
forms of "anarchy in action."

For a lengthy discussion of anarchistic trends in society, we 
recommend Colin Ward's classic book _Anarchy in Action_. Ward's
excellent book covers many areas in which anarchistic tendencies 
have been expressed, far more than we can cover here. The
libertarian tendencies in society are many. No single work 
could hope to do them justice.
 
J.4.1 Why is social struggle a good sign?
 
Simply because it shows that people are unhappy with the existing
society and, more importantly, are trying to change at least some part 
of it. It suggests that certain parts of the population have reflected
on their situation and, potentially at least, seen that *by their own 
actions* they can influence and change it for the better.

Given that the ruling minority draws its strength of the acceptance 
and acquiescence of the majority, the fact that a part of that 
majority no longer accepts and acquiesces is a positive sign. 
After all, if the majority did not accept the status quo and 
acted to change it, the class and state system could not survive. 
Any hierarchical society survives because those at the bottom follow 
the orders of those above it. Social struggle suggests that some people 
are considering their own interests, thinking for themselves and 
saying "no" and this, by its very nature, is an important, indeed, 
the most important, tendency towards anarchism. It suggests that
people are rejecting the old ideas which hold the system up, 
acting upon this rejection and creating new ways of doing thinks.

"Our social institutions," argues Alexander Berkman, "are founded
on certain ideas; as long as the latter are generally believed,
the institutions built upon them are safe. Government remains
strong because people think political authority and legal
compulsion necessary. Capitalism will continue as long as such
an economic system is considered adequate and just. The 
weakening of the ideas which support the evil and oppressive
present-day conditions means the ultimate breakdown of
government and capitalism." [_The ABC of Anarchism_, p. xv]

Social struggle is the most obvious sign of this change of
perspective, this change in ideas, this progress towards freedom.

Social struggle is expressed by direct action. We have discussed 
both social struggle and direct action before (in sections J.1 
and J.2 respectively) and some readers may wonder why we are 
covering this again here. We do so for two reasons. Firstly, 
as we are discussing what trends in society help anarchist 
activity, it would be wrong *not* to highlight social struggle 
and direct action here. This is because these factors are key 
tendencies towards anarchism as anarchism will be created by 
people and social struggle is the means by which people create 
the new world in the shell of the old. Secondly, social struggle 
and direct action are key aspects of anarchist theory and we 
cannot truly present a picture of what anarchism is about 
without making clear what these are.

So social struggle is a good sign as it suggests that people are
thinking for themselves, considering their own interests and
working together collectively to change things for the better.
As the French syndicalist Emile Pouget argues:

"Direct action . . . means that the working class, forever 
bridling at the existing state of affairs, expects nothing from 
outside people, powers or forces, but rather creates its own 
conditions of struggle and looks to itself for its methodology . . . 
Direct Action thus implies that the working class subscribes to 
notions of freedom and autonomy instead of genuflecting before 
the principle of authority. Now, it is thanks to this authority 
principle, the pivot of the modern world - democracy being its 
latest incarnation - that the human being, tied down by a 
thousand ropes, moral as well as material, is bereft of 
any opportunity to display will and initiative." 
[_Direct Action_]

Social struggle means that people come into opposition with the boss
and other authorities such as the state and the dominant morality. This
challenge to existing authorities generates two related processes: the 
tendency of those involved to begin taking over the direction of their
own activities and the development of solidarity with each other. Firstly,
in the course of a struggle, such as a strike, occupation, boycott, and 
so on, the ordinary life of people, in which they act under the constant
direction of the bosses or state, ceases, and they have to think, act and
co-ordinate their actions for themselves. This reinforces the expression
towards autonomy that the initial refusal that lead to the struggle 
indicates. Thus struggle re-enforces the initial act of refusal and 
autonomy by forcing those involves to act for themselves. Secondly, in
the process of struggle those involved learn the importance of solidarity,
of working with others in a similar situation, in order to win. This
means the building of links of support, of common interests, of 
organisation. The practical need for solidarity to help win the
struggle is the basis for the solidarity required for a free society
to be viable.  

Therefore the real issue in social struggle is that it is an attempt by 
people to wrestle at least part of the power over their own lives away 
from the managers, state officials and so on who currently have it and 
exercise it themselves. This is, by its very nature, anarchistic and 
libertarian. Thus we find politicians and, of course, managers and 
property owners, often denouncing strikes and other forms of direct 
action. This is logical. As direct action challenges the real 
power-holders in society and because, if carried to its logical 
conclusion, it would have to replace them, social struggle and 
direct action can be considered in essence a revolutionary process.

Moreover, the very act of using direct action suggests a transformation
within the people using it. "Direct action's very powers to fertilise,"
argues Pouget, "reside in such exercises in imbuing the individual 
with a sense of his own worth and in extolling such worth. It marshals 
human resourcefulness, tempers characters and focuses energies. It 
teaches self-confidence! And self-reliance! And self-mastery! And 
shifting for oneself!" Moreover, "direct action has an unmatched 
educational value: It teaches people to reflect, to make decisions 
and to act. It is characterised by a culture of autonomy, an 
exaltation of individuality and is a fillip to initiative, to 
which it is the leaven. And this superabundance of vitality 
and burgeoning of 'self' in no way conflicts with the economic 
fellowship that binds the workers one with another and far 
from being at odds with their common interests, it reconciles 
and bolsters these: the individual's independence and activity 
can only erupt into splendour and intensity by sending its roots 
deep into the fertile soil of common agreement." [Pouget, Op. Cit.]

Emma Goldman also recognised the transforming power of direct 
action. Anarchists, she argues, "believe with Stirner that 
man has as much liberty as he is willing to take. Anarchism
therefore stands for direct action, the open defiance of, and
resistance to, all laws and restrictions, economic, social and
moral. But defiance and resistance are illegal. Therein lies the
salvation of man. Everything illegal necessitates integrity,
self-reliance, and courage. In short, it calls for free 
independent spirits. . ." [_Red Emma Speaks_, p. 61-2] 

Social struggle is the beginning of a transformation of the people
involved and their relationships to each other. While its external 
expression lies in contesting the power of existing authorities, its 
inner expression is the transformation of people from passive and
isolated competitors into empowered, self-directing, self-governing
co-operators. Moreover, this process widens considerable what 
people think is "possible." Through struggle, by collective action,
the fact people *can* change things is driven home, that *they* have
the power to govern themselves and the society they live in. Thus
struggle can change people's conception of "what is possible" and
encourage them to try and create a better world. As Kropotkin argued:

"since the times of the [first] International Working Men's Association,
the anarchists have always advised taking an active part in those workers'
organisations which carry on the *direct* struggle of labour against
capital and its protector -- the State.

"Such a struggle, they say, . . . permits the worker to obtain some
temporary improvements. . ., while it opens his [or her] eyes to the
evil that is done by capitalism and the State. . . , and wakes up
his thoughts concerning the possibility of organising consumption,
production, and exchange without the intervention of the capitalist
and the State." [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_, p. 171]

In other words, social struggle has a *radicalising* and *politicising* 
effect, an effect which brings into a new light existing society and
the possibilities of a better world ("direct action", in Pouget's words, 
"develops the feeling for human personality as well as the spirit 
of initiative . . .  it shakes people out of their torpor and steers 
them to consciousness."). The practical need to unite and resist the 
boss also helps break down divisions within the working class. Those 
in struggle start to realise that they need each other to give them 
the power necessary to get improvements, to change things. Thus 
solidarity spreads and overcomes divisions between black and
white, male and female, heterosexual and homosexual, trades, 
industries, nationalities and so on. The real need for solidarity 
to win the fight helps to undermine artificial divisions and show 
that there are only two groups in society, the oppressed and the 
oppressors.

Moreover, struggle as well as transforming those involved is also
the basis for transforming society as a whole simply because, as 
well as producing transformed individuals, it also produces new 
forms of organisation, organisations created to co-ordinate their
struggle and which can, potentially at least, become the framework 
of a libertarian socialist society.

Thus anarchists argue that social struggle opens the eyes of those
involved to self-esteem and a sense of their own strength, and the 
groupings it forms at its prompting are living, vibrant associations 
where libertarian principles usually come to the fore. We find 
almost all struggles developing new forms of organisation,
forms which are often based on direct democracy, federalism
and decentralisation. If we look at every major revolution, we
find people creating mass organisations such as workers' councils,
factory committees, neighbourhood assemblies and so on as a
means of taking back the power to govern their own lives, 
communities and workplaces.  In this way social struggle and 
direct action lays the foundations for the future. By actively 
taking part in social life, people are drawn into creating new 
forms of organisation, new ways of doing things. In this way 
they educate themselves in participation, in self-government, 
in initiative and in asserting themselves. They begin to realise
that the only alternative to management by others is self-management 
and organise to achieve thus.

Given that remaking society has to begin at the bottom, this finds 
its expression in direct action, individuals taking the initiative,
building new, more libertarian forms of organisation and using the 
power they have just generated by collective action and organisation
to change things by their own efforts. Social struggle is therefore a
two way transformation -- the external transformation of society
by the creation of new organisations and the changing of the power
relations within it and the internal transformation of those who take
part in the struggle. And because of this, social struggle, "[w]hatever
may be the practical results of the struggle for immediate gains, the
greatest value lies in the struggle itself. For thereby workers learn
that the bosses interests are opposed to theirs and that they cannot
improve their conditions, and much less emancipate themselves, except 
by uniting and becoming stronger than the bosses. If they succeed in 
getting what they demand, they will be better off . . . and immediately 
make greater demands and have greater needs. If they do not succeed 
they will be led to study the causes of their failure and recognise 
the need for closer unity and greater activism and they will in the 
end understand that to make their victory secure and definitive, it 
is necessary to destroy capitalism. The revolutionary cause, the cause 
of the moral elevation and emancipation of the workers must benefit by 
the fact that workers unite and struggle for their interests." [Errico 
Malatesta, _Life and Ideas_, p. 191]

Hence Nestor Makhno's comment that "[i]n fact, it is only through
that struggle for freedom, equality and solidarity that you reach 
an understanding of anarchism." [_The Struggle Against the State
and other Essays_, p. 71] The creation of an anarchist society is
a *process* and social struggle is the key anarchistic tendency 
within society which anarchists look for, encourage and support. 
Its radicalising and transforming nature is the key to the growth 
of anarchist ideas, the creation of libertarian structures and 
alternatives within capitalism (structures which may, one day, 
replace capitalism and state) and the creation of anarchists and 
those sympathetic to anarchist ideas. Its importance cannot be 
underestimated! 

J.4.2	Won't social struggle do more harm than good?

It is often argued that social struggle, by resisting the powerful 
and the wealthy, will just do more harm than good. Employers often 
use this approach in anti-union propaganda, for example, arguing that
creating a union will force the company to close and move to less
"militant" areas.

There is, of course, some truth in this. Yes, social struggle can 
lead to bosses moving to more compliant workforces -- but, of course, 
this also happens in periods lacking social struggle too! If we look
at the down-sizing mania that gripped the U.S. in the 1980s and 1990s,
we see companies down-sizing tens of thousands of people during 
a period where unions were weak, workers scared about loosing their
jobs and class struggle basically becoming mostly informal and 
"underground." Moreover, this argument actually indicates the 
need for anarchism. It is a damning indictment of any social 
system that it requires people to kow-tow to their masters 
otherwise they will suffer economic hardship. It boils down to 
the argument "do what you are told, otherwise you will regret 
it." Any system based on that maxim is an affront to human 
dignity!

It would, in a similar fashion, be easy to "prove" that slave 
rebellions are against the long term interests of the slaves. 
After all, by rebelling the slaves will face the anger of their 
masters. Only by submitting to their master can they avoid this 
fate and, perhaps, be rewarded by better conditions. Of course, 
the evil of slavery would continue but by submitting to it they 
can ensure their life can become better. Needless to say, any 
thinking and feeling person would quickly dismiss this reasoning 
as missing the point and being little more than apologetics 
for an evil social system that treated human beings as things. 
The same can be said for the argument that social struggles within 
capitalism do more harm than good. It betrays a slave mentality
unfitting for human beings (although fitting for those who desire
to live of the backs of workers or desire to serve those who do).

Moreover, this kind of argument ignores a few key points. Firstly,
by resistance the conditions of the oppressed can be maintained or
even improved. After all, if the boss knows that their decisions will
be resisted they may be less inclined to impose speed-ups, longer
hours and so on. If they know that their employees will agree to 
anything then there is every reason to expect them to impose all
kinds of oppressions, just as a state will impose draconian laws
if it knows that it can get away with it. History is full of examples
of non-resistance producing greater evils in the long term and 
of resistance producing numerous important reforms and improvements
(such as higher wages, shorter hours, the right to vote for
working class people and women, freedom of speech, the end of
slavery, trade union rights and so on).

So social struggle has been proven time and time again to gain 
successful reforms. For example, before the 8 hour day movement 
of 1886 in America, for example, most companies argued they could not 
introduce that reform without doing bust. However, after displaying 
a militant mood and conducting an extensive strike campaign, hundreds 
of thousands of workers discovered that their bosses had been lying 
and they got shorter hours. Indeed, the history of the labour movement 
shows what bosses say they can afford and the reforms workers can get
via struggle are somewhat at odds. Given the asymmetry of information
between workers and bosses, this is unsurprising. Workers can only
guess at what is available and bosses like to keep their actual
finances hidden. Even the threat of labour struggle can be enough
to gain improvements. For example, Henry Ford's $5 day is often 
used as an example of capitalism rewarding good workers. However,
this substantial pay increase was largely motivated by the 
unionisation drive by the Industrial Workers of the World among
Ford workers in the summer of 1913 [Harry Braverman, _Labour and
Monopoly Capitalism_, p. 144]. More recently, it was the mass
non-payment campaign against the poll-tax in Britain during the 
late 1980s and early 1990s which helped ensure its defeat (and
the 1990 poll-tax riot in London also helped and ensured that the
New Zealand government did not introduce a similar scheme in their
country too!). In the 1990s, France also saw the usefulness of
direct action. Two successive prime ministers (Edouard Balladur
and Alain Juppe) tried to impose large scale "reform" programmes
that swiftly provoked mass demonstrations and general strikes
amongst students, workers, farmers and others. Confronted by
crippling disruptions, both governments gave in. Compared to
the experience of, say Britain, France's tradition of direct
action politics proved more effective in maintaining existing
conditions or even improving on them.

Secondly, and in some ways more importantly, it ignores that by 
resistance those who take part can the social system they live in
can be *changed.* This radicalising effect of social struggle can
open new doors for those involved, liberate their minds, empower 
them and create the potential for deep social change. Without 
resistance to existing forms of authority a free society cannot 
be created as people adjust themselves to authoritarian structures 
and accept what is as the only possibility. By resisting, people 
transform and empower themselves, as well as transforming society. 
In addition, new possibilities can be seen (possibilities before 
dismissed as "utopian") and, via the organisation and action
required to win reforms, the framework for these possibilities 
(i.e. of a new, libertarian, society) created. The transforming 
and empowering effect of social struggle is expressed well by the 
ex-IWW and UAW-CIO shop steward Nick DeGaetano in his experiences 
in the 1930s:

"the workers of my generation from the early days up to now had
what you might call a labour insurrection in changing from a 
plain, humble, submissive creature into a man. The union made
a man out of him. . . I am not talking about benefits . . . I am
talking about the working conditions and how they affected the
man in plant. . . Before they were submissive. Today they are
men." [quoted in _Industrial Democracy in America_, Nelson 
Lichtenstein and Holwell John Harris (eds.), p. 204]

Other labour historians note the same radicalising process 
elsewhere (modern day activists could give more examples!):

"The contest [over wages and conditions] so pervaded social
life that the ideology of acquisitive individualism, which
explained and justified a society regulated by market
mechanisms and propelled by the accumulation of capital, 
was challenged by an ideology of mutualism, rooted in 
working-class bondings and struggles. . . Contests over
pennies on or off existing piece rates had ignited 
controversies over the nature and purpose of the American
republic itself." [David Montgomery, _The Fall of the House 
of Labour_, p. 171]

This radicalising effect is far more dangerous to authoritarian 
structures than better pay, more liberal laws and so on as they 
need submissiveness to work. Little wonder that direct action is 
usually denounced as pointless or harmful by those in power or 
their spokespersons, for direct action will, taken to its 
logical conclusion, put them out of a job! Struggle, therefore,
holds the possibility of a free society as well as of improvements
in the here and now. It also changes the perspectives of those
involved, creating new ideas and values to replace the ones of
capitalism.

Thirdly, it ignores the fact that such arguments do not imply
the end of social struggle and working class resistance and
organisation, but rather its *extension.* If, for example, your
boss argues that they will move to Mexico if you do not "shut 
up and put up" then the obvious solution is to make sure the 
workers in Mexico are also organised! Bakunin argued this basic
point over one hundred years ago, and it is still true -- "in
the long run the relatively tolerable position of workers in
one country can be maintained only on condition that it be
more or less the same in other countries." If, for example, 
workers in Mexico have worse wages and conditions than you do,
these same conditions will be used against you as the "conditions 
of labour cannot get worse or better in any particular industry
without immediately affecting the workers in other industries,
and that workers of all trades are inter-linked with real
and indissoluble ties of solidarity," ties which can be ignored
only at your own peril. Ultimately, "in those countries the
workers work longer hours for less pay; and the employers 
there can sell their products cheaper, successfully competing
against conditions where workers working less earn more,
and thus force the employers in the latter countries to
cut wages and increase the hours of their workers." Bakunin's
solution was to organise internationally, to stop this
undercutting of conditions by solidarity between workers. As
recent history shows, his argument was correct [_The Political
Philosophy of Bakunin_, pp. 306-7]. Thus it is *not* social
struggle or militancy which is bad, just *isolated* militancy,
struggle which ignores the ties of solidarity required to
win, extent and keep reforms and improvements. In other
words, our resistance must be as transnational as capitalism
is.
 
The idea that social struggle and working class organisation 
are harmful was expressed constantly in the 1970s. If we look 
at the arguments of the right in the 1970s, we also find evidence 
that the "struggle does more harm than good" viewpoint is flawed. 
With the post-war Keynesian consensus crumbling, the "New Right" 
argued that trade unions (and strikes) hampered growth and that 
wealth redistribution (i.e. welfare schemes which returned some 
of the surplus value workers produced back into their own hands) 
hindered "wealth creation" (i.e. economic growth). Do not struggle 
over income, they argued, let the market decide and everyone will 
be better off.

This argument was dressed up in populist clothes. Thus we find 
the right-wing guru F.A. von Hayek arguing that, in the case of 
Britain, the "legalised powers of the unions have become the 
biggest obstacle to raising the standards of the working class 
as a whole. They are the chief cause of the unnecessarily big 
differences between the best- and worse-paid workers." He 
maintained that "the elite of the British working class. . . 
derive their relative advantages by keeping workers who 
are *worse off* from improving their position." Moreover, 
he "predict[ed] that the average worker's income would rise 
fastest in a country where relative wages are flexible, and 
where the exploitation of workers by monopolistic trade union 
organisations of specialised workers are effectively outlawed." 
["1980s Unemployment and the Unions" reproduced in _The Economic 
Decline of Modern Britain_, p. 107, p. 108, p. 110] 

Now, if von Hayek's claims were true we could expect that in the 
aftermath of Thatcher government's trade union reforms we would 
have seen: a rise in economic growth (usually considered as *the*
means to improve living standards for workers by the right); a
decrease in the differences between high and low paid workers;
a reduction in the percentage of low paid workers as they improved
their positions when freed from union "exploitation"; and that
wages rise fastest in countries with the highest wage flexibility.
Unfortunately for von Hayek, the actual trajectory of the 
British economy exposes his claims as nonsense.

Looking at each of his claims in turn we discover that rather
than "exploit" other workers, trade unions are an essential 
means to shift income from capital to labour (which is way 
capital fights labour organisers tooth and nail). And, equally 
important, labour militancy aids *all* workers by providing a 
floor under which wages cannot drop (non-unionised/militant 
firms in the same industry or area have to offer similar 
programs to prevent unionisation and be able to hire workers) 
and by maintaining aggregate demand.  This positive role of 
unions/militancy in aiding *all* workers can be seen by 
comparing Britain before and after Thatcher's von Hayek 
inspired trade union and labour market reforms.

As far as economic growth goes, there has been a steady fall since
trade union reforms. In the "bad old days" of the 1970s, with its 
strikes and "militant unions" growth was 2.4% in Britain. It fell 
to 2% in the 1980s and fell again to 1.2% in the 1990s [Larry Elliot 
and Dan Atkinson, _The Age of Insecurity_, p. 236]. So the rate of 
"wealth creation" (economic growth) has steadily fallen as unions 
were "reformed" in line with von Hayek's ideology (and falling 
growth means that the living standards of the working class as a 
whole do not rise as fast as they did under the "exploitation" of 
the "monopolistic" trade unions). If we look at the differences 
between the highest and lowest paid workers, we find that rather
than decrease, they have in fact shown "a dramatic widening out
of the distribution with the best-workers doing much better" 
since Thatcher was elected in 1979 [Andrew Glyn and David 
Miliband (eds.), _Paying for Inequality_, p. 100]

Given that inequality has also increased, the condition of the
average worker must have suffered. For example, Ian Gilmore 
states that "[i]n the 1980s, for the first time for fifty 
years. . . the poorer half of the population saw its share of
total national income shirk." [_Dancing with Dogma_, p. 113]
According to Noam Chomsky, "[d]uring the Thatcher decade, the
income share of the bottom half of the population fell from
one-third to one-fourth" and the between 1979 and 1992, the 
share of total income of the top 20% grew from 35% to 40% while
that of the bottom 20% fell from 10% to 5%. In addition, the
number of UK employees with weekly pay below the Council of
Europe's "decency threshold" increased from 28.3% in 1979 
to 37% in 1994 [_World Orders, Old and New_, p. 144, p. 145] 
Moreover, "[b]ack in the early 1960s, the heaviest concentration
of incomes fell at 80-90 per cent of the mean. . . But by the
early 1990s there had been a dramatic change, with the peak
of the distribution falling at just 40-50 per cent of the mean.
One-quarter of the population had incomes below half the average
by the early 1990s as against 7 per cent in 1977 and 11 per
cent in 1961. . ." [Elliot and Atkinson, Op. Cit., p. 235]
"Overall," notes Takis Fotopoulos, "average incomes increased
by 36 per cent during this period [1979-1991/2], but 70 per
cent of the population had a below average increase in their
income." [_Towards an Inclusive Democracy_, p. 113]

Looking at the claim that trade union members gained their
"relative advantage by keeping workers who are *worse off*
from improving their position" it would be fair to ask whether
the percentage of workers in low-paid jobs decreased in Britain
after the trade union reforms. In fact, the percentage of
workers below the Low Pay Unit's definition of low pay (namely
two-thirds of men's median earnings) *increased* -- from 
16.8% in 1984 to 26.2% in 1991 for men, 44.8% to 44.9% for
women. For manual workers it rose by 15% to 38.4%, and for
women by 7.7% to 80.7% (for non-manual workers the figures
were 5.4% rise to 13.7% for men and a 0.5% rise to 36.6%).
If unions *were* gaining at the expense of the worse off,
you would expect a *decrease* in the number in low pay, 
*not* an increase. [_Paying for Inequality_, p.102] An
OECD study concluded that "[t]ypically, countries with
high rates of collective bargaining and trade unionisation
tend to have low incidence of low paid employment." [_OECD
Employment Outlook_, 1996, p. 94]

Nor did unemployment fall after the trade union reforms.
As Elliot and Atkinson point out, "[b]y the time Blair
came to power [in 1997], unemployment in Britain was
falling, although it still remained higher than it had
been when the [the last Labour Government of] Callaghan 
left office in May 1979." [Op. Cit., p. 258] Von Hayek
did argue that falls in unemployment would be "a slow
process" but over 10 years of higher unemployment is 
moving at a snail's pace! And we must note that part of
this fall in unemployment towards its 1970s level was
due to Britain's labour force shrinking (and so, as 
the July 1997 Budget Statement correctly notes, "the 
lower 1990s peak [in unemployment] does not in itself 
provide convincing evidence of improved labour 
performance." [p. 77]).

As far as von Hayek's prediction on wage flexibility leading
to the "average worker's income" rising fastest in a country 
where relative wages are flexible, it has been proved totally 
wrong. Between 1967 and 1971, real wages grew (on average) 
by 2.95% per year (nominal wages grew by 8.94%) [P. Armstrong, 
A. Glyn and John Harrison, _Capitalism Since World War II_, 
p.272]. In comparison, in the 1990s real wages grew by 1.1 
per cent, according to a TUC press release entitled 
_Productivity Record, how the UK compares_ released
in March 1999.

Needless to say, these are different eras so it would also 
be useful to compare the UK (often praised as a flexible 
economy after Thatcher's "reforms") to France (considered 
far less flexible) in the 1990s. Here we find that the 
"flexible"  UK is behind the "inflexible" France. Wages 
and benefits per worker rose by almost 1.2 per cent per 
year compared to 0.7% for the UK. France's GDP grew at a 
faster rate than Britain's, averaging 1.4 per cent per year, 
compared with 1.2 per cent. Worker productivity is also 
behind, since 1979 (Thatcher's arrival) Britain's worker 
productivity has been 1.9 per cent per year compared to 
France's 2.2 per cent [Seth Ackerman, "The Media Vote for 
Austerity", _Extra!_, September/October 1997]. And as Seth 
Ackerman also notes, "[w]hile France's dismal record of job 
creation is on permanent exhibit, it is never mentioned that 
Britain's is even more dismal." [Ibid.]

Moving further afield, we find von Hayek's prediction falsified
yet again. If we look at the USA, frequently claimed as a 
model economy in terms of wage flexibility and union weakness, 
we discover that the real wages of the average worker has 
*decreased* since 1973 (the weekly and hourly earnings of 
US production and non-supervisory workers, which accounts for 
80% of the US workforce, have fallen in real terms by 19.2% and 
13.4% respectively [_Economic Report of the President 1995_, 
Table B-45]). If we look at figures from U.S. Bureau of the 
Census (Current Population Survey) we can see how increased
flexibility has affected income:

		Income Growth by Quintile
 
	Quintile		1950-1978		1979-1993

	Lowest 20%		138%			-15%
	2nd 20%		98			-7
	3rd 20%		106			-3
	4th 20%		111			5
	Highest 20%		99			18

As can be seen, flexible wages and weaker unions have resulted 
in the direct opposite of von Hayek's predictions. Within the
US itself, we discover that higher union density is associated
with fewer workers earning around the minimum wage -- "the 
percentage of those earning around the minimum wage are both
substantially higher in right-to-work states [i.e. those that
pass anti-union laws] than overall and lower in high union
density states that overall" and "in right-to-work states . . .
wages have traditionally been lower." [Oren M. Levin-Waldman, 
_The Minimum Wage and Regional Wage Structure_] If unions *did*
harm non-union workers, we would expect the opposite to occur.
It does not. Of course, being utterly wrong has not dented his 
reputation with the right nor stopped him being quoted in 
arguments in favour of flexibility and free market reforms.

Moreover, the growth of the US economy has also slowed down as 
wage flexibility and market reform has increased (it was 4.4% 
in the 1960s, 3.2% in the 1970s, 2.8% in the 1980s and 1.9% 
in the first half of the 1990s [Larry Elliot and Dan Atkinson, 
_The Age of Insecurity_, p. 236]). In addition, inequality
in the US has dramatically increased since the 1970s, with
income and wealth growth in the 1980s going predominately
to the top 20% (and, in fact, mostly to the top 1% of the
population). The bottom 80% of the population saw their 
wealth grow by 1.2% and their income by 23.7% in the 1980s,
while for the top 20% the respective figures were 98.2%
and 66.3% (the figures for the top 1% were 61.6% and 38.9%,
respectively). [Edward N. Wolff, "How the Pie is Sliced",
_The American Prospect_, no. 22, Summer 1995]

Comparing the claims of von Hayek to what actually happened
after trade union reform and the reduction of class struggle
helps to suggest that the claims that social struggle is 
self-defeating are false (and probably self-serving, 
considering it is usually bosses and employer supported 
parties and economists who make these claims). A *lack* of 
social struggle has been correlated with low economic growth, 
stagnant (even declining) wages and the creation of purely 
paid service jobs to replace highly paid manufacturing ones. 
So while social struggle *may* make capital flee and other
problems, lack of it is no guarantee of prosperity (quite
the reverse, if the last quarter of the 20th century is anything
to go by!). Indeed, a lack of social struggle will make bosses 
be more likely to cut wages, worsen working conditions and so 
on -- after all, they feel they can get away with it! Which 
brings home the fact that "to make their [the working class'] 
victory secure and definitive, it is necessary to destroy 
capitalism." [Errico Malatesta, _Life and Ideas_, p. 191]

Of course, no one can *know* that struggle will make things 
better. It is a guess; no one can predict the future. Not all
struggles are successful and many can be very difficult. If
the "military is a role model for the business world" (in the
words of an ex-CEO of Hill & Knowlton Public Relations [quoted
by John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton in _Toxic Sludge Is Good 
For You!_, p. 47]), and it is, then *any* struggle against it
and other concentrations of power may, and often is, difficult
and dangerous at times. But, as Zapata once said, "better to
die on your feet than live on your knees!" All we can say
is that social struggle can and does improve things and, in
terms of its successes and transforming effect on those
involved, well worth the potential difficulties it can create.
Moreover, without struggle there is little chance of creating
a free society, dependent as it is on individuals who refuse
to bow to authority and have the ability and desire to govern
themselves. In addition, social struggle is always essential,
not only to *win* improvements, but to *keep* them as well.
In order to fully secure improvements you have to abolish 
capitalism and the state. Not to do so means that any reforms
can and will be taken away (and if social struggle does not exist,
they will be taken away sooner rather than later). Ultimately,
most anarchists would argue that social struggle is not an option --
we either do it or we put up with the all the petty (and not so 
petty) impositions of authority. If we do not say "no" then the
powers that be will walk all over us. 

As the history of the last 20 years shows, a lack of social
struggle is fully compatible with worsening conditions. 
Ultimately, if you want to be treated as a human being you
have to stand up for your dignity -- and that means thinking 
and rebelling. As Bakunin often argued, human development
is based on thought and rebellion (see _God and the State_).
Without rebellion, without social struggle, humanity would
stagnant beneath authority forever and never be in a 
position to be free. We would agree wholeheartedly with 
the Abolitionist Frederick Douglass:

"If there is no struggle, there is no progress.  Those who 
profess to favour freedom and yet deprecate agitation are 
people who want crops without plowing up the ground.  They 
want rain without thunder and lightning.  That struggle might 
be a moral one; it might be a physical one; it might be both 
moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes 
nothing without a demand.  It never did and never will. People 
might not get all that they work for in this world, but they    
must certainly work for all they get."                                 

J.4.3 Are the new social movements a positive development for
	anarchists? 
 
When assessing the revolutionary potential of our own era, we must 
note again that modern civilisation is under constant pressure from 
the potential catastrophes of social breakdown, ecological destruction, 
and proliferating weapons of mass destruction. These crises have drawn
attention as never before to the inherently counter-evolutionary nature
of the authoritarian paradigm, making more and more people aware that
the human race is headed for extinction if it persists in outmoded forms 
of thought and behaviour. This awareness produces a favourable climate for 
the reception of new ideas, and thus an opening for radical educational
efforts aimed at creating the mass transformation of consciousness which
must take place alongside the creation of new liberatory institutions.

This receptiveness to new ideas has led to a number of new social
movements in recent years. From the point of view of anarchism, the four
most important of these are perhaps the feminist, ecology, peace, and
social justice movements. Each of these movements contain a great deal 
of anarchist content, particularly insofar as they imply the need for
decentralisation and direct democracy.  Since we have already commented
on the anarchist aspects of the ecology and feminist movements, here 
we will limit our remarks to the peace and social justice movements. 
 
It is clear to many members of the peace movement that international
disarmament, like the liberation of women, saving the planet's
ecosystem, and preventing social breakdown, can never be attained 
without a shift of mass consciousness involving widespread rejection 
of hierarchy, which is based on the authoritarian principles of 
domination and exploitation. As C. George Bennello argued, "[s]ince 
peace involves the positive process of replacing violence by other 
means of settling conflict. . . it can be argued that some sort of 
institutional change is necessary. For if insurgency is satisfied
with specific  reform goals, and does not seek to transform the
institutional structure of society by getting at its centralised
make-up, the war system will probably not go away. This is really
what we should mean by decentralising: making institutions serve
human ends again by getting humans to be responsible at every
level within them." [_From the Ground Up_, p. 31]

When pursued along gender, class, racial, ethnic, or national lines,
these two principles are the primary causes of resentment, hatred, 
anger, and hostility, which often explode into individual or organised 
violence. Therefore, both domestic and international peace depend on
decentralisation, i.e. dismantling hierarchies, thus replacing domination 
and exploitation by the anarchist principles of co-operation, sharing,
and mutual aid. 
 
But direct democracy is the other side of decentralisation. In order for
an organisation to spread power horizontally rather than concentrating
it at the apex of hierarchy, all of its members have to have an equal
voice in making the decisions that affect them. Hence decentralisation
implies direct democracy. So the peace movement implies anarchism,
because world peace is impossible without both decentralisation and 
direct democracy. Moreover, "[s]o long as profits are tied to defence
production, speaking truth to the elites involved is not likely to
get very far" as "it is only within the boundaries of the profit
system that the corporate elites would have any space to move."
[Op. Cit., p. 34] Thus the peace movement implicitly contains a 
libertarian critique of both forms of the power system -- the 
political and economical.

In addition, certain of the practical aspects of the peace movement
also suggest anarchistic elements. The use of non-violent direct
action to protest against the war machine can only be viewed as
a positive development by anarchists. Not only does it use effective,
anarchistic methods of struggle it also radicalises those involved,
making them more receptive to anarchist ideas and analysis (after all,
as Benello correctly argues, the "anarchist perspective has an 
unparalleled relevance today because prevailing nuclear policies 
can be considered as an ultimate stage in the divergence between
the interests of governments and their peoples . . . the implications
when revealed serve to raise fundamental questions regarding the
advisability of entrusting governments with questions of life and
death. . . There is thus a pressing impetus to re-think the role,
scale, and structure of national governments." [Op. Cit., p. 138]). 

If we look at the implications of "nuclear free zones" we can detect 
anarchistic tendencies within them. A nuclear free zone involves a
town or region declaring an end of its association with the nuclear
military industrial complex. They prohibit the research, production,
transportation and deployment of nuclear weapons as well as renouncing
the right to be defended by nuclear power. This movement was popular
in the 1980s, with many areas in Europe and the Pacific Basin 
declaring that they were nuclear free zones. As Benello points out,
"[t]he development of campaigns for nuclear free zones suggests a
strategy which can educate and radicalise local communities. Indeed,
by extending the logic of the nuclear free zone idea, we can 
begin to flesh out a libertarian municipalist perspective which can
help move our communities several steps towards autonomy from both
the central government and the existing corporate system." While
the later development of these initiatives did not have the 
radicalising effects that Benello hoped for, they did "represent
a local initiative that does not depend on the federal government
for action. Thus it is a step toward local empowerment. . . Steps
that increase local autonomy change the power relations between
the centre and its colonies. . . The nuclear free zone movement
has a thrust which is clearly congruent with anarchist ideas. . .
The same motives which go into the declaration of a nuclear free
zone would dictate that in other areas where the state and the
corporate systems services are dysfunctional and involve
excessive costs, they should be dispensed with." [Op. Cit., 
p. 137, pp. 140-1]

The social justice movement is composed of people seeking fair and
compassionate solutions to problems such as poverty, unemployment,
economic exploitation, discrimination, poor housing, lack of health
insurance, wealth and income inequalities, and the like. Such concerns
have traditionally been associated with the left, especially with
socialism and trade-unionism. Recently, however, many radicals have 
begun to perceive the limitations of both Marxist-Leninist and
traditional trade-unionist solutions to social justice problems, 
particularly insofar as these solutions involve hierarchical 
organisations and authoritarian values. 
  
Following the widespread disillusionment with statism and centrally
planned economies generated by the failure of "Communism" in the
ex-Soviet Union and Eastern European nations, many radicals, while
retaining their commitment to social justice issues, have been searching
for new approaches. And in doing so they've been drawn into alliances
with ecologists, feminists, and members of the peace movement. (This has
occurred particularly among the German Greens, many of whom are former
Marxists. So far, however, few of the latter have declared themselves to
be anarchists, as the logic of the ecology movement requires.) 
  
It is not difficult to show that the major problems concerning the
social justice movement can all be traced back to the hierarchy and 
domination. For, given the purpose of hierarchy, the highest priority 
of the elites who control the state is necessarily to maintain their 
own power and privileges, regardless of the suffering involved for 
subordinate classes. 

Today, in the aftermath of 12 years of especially single-minded pursuit 
of this priority by two Republican administrations, the United States, 
for example, is reaping the grim harvest: armies of the homeless 
wandering the streets; social welfare budgets slashed to the bone 
as poverty, unemployment, and underemployment grow; sweatshops 
mushrooming in the large cities; over 43 million Americans without 
any health insurance; obscene wealth inequalities; and so on. This 
decay promises to accelerate in the US during the coming years, now 
that Republicans control both houses of Congress. Britain under the
neo-liberal policies of Thatcher and Major has experienced a social 
deterioration similar to that in the US. 
  
In short, social injustice is inherent in the exploitative functions 
of the state, which are made possible by the authoritarian form of 
state institutions and of the state-complex as a whole. Similarly, the 
authoritarian form of the corporation (and capitalist companies in
general) gives rise to social injustice as unfair income differentials 
and wealth disparity between owners/management and labour. 

Hence the success of the social justice movement, like that of the
feminist, ecology, and peace movements, depends on dismantling
hierarchies. This means not only that these movement all imply 
anarchism but that they are related in such a way that it's 
impossible to conceive one of them achieving its goals in 
isolation from any of the others. 
 
To take just one example, let's consider the relationship between
social justice and peace, which can be seen by examining a specific
social justice issue: labour rights. 

As Dimitrios Roussopoulos points out, the production of advanced 
weapons systems is highly profitable for capitalists, which is why 
more technologically complex and precise weapons keep getting 
built with government help (with the public paying the tab by way
of rising taxes). 

Now, we may reasonably argue that it's a fundamental human right 
to be able to choose freely whether or not one will personally 
contribute to the production of technologies that could lead to 
the extinction of the human race. Yet because of the authoritarian 
form of the capitalist corporation, rank-and-file workers have 
virtually no say in whether the companies for which they work will
produce such technologies. (To the objection that workers can always
quit if they don't like company policy, the reply is that they may not 
be able to find other work and therefore that the choice is not free but
coerced.) Hence the only way that ordinary workers can obtain the right
to be consulted on life-or-death company policies is to control the
production process themselves, through self-management. 
 
But we can't expect real self-management to emerge from the present
labour relations system in which centralised unions bargain with 
employers for "concessions" but never for a dissolution of the 
authoritarian structure of the corporation. As Roussopoulos puts it, 
self-management, by definition, must be struggled for locally by 
workers themselves at the grassroots level: 

"Production for need and use will not come from the employer. The 
owners of production in a capitalist society will never begin to 
take social priorities into account in the production process. 
The pursuit of ever greater profits is not compatible with social
justice and responsibility." [_Dissidence_]

For these reasons, the peace and social justice movements 
are fundamentally linked through their shared need for a 
worker-controlled economy.  
  
We should also note in this context that the impoverished ghetto
environments in which the worst victims of social injustice are forced
to live tends to desensitise them to human pain and suffering -- a
situation that is advantageous for military recruiters, who are thereby 
able to increase the ranks of the armed forces with angry, brutalised,
violence-prone individuals who need little or no extra conditioning to
become the remorseless killers prized by the military command. Moreover,
extreme poverty makes military service one of the few legal economic
options open to such individuals. These considerations illustrate
further links between the peace and social justice movements -- and 
between those movements and anarchism, which is the conceptual 
"glue" that can potentially unite all the new social movement in a 
single anti-authoritarian coalition.
 
J.4.4 What is the "economic structural crisis"?

There is an ongoing structural crisis in the global capitalist
economy. Compared to the post-war "Golden Age" of 1950 to 1973,
the period from 1974 has seen a continual worsening in economic 
performance in the West and for Japan. For example, growth is 
lower, unemployment is far higher, labour productivity lower 
as is investment. Average rates of unemployment in the major 
industrialised countries have risen sharply since 1973, 
especially after 1979. Unemployment "in the advanced capitalist 
countries (the 'Group of 7'. . .) increased by 56 per cent 
between 1973 and 1980 (from an average 3.4 per cent to 5.3 
per cent of the labour force) and by another 50 per cent since
then (from 5.3 per cent of the labour force in 1980 to 8.0 per
cent in 19994)." [Takis Fotopoulos, _Towards and Inclusive 
Democracy_, p. 35] Job insecurity has increased (in the USA,
for example, there is the most job insecurity since the
depression of the 1930s [Op. Cit., p. 141]). In addition, 
both national economies and the international economy have 
become far less stable.

This crisis is not confined to the economy. It extends into
the ecological and the social. "In recent years," point out
Larry Elliot and Dan Atkinson, "some radical economics have
tried to [create] . . . an all-embracing measure of well-being
called the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare [ISEW] . . . 
In the 1950s and 1960s the ISEW rose in tandem with per
capita GDP. It was a time not just of rising incomes, but of
greater social equity, low crime, full employment and expanding
welfare states. But from the mid-1970s onwards the two measures
started to move apart. GDP per head continued its inexorable
rise, but the ISEW start to decline as a result of lengthening
dole queues, social exclusion, the explosion in crime, habitat 
loss, environmental degradation and the growth of environment-
and stress-related illness. By the start of the 1990s, the
ISEW was almost back to the levels at which it started in the
early 1990s." [_The Age of Insecurity_, p. 248] Which indicates
well our comments in section C.10, namely that economic factors 
cannot, and do not, indicate human happiness. However, here we
discuss economic factors. This does not imply that the social
and ecological crises are unimportant or are reducible to the
economy. Far from it. We concentrate on the economic factor
simply because this is the factor usually stressed by the 
establishment and it is useful to indicate the divergence of
reality and hype we are currently being subjected to.

Ironically enough, as Robert Brenner points out, "as the 
neo-classical medicine has been administered in even stronger
doses [since the 1960s], the economy has performed steadily 
less well. The 1970s were worse than the 1960s, the 1980s worse 
than the 1970s, and the 1990s have been worse than the 1980s." 
["The Economics of Global Turbulence", _New Left Review_, 
no. 229, p. 236] This is ironic because during the crisis 
of Keynesianism in the 1970s the right argued that too much 
equality and democracy harmed the economy, and so us all in the
long run (due to lower growth, sluggish investment and so on).
However, after over a decade of pro-capitalist governments, 
rising inequality, increased freedom for capital and its owners 
and managers, the weakening of trade unions and so on, economic
performance has become worse! 

If we look at the USA in the 1990s (usually presented as an 
economy that "got it right") we find that the "cyclical upturn 
of the 1990s has, in terms of the main macro-economic indicators 
of growth -- output, investment, productivity, and real compensation 
--  has been even less dynamic than its relatively weak predecessors 
of the 1980s and the 1970s (not to mention those of the 1950s and 
1960s)." [Op. Cit., p. 5] Of course, the economy is presented as 
a success because inequality is growing, the rich are getting 
richer and wealth is concentrating into fewer and fewer hands. 
For the rich and finance capital, it can be considered a "Golden 
Age" and so is presented as such by the media. Indeed, it is for 
this reason that it may be wrong to term this slow rot a "crisis" 
as it is hardly one for the ruling elite. Their share in social 
wealth, power and income has steadily increased over this period. 
For the majority it is undoubtedly a crisis (the term "silent 
depression" has been accurately used to describe this) but for 
those who run the system it has by no means been a crisis.

Indeed, the only countries which saw substantial and dynamic
growth after 1973 where those which used state intervention to 
violate the eternal "laws" of neo-classical economics, namely 
the South East Asian countries (in this they followed the 
example of Japan which had used state intervention to grow 
at massive rates after the war). Of course, before the economic 
crisis of 1997, "free market" capitalists argued that these 
countries were classic examples of "free market" economies. For 
example, right-wing icon F.A von Hayek asserted that "South 
Korea and other newcomers" had "discovered the benefits of 
free markets" when, in fact, they had done nothing of the kind 
["1980s Unemployment and the Unions" reproduced in _The Economic 
Decline of Modern Britain_, p. 113]. More recently, in 1995, the 
_Heritage Foundation_ released its index of economic freedom. Four 
of the top seven countries were Asian, including Japan and Taiwan. 
All the Asian countries struggling just four years latter were 
qualified as "free." However, as Takis Fotopoulos argues, "it 
was not *laissez-faire* policies that induced their spectacular 
growth. As a number of studies have shown, the expansion of the 
Asian Tigers was based on massive state intervention that boosted 
their export sectors, by public policies involving not only heavy
protectionism but even deliberate distortion of market prices
to stimulate investment and trade." [Op. Cit., p. 115] After 
the crisis, the free-marketeers discovered the statism that 
had always been there and danced happily on the grave of what 
used to be called "the Asian miracle."

Such hypocrisy is truly sickening and smacks of a 
Stalinist/Orwellian desire to re-write history so 
as to appear always right. Moreover, such a cynical 
analysis actually undermines their own case for the 
wonders of the "free market." After all, until the 
crisis appeared, the world's investors -- which is to 
say "the market" -- saw nothing but blue skies ahead 
for these economies. They showed their faith by shoving 
billions into Asian equity markets, while foreign banks 
contentedly handed out billions in loans. If Asia's problems 
are systemic and the result of these countries' statist 
policies, then investors' failure to recognise this earlier 
is a blow against the market, not for it. 

Still more perverse is that, even as the supporters of 
"free-market" capitalism conclude that history is 
rendering its verdict on the Asian model of capitalism, 
they seem to forget that until the recent crisis they 
themselves took great pains to deny that such a model 
existed. Until Asia fell apart, supporters of "free-market" 
capitalism happily held it up as proof that the only 
recipe for economic growth was open markets and 
non-intervention on the part of the state. Needless 
to say, this re-writing of history will be placed 
down the memory-hole, along with any other claims 
which have subsequently been proved utter nonsense.

So, as can be seen, the global economy has been marked by an 
increasing stagnation, the slowing down of growth, in the 
western economies (for example, the 1990s business upswing 
has been the weakest since the end of the Second World War). 
This is despite (or, more likely, *because of*) the free 
market reforms imposed and the deregulation of finance capital 
(we say "because of" simply because neo-classical economics 
argue that pro-market reforms would increase growth and improve 
the economy, but as we argued in section C such economics have 
little basis in reality and so their recommendations are hardly 
going to produce positive results). Of course as the ruling 
class have been doing well in this New World Order this 
underlying slowdown has been ignored and obviously 

In recent years crisis (particularly financial crisis) has become 
increasingly visible, reflecting (finally) the underlying 
weakness of the global economy. This underlying weakness has
been hidden by the speculator performance of the world's
stock markets, whose performance, ironically enough, have
helped create that weakness to begin with! As one expert on
Wall Street argues, "Bond markets . . . hate economic strength
. . . Stocks generally behave badly just as the real economy
is at its strongest. . . Stocks thrive on a cool economy, and
wither in a hot one." [_Wall Street_, p. 124] In other words,
real economic weakness is reflected in financial strength.

Henwood also notes that "[w]hat might be called the rentier
share of the corporate surplus -- dividends plus interest as
a percentage of pre-tax profits and interest -- has risen 
sharply, from 20-30% in the 1950s to 60% in the 1990s." [Op.
Cit., p. 73] This helps explain the stagnation which has
afflicted the economies of the west. The rich have been
placing more of their ever-expanding wealth in stocks, 
allowing this market to rise in the face of general economic
torpor. Rather than being used for investment, surplus is
being funnelled into the finance markets, markets which 
do concentrate wealth very successfully (retained earnings
in the US have decreased as interest and dividend payments 
have increased [Brenner, Op. Cit., p. 210]). Given that "the
US financial system performs dismally at its advertised
task, that of efficiently directing society's savings
towards their optimal investment pursuits. The system is
stupefyingly expensive, gives terrible signals for
the allocation of capital, and has surprisingly little 
to do with real investment." [Op. Cit., p. 3] As most
investment comes from internal funds, the rise in the
rentiers (those who derive their incomes from returns
on capital) share of the surplus has meant less investment
and so the stagnation of the economy. And the weakening
economy has increased financial strength, which in turn 
leads to a weakening in the real economy. A viscous circle,
and one reflected in the slowing of economic growth over
the last 30 years.

In effect, especially since the end of the 1970s, has seen
the increasing dominance of finance capital. This dominance
has, in effect, created a market for government policies as 
finance capital has become increasingly global in nature.
Governments must secure, protect and expand the field of
profit-making for financial capital and transnational 
corporations, otherwise they will be punished by the global
markets (i.e. finance capital). These policies have been
at the expense of the underlying economy in general, and 
of the working class in particular:

"Rentier power was directed at labour, both organised and 
unorganised ranks of wage earners, because it regarded rising 
wages as a principal threat to the stable order. For obvious 
reasons, this goal was never stated very clearly, but financial
markets understood the centrality of the struggle: protecting
the value of their capital required the suppression of labour 
incomes." [William Greider, _One World, Ready or Not_, p. 302] 

Of course, industrial capital *also* hates labour, so there 
is a basis of an alliance between the two sides of capital, 
even if they do disagree over the specifics of the economic 
policies implemented. Given that a key aspect of the neo-liberal
reforms was the transformation of the labour market from a 
post-war sellers' market to a nineteenth century buyers' 
market, with its effects on factory discipline, wage claims
and proneness to strike, industrial capital could not but be
happy with its effects. Doug Henwood correctly argues that
"Liberals and populists often search for potential allies
among industrialists, reasoning that even if financial
interests suffer in a boom, firms that trade in real, rather
than fictitious, products would thrive when growth is strong.
In general, industrialists are less sympathetic to these
arguments. Employers in any industry like slack in the labour
market; it makes for a pliant workforce, one unlikely to make
demands or resist speedups." In addition, "many non-financial 
corporations have heavy financial interests." [Op. Cit., p. 123,
p. 135]

Thus the general stagnation afflicting much of the world, a 
stagnation which has developed into crisis as the needs of 
finance have undermined the real economy which, ultimately, 
it is dependent upon. The contradiction between short term
profits and long term survival inherent in capitalism strikes
again.

Crisis, as we have noted above, has appeared in areas previously 
considered as strong economies and it has been spreading. An 
important aspect of this crisis is the tendency for productive 
capacity to outstrip effective demand (i.e. the tendency to 
over-invest relative to the available demand), which arises in 
large part from the imbalance between capitalists' need for a 
high rate of profit and their simultaneous need to ensure that 
workers have enough wealth and income so that they can keep 
buying the products on which those profits depend (see section 
C). Inequality has been increasing in the USA, which means that
the economy faces as realisation crisis (see section C.7), a
crisis which has so far been avoided by deepening debt for 
working people (debt levels more than doubled between the 
1950s to the 1990s, from 25% to over 60%).

Over-investment has been magnified in the East-Asian Tigers 
as they were forced to open their economies to global finance.
These economies, due to their intervention in the market
(and repressive regimes against labour) ensured they were
a more profitable place to invest than elsewhere. Capital 
flooded into the area, ensuring a relative over-investment
was inevitable. As we argued in section C.7.2, crisis is
possible simply due to the lack of information provided
by the price mechanism -- economic agents can react in
such a way that the collective result of individually 
rational decisions is irrational. Thus the desire to
reap profits in the Tiger economies resulted in a squeeze
in profits as the aggregate investment decisions resulted
in over-investment, and so over-production and falling
profits.

In effect, the South East Asian economies suffered from a
problem termed the "fallacy of composition." When you are
the first Asian export-driven economy, you are competing
with high-cost Western producers and so your cheap workers,
low taxes and lax environmental laws allow you to under-cut
your competitors and make profits. However, as more tigers
joined into the market, they end up competing against *each
other* and so their profit margins would decrease towards
their actual cost price rather than that of Western firms.
With the decrease in profits, the capital that flowed
into the region flowed back out, thus creating a crisis
(and proving, incidentally, that free markets are 
destabilising and do not secure the best of all possible 
outcomes). Thus, the rentier regime, after weakening the 
Western economies, helped destabilise the Eastern ones too. 

So, in the short-run, many large corporations and financial
companies solved their profit problems by expanding production 
into "underdeveloped" countries so as to take advantage of the 
cheap labour there (and the state repression which ensured that 
cheapness) along with weaker environmental laws and lower taxes. 
Yet gradually they are running out of third-world populations to 
exploit. For the very process of "development" stimulated by the 
presence of Transnational Corporations in third-world nations 
increases competition and so, potentially, over-investment and, 
even more importantly, produces resistance in the form of unions, 
rebellions and so on, which tend to exert a downward pressure on 
the level of exploitation and profits (for example, in South Korea, 
labour' share in value-added increased from 23 to 30 per cent,
in stark contrast to the USA, Germany and Japan, simply because
Korean workers had rebelled and won new political freedoms).
 
This process reflects, in many ways, the rise of finance capital
in the 1970s. In the 1950s and 1960s, existing industrialised
nations experienced increased competition from the ex-Axis powers
(namely Japan and Germany). As these nations re-industrialised,
they placed increased pressure on the USA and other nations,
reducing the global "degree of monopoly" and forcing them to
compete with lower cost producers (which, needless to say, 
reduced the existing companies profits). In addition, full
employment produced increasing resistance on the shop floor
and in society as a whole (see section C.7.1), squeezing 
profits even more. Thus a combination of class struggle and
global over-capacity resulted in the 1970s crisis. With the
inability of the real economy, especially the manufacturing
sector, to provide an adequate return, capital shifted into
finance. In effect, it ran away from the success of working
people asserting their rights at the point of production and
elsewhere. This, combined with increased international 
competition from Japan and Germany, ensured the rise of
finance capital, which in return ensured the current 
stagnationist tendencies in the economy (tendencies made 
worse by the rise of the Asian Tiger economies in the 1980s). 

From the contradictions between finance capital and the real
economy, between capitalists' need for profit and human needs,
between over-capacity and demand, and others, there has emerged
what appears to be a long-term trend toward *permanent* stagnation 
of the capitalist economy.  This trend has been apparent for several 
decades, as evidenced by the continuous upward adjustment of the 
rate of unemployment officially considered to be "normal" or 
"acceptable" during those decades, and by other symptoms as
well such as falling growth, lower rates of profit and so on.

This stagnation has recently become even more obvious by the
development of crisis in many countries and the reactions of
central banks trying to revive the real economies that have
suffered under their rentier inspired policies. Whether this
crisis will become worse is hard to say. The Western powers
may act to protect the real economy by adopting the Keynesian
policies they have tried to discredit over the last thirty
years. However, whether such a bailout will succeed is 
difficult to tell and may just ensure continued stagnation
rather than a real up-turn, if it has any effect at all. 

Of course, a deep depression may solve the problem of 
over-capacity and over-investment in the world and lay 
the foundations of an up-turn. Such a strategy is, however,
very dangerous due to working class resistance it could
provoke, the deepness of the slump and the length it
could last for. However, this, perhaps, has been the 
case in the USA in 1997-9 where over 20 years of one-sided 
class war may have paid off in terms of higher profits 
and profit rate. However, this may have more to do with 
the problems elsewhere in the world than a real economic 
change, in addition to rising consumer debt (there is now
negative personal savings rate in the US), a worsening
trade deficit and a stock market bubble. In addition, 
rising productivity has combined with stagnant wages to
increase the return to capital and the profit rate (wages
fell over much of the 1990s recovery and finally regained 
their pre-recession 1989 peak in 1999! Despite 8 years
of economic growth, the typical worker is back only where
they started at the peak of the last business cycle). This
drop and slow growth of wages essentially accounts for the 
rising US profit rate, with the recent growth in real wages 
being hardly enough to make much of an impact (although it
has made the US Federal Reserve increase interest rates to
slow down even this increase, which re-enforces our argument
that capitalist profits require unemployment and insecurity
to maintain capitalist power at the point of production).

Such a situation reflects 1920s America (see section C.7.3 
for details) which was also marked by rising inequality, a 
labour surplus and rising profits and suggests that the new 
US economy faces the same potential for a slump. This means 
that the US economy must face the danger of over-investment 
(relative to demand, of course) sooner or later, perhaps sooner 
due to the problems elsewhere in the world as a profits-lead
growth economy is fragile as it is dependent on investment, 
luxury spending and working class debt to survive -- all 
of which are more unstable and vulnerable to shocks than 
workers' consumption.
 
Given the difficulties in predicting the future (and the
fact that those who try are usually proven totally wrong!), 
we will not pretend to know it and leave our discussion at 
highlighting a few possibilities. One thing is true, however, 
and that is the working class will pay the price of any 
"solution" -- unless they organise and get rid of capitalism 
and the state. Ultimately, capitalism need profits to survive 
and such profits came from the fact that workers do not have 
economic liberty. Thus any "solution" within a capitalist
framework means the increased oppression and exploitation
of working people.

Faced with negative balance sheets during recessions, the 
upper strata occasionally panic and agree to some reforms, 
some distribution of wealth, which temporarily solves 
the short-run problem of stagnation by increasing demand 
and thus permits renewed expansion. However, this 
short-run solution means that the working class gradually 
makes economic and political gains, so that exploitation and
oppresion, and hence the rate of profit, tends to fall (as
happened during the post-war Keynesian "Golden Age"). Faced 
with the dangers of, on the one hand, economic collapse and, 
on the other, increased working class power, the ruling class 
may not act until it is too late. So, on the basis that the 
current crisis may get worse and stagnation turn into depression, 
we will discuss why the "economic structural crisis" we have 
lived through for the later quarter of the 20th century (and its
potential crisis) is important to social struggle in the next 
section.

J.4.5	Why is this "economic structural crisis" important to social 
	struggle?

The "economic structural crisis" we out-lined in the last section
has certain implications for anarchists and social struggle. 
Essentially, as C. George Benello argues, "[i]f economic conditions 
worsen. . . then we are likely to find an openness to alternatives 
which have not been thought of since the depression of the 1930s. . . 
It is important to plan for a possible economic crisis, since it
is not only practical, but also can serve as a method of mobilising
a community in creative ways." [_From the Ground Up_, p. 149]

In the face of economic stagnation and depression, attempts to
improve the rate of exploitation (i.e. increase profits) by 
increasing the authority of the boss grow. In addition, more 
people find it harder to make ends meet, running up debts 
to survive, face homelessness if they are made unemployed, and 
so on. Such effects make exploitation ever more visible and tend 
to push oppressed strata together in movements that seek to mitigate,
and even remove, their oppression.  As the capitalist era has worn 
on, these strata have become increasingly able to rebel and gain
substantial political and economic improvements, which have, in
addition, lead to an increasingly willing to do so because of 
rising expectations (about what is possible) and frustration
(about what actually is). This is why, since 1945, the world-wide 
"family" of progressive movements has grown "ever stronger, ever 
bolder, ever more diverse, ever more difficult to contain." 
[Immanuel Wallerstein, _Geopolitics and Geoculture_, p. 110] It 
is true that libertarians, the left and labour have suffered a 
temporary setback during the past few decades, but with 
increasing misery of the working class due to neo-liberal 
policies (and the "economic structural crisis" they create), 
it is only a matter of time before there is a resurgence of 
radicalism. 

Anarchists will be in the forefront of this resurgence. For, 
with the discrediting of authoritarian state capitalism 
("Communism") in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, the 
anti-authoritarian faction of the left will increasingly be 
seen as its only credible one. Thus the ongoing structural 
crisis of the global capitalist economy, combined with the 
other developments springing from what Takis Fotopoulos calls 
(in his book _Towards and Inclusive Democracy_) a "multidimensional 
crisis" (which included economic, political, social, ecological 
and ideological aspects), could (potentially) lead over the next 
decade or two to a new *international* anti-authoritarian alliance 
linking together the new (and not so new) social movements in 
the West (feminism, the Green movement, rank-and-file labour 
militancy, etc.) with non-authoritarian liberation movements 
in the Third World and new anti-bureaucracy movements in 
formerly "communist" countries. However, this is only likely 
to happen if anarchists take the lead in promoting alternatives 
and working with the mass of the population. Ways in which
anarchist can do this are discussed in some detail in section J.5.

Thus the "economic structural crisis" can aid social struggle by
placing the contrast of "what is" with what "could be" in a clear 
light. Any crisis brings forth the contradictions in capitalism,
between the production of use values (things people need) and of 
exchange value (capitalist profits), between capitalism's claims
of being based on liberty and the authoritarianism associated with
wage labour ("[t]he general evidence of repression poses an ancient
contradiction for capitalism: while it claims to promote human
freedom, it profits concretely from the denial of freedom, most
especially freedom for the workers employed by capitalist 
enterprise" [William Greider, _One World, Ready or Not_, p. 388]) 
and so on. It shakes to the bone popular faith in capitalism's 
ability to "deliver the goods" and gets more and more people 
thinking about alternatives to a system that places profit 
above and before people and planet. The crisis also, by its 
very nature, encourages workers and other oppressed sections 
of the population to resist and fight back, which in turn 
generates collective organisation (such as unions or 
workplace-based assemblies and councils), solidarity 
and direct action -- in other words, collective self-help
and the awareness that the problems of working class people
can only be solved by themselves, by their own actions
and organisations. The 1930s in the USA is a classic example 
of this process, with very militant struggles taking place 
in very difficult situations (see Howard Zinn's _A People's 
History of the United States_ or Jeremy Brecher's _Strike!_ 
for details). 

In other words, the "economic structural crisis" gives 
radicals a lot potential to get their message across,
even if the overall environment may make success seem 
difficult in the extreme at times!

As well as encouraging workplace organisation due to the
intensification of exploitation and authority provoked by
the economic stagnant/depression, the "economic structural 
crisis" can encourage other forms of libertarian alternatives.
For example, "the practical effect of finance capital's 
hegemony was to lock the advanced economies and their
governments in a malignant spiral, restricting them to bad
choices. Like bondholders in general, the new governing 
consensus explicitly assumed that faster economic growth was
dangerous -- threatening to the stable financial order -- 
so nations were effectively blocked from measures that might
reduce permanent unemployment or ameliorate the decline in
wages. . . The reality of slow growth, in turn, drove the
governments into their deepening indebtedness, since the
disappointing growth inevitably undermined tax revenues
while it expanded the public welfare costs. The rentier
regime repeatedly instructed governments to reform their
spending priorities -- that is, withdraw benefits from 
dependent citizens. . . " [Op. Cit., pp. 297-8]

Thus the "economic structural crisis" has resulted in the
erosion of the welfare state (at least for the working class,
for the elite, state aid is never far away). This development
as potential libertarian possibilities. "The decline of the 
state," argues L. Gambone, "makes necessary a revitalisation 
of the notions of direct action and mutual aid. Without 
Mama State to do it for us, we must create our own social 
services through mutual aid societies." [_Syndicalism in Myth
and Reality_, p. 12] As we argue in more depth in section J.5.16,
such a movement of mutual aid has a long history in the working 
class and, as it is under our control, it cannot be withdrawn
from us to enrich and empower the ruling class as state run 
systems have been. Thus the decline of state run social services
could, potentially, see the rise of a network of self-managed,
working class alternatives (equally, of course, it could see the
end of all services to the most weak sections of our society -- which
possibility comes about depends on what we do in the here and now.
see section J.5.15 for an anarchist analysis of the welfare state).

_Food Not Bombs!_ is an excellent example of practical libertarian
alternatives being generated by the economic crisis we are facing.
Food Not Bombs helps the homeless through the direct action of its 
members. It also involves the homeless in helping themselves. It 
is a community-based group which helps other people in the community 
who are needy by providing free food to those in need. FNB! also 
helps other Anarchist political projects and activities.

Food Not Bombs! serves free food in public places to dramatise 
the plight of the homeless, the callousness of the system and 
our capacity to solve social problems through our own actions 
without government or capitalism. The constant harassment of 
FNB! by the cops, middle classes and the government illustrates 
their callousness to the plight of the poor and the failure of 
their institutions to build a society which cares for people 
more than money and property (and arms, cops and prisons to 
protect them). The fact is that in the US many working and 
unemployed people have no *feeling* that they are entitled 
to basic human needs such as medicine, clothes, shelter, 
and food. Food Not Bombs! does encourage poor people to make 
these demands, does provide a space in which these demands can 
be voiced, and does help to breakdown the wall between hungry 
and not-hungry. The repression directed towards FNB! by local
police forces and governments also demonstrates the effectiveness 
of their activity and the possibility that it may radicalise 
those who get involved with the organisation. Charity is 
obviously one thing, mutual aid is something else. FNB! as 
it is a politicised movement from below, based on solidarity, 
is *not* charity, because, in Kropotkin's words, charity "bears 
a character of inspiration from above, and, accordingly, 
implies a certain superiority of the giver upon the receiver" 
and hardly libertarian [_Mutual Aid_, p. 222]. 

The last example of how economic stagnation can generate 
libertarian tendencies can be seen from the fact that, 
"[h]istorically, at times of severe inflation or capital
shortages, communities have been forced to rely on their own
resources. During the Great Depression, many cities printed
their own currency; this works to the extent that a community
is able to maintain a viable internal economy which provides
the necessities of life, independent of transactions with
the outside." [C. George Benello, Op. Cit., p. 150]

These local currencies and economies can be used as the basis
of a libertarian socialist economy. The currencies would be
the basis of a mutual bank (see sections J.5.5 and J.5.6), 
providing interest-free loans to workers to form co-operatives 
and so build libertarian alternatives to capitalist firms. In 
addition, these local currencies could be labour-time based, 
eliminating the profits of capitalists by allowing workers to 
exchange the product of their labour with other workers. 
Moreover, "local exchange systems strength local communities by 
increasing their self-reliance, empowering community members, 
and helping to protect them from the excesses of the global 
market." [Frank Lindenfield, "Economics for Anarchists," 
_Social Anarchism_, no. 23, p. 24] In this way local 
self-managing communes could be created, communes that 
replace hierarchical, top-down, government with collective
decision making of community affairs based on directly democratic
community assemblies (see section J.5.1). These self-governing 
communities and economies could federate together to co-operate
on a wider scale and so create a counter-power to that of
state and capitalism.

This confederal system of self-managing communities could also
protect jobs as the "globalisation of capital threatens local 
industries. A way has to be found to keep capital at home and 
so preserve the jobs and the communities that depend upon 
them. Protectionism is both undesirable and unworkable. But 
worker-ownership or workers' co-operatives are alternatives."
[L. Gambone, _Syndicalism in Myth and Reality_, pp.12-13] Local
communities could provide the necessary support structures
which could protect co-operatives from the corrupting effects
of working in the capitalist market (see section J.5.11). In
this way, economic liberty (self-management) could replace
capitalism (wage slavery) and show that anarchism is a practical
alternative to the chaos and authoritarianism of capitalism,
even if these examples are fragmentally and limited in nature.

However, these developments should *not* be taken in isolation
of collective struggle in the workplace or community. It is in
the class struggle that the real potential for anarchy is 
created. The work of such organisations as Food Not Bombs! 
and the creation of local currencies and co-operatives are 
supplementary to the important task of creating workplace
and community organisations that can create effective resistance
to both state and capitalists, resistance that can overthrow
both (see sections J.5.2 and J.5.1 respectively). "Volunteer 
and service credit systems and alternative currencies by 
themselves may not be enough to replace the corporate capitalist
system. Nevertheless, they can help build the economic strength
of local currencies, empower local residents, and mitigate some
of the consequences of poverty and unemployment. . . By the
time a majority [of a community are involved it] will be well
on its way to becoming a living embodiment of many anarchist
ideals." [Frank Lindenfield, Op. Cit., p. 28] And such a community
would be a great aid in any strike or other social struggle 
which is going on!

Therefore, the general economic crisis which we are facing
has implications for social struggle and anarchist activism.
It could be the basic of libertarian alternatives in our
workplaces and communities, alternatives based on direct 
action, solidarity and self-management. These alternatives
could include workplace and community unionism, co-operatives,
mutual banks and other forms of anarchistic resistance to 
capitalism and the state. We discuss such alternatives in
more detail in section J.5, and so do not do so here.

Before moving on to the next section, we must stress that 
we are *not* arguing that working class people need an 
economic crisis to force them into struggle. Such 
"objectivism" (i.e. the placing of tendencies towards 
socialism in the development of capitalism, of objective 
factors, rather than in the class struggle, i.e. subjective 
factors) is best left to orthodox Marxists and Leninists 
as it has authoritarian underpinnings (see section H). 
Rather we are aware that the class struggle, the 
subjective pressure on capitalism, is not independent 
of the conditions within which it takes place (and 
helped to create, we must add). Subjective revolt is 
always present under capitalism and, in the case of 
the 1970s crisis, played a role in creating it. 
Faced with an economic crisis we are indicating what 
we can do in response to it and how it could, 
potentially, generate libertarian tendencies within 
society. Economic crisis could, in other words, provoke 
social struggle, collective action and generate anarchic 
tendencies in society. Equally, it could cause apathy, 
rejection of collective struggle and, perhaps, the 
embracing of *false* "solutions" such as right-wing 
populism, Leninism, Fascism or right-wing "libertarianism." 
We cannot predict how the future will develop, but it is 
true that if we do nothing then, obviously, libertarian 
tendencies will not grow and develop.

J.4.6 What are implications of anti-government and anti-big business 
      feelings?

According to a report in _Newsweek_ ("The Good Life and its Discontents"
Jan. 8, 1996), feelings of disappointment have devastated faith in
government and big business. Here are the results of a survey in which
which people were asked whether they had a "great deal of confidence" in
various institutions:  

                        1966           1975           1985            1994

Congress              	42%            13%            16%              8%  
Executive Branch       	41%            13%            15%             12%   
The press              	29%            26%            16%             13%  
Major Companies        	55%            19%            17%             19%

As can be seen, the public's faith in major companies plunged 36% over a
28-year period in the survey, an even worse vote of "no confidence" than
that given to  Congress (34%).  

Some of the feelings of disappointment with government can be blamed 
on the anti-big-government rhetoric of conservatives and right-wing
populists. But such rhetoric is of potential benefit to anarchists as
well. Of course the Right would never dream of *really* dismantling the
state, as is evident from the fact that government grew more bureaucratic
and expensive under "conservative" administrations than ever before.  

Needless to say, this "decentralist" element of right-wing rhetoric
is a con. When a politician, economist or business "leader" argues that 
the government is too big, he is rarely thinking of the same government
functions you are. You may be thinking of subsidies for tobacco farmers
or defence firms and they are thinking about pollution controls. You may 
be thinking of reforming welfare for the better, while their idea is to 
dismantle the welfare state totally. Moreover, with their support for
"family values", "wholesome" television, bans on abortion, and so on 
their victory would see an increased level of government intrusion in
many personal spheres (as well as increased state support for the power
of the boss over the worker, the landlord over the tenant and so on). 

If you look at what the Right has done and is doing, rather than what 
it is saying, you quickly see the ridiculous of claims of right-wing
"libertarianism" (as well as who is really in charge). Obstructing pollution 
and health regulations; defunding product safety laws; opening national 
parks to logging and mining, or closing them entirely; reducing taxes for 
the rich; eliminating the capital gains tax; allowing companies to fire 
striking workers; making it easier for big telecommunications companies
to make money; limiting companies' liability for unsafe products-- the 
program here is obviously to help big business do what it wants without 
government interference, and to help the rich get richer. In other
words, increased "freedom" for private power combined with a state
whose role is to protect that "liberty."

Yet along with the pro-business, pro-private tyranny, racist, 
anti-feminist, and homophobic hogwash disseminated by right-wing 
radio propagandists and the business-backed media, important 
decentralist and anti-statist ideas are also being implanted 
in mass consciousness.  These ideas, if consistently pursued
and applied in all areas of life (the home, the community, the
workplace), could lead to a revival of anarchism in the US -- but 
only if radicals take advantage of this opportunity to spread the 
message that capitalism is not *genuinely* anti-authoritarian (nor 
could it ever be), as a social system based on liberty must entail. 

This does not mean that right-wing tendencies have anarchistic 
elements. Of course not. Nor does it mean that anarchist fortunes
are somehow linked to the success of the right. Far from it (the
reverse is actually the case). Similarly, the anti-big government 
propaganda of big business is hardly anarchistic. But it does 
have the advantage of placing certain ideas on the agenda, such 
as decentralisation. What anarchists try to do is point out the 
totally contradictory nature of such right-wing rhetoric. After 
all, the arguments against big government are equally applicable 
to big business and wage slavery. *If* people are capable of 
making their own decisions, then why should this capability 
be denied in the workplace? As Noam Chomsky points out, while 
there is a "leave it alone" and "do your own thing" current
within society, it in fact "tells you that the propaganda system 
is working full-time, because there is no such ideology in the 
U.S. Business, for example, doesn't believe it. It has always 
insisted upon a powerful interventionist state to support its 
interests -- still does and always has -- back to the origins 
of American society. There's nothing individualistic about 
corporations. Those are big conglomerate institutions, 
essentially totalitarian in character, but hardly individualistic. 
Within them you're a cog in a big machine. There are few 
institutions in human society that have such strict hierarchy 
and top-down control as a business organisation. Nothing there 
about 'Don't tread on me.' You're being tread on all the time. 
The point of the ideology is to try to get other people, 
outside of the sectors of co-ordinated power, to fail to 
associate and enter into decision-making in the political 
arena themselves. The point is to atomise everyone else 
while leaving powerful sectors integrated and highly
organised and of course dominating resources." He goes 
on to note that:

"There is a streak of independence and individuality in 
American culture which I think is a very good thing. This 
'Don't tread on me' feeling is in many respects a healthy 
one. It's healthy up to the point where it atomises and keeps 
you from working together with other people. So it's got 
its healthy side and its negative side. It's the negative 
side that's emphasised naturally in the propaganda and 
indoctrination." [_Keeping the Rabble in Line_, pp. 279-80]

As the opinion polls above show, must people direct their dislike 
and distrust of institutions equally to Big Business, which shows 
that people are not stupid. However, the slight decrease in distrust 
for big business even after a period of massive business-lead class 
war, down-sizing and so on, is somewhat worrying. Unfortunately, as 
Gobbels was well aware, tell a lie often enough and people start 
to believe it. And given the funds available to big business, its 
influence in the media, its backing of "think-tanks," the use of
Public Relations companies, the support of economic "science," its 
extensive advertising and so on, it says a lot for the common sense 
of people that so many people see big business for what it is. You 
simply cannot fool all the people all of the time!
 
However, these feelings can easily be turned into cynicism and a
hopelessness that things can change for the better and than the 
individual can help change society. Or, even worse, they can be 
twisted into support for the right, authoritarian, populist or 
(so-called) "Libertarian"-Right. The job for anarchists is to 
combat this and help point the healthy distrust people have 
for government and business towards a real solution to societies
problems, namely a decentralised, self-managed anarchist society. 

J.4.7	What about the communications revolution?

Another important factor working in favour of anarchists is the 
existence of a sophisticated global communications network and a 
high degree of education and literacy among the populations of 
the core industrialised nations. Together these two developments 
make possible nearly instantaneous sharing and public dissemination 
of information by members of various progressive and radical 
movements all over the globe -- a phenomenon that tends to reduce 
the effectiveness of repression by central authorities.  The 
electronic-media and personal-computer revolutions also make 
it more difficult for elitist groups to maintain their previous 
monopolies of knowledge. In short, the advent of the Information 
Age is potentially one of the most subversive variables in the 
modern equation.

Indeed the very existence of the Internet provides anarchists with a
powerful argument that decentralised structures can function effectively
in today's highly complex world.  For the net has no centralised
headquarters and is not subject to regulation by any centralised
regulatory agency, yet it still manages to function quite effectively.
Moreover, the net is also an effective way of anarchists and other
radicals to communicate their ideas to others, share knowledge and
work on common projects (such as this FAQ, for example) and co-ordinate
activities and social struggle. By using the Internet, radicals can 
make their ideas accessible to people who otherwise would not come 
across anarchist ideas (obviously we are aware that the vast majority
of people in the world do not have access to telephones, never mind 
computers, but computer access is increasing in many countries, making
it available, via work, libraries, schools, universities, and so on
to more and more working people). In addition, and far more important
than anarchists putting their ideas across, the fact is that the net
allows everyone with access to express themselves freely, to communicate
with others and get access (by visiting webpages and joining mailing
lists and newsgroups) and give access (by creating webpages and joining
in with on-line arguments) to new ideas and viewpoints. This is
very anarchistic as it allows people to express themselves and start
to consider new ideas, ideas which may change how they think and act.
Of course most people on the planet do not have a telephone, let alone 
a computer, but that does not undermine the fact that the internet is a 
medium in which people can communicate freely (at least until it is 
totally privatised, then it may prove to be more difficult as the net 
could become a giant shopping centre).

Of course there is no denying that the implications of improved
communications and information technology are ambiguous, implying 
Big Brother as well the ability of progressive and radical movements to
organise. However, the point is only that the information revolution in
combination with the other new social developments we are considering
*could* (but will not *necessarily*) contribute to a social paradigm
shift.  Obviously such a shift will not happen automatically.  Indeed, it
will not happen at all unless there is strong resistance to governmental
attempts to limit public access to information technology (e.g. encryption
programs) and censor citizens' communications. 

How anarchists are very effectively using the Internet to co-ordinate
struggles and spread information is discussed in section J.4.9.

This use of the Internet and computers to spread the anarchist message
is ironic. The rapid improvement in price-performance ratios of 
computers, software, and other technology today seems to validate 
the faith in free markets. But to say that the information revolution 
proves the inevitable superiority of markets requires a monumental 
failure of short-term historical memory. After all, not just the 
Internet, but the computer sciences and computer industry represent 
a spectacular success of public investment. As late as the 1970s
and early 1980s, according to Kenneth Flamm's 1988 book _Creating the
Computer_, the federal government was paying for 40 percent of all
computer-related research and probably 60 to 75 percent of basic research.
Even such modern-seeming gadgets as video terminals, the light pen, the
drawing tablet, and the mouse evolved from Pentagon-sponsored research
in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Even software was not without state 
influence, with database software having its roots in US Air Force 
and Atomic Energy Commission projects, artificial intelligence in 
military contracts back in the 1950s and airline reservation systems 
in 1950s air-defence systems. More than half of IBM's Research and
Development budget came from government contracts in the 1950s and
1960s.

The motivation was national security, but the result has been the creation
of comparative advantage in information technology for the United States
that private firms have happily exploited and extended. When the returns
were uncertain and difficult to capture, private firms were unwilling to
invest, and government played the decisive role. And not for want of 
trying, for key players in the military first tried to convince businesses 
and investment bankers that a new and potentially profitable business
opportunity was presenting itself, but they did not succeed and it was
only when the market expanded and the returns were more definite that
the government receded. While the risks and development costs were
socialised, the gains were privatised. All of which make claims that 
the market would have done it anyway highly unlikely.

Looking beyond state aid to the computer industry we discover a 
"do-it-yourself" (and so self-managed) culture which was essential 
to its development. The first personal computer, for example, was 
invented by amateurs who wanted to build their own cheap machines. 
The existence of a "gift" economy among these amateurs and hobbyists 
was a necessary precondition for the development of PCs. Without this 
free sharing of information and knowledge, the development of computers 
would have been hindered. In other words, socialistic relations between 
developers and within the working environment created the necessary 
conditions for the computer revolution. If this community had been 
marked by commercial relations, the chances are the necessary
breakthroughs and knowledge would have remained monopolised by a 
few companies or individuals, so hindering the industry as a whole.

The first 20 years of the Internet's development was almost completely
dependent on state aid -- such as the US military or the universities --
plus an anti-capitalist "gift economy" between hobbyists. Thus a
combination of public funding and community based sharing helped create
the framework of the Internet, a framework which is now being claimed
as one of capitalism's greatest successes!

Encouragingly, this socialistic "gift economy" is still at the heart
of computer/software development and the Internet. For example, the
_Free Software Foundation_ has developed the _General Public Licence_
(GPL). GPL, also know as "copyleft", uses copyright to ensure that
software remains free. Copyleft ensures that a piece of software is
made available to everyone to use and modify as they desire. The only
restriction is that any used or modified copyleft material must remain 
under copyleft, ensuring that others have the same rights as you did when
you used the original code. It creates a commons which anyone may add
to, but no one may subtract from. Placing software under GPL means that
every contributor is assured that she, and all other uses, will be able
to run, modify and redistribute the code indefinitely. Unlike commercial
software, copyleft code ensures an increasing knowledge base from which
individuals can draw from and, equally as important, contribute to. In
this way everyone benefits as code can be improved by everyone, unlike
commercial code.

Many will think that this essentially anarchistic system would be a
failure. In fact, code developed in this way is far more reliable and
sturdy than commercial software. Linux, for example, is a far superior
operating system than DOS, for example, precisely *because* it draws
on the collective experience, skill and knowledge of thousands of
developers. Apache, the most popular web-server, is another freeware
product and is acknowledged as the best available. While non-anarchists
may be surprised, anarchists are not. Mutual aid and co-operation are
beneficial in evolution of life, why not in the evolution of software?

For anarchists, this "gift economy" at the heart of the communications
revolution is an important development. It shows the superiority of
common development and the walls to innovation and decent products
generated by property systems. We hope that such an economy will 
spread increasingly into the "real" world.


J.4.8 What is the significance of the accelerating rate of change and the
      information explosion?

As Philip Slater points out in _A Dream Deferred_, the cumbersomeness 
of authoritarian structures becomes more and more glaring as the rate 
of change speeds up. This is because all relevant information in
authoritarian systems must be relayed to a central command before 
any decisions can be made, in contrast to decentralised systems where
important decisions can be made by individuals and small autonomous 
groups responding immediately to new information.  This means that 
decision making is slower in authoritarian structures, putting them at a
disadvantage relative to more decentralised and democratic structures.

The failure of centrally planned state-capitalist ("Communist") 
economies due to overwhelming bureaucratic inertia provides an 
excellent illustration of the problem in question.  Similarly, under
private-property capitalism, small and relatively decentralised companies
are generally more innovative and productive than large corporations 
with massive bureaucracies, which tend to be nearly as inflexible and
inefficient as their "Communist" counterparts.  In a world where the
proliferation of information is accelerating at the same time that 
crucial economic and political decisions must be made ever more quickly,
authoritarian structures are becoming increasingly maladaptive.  As Slater
notes, authoritarian systems simply cannot cope effectively with the
information explosion, and for this reason more and more nations are
realising they must either "democratise" or fall behind.  He cites the
epidemic of "democratisation" in Eastern Europe as well as popular
pressure for democracy in Communist China as symptomatic of this
phenomenon.

Unfortunately, Slater fails to note that the type of "democracy" to 
which he refers is ultimately a fraud (though better than state-capitalist
totalitarianism), since the representative type of government at which it
aims is a disguised form of political domination by the corporate rich. 
Nevertheless, the cumbersomeness of authoritarian structures on which he 
bases his argument is real enough, and it will continue to lend credibility 
to the anarchist argument that "representative" political structures embedded 
in a corporate-state complex of authoritarian institutions is very far from 
being either true democracy or an efficient way of organising society. 
Moreover, the critique of authoritarian structures is equally applicable
to the workplace as capitalist companies are organised as mini-centrally 
planned states, with (official) power concentrated in the hands of bosses
and managers. Any struggle for increased participation will inevitably
take place in the workplace as well (as it has continually done so as
long as wage slavery has existed). 

J.4.9 What are Netwars?

Netwars refers to the use of the Internet by autonomous groups and social 
movements to co-ordinate action to influence and change society and 
fight government or business policy. This use of the Internet has steadily
grown over the years, with a Rand corporation researcher, David Ronfeldt,
arguing that this has become an important and powerful force (Rand is, and 
has been since it's creation in 1948, a private appendage of the military 
industrial complex). In other words, activism and activists power and 
influence has been fuelled by the advent of the information revolution. 
Through computer and communication networks, especially via the 
world-wide Internet, grassroots campaigns have flourished, and the 
most importantly, government elites have taken notice.

Ronfeldt specialises in issues of national security, especially in the areas 
of Latin American and the impact of new informational technologies.
Ronfeldt and another colleague coined the term "netwar" a couple years 
ago in a Rand document entitled "Cyberwar is Coming!". "Netwars" are 
actions by autonomous groups -- especially advocacy groups and social 
movements -- that use informational networks to co-ordinate action to 
influence, change or fight government policy.

Ronfeldt's work became a flurry of discussion on the Internet in mid-March
1995 when Pacific News Service corespondent Joel Simon wrote an article about
Ronfeldt's opinions on the influence of netwars on the political situation
in Mexico after the Zapatista uprising. According to Simon, Ronfeldt holds 
that the work of social activists on the Internet has had a large influence -- 
helping to co-ordinate the large demonstrations in Mexico City in support 
of the Zapatistas and the proliferation of EZLN communiques across the 
world via computer networks. These actions, Ronfeldt argues, have allowed 
a network of groups that oppose the Mexican Government to muster an 
international response, often within hours of actions by it. In effect, 
this has forced the Mexican government to maintain the facade of 
nnegotiations with the EZLN and has on many occasions, actually 
stopped the army from just going in to Chiapas and brutally 
massacring the Zapatistas.

Given that Ronfeldt is an employee of the Rand Corporation (described by 
Paul Dickson, author of the book "Think Tanks", as the "first military think 
tank. . . undoubtedly the most powerful research organisation associated with 
the American military") his comments indicate that the U.S. government and 
it's military and intelligence wings are very interested in what the Left and
anarchists are doing on the Internet. Given that they would not be interested
in this if it was not effective, we can say that this use of the "Information
Super-Highway" is a positive example of the use of technology in ways 
un-planned of by those who initially developed it (let us not forget that
the Internet was originally funded by the U.S. government and military).
While the internet is being hyped as the next big marketplace, it is being
subverted by activists -- an example of anarchistic trends within society
worrying the powers that be.

Ronfeldt argues that "the information revolution. . . disrupts and erodes 
the hierarchies around which institutions are normally designed. It diffuses
and redistributes power, often to the benefit of what may be considered
weaker, smaller actors." He continues, "multi-organisational networks
consist of (often small) organisations or parts of institutions that have
linked together to act jointly... making it possible for diverse, dispersed
actors to communicate, consult, co-ordinate, and operate together across
greater distances, and on the basis of more and better information than
ever." He emphasises that "some of the heaviest users of the new
communications networks and technologies are progressive, centre-left, 
and social activists... [who work on] human rights, peace, environmental,
consumer, labour, immigration, racial and gender-based issues." In other
words, social activists are on the cutting edge of the new and powerful
"network" system of organising.

All governments, especially the U.S. government, have been extremely
antagonistic to this idea of effective use of information, especially by
the political Left and anarchists. The use of the Internet may facilitate
another "crisis in democracy" (i.e. the development of *real* democracy
rather than the phoney elite kind favoured by capitalism). To fight this
possible use of the internet to combat the elite, Ronfeldt maintains that 
the lesson is clear: "institutions can be defeated by networks, and it may 
take networks to counter networks." He argues that if the U.S. government 
and/or military is to fight this ideological war properly with the intend 
of winning -- and he does specifically mention ideology -- it must completely 
reorganise itself, scrapping hierarchical organisation for a more autonomous 
and decentralised system: a network. In this way, he states, "we expect 
that. . . netwar may be uniquely suited to fighting non-state actors".

Ronfeldt's research and opinion should be flattering for the political
Left. He is basically arguing that the efforts of activists on computers
not only has been very effective or at least has the potential, but more
importantly, argues that the only way to counter this work is to follow the
lead of social activists. Ronfeldt emphasised in a personal correspondence
that the "information revolution is also strengthening civil-society actors
in many positive ways, and moreover that netwar is not necessarily a 'bad'
thing that necessarily is a 'threat' to U.S. or other interests. It depends." At 
the same time, anarchists and other activists should understand the important
implications of Ronfeldt's work: government elites are not only watching
these actions (big surprise), but are also attempting to work against
them.

This can be seen in many countries. For example, in 1995 a number of 
computer networks, so far confined to Europe, have been attacked or 
completely shut down. In Italy, members of the Carabinieri Anti-Crime 
Special Operations Group raided the homes of a number of activists -- 
many active in the anarchist movement. They confiscated journals, 
magazines, pamphlets, diaries, and video tapes. They also took their 
personal computers, one of which hosted "BITS Against the Empire", 
a node of Cybernet and Fidonet networks. The warrant ridiculously 
charged them for "association with intent to subvert the democratic 
order", carrying a penalty of 7 to 15 years imprisonment for a conviction.

In Britain, Terminal Boredom bulletin board system (BBS) in Scotland was
shutdown by police in 1995 after the arrest of a hacker who was affiliated 
with the BBS. In the same year Spunk Press, the largest anarchist archive 
of published material catalogued on computer networks faced a media barrage
in the UK press which has falsely accused them of working with known 
terrorists like the Red Army Faction of Germany, of providing recipes for 
making bombs and of co-ordinating the "disruption of schools, looting of 
shops and attacks on multinational firms." Articles by the computer trade 
magazine, _Computing_, and the _Sunday Times_, entitled "Anarchism 
Runs Riot on the Superhighway" and "Anarchists Use Computer Highway 
For Subversion" respectively, nearly lead one of the organisers of Spunk 
Press loosing his job after the firm he works for received bad publicity. 
According to the book _Turning up the Heat: MI5 after that cold war_ 
by Lara O'Hara, one of the journalists who wrote the Sunday Times 
article has contacts with MI5 (the British equivalent of the FBI).

It is not coincidence that this attack has started first against anarchists
and libertarian-socialists. They are currently one of the most organised
political grouping on the Internet. Even Simon Hill, editor of _Computing_
magazine, admits that "we have been amazed at the level of organisation of
these... groups who have appeared on the Internet in a short amount of
time". According to Ronfeldt's thesis, this makes perfect sense. Who best
can exploit a system that "erodes hierarchy" and requires the co-ordination
of decentralised, autonomous groups in co-operative actions than anarchists
and libertarian-socialists?

These attacks may not be confined to anarchists for long. Indeed, many
countries have attempted to control the internet, using a number of 
issues as a means to do so (such as "terrorism", pornography and so
on). Government is not the only institution to notice the power of the
Internet in the hands of activists. In America, the Washington Post 
("Mexican Rebels Using a High-Tech Weapon; Internet Helps Rally 
Support", by Tod Robberson), Newsweek ("When Words are the Best 
Weapon: How the Rebels Use the Internet and Satellite TV", by Russell 
Watson) and even CNN have done stories about the importance of the 
Internet and network communication organisation with respect to the 
Zapatistas.

It is important to point out that the mainstream media is not interested 
in the information that circulates across the Internet. No, they are
interested in sensationalising the activity, even demonising it. They
correctly see that the "rebels" possess an incredibly powerful tool, but
the media does not report on what they either are missing or omitting.

A good example of this powerful tool is the incredible speed and range at
which information travels the Internet about events concerning Mexico and
the Zapatistas. When Alexander Cockburn wrote an article exposing a Chase
Manhattan Bank memo about Chiapas and the Zapatistas in Counterpunch, 
only a small number of people read it because it is only a newsletter with a
limited readership. The memo, written by Riordan Roett, was very important
because it argued that "the [Mexican] government will need to eliminate
the Zapatistas to demonstrate their effective control of the national territory 
and of security policy". In other words, if the Mexican government wants 
investment from Chase, it will have to crush the Zapatistas. This 
information was relatively ineffective when just confined to print. But 
when it was uploaded to the Internet (via a large number of List-servers 
and the USENET), it suddenly reached a very large number of people. 
These people in turn co-ordinated protests against the U.S and Mexican 
governments and especially Chase Manhattan. Chase was eventually
forced to attempt to distance itself from the Roett memo that it
commissioned.

Anarchists and the Zapatistas is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
Currently there are a myriad of social activist campaigns on the Internet.
From local issues like the anti-Proposition 187 movement in California to a
progressive college network campaign against the Republican "Contract [on]
America," the network system of activism is not only working -- and working
well as Ronfeldt admits -- but is growing. It is growing rapidly in numbers
of people involved and growing in political and social effectiveness.
There are many parallels between the current situation in Chiapas and the
drawn out civil war in Guatemala, yet the Guatemalan military has been able
to nearly kill without impunity while the Mexican military received a
co-ordinated, international attack literally hours after they mobilise
their troops. The reason is netwars are effective as Ronfeldt concedes, 
and when they are used they have been very influential.

It is clear than Rand, and possibly other wings of the establishment, are
not only interested in what activists are doing on the Internet, but they
think it is working. It is also clear that they are studying our activities
and analysing our potential power. We should do the same, but obviously
not from the perspective of inhibiting our work, but the opposite: how to
further facilitate it. Also, we should turn the tables as it were. They are 
studying our behaviour and actions -- we should study theirs. As was 
outlined above, we should analyse their movements and attempt to 
anticipate attacks as much as possible.

As Ronfeldt argues repeatedly, the potential is there for us to be more
effective. Information is getting out as is abundantly clear. But we can do
better than just a co-ordination of raw information, which has been the
majority of the "networking" so far on the Internet. To improve on the work
that is being done, we should attempt to provide more -- especially in the
area of in-depth analysis. Not just what we are doing and what the
establishment is doing, but more to the point, we should attempt to 
co-ordinate the dissemination of solid analysis of important events. In 
this way members of the activist network will not only have the advantage 
of up-to-date information of events, but also a good background analysis of
what each event means, politically, socially and/or economically as the
case may be.

Thus Netwars are a good example of anarchistic trends within society, the
use of communications technology (developed for the state and used by
capitalism as a means to aid the selling process) has become a means of
co-ordinating activity across the world in a libertarian fashion.

(This section of the FAQ is based on an article by Jason Wehling called
"'NetWars' and Activists' Power on the Internet" which has appeared
in issue 2 of _Scottish Anarchist_ magazine as well as _Z Magazine_)

J.5 What alternative social organisations do anarchists create?

Anarchism is all about "do it yourself," people helping each other out
in order to secure a good society to live within and to protect, extend
and enrich their personal freedom. As such anarchists are keenly aware of 
the importance of building alternatives to both capitalism and the state 
in the here and now. Only by creating practical alternatives can we
show that anarchism is a viable possibility and train ourselves in 
the techniques and responsibilities of freedom:

"If we put into practice the principles of libertarian communism within
our organisations, the more advanced and prepared we will be on that
day when we come to adopt it completely." [C.N.T. member, quoted by 
Graham Kelsey, _Anarchosyndicalism, Libertarian Communism and the 
State_,p. 79]

By building the new world in the shell of the old, we help create the
environment within which individuals can manage their own affairs and
develop their abilities to do so. In other words, we create "schools of
anarchism" which lay the foundations for a better society as well as
promoting and supporting social struggle against the current system.
Make no mistake, the alternatives we discuss in this section are not
an alternative to direct action and the need for social struggle - they
are an expression of social struggle and a form of direct action. They
are the framework by which social struggle can build and strengthen the
anarchist tendencies within capitalist society which will ultimately 
replace it.

Therefore it is wrong to think that anarchists are indifferent to making
life more bearable, even more enjoyable, under capitalism. A free society
will not just appear from nowhere, it will be created be individuals and
communities with a long history of social struggle and organisation. For 
as Wilheim Reich so correctly pointed out:

"Quite obviously, a society that is to consist of 'free individuals,'
to constitute a 'free community' and to administer itself, i.e. to
'govern itself,' cannot be suddenly created by decrees. It has to 
*evolve* organically." [_The Mass Psychology of Fascism_, p. 241]

And it is this organic evolution that anarchists promote when they create
anarchist alternatives within capitalist society. The alternatives anarchists
create (be they workplace or community unions, co-operatives, mutual banks,
and so on) are marked by certain common features such as being self-managed,
being based upon equality and decentralisation and working with other groups
and associations within a confederal network based upon mutual aid and
solidarity. In other words, they are *anarchist* in both spirit and 
structure and so create a practical bridge between what is and what is 
possible.

Therefore, anarchists consider the building of alternatives as a key 
aspect of their activity under capitalism. This is because they, like
all forms of direct action, are "schools of anarchy" and also because
they make the transition to a free society easier. "Through the
organisations set up for the defence of their interests," in Malatesta's
words, "the workers develop an awareness of the oppression they suffer and 
the antagonism that divides them from the bosses and as a result begin to
aspire to a better life, become accustomed to collective struggle and
solidarity and win those improvements that are possible within the 
capitalist and state regime." [_The Anarchist Revolution_, p. 95] By 
creating viable examples of "anarchy in action" we can show that 
our ideas are practical and convince people of anarchist ideas by "good 
examples." Therefore this section of the FAQ will indicate the alternatives 
anarchists support and *why* we support them.

The approach anarchists take to this activity could be termed "social
unionism" -- the collective action of groups to change certain aspects
(and, ultimately, all aspects) of their lives. This "social unionism"
takes many different forms in many different areas (some of which, not
all, are discussed here) -- but they share the same basic aspects of
collective direct action, self-organisation, self-management, solidarity 
and mutual aid. These "social unions" would be a means (like the old labour
movement) "of raising the morale of the workers, accustom them to free 
initiative and solidarity in a struggle for the good of everyone and 
render them capable of imagining, desiring and putting into practice 
an anarchist life." [Errico Malatesta, _The Anarchist Revolution_, 
p. 28]

As will quickly become obvious in this discussion (as if it had not
been so before!) anarchists are firm supporters of "self-help," an 
expression that has been sadly corrupted (like freedom) by the right 
in recent times. Like "freedom", "self-help" should be saved from
the clutches of the right who have no real claim to that expression. 
Indeed, anarchism was created from and based itself upon working class
self-help -- for what other interpretation can be gathered from the famous
slogan of the _First International_ that "the emancipation of the working 
class must be the task of the working class itself"? So, Anarchists have 
great faith in the abilities of working class people to work out for 
themselves what their problems are and act to solve them.

Anarchist support, and promotion, of alternatives is a *key* aspect
of this process of self-liberation, and so a key aspect of anarchism. 
While strikes, boycotts, and other forms of high profile direct action
may be more sexy than the long and hard task of creating and building
social alternatives, these are the nuts and bolts of creating a new
world as well as the infrastructure which supports the "high profile"
activities. Hence the importance of highlighting the alternatives anarchists
support and build. The alternatives we discuss here is part of the process 
of building the new world in the shell of the old -- and involve both
combative organisations (such as community and workplace unions) as well
as more defensive/supportive ones (such as co-operatives and mutual banks).
Both have their part to play in the class struggle, although the combative
ones are the most important in creating the spirit of revolt and the 
possibility of creating an anarchist society (which will be reflected 
in the growth of supportive organisations to aid that struggle).

We must also stress that anarchists look to "natural" tendencies
within social struggle as the basis of any alternatives we try to
create. As Kropotkin put it, anarchism is based "on an analysis of 
*tendencies of an evolution that is already going on in society*, and 
on *induction* thereform as to the future." It is "representative . . . 
of the creative, instructive power of the people themselves who aimed at 
developing institutions of common law in order to protect them from the 
power-seeking minority." In other words, anarchism bases itself on those 
tendencies that are created by the self-activity of working class people
and while developing within capitalism are *in opposition* to it -- such 
tendencies are expressed in organisational form as trade unions and 
other forms of workplace struggle, cooperatives (both productive and 
credit), libertarian schools, and so on. For anarchists, anarchism is 
"born among the people -- in the struggles of real life and not in the 
philosopher's studio" and owes its "origin to the constructive, creative 
activity of the people . . . and to a protest -- a revolt against the 
external force which hd thrust itself upon [communal] . . . institutions." 
[_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_, p. 158, p. 147, p. 150, 
p. 149] This "creative activity" is expressed in the organisations 
created in the class struggle by working people, some of which we
discuss in this section of the FAQ. Therefore, the alternatives 
anarchists support should not be viewed in isolation of social struggle
and working class resistance to hierarchy - the reverse in fact, as these
alternatives are almost always expressions of that struggle.

Lastly, we should note that this list of alternatives does not list all the 
forms of organisation anarchists create. For example, we have ignored 
solidarity groups and organisations which are created to campaign against or
for certain issues or reforms. Anarchists are in favour of such organisations
and work within them to spread anarchist ideas, tactics and organisational
forms. However, these interest groups (while very useful) do not provide a
framework for lasting change as do the ones we highlight below although we 
stress that anarchists do not ignore such organisations and struggles (see 
sections J.1.4 and J.1.5 for more details on anarchist opinions on such 
"single issue" campaigns).

We have  also ignored what have been called "intentional communities". This 
is when a group of individuals squat or buy land and other resources within 
capitalism and create their own anarchist commune in it. Most anarchists 
reject this idea as capitalism and the state must be fought, not ignored. 
In addition, due to their small size, they are rarely viable experiments 
in communal living and nearly always fail after a short time (for a good 
summary of Kropotkin's attitude to such communities, which can be taken 
as typical, to such schemes see Graham Purchase's book _Evolution & 
Revolution_, pp. 122-125). Dropping out will not stop capitalism and 
the state and while such communities may try to ignore the system, they 
will find that the system will not ignore them -- they will come under 
competitive and ecological pressures from capitalism whether they like 
it or not.

Therefore the alternatives we discuss here are attempts to create anarchist
alternatives within capitalism and which aim to *change* it (either by 
revolutionary or evolutionary means). They are based upon *challenging*
capitalism and the state, not ignoring them by dropping out. Only by a 
process of direct action and building alternatives which are relevant to
our daily lives can we revolutionise and change both ourselves and society.

J.5.1 What is community unionism?

Community unionism is our term for the process of creating participatory 
communities (called "communes" in classical anarchism) within the state. 

Basically, a community union is the creation of interested members of a 
community who decide to form an organisation to fight against injustice 
in their local community and for improvements within it. It is a forum 
by which inhabitants can raise issues that affect themselves and others 
and provide a means of solving these problems. As such, it is a means 
of directly involving local people in the life of their own communities
and collectively solving the problems facing them as both individuals
and as part of a wider society. Politics, therefore, is not separated
into a specialised activity that only certain people do (i.e. politicians).
Instead, it becomes communalised and part of everyday life and in the
hands of all.

As would be imagined, like the participatory communities that would
exist in an anarchist society, the community union would be based
upon a mass assembly of its members. Here would be discussed the
issues that effect the membership and how to solve them. Like the
communes of a future anarchy, these community unions would be
confederated with other unions in different areas in order to
co-ordinate joint activity and solve common problems. These 
confederations, like the basic union assemblies themselves, would
be based upon direct democracy, mandated delegates and the
creation of administrative action committees to see that the
memberships decisions are carried out.

The community union could also raise funds for strikes and other 
social protests, organise pickets and boycotts and generally aid 
others in struggle. By organising their own forms of direct action 
(such as tax and rent strikes, environmental protests and so on) 
they can weaken the state while building an self-managed 
infrastructure of co-operatives to replace the useful functions 
the state or capitalist firms currently provide.

So, in addition to organising resistance to the state and capitalist
firms, these community unions could play an important role in
creating an alternative economy within capitalism. For example,
such unions could have a mutual bank or credit union associated
with them which could allow funds to be gathered for the creation
of self-managed co-operatives and social services and centres. In
this way a communalised co-operative sector could develop, along
with a communal confederation of community unions and their 
co-operative banks. 

Such community unions have been formed in many different countries
in recent years to fight against particularly evil attacks on the 
working class. In Britain, groups were created in neighbourhoods across 
the country to organise non-payment of the conservative government's 
community charge (popularly known as the poll tax). Federations of these
groups and unions were created to co-ordinate the struggle and pull
resources and, in the end, ensured that the government withdrew the
hated tax and helped push Thatcher out of government. In Ireland,
similar groups were formed to defeat the privatisation of the water
industry by a similar non-payment campaign.

However, few of these groups have been taken as part of a wider strategy
to empower the local community but the few that have indicate the potential
of such a strategy. This potential can be seen from two examples of
community organising in Europe, one in Italy and another in Spain.

In Italy, anarchists have organised a very successful _Municipal Federation
of the Base_ (FMB) in Spezzano Albanese (in the South of that country). This
organisation is "an alternative to the power of the town hall" and provides
a "glimpse of what a future libertarian society could be" (in the words of
one activist). The aim of the Federation is "the bringing together of all
interests within the district. In intervening at a municipal level, we
become involved not only in the world of work but also the life of the
community. . . the FMB make counter proposals [to Town Hall decisions],
which aren't presented to the Council but proposed for discussion in
the area to raise people's level of consciousness. Whether they like
it or not the Town Hall is obliged to take account of these proposals."
["Community Organising in Southern Italy", pp. 16-19, _Black Flag_ 
no. 210, p. 17, p. 18]

In this way, local people take part in deciding what effects them and their
community and create a self-managed "dual power" to the local, and national,
state. They also, by taking part in self-managed community assemblies,
develop their ability to participate and manage their own affairs, so
showing that the state is unnecessary and harmful to their interests.
In addition, the FMB also supports co-operatives within it, so creating
a communalised, self-managed economic sector within capitalism. Such a
development helps to reduce the problems facing isolated co-operatives
in a capitalist economy -- see section J.5.11 -- and was actively done
in order to "seek to bring together all the currents, all the problems
and contradictions, to seek solutions" to such problems facing co-operatives
[Ibid.].

Elsewhere in Europe, the long, hard work of the C.N.T. in Spain has also
resulted in mass village assemblies being created in the Puerto Real
area, near Cadiz. These community assemblies came about to support
an industrial struggle by shipyard workers. As one C.N.T. member explains,
"[e]very Thursday of every week, in the towns and villages in the area,
we had all-village assemblies where anyone connected with the particular 
issue [of the rationalisation of the shipyards], whether they were 
actually workers in the shipyard itself, or women or children or
grandparents, could go along. . . and actually vote and take part 
in the decision making process of what was going to take place." 
[_Anarcho-Syndicalism in Puerto Real: from shipyard resistance to
direct democracy and community control_, p. 6]

With such popular input and support, the shipyard workers won their 
struggle. However, the assembly continued after the strike and
"managed to link together twelve different organisations within the
local area that are all interested in fighting. . . various aspects
[of capitalism]" including health, taxation, economic, ecological and
cultural issues. Moreover, the struggle "created a structure which
was very different from the kind of structure of political parties,
where the decisions are made at the top and they filter down. What
we managed to do in Puerto Real was make decisions at the base
and take them upwards." [Ibid.]

In these ways, a grassroots movement from below has been created, with
direct democracy and participation becoming an inherent part of a local
political culture of resistance, with people deciding things for 
themselves directly and without hierarchy. Such developments are the
embryonic structures of a world based around direct democracy and
participation, with a strong and dynamic community life. For, as
Martin Buber argued, "[t]he more a human group lets itself be represented 
in the management of its common affairs. . . the less communal life there 
is in it and the more impoverished it becomes as a community." [_Paths 
in Utopia_, p. 133]

Anarchist support and encouragement of community unionism, by creating
the means for communal self-management, helps to enrich the community
as well as creating the organisational forms required to resist the
state and capitalism. In this way we build the anti-state which will
(hopefully) replace the state. Moreover, the combination of community 
unionism with workplace assemblies (as in Puerto Real), provides a
mutual support network which can be very effective in helping winning
struggles. For example, in Glasgow, Scotland in 1916, a massive rent
strike was finally won when workers came out in strike in support of
the rent strikers who been arrested for non-payment.

Such developments indicate that Isaac Puente was correct to argue 
that:

"Libertarian Communism is a society organised without the state and 
without private ownership. And there is no need to invent anything or
conjure up some new organization for the purpose. The centres about 
which life in the future will be organised are already with us in 
the society of today: the free union and the free municipality [or
Commune]. 

"*The union*: in it combine spontaneiously the workers from factories 
and all places of collective exploitation. 

"And *the free municipality*: an assembly with roots stretching back 
into the past where, again in spontaneity, inhabitants of village 
and hamlet combine together, and which points the way to the solution 
of problems in social life in the countryside.

"Both kinds of organisation, run on federal and democratic principles, 
will be soveriegn in their decision making, without being beholden to 
any higher body, their only obligation being to federate one with 
another as dictated by the economic requirement for liaison and 
communications bodies organised in industrial federations. 

"The *union and the free municipality* will assume the collective 
or common ownership of everything which is under private ownership 
at present [but collectively used] and will regulate production and 
consumption (in a word, the economy) in each locality. 

"The very bringing together of the two terms (communism and 
libertarian) is indicative in itself of the fusion of two ideas: 
one of them is collectivist, tending to bring about harmony in the 
whole through the contributions and cooperation of individuals, 
without undermining their independence in any way; while the other 
is individualist, seeking to reassure the individual that his 
independence will be respected." [_Libertarian Communism_, pp. 6-7]

The combination of community unionism, along with industrial unionism
(see next section), will be the key of creating an anarchist society,
Community unionism, by creating the free commune within the state,
allows us to become accustomed to managing our own affairs and seeing
that an injury to one is an injury to all. In this way a social power
is created in opposition to the state. The town council may still be
in the hands of politicians, but neither they nor the central government
can move without worrying about what the people's reaction might be,
as expressed and organised in their community unions and assemblies.

J.5.2 Why do anarchists support industrial unionism?

Simply because it is effective, expresses our ideas on how industry will 
be organised in an anarchist society and is a key means of ending 
capitalist oppression and exploitation. As Max Stirner pointed out the
"labourers have the most enormous power in their hands, and, if they
once become thoroughly conscious of it and used it, nothing could withstand
them; they would only have to stop labour, regard the product of labour as
theirs, and enjoy it. This is the sense of the labour disturbances which
show themselves here and there." [_The Ego and Its Own_, p. 116] 

Libertarian workplace organisation is the best way of organising and 
exercising this power. However, before discussing why anarchists support 
industrial unionism, we must point out that the type of unionism anarchists 
support has very little in common with that associated with reformist or 
business unions like the TUC in Britain or the AFL-CIO in the USA (see 
next section).

In such unions, as Alexander Berkman points out, the "rank and file
have little say. They have delegated their power to leaders, and 
these have become the boss. . . Once you do that, the power you
have delegated will be used against you and your interests every
time." [_The ABC of Anarchism_, p. 58] Reformist unions, even if
they do organise by industry rather than by trade or craft, are
top-heavy and bureaucratic. Thus they are organised in the same
manner as capitalist firms or the state -- and like both of these,
the officials at the top have different interests than those
at the bottom. Little wonder anarchists oppose such forms of 
unionism as being counter to the interests of their members. The
long history of union officials betraying their members is proof
enough of this.

Therefore anarchists propose a different kind of workplace organisation,
one that is organised in a totally different manner than the current,
mainstream, unions. We will call this new kind of organisation "industrial 
unionism" (although perhaps industrial syndicalism or workplace
assemblies may be a better, less confusing, name for it).

Industrial unionism is based upon the idea that workers should directly 
control their own organisations and struggles. As such, it is based
upon workplace assemblies and their confederation between different
workplaces in the same industry as well as between different workplaces
in the same locality. An industrial union is a union which organises all 
workers in a given type of industry together into one body. This means 
that all workers regardless of their actual trade would ideally be in 
the one union. On a building site, for example, brick-layers, plumbers, 
carpenters and so on would all be a member of the Building Workers 
Union. Each trade may have its own sections within the union (so 
that plumbers can discuss issues relating to their trade for 
example) but the core decision making focus would be an assembly 
of all workers employed in a workplace. As they all have the same 
boss it is logical for them to have the same union.

However, industrial unionism should *not* be confused with a closed 
shop situation where workers are forced to join a union when they 
become a wage slave in a workplace. While anarchists do desire to 
see all workers unite in one organisation, it is vitally important 
that workers can leave a union and join another. The closed shop 
only empowers union bureaucrats and gives them even more power
to control (and/or ignore) their members. As anarchist unionism has
no bureaucrats, there is no need for the closed shop and its voluntary
nature is essential in order to ensure that a union be subject to 
"exit" as well as "voice" for it to be responsive to its members wishes.

As Albert Meltzer argues, the closed shop means that "the [trade union] 
leadership becomes all-powerful since once it exerts its right to expel 
a member, that person is not only out of the union, but out of a job." 
Anarcho-syndicalism, therefore, "rejects the closed shop and relies on 
voluntary membership, and so avoids any leadership or bureaucracy." 
[_Anarchism: Arguments for and against_, p. 56 -- also see Tom Wetzel's 
excellent article "The Origins of the Union Shop", part 3 of the series 
"Why does the union bureaucracy exist?" in _Ideas & Action_ no. 11, 
Fall 1989 for a fuller discussion of these issues] Without voluntary 
membership even the most libertarian union may become bureaucratic and 
unresponsive to the needs of its members and the class struggle (even
anarcho-syndicalist unions are subject to hierarchical influences by
having to work within the hierarchical capitalist economy although 
voluntary membership, along with a libertarian structure and tactics, 
helps combat these tendencies -- see section J.3.5).

Obviously this means that anarchist opposition to the closed shop has
nothing in common with boss, conservative and right-wing libertarian
opposition to it. These groups, while denouncing coercing workers into
trades unions, support the coercive power of bosses over workers without
a second thought (indeed, given their justifications of sexual harassment
and other forms of oppressive behaviour by bosses, we can imagine that 
they would happily support workers having to join *company* unions to 
keep their jobs -- only when bosses dislike mandatory union membership 
do these defenders of "freedom" raise their opposition). Anarchist
opposition to the closed shop (like their opposition to union bureaucracy) 
flows from their opposition to hierarchy and authoritarian social 
relationships. The right-wing's opposition is purely a product of their 
pro-capitalist and pro-authority position and the desire to see the worker 
subject only to *one* boss during working hours, not *two* (particularly 
if this second one has to represent workers interests to some degree). 
Anarchists, on the other hand, want to get rid of all bosses during 
working hours.

In industrial unionism, the membership, assembled in their place of 
work, are the ones to decide when to strike, when to pay strike pay, 
what tactics to use, what demands to make, what issues to fight over 
and whether an action is "official" or "unofficial". In this way the 
rank and file is in control of their unions and, by confederating with 
other assemblies, they co-ordinate their forces with their fellow workers. 
As syndicalist activist Tom Brown makes clear:

"The basis of the Syndicate is the mass meeting of workers assembled
at their place of work. . . The meeting elects its factory committee
and delegates. The factory is Syndicate is federated to all other
such committees in the locality. . . In the other direction, the
factory, let us say engineering factory, is affiliated to the District
Federation of Engineers. In turn the District Federation is affiliated
to the National Federation of Engineers. . . Then, each industrial
federation is affiliated to the National Federation of Labour . . .
how the members of such committees are elected is most important. 
They are, first of all, not representatives like Members of Parliament
who air their own views; they are delegates who carry the message of
the workers who elect them. They do not tell the workers what the
'official' policy is; the workers tell them.

"Delegates are subject to instant recall by the persons who elected
them. None may sit for longer than two successive years, and four
years must elapse before his [or her] next nomination. Very few will
receive wages as delegates, and then only the district rate of wages 
for the industry. . . 

"It will be seen that in the Syndicate the members control the
organisation - not the bureaucrats controlling the members. In a
trade union the higher up the pyramid a man is the more power he
wields; in a Syndicate the higher he is the less power he has.

"The factory Syndicate has full autonomy over its own affairs. . ."
[_Syndicalism_, pp. 35-36]

As can be seen, industrial unionism reflects anarchist ideas of
organisation - it is organised from the bottom up, it is decentralised
and based upon federation and it is directly managed by its members
in mass assemblies. It is anarchism applied to industry and the needs
of the class struggle. By supporting such forms of organisations, 
anarchists are not only seeing "anarchy in action," they are forming
effective tools which can win the class war. By organising in this
manner, workers are building the framework of a co-operative society
within capitalism. Rudolf Rocker makes this clear:

"the syndicate. . . has for its purpose the defence of the interests of
the producers within existing society and the preparing for and the 
practical carrying out of the reconstruction of social life . . .
It has, therefore, a double purpose: 1. As the fighting organisation 
of the workers against their employers to enforce the demand of the
workers for the safeguarding of their standard of living; 2. As the
school for the intellectual training of the workers to make them
acquainted with the technical management of production and
economic life in general." [_Anarcho-Syndicalism_, p. 51]

Given the fact that workers wages have been stagnating (or, at
best, falling behind productivity increases) across the world as 
the trade unions have been weakened and marginalised (partly
because of their own tactics, structure and politics) it is clear that
there exists a great need for working people to organise to defend
themselves. The centralised, top-down trade unions we are accustomed
to have proved themselves incapable of effective struggle (and, indeed,
the number of times they have sabotaged such struggle are countless 
- a result not of "bad" leaders but of the way these unions organise
and their role within capitalism). Hence anarchists support industrial
unionism (co-operation between workers assemblies) as an effective 
alternative to the malaise of official trade unionism. How anarchists 
aim to encourage such new forms of workplace organisation and struggle 
will be discussed in the next section.

We are sure that many radicals will consider that such decentralised, 
confederal organisations would produce confusion and disunity. However,
anarchists maintain that the statist, centralised form of organisation
of the trades unions would produce indifference instead of involvement,
heartlessness instead of solidarity, uniformity instead of unity, and
elites instead of equality, nevermind killing all personal initiative
by lifeless discipline and bureaucratic ossification and permitting
no independent action. The old form of organisation has been tried
and tried again - it has always failed. The sooner workers recognise
this the better.

One last point. We must note that many anarchists, particularly 
communist-anarchists, consider unions, even anarchosyndicalist ones, as 
having a strong reformist tendency (as discussed in section J.3.9). 
However, all anarchists recognise the importance of autonomous class 
struggle and the need for organisations to help fight that struggle. 
Thus anarchist-communists, instead of trying to organise industrial 
unions, apply the ideas of industrial unionism to workplace struggles. 
In other words, they would agree with the need to organise all workers 
into a mass assembly and to have elected, recallable administration 
committees to carry out the strikers wishes. This means that such
anarchists they do not call their practical ideas "anarcho-syndicalism" 
nor the workplace assemblies they desire to create "unions," there are 
*extremely* similar in nature and so we can discuss both using the term
"industrial unionism". The key difference is that many (if not most) 
anarcho-communists consider that permanent workplace organisations that 
aim to organise *all* workers would soon become reformist. Because of
this they also see the need for anarchist to organise *as anarchists*
in order to spread the anarchist message within them and keep their
revolutionary aspects at the forefront (and so support industrial
networks -- see next section). 

Therefore while there are slight differences in terminology and practice,
all anarchists would support the ideas of industrial unionism we have
outlined above. 

J.5.3 What attitude do anarchists take to existing unions?

As noted in the last section, anarchists desire to create organisations 
in the workplace radically different from the existing trade unions.
The question now arises, what attitude do anarchists generally take to 
these existing unions?

Before answering that question, we must stress that anarchists, no matter
how hostile to trade unions as bureaucratic, reformist institutions, *are*
in favour of working class struggle. This means that when trade union
members or other workers are on strike anarchists will support them
(unless the strike is totally reactionary -- for example, no anarchist
would support a strike which is racist in nature). This is because almost 
all anarchists consider it basic to their politics that you don't scab and 
you don't crawl (a handful of individualist anarchists are the exception).
So, when reading anarchist criticisms of trade unions do not for an
instant think we do not support industrial struggles -- we do, we 
are just very critical of the unions that are sometimes involved.

So, what do anarchists think of the trade unions?

For the most part, one could call the typical anarchist opinion toward 
them as one of "hostile support." It is hostile insofar as anarchists 
are well aware of how bureaucratic these unions are and how they continually 
betray their members. Given that they are usually little more than "business" 
organisations, trying to sell their members labour-power for the best deal 
possible, it is unsurprising that they are bureaucratic and that the 
interests of the bureaucracy are at odds with those of its membership. 
However, our attitude is "supportive" in that even the worse trade 
union represents an attempt at working class solidarity and self-help,
even if the attempt is now far removed from the initial protests and ideas 
that set the union up. For a worker to join a trade union means having to 
recognise, to some degree, that he or she has different interests from 
their boss. There is no way to explain the survival of the unions other 
than the fact that there are different class interests, and workers have 
understood that to promote their own interests they have to organise on 
class lines. 

No amount of conservatism, bureaucracy or backwardness within the unions 
can obliterate the essential fact of different class interests. The very 
existence of trade unions testifies to the existence of some level of 
basic class consciousness -- even though most trade unions claim otherwise
and that capital and labour have interests in common. As we have argued,
anarchists reject this claim with good reason, and the very existence of
trade unions show that this is not true. If workers and capitalists have
the same interests, trade unions would not exist. Moreover, claiming that
the interests of workers and bosses are the same theoretically disarms
both the unions and its members and so weakens their struggles (after all,
if bosses and workers have similar interests then any conflict is bad
and the decisions of the boss must be in workers' interests!).

Thus anarchist viewpoints reflect the contradictory nature of business/trade
unions -- on the one hand they are products of workers' struggle, but on 
the other they are *very* bureaucratic, unresponsive and centralised and 
(therefore) their full-time officials have no real interest in fighting 
against wage labour as it would put them out of a job. Indeed, the very
nature of trade unionism ensures that the interests of the union (i.e.
the full-time officials) come into conflict with the people they claim
to represent. 

This can best be seen from the disgraceful activities of the TGWU with 
respect to the Liverpool dockers in Britain. The union officials (and 
the TUC itself) refused to support their members after they had been 
sacked in 1995 for refusing to cross a picket line. The dockers 
organised their own struggle, contacting dockers' unions across the 
world and organising global solidarity actions. Moreover, a network 
of support groups sprung up across Britain to gather funds for their
struggle (and, we are proud to note, anarchists have played their role
in supporting the strikers). Many trade unionists could tell similar
stories of betrayal by "their" union.

This occurs because trade unions, in order to get recognition from 
a company, must be able to promise industrial peace. They need to
enforce the contracts they sign with the bosses, even if this goes
against the will of its members. Thus trade unions become a third
force in industry, somewhere between management and the workers and
pursuing its own interests. This need to enforce contracts soon ensures
that the union becomes top-down and centralised -- otherwise its
members would violate the unions agreements. They have to be able 
to control their members - which usually means stopping them
fighting the boss - if they are to have anything to bargain with 
at the negotiation table. This may sound odd, but the point is that 
the union official has to sell the employer labour discipline and 
freedom from unofficial strikes as part of its side of the bargain.
Otherwise the employer will ignore them. The nature of trade unionism
is to take power away from out of local members and centralise it
into the hands of officials at the top of the organisation.

Thus union officials sell out their members because of the role trade 
unions play within society, not because they are nasty individuals 
(although some are). They behave as they do because they have too much 
power and, being full-time and highly paid, are unaccountable, in any real 
way, to their members. Power -- and wealth -- corrupts, no matter who you 
are. (also see Chapter 11 of Alexander Berkman's _What is Communist 
Anarchism?_ for an excellent introduction to anarchist viewpoints on 
trade unions).

While, in normal times, most workers will not really question the nature
of the trade union bureaucracy, this changes when workers face some threat.
Then they are brought face to face with the fact that the trade union
has interests separate from theirs. Hence we see trade unions agreeing to
wage cuts, redundancies and so on -- after all, the full-time trade union 
official's job is not on the line! But, of course, while such a policy
is in the short term interests of the officials, in the longer term it goes
against their interests -- after all, who wants to join a union which rolls
over and presents no effective resistance to employers? Little wonder
Michael Moore has a chapter entitled "Why are Union Leaders So F#!@ing
Stupid?" in his book _Downsize This!_ -- essential reading to realise how
moronic trade union bureaucrats can actually be. Sadly trade union 
bureaucracy seems to afflict all who enter it with short-sightedness, as 
seen by the countless times the trade unions have sold-out their members -- 
although the chickens do, finally, come home to roost, as the bureaucrats 
of the AFL, TUC and other trade unions are finding out in this era of 
global capital and falling membership. So while the activities of trade
union leaders may seem crazy and short-sighted, these activities are
forced upon them by their position and role within society -- which
explains why they are so commonplace and why even radical leaders 
end up doing exactly the same thing in time.

Few anarchists would call upon members of a trade union to tear-up their 
membership cards. While some anarchists, particularly communist anarchists 
and some anarcho-syndicalists have nothing but contempt (and rightly so) 
for trade unions (and so do not work within them -- but will support trade 
union members in struggle), the majority of anarchists take a more pragmatic 
viewpoint. If no alternative syndicalist union exists, anarchists will work 
within the existing unions (perhaps becoming shop-stewards -- few anarchists 
would agree to be elected to positions above this in any trade union, 
particularly if the post was full-time), spreading the anarchist message and 
trying to create a libertarian undercurrent which would hopefully blossom 
into a more anarchistic labour movement.

So most anarchists "support" the trade unions only until they have created 
a viable libertarian alternative. Thus we will become trade union members
while trying to spread anarchist ideas within and outwith them. This means 
that anarchists are flexible in terms of their activity in the unions. For
example, many IWW members were "two-carders." This meant that as well 
as being members of the IWW, they were also in the local AFL branch in 
their place of work and turned to the IWW when the AFL hierarchy refused 
to back strikes or other forms of direct action. Anarchists encourage 
rank and file self-activity, *not* endless calls for trade union 
bureaucrats to act for us (as is unfortunately far too common on 
the left).

Anarchist activity within trade unions reflects our ideas on hierarchy and
its corrupting effects. We reject totally the response of left-wing social 
democrats, Stalinists and mainstream Trotskyists to the problem of trade
union betrayal, which is to try and elect and/or appoint 'better' officials. 
They see the problem primarily in terms of the individuals who hold the posts.
However this ignores the fact that individuals are shaped by the environment
they live in and the role they play in society. Thus even the most left-wing
and progressive individual will become a bureaucrat if they are placed
within a bureaucracy -- and we must note that the problem of corruption
does not spring from the high-wages officials are paid (although this is a 
factor), but from the power they have over their members (which partly 
expresses itself in high pay). 

Any claim that electing "radical" full-time officials who refuse to take 
the high wages associated with the position will be better is false. The 
hierarchical nature of the trade union structure has to be changed, not 
side-effects of it. As the left has no problem with hierarchy as such,
this explains why they support this form of "reform." They do not actually
want to undercut whatever dependency the members has on leadership, they 
want to replace the leaders with "better" ones (i.e. themselves or members 
of their party) and so endlessly call upon the trade union bureaucracy to 
act *for* its members. In this way, they hope, trade unionists will see
the need to support a "better" leadership -- namely themselves. Anarchists, 
in stark contrast, think that the problem is not that the leadership of the 
trade unions is weak, right-wing or does not act but that the union's 
membership follows them. Thus anarchists aim at undercutting reliance on
leaders (be they left or right) by encouraging self-activity by the rank
and file and awareness that hierarchical leadership as such is bad, not 
individual leaders.

Instead of "reform" from above (which is doomed to failure), anarchists work 
at the bottom and attempt to empower the rank and file of the trade unions. 
It is self-evident that the more power, initiative and control that lies with 
the rank & file membership on the shop floor, the less it will lie with the 
bureaucracy. Thus anarchists work within and outwith the trade unions in order 
to increase the power of workers where it actually lies: at the point of 
production. This is usually done by creating networks of activists who 
spread anarchist ideas to their fellow workers (see next section -- "What 
are Industrial Networks?"). 

These groups "within the unions should strive to ensure that they [the trade 
unions] remain open to all workers of whatever opinion or party on the sole
condition that there is solidarity in the struggle against the bosses. They 
should oppose the corporatist spirit and any attempt to monopolise labour or 
organisation. They should prevent the Unions from becoming the tools of the 
politicians for electoral or other authoritarian ends; they should preach and 
practice direct action, decentralisation, autonomy and free initiative. They 
should strive to help members learn how to participate directly in the life 
of the organisation and to do without leaders and permanent officials.

"They must, in short, remain anarchists, remain always in close touch with
anarchists and remember that the workers' organisation is not the end but
just one of the means, however important, of preparing the way for the
achievement of anarchism." [Errico Malatesta, _The Anarchist Revolution_,
pp. 26-27]

As part of this activity anarchists promote the ideas of Industrial
Unionism we highlighted in the last section -- namely direct workers
control of struggle via workplace assemblies and recallable committees 
-- during times of struggle. However, anarchists are aware that economic
struggle (and trade unionism as such) "cannot be an end in itself, since
the struggle must also be waged at a political level to distinguish the
role of the State." [Errico Malatesta, _Life and Ideas_, p, 115] Thus,
as well as encouraging worker self-organisation and self-activity, 
anarchist groups also seek to politicise struggles and those involved 
in them. Only this process of self-activity and political discussion
between equals *within* social struggles can ensure the process of
working class self-liberation and the creation of new, more libertarian,
forms of workplace organisation.

The result of such activity may be a new form of workplace organisation 
(either workplace assemblies or an anarcho-syndicalist union) or a reformed, 
more democratic version of the existing trade union (although few anarchists
believe that the current trade unions can be reformed). But either way,
the aim is to get as many members of the current labour movement to become
anarchists as possible or, at the very least, take a more libertarian and 
radical approach to their unions and workplace struggle. 

J.5.4 What are industrial networks?

Industrial networks are the means by which revolutionary industrial unions 
and other forms of libertarian workplace organisation can be created. 
The idea of Industrial Networks originated with the British section of the
anarcho-syndicalist International Workers' Association in the late 1980s. It 
was developed as a means of promoting anarcho-syndicalist/anarchist ideas 
within the workplace, so creating the basis on which a workplace movement
based upon the ideas of industrial unionism (see section J.5.2) could grow 
and expand.

The idea is very simple. An Industrial Network is a federation of
militants in a given industry who support the ideas of anarchism and/or 
anarcho-syndicalism, namely direct action, solidarity and organisation 
from the bottom up (the difference between purely anarchist networks
and anarcho-syndicalist ones will be highlighted later). In other words, 
it would "initially be a political grouping in the economic sphere, aiming 
to build a less reactive but positive organisation within the industry.
The long term aim. . . is, obviously, the creation of an anarcho-syndicalist
union." [_Winning the Class War_, p. 18]

The Industrial Network would be an organisation of groups of anarchists
and syndicalists within a workplace united into an industrial basis. They
would pull their resources together to fund a regular bulletin and other
forms of propaganda which they would distribute within their workplace
and industry. These bulletins and leaflets would raise and discuss issues
related to work and how to right back and win as well as placing workplace
issues in a social and political context. This propaganda would present
anarchist ideas of workplace organisation and resistance as well as general
anarchist ideas and analysis. In this way anarchist ideas and tactics 
would be able to get a wider hearing and anarchists can have an input *as
anarchists* into workplace struggles.

Traditionally, many syndicalists and anarcho-syndicalists advocated the 
*One Big Union* strategy, the aim of which was to organise all workers into 
one organisation representing the whole working class. Today, however, most 
anarcho-syndicalists and all social anarchists advocate workers assemblies 
for decision making during struggles (the basic form of which we discussed
in section J.5.2). The role of the anarchist group or anarcho-syndicalist 
(or revolutionary) union would basically be to call such workplace assemblies,
argue for direct workers control of struggle by these mass assemblies, promote
direct action and solidarity, put across anarchist ideas and politics and 
keep things on the boil, so to speak.

This support for industrial networks exists because most anarcho-syndicalists 
recognise that they face dual unionism (which means there are more than one 
union within a given workplace or country). This was the case, historically, 
in all countries with a large anarcho-syndicalist union movement - in Spain 
and Italy there were the socialist unions along with the syndicalist ones 
and so on). Therefore most anarcho-syndicalists do not expect to ever get 
a majority of the working class into a revolutionary union before a
revolutionary situation develops. In addition, anarcho-syndicalists 
recognise that a revolutionary union "is not just an economic fighting 
force, but also an organisation with a political context. To build such 
a union requires a lot of work and experience" of which the Industrial
Networks are but one aspect. [Ibid.]

Thus industrial networks are intended to deal with the actual situation
that confronts us, and provide a strategy for moving from our present
reality toward out ultimate goals. Where one has only a handful of
anarchists and syndicalists in a workplace or scattered across several 
workplaces there is a clear need for developing ways for these fellow 
workers to effectively act in union, rather than be isolated and
relegated to more general agitation. A handful of anarchists cannot 
meaningfully call a general strike. But we can agitate around specific 
industrial issues and organise our fellow workers to do something about 
them. Through such campaigns we demonstrate the advantages of 
rank-and-file unionism and direct action, show our fellow workers 
that our ideas are not mere abstract theory but can be implemented 
here and now, attract new members and supporters, and further develop 
our capacity to develop revolutionary unions in our workplaces. 

Thus the creation of Industrial Networks and the calling for workplace 
assemblies is a recognition of where we are now -- with anarchist ideas
very much in the minority. Calling for workers assemblies is not
an anarchist tactic per se, we must add, but a working class one developed
and used plenty of times by workers in struggles (indeed, it was how the
current trade unions were created). It also puts the onus on the reformists 
and reactionary unions by appealing directly to their members as workers 
and showing their bureaucrat organisations and reformist politics by 
creating an effective alternative to them.

A few anarchists reject the idea of Industrial Networks and instead support
the idea of "rank and file" groups which aim to put pressure on the current
trade unions to become more militant and democratic (a few anarcho-syndicalists
think that such groups can be used to reform the trade-unions into libertarian,
revolutionary organisations -- called "boring from within" -- but most reject
this as utopia, viewing the trade union bureaucracy as unreformable as
the state's). Moreover, opponents of "rank and file" groups argue that
they direct time and energy *away* from practical and constructive activity
and instead waste them "[b]y constantly arguing for changes to the union
structure. . . the need for the leadership to be more accountable, etc., 
[and so] they not only [offer] false hope but [channel] energy
and discontent away from the real problem - the social democratic 
nature of reformist trade unions." [_Winning the Class War_, p. 11]

Supporters of the "rank and file" approach fear that the Industrial Networks
will isolate anarchists from the mass of trade union members by creating
tiny "pure" syndicalist unions or anarchist groups. But such a claim is 
rejected by supporters of Industrial Networks. They maintain that they 
will be working with trade union members where it counts, in the 
workplace and not in badly attended, unrepresentative branch 
meetings. So:

"We have no intention of isolating ourselves from the many workers who
make up the rest of the rank and file membership of the unions. We 
recognise that a large proportion of trade union members are only
nominally so as the main activity of social democratic [i.e. reformist]
unions is outside the workplace. . . *We aim to unite and not divide
workers.*

"It has been argued that social democratic unions will not tolerate this
kind of activity, and that we would be all expelled and thus isolated.
So be it. We, however, don't think that this will happen until. . .
workplace militants had found a voice independent of the trade 
unions and so they become less useful to us anyway. Our aim is 
not to support social democracy, but to show it up as irrelevant 
to the working class." [Op. Cit., p. 19]

Whatever the merits and disadvantages of both approaches are, it seems 
likely that the activity of both will overlap in practice with Industrial 
Networks operating within trade union branches and "rank and file" 
groups providing alternative structures for struggle. 

As noted above, there is a slight difference between anarcho-syndicalist
supporters of Industrial Networks and communist-anarchist ones. This is to
do with how they see the function and aim of these networks. While both
agree that such networks should agitate in their industry and call and 
support mass assemblies to organise resistance to capitalist exploitation
and oppression they disagree on who can join the network groups and 
what they aims should be. Anarcho-syndicalists aim for the Industrial
Networks to be the focal point for the building of permanent syndicalist
unions and so aim for the Industrial Networks to be open to all workers
who accept the general aims of the organisation. Anarcho-communists,
however, view Industrial Networks as a means of increasing anarchist
ideas within the working class and are not primarily concerned about
building syndicalist unions (while many anarcho-communists would
support such a development, some do not). 

These anarchists, therefore, see the need for workplace-based branches
of an anarchist group along with the need for networks of militant 
'rank and file' workers, but reject the idea of something that is one 
but pretends to be the other. They argue that, far from avoiding the 
problems of classical anarcho-syndicalism, such networks seem to 
emphasise one of the worst problems -- namely that of how the 
organisation remains anarchist but is open to non-anarchists. 

But the similarities between the two positions are greater than the 
differences and so can be summarised together, as we have done here.

J.5.5 What forms of co-operative credit do anarchists support?

Anarchists tend to support most forms of co-operation, including those
associated with credit and money. This co-operative credit/banking takes
many forms, such as credit unions, LETS schemes and so on. In this 
section we discuss two main forms of co-operative credit, *mutualism*
and *LETS*.

Mutualism is the name for the ideas associated with Proudhon and his _Bank 
of the People_. Essentially, it is a confederation of credit unions in
which working class people pool their funds and savings. This allows 
credit to be arranged at cost, so increasing the options available to
working people as well as abolishing interest on loans by making increasing
amount of cheap credit available to working people. LETS stands for Local 
Exchange Trading Schemes and is a similar idea in many ways (and apparently
discovered independently) -- see _Bringing the Economy Home from the
Market_ by V.G. Dobson for a detailed discussion on LETS. 

Both schemes revolve around creating an alternative form of currency and 
credit within capitalism in order to allow working class people to work 
outwith the capitalist money system by creating "labour notes" as a 
new circulating medium. In this way, it is hoped, workers would be able 
to improve their living and working conditions by having a source of 
community-based (very low interest) credit and so be less dependent on
capitalists and the capitalist banking system. Some supporters of mutualism
considered it as the ideal way of reforming capitalism away. By making
credit available to the ordinary worker at very cheap rates, the end of 
wage slavery would soon occur as workers would work for themselves by 
either purchasing the necessary tools required for their work or, by their
increased bargaining power within the economy, gain industrial democracy
from the capitalists by buying them out.

Such ideas have had a long history within the socialist movement, originating
in the British socialist movement in the early 19th century. Robert Owen
and other Socialists active at the time considered the idea of labour
notes and exchanges as a means of improving working class conditions within
capitalism and as the means of reforming capitalism into a society of
confederated, self-governing communities. Indeed, "Equitable Labour Exchanges" 
were "founded at London and Birmingham in 1832" with "Labour notes and the
exchange of small products" [E.P. Thompson, _The Making of the English
Working Class_, p. 870] Apparently independently of these early attempts 
in England at what would later be called mutualism, P-J Proudhon arrived 
at the same ideas decades later in France. In his words, "The People's Bank 
quite simply embodies the financial and economic aspects of the principle 
of modern democracy, that is, the sovereignty of the People, and of the 
republican motto, 'Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.'" [_Selected Writings of 
P-J Proudhon_, p. 75] Similarly, in the USA (partly as a result of Joshua
Warren's activities, who got the idea from Robert Owen) there was extensive
discussion on labour notes, exchanges and free credit as a means of protecting 
workers from the evils of capitalism and ensuring their independence and
freedom from wage slavery. When Proudhon's works appeared in North America,
the basic arguments were well known.

Therefore the idea that mutual banking using labour money as a means 
to improve working class living conditions, even, perhaps, to achieve
industrial democracy, self-management and the end of capitalism has a long
history in Socialist thought. Unfortunately this aspect of socialism became
less important with the rise of Marxism (which called these early socialists
"utopian") attempts at such credit unions and alternative exchange schemes
were generally replaced with attempts to build working class political 
parties. With the rise of Marxian social democracy, constructive socialistic 
experiments and collective working class self-help was replaced by working 
within the capitalist state. Fortunately, history has had the last laugh 
on Marxism with working class people yet again creating anew the ideas of 
Mutualism (as can be seen by the growth of LETS and other schemes of
community money).

J.5.6 What are the key features of mutual credit schemes?

Mutualism, as noted in the last section, is a form of credit co-operation, 
in which individuals pull their resources together in order to benefit 
themselves as individuals and as part of a community. LETS is another form 
of mutualism which developed recently, and apparently developed independently
(from its start in Canada, LETS has spread across the world and there are
now hundreds of schemes involved hundreds of thousands of people). Mutual 
banks and LETS have the following key aspects:

	1) Co-operation: No-one owns the network. It is controlled by
	   its members directly.
	2) Non-exploitative: No interest is charged on account balances
	   or credit. At most administrative costs are charged, a result
	   of it being commonly owned and managed.
	3) Consent: Nothing happens without it, there is no compulsion
	   to trade.
	4) Money: They use their own type of money (traditionally called
	   "labour-notes") as a means of aiding "honest exchange".

It is hoped, by organising credit, working class people will be able to
work for themselves and slowly but surely replace capitalism with
a co-operative system based upon self-management. While LETS schemes
do not have such grand schemes, historically mutualism aimed at 
working within and transforming capitalism to socialism. At the very
least, LETS schemes reduce the power and influence of banks and finance
capital within society as mutualism ensures that working people
have a viable alternative to such parasites.

This point is important, as the banking system and money is often
considered "neutral" (particularly in capitalist economics). However,
as Malatesta correctly argues, it would be "a mistake to believe . . .
that the banks are, or are in the main, a means to facilitate
exchange; they are a means to speculate on exchange and currencies,
to invest capital and to make it produce interest, and to fulfil
other typically capitalist operations." [_Life and Ideas_, p. 100]

Within capitalism, money is still to a large degree a commodity which
is more than a convenient measure of work done in the production
of goods and services. As a commodity it can and does go anywhere in
the world where it can get the best return for its owners, and so it
tends to drain out of those communities that need it most. It is the
means by which capitalists can buy the liberty of working people and
get them to produce a surplus for them (wealth is, after all, "a power 
invested in certain individuals by the institutions of society, to
compel others to labour for their benefit." [William Godwin, _The 
Anarchist Writings of William Godwin_, p. 130]. From this 
consideration alone, working class control of credit and money 
is an important part of the class struggle as having access to 
alternative sources of credit can increase working class options 
and power. 

Moreover, credit is also an important form of social control -- 
people who have to pay their mortgage or visa bill are more pliable, 
less likely to strike or make other forms of political trouble. And, 
of course, credit expands the consumption of the masses in the face 
of stagnant or falling wages while allowing capitalists to profit 
from it. Indeed, there is a link between the rising debt burden on 
households in the 1980s and 1990s and the increasing concentration 
of wealth. This is "because of the decline in real hourly wages and 
the stagnation in household incomes, the middle and lower classes 
have borrowed to stay in place; they've borrowed from the very rich
who have gotten richer. The rich need a place to earn interest on 
their surplus funds, and the rest of the population makes a juicy 
lending target." [Doug Henwood, _Wall Street_, pp. 64-65]

Little wonder that the state (and the capitalists who run it) is so 
concerned to keep control of money in its own hands  or the hands
of its agents. With an increase in mutual credit, interest rates 
would drop, wealth would stay more in working class communities,
and the social power of working people would increase (for people 
would be more likely to struggle for higher wages and better
conditions -- as the fear of debt repayments would be less).

Therefore, mutualism is an example of what could be termed 
"counter-economics". By counter-economics we mean the creation of 
community-based credit unions that do not put their money into 
"Capital Markets" or into capitalist Banks. We mean finding ways 
for workers to control their own retirement funds. We mean finding
ways of using money as a means of undermining capitalist power
and control and supporting social struggle and change.

In this way working people are controlling more and more of the
money supply and using it ways that will stop capital from using
it to oppress and exploit the working class. An example of why
this can be important can be seen from the results of the existing
workers' pension fund system. Currently workers pension funds are 
being used to invest in capitalist firms (particularly transnationals 
and other forms of Big Business) and these companies use the invested 
money to fund their activities. The idea is that by so investing, 
workers will receive an adequate pension in their old age. 

However, the only people actually winning are bankers and big companies. 
Unsurprisingly, the managers of these pension fund companies are 
investing in those firms with the highest returns, which are usually 
those who are downsizing or extracting most surplus value from their 
workforce (which in turn forces other companies to follow the same 
strategies to get access to the available funds in order to survive). 

Basically, if you are lending your money to be used to put your 
fellow worker out of work or increase the power of capital, 
then you are not only helping to make things harder for others 
like you, you are also helping making things worse for yourself. 
No person is an island, and increasing the clout of capital over 
the working class is going to affect you directly or indirectly. 
And, of course, it seems crazy to suggest that workers desire to 
experience insecurity, fear of downsizing and stagnating wages 
during their working lives in order to have slightly more money 
when they retire.

This highlights one of the tricks the capitalists are using against 
us, namely to get us to buy into the system through our fear of old age. 
Whether it is going into lifelong debt to buy a home or lending our 
money to capitalists, we are being encouraged to buy into something 
which we value more than what is right and wrong. This allows us to 
be more easily controlled by the government. We need to get away 
from living in fear and stop allowing ourselves to be deceived 
into behaving like "stakeholders" in Capitalistic and Plutocratic 
systems. As can be seen from the use of pension funds to buy
out firms, increase the size of transnationals and downsize
the workforce, such "stakeholding" amounts to trading in the
present *and* the future while others benefit.

The real enemies are *not* working people who take part in such
pension schemes. It is the people in power, those who manage the 
pension schemes and companies, who are trying to squeeze every 
last cent out of working people to finance higher profits and stock
prices -- which the unemployment and impoverishment of workers on 
a world-wide scale aids. They control the governments of the world. 
They are making the "rules" of the current system. Hence the 
importance of limiting the money they have available, of creating 
community-based credit unions and mutual risk insurance 
co-operatives to increase our control over our money and create our
own, alternative, means of credit and exchange (as presented as
mutualism) which can be used to empower ourselves, aid our struggles
and create our own alternatives. Money, representing as it does the 
power of capital and the authority of the boss, is not "neutral" and 
control over it plays a role in the class struggle. We ignore such
issues at our own peril.

J.5.7 Do most anarchists think mutual credit is sufficient to abolish
      capitalism?

The short answer is no, they do not. While the Individualist Anarchists
and Mutualists (followers of Proudhon) do think that mutual banking is
the only sure way of abolishing capitalism, most anarchists do not see 
mutualism as an end in itself. Few think that capitalism can be 
reformed away in the manner assumed by Proudhon. Increased access to
credit does not address the relations of production and market power 
which exist within the economy and so any move for financial transformation 
has to be part of a broader attack on all forms of capitalist social power 
in order to be both useful and effective (see section B.3.2 for more 
anarchist views on mutual credit and its uses). So, for most anarchists, 
it is only in combination with other forms of working class self-activity 
and self-management that mutualist institutions could play an important 
role in the class struggle. 

By creating a network of mutual banks to aid in creating co-operatives, union 
organising drives, supporting strikes (either directly by gifts/loans or 
funding food and other co-operatives which could supply food and other 
essentials free or at a reduction), mutualism can be used as a means of 
helping build libertarian alternatives within the capitalist system. Such 
alternatives, while making life better under the current system, also can 
play a role in overcoming that system by being a means of aiding those in 
struggle make ends meet and providing alternative sources of income for 
black-listed or sacked workers. Thus Bakunin's comments:

"let us co-operate in our common enterprise to make our lives a little
bit more supportable and less difficult. Let us, wherever possible,
establish producer-consumer co-operatives and mutual credit societies which,
though under the present economic conditions they cannot in any real or
adequate way free us, are nevertheless important inasmuch they train the
workers in the practices of managing the economy and plant the precious 
seeds for the organisation of the future." [_Bakunin on Anarchism_, 
p. 173]

Therefore, while few anarchists think that mutualism would be enough
in itself, it can play a role in the class struggle. As a compliment to
direct action and workplace and community struggle and organisation,
mutualism has an important role in working class self-liberation. For 
example, community unions (see section J.5.1) could create their own
mutual banks and money which could be used to fund co-operatives and
support strikes and other forms of social struggle. In this way a 
healthy communalised co-operative sector could develop within capitalism,
overcoming the problems of isolation facing workplace co-operatives
(see section J.5.11) as well as providing a firm framework of support
for those in struggle.

Moreover, mutual banking can be a way of building upon and strengthening 
the anarchistic social relations within capitalism. For even under 
capitalism and statism, there exists extensive mutual aid and, indeed, 
anarchistic and communistic ways of living. For example, communistic 
arrangements exist within families, between friends and lovers and 
within anarchist organisations.

Mutual banking could be a means of creating a bridge between this 
alternative (gift) "economy" and capitalism. The mutualist alternative
economy would help strength communities and bonds of trust between 
individuals, and this would increase the scope for increasing the scope 
of the communistic sector as more and more people help each other out 
without the medium of exchange - in other words, mutualism will help 
the gift economy that exists within capitalism to grow and develop.

J.5.8 What would a modern system of mutual banking look like? 

The mutual banking ideas of Proudhon could be adapted to the conditions of
modern society, as will be described in what follows. (Note: Proudhon is
the definitive source on mutualism, but for those who don't read French,
there are the works of his American disciples, e.g. William B. Greene's
_Mutual Banking_, and Benjamin Tucker's _Instead of a Book by a Man Too
Busy to Write One_).

One scenario for an updated system of mutual banking would be for a
community barter association to begin issuing an alternative currency
accepted as money by all individuals within the system. This "currency"
would not at first take the form of coins or bills, but would be
circulated entirely through transactions involving the use of barter-cards, 
personal checks, and "e-money" transfers via modem/Internet. Let's call 
this currency-issuing type of barter association a "mutual barter 
clearinghouse," or just "clearinghouse" for short. 

The clearinghouse would have a twofold mandate: first, to extend credit
at cost to members; second, to manage the circulation of credit-money within 
the system, charging only a small service fee (probably one percent or less)
which is sufficient to cover its costs of operation, including labour costs
involved in issuing credit and keeping track of transactions, insuring
itself against losses from uncollectable debts, and so forth.

The clearinghouse would be organised and function as follows. Members 
of the original barter association would be invited to become
subscriber-members of the clearinghouse by pledging a certain amount of
property as collateral. On the basis of this pledge, an account would be
opened for the new member and credited with a sum of mutual dollars
equivalent to some fraction of the assessed value of the property pledged.
The new member would agree to repay this amount plus the service fee
by a certain date. The mutual dollars in the new account could then be
transferred through the clearinghouse by using a barter card, by writing a
personal check, or by sending e-money via modem to the accounts of other
members, who have agreed to receive mutual money in payment for all
debts. 

The opening of this sort of account is, of course, the same as taking out
a "loan" in the sense that a commercial bank "lends" by extending credit
to a borrower in return for a signed note pledging a certain amount of
property as security. The crucial difference is that the clearinghouse
does not purport to be "lending" a sum of money that it *already has,* as
is fraudulently claimed by commercial banks. Instead it honestly admits
that it is creating new money in the form of credit. New accounts can
also be opened simply by telling the clearinghouse that one wants an
account and then arranging with other people who already have balances to
transfer mutual money into one's account in exchange for goods or
services. 

Another form is that associated with LETS systems. In this a number of 
people get together to form an association. They create a unit of exchange
(which is equal in value to a unit of the national currency usually),
choose a name for it and offer each other goods and services priced in
these units. These offers and wants are listed in a directory which is
circulated periodically to members. Members decide who they wish to
trade with and how much trading they wish to do. When a transaction is
completed, this is acknowledged with a "cheque" made out by the buyer 
and given to the seller. These are passed on to the system accounts
administration which keeps a record of all transactions and periodically
sends members a statement of their accounts. The accounts administration
is elected by, and accountable to, the membership and information about
balances is available to all members.

Unlike the first system described, members do not have to present property
as collateral. Members of a LETS scheme can go into "debt" without it,
although "debt" is the wrong word as members are not so much going into
debt as committing themselves to do some work within the system in the
future and by so doing they are creating spending power. The willingness
of members to incur such a commitment could be described as a service to
the community as others are free to use the units so created to trade
themselves. Indeed, the number of units in existence exactly matches
the amount of real wealth being exchanged. The system only works if 
members are willing to spend and runs on trust and builds up trust 
as the system is used. 

It is likely that a fully functioning mutual banking system would
incorporate aspects of both these systems. The need for collateral may 
be used when members require very large loans while the LETS system of
negative credit as a commitment to future work would be the normal
function of the system. If the mutual bank agrees a maximum limit for
negative balances, it may agree to take collateral for transactions
that exceed this limit. However, it is obvious that any mutual banking
system will find the best means of working in the circumstances it
finds itself.

J.5.9 How does mutual credit work?
  
Let's consider an example of how business would be transacted in the new
system. There are two possibilities, depending on whether the mutual
credit is based upon whether the creditor can provide collateral or
not. we will take the case with collateral first.

Suppose that A, an organic farmer, pledges as collateral a certain plot 
of land that she owns and on which she wishes to build a house. The land 
is valued at, say, $40,000 in the capitalist market. By pledging the land, 
A is able to open a credit account at the clearinghouse for, say, $30,000 
in mutual money (a ratio of 3/4). She does so knowing that there are 
many other members of the system who are carpenters, electricians, 
plumbers, hardware dealers, and so on who are willing to accept mutual 
dollars in payment for their products or services.

It's easy to see why other subscriber-members, who have also obtained
mutual credit and are therefore in debt to the clearinghouse for mutual
dollars, would be willing to accept such dollars in return for their goods
and services. For they need to collect mutual dollars to repay their
debts. But why would someone who is not in debt for mutual dollars be
willing to accept them as money? 

To see why, let's suppose that B, an underemployed carpenter, currently
has no account at the clearinghouse but that he knows about the
clearinghouse and the people who operate it. After examining its list of
members and becoming familiar with the policies of the new organisation,
he's convinced that it does not extend credit frivolously to untrustworthy
recipients who are likely to default. He also knows that if he contracts
to do the carpentry on A's new house and agrees to be paid for his work in
mutual money, he'll then be able to use it to buy groceries, clothes, car
repairs, and other goods and services from various people in the community
who already belong to the system. 

Thus B will be willing, and perhaps even eager (especially if the economy
is in recession and regular money is tight) to work for A and receive
payment in mutual dollars. For he knows that if he is paid, say, $8,000
in mutual money for his labour on A's house, this payment constitutes, in
effect, 20 percent of a mortgage on her land, the value of which is
represented by her mutual credit. B also understands that A has promised
to repay this mortgage by producing new value -- that is, by growing
organic fruits and vegetables and selling them for mutual dollars to other
members of the system -- and that it is this promise to produce new wealth
which gives her mutual credit its value as a medium of exchange. 

To put this point slightly differently, A's mutual credit can be thought
of as a lien against goods or services which she has guaranteed to create
in the future. As security of this guarantee, she agrees that if she is
unable for some reason to fulfil her obligation, the land she has pledged
will be sold for mutual dollars to other members. In this way, a value
sufficient to cancel her debt (and probably then some) will be returned to
the system. This provision insures that the clearinghouse is able to
balance its books and gives members confidence that mutual money is sound.

It should be noticed that since new wealth is continually being created,
the basis for new mutual credit is also being created at the same time. 
Thus, suppose that after A's new house has been built, her daughter, C,
along with a group of friends D, E, F, . . . , decide that they want to
start a collectively owned and operated organic restaurant (which will
incidentally benefit A, as an outlet for her produce), but that C and her
friends do not have enough collateral to obtain a start-up loan. A,
however, is willing to co-sign a note for them, pledging her new house
(valued at say, $80,000) as security. On this basis, C and her partners
are able to obtain $60,000 worth of mutual credit, which they then use to
buy equipment, supplies, furniture, advertising, etc. and lease the
building necessary to start their restaurant. 

This example illustrates one way in which people without property are able
to obtain credit in the new system. Another way -- for those who cannot
find (or perhaps don't wish to ask) someone with property to co-sign for
them -- is to make a down payment and then use the property which is to be
purchased on credit as security, as in the current method of obtaining a
home or auto loan. With mutual credit, however, this form of financing
can be used to purchase anything, including capital goods.

Which brings us to the case of an individual without means for providing
collateral - say, for example A, the organic farmer, does not own the
land she works. In such a case, A, who still desires work done, would
contact other members of the mutual bank with the skills she requires.
Those members with the appropriate skills and who agree to work with
her commit themselves to do the required tasks. In return, A gives
them a check in mutual dollars which is credited to their account and
deducted from hers. She does not pay interest on this issue of credit
and the sum only represents her willingness to do some work for other
members of the bank at some future date.

The mutual bank does not have to worry about the negative balance, as
this does not create a loss within the group as the minuses which have
been incurred have already created wealth (pluses) within the system
and it stays there. It is likely, of course, that the mutual bank
would agree an upper limit on negative balances and require some form
of collateral for credit greater than this limit, but for most exchanges
this would be unlikely to be relevant.

It is important to remember that mutual dollars have no *intrinsic* value, 
since they can't be redeemed (at the mutual bank) in gold or anything else. 
All they are promises of future labour. Thus, as Greene points out in
his work on mutual banking, mutual dollars are "a mere medium for the
facilitation of barter." In this respect they are closely akin to the
so-called "barter dollars" now being circulated by barter associations
through the use of checks and barter cards. To be precise, then, we
should refer to the units of mutual money as "mutual barter dollars." But
whereas ordinary barter dollars are created at the same time that a barter
transaction occurs and are used to record the values exchanged in that
transaction, mutual barter dollars are created *before* any actual barter
transaction occurs and are intended to facilitate *future* barter
transactions. This fact is important because it can be used as the basis
for a legal argument that clearinghouses are essentially barter
associations rather than banks, thrifts, or credit unions, and therefore
should not be subject to the laws governing the latter institutions.

J.5.10 Why do anarchists support co-operatives?

Support for co-operatives is a common feature in anarchist writings. Indeed,
anarchist support for co-operatives is as old as use of the term anarchist to
describe our ideas is. So why do anarchists support co-operatives? Basically
it is because a co-operative is seen as an example of the future social
organisation anarchists want in the present. As Bakunin argued, "the
co-operative system. . . carries within it the germ of the future economic
order." [_The Philosophy of Bakunin_, p. 385]

Anarchists support all kinds of co-operatives - housing, food, credit unions
and productive ones. All forms of co-operation are useful as they accustom
their members to work together for their common benefit as well as ensuring
extensive experience in managing their own affairs. As such, all forms of
co-operatives are useful examples of self-management and anarchy in action
(to some degree). However, here we will concentrate on productive 
co-operatives, i.e. workplace co-operatives. This is because workplace
co-operatives, potentially, could *replace* the capitalist mode of production
with one based upon associated, not wage, labour. As long as capitalism
exists within industry and agriculture, no amount of other kinds of
co-operatives will end that system. Capital and wealth accumulates by 
oppression and exploitation in the workplace, therefore as long as wage
slavery exists anarchy will not. 

Co-operatives are the "germ of the future" because of two facts. Firstly, 
co-operatives are based on one worker, one vote. In other words those who do 
the work manage the workplace within which they do it (i.e. they are based 
on workers' self-management in some form). Thus co-operatives are an example 
of the "horizontal" directly democratic organisation that anarchists support 
and so are an example of "anarchy in action" (even if in an imperfect way)
within the economy. In addition, they are an example of working class 
self-help and self-activity. Instead of relying on others to provide work, 
co-operatives show that production can be carried on without the existence 
of a class of masters employing a class of order takers.

Workplace co-operatives also present evidence of the viability of an anarchist
"economy." It is well established that co-operatives are usually more 
productive and efficient than their capitalist equivalents. This indicates
that hierarchical workplaces are *not* required in order to produce
useful goods and indeed can be harmful. Indeed, it also indicates that
the capitalist market does not actually allocate resources efficiently
(as we will discuss in section J.5.12). So why should co-operatives be more 
efficient?

Firstly there are the positive effects of increased liberty associated
with co-operatives. 

Co-operatives, by abolishing wage slavery, obviously increases the liberty 
of those who work in them. Members take an active part in the management 
of their working lives and so authoritarian social relations are replaced 
by libertarian ones. Unsurprisingly, this liberty also leads to an increase 
in productivity - just as wage labour is more productive than slavery, so 
associated labour is more productive than wage slavery. Little wonder 
Kropotkin argued that "the only guarantee not to be robbed of the fruits 
of your labour is to possess the instruments of labour. . . man really 
produces most when he works in freedom, when he has a certain choice in 
his occupations, when he has no overseer to impede him, and lastly, when 
he sees his work bringing profit to him and to others who work like him, 
but bringing in little to idlers." [_The Conquest of Bread_, p. 145]

There are also the positive advantages associated with participation
(i.e. self-management, liberty in other words). Within a self-managed, 
co-operative workplace, workers are directly involved in decision
making and so these decisions are enriched by the skills, experiences 
and ideas of all members of the workplace. In the words of Colin
Ward:

"You can be *in* authority, or you can be *an* authority, or you can
*have* authority. The first derives from your rank in some chain of
command, the second derives special knowledge, and the third from
special wisdom. 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.

"Perhaps the greatest crime of the industrial system is the way
it systematically thwarts the investing genius of the majority
of its workers." [_Anarchy in Action_, p. 41]

Also, as workers also own their place of work, they have an interest 
in developing the skills and abilities of their members and, obviously, 
this also means that there are few conflicts within the workplace. 
Unlike capitalist firms, there is no need for conflict between bosses 
and wage slaves over work loads, conditions or the division of value 
created between them. All these factors will increase the quality,
quantity and efficiency of work and so increases efficient utilisation of
available resources and facilities the introduction of new techniques and
technologies.

Secondly, the increased efficiency of co-operatives results from the benefits
associated with co-operation itself. Not only does co-operation increase
the pool of knowledge and abilities available within the workplace and
enriches that source by communication and interaction, it also ensures that 
the workforce are working together instead of competing and so wasting
time and energy. As Alfie Kohn notes (in relation to investigations of 
in-firm co-operation):

"Dean Tjosvold of Simon Frazer. . .conducted [studies] at utility companies,
manufacturing plants, engineering firms, and many other kinds of organisations.
Over and over again, Tjosvold has found that 'co-operation makes a work force
motivated' whereas 'serious competition undermines co-ordination.' . . . 
Meanwhile, the management guru. . . T. Edwards Demming, has declared that
the practice of having employees compete against each other is 'unfair [and]
destructive. We cannot afford this nonsense any longer. . . [We need to]
work together on company problems [but] annual rating of performance, 
incentive pay, [or] bonuses cannot live with team work. . . What takes
the joy out of learning. . .[or out of] anything? Trying to be number one.'"
[_No Contest_, p. 240]

(The question of co-operation and participation within capitalist firms will
be discussed in section J.5.12).

Thirdly, there are the benefits associated with increased equality. Studies 
prove that business performance deteriorates when pay differentials become 
excessive. In a study of over 100 businesses (producing everything from 
kitchen appliances to truck axles), researchers found that the greater the 
wage gap between managers and workers, the lower their product's quality. 
[Douglas Cowherd and David Levine, "Product Quality and Pay Equity,"
_Administrative Science Quarterly_ no. 37 (June 1992), pp. 302-30] Businesses 
with the greatest inequality were plagued with a high employee turnover 
rate. Study author David Levine said: "These organisations weren't able to 
sustain a workplace of people with shared goals." [quoted by John Byrne in 
"How high can CEO pay go?" _Business Week_, April 22, 1996]

(In fact, the negative effects of income inequality can be seen on a national
level as well. Economists Torsten Persson and Guido Tabellini conducted a
thorough statistical analysis of historical inequality and growth, and found
that nations with more equal incomes generally experience faster productive
growth. ["Is Inequality Harmful for Growth?", _American Economic Review_
no. 84, June 1994, pp. 600-21] Numerous other studies have also confirmed 
their findings. Real life yet again disproves the assumptions of 
capitalism - inequality harms us all, even the capitalist economy 
which produces it).

This is to be expected. Workers, seeing an increasing amount of the value
they create being monopolised by top managers and a wealthy elite and not
re-invested into the company to secure their employment prospects, will
hardly be inclined to put in that extra effort or care about the quality
of their work. Managers who use the threat of unemployment to extract
more effort from their workforce are creating a false economy. While they
will postpone decreasing profits in the short term due to this adaptive 
strategy (and enrich themselves in the process) the pressures placed
upon the system will bring a harsh long term effects - both in terms of 
economic crisis (as income becomes so skewed as to create realisation 
problems and the limits of adaptation are reached in the face of 
international competition) and social breakdown.

As would be imagined, co-operative workplaces tend to be more egalitarian 
than capitalist ones. This is because in capitalist firms, the incomes of
top management must be justified (in practice) to a small number of
individuals (namely, those shareholders with sizeable stock in the firm), 
who are usually quite wealthy and so not only have little to lose in 
granting huge salaries but are also predisposed to see top managers as
being very much like themselves and so are entitled to comparable incomes.
In contrast, the incomes of top management in worker controlled firms
have to be justified to a workforce whose members experience the relationship
between management incomes and their own directly and who, no doubt, are
predisposed to see their top managers as being workers like themselves
and accountable to them. Such an egalitarian atmosphere will have a positive 
impact on production and efficiency as workers will see that the value
they create is not being accumulated by others but distributed according
to work actually done (and not control over power). In the Mondragon 
co-operatives, for example, the maximum pay differential is 14 to 1 
(increased from 3 to 1 in a response to outside pressures after much
debate, with the actual maximum differential at 9 to 1) while (in the
USA) the average CEO is paid over 140 times the average factory worker
(up from 41 times in 1960).

Therefore, we see that co-operatives prove (to a greater or lesser extent)
the advantages of (and interrelationship between) key anarchist principles
such as liberty, equality, solidarity and self-management. Their application,
whether all together or in part, has a positive impact on efficiency and
work -- and, as we will discuss in section J.5.12, the capitalist market 
actively *blocks* the spread of more efficient productive techniques instead 
of encouraging them. Even by its own standards, capitalism stands condemned 
- it does not encourage the efficient use of resources and actively places 
barriers in the development of human "resources."

From all this its clear to see why co-operatives are supported by anarchists.
We are "convinced that the co-operative could, potentially, replace capitalism
and carries within it the seeds of economic emancipation. . . The workers
learn from this precious experience how to organise and themselves conduct
the economy without guardian angels, the state or their former employers."
[Michael Bakunin, Op. Cit., p. 399] Co-operatives give us a useful insight 
into the possibilities of a free, socialist, economy. Even within the 
hierarchical capitalist economy, co-operatives show us that a better 
future is possible and that production can be organised in a co-operative 
fashion and that by so doing we can reap the individual and social 
benefits of working together as equals.

However, this does not mean that all aspects of the co-operative movement 
find favour with anarchists. As Bakunin pointed out, "there are two kinds of 
co-operative: bourgeois co-operation, which tends to create a privileged 
class, a sort of new collective bourgeoisie organised into a stockholding 
society: and truly Socialist co-operation, the co-operation of the future 
which for this very reason is virtually impossible of realisation at 
present." [Op. Cit., p. 385] In other words, while co-operatives are the
germ of the future, in the present they are often limited by the 
capitalist environment they find themselves and narrow their vision to
just surviving within the current system.

For most anarchists, the experience of co-operatives has proven without
doubt that, however excellent in principle and useful in practice, if they
are kept within the narrow circle of "bourgeois" existence they cannot
become dominant and free the masses. This point is argued in Section J.5.11
and so will be ignored here. In order to fully develop, co-operatives must
be part of a wider social movement which includes community and industrial
unionism and the creation of a anarchistic social framework which can 
encourage "truly Socialist co-operation" and discourage "bourgeois
co-operation." As Murray Bookchin correctly argues, "[r]emoved from
a libertarian municipalist [or other anarchist] context and movement
focused on achieving revolutionary municipalist [or communalist] goals
as a *dual power* against corporations and the state, food [and other
forms of] co-ops are little more than benign enterprises that capitalism
and the state can easily tolerate with no fear of challenge." [_Democracy
and Nature_ no. 9, p. 175]

Therefore, while co-operatives are an important aspect of anarchist ideas and
practice, they are not the be all or end all of our activity. Without a
wider social movement which creates all (or at least most) of the future
society in the shell of the old, co-operatives will never arrest the growth
of capitalism or transcend the narrow horizons of the capitalist economy.

J.5.11 If workers really want self-management, why aren't there more
       producer co-operatives? 

Supporters of capitalism suggest that producer co-operatives would spring 
up spontaneously if workers really wanted them. Their argument is that
co-operatives could be financed at first by "wealthy radicals" or by
affluent workers pooling their resources to buy out existing capitalist
firms; then, if such co-operatives were really economically viable and
desired by workers, they would spread until eventually they undermined
capitalism. They conclude that since this is not happening, it must be
because workers' self-management is either economically unfeasible or is
not really attractive to workers or both (see, for example, Robert Nozick, 
_Anarchy, State, and Utopia_, pp. 250-52).

David Schweickart has decisively answered this argument by showing that 
the reason there are not more producer co-operatives is structural:  

"A worker-managed firm lacks an expansionary dynamic. When a capitalist
enterprise is successful, the owner can increase her profits by
reproducing her organisation on a larger scale. She lacks neither the
means nor the motivation to expand. Not so with a worker-managed firm. 
Even if the workers have the means, they lack the incentive, because
enterprise growth would bring in new workers with whom the increased
proceeds would have to be shared.  Co-operatives, even when prosperous, 
do not spontaneously grow. But if this is so, then each new co-operative
venture (in a capitalist society) requires a new wealthy radical or a new
group of affluent radical workers willing to experiment. Because such
people doubtless are in short supply, it follows that the absence of a
large and growing co-operative movement proves nothing about the viability
of worker self-management, nor about the preferences of workers." 
[_Against Capitalism_, p. 239]

There are other structural problems as well. For one thing, since their
pay levels are set by members' democratic vote, co-operatives tend to be
more egalitarian in their income structure.  But this means that in a
capitalist environment, co-operatives are in constant danger of having
their most skilled members hired away. Moreover, there is a difficulty in
raising capital: 

"Quite apart from ideological hostility (which may be significant), 
external investors will be reluctant to put their money into concerns 
over which they will have little or no control -- which tends to
be the case with a co-operative. Because co-operatives in a capitalist
environment face special difficulties, and because they lack the inherent
expansionary dynamic of a capitalist firm, it is hardy surprising that
they are far from dominant." [Ibid., p 240]

In addition, co-operatives face the negative externalities generated
by a capitalist economy. The presence of wage labour and investment capital
in the economy will tempt successful co-operatives to increase their flexibility
to adjust to changes in market changes by hiring workers or issuing shares
to attract new investment. In so doing, however, they may end up losing their
identities as co-operatives by diluting ownership or by making the co-operative
someone's boss:

"To meet increased production, the producer co-operatives hired outside
wage workers. This created a new class of workers who exploit and profit
from the labour of their employees. And all this fosters a bourgeois
mentality." [Michael Bakunin, _Bakunin on Anarchism_, p. 399]

Hence the pressures of working in a capitalist market may result in 
co-operatives pursuing activities which may result in short term gain 
or survival, but are sure to result in harm in the long run. Far from
co-operatives slowly expanding within and changing a capitalist environment 
it is more likely that capitalist logic will expand into and change the
co-operatives that work in it (this can be seen from the Mondragon 
co-operatives, where there has been a slight rise in the size of wage 
labour being used and the fact that the credit union, since 1992, has 
invested in non-co-operative firms). These externalities imposed upon 
isolated co-operatives within capitalism (which would not arise within a 
fully co-operative context) block local moves towards anarchism. The idea 
that co-operation will simply win out in competition within well developed
capitalist economic systems is just wishful thinking. Just because a 
system is more liberatory and just does not mean it will survive in an
authoritarian economic and social environment.

There are also cultural problems as well. As Jon Elster points out, it is
a "truism, but an important one, that workers' preferences are to a large
extent shaped by their economic environment. Specifically, there is a 
tendency to adaptive preference formation, by which the actual mode of
economic organisation comes to be perceived as superior to all others."
["From Here to There", in _Socialism_, p. 110] In other words, people 
view "what is" as given and feel no urge to change to "what could be." 
In the context of creating alternatives within capitalism, this can 
have serious effects on the spread of alternatives and indicates the 
importance of anarchists encouraging the spirit of revolt to break 
down this mental apathy.

This acceptance of "what is" can be seen, to some degree, by some
companies which meet the formal conditions for co-operatives, for
example ESOP owned firms in the USA, but lack effective workers' control. 
ESOP (Employee Stack Ownership Plans) firms enable a firms workforce
to gain the majority of a companies shares but the unequal distribution 
of shares amongst employees prevents the great majority of workers from
having any effective control or influence on decisions. Unlike real
co-operatives (based on "one worker, one vote") these firms are based
on "one share, one vote" and so have more in common with capitalist
firms than co-operatives.

Moreover, we have ignored such problems as natural barriers to entry
into, and movement within, a market (which is faced by all firms) and 
the difficulties co-operatives can face in finding access to long term 
credit facilities required by them from capitalist banks (which would 
effect co-operatives more as short term pressures can result in their 
co-operative nature being diluted). As Tom Cahill notes, the "old co-ops
[of the nineteenth century] also had the specific problem of . . . 
*giving credit* . . . [as well as] problems . . . of *competition
with price cutting capitalist* firms, highlighting the inadequate
reservoirs of the under-financed co-ops." ["Co-operatives and
Anarchism: A contemporary Perspective", in _For Anarchism_, edited by
Paul Goodway, p. 239]

In addition, the "return on capital is limited" in co-operatives [Tom
Cahill, Op. Cit., p. 247] which means that investors are less-likely
to invest in co-operatives, and so co-operatives will tend to suffer
from a lack of investment. Which also suggests that Nozick's argument
that "don't say that its against the class interest of investors to
support the growth of some enterprise that if successful would end
or diminish the investment system. Investors are not so altruistic.
They act in personal and not their class interests" is false [Op. Cit., 
pp. 252-3]. Nozick is correct, to a degree -- but given a choice 
between high returns from investments in capitalist firms and lower 
ones from co-operatives, the investor will select the former. This 
does not reflect the productivity or efficiency of the investment --
quite the reverse! -- it reflects the social function of wage
labour in maximising profits and returns on capital (see next
section for more on this). In other words, the personal interests 
of investors will generally support their class interests 
(unsurprisingly, as class interests are not independent of 
personal interests and will tend to reflect them!).

Tom Cahill outlines the investment problem when he writes that 
the "financial problem" is a major reason why co-operatives failed
in the past, for "basically the unusual structure and aims of
co-operatives have always caused problems for the dominant sources
of capital. In general, the finance environment has been hostile
to the emergence of the co-operative spirit. . ." And he also 
notes that they were "unable to devise structuring to *maintain 
a boundary* between those who work and those who own or control. . . 
It is understood that when outside investors were allowed to have 
power within the co-op structure, co-ops lost their distinctive 
qualities." [Op. Cit., pp. 238-239] Meaning that even *if*
co-operatives do attract investors, the cost of so doing may be
to transform the co-operatives into capitalist firms.
 
Thus, in spite of "empirical studies suggest[ing] that co-operatives are
at least as productive as their capitalist counterparts," with many
having "an excellent record, superior to conventionally organised firms
over a long period" [Jon Elster, Op. Cit., p. 96], co-operatives are more
likely to adapt to capitalism than replace it and adopt capitalist 
principles of rationality in order to survive. All things being equal,
co-operatives are more efficient than their capitalist counterparts - but
when co-operatives compete in a capitalist economy, all things are *not*
equal.

In spite of these structural and cultural problems, however, there has been 
a dramatic increase in the number of producer co-operatives in most Western 
countries in recent years. For example, Saul Estrin and Derek Jones report 
that co-operatives in the UK grew from 20 in 1975 to 1,600 by 1986; in 
France they increased from 500 to 1,500; and in Italy, some 7,000 new
co-operatives came into existence between 1970 and 1982 ["Can Employee-owned 
Firms Survive?", Working Paper Series, Department of Economics, Hamilton 
College (April, May, 1989)]. Italian co-operatives now number well over 
20,000, many of them large and having many support structures as well
(which aids their development by reducing their isolation and providing
long term financial support lacking within the capitalist market). 

We have already noted the success of the Mondragon co-operatives in Spain,
which created a cluster of inter-locking co-operatives with its own credit
union to provide long term financial support and commitment. Thus, in Europe 
at least, it appears that there *is* a rather "large and growing co-operative 
movement," which gives the lie to Nozick's and other supporters of 
capitalism arguments about co-operatives' lack of economic viability 
and/or attractiveness to workers. 

However, because co-operatives can survive in a capitalist economy it does 
not automatically mean that they shall *replace* that economy. Isolated
co-operatives, as we argued above, will more likely adapt to capitalist
realities than remain completely true to their co-operative promise. For
most anarchists, therefore, co-operatives can reach their full potential
only as part of a social movement aiming to change society. As part of
a wider movement of community and workplace unionism, with mutualist banks
to provide long terms financial support and commitment, co-operatives 
could be communalised into a network of solidarity and support that 
will reduce the problems of isolation and adaptation. Hence Bakunin:

"We hardly oppose the creation of co-operative associations; we find
them necessary in many respects. . . they accustom the workers to
organise, pursue, and manage their interests themselves, without
interference either by bourgeois capital or by bourgeois control. . .
[they must] above all [be] founded on the principle of solidarity and
collectivity rather than on bourgeois exclusivity, then society will
pass from its present situation to one of equality and justice without
too many great upheavals." [Op. Cit., p. 153]

Co-operation "will prosper, developing itself fully and freely, embracing
all human industry, only when it is based on equality, when all capital
. . . [and] the soil, belong to the people by right of collective
property." [Ibid.]

Until then, co-operatives will exist within capitalism but not replace it
by market forces - only a *social* movement and collective action can
fully secure their full development. As David Schweickart argues: 

"Even if worker-managed firms are preferred by the vast majority, and 
even if they are more productive, a market initially dominated by capitalist 
firms may not select for them. The common-sense neo-classical dictum that only 
those things that best accord with people's desires will survive the struggle 
of free competition has never been the whole truth with respect to anything; 
with respect to workplace organisation it is barely a half-truth." 
[Op. Cit., p. 240]

This means that while anarchists support, create and encourage co-operatives
within capitalism, they understand "the impossibility of putting into 
practice the co-operative system under the existing conditions of the 
predominance of bourgeois capital in the process of production and 
distribution of wealth." Because of this, most anarchists stress the 
need for more combative organisations such as industrial and community 
unions and other bodies "formed,"to use Bakunin's words, "for the 
organisation of toilers against the privileged world" in order to 
help bring about a free society. [Michael Bakunin, Op. Cit., p. 185] 

J.5.12 If self-management is more efficient, surely capitalist firms will
       be forced to introduce it by the market?

While it may be admitted that co-operatives cannot reform capitalism away
(see last section), many supporters of "free market" capitalism will claim 
that a laissez-faire system would see workers self-management spread within 
capitalism. This is because, as self-management is more efficient than
wage slavery, those capitalist firms that introduce it will gain a
competitive advantage, and so their competitors will be forced to 
introduce it or go bust. While not being true anarchistic production, 
it would (it is argued) be a very close approximation of it and so 
capitalism could reform itself naturally to get rid of (to a large degree) 
its authoritarian nature.

While such a notion seems plausible in theory, in practice it does not 
work. Free market capitalism places innumerable barriers to the spread of 
worker empowering structures within production, in spite (perhaps, as we
will see, *because*) of their more efficient nature. This can be seen 
from the fact that while the increased efficiency associated with workers' 
participation and self-management has attracted the attention of many 
capitalist firms, the few experiments conducted have failed to spread.
This is due, essentially, to the nature of capitalist production and
the social relationships it produces.

As we noted in section D.10, capitalist firms (particularly in the west) 
made a point of introducing technologies and management structures that 
aimed to deskill and disempower their workers. In this way, it was hoped 
to make the worker increasingly subject to "market discipline" (i.e. easier 
to train, so increasing the pool of workers available to replace any specific 
worker and so reducing workers power by increasing management's power to fire 
them). Of course, what actually happens is that after a short period of 
time while management gained the upper hand, the workforce found newer 
and more effective ways to fight back and assert their productive power 
again. While for a short time the technological change worked, over
the longer period the balance of forces changed, so forcing management to
continually try to empower themselves at the expense of the workforce.

It is unsurprising that such attempts to reduce workers to order-takers 
fail. Workers' experiences and help are required to ensure production
actually happens at all. When workers carry out their orders strictly and
faithfully (i.e. when they "work to rule") production threatens to stop.
So most capitalists are aware of the need to get workers to "co-operate" 
within the workplace to some degree. A few capitalist companies have
gone further. Seeing the advantages of fully exploiting (and we do mean 
exploiting) the experience, skills, abilities and thoughts of their employers 
which the traditional authoritarian capitalist workplace denies them, some
have introduced various schemes to "enrich" and "enlarge" work, increase 
"co-operation" between workers and their bosses. In other words, some 
capitalist firms have tried to encourage workers to "participate" in
their own exploitation by introducing (in the words of Sam Dolgoff) "a
modicum of influence, a strictly limited area of decision-making power, a
voice - at best secondary - in the control of conditions of the workplace."
[_The Anarchist Collectives_, p. 81] The management and owners still have
the power and still reap the majority of benefits from the productive
activity of the workforce. 

David Noble provides a good summary of the problems associated with
experiments in workers' self-management within capitalist firms:

"Participant in such programs can indeed be a liberating and 
exhilarating experience, awakening people to their own untapped 
potential and also to the real possibilities of collective worker 
control of production. As one manager described the former pilots 
[workers in a General Electric program]: 'These people will never 
be the same again. They have seen that things can be different.' 
But the excitement and enthusiasm engendered by such programs, as 
well as the heightened sense of commitment to a common purpose, can 
easily be used against the interests of the work force. First, that 
purpose is not really 'common' but is still determined by management 
alone, which continues to decide what will be produced, when, and 
where. Participation in production does not include participation 
in decisions on investment, which remains the prerogative of 
ownership. Thus participation is, in reality, just a variation of
business as usual -- taking orders -- but one which encourages
obedience in the name of co-operation.

"Second, participation programs can contribute to the creation
of an elite, and reduced, work force, with special privileges
and more 'co-operative' attitudes toward management -- thus at
once undermining the adversary stance of unions and reducing
membership . . .

"Thirds, such programs enable management to learn from workers
-- who are now encouraged by their co-operative spirit to
share what they know -- and, then, in Taylorist tradition,
to use this knowledge against the workers. As one former pilot
reflected, 'They learned from the guys on the floor, got their
knowledge about how to optimise the technology and then, once
they had it, they eliminated the Pilot Program, put that 
knowledge into the machines, and got people without any
knowledge to run them -- on the Company's terms and without
adequate compensation. They kept all the gains for themselves.'"
. . .

"Fourth, such programs could provide management with a way
to circumvent union rules and grievance procedures or
eliminate unions altogether. . ." [_Forces of Production_,
pp. 318-9]

Therefore, capitalist-introduced and supported "workers' control" is 
very like the situation when a worker receives stock in the company 
they work for. If it goes some way toward redressing the gap between 
the value of that person's labour, and the wage they receive for it, 
that in itself cannot be a totally bad thing (although, of course,
this does not address the issue of workplace hierarchy and the
social relations within the workplace itself). The real downside of 
this is the "carrot on a stick" enticement to work harder -- if you 
work extra hard for the company, your stock will be worth more. 
Obviously, though, the bosses get rich off you, so the more you 
work, the richer they get, the more you are getting ripped off. It 
is a choice that anarchists feel many workers cannot afford to make -- 
they need or at least want the money - but we believe that the stock 
does not work for many workers, who end up working harder, for less. 
After all, stocks do not represent all profits (large amounts of which 
end up in the hands of top management) nor are they divided just among 
those who labour. Moreover, workers may be less inclined to take direct 
action, for fear that they will damage the value of "their" company's 
stock, and so they may find themselves putting up with longer, more 
intense work in worse conditions.

However, be that as it may, the results of such capitalist experiments 
in "workers' control" are interesting and show *why* self-management
will not spread by market forces (and they also bear direct relevance 
to the question of why *real* co-operatives are not widespread within 
capitalism -- see last section).

According to one expert "[t]here is scarcely a study in the entire 
literature which fails to demonstrate that satisfaction in work is 
enhanced or. . .productivity increases occur from a genuine increase
in worker's decision-making power. Findings of such consistency, I
submit, are rare in social research." [Paul B. Lumberg, cited by
Hebert Gintis, "The nature of Labour Exchange and the Theory of
Capitalist Production", _Radical Political Economy_ vol. 1, p. 252]

In spite of these findings, a "shift toward participatory relationships
is scarcely apparent in capitalist production. . . [this is] not
compatible with the neo-classical assertion as to the efficiency of
the internal organisation of capitalist production." [Herbert Gintz,
Op. Cit., p. 252] Why is this the case?

Economist William Lazonick indicates the reason when he writes that "[m]any 
attempts at job enrichment and job enlargement in the first half of the 
1970s resulted in the supply of more and better effort by workers. Yet 
many 'successful' experiments were cut short when the workers whose work 
had been enriched and enlarged began questioning traditional management 
prerogatives inherent in the existing hierarchical structure of the 
enterprise." [_Competitive Advantage on the Shop Floor_, p. 282]

This is an important result, as it indicates that the ruling sections within 
capitalist firms have a vested interest in *not* introducing such schemes, 
even though they are more efficient methods of production. As can easily be 
imagined, managers have a clear incentive to resist participatory schemes 
(and David Schweickart notes, such resistance, "often bordering on sabotage, 
is well known and widely documented" [_Against Capitalism_, p. 229]). As
an example of this, David Noble discusses a scheme (called the Pilot
Program) ran by General Electric at Lynn, Massachusetts, USA in the 
late 1960s:

"After considerable conflict, GE introduced a quality of work life
program . . . which gave workers much more control over the machines
and the production process and eliminated foremen. Before long, by
all indicators, the program was succeeding -- machine use, output
and product quality went up; scrap rate, machine downtime, worker
absenteeism and turnover when down, and conflict on the floor
dropped off considerably. Yet, little more than a year into the
program -- following a union demand that it be extended throughout
the shop and into other GE locations -- top management abolished
the program out of fear of losing control over the workforce. 
Clearly, the company was willing to sacrifice gains in technical
and economic efficiency in order to regain and insure management
control." [_Progress Without People_, p. 65f]

However, it could be claimed that owners, being concerned by the 
bottom-line of profits, could *force* management to introduce 
participation. By this method, competitive market forces would 
ultimately prevail as individual owners, pursuing profits, 
reorganise production and participation spreads across the 
economy. Indeed, there are a few firms that *have* introduced 
such schemes, but there has been no tendency for them to spread. 
This contradicts "free market" capitalist economic theory which 
states that those firms which introduce more efficient techniques 
will prosper and competitive market forces will ensure that other 
firms will introduce the technique. 

This is for three reasons. 

Firstly, the fact is that within "free market" capitalism *keeping* 
(indeed strengthening) skills and power in the hands of the workers 
makes it harder for a capitalist firm to maximise profits (i.e. 
unpaid labour). It strengthens the power of workers, who can use
that power to gain increased wages (i.e. reduce the amount of
surplus value they produce for their bosses).

Workers' control basically leads to a usurpation of capitalist 
prerogatives -- including their share of revenues and their
ability to extract more unpaid labour during the working day. 
While in the short run workers' control may lead to higher 
productivity (and so may be toyed with), in the long run, it 
leads to difficulties for capitalists to maximise their profits. 
So, "given that profits depend on the integrity of the labour exchange, 
a strongly centralised structure of control not only serves the 
interests of the employer, but dictates a minute division of labour 
irrespective of considerations of productivity. For this reason, 
the evidence for the superior productivity of 'workers control' 
represents the most dramatic of anomalies to the neo-classical
theory of the firm: worker control increases the effective amount 
of work elicited from each worker and improves the co-ordination of
work activities, while increasing the solidarity and delegitimising
the hierarchical structure of ultimate authority at its root; hence
it threatens to increase the power of workers in the struggle over 
the share of total value." [Hebert Gintz, Op. Cit., p. 264]

So, a workplace which had extensive workers participation would 
hardly see the workers agreeing to reduce their skill levels, 
take a pay cut or increase their pace of work simply to enhance 
the profits of capitalists. Simply put, profit maximisation is not 
equivalent to technological efficiency. By getting workers to 
work longer, more intensely or in more unpleasant conditions can 
increase profits but does not yield more output for the *same* 
inputs. Workers' control would curtail capitalist means of 
enhancing profits by changing the quality and quantity of work. 
It is *this* requirement which also aids in understanding why 
capitalists will not support workers' control -- even though 
it is more efficient, it reduces the ability of capitalists to 
maximise profits by minimising labour costs. Moreover, demands 
to change the nature of workers' inputs into the production 
process in order to maximise profits for capitalists would 
provoke a struggle over the time and intensity of work and 
over the share of value added going to workers, management 
and owners and so destroy the benefits of participation. 

Thus power within the workplace plays a key role in explaining 
why workers' control does not spread -- it reduces the ability
of bosses to extract more unpaid labour from workers.

The second reason is related to the first. It too is based on 
the power structure within the company but the power is related to 
control over the surplus produced by the workers rather than the 
ability to control how much surplus is produced in the first place
(i.e. power over workers).

Hierarchical management is the way to ensure that profits
are channelled into the hands of a few. By centralising power,
the surplus value produced by workers can be distributed in 
a way which benefits those at the top (i.e. management and 
capitalists). Profit maximisation under capitalism means the
maximum profits available for capitalists -- *not* the maximum
difference between selling price and cost as such. This difference
explains the strange paradox of workers' control experiments
being successful but being cancelled by management. The paradox 
is easily explained once the hierarchical nature of capitalist
production (i.e. of wage labour) is acknowledged. Workers' control, 
by placing (some) power in the hands of workers, undermines the 
authority of management and, ultimately, their power to control the 
surplus produced by workers and allocate it as they see fit. Thus, 
while workers' control does reduce costs, increase efficiency and 
productivity (i.e. maximise the difference between prices and costs) 
it (potentially) reduces profit maximisation by undermining the 
power (and so privileges) of management to allocate that surplus 
as they see fit. 

Increased workers' control reduces the capitalists potential to 
maximise *their* profits and so will be opposed by both management
*and* owners. Indeed, it can be argued that hierarchical control
of production exists solely to provide for the accumulation of
capital in a few hands, *not* for efficiency or productivity 
(see Stephan A. Margin, "What do Bosses do? The Origins and
Functions of Hierarchy in Capitalist Production", Op. Cit., 
pp. 178-248). This is why profit maximisation does not entail 
efficiency and can actively work against it.

As David Noble argues, power is the key to understanding capitalism,
*not* the drive for profits as such:

"In opting for control [over the increased efficiency of workers'
control] . . . management . . . knowingly and, it must be assumed,
willingly, sacrificed profitable production. Hence [experiences
such as] the Pilot Program [at GE] . . . illustrates not only the
ultimate management priority of power over both production and
profit within the firm, but also the larger contradiction between
the preservation of private power and prerogatives, on the one
hand, and the social goals of efficient, quality, and useful
production, on the other . . . 

"It is a common confusion, especially on the part of those trained
in or unduly influenced by formal economics (liberal and Marxist
alike), that capitalism is a system of profit-motivated, efficient
production. This is not true, nor has it ever been. If the drive
to maximise profits, through private ownership and control over
the process of production, it has never been the end of that 
development. The goal has always been domination (and the power
and privileges that go with it) and the preservation of 
domination. There is little historical evidence to support the
view that, in the final analysis, capitalists play by the rules
of the economic game imagined by theorists. There is ample
evidence to suggest, on the other hand, that when the goals
of profit-making and efficient production fail to coincide 
with the requirements of continued dominance, capital will
resort to more ancient means: legal, political, and, of need
be, military. Always, behind all the careful accounting, lies
the threat of force. This system of domination has been
legitimated in the past by the ideological invention that
private ownership of the means of production and the pursuit
of profit via production are always ultimately beneficial to
society. Capitalism delivers the goods, it is argued, better,
more cheaply, and in larger quantity, and in so doing, fosters
economic growth . . . The story of the Pilot Program -- and
it is but one among thousands like it in U.S. industry --
raises troublesome questions about the adequacy of this 
mythology as a description of reality." [_Forces of Production_,
pp. 321-2]

Hierarchical organisation (i.e. domination) is essential to 
ensure that profits are controlled by a few and can, therefore, 
be allocated by them in such a way to ensure their power and
privileges. By undermining management authority, workers'
control undermines that power to maximise profits in a certain
direction even though it increases "profits" (the difference
between prices and costs) in the abstract. As workers' control 
starts to extend (or management sees its potential to spread) 
into wider areas such as investment decisions, how to allocate 
the surplus (i.e. profits) between wages, investment, dividends, 
management pay and so on, then they will seek to end the project
in order to ensure their power over both the workers and the
surplus they, the workers, produce. In this they will be supported 
by those who actually own the company who obviously would not 
support a regime which will not ensure the maximum return on 
their investment. This maximum return would be endangered by 
workers' control, even though it is technically more efficient,
as control over the surplus rests with the workers and not a
management elite with similar interests and aims as the owners -- 
an egalitarian workplace would produce an egalitarian distribution
of surplus, in other words (as proven by the experience of
workers' co-operatives). In the words of one participant of
the GE workers' control project -- "If we're all one, for 
manufacturing reasons, we must share in the fruits equitably,
just like a co-op business." [quoted by Noble, Op. Cit., p. 295]
Such a possibility is one no owner would agree to.

Thirdly, to survive within the "free" market means to concentrate 
on the short term. Long terms benefits, although greater, are 
irrelevant. A free market requires profits *now* and so a firm 
is under considerable pressure to maximise short-term profits 
by market forces (a similar situation occurs when firms invest 
in "green" technology, see section E.5).

Participation requires trust, investment in people and technology and 
a willingness to share the increased value added that result from workers'
participation with the workers who made it possible. All these factors 
would eat into short term profits in order to return richer rewards in the 
future. Encouraging participation thus tends to increase long term
gains at the expense of short-term ones (for it ensures that workers
do not consider participation as a con, they must experience *real*
benefits in terms of power, conditions and wage rises). For firms within 
a free market environment, they are under pressure from share-holders 
and their financiers for high returns as soon as possible. If a company 
does not produce high dividends then it will see its stock fall as 
shareholders move to those companies that do. Thus the market *forces* 
companies (and banks, who in turn loan over the short term to companies) 
to act in such ways as to maximise short term profits. 

If faced with a competitor which is not making such investments (and
which is investing directly into deskilling technology or intensifying
work loads which lowers their costs) and so wins them market share, or
a downturn in the business cycle which shrinks their profit margins 
and makes it difficult for the firm to meet its commitments to its 
financiers and workers, a company that intends to invest in people 
and trust will usually be rendered unable to do so. Faced with the 
option of empowering people in work or deskilling them and/or using 
the fear of unemployment to get workers to work harder and follow 
orders, capitalist firms have consistently chosen (and probably 
preferred) the latter option (as occurred in the 1970s).

Thus, workers' control is unlikely to spread through capitalism because
it entails a level of working class consciousness and power that is
incompatible with capitalist control. In other words, "[i]f the
hierarchical division of labour is necessary for the extraction of
surplus value, then worker preferences for jobs threatening capitalist
control will not be implemented." [Hebert Gintis, Op. Cit., p. 253]
The reason why it is more efficient, ironically, ensures that a
capitalist economy will not select it. The "free market" will 
discourage empowerment and democratic workplaces, at best reducing 
"co-operation" and "participation" to marginal issues (and management 
will still have the power of veto).

In addition, moves towards democratic workplaces within capitalism is an
example of the system in conflict with itself -- pursuing its objectives
by methods which constantly defeat those same objectives. As Paul Carden
argues, the "capitalist system can only maintain itself by trying to
reduce workers into mere order-takers. . . At the same time the system
can only function as long as this reduction is never achieved. . . [for]
the system would soon grind to a halt. . . [However] capitalism constantly
has to *limit* this *participation* (if it didn't the workers would soon
start deciding themselves and would show in practice now superfluous the
ruling class really is)." [_Revolution and Modern Capitalism_, pp. 45-46]

The experience of the 1970s supports this thesis well. Thus "workers' 
control" within a capitalist firm is a contradictory thing - too little
power and it is meaningless, too much and workplace authority structures
and short-term profits (i.e. capitalist share of value added) can be 
harmed. Attempts to make oppressed, exploited and alienated workers 
work if they were neither oppressed, exploited nor alienated will 
always fail.

For a firm to establish committed and participatory relations internally,
it must have external supports - particularly with providers of
finance (which is why co-operatives benefit from credit unions and
co-operating together). The price mechanism proves self-defeating to
create such supports and that is why we see "participation" more fully
developed within Japanese and German firms (although it is still along
way from fully democratic workplaces), who have strong, long term
relationships with local banks and the state which provides them with
the support required for such activities. As William Lazonick notes,
Japanese industry had benefited from the state ensuring "access to
inexpensive long-term finance, the sine qua non of innovating 
investment strategies" along with a host of other supports, such as
protecting Japanese industry within their home markets so they
could "develop and utilise their productive resources to the point 
where they could attain competitive advantage in international
competition." [Op. Cit., p. 305] The German state provides its
industry with much of the same support.

Therefore, "participation" within capitalist firms will have little or
no tendency to spread due to the "automatic" actions of market forces.
In spite of such schemes being more efficient, capitalism will not
select them because they empower workers and make it hard for capitalists
to maximise their short term profits. Hence capitalism, by itself, will 
have no tendency to produce more libertarian organisational forms within 
industry. Those firms that do introduce such schemes will be the exception 
rather than the rule (and the schemes themselves will be marginal in most 
respects and subject to veto from above). For such schemes to spread, 
collective action is required (such as state intervention to create the 
right environment and support network or -- from an anarchist point of 
view -- union and community direct action). 

However such schemes, as noted above, are just forms of self-exploitation, 
getting workers to help their robbers and so *not* a development 
anarchists seek to encourage. We have discussed this here just to be 
clear that, firstly, such forms of structural reforms are *not* 
self-management, as managers and owners still have the real power, 
and, secondly, even if such forms are somewhat liberatory, market forces 
will not select them (i.e. collective action would be required).

For anarchists "self-management is not a new form of mediation between
workers and their bosses . . . [it] refers to the very process by which
the workers themselves *overthrow* their managers and take on their
own management and the management of production in their own workplace."
[Sam Dolgoff, Op. Cit., p. 81] Hence our support for co-operatives, unions
and other self-managed structures created and organised from below by 
and for working class people. 

J.5.13 What are Modern Schools?

Modern schools are alternative schools, self-managed by students, teachers
and parents which reject the authoritarian schooling methods of the
modern "education" system. Such schools have a feature of the anarchist
movement since the turn of the 20th century while interest in libertarian
forms of education has been a feature of anarchist theory from the beginning.
All the major anarchist thinkers, from Godwin through Proudhon, Bakunin 
and Kropotkin to modern activists like Colin Ward, have stressed the 
importance of libertarian (or "rational") education, education that 
develops all aspects of the student (mental and physical -- and so termed
"integral" education) as well as encouraging critical thought and mental 
freedom. The aim of such education is, to use Proudhon's words, ensure
that the "industrial worker, the man [sic!] of action and the intellectual 
would all be rolled into one." [cited by Steward Edward in _The Paris 
Commune_, p. 274]

Anyone involved in radical politics, constantly and consistently challenges 
the role of the state's institutions and their representatives within our 
lives. The role of bosses, the police, social workers, the secret service, 
middle managers, doctors and priests are all seen as part of a hierarchy 
which exists to keep us, the working class, subdued. It is relatively 
rare though for the left-wing to call into question the role of teachers. 
Most left wing activists and a large number of libertarians believe that 
education is good, all education is good, and education is always good. 
As Henry Barnard, the first US commissioner of education, appointed in 
1867, exhorted, "education always leads to freedom".

Those involved in libertarian education believe the contrary. They
believe that national education systems exist only to produce citizens
who'll be blindly obedient to the dictates of the state, citizens who
will uphold the authority of government even when it runs counter to
personal interest and reason, wage slaves who will obey the orders of
their boss most of the time and consider being able to change bosses
as freedom. They agree with William Godwin (one of the earliest critics
of national education systems) when he wrote in _An Enquiry Concerning
Political Justice_ that "the project of a national education ought to be
discouraged on account of its obvious alliance with national government
. . . Government will not fail to employ it to strengthen its hand
and perpetuate its institutions. . .Their views as instigator of a 
system will not fail to be analogous to their views in their political 
capacity." [cited by Colin Ward, _Anarchy in Action_, p. 81]

With the growth of industrialism in the 19th century schools triumphed, 
not through a desire to reform but as an economic necessity.  Industry 
did not want free thinking individuals, it wanted workers, instruments 
of labour, and it wanted them punctual, obedient, passive and willing 
to accept their disadvantaged position. According to Nigel Thrift, many 
employers and social reformers became convinced that the earliest 
generations of workers were almost impossible to discipline (i.e. to get 
accustomed to wage labour and workplace authority). They looked to children, 
hoping that "the elementary school could be used to break the labouring 
classes into those habits of work discipline now necessary for factory 
production. . . Putting little children to work at school for very 
long hours at very dull subjects was seen as a positive virtue, for 
it made them habituated, not to say naturalised, to labour and fatigue." 
[quoted by Juliet B. Schor in _The Overworked American_, p. 61]

Thus supporters of Modern Schools recognise that the role of education 
is an important one in maintaining hierarchical society -- for government
and other forms of hierarchy (such as wage labour) must always depend on 
the opinion of the governed. Franciso Ferrer (the most famous supporter 
of Modern Schooling due to his execution by the Spanish state in 1909) 
argued that:

"Rulers have always taken care to control the education of the people. They
know their power is based almost entirely on the school and they insist on
retaining their monopoly. The school is an instrument of domination in the
hands of the ruling class." [cited by Clifford Harper, _Anarchy: A Graphic 
Guide_, p. 100]

Little wonder, then, that Emma Goldman argued that the "modern method of 
education" has "little regard for personal liberty and originality of 
thought. Uniformity and imitation is [its] motto" and that the school 
"is for the child what the prison is for the convict and the barracks 
for the solder - a place where everything is being used to break the 
will of the child, and then to pound, knead, and shape it into a being 
utterly foreign to itself." [_Red Emma Speaks_, p. 118, p. 116] 

Hence the importance of Modern Schools. It is a means of spreading
libertarian education within a hierarchical society and undercut one
of the key supports for that society -- the education system. Instead
of hierarchical education, Modern schools exist to "develop the
individual through knowledge and the free play of characteristic
traits, so that [the child] may become a social being, because
he had learned to know himself [or herself], to know his [or her]
relation to his fellow[s]. . . " [Emma Goldman, Op. Cit., p. 121]
It would, in Stirner's words, be "an education for freedom, not 
for subservience."

The Modern School Movement (also known as the Free School Movement)
over the past century has been an attempt to represent part of this
concern about the dangers of state and church schools and the need 
for libertarian education. The idea of libertarian education is that 
knowledge and learning should be linked to real life processes and 
personal usefulness and should not be the preserve of a special 
institution. Thus Modern Schools are an attempt to establish an 
environment for self development in an overly structured and 
rationalised world. An oasis from authoritarian control and as 
a means of passing on the knowledge to be free. 

"The underlying principle of the Modern School is this: education is
a process of drawing out, not driving in; it aims at the possibility
that the child should be left free to develop spontaneously, directing
his [or her] own efforts and choosing the branches of knowledge 
which he desires to study. . . the teacher . . . should be a sensitive
instrument responding to the needs of the child . . . a channel 
through which the child may attain so much of the ordered knowledge
of the world as he shows himself [or herself] ready to receive and
assimilate". [Emma Goldman, Op. Cit., p. 126]

The Modern School bases itself on libertarian education techniques.
Libertarian education, very broadly, seeks to produce children who 
will demand greater personal control and choice, who think for
themselves and question all forms of authority:

"We don't hesitate to say we want people who will continue to develop.
People constantly capable of destroying and renewing their surroundings 
and themselves: whose intellectual independence is their supreme power, 
which they will yield to none; always disposed for better things, eager 
for the triumph of new ideas, anxious to crowd many lives into the life 
they have. It must be the aim of the school to show the children that 
there will be tyranny as long as one person depends on another." 
[Ferrer, quoted by Clifford Harper, Op. Cit., p. 100]

Thus the Modern School insists that the child is the centre of gravity 
in the education process -- and that education is just that, *not*
indoctrination:

"I want to form a school of emancipation, concerned with banning from the
mind whatever divides people, the false concepts of property, country and
family so as to attain the liberty and well-being which all desire. I will
teach only simple truth. I will not ram dogma into their heads. I will not
conceal one iota of fact. I will teach not what to think but how to think."
[Ferrer, cited by Harper, Op. Cit., pp. 99-100]

The Modern School has no rewards or punishments, exams or mark -- the 
everyday "tortures" of conventional schooling. And because practical 
knowledge is more useful than theory, lessons were often held in factories, 
museums or the countryside. The school was also used by the parents, and 
Ferrer planned a Popular University.

"Higher education, for the privileged few, should be for the general 
public, as every human has a right to know; and science, which is 
produced by observers and workers of all countries and ages, ought 
not be restricted to class." [Ferrer, cited by Harper, Op. Cit., 
p. 100]

Thus Modern Schools are based on encouraging self-education in a
co-operative, egalitarian and libertarian atmosphere in which the
pupil (regardless of age) can develop themselves and their interests
to the fullest of their abilities. In this way Modern Schools seek
to create anarchists by a process of education which respects the
individual and gets them to develop their own abilities in a 
conducive setting. 

Modern Schools have been a constant aspect of the anarchist movement
since the later 1890s. The movement was started in France by Louise
Michel and Sebastien Faure, where Franciso Ferrer became acquainted
with them. He founded his Modern School in Barcelona in 1901, and
by 1905 there were 50 similar schools in Spain (many of them funded
by anarchist groups and trade unions and, from 1919 onward, by the 
C.N.T. -- in all cases the autonomy of the schools was respected). In 
1909, Ferrer was falsely accused by the Spanish government of leading an 
insurrection and executed in spite of world-wide protest and overwhelming 
proof of his innocence. His execution, however, gained him and his 
educational ideas international recognition and inspired a Modern School 
progressive education movement in Britain, France, Belgium, Holland, Italy, 
Germany, Switzerland, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Argentina, Brazil, 
Mexico, China, Japan and, on the greatest scale, in the USA.

However, for most anarchists, Modern Schools are not enough in themselves
to produce a libertarian society. They agree with Bakunin's argument
that "[f]or individuals to be moralised and become fully human . . .
three things are necessary: a hygienic birth, all-round education,
accompanied by an upbringing based on respect for labour, reason,
equality, and freedom and a social environment wherein each human
individual will enjoy full freedom and really by, *de jure* and *de 
facto*, the equal of every other.

"Does this environment exist? No. Then it must be established. . . 
[otherwise] in the existing social environment . . . on leaving
[libertarian] schools they [the student] would enter a society
governed by totally opposite principles, and, because society is 
always stronger than individuals, it would prevail over them . . .
[and] demoralise them." [_The Basic Bakunin_, p, 174]

Because of this, Modern Schools must be part of a mass working class
revolutionary movement which aims to build as many aspects of the new 
world as possible in the old one before, ultimately, replacing it. 
Otherwise they are just useful as social experiments and their impact 
on society marginal. Little wonder, then, that Bakunin supported the 
International Workers Association's resolution that urged "the various 
sections [of the International] to establish public courses . . . 
[based on] all-round instruction, in order to remedy as much as possible 
the insufficient education that workers currently receive." [quoted by 
Bakunin, Op. Cit., p. 175] 

Thus, for anarchists, this process of education is *part of* the class 
struggle, not in place of it and so "the workers [must] do everything 
possible to obtain all the education they can in the material circumstances 
in which they currently find themselves . . . [while] concentrat[ing] their 
efforts on the great question of their economic emancipation, the mother 
of all other emancipations." [Michael Bakunin, Op. Cit., p. 175]

Before finishing, we must stress that hierarchical education (like the media), 
cannot remove the effects of actual life and activity in shaping/changing
people and their ideas, opinions and attitudes. While education is an 
essential part of maintaining the status quo and accustoming people to 
accept hierarchy, the state and wage slavery, it cannot stop individuals
from learning from their experiences, ignoring their sense of right and
wrong, recognising the injustices of the current system and the ideas that
it is based upon. This means that even the best state (or private) education 
system will still produce rebels -- for the *experience* of wage slavery and
state oppression (and, most importantly, *struggle*) is shattering to the 
*ideology* spoon-fed children during their "education" and reinforced by
the media. 

For more information on Modern Schools see Paul Avrich's _The Modern
School Movement: Anarchism and education in the United States_, 
Emma Goldman's essay "Francisco Ferrer and the Modern School" in
_Anarchism and Other Essays_ and A.S Neil's _Summerhill_. For a good
introduction to anarchist viewpoints on education see "Kropotkin and
technical education: an anarchist voice" by Michael Smith in _For 
Anarchism_ and Michael Bakunin's "All-Round Education" in _The Basic 
Bakunin_. For an excellent summary of the advantages and benefits 
of co-operative learning, see Alfie Kohn's _No Contest_.

J.5.14 What is Libertarian Municipalism?

In his article "Theses on Libertarian Municipalism" [in _The Anarchist
Papers_, Black Rose Press, 1986], Murray Bookchin has proposed a
non-parliamentary electoral strategy for anarchists. He has repeated
this proposal in many of his later works, such as _From Urbanisation to
Cities_ and has made it -- at least in the USA -- one of the many 
alternatives anarchists are involved in. The main points of his argument 
are summarised below, followed by a brief commentary. 

According to Bookchin, "the proletariat, as do all oppressed sectors of
society, comes to life when it sheds its industrial habits in the free 
and spontaneous activity of *communising,* or taking part in the 
political life of the community." In other words, Bookchin thinks that
democratisation of local communities may be as strategically important, 
or perhaps more important, to anarchists than workplace struggles. 

Since local politics is humanly scaled, Bookchin argues that it can be
participatory rather than parliamentary. Or, as he puts it, "[t]he 
anarchic ideal of decentralised, stateless, collectively managed, and 
directly democratic communities -- of confederated municipalities or 
'communes' -- speaks almost intuitively, and in the best works of 
Proudhon and Kropotkin, consciously, to the transforming role of 
libertarian municipalism as the framework of a liberatory society. . . " 
He also points out that, historically, the city has been the principle
countervailing force to imperial and national states, haunting them as 
a potential challenge to centralised power and continuing to do so 
today, as can be seen in the conflicts between national government and
municipalities in many countries.

But, despite the libertarian potential of urban politics, "urbanisation"
-- the growth of the modern megalopolis as a vast wasteland of suburbs,
shopping malls, industrial parks, and slums that foster political apathy
and isolation in realms of alienated production and private consumption --
is antithetical to the continued existence of those aspects of the city
that might serve as the framework for a libertarian municipalism. "When
urbanisation will have effaced city life so completely that the city no
longer has its own identity, culture, and spaces for consociation, the
bases for democracy -- in whatever way the word in defined -- will have
disappeared and the question of revolutionary forms will be a shadow game
of abstractions." 

Despite this danger, however, Bookchin thinks that a libertarian politics
of local government is still possible, provided anarchists get their act
together. "The Commune still lies buried in the city council; the
sections still lie buried in the neighbourhood; the town meeting still lies
buried in the township; confederal forms of municipal association still
lie buried in regional networks of towns and cities." 

What would anarchists do electorally at the local level? Bookchin
proposes that they change city and town charters to make political
institutions participatory. "An organic politics based on such radical
participatory forms of civic association does not exclude the right of
anarchists to alter city and town charters such that they validate the
existence of directly democratic institutions. And if this kind of
activity brings anarchists into city councils, there is no reason why such
a politics should be construed as parliamentary, particularly if it is
confined to the civic level and is consciously posed against the state." 

In a latter essay, Bookchin argues that Libertarian Muncipalism "depends
upon libertarian leftists running candidates at the local level, calling
for the division of municipalities into wards, where popular assemblies
can be created that bring people into full and direct participation in
political life . . . municipalities would [then] confederate into a
dual power to oppose the nation-state and ultimately dispense with it
and with the economic forces that underpin statism as such." [_Democracy
and Nature_ no. 9, p. 158] This would be part of a social wide 
transformation, whose "[m]inimal steps . . . include initiating Left 
Green municipalist movements that propose neighbourhood and town 
assemblies - even if they have only moral functions at first - and
electing town and city councillors that advance the cause of these 
assemblies and other popular institutions. These minimal steps can
lead step-by-step to the formation of confederal bodies. . . Civic
banks to fund municipal enterprises and land purchases; the fostering
of new ecologically-orientated enterprises that are owned by the 
community. . ." [_From Urbanisation to Cities_, p. 266]

Thus Bookchin sees Libertarian Muncipalism as a process by which the
state can be undermined by using elections as the means of creating
popular assemblies. Part of this process, he argues, would be the 
"municipalisation of property" which would "bring the economy *as
a whole* into the orbit of the public sphere, where economic policy
could be formulated by the *entire* community." [Op. Cit. p. 235] 

Bookchin considers Libertarian Muncipalism as the key means of
creating an anarchist society, and argues that those anarchists
who disagree with it are failing to take their politics seriously.
"It is curious," he notes, "that many anarchists who celebrate the
existence of a 'collectivised' industrial enterprise, here and there, 
with considerable enthusiasm despite its emergence within a thoroughly
bourgeois economic framework, can view a municipal politics that entails
'elections' of any kind with repugnance, even if such a politics is
structured around neighbourhood assemblies, recallable deputies, radically
democratic forms of accountability, and deeply rooted localist networks." 
["Theses on Libertarian Municipalism"]

In evaluating Bookchin's proposal, several points come to mind. 

Firstly, it is clear that Libertarian Muncipalism's arguments in
favour of community assemblies is important and cannot be ignored.
Bookchin is right to note that, in the past, many anarchists placed
far too much stress on workplace struggles and workers' councils
as the framework of a free society. Many of the really important
issues that affect us cannot be reduced to workplace organisations,
which by their very nature disenfranchise those who do not work
in industry (such as housewives, the old, and so on). And, of
course, there is far more to life than work and so any future
society organised purely around workplace organisations is
reproducing capitalism's insane glorification of economic activity,
at least to some degree. So, in this sense, Libertarian Muncipalism 
has a very valid point -- a free society will be created and
maintained within the community as well as in the workplace.

Secondly, Bookchin and other Libertarian Muncipalists are totally
correct to argue that anarchists should work in their local communities.
As noted in section J.5.1, many anarchists are doing just that and
are being very successful as well. However, most anarchists reject
the idea that using elections are a viable means of "struggle toward
creating new civic institutions out of old ones (or replacing the
old ones altogether)." [_From Urbanisation to Cities_, p. 267]

The most serious problem has to do with whether politics in most cities
has already become too centralised, bureaucratic, inhumanly scaled, and
dominated by capitalist interests to have any possibility of being taken
over by anarchists running on platforms of participatory democratisation. 
Merely to pose the question seems enough to answer it. There is no such
possibility in the vast majority of cities, and hence it would be a waste
of time and energy for anarchists to support libertarian municipalist
candidates in local elections -- time and energy that could be more
profitably spent in direct action. If the central governments are too
bureaucratic and unresponsive to be used by Libertarian Municipalists,
the same can be said of local ones too.

The counter-argument to this is that even if there is no chance of such
candidates being elected, their standing for elections would serve a
valuable educational function. The answer to this is: perhaps, but would
it be more valuable than direct action? And would its educational value,
if any, outweigh the disadvantages of electioneering mentioned in sections
J.2.2 and J.2.4, such as the fact that voting ratifies the current system? 
Given the ability of major media to marginalise alternative candidates, we
doubt that such campaigns would have enough educational value to outweigh
these disadvantages. Moreover, being an anarchist does not make one immune
to the corrupting effects of electioneering (as highlighted in section 
J.2.6). History is littered with radical, politically aware movements 
using elections and ending up becoming part of the system they aimed to
transform. Most anarchists doubt that Libertarian Muncipalism will be
any different -- after all, it is the circumstances the parties find 
themselves in which are decisive, not the theory they hold (the social
relations they face will transform the theory, not vice versa, in other
words).

Lastly, most anarchists question the whole process on which Libertarian
Muncipalism bases itself on. The idea of communes is a key one of anarchism 
and so strategies to create them in the here and now are important. However, 
to think that using alienated, representative institutions to abolish
these institutions is mad. As the Italian activists (who organised a 
neighbourhood assembly by non-electoral means) argue, "[t]o accept power
and to say that the others were acting in bad faith and that we would
be better, would *force* non-anarchists towards direct democracy. We
reject this logic and believe that organisations must come from the
grassroots." ["Community Organising in Southern Italy", pp. 16-19, 
_Black Flag_ no. 210, p. 18]

Thus Libertarian Municipalism reverses the process by which community
assemblies will be created. Instead of anarchists using elections to
build such bodies, they must work in their communities directly to
create them (see section J.5.1 - "What is Community Unionism?" for
more details). Using the catalyst of specific issues of local interest,
anarchists could propose the creation of a community assembly to discuss
the issues in question and organise action to solve them. Instead of
a "confederal muncipalist movement run[ning] candidates for municipal
councils with demands for the institution of public assemblies" [Murray
Bookchin, Op. Cit., p. 229] anarchists should encourage people to
create these institutions themselves and empower themselves by
collective self-activity. As Kropotkin argued, "Laws can only *follow* 
the accomplished facts; and even if they do honestly follow them - which 
is usually *not* the case - a law remains a dead letter so long as there 
are not on the spot the living forces required for making the *tendencies* 
expressed in the law an accomplished *fact*." [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary 
Pamphlets_, p. 171] Most anarchists, therefore, think it is far more
important to create the "living forces" within our communities directly
than waste energy in electioneering and the passing of laws creating or
"legalising" community assemblies. In other words, community assemblies 
can only be created from the bottom up, by non-electoral means, a process
which Libertarian Muncipalism confuses with electioneering. 

So, while Libertarian Muncipalism *does* raise many important issues
and correctly stresses the importance of community activity and
self-management, its emphasis on electoral activity undercuts its
liberatory promise. For most anarchists, community assemblies can
only be created from below, by direct action, and (because of its
electoral strategy) a Libertarian Municipalist movement will end up 
being transformed into a copy of the system it aims to abolish.

J.5.15 What attitude do anarchists take to the welfare state?

Currently we are seeing a concerted attempt to rollback the state within
society. This has been begun by the right-wing in the name of "freedom,"
"individual dignity and responsibility" and "efficiency." The position
of anarchists to this process is mixed. On the one hand, we are all in
favour of reducing the size of the state and increasing individual
responsibility and freedom, but, on the other, we are well aware that
this process is part of an attack on the working class and tends to
increase the power of the capitalists over us as the state's (direct)
influence is reduced. Thus anarchists appear to be on the horns of a 
dilemma -- or, at least, apparently.

So what attitude *do* anarchists take to the welfare state and the current
attacks on it? (see next section for a short discussion of business based
welfare)

First we must note that this attack of "welfare" is somewhat selective.
While using the rhetoric of "self-reliance" and "individualism," the
practitioners of these "tough love" programmes have made sure that the
major corporations continue to get state hand-outs and aid while attacking 
social welfare. In other words, the current attack on the welfare state 
is an attempt to impose market discipline on the working class while 
increasing state protection for the ruling class. Therefore, most 
anarchists have no problem in social welfare programmes as these can 
be considered as only fair considering the aid the capitalist class
has always received from the state (both direct subsidies and protection
and indirect support via laws that protect property and so on). And,
for all their talk of increasing individual choice, the right-wing
remain silent about the lack of choice and individual freedom during
working hours within capitalism.

Secondly, most of the right-wing inspired attacks on the welfare state
are inaccurate. For example, Noam Chomsky notes that the "correlation 
between welfare payments and family life is real, though it is the 
reverse of what is claimed [by the right]. As support for the poor has 
declined, unwed birth-rates, which had risen steadily from the 1940s through 
the mid-1970s, markedly increased. 'Over the last three decades, the rate of
poverty among children almost perfectly correlates with the birth-rates among
teenage mothers a decade later,' Mike Males points out: 'That is, child
poverty seems to lead to teenage childbearing, not the other way around.'"
["Rollback III", _Z Magazine_, April, 1995] The same can be said for
many of the claims about the evil effects of welfare which the rich
and large corporations wish to save others (but not themselves) from.
Such altruism is truly heart warming.

Thirdly, we must note that while most anarchists *are* in favour of 
collective self-help and welfare, we are opposed to the welfare state. 
Part of the alternatives anarchists try and create are self-managed and 
communal community welfare projects (see next section). Moreover, in the 
past, anarchists and syndicalists were at the forefront in opposing state
welfare schemes (introduced, we may note, *not* by socialists but by
liberals and other supporters of capitalism to undercut support for
radical alternatives and aid long term economic development by creating
the educated and healthy population required to use advanced technology
and fight wars). Thus we find that:

"Liberal social welfare legislation. . . were seen by many [British
syndicalists] not as genuine welfare reforms, but as mechanisms of 
social control. Syndicalists took a leading part in resisting such 
legislation on the grounds that it would increase capitalist discipline 
over labour, thereby undermining working class independence and 
self-reliance." [Bob Holton, _British Syndicalism: 1900-1914_, 
p. 137]

Anarchists view the welfare state much as some feminists do. While they
note the "patriarchal structure of the welfare state" they are also
aware that it has "also brought challenges to patriarchal power and
helped provide a basis for women's autonomous citizenship." [Carole
Pateman, "The Patriarchal Welfare State", in _The Disorder of Women_,
p. 195] She does on to note that "for women to look at the welfare state
is merely to exchange dependence on individual men for dependence on
the state. The power and capriciousness of husbands is replaced by the
arbitrariness, bureaucracy and power of the state, the very state that
has upheld patriarchal power. . . [this] will not in itself do
anything to challenge patriarchal power relations." [Ibid., p. 200]

Thus while the welfare state does give working people more options than
having to take *any* job or put up with *any* conditions, this relative
independence from the market and individual capitalists has came at 
the price of dependence on the state -- the very institution that 
protects and supports capitalism in the first place. And has we have
became painfully aware in recent years, it is the ruling class who has 
most influence in the state -- and so, when it comes to deciding what
state budgets to cut, social welfare ones are first in line. Given that
state welfare programmes are controlled by the state, *not* working class
people, such an outcome is hardly surprising. Not only this, we also
find that state control reproduces the same hierarchical structures
that the capitalist firm creates. 

Unsurprisingly, anarchists have no great love of such state welfare schemes 
and desire their replacement by self-managed alternatives. For example, 
taking municipal housing, Colin Ward writes:

"The municipal tenant is trapped in a syndrome of dependence and resentment,
which is an accurate reflection of his housing situation. People care about
what is theirs, what they can modify, alter, adapt to changing needs and
improve themselves. They must have a direct responsibility for it.

". . .The tenant take-over of the municipal estate is one of those obviously
sensible ideas which is dormant because our approach to municipal affairs
is still stuck in the groves of nineteenth-century paternalism." [_Anarchy
in Action_, p.73]

Looking at state supported education, Ward argues that the "universal education
system turns out to be yet another way in which the poor subsidise the rich."
Which is the least of its problems, for "it is in the *nature* of public
authorities to run coercive and hierarchical institutions whose ultimate
function is to perpetuate social inequality and to brainwash the young
into the acceptance of their particular slot in the organised system." 
[Op. Cit., p. 83, p. 81]

The role of state education as a means of systematically indoctrinating
the working class is reflected in William Lazonick's essay "The
Subjection of Labour to Capital: The rise of the Capitalist System":

"The Education Act of 1870. . . [gave the] state. . . the facilities. . .
to make education compulsory for all children from the age of five to
the age of ten. It had also erected a powerful system of ideological
control over the next generation of workers. . . [It] was to function
as a prime ideological mechanism in the attempt by the capitalist class
through the medium of the state, to continually *reproduce* a labour
force which would passively accept [the] subjection [of labour to
the domination of capital]. At the same time it had set up a public
institution which could potentially be used by the working class for
just the contrary purpose." [_Radical Political Economy_ Vol. 2, p. 363]

Lazonick, as did Pateman, indicates the contradictory nature of welfare
provisions within capitalism. On the one hand, they are introduced to help 
control the working class (and to improve long term economic development).
On the other hand, these provisions can be used by working class people as 
weapons against capitalism and give themselves more options than "work or 
starve" (the fact that the recent attack on welfare in the UK -- called, 
ironically enough, _welfare to work_ -- involves losing benefits if you 
refuse a job is not a surprising development). Thus we find that welfare 
acts as a kind of floor under wages. In the US, the two have followed a 
common trajectory (rising together and falling together). And it is *this*, 
the potential benefits welfare can have for working people, that is the 
*real* cause for the current capitalist attacks upon it.

Because of this contradictory nature of welfare, we find anarchists like
Noam Chomsky arguing that (using an expression popularised by South American 
rural workers unions) "we should 'expand the floor of the cage.' We know 
we're in a cage. We know we're trapped. We're going to expand the floor, 
meaning we will extend to the limits what the cage will allow. And we intend 
to destroy the cage. But not by attacking the cage when we're vulnerable, 
so they'll murder us. . . You have to protect the cage when it's under 
attack from even worse predators from outside, like private power. And 
you have to expand the floor of the cage, recognising that it's a cage. 
These are all preliminaries to dismantling it. Unless people are willing 
to tolerate that level of complexity, they're going to be of no use to 
people who are suffering and who need help, or, for that matter, to 
themselves." [_Expanding the Floor of the Cage_]

Thus, even though we know the welfare state is a cage and an instrument
of class power, we have to defend it from a worse possibility -- namely,
the state as "pure" defender of capitalism with working people with
few or no rights. At least the welfare state does have a contradictory 
nature, the tensions of which can be used to increase our options. And 
one of these options is its abolition *from below*! 

For example, with regards to municipal housing, anarchists will be 
the first to agree that it is paternalistic, bureaucratic and hardly
a wonderful living experience. However, in stark contrast with the
"libertarian" right who desire to privatise such estates, anarchists
think that "tenants control" is the best solution as it gives us
the benefits of individual ownership *along with* community (and so
without the negative points of property, such as social atomisation).
And anarchists agree with Colin Ward when he thinks that the demand
for "tenant control" must come from below, by the "collective resistance"
of the tenants themselves, perhaps as a growth from struggles against
rent increases. [Op. Cit., p. 73]

And it is here that we find the ultimate irony of the right-wing, "free
market" attempts to abolish the welfare state -- neo-liberalism wants to
end welfare *from above,* by means of the state (which is the instigator
of this "individualistic" "reform"). It does not seek the end of dependency
by self-liberation, but the shifting of dependency from state to charity
and the market. In contrast, anarchists desire to abolish welfare from
below, by the direct action of those who receive it by a "multiplicity
of mutual aid organisations among claimants, patients, victims" for
this "represents the most potent lever for change in transforming the
welfare state into a genuine welfare society, in turning community care
into a caring community." [Colin Ward, Op. Cit., p. 125]

Ultimately, unlike the state socialist/liberal left, anarchists reject the 
idea that the case of socialism, of a free society, can be helped by using 
the state. Like the right, the left see political action in terms of the 
state. All its favourite policies have been statist - state intervention 
in the economy, nationalisation, state welfare, state education and so on. 
Whatever the problem, the left see the solution as lying in the extension 
of the power of the state. And, as such, they continually push people in 
relying on *others* to solve their problems for them (moreover, such 
state-based "aid" does not get to the core of the problem. All it does 
is fight the symptoms of capitalism and statism without attacking their 
root causes -- the system itself). 

Invariably, this support for the state is a move away from working class 
people, of trusting and empowering them to sort out their own problems. 
Indeed, the left seem to forget that the state exists to defend the 
collective interests of capitalists and other sections of the ruling 
class and so could hardly be considered a neutral body. And, worst of 
all, they have presented the right with the opportunity of stating that 
freedom from the state means the same thing as the freedom of the market 
(and as we have explained in detail in sections B, C and D, capitalism is 
based upon domination -- wage labour -- and needs many repressive measures 
in order to exist and survive). Anarchists are of the opinion that changing 
the boss for the state (or vice versa) is only a step sideways, *not* 
forward! After all, it is *not* working people who control how the
welfare state is run, it is politicians, "experts" and managers who
do so. Little wonder we have seen elements of the welfare state used
as a weapon in the class war *against* those in struggle (for example,
in Britain during the 1980s the Conservative Government made it illegal
to claim benefits while on strike, so reducing the funds available to
workers in struggle and helping bosses force strikers back to work faster).

Therefore, anarchists consider it far better to encourage those who 
suffer injustice to organise themselves and in that way they can change 
what *they* think is actually wrong, as opposed to what politicians and 
"experts" claim is wrong. If sometimes part of this struggle involves 
protecting aspects of the welfare state ("expanding the floor of the 
cage") so be it -- but we will never stop there and will use such 
struggles as a step in abolishing the welfare state from below by 
creating self-managed, working class, alternatives. As part of this 
process anarchists also seek to *transform* those aspects of the welfare 
state they may be trying to "protect". They do not defend an institution 
which *is* paternalistic, bureaucratic and unresponsive. For example, if 
we are involved in trying to stop a local state-run hospital or school 
from closing, anarchists would try to raise the issue of self-management 
and local community control into the struggle in the hope of going beyond 
the status quo.

Not only does this mean that we can get accustomed to managing our own 
affairs collectively, it also means that we can ensure that whatever
"safety-nets" we create for ourselves do what we want and not what
capital wants. In the end, what we create and run by our own activity
will be more responsive to our needs, and the needs of the class
struggle, than reformist aspects of the capitalist state. This much,
we think, is obvious. And it is ironic to see elements of the 
"radical" and "revolutionary" left argue against this working class
self-help (and so ignore the *long* tradition of such activity in
working class movements) and instead select for the agent of their 
protection a state run by and for capitalists!

There are two traditions of welfare within society, one of "fraternal 
and autonomous associations springing from below, the other that of 
authoritarian institutions directed from above." [Colin Ward, Op. Cit., 
p. 123] While sometimes anarchists are forced to defend the latter 
against the greater evil of "free market" corporate capitalism, we 
never forget the importance of creating and strengthening the former. 
A point we will discuss more in section J.5.16 when we highlight the 
historical examples of self-managed communal welfare and self-help 
organisations.

J.5.16 Are there any historical examples of collective self-help?

Yes, in all societies we see working people joining together to practice
mutual aid and solidarity. These take many forms, such as trade and
industrial unions, credit unions and friendly societies, co-operatives
and so on, but the natural response of working class people to the 
injustices of capitalism was to practice collective "self-help" in order
to improve their lives and protect their friends, communities and fellow
workers. 

Unfortunately, this "great tradition of working class self-help and
mutual aid was written off, not just as irrelevant, but as an actual
impediment, by the political and professional architects of the welfare
state. . . The contribution that the recipients had to make to all
this theoretical bounty was ignored as a mere embarrassment - apart,
of course, for paying for it. . . The socialist ideal was rewritten
as a world in which everyone was entitled to everything, but where
nobody except the providers had any actual say about anything. We 
have been learning for years, in the anti-welfare backlash, what a
vulnerable utopia that was." [Colin Ward, _Social Policy: an
anarchist response_, p. 3]

Ward terms this self-help (and self-managed) working class activity
the "welfare road we failed to take."

Indeed, anarchists would argue that self-help is the natural side 
effect of freedom. There is no possibility of radical social change 
unless people are free to decide for themselves what their problems 
are, where their interests lie and are free to organise for themselves 
what they want to do about them. Self-help is a natural expression of 
people taking control of their own lives and acting for themselves. 
Anyone who urges state action on behalf of people is no socialist 
and any one arguing against self-help as "bourgeois" is no 
anti-capitalist. It is somewhat ironic that it is the right who
have monopolised the rhetoric of "self-help" and turned it into
yet another ideological weapon against working class direct action
and self-liberation (although, saying that, the right generally
likes individualised self-help -- given a strike or squatting
or any other form of *collective* self-help movement they will be 
the first to denounce it):

"The political Left has, over the years, committed an enormous 
psychological error in allowing this king of language ["self-help",
"mutual aid", "standing on your own two feet" and so on] to be
appropriated by the political Right. If you look at the exhibitions
of trade union banners from the last century, you will see slogans
like Self Help embroidered all over them. It was those clever
Fabians and academic Marxists who ridiculed out of existence the
values by which ordinary citizens govern their own lives in favour
of bureaucratic paternalising, leaving those values around to be
picked up by their political opponents." [Colin Ward, _Talking
Houses_, p. 58]

We cannot be expected to provide an extensive list of working class
collective self-help and social welfare activity here, all we can
do is present an overview. For a discussion of working class self-help 
and co-operation through the centuries we can suggest no better source
than Kropotkin's _Mutual Aid_. Here we will (using other sources than
_Mutual Aid_) indicate a few examples of collective welfare in action.

In the case of Britain, we find that the "newly created working class 
built up from nothing a vast network of social and economic initiatives 
based on self-help and mutual aid. The list is endless: friendly 
societies, building societies, sick clubs, coffin clubs, clothing 
clubs, up to enormous federated enterprises like the trade union 
movement and the Co-operative movement." [Colin Ward, _Social Policy: 
an anarchist response_, p. 2]

The historian E.P. Thompson confirms this picture of a wide network
of working class self-help organisations:

"Small tradesmen, artisans, labourers - all sought to insure themselves
against sickness, unemployment, or funeral expenses through membership
of . . . friendly societies." These were "authentic evidence of 
independent working-class culture and institutions . . . out of 
which . . . trade unions grew, and in which trade union officers were
trained." Friendly societies "did not 'proceed from' an idea: both
the ideas and institutions arose from a certain common experience
. . . In the simple cellular structure of the friendly society, with 
its workaday ethos of mutual aid, we see many features which were
reproduced in more sophisticated and complex form in trade unions,
co-operatives, Hampden clubs, Political Unions, and Chartist
lodges. . . Every kind of witness in the first half of the
nineteenth century - clergymen, factory inspectors, Radical
publicists - remarked upon the extent of mutual aid in the
poorest districts. In times of emergency, unemployment, strikes,
sickness, childbirth, then it was the poor who 'helped every one
his neighbour.'" [_The Making of the English Working Class_, 
p. 458, pp. 460-1, p. 462]

Taking the United States, Sam Dolgoff presents an excellent summary
of similar self-help activities by the American working class:

"Long before the labour movement got corrupted and the state stepped
in, the workers organised a network of co-operative institutions of
all kinds: schools, summer camps for children and adults, homes for
the aged, health and cultural centres, credit associations, fire,
life, and health insurance, technical education, housing, etc."
[_The American Labour Movement: A New Beginning_, p. 74]

Dolgoff, like all anarchists, urges workers to "finance the establishment 
of independent co-operative societies of all types, which will respond 
adequately to their needs" and that such a movement "could constitute 
a realistic alternative to the horrendous abuses of the 'establishment' 
at a fraction of the cost." [Op. Cit., p. 74, pp. 74-75]

In this way a network of self-managed, communal, welfare associations
and co-operatives could be built -- paid for, run by and run for
working class people. Such a network could be initially build upon,
and be an aspect of, the struggles of claimants, patients, tenants,
and other users of the current welfare state (see last section).

The creation of such a co-operative, community-based, welfare system
will not occur over night. Nor will it be easy. But it *is* possible,
as history shows. And, of course, it will have its problems, but as
Colin Ward notes, that "the standard argument against a localist and 
decentralised point of view, is that of universalism: an equal service 
to all citizens, which it is thought that central control achieves. 
The short answer to this is that it doesn't!" [Colin Ward, Op. Cit., 
p. 6] He notes that richer areas generally get a better service from 
the welfare state than poorer ones, thus violating the claims of
equal service. And a centralised system (be it state or private) will 
most likely allocate resources which reflect the interests and (lack 
of) knowledge of bureaucrats and experts, *not* on where they are 
best used or the needs of the users. 

Anarchists are sure that a *confederal* network of mutual aid 
organisations and co-operatives, based upon local input and control, 
can overcome problems of localism far better than a centralised one 
-- which, due to its lack of local input and participation will more 
likely *encourage* parochialism and indifference than a wider vision
and solidarity. If you have no real say in what affects you, why
should you be concerned with what affects others? Centralisation leads 
to disempowerment, which in turn leads to indifference, *not* solidarity. 
Rudolf Rocker reminds us of the evil effects of centralism when he 
writes:

"For the state centralisation is the appropriate form of organisation, 
since it aims at the greatest possible uniformity in social life for the
maintenance of political and social equilibrium. But for a movement whose
very existence depends on prompt action at any favourable moment and on the
independent thought and action of its supporters, centralism could but be a
curse by weakening its power of decision and systematically repressing all
immediate action. If, for example, as was the case in Germany, every local
strike had first to be approved by the Central, which was often hundreds of
miles away and was not usually in a position to pass a correct judgement
on the local conditions, one cannot wonder that the inertia of the apparatus
of organisation renders a quick attack quite impossible, and there thus
arises a state of affairs where the energetic and intellectually alert
groups no longer serve as patterns for the less active, but are condemned by
these to inactivity, inevitably bringing the whole movement to stagnation.
Organisation is, after all, only a means to an end. When it becomes an end
in itself, it kills the spirit and the vital initiative of its members and
sets up that domination by mediocrity which is the characteristic of all
bureaucracies." [_Anarcho-Syndicalism_, p. 54]

And, as an example, he notes that while the highly centralised German
labour movement "did not raise a finger to avert the catastrophe" of Hitler's
seizing power and "which in a few months beat their organisation completely 
to pieces" the exact opposite happened in Spain ("where Anarcho-Syndicalism 
had maintained its hold upon organised labour from the days of the First 
International"). There the anarcho-syndicalist C.N.T. "frustrated the
criminal plans of Franco" and "by their heroic example spurred the Spanish 
workers and peasants to the battle." Without the heroic resistance of the
Anarcho-Syndicalist labour unions the Fascist reaction would have dominated
the whole country in a matter of weeks. [Op. Cit., p. 53]

This is unsurprising, for what else is global action other than the product 
of thousands of local actions? Solidarity within our class is the flower 
that grows from the soil of our local self-activity, direct action and 
self-organisation. Unless we act and organise locally, any wider organisation
and action will be hollow. Thus *local* organisation and empowerment is
essential to create and maintain wider organisations and mutual aid.

To take another example of the benefits of a self-managed welfare system,
we find that it "was a continual complaint of the authorities [in the
late eighteenth and early nineteenth century] that friendly societies allowed
members to withdraw funds when on strike." [E.P. Thompson, Op. Cit., 
p. 461f] The same complaints were voiced in Britain about the welfare 
state allowing strikers to claim benefit will on strike. The Conservative
Government of the 1980s changed that by passing a law barring those in
industrial dispute to claim benefits -- and so removing a potential support
for those in struggle. Such a restriction would have been far harder (if
not impossible) to impose on a network of self-managed mutual aid 
co-operatives. And such institutions would have not become the plaything 
of central government financial policy as the welfare state and the 
taxes working class people have to pay have become. 

All this means that anarchists reject totally the phoney choice between 
private and state capitalism we are usually offered. We reject both 
privatisation *and* nationalisation, both right and left wings (of
capitalism). Neither state nor private health care are user-controlled
-- one is subject to the requirements of politics and the other places
profits before people. As we have discussed the welfare state in the
last section, it is worthwhile to quickly discuss privatised welfare and 
why most anarchists reject this option even more than state welfare.

Firstly, all forms of private healthcare/welfare has to pay dividends to 
capitalists, fund advertising, reduce costs to maximise profits by 
standardising the "caring" process - i.e. McDonaldisation - and so on, 
all of which inflates prices and produces substandard service across the 
industry as a whole. According to Alfie Kohn, the "[m]ore hospitals and
clinics are being run by for-profit corporations; many institutions,
forced to battle for 'customers,' seem to value a skilled director of
marketing more highly than a skilled caregiver. As in any other economic
sector, the race for profits translates into pressure to reduce costs,
and the easiest way to do it here is to cut back on services to
unprofitable patients, that is, those who are more sick than rich . . ."
"The result: hospital costs are actually *higher* in areas where there
is more competition for patients." [Alfie Kohn, _No Contest_, p. 240]
In the UK, attempts to introduce "market forces" into the National
Health Service also lead to increased costs as well as inflating 
the services bureaucracy.

Looking at Chile, hyped by those who desire to privatise Social Security,
we find similar disappointing results (well, disappointing for the 
working class at least, as we will see). Seemingly, Chile's private system 
has achieved impressive average returns on investment. However, once 
commissions are factored in, the real return for individual workers 
is considerably lower. For example, although the average rate of return 
on funds from 1982 through 1986 was 15.9 percent, the real return after 
commissions was a mere 0.3 percent! Between 1991 and 1995, the 
pre-commission return was 12.9 percent, but with commissions it 
fell to 2.1 percent. According to Doug Henwood, the "competing mutual 
funds have vast sales forces, and the portfolio managers all have their
vast fees. All in all, administrative costs . . . are almost 30% of
revenues, compared to well under 1% for the U.S. Social Security system."
[_Wall Street_, p. 305] Although market competition was supposed to lower 
commissions in Chile, the private pension fund market is dominated by a 
handful of companies. These, according to economists Peter Diamond and
Salvador Valdes-Prieto, form a "monopolistic competitive market" rather 
than a truly competitive one. A similar process seems to be taking place 
in Argentina, where commissions have remained around 3.5 percent of 
taxable salary. As argued in section C.4, such oligopolistic tendencies
are inherent in capitalism and so this development is not unexpected. 

Even if commission costs were lowered (perhaps by regulation), the 
impressive returns on capital seen between 1982 and 1995 (when the 
real annual return on investment averaged 12.7 percent) are likely 
not to be sustained. These average returns coincided with boom years 
in Chile, complemented by government's high borrowing costs. Because 
of the debt crisis of the 1980s, Latin governments were paying 
double-digit real interest rates on their bonds -- the main investment 
vehicle of social security funds. In effect, government was subsidising 
the "private" system by paying astronomical rates on government bonds.

Another failing of the system is that only a little over half of 
Chilean workers make regular social security contributions. While many 
believe that a private system would reduce evasion because workers have a 
greater incentive to contribute to their own personal retirement accounts, 
43.4 percent of those affiliated with the new system in June of 1995 did 
not contribute regularly (see Stephen J. Kay, "The Chile Con: Privatizing 
Social Security in South America," _The American Prospect_ no. 33, 
July-August 1997, pp. 48-52 for details).

All in all, privatisation seems to be beneficial only to middle-men and
capitalists, if Chile is anything to go by. As Henwood argues, while
the "infusion of money" resulting from privatising social security "has
done wonders for the Chilean stock market" "projections are that as many
as half of future retirees will draw a poverty-level pension." [Op. Cit.,
pp. 304-5] 

So, anarchists reject private welfare as a con (and an even bigger one 
than state welfare). Instead we try to create *real* alternatives to 
hierarchy, be it state or capitalist, in the here and now which reflect 
our ideas of a free and just society. For, when it boils down to it, 
freedom cannot be given, only taken and this process of *self*-liberation 
is reflected in the alternatives we build to help win the class war. 

The struggle *against* capitalism and statism requires that we build *for*
the future ("the urge to destroy is a creative urge" - Bakunin) and,
moreover, we should always remember that "he who has no confidence in the 
creative capacity of the masses and in their capability to revolt doesn't 
belong in the revolutionary movement. He should go to a monastery and get 
on his knees and start praying. Because he is no revolutionist. He is a 
son of a bitch." [Sam Dolgoff, quoted by Ulrike Heider, _Anarchism: left, 
right, and green_, p. 12]

J.6 What methods of child rearing do anarchists advocate? 

Anarchists have long been aware of the importance of child rearing and
education. As such, we are aware that child rearing should aim to develop
"a well-rounded individuality" and not "a patient work slave, professional
automaton, tax-paying citizen, or righteous moralist." [Emma Goldman,
_Red Emma Speaks_, p. 108] In this section of the FAQ we will discuss
anarchist approaches to child rearing bearing in mind "that it is through
the channel of the child that the development of the mature man must go,
and that the present ideas of. . . educating or training. . . are such as
to stifle the natural growth of the child." [Ibid., p. 107]

If one accepts the thesis that the authoritarian family is the breeding
ground for both individual psychological problems and political reaction, 
it follows that anarchists should try to develop ways of raising children 
that will not psychologically cripple them but instead enable them to 
accept freedom and responsibility while developing natural self-regulation. 
We will refer to children raised in such a way as "free children." 

Work in this field is still in its infancy (no pun intended). Wilhelm
Reich is again the main pioneer in this field (an excellent, short 
introduction to his ideas can be found in Maurice Brinton's _The Irrational 
in Politics_). In _Children of the Future_, Reich made numerous suggestions, 
based on his research and clinical experience, for parents, psychologists, 
and educators striving to develop libertarian methods of child rearing. 
(He did not use the term "libertarian," but that is what his methods are.) 

Hence, in this and the following sections we will summarise Reich's main 
ideas as well as those of other libertarian psychologists and educators who 
have been influenced by him, such as A.S. Neill and Alexander Lowen. 
Section J.6.1 will examine the theoretical principles involved in raising 
free children, while subsequent sections will illustrate their practical 
application with concrete examples. Finally, in section J.6.8, we will 
examine the anarchist approach to the problems of adolescence. 

Such an approach to child rearing is based upon the insight that children
"do not constitute anyone's property: they are neither the property of
the parents nor even of society. They belong only to their own future
freedom." [Michael Bakunin, _The Political Philosophy of Bakunin_, p. 327]
As such, what happens to a child when it is growing up *shapes* the
person they become and the society they live in. The key question for 
people interested in freedom is whether "the child [is] to be considered 
as an individuality, or as an object to be moulded according to the 
whims and fancies of those about it?" [Emma Goldman, Op. Cit., 
p. 107] Libertarian child rearing is the means by which the individuality 
of the child is respected and developed. 

This is in stark contrast to standard capitalist (and individualist anarchist
we should note) claim that children are the *property* of their parents. 
If we accept that children *are* the property of their parents then we are 
implicitly stating that a child's formative years are spent in slavery, 
hardly a relationship which will promote the individuality and freedom of 
the child or the wider society. Little wonder that most anarchists reject 
such assertions. Instead they argue that the "rights of the parents shall 
be confined to loving their children and exercising over them . . . authority 
[that] does not run counter to their morality, their mental development, 
or their future freedom." [Bakunin, Op. Cit., p. 327] Being someone's 
property (i.e. slave) runs counter to all these and "it follows that 
society, the whole future of which depends upon adequate education and 
upbringing of children. . . , has not only the right but also the duty 
to watch over them..." [Ibid., p. 327] 

Hence child rearing is *part* of society, a communal process by which 
children learn what it means to be an individual by being respected as 
one by others. In Bakunin's words, "real freedom - that is, the full 
awareness and the realisation thereof in every individual, pre-eminently 
based upon a feeling of one's dignity and upon the genuine respect for 
someone else's freedom and dignity, i.e. upon justice - such freedom can 
develop in children only through the rational development of their minds, 
character and will." [Op. Cit., p. 327]

We wish to point out at the beginning that a great deal of work remains to
be done in this field. Therefore our comments should be regarded merely
as tentative bases for further reflection and research by those involved
with raising and educating children. There is, and cannot be, any "rule
book" for raising free children, because to follow an inflexible 
rule book is to ignore the fact that each child and its environment is 
unique and therefore demands unique responses from its parents. Hence the
"principles" of libertarian child rearing to which we will refer should
not be thought of as rules, but rather, as experimental hypotheses to be
tested by parents within their own situation by applying their intelligence 
and deriving their own individual conclusions. 

Bringing up children must be like education, and based on similar principles,
namely "upon the free growth and development of the innate forces and
tendencies of the child. In this way alone can we hope for the free
individual and eventually also for a free community, which shall make
interference and coercion of human growth impossible." [Goldman, Op. Cit.,
p. 115] Indeed, child rearing and education *cannot* be separated as
life itself is an education and so must share the same principles and
viewed as a process of "development and exploration, rather than as one
of repressing a child's instincts and inculcating obedience and discipline."
[Martha A. Ackelsberg, _Free Women of Spain_, p. 132]

Moreover, the role of parental example is very important to raising 
free children. Children often learn by mimicking their parents - children 
do what their parents do, not as they say. If their mother and father lie 
to each other, scream, fight and so on, then the child will probably do 
so as well. Children's behaviour does not come out thin air, they are a 
product of the environment they are brought up in (partly by, initially at 
least, copying the parent). Children can only be encouraged by example, not 
by threats and commands. How parents act can be an obstacle to the development 
of a free child. Parents must, therefore, be aware that they must do more 
than just *say* the right things, but also act as anarchists in order to 
produce free children.

The sad fact is that most modern people have lost the ability to raise 
free children, and regaining this ability will be a long process of trial 
and error and parent education in which it is to be hoped that each 
succeeding generation will learn from the failures and successes of their 
predecessors, and so improve. In the best-case scenario, over the course 
of a few generations the number of progressive parents will continue to 
grow and raise ever freer children, who in turn will become even more 
progressive parents themselves, thus gradually changing mass psychology 
in a libertarian direction. Such changes *can* come about very fast, 
as can be seen from various communes all over the world and especially 
in the Israel-Palestine kibbutz where society is organised according to
libertarian principles, and children are mainly growing in their 
collective homes. As Reich puts it: 

"We have learned that instead of a jump into the realm of the Children of
the Future, we can hope for no more than a steady advance, in which the
healthy new overlaps the sick old structure, with the new slowly
outgrowing the old." [_Children of the Future_, pp. 38-39]

By means of freedom-based child rearing and education, along with other
methods of consciousness raising, as well as encouraging resistance to
the existing social order anarchists hope to prepare the psychological 
foundation for a social paradigm shift, from authoritarian to 
libertarian institutions and values. And indeed, a gradual cultural
evolution toward increasing freedom does seem to exist. For example, as
A.S. Neill writes in _Summerhill_, "There is a slow trend to freedom, sexual
and otherwise. In my boyhood, a woman went bathing wearing stockings and
a long dress. Today, women show legs and bodies. Children are getting
more freedom with every generation. Today, only a few lunatics put
cayenne pepper on a baby's thumb to stop sucking. Today, only a few
countries beat their children in school." [p. 115]

Most anarchists believe that, just as charity begins at home, so does
the anarchist revolution. As some anarchists raise their own children in 
capitalist society and/or are involved in the raising and education of the
children of other parents, they can practice in part libertarian 
principles even before the revolution. Hence we think it is important 
to discuss libertarian child rearing in some detail. 

J.6.1 What are the main principles of raising free children and the main
      obstacles to implementing those principles? 

Let's consider the obstacles first. As Reich points out, the biggest one
is the training and character of most parents, physicians, and educators. 
Based on his clinical experience, Reich maintained that virtually all
adults in our society have some degree of psychological problems, which 
is manifested somatically as a rigid muscular "armour": chronic muscular 
tensions and spasms in various regions of the body. One of the main 
functions of this armour is to inhibit the pleasurable sensations of 
life-energy that naturally "stream" or flow through an unarmoured body. 
Reich postulated that there is one basic bioenergy ("orgone") in the body, 
identical with what Freud called "libido," which, besides animating the 
tissues and organs is also the energy of sex and the emotions (we should 
note that most anarchists do not subscribe to Reich's idea of "orgone" - 
the existence of which, we may note, has not been proved. However, the 
idea of character armour, by which individuals within a hierarchical 
society create psychological walls/defences around themselves is one 
most anarchists accept. Such walls will obviously have an effect both on
the mental and physical state of the individual, and their capacity 
for living a free life and experiencing pleasure). This means that the 
pleasurable "streamings" of this bioenergy, which can be felt when the 
muscular armour is relaxed, have an erotic or "libidinous" quality. Thus 
an unarmoured organism (such as a new-born infant) automatically experiences 
pleasure with every breath, a pleasure derived from perception of the 
natural bioenergetic processes within its body. Such a mode of being 
in the world makes life intrinsically worth living and renders 
superfluous all questions about its "meaning" or "purpose" -- questions 
that occur only to armoured people, who have lost contact with their 
bioenergetic core of bodily sensations (or it is distorted, and so is
changed from a source of pleasures to a source of suffering) and thus 
restricts their capacity to fully enjoy life. 

It is important for those involved in child rearing and education to
understand how armouring develops in the new-born child. Reich points out
that under the influence of a compulsive, pleasure-denying morality,
children are taught to inhibit the spontaneous flow of life-energy in 
the body. Similarly, they are taught to disregard most bodily sensations. 
Due to Oedipal conflicts in the patriarchal family (see below), parents 
usually take the most severely repressive disciplinary measures
against sexual expressions of life-energy in children. Thus, all erotic
feelings, including the erotically-tinged "streaming" sensations, come to
be regarded as "bad," "animalistic," etc., and so their perception begins
to arouse anxiety, which leads, among other bad results, to chronic 
muscular tensions as a way of cutting off or defending against such 
perceptions and their attendant anxiety. Shallow breathing, for example, 
reduces the amount of life-energy available to flow into excitation 
and emotion; tightening the muscles of the pelvic floor and abdomen 
reduces sexual feelings, and so on. As these tensions become chronic 
and unconscious, piling up in layer after layer of muscular armour, 
the person is eventually left with a feeling of inner emptiness or 
"deadness" and -- not surprisingly -- a lack of joy in life. 

For those who fail to build a stable physical and psychological armour 
around themselves to suppress these feelings and sensation, they just 
twist them and are flooded again and again with intense unpleasant 
feelings and sensations.

Muscular armouring has its most profound effect on back pains and various 
respiration problems. Reich found that the "normal" man or woman in our 
society *cannot* spontaneously take full, deep, natural breaths, which 
involves both the chest and abdomen. Instead, most people (except when 
making a conscious effort) restrict their breathing through unconscious 
tensing of various muscles. Since the natural response to any restriction 
in the ability to breathe is anxiety, people growing up in repressive 
cultures such as ours are plagued by a tendency toward chronic anxiety. 
As a defence against this anxiety, they develop further layers of 
muscular armouring, which further restricts their ability to breathe, 
and so on, in a vicious circle. In other words, it is *literally* 
true that, as Max Stirner said, one cannot "take breath" in our 
authoritarian society with its life-denying atmosphere based on 
punishments, threats, and fear. 

Of course sex is not the only expression of life-energy that parents try
to stifle in children. There are also, for example, the child's natural
vocal expressions (shouting, screaming, bellowing, crying, etc.) and
natural body motility. As Reich notes, 

"Small children go through a phase of development characterised by
vigorous activity of the voice musculature. The joy the infant derives
from loud noises (crying, shrieking, and forming a variety of sounds) is
regarded by many parents as pathological aggressiveness. The children are
accordingly admonished not to scream, to be "still," etc. The impulses of
the voice apparatus are inhibited, its musculature becomes chronically
contracted, and the child becomes quiet, "well-brought-up," and
withdrawn. The effect of such mistreatment is soon manifested in eating
disturbances, general apathy, pallor of the face, etc. Speech
disturbances and retardation of speech development are presumably caused
in this manner. In the adult we see the effects of such mistreatment in
the form of spasms of the throat. The automatic constrictions of the
glottis and the deep throat musculature, with subsequent inhibition of the
aggressive impulses of the head and neck, seems to be particularly
characteristic." [Op. Cit., p. 128]

(And we must add, that the suppression of the urge to move all children 
have is most destructive to the 15% or so of "Hyper-active" children,
whose urge to move is hard to suppress.)

"Clinical experience has taught us," Reich concludes, "that small children
must be allowed to 'shout themselves out' when the shouting is inspired by
pleasure. This might be disagreeable to some parents, but questions of
education must be decided *exclusively in the interests of the child,* not
in those of the adults." [Ibid.] 

Besides deadening the pleasurable streamings of life energy in the body,
muscular armouring also functions to inhibit the anxiety generated by the
presence of anti-social, cruel, and perverse impulses within the psyche
(impulses referred to by Reich as "secondary" drives) -- for example,
destructiveness, sadism, greed, power hunger, brutality, rape fantasies,
etc. Ironically, these secondary drives result from the *suppression of
the primary drives* (e.g. for sex, physical activity, vocal expression,
etc.) and the sensations of pleasure associated with them. The secondary
drives develop because, when muscular armouring sets in and a person loses
touch with his or her bioenergetic core and other emotional urges, 
the only emotional expressions that can get through the thick, hard 
wall of armour are distorted, harsh, and/or mechanical. Thus, for example, 
a heavily armoured person who tries to express love may find that the 
emotion is shredded by the wall of armour and comes out in distorted 
form as an impulse to hurt the person loved (sadism) -- an impulse 
that causes anxiety and then has to be repressed. In other words, 
compulsive morality (i.e. acting according to externally imposed 
rules) becomes necessary to control the secondary drives *which
compulsion itself creates.* By such processes, authoritarian
child-rearing becomes self-justifying. Thus: 

"Psychoanalysts have failed to distinguish between primary natural and
secondary perverse, cruel drives, and they are continuously killing nature
in the new-born while they try to extinguish the 'brutish little animal.' 
They are completely ignorant of the fact that it is *exactly this killing
of the natural principle which creates the secondary perverse and cruel
nature,* human nature so called, and that these artificial cultural
creations in turn make compulsive moralism and brutal laws necessary"
[Ibid., p. 17-18]. 

Moralism, however, can never get at the root of the problem of secondary
drives, but in fact only increases the pressure of crime and guilt. The
real solution is to let children develop what Reich calls *natural
self-regulation.* This can be done only by not subjecting them to
punishment, coercion, threats, moralistic lectures and admonitions,
withdrawal of love, etc. in an attempt to inhibit their spontaneous
expression of natural life-impulses. The systematic development of the
emphatic tendencies of the young infant is the best way to "socialise"
and restrict activities that are harmful to the others. As A.S. Neill 
points out, "self-regulation implies a belief in the goodness of human 
nature; a belief that there is not, and never was, original sin." 
[Op. Cit., p. 103]

According to Neill, children who are given freedom from birth and not
forced to conform to parental expectations spontaneously learn how to keep
themselves clean and develop social qualities like courtesy, common
sense, an interest in learning, respect for the rights of others, and so
forth (see next section). However, once the child has been armoured
through authoritarian methods intended to *force* it to develop such
qualities, it becomes what Reich calls "biopathic" -- out of touch with
its living core and therefore no longer able to develop self-regulation. 
In this stage it becomes harder and harder for the pro-social emotions
to shape the developing mode of life of the new member of society. At 
that point, when the secondary drives develop, parental authoritarianism 
becomes a *necessity.* As Reich puts it: 

"This close interrelation between biopathic behaviour and authoritarian
countermeasures seems to be automatic. Self-regulation appears to have no
place in and no influence upon emotions which do not come from the living
core directly but only as if through a thick hard wall. Moreover, one has
the impression that secondary drives cannot stand self-regulatory
conditions of existence. They force sharp discipline on the part of the
educator or parent. It is as if a child with an essentially
secondary-drive structure feels that it cannot function or exist without
disciplinary guidance. This is paralleled by the interlacing of
self-regulation in the healthy child with self-regulation in the
environment. Here the child cannot function unless it has freedom of
decision and movement. It cannot tolerate discipline any more than the
armoured child can tolerate freedom." 

This inability to tolerate freedom, which the vast majority of people
develop *automatically* from the way they are raised, is what makes the
whole subject of armouring and its prevention of crucial importance to
anarchists. Reich concludes that if parents do not suppress nature in 
the first place, then no anti-social drives will be created and no
authoritarianism will be required to suppress them: "*What you so
desperately and vainly try to achieve by way of compulsion and admonition
is there in the new-born infant ready to live and function. Let it grow as
nature requires, and change our institutions accordingly*" [Ibid., p. 47,
italics in original].

As Alexander Lowen points out in _Fear of Life_, parents are particularly
anxious to suppress the sexual expressions of life energy in their
children because of unresolved Oedipal conflicts within themselves. 

Hence, in order to raise psychologically healthy children, parents need 
to acquire self-knowledge, particularly of how Oedipal conflicts, sibling
rivalry, and other internal conflicts develop in family relationships, 
and to free themselves as much as possible from neurotic forms of 
armouring. The difficulty of parents acquiring such self-knowledge 
and sufficiently de-conditioning themselves is obviously another 
obstacle to raising self-regulated children.

However, the greatest obstacle is the fact that armouring and other
twisting mechanisms set in so very early in life, i.e. soon after 
birth. Reich emphasises that *with the first armour blockings, the 
infant's self-regulatory powers begin to wane.* "They become steadily 
weaker as the armouring spreads over the whole organism, and they *must* 
be replaced by compulsive, moral principles if the child is to exist 
and survive in its given environment." [Ibid., pp. 44-45] Hence it 
is important for parents to obtain a thorough knowledge of what 
armouring and other rigid suppressions are and how they function, 
so that from the beginning they can prevent (or at least decrease) 
them from forming in their children. Some practical examples of how 
this can be done will be discussed in the next section. 

Finally, Reich cautions that it is crucial to avoid any mixing of
concepts. "One cannot mix a bit of self-regulation with a bit of moral
demand. Either we trust nature as basically decent and self-regulatory or
we do not, and then there is only one way, that of training by
compulsion. It is essential to grasp the fact that the two ways of
upbringing do not go together." [Ibid., p. 46]

J.6.2. What are some examples of libertarian child-rearing methods
       applied to the care of new-born infants?

According to Reich, the problems of parenting a free child actually begin 
before conception, with the need for a prospective mother to free herself 
as much as possible from chronic muscular tensions, especially in the 
pelvic area, which may inhibit the optimal development of a foetus. As 
Reich points out, the mother's body provides the environment for the 
child from the moment the embryo is formed until the moment of birth, 
and strong muscular armouring in her pelvis as a result of sexual 
repression or other emotional problems is very detrimental. Such a
mother will have a bioenergetically "dead" and possibly spastic uterus,
which can traumatise an infant even before it is born by reducing the
circulation of blood and body fluids and making the energy metabolism
inefficient, thus damaging the child's vitality. 

Moreover, it has been found in many studies that not only the physical 
health of the mother can influence the foetus. Various psychological 
stresses influence the chemical and hormonal environment, affecting 
the foetus. Even short ones, when acute, can have significant effects 
on it.

Immediately after birth, it is important for the mother to establish
contact with her child. This means, basically, constant loving 
attention to the baby, expressed by plenty of holding, cuddling,
playing, etc., and especially by breast feeding. By such "orgonotic"
contact (to use Reich's term), the mother is able to establish the
initial emotional bonding with the new born, and a non-verbal 
understanding of the child's needs. This is only possible, however, 
if she is in touch with her own internal processes - emotional
and cognitive - and bioenergetic core, i.e. is not too neurotically 
armoured (in Reich's terminology). Thus: 

"The orgonotic sense of contact, a function of the . . . energy field of
both the mother and the child, is unknown to most specialists; however,
the old country doctor knew it well. . . . *Orgonotic contact is the most
essential experiential and emotional element in the interrelationship
between mother and child,* particularly prenatally and during the first
days and weeks of life. The future fate of the child depends on it. It
seems to be the core of the new-born infant's emotional development." [Ibid.
p. 99] It is less crucial but still important for the father to
establish orgonotic contact as well, although since fathers lack the
primary means of establishing it -- namely the ability to breast feed --
their contact can never be as close as the mother's (see below). 

A new-born child has only one way of expressing its needs: through
crying. Crying has many nuances and can convey much more than the 
level of distress of the child. If a mother is unable to establish 
contact at the most basic emotional ("bioenergetic," according to
Reich) level, she will be unable to understand intuitively what needs 
the child is expressing through its crying. Any unmet needs will 
in turn be felt by the child as a deprivation, to which it will 
respond with a wide array of negative emotions and deleterious 
physiological processes and emotional tension. If continued for 
long, such tensions can become chronic and thus the beginning of 
"armouring" and adaptation to a "cruel" reality. 

The most important factor in the establishment of bonding is the 
tender physical contact between mother and infant is undoubtedly 
breast feeding. Thus: 

"The most salient place of contact in the infant's body is the
bioenergetically highly charged mouth and throat. This body organ 
reaches out immediately for gratification. *If the nipple of the 
mother reacts to the infant's sucking movements in a biophysically 
normal manner with sensations of pleasure, it will become strongly 
erect and the orgonotic excitation of the nipple will become one 
with that of the infant's mouth, just as in the orastically 
gratifying sexual act, in which the male and female genitals 
luminate and fuse orgonotically*. There is nothing 'abnormal' or 
'disgusting' in this. Every healthy mother experiences the sucking 
as pleasure and yields to it. . . . However, about 80 percent of
all women suffer from vaginal anaesthesia and frigidity. Their nipples
are correspondingly anorgonotic, i.e. 'dead.' The mother may develop
anxiety or loathing in response to what would naturally be a sensation 
of pleasure aroused in the breast by the infant's sucking. This is why 
so many mothers do not want to nurse their babies." [pp. 115-116] 

Reich and other libertarian psychologists therefore maintain that the
practice of bottle feeding is harmful, particularly if it completely
replaces breast feeding from the day of birth, because it eliminates one
of the most important forms of establishing bioenergetic contact between
mother and child. This lack of contact can then contribute in later life
to "oral" forms of neurotic character structure or traits. (For more on
these, see Alexander Lowen, _Physical Dynamics of Character Structure_,
Chapter 9, "The Oral Character"]. Lowen believes that the practice of
breast feeding should be continued for about three years, as it usually is
among "primitive" peoples, and that weaning before this time is 
experienced as a major trauma. "[I]f the breast is available to a child
for about three years, which I believe to be the time required to fulfil
a child's oral needs, weaning causes very little trauma, since the loss of
this pleasure is offset by the many other pleasures the child can then
have." [_Depression and the Body_, p. 133]

Another harmful practice in infant care is the compulsive-neurotic method
of feeding children on schedule, invented by Pirquet in Vienna, which "was
devastatingly wrong and harmful to countless children." Frustration of
oral needs through this practice (which is fortunately less in vogue now
than it was fifty years ago), is guaranteed to produce neurotic armouring
in infants. 

As Reich puts it, "As long as parents, doctors, and educators approach
infants with false, unbending behaviour, inflexible opinions,
condescension, and officiousness, instead of with orgonotic contact,
infants will continue to be quiet, withdrawn, apathetic, "autistic,"
"peculiar," and, later, "little wild animals," whom the cultivated feel
they have to "tame." [Op. Cit. p. 124]

Another harmful practice is allowing the baby to "cry itself out." Thus: 
"Parking a baby in a baby carriage in the garden, perhaps for hours at a
time, is a dangerous practice. No one can know what agonising feelings of
fear and loneliness a baby can experience on waking up suddenly to find
himself alone in a strange place. Those who have heard a baby's screams
on such occasions have some idea of the cruelty of this stupid custom." 
[Neill, _Summerhill_, p. 336] Indeed, in _The Physical Dynamics of
Character Structure_, Lowen has traced specific neuroses, particularly
depression, to this practice. Hospitals also have been guilty of
psychologically damaging sick infants by isolating them from their 
mothers, a practice that has undoubtedly produced untold numbers of 
neurotics and psychopaths. 

Also, as Reich notes, "the sadistic habit of circumcision will soon be
recognised as the senseless, fanatical cruelty it truly is." [Op. Cit., p.
68] He remarks that he has observed infants who took over two weeks to
"recover" from the trauma of circumcision, a "recovery" that left
permanent psychological scars in the form of chronic muscular tensions in
the pelvic floor. These tensions form the first layer of pelvic armouring,
to which sexual repression and other inhibitions (especially those
acquired during toilet training) later add. 

The diaphragm, however, is perhaps the most important area to protect from
early armouring. After observing infants for several years in a research
setting, Reich concluded that armouring in babies usually appears first as
a blocking of free respiration, expressed as harsh, rough, uneven, or
laboured breathing, which may lead to colds, coughs, bronchitis, etc. 

"The early blocking of respiration seemed to gain importance rapidly as
more children were observed. Somehow the diaphragmatic region appeared to
respond first and most severely to emotional, bioenergetic discomfort."
[Ibid., p. 110] Hence the infant's breathing is a key indicator of its
emotional health, and any disturbance is a signal that something is
wrong. Or, as Neill puts it, "The sign of a well-reared child is his
free, uninhibited breathing. It shows that he is not afraid of life" 
[Op. Cit., p. 131]. 

Neill sums up the libertarian attitude toward the care of infants as
follows: "*Self-regulation means the right of a baby to live freely
without outside authority in things psychic and somatic*. It means that
the baby feeds when it is hungry; that it becomes clean in habits only
when it wants to; that it is never stormed at nor spanked; that it is
always loved and protected." [Op. Cit. p. 105]

Obviously self-regulation doesn't mean leaving the baby alone
when it heads toward a cliff or starts playing with an electrical
socket. Anarchists do not advocate a lack of common sense. We
recognise that adults must override an infant's will when it is a question
of protecting its physical safety. As Neill writes, "Only a fool in charge
of young children would allow unbarred bedroom windows or an unprotected
fire in the nursery. Yet, too often, young enthusiasts for
self-regulation come to my school as visitors, and exclaim at our lack of
freedom in locking poison in a lab closet, or our prohibition about
playing on the fire escape. The whole freedom movement is marred and
despised because so many advocates of freedom have not got their feet on
the ground." [Ibid., p. 106]

Nevertheless, the libertarian position does not imply that a child should
be *punished* for getting into a dangerous situation. Nor is the best 
thing to do in such a case to shout in alarm (unless that is the
only way to warn the child before it is too late), but simply to remove the
danger without any fuss. As Neill says, "Unless a child is mentally
defective, he will soon discover what interests him. Left free from
excited cries and angry voices, he will be unbelievably sensible in his
dealing with material of all kinds." [Ibid., p. 108] Provided, of course,
that he or she has been allowed self-regulation from the beginning, and 
thus has not developed any irrational, secondary drives. 

J.6.3 What are some examples of libertarian child-rearing methods
      applied to the care of young children? 

The way to raise a free child becomes clear when one considers how
an *un*free child is raised. Thus imagine the typical infant, John Smith,
whose upbringing A.S. Neill describes: 

"His natural functions were left alone during the diaper period. But when
he began to crawl and perform on the floor, words like *naughty* and
*dirty* began to float about the house, and a grim beginning was made in
teaching him to be clean.

"Before this, his hand had been taken away every time it touched his
genitals; and he soon came to associate the genital prohibition with the
acquired disgust about faeces. Thus, years later, when he became a
travelling salesman, his story repertoire consisted of a balanced number of
sex and toilet jokes.
 
"Much of his training was conditioned by relatives and neighbours. 
Mother and father were most anxious to be correct -- to do the proper
thing -- so that when relatives or next-door neighbours came, John had to
show himself as a well-trained child. He had to say *Thank you* when
Auntie gave him a piece of chocolate; and he had to be most careful about
his table manners; and especially, he had to refrain from speaking when
adults were speaking." [_Summerhill_, p. 97]

When he was little older, things got worse for John. "All his
curiosity about the origins of life were met with clumsy lies, lies so
effective that his curiosity about life and birth disappeared. The lies
about life became combined with fears when at the age of five his mother
found him having genital play with his sister of four and the girl next
door. The severe spanking that followed (Father added to it when he came
home from work) forever conveyed to John the lesson that sex is filthy and
sinful, something one must not even think of." [Ibid.]

Of course, parents' ways of imparting negative messages about sex are not
necessarily this severe, especially in our allegedly enlightened age. 
However, it is not necessary for a child to be spanked or even scolded or
lectured in order to acquire a sex-negative attitude. Children are very
intuitive and will receive the message "sex is bad" from subtle parental
cues like facial expressions, tone of voice, embarrassed silence,
avoidance of certain topics, etc. Mere "toleration" of sexual curiosity
and play is far different in its psychological effects from positive
affirmation. 

Based on the findings of clinical psychiatry, Reich postulated a "first
puberty" in children, from the ages of about 3 to 6, when the child's
attention shifts from the satisfaction of oral needs to an interest in its
sexuality -- a stage characterised by genital play of all kinds. The
parents' task at this stage is not only to allow children to engage in such
play, but to encourage it. "In the child, before the age of four or five,
genitality has not yet fully developed. The task here plainly consists of
removing the obstacles in the way of natural development toward full
genitality. To fulfil this task, we must agree that a first puberty in
children exists; that genital games are the peak of its development; that
lack of genital activity is a sign of sickness and not of health, as
previously assumed; and that healthy children play genital games of all
kinds, which should be encouraged and not hindered." [_Children of the
Future_, p. 66]

Along the same lines, to prevent the formation of sex-negative attitudes
means that nakedness should never be discouraged. "The baby should see
its parents naked from the beginning. However, the child should be told
when he is ready to understand that some people don't like to see children
naked and that, in the presence of such people, he should wear clothes." 
[Neill, _Summerhill_, p. 229]

Neill maintains that not only should parents never spank or punish a child
for genital play, but that spanking and other forms of punishment should
never be used in *any* circumstances, because they instil fear, turning
children into cowards and often leading to phobias. "Fear must be
entirely eliminated -- fear of adults, fear of punishment, fear of
disapproval, fear of God. Only hate can flourish in an atmosphere of
fear." [Ibid., p. 124]

Punishment also turns children into sadists. "The cruelty of many
children springs from the cruelty that has been practised on them by
adults. You cannot be beaten without wishing to beat someone else. . .
Every beating makes a child sadistic in desire or practice." [Ibid., p. 269,
271] This is obviously an important consideration to anarchists, as
sadistic drives provide the psychological ground for militarism, war,
police brutality, and so on. Such drives are undoubtedly also part of the
desire to exercise hierarchical authority, with its possibilities for
using negative sanctions against subordinates as an outlet for
sadistic impulses. 

Child beating is particularly cowardly because it is a way for adults to
vent their hatred, frustration, and sadism on those who are unable to
defend themselves. Such cruelty is, of course, always rationalised with
excuse like "it hurts me more than it does you," etc., or explained in
moral terms, like "I don't want my boy to be soft" or "I want him to
prepare him for a harsh world" or "I spank my children because my parents
spanked me, and it did me a hell of a lot of good." But despite such
rationalisations, the fact remains that punishment is always an act of
hate. To this hate, the child responds in kind by hating the parents,
followed by fantasy, guilt, and repression. For example, the child may 
fantasise the father's death, which immediately causes guilt, and so is
repressed. Often the hatred induced by punishment emerges in fantasies
that are seemingly remote from the parents, such as stories of giant
killing -- always popular with children because the giant represents
the father. Obviously, the sense of guilt produced by such fantasies is 
very advantageous to organised religions that promise redemption from "sin." 
It is surely no coincidence that such religions are enthusiastic promoters
of the sex-negative morality and disciplinarian child rearing practices
that keep supplying them with recruits.

What is worse, however, is that punishment actually *creates* "problem
children." This is so because the parent arouses more and more hatred 
(and diminishing trust in other human beings) in the child with each 
spanking, which is expressed in still worse behaviour, calling for more 
spankings, and so on, in a vicious circle. In contrast, "The 
self-regulated child does not need any punishment," Neill argues, "and 
he does not go through this hate cycle. He is never punished and he does 
not need to behave badly. He has no use for lying and for breaking things. 
His body has never been called filthy or wicked. He has not needed to
rebel against authority or to fear his parents. Tantrums he will usually
have, but they will be short-lived and not tend toward neurosis." [Ibid.,
p. 166]

We could cite many further examples of how libertarian principles of
child-rearing can be applied in practice, but we must limit ourselves to
these few. The basic principles can be summed up as follows: Get rid of
authority, moralism, and the desire to "improve" and "civilise" children. 
Allow them to be themselves, without pushing them around, bribing,
threatening, admonishing, lecturing, or otherwise forcing them to do
anything. Refrain from action unless the child, by expressing their
"freedom" restricts the freedom of others and *explain* what is wrong
about such actions and never mechanically punish.

This is, of course, a radical philosophy, which few parents are willing to
follow. It is quite amazing how people who call themselves libertarians
in political and economic matters draw the line when it comes to their
behaviour within the family -- as if such behaviour had no wider social
consequences! Hence, the opponents of children's freedom are legion, as
are their objections to libertarian child rearing. In the next few sections
we will examine some of the most common of these objections.

J.6.4 If children have nothing to fear, how can they be good? 

Obedience that is based on fear of punishment, this-worldly or
otherworldly, is not really goodness, it is merely cowardice. True
morality (i.e. respect for others and one-self) comes from inner 
conviction based on experience, it cannot be imposed from without 
by fear. Nor can it be inspired by hope of reward, such as praise or 
the promise of heaven, which is simply bribery. As noted in the 
previous section, if children are given as much freedom as possible
from the day of birth and not forced to conform to parental expectations, 
they will spontaneously learn the basic principles of social behaviour, 
such as cleanliness, courtesy, and so forth. But they must be allowed to 
develop them *at their own speed,* at the natural stage of their growth, 
not when parents think they should develop them. And what is "natural" 
timing must be discovered by observation, not by defining it a priori 
based on one's own expectations.

Can a child really be taught to keep itself clean without being punished
for getting dirty? According to many psychologists, it is not only
possible but *vitally important* for the child's mental health to do so,
since punishment will give the child a fixed and repressed interest in his
bodily functions. As Reich and Lowen have shown, for example, various
forms of compulsive and obsessive neuroses can be traced back to the
punishments used in toilet training. Dogs, cats, horses, and cows have no
complexes about excrement. Complexes in human children come from the
manner of their instruction. 

As Neill observes, "When the mother says *naughty* or *dirty* or even
*tut tut*, the element of right and wrong arises. The question becomes a
*moral* one -- when it should remain a *physical* one." He suggests that
the *wrong* way to deal with a child who likes to play with faeces is to
tell him he is being dirty. "The right way is to allow him to live out
his interest in excrement by providing him with mud or clay. In this way,
he will sublimate his interest without repression. He will live through
his interest; and in doing so, kill it." [_Summerhill_, p. 174]

Similarly, sceptics will probably question how children can be induced to
eat a healthy diet without threats of punishment. The answer can be
discovered by a simple experiment: set out on the table all kinds of
foods, from candy and ice cream to whole wheat bread, lettuce, sprouts,
and so on, and allow the child complete freedom to choose what is desired
or to eat nothing at all if he or she is not hungry. Parents will find
that the average child will begin choosing a balanced diet after about 
a week, after the desire for prohibited or restricted foods has been
satisfied. This is an example of what can be called "trusting nature." 
That the question of how to "train" a child to eat properly should even be
an issue says volumes about how little the concept of freedom for children
is accepted or even understood, in our society. Unfortunately, the
concept of "training" still holds the field in this and most other areas. 

The disciplinarian argument that that children must be *forced* to respect
property is also defective, because it always requires some sacrifice of
a child's play life (and childhood should be devoted to play, not to
"preparing for adulthood," because playing is what children spontaneously 
do). The libertarian view is that a child should arrive at a sense of 
value out of his or her own free choice. This means not scolding or 
punishing them for breaking or damaging things. As they grow out of
the stage of preadolescent indifference to property, they learn to 
respect it naturally. 

"But shouldn't a child at least be punished for stealing?" it will be
asked. Once again, the answer lies in the idea of trusting nature. The
concept of "mine" and "yours" is adult, and children naturally develop it
as they become mature, but not before. This means that normal children
will "steal" -- though that is not how they regard it. They are simply
trying to satisfy their acquisitive impulses; or, if they are with friends,
their desire for adventure. In a society so thoroughly steeping in the
idea of respect for property as ours, it is no doubt difficult for parents
to resist societal pressure to punish children for "stealing." The reward
for such trust, however, will be a child who grows into a healthy
adolescent who respects the possessions of others, not out of a cowardly
fear of punishment but from his or her own self-nature. 

J.6.5 But how can children learn *ethics* if they are not given
      punishments, prohibitions, and religious instruction? 

Most parents believe that, besides taking care of their child's physical
needs, the teaching of ethical/moral values is their main responsibility 
and that without such teaching the child will grow up to be a "little wild 
animal" who acts on every whim, with no consideration for others. This idea
arises mainly from the fact that most people in our society believe, at
least passively, that human beings are naturally bad and that unless they
are "trained" to be good they will be lazy, mean, violent, or even
murderous. This, of course, is essentially the idea of "original sin." 
Because of its widespread acceptance, nearly all adults believe that it is
their job to "improve" children. 

According to libertarian psychologists, however, there is no original
sin. In fact, it would be more accurate to say that there is "original
virtue." As we have seen, Reich found that externally imposed,
compulsive morality actually *causes* immoral behaviour by creating cruel
and perverse "secondary drives." Neill puts it this way: "I find that
when I smash the moral instruction a bad boy has received, he becomes a
good boy." [_Summerhill_, p. 250] 

Unconscious acceptance of some form of the idea of original sin is, as
mentioned previously, the main recruiting tool of organised religions, as
people who believe they are born "sinners" feel a strong sense of guilt
and need for redemption. Therefore Neill advises parents to "eliminate
any need for redemption, by telling the child that he is born good -- not
born bad." This will help keep them from falling under the influence of
life-denying religions, which are inimical to the growth of a healthy 
character structure. 

As Reich points out, "The Church, because of its influence on the
sexuality of youth, is an institution that exerts an extremely damaging
effect on health." [_Children of the Future_, p. 217] Citing ethnological
studies, he notes the following: 

"Among those primitive peoples who lead satisfactory, unimpaired sexual
lives, there is no sexual crime, no sexual perversion, no sexual brutality
between man and woman; rape is unthinkable because it is unnecessary in
their society. Their sexual activity flows in normal, well-ordered
channels which would fill any cleric with indignation and fear, because
the pale, ascetic youth and the gossiping, child-beating woman do not
exist in these primitive societies. They love the human body and take
pleasure in their sexuality. They do not understand why young men and
women should not enjoy their sexuality. But when their lives are invaded
by the ascetic, hypocritical morass and by the Church, which bring them
'culture' along with exploitation, alcohol, and syphilis, they begin to
suffer the same wretchedness as ourselves. They begin to lead "moral"
lives, i.e. to suppress their sexuality, and from then on they decline
more and more into a state of sexual distress, which is the result of
sexual suppression. At the same time, they become sexually dangerous;
murders of spouses, sexual diseases, and crimes of all sorts start to 
appear." [Ibid., p. 193] 

Such crimes in our society would be greatly reduced if libertarian child
rearing practices were widely followed. These are obviously important
considerations for anarchists, who are frequently asked to explain how
crime can be prevented in an anarchist society. The answer is that if
people are not suppressed during childhood there will be far less crime,
because the secondary-drive structure that leads to anti-social behaviour
of all kinds will not be created in the first place. In other words, the
solution to the so-called crime problem is not more police, more laws, or a
return to the disciplinarianism of "traditional family values," as
conservatives claim, but depends mainly on *getting rid* of such 
values. 

There are other problems as well with the moralism taught by organised
religions. One danger is making the child a hater. "If a child is taught
that certain things are sinful, his love of life must be changed to hate. 
When children are free, they never think of another child as being a
sinner." [Neill, Op. Cit., p. 245] From the idea that certain people are
sinners, it is a short step to the idea that certain classes or races 
of people are more "sinful" than others, leading to prejudice,
discrimination, and persecution of minorities as an outlet for repressed
anger and sadistic drives -- drives that are created in the first place by
moralistic training during early childhood. Once again, the relevance 
for anarchism is obvious. 

A further danger of religious instruction is the development of a fear of
life. "Religion to a child most always means only fear. God is a mighty
man with holes in his eyelids: He can see you wherever you are. To a
child, this often means that God can see what is being done under the
bedclothes. And to introduce fear into a child's life is the worst of all
crimes. Forever the child says nay to life; forever he is an inferior;
forever a coward." [Ibid., p. 246] People who have been threatened with
fear of an afterlife in hell can never be entirely free of neurotic
anxiety about security in *this* life. In turn, such people become easy
targets of ruling-class propaganda that plays upon their material
insecurity, e.g. the rationalisation of imperialistic wars as necessary to
"preserve jobs" (cited, for example, by US Secretary of State James Baker
as one rationale for the Gulf War). 

J.6.6 But how will a free child ever learn unselfishness?
 
Another common objection to self-regulation is that children can only be
taught to be *unselfish* through punishment and admonition. Again,
however, such a view comes from a distrust of nature and is part of the
common attitude that nature is mere "raw material" to be shaped by human 
beings according to their own wishes. The libertarian attitude is that
unselfishness develops at the proper time -- which is *not* during
childhood. Children are primarily egoists, generally until the beginning
of puberty, and until then they usually don't have the ability to identify
with others. Thus: 

"To ask a child to be unselfish is wrong. Every child is an egoist and
the world belongs to him. When he has an apple, his one wish is to eat
that apple. The chief result of mother's encouraging him to share it with
his little brother is to make him hate the little brother. Altruism comes
later -- comes naturally -- *if the child is not taught to be unselfish.* 
It probably never comes at all if the child has been forced to be
unselfish. By suppressing the child's selfishness, the mother is fixing
that selfishness forever." [Neill, Op. Cit., pp. 250-251]

Unfulfilled wishes (like all "unfinished business") live on in the 
unconscious. Hence children who are pressured too hard - "taught" - 
to be unselfish will, while conforming outwardly with parental
demands, unconsciously repress part of their real, selfish wishes, and 
these repressed infantile desires will make the person selfish (and 
possibly neurotic) throughout life. Moreover, telling children that what 
they want to do is "wrong" or "bad" is equivalent to teaching them to 
hate themselves, and it is a well-known principle of psychology that 
people who do not love themselves cannot love others. Thus moral 
instruction, although it aims to develop altruism and love for others, 
is actually self-defeating, having just the opposite result. 

Moreover, such attempts to produce "unselfish" children (and so adults) 
actually works *against* developing the individuality of the child and
their abilities to develop their own abilities (in particular their
ability of critical thought). As Erich Fromm puts it, "[n]ot to be selfish
implies not to do what one wishes, to give up one's own wishes for the
sake of those in authority. . . Aside from its obvious implication, it
means 'don't love yourself,' 'don't be yourself', but submit yourself to
something more important than yourself, to an outside power or its
internalisation, 'duty.' 'Don't be selfish' becomes one of the most
powerful ideological tools in suppressing spontaneity and the free
development of personality. Under the pressure of this slogan one is
asked for every sacrifice and for complete submission: only those acts
are 'unselfish' which do not serve the individual but somebody or something
outside himself." [_Man for Himself_, p. 127]

While such "unselfishness" is ideal for creating "model citizens" and
willing wage slaves, it is not conducive for creating anarchists or
even developing individuality. Little wonder Bakunin celebrated the
urge to rebel and saw it as the key to human progress! Fromm goes on to
note that selfishness and self-love, "far from being identical, are actually 
opposites" and that "selfish persons are incapable of loving others. . .
[or] loving themselves..." [Op. Cit., p. 131] Individuals who do not love
themselves, and so others, will be more willing to submit themselves to 
hierarchy than those who do love themselves and are concerned for their
own, and others, welfare. Thus the contradictory nature of capitalism,
with its contradictory appeals to selfish and unselfish behaviour, can be
understood as being based upon lack of self-love, a lack which is promoted
in childhood and one which libertarians should be aware of and combat.

Indeed, much of the urge to "teach children unselfishness" is actually an
expression of adults' will to power. Whenever parents feel the urge to
impose directives on their children, they would be wise to ask themselves
whether the impulse comes from their own power drive or their own 
selfishness. For, since our culture strongly conditions us to seek power 
over others, what could be more convenient than having a small, weak 
person at hand who cannot resist one's will to power? Instead of issuing 
directives, libertarians believe in letting social behaviour develop 
naturally, which it will do after other people's opinions becomes 
important *to the child.* As Neill points out, "Everyone seeks the good 
opinion of his neighbours. Unless other forces push him into unsocial 
behaviour, a child will naturally want to do that which will cause him 
to be well-regarded, but this desire to please others develops at a 
certain stage in his growth. The attempt by parents and teachers to 
artificially accelerate this stage does the child irreparable damage." 
[Neill, Op. Cit., p. 256]

Therefore, parents should allow children to be "selfish" and "ungiving", 
free to follow their own childish interests throughout their childhood. And
when their individual interests clash with social interests (e.g. the
opinion of the neighbours), the individual interests should take precedence.
Every interpersonal conflict of interest should be grounds for a lesson 
in dignity on one side and consideration on the other. Only by this process
can a child develop their individuality. By so doing they will come to 
recognise the individuality of others and this is the first step in 
developing ethical concepts (which rest upon mutual respect for others 
and their individuality).

J.6.7 Isn't what you call "libertarian child-rearing" just another name
      for spoiling the child? 

No. This objection confuses the distinction between freedom and license. 
To raise a child in freedom does not mean letting him or her walk all over
you; it does not mean never saying "no." It is true that free children
are not subjected to punishment, irrational authority, or moralistic
admonitions, but they are not "free" to violate the rights of others. As
Neill puts it, "in the disciplined home, the children have *no* rights. 
In the spoiled home, they have *all* the rights. The proper home is one
in which children and adults have equal rights." Or again, "To let a
child have his own way, or do what he wants to *at another's expense,* is
bad for the child. It creates a spoiled child, and the spoiled child is a
bad citizen." [_Summerhill_, p. 107, 167]

There will inevitably be conflicts of will between parents and children,
and the healthy way to resolve them is to come to some sort of a
compromise agreement. The unhealthy ways are either to resort to
authoritarian discipline or to spoil the child by allowing it to have all
the social rights. Libertarian psychologists argue that no harm is done
to children by insisting on one's individual rights, but that the harm
comes from moralism, i.e. when one introduces the concepts of right and
wrong or words like "naughty," "bad," or "dirty," which produce guilt.
 
Therefore it should not be thought that free children are free to "do as
they please." Freedom means doing what one likes so long as it doesn't
infringe on the freedom of others. Thus there is a big difference between
compelling a child to stop throwing stones at others and compelling him or
her to learn geometry. Throwing stones infringes on others' rights, but
learning geometry involves only the child. The same goes for forcing
children to eat with a fork instead of their fingers; to say "please" and
"thank you;" to tidy up their rooms, and so on. Bad manners and
untidiness may be annoying to adults, but they are not a violation of 
adults' rights. One could, of course, define an adult "right" to be free
of annoyance from *anything* one's child does, but this would simply
be a license for authoritarianism, emptying the concept of children's
rights of all content. 

As mentioned, giving children freedom does not mean allowing them to
endanger themselves physically. For example, a sick child should not 
be asked to decide whether he wants to go outdoors or take his 
prescribed medicine, nor a run-down and overtired child whether she 
wants to go to bed. But the imposition of such forms of necessary 
authority is compatible with the idea that children should be given as 
much responsibility as they can handle at their particular age. For only 
in this way can they develop self-assurance. And again, it is important for
parents to examine their own motives when deciding how much responsibility
to give their child. Parents who insist on choosing their children's'
clothes for them, for example, are generally worried that little Tommy
might select clothes that would reflect badly on his parents' social
standing. 

As for those who equate "discipline" in the home with "obedience," the
latter is usually required of a child to satisfy the adults' desire for
power. Self-regulation means that there are no power games being played
with children, no loud voice saying "You'll do it because I say so, or
else!" But, although this irrational, power-seeking kind of authority is
absent in the libertarian home, there still remains what can be called a
kind of "authority," namely adult protection, care, and responsibility, as
well as the insistence on one's own rights. As Neill observes, "Such
authority sometimes demands obedience but at other times gives obedience. 
Thus I can say to my daughter, 'You can't bring that mud and water into
our parlour.' That's no more than her saying to me, 'Get out of my room,
Daddy. I don't want you here now,' a wish that I, of course, obey without
a word" [Op Cit., p. 156]. Therefore there will still be "discipline" in
the libertarian home, but it will be of the kind that protects the
individual rights of each family member. 

Raising children in freedom also does not imply giving them a lot of toys,
money, and so on. Reichians have argued that children should not be given
everything they ask for and that it is better to give them too little than
too much. Under constant bombardment by commercial advertising campaigns,
parents today generally tend to give their children far too much, with the
result that the children stop appreciating gifts and rarely value any of
their possessions. This same applies to money, which, if given in excess,
can be detrimental to children's' creativity and play life. If children
are not given too many toys, they will derive creative joy out of making
their own toys out of whatever free materials are at hand -- a joy of
which they are robbed by overindulgence. Psychologists point out that
parents who give too many presents are often trying to compensate for
giving too little love. 

There is less danger in rewarding children than there is in punishing
them, but rewards can still undermine a child's morale. This is because,
firstly, rewards are superfluous and in fact often *decrease* motivation
and creativity, as several psychological studies have shown (see section
I.4.10). Creative people work for the pleasure of creating; monetary
interests are not central (or necessary) to the creative process. Secondly, 
rewards send the wrong message, namely, that doing the deed for which the 
reward is offered is not worth doing for its own sake and the pleasure 
associated with productive, creative activity. And thirdly, rewards 
tend to reinforce the worst aspects of the competitive system, leading to 
the attitude that money is the only thing which can motivate people to do 
the work that needs doing in society. 

These are just a few of the considerations that enter into the distinction
between spoiling children and raising them in freedom. In reality, it 
is the punishment and fear of a disciplinarian home that *spoils* 
children in the most literal sense, by destroying their childhood 
happiness and creating warped personalities. As adults, the victims of
disciplinarianism will generally be burdened with one or more anti-social
secondary drives such as sadism, destructive urges, greed, sexual
perversions, etc., as well as repressed rage and fear. The presence of
such impulses just below the surface of consciousness causes anxiety,
which is automatically defended against by layers of rigid muscular
armouring, which leaves the person stiff, frustrated, bitter, and burdened
with feelings of inner emptiness. In such a condition, people easily fall
victim to the capitalist gospel of super-consumption, which promises that
money will enable them to fill the inner void by purchasing commodities --
a promise that, of course, is hollow. 

The neurotically armoured person also tends to look for scapegoats on whom
to blame his or her frustration and anxiety and against whom repressed 
rage can be vented. Reactionary politicians know very well how to direct
such impulses against minorities or "hostile nations" with propaganda
designed to serve the interests of the ruling elite. Most importantly,
however, the respect for authority combined with sadistic impulses which
is acquired from a disciplinarian upbringing typically produces a
submissive/authoritarian personality -- a man or woman who blindly follows
the orders of "superiors" while at the same time desiring to exercise
authority on "subordinates," whether in the family, the state bureaucracy,
or the corporation. In this way, the "traditional" (e.g., authoritarian,
disciplinarian, patriarchal) family is the necessary foundation for 
authoritarian civilisation, reproducing it and its attendant social evils 
from generation to generation. Irving Staub's "Roots of Evil" includes 
interviews of imprisoned SS men, who, in the course of extensive interviews 
(meant to determine how ostensibly "normal" people could perform acts of 
untold ruthlessness and violence) revealed that they overwhelmingly came 
from authoritarian, disciplinarian homes.

J.6.8 What is the anarchist position on teenage sexual liberation? 

One of the biggest problems of adolescence is sexual suppression by
parents and society in general. The teenage years are the time when
sexual energy is at its height. Why, then, the absurd demand that
teenagers "wait until marriage," or at least until leaving home, before
becoming sexually active? Why are there laws on the books in "advanced"
countries like the United States that allow a 19-year-old "boy" who makes
love with his 17-year-old girlfriend, with her full consent, to be
*arrested* by the girl's parents (!) for "statutory rape?" 

To answer such questions, let us recall that the ruling class is 
not interested in encouraging mass tendencies toward democracy and
independence and pleasure not derived from commodities but instead 
supports whatever contributes to mass submissiveness, docility, 
dependence, helplessness, and respect for authority -- traits that 
perpetuate the hierarchies on which ruling-class power and privileges 
depend. 

We have noted earlier that, because sex is the most intense form of
pleasure (one of the most prominent contributors for intimacy and
bonding people) and involves the bioenergy of the body and emotions,
repression of sexuality is the most powerful means of psychologically
crippling people and giving them a submissive/authoritarian character
structure (as well as alienating people from each other). As Reich 
observes, such a character is composed of a mixture of "sexual 
impotence, helplessness, a need for attachments, a nostalgia for 
a leader, fear of authority, timidity, and mysticism." As he also 
points out, "people structured in this manner are *incapable of 
democracy.* All attempts to build up or maintain genuine democratically 
directed organisations come to grief when they encounter these character
structures. They form the psychological soil of the masses in which
dictatorial strivings and bureaucratic tendencies of democratically
elected leaders can develop. . . . [Sexual suppression] produces the 
authority-fearing, life-fearing vassal, and thus constantly creates new
possibilities whereby a handful of men in power can rule the masses." 
[_The Sexual Revolution: Toward a Self-Regulating Character Structure_, 
p. 82, emphasis added]

No doubt most members of the ruling elite are not fully conscious that
their own power and privileges depend on the mass perpetuation of
sex-negative attitudes. Nevertheless, they unconsciously sense it. 
Sexual freedom is the most basic and powerful kind, and every
conservative or reactionary instinctively shudders at the thought of 
the "social chaos" it would unleash -- that is, the rebellious,
authority-defying type of character it would nourish. This is why
"family values," and "religion" (i.e. discipline and compulsive sexual
morality) are the mainstays of the conservative/reactionary agenda. Thus
it is crucially important for anarchists to address every aspect of sexual
suppression in society. And this means affirming the right of adolescents
to an unrestricted sex life. 
 
There are numerous arguments for teenage sexual liberation. For example,
many teen suicides could be prevented by removing the restrictions on 
adolescent sexuality. This becomes clear from ethnological studies of
sexually unrepressive "primitive" peoples. Thus: 

"All reports, whether by missionaries or scholars, with or without the
proper indignation about the 'moral depravity' of 'savages,' state that
the puberty rites of adolescents lead them immediately into a sexual life;
that some of these primitive societies lay great emphasis on sexual
pleasure; that the puberty rite is an important social event; that some
primitive peoples not only do not hinder the sexual life of adolescents
but encourage it is every way, as, for instance, by arranging for
community houses in which the adolescents settle at the start of puberty
in order to be able to enjoy sexual intercourse. Even in those primitive
societies in which the institution of strict monogamous marriage exists,
adolescents are given complete freedom to enjoy sexual intercourse from
the beginning of puberty to marriage. None of these reports contains any
indication of sexual misery or suicide by adolescents suffering from
unrequited love (although the latter does of course occur). The
contradiction between sexual maturity and the absence of genital sexual
gratification is non-existent." [Ibid., p. 85]

Teenage sexual repression is also closely connected with crime. If there
are hundreds of teenagers in a neighbourhood who have no place to pursue
intimate sexual relationships, they will do it in dark corners, in cars 
or vans, etc., always on the alert and anxious lest someone discover them. 
Under such conditions, full gratification is impossible, leading to a 
build-up of tension, frustration and stagnation of bioenergy (sexual 
stasis). Thus they feel unsatisfied, disturb each other, become jealous 
and angry, get into fights, turn to drugs as a substitute for a 
satisfying sex life, vandalise property to let off "steam" (repressed 
rage), or even murder someone. As Reich notes, "juvenile delinquency 
is the visible expression of the subterranean sexual crisis in the 
lives of children and adolescents. And it may be predicted that no 
society will ever succeed in solving this problem, the problem of 
juvenile psychopathology, unless that society can muster the courage 
and acquire the knowledge to regulate the sexual life of its children 
and adolescents in a sex-affirmative manner." [Ibid., p. 271]

For these reasons, it is clear that a solution to the "gang problem" 
also depends on adolescent sexual liberation. We are not suggesting, of
course, that gangs themselves suppress sexual activity. Indeed, one of
their main attractions to teens is undoubtedly the hope of more
opportunities for sex as a gang member. However, gangs' typical
obsessiveness with the promiscuous, pornographic, sadistic, and other
"dark" aspects of sex shows that by the time children reach the gang age
they have already developed unhealthy secondary drives due to the
generally sex-negative and repressive environment in which they have grown
up. The expression of such drives is *not* what anarchists mean by "sexual
freedom." Rather, anarchist proposals for teenage liberation are based on
the premise that unrestricted sexuality in early childhood is the
necessary condition for a *healthy* sexual freedom in adolescence. 

Applying these insights to our own society, it is clear that teenagers 
should not only have ample access to a private room where they can be
undisturbed with their sexual partners, but that parents should actively
*encourage* such behaviour for the sake of their child's health and
happiness (while, of course, encouraging the knowledge and use of 
contraceptives and safe sex in general as well as respect for the other
person involved in the relationship). This last point (of respecting 
others) is essential. As Maurice Brinton points out, attempts at sexual
liberation will encounter two kinds of responses from established society -
direct opposition and attempts at recuperation. The second response 
takes the form of "first alienating and reifying sexuality, and then of 
frenetically exploiting this empty shell for commercial ends. As modern
youth breaks out of the dual stranglehold of the authoritarian patriarchal
family it encounters a projected image of free sexuality which is in fact
a manipulatory distortion of it." This can be seen from the use of sex in
advertising to the successful development of sex into a major consumer
industry.

However, such a development is the opposite of the healthy sexuality
desired by anarchists. This is because "sex is presented as something to
be consumed. But the sexual instinct differs from certain other instincts...
[as it can be satisfied only by] another human being, capable of thinking,
acting, suffering. The alienation of sexuality under the conditions of
modern capitalism is very much part of the general alienating process, in
which people are converted into objects (in this case, objects of sexual
consumption) and relationships are drained of human content. Undiscriminating,
compulsive sexual activity, is not sexual freedom - although it may sometimes
be a preparation for it (which repressive morality can never be). The illusion
that alienated sex is sexual freedom constitutes yet another obstacle on
the road to total emancipation. Sexual freedom implies a realisation and
understanding of the autonomy of others." [_The Irrational in Politics_, 
p. 60, p. 61]

Therefore, anarchists see teenage sexual liberation as a means of developing
free individuals *as well as* reducing the evil effects of sexual repression 
(which, we must note, also helps dehumanise individuals by encouraging 
the objectification of others, and in a patriarchal society, particularly
of women). 

J.6.9 But isn't this concern with teenage sexual liberation just a distraction 
      from issues that should be of more concern to anarchists, like 
      restructuring the economy?

It would be insulting to teenagers to suggest that sexual freedom is, or
should be, their *only* concern. Many teens have a well-developed social
conscience and are keenly interested in problems of economic exploitation,
poverty, social breakdown, environmental degradation, and the like. 

However, it is essential for anarchists to guard against the attitude
typically found in Marxist-Leninist parties that spontaneous discussions
about the sexual problems of youth are a "diversion from the class
struggle." Such an attitude is economistic (not to mention covertly
ascetic), because it is based on the premise that the economy must be
the focus of all revolutionary efforts toward social change. No doubt
restructuring the economy is important, but without mass sexual
liberation no working class revolution be complete. In a so called
free society, there will not be enough people around with the character
structures necessary to create a *lasting* worker-controlled economy --
i.e. people who are capable of accepting freedom with responsibility. 
Instead, the attempt to force the creation of such an economy without
preparing the necessary psychological soil for its growth will lead to a 
quick reversion to some new form of hierarchy and exploitation. 

Moreover, for most teenagers, breaking free from the sexual suppression
that threatens to cripple them psychologically is a major issue in their
lives. For this reason, not many of them are likely to be attracted to
the anarchist "freedom" movement if its exponents limit themselves to dry
discussions of surplus value, alienated labour, and so forth. Instead,
addressing sexual questions and problems must be integrated into a 
multi-faceted attack on the total system of domination. Teens should feel
confident that anarchists are on the side of sexual pleasure and are not
revolutionary ascetics demanding self-denial for the "sake of the
revolution." Rather, it should be stressed that the capacity for full
sexual enjoyment is the an essential part of the revolution. Indeed,
"incessant questioning and challenge to authority on the subject of sex
and of the compulsive family can only complement the questioning and
challenge to authority in other areas (for instance on the subject of who
is to dominate the work process - or the purpose of work itself). Both
challenges stress the autonomy of individuals and their domination of
over important aspects of their lives. Both expose the alienated concepts
which pass for rationality and which govern so much of our thinking and
behaviour. The task of the conscious revolutionary is to make both 
challenges explicit, to point out their deeply subversive content, and
to explain their inter-relation." [Maurice Brinton, Op. Cit., p. 62]

We noted previously that in pre-patriarchal society, which rests on the
social order of primitive communism, children have complete sexual freedom
and that the idea of childhood asceticism develops as matricentric clan
societies turn toward patriarchy in the economy and social structure (see
section B.1.5). This sea-change in social attitudes toward childhood
sexuality allows the authority-oriented character structure to develop
instead of the formerly non-authoritarian ones. Ethnological research has
shown that in pre-patriarchal societies, the general nature of work life
in the collective corresponds with the free sexuality of children and
adolescents -- that is, there are no rules coercing children and
adolescents into specific forms of sexual life, and this creates the
psychological basis for voluntary integration into the collective and
voluntary discipline in work. This historical fact supports the premise
that widespread sex-positive attitudes are a necessary condition of a
viable libertarian socialism. 

Psychology also clearly shows that every impediment to infantile and
adolescent sexuality by parents, teachers, or administrative authorities
must be stopped. As anarchists, our preferred way of doing so is by
direct action. Thus we should encourage teens to feel that they have
every chance of building their own lives. This will certainly not be an
obstacle to or a distraction from their involvement in the anarchist
movement. On the contrary, if they can gradually solve the problem of
(e.g.) private rooms themselves, they will work on other social projects
with greatly increased pleasure and concentration. For, contrary to
Freud, Reichian psychologists argue that beyond a certain point, excess
sexual energy cannot be sublimated in work or any other purposeful 
activity but actually disturbs work by making the person restless 
and prone to fantasies, thus hindering concentration. 

Besides engaging in direct action, anarchists can also support legal
protection of infantile and adolescent sexuality (repeal of the insane
statutory rape laws would be one example), just as they support
legislation that protects workers' right to strike, family leave, and so
forth. However, as Reich observes, "under no circumstances will the new
order of sexual life be established by the decree of a central authority." 
[Ibid., p. 279] That was a Leninist illusion. Rather, it will be
established from the bottom up, by the gradual process of ever more
widespread dissemination of knowledge about the adverse personal and
social effects of sexual suppression, which will lead to mass acceptance 
of libertarian child-rearing and educational methods. 

A society in which people are capable of sexual happiness will be one
where they prefer to "make love, not war," and so will provide the best
guarantee for the general security. Then the anarchist project of 
restructuring the economic and political systems will proceed
spontaneously, based on a spirit of joy rather than hatred and revenge. 
Only then can it be defended against reactionary threats, because the
majority will be on the side of freedom and capable of using it
responsibly, rather than unconsciously longing for an authoritarian
father-figure to tell them what to do. 

Therefore, concern and action upon teenage sexual liberation (or child
rearing in general or libertarian education) is a *key* part of social
struggle and change. In no way can it be considered a "distraction"
from "important" political and economic issues as some "serious"
revolutionaries like to claim. As Martha A. Ackelsberg notes (in relation 
to the practical work done by the *Mujeres Libres* group during the Spanish 
Revolution):

"Respecting children and educating them well was vitally important to the 
process of revolutionary change. Ignorance made people particularly vulnerable
to oppression and suffering. More importantly, education prepared people
for social life. Authoritarian schools (or families), based upon fear,
prepared people to be submissive to an authoritarian government [or
within a capitalist workplace]. Different schools and families would
be necessary to prepare people to live in a society without domination."
[_Free Women of Spain_, p. 133]

J.7 What do anarchists mean by "social revolution"?

In anarchist theory, "social revolution" means far more than just
revolution. For anarchists, a true revolution is far more than
just a change in the political makeup, structure or form of a 
society. It must transform all aspects of a society -- political,
economic, social, interpersonal relationships, sexual and so on --
and the individuals who comprise it. Indeed, these two transformations
go hand in hand, complementing each other and supporting each other
-- individuals, while transforming society, transform themselves
in the process.

As Alexander Berkman put it, "there are revolutions and revolutions.
Some revolutions change only the governmental form by putting a new
set of rulers in place of the old. These are political revolutions,
and as such they are often meet with little resistance. But a
revolution that aims to abolish the entire system of wage slavery
must also do away with the power of one class to oppress another.
That is, it is not any more a mere change of rulers, of
government, not a political revolution, but one that seeks to
alter the whole character of society. That would be a *social*
revolution." [_ABC of Anarchism_, p. 34]
 
It means two related things. Firstly, it means transforming all 
aspects of society and not just tinkering with certain aspects of
the current system. Where political revolution means, in essence, 
changing bosses, social revolution means changing society. Thus
social revolution signifies a change in the social, economic and 
cultural and sexual in a libertarian direction, a transformation
in the way society is organised and run. Social revolution, in
other words, does not aim to alter one form of subjection for
another, but to do away with everything that can enslave and
oppress the individual. Secondly, it means bringing about this 
fundamental change *directly* by the mass of people in society, 
rather than relying on political means of achieving this end, 
in the style of Marxist-Leninists and other authoritarian 
socialists. For anarchists, such an approach is a political 
revolution only and doomed to failure. Hence the "actual,
positive work of the social revolution must . . . be carried
out by the toilers themselves, by the labouring people."
[Alexander Berkman, Op. Cit., p. 45]

That is not to say that an anarchist social revolution is not 
political in content -- far from it; it should be obvious to 
anyone reading this FAQ that there are considerable political 
theories at work within anarchism. What we *are* saying, however, 
is that anarchists do not seek to seize power and attempt, through 
control of law enforcement and the military (in the style of 
governments) to bring change about from the top-down. Rather, 
we seek to bring change upward from below, and in so doing, make 
such a revolution inevitable and not contingent on the machinations 
of a political vanguard. As Durruti argued, "[w]e never believed 
that the revolution consisted of the seizure of power by a minority 
which would impose a dictatorship on the people . . . We want a 
revolution by and for the people. Without this no revolution is 
possible. It would be a Coup d'Etat, nothing more." [quoted by 
Abel Paz, _Durruti: The People Armed_, pp. 135-7]

Thus, for anarchists, a social revolution is a movement from 
below, of the oppressed and exploited struggling for their own
freedom. Moreover, such a revolution does not appear as if by
magic. Rather, it is the case that revolutions "are not 
improvised. They are not made at will by individuals. They
come about through the force of circumstance and are 
independent of any deliberate will or conspiracy." [Michael
Bakunin, quote by Brian Morris, _Bakunin: The Philosophy
of Freedom_, p. 139] They are, in fact, a product of social
evolution and of social struggle. As Malatesta reminds us:

"the oppressed masses . . . have never completely resigned
themselves to oppression and poverty, and who today more
than ever than ever show themselves thirsting for justice,
freedom and wellbeing, are beginning to understand that
they will not be able to achieve their emancipation except
by union and solidarity with all the oppressed, with the
exploited everywhere in the world. And they also understand
that the indispensable condition for their emancipation which
cannot be neglected is the possession of the means of
production, of the land and of the instruments of labour."
[_Anarchy_, p. 30]

Thus any social revolution proceeds from the daily struggles
of working class people (just as anarchism does). It is not
an event, rather it is a *process* -- a process which is
occurring at this moment. Thus, for anarchists, a social
revolution is not something in the future but an process which
is occurring in the here and now. As German Anarchist Gustav
Landauer put it:

"The State is not something that can be destroyed by a revolution,
but it is a condition, a certain relationship between human
beings, a mode of human behaviour; we destroy it by contracting
other relationships, by behaving differently." [quoted by
George Woodcock, _Anarchism_, p. 421]

This does not mean that anarchists do not recognise that a
revolution will be marked by, say, insurrectionary events
(such as a general strike, wide scale occupations of land,
housing, workplaces, etc., actual insurrections and so on).
Of course not, it means that we place these events in a
process, within social movements and that they do not occur
in isolation from history or the evolution of ideas and
movements within society.

Berkman echoes this point when he argued that while "a social
revolution is one that entirely changes the foundation of
society, its political, economic and social character," such 
a change "must *first* take place in the ideas and opinions
of the people, in the minds of men [and women]." This means
that "the social revolution must be prepared. Prepared in
these sense of furthering evolutionary process, of enlightening
the people about the evils of present-day society and
convincing them of the desirability and possibility, of the
justice and practicability of a social life based on liberty."
[Alexander Berkman, Op. Cit., p. 38] And such preparation
would be the result of social struggle in the here and now,
social struggle based on direct action, solidarity and 
self-managed organisations. While Berkman concentrates on 
the labour movement in his classic work, but his comments 
are applicable to all social movements:

"In the daily struggle of the proletariat such an organisation
[a syndicalist union] would be able to achieve victories about
which the conservative union, as at present built, cannot even
dream. . . . Such a union would soon become something more
than a mere defender and protector of the worker. It would 
gain a vital realisation of the meaning of unity and 
consequent power, of labour solidarity. The factory and
shop would serve as a training camp to develop the worker's
understanding of his proper role in life, to cultivate his
[or her] self-reliance and independence, teach him [or her]
mutual help and co-operation, and make him [or her]
conscious of his [or her] responsibility. He will learn to
decide and act on his [or her] own judgement, not leaving
it to leaders or politicians to attend to his [or her]
affairs and look out for his [or her] welfare. . . He [or
she] will grow to understand that present economic and
social arrangements are wrong and criminal, and he [or she]
will determine to change them. The shop committee and union
will become the field of preparation for a new economic
system, for a new social life." [Op. Cit., p. 59]

In other words, the struggle against authority, exploitation,
oppression and domination in the here and now is the start
of the social revolution. It is this daily struggle which
creates free people and the organisations it generates 
"bear . . . the living seed of the new society which is to
replace the old one. They are creating not only the ideas,
but also the facts of the future itself." [Michael Bakunin,
_Bakunin On Anarchism_, p. 255] Hence Bakunin's comment
that anarchists think socialism will be attained only "by
the development and organisation, not of the political
but of the social organisation (and, by consequence, 
anti-political) power of the working masses as much in
the towns as in the countryside." [_Michael Bakunin:
Selected Writings_, pp. 197-8] Such social power is
expressed in economic and community organisations such
as self-managed unions and workplace/community assemblies
(see section J.5).

Anarchists try and follow the example of our Spanish comrades
in the C.N.T. and F.A.I. who, when "faced with the conventional 
opposition between reformism and revolution, they appear, in 
effect, to have put forward a third alternative, seeking to 
obtain immediate practical improvements through the actual
development, in practice, of autonomous, libertarian forms of 
self-organisation." [Nick Rider, "The Practice of Direct Action: 
The Barcelona Rent Strike of 1931", in _For Anarchism_, pp. 79-105, 
David Goodway (ed.), p. 99] While doing this, anarchists must 
also "beware of ourselves becoming less anarchist because the 
masses are not ready for anarchy." [Malatesta, _Life and Ideas_, 
p. 162] 

Therefore, revolution and anarchism is the product of struggle,
a social process in which anarchist ideas spread and develop.
However, "[t]his does not mean. . . that to achieve anarchy we must 
wait till *everyone* becomes an anarchist. On the contrary. . . 
under present conditions only a small minority, favoured by specific 
circumstances, can manage to conceive what anarchy is. It would be 
wishful thinking to hope for a general conversion before a change 
actually took place in the kind of environment in which authoritarianism 
and privilege now flourish. It is precisely for this reason that 
[we] . . . need to organise for the bringing about of anarchy, or 
at any rate that degree of anarchy which could become gradually 
feasible, as soon as a sufficient amount of freedom has been won 
and a nucleus of anarchists somewhere exists that is both numerically 
strong enough and able to be self-sufficient and to spread its 
influence locally." [Errico Malatesta, _The Anarchist Revolution_, 
pp. 83-4]

Thus anarchists influence the struggle, the revolutionary process
by encouraging anarchistic tendencies within those who are not
yet anarchists but are instinctively acting in a libertarian
manner. Anarchists spread the anarchist message to those in 
struggle and support libertarian tendencies in it as far as
they can. In this way, more and more people will become 
anarchists and anarchy will become increasingly possible. 
We discuss the role of anarchists in a social revolution
in section J.7.4 and will not do so now.

For anarchists, a social revolution is the end product of
years of social struggle. It is marked by the transformation
of a given society and the breaking down of all forms of
oppression and the creation of new ways of living, new forms
of self-managed organisation, a new attitude to live itself.
Moreover, we do not wait for the future to introduce such 
transformations in our daily life. Rather, we try and create
as much anarchistic tendencies in today's society as possible
in the firm belief that in so doing we are pushing the creation
of a free society nearer. 

So anarchists, including revolutionary ones, try to make the world 
more libertarian and so bring us closer to freedom. Few anarchists 
think of anarchy as something in (or for) the distant future, rather 
it is something we try and create in the here and now by living 
and struggling in a libertarian manner. Once enough people do this, 
then a more extensive change towards anarchy (i.e. a revolution)
is inevitable.

J.7.1 Are all anarchists revolutionaries?

No, far from it. While most anarchists do believe that a social
revolution is required to create a free society, some reject the
idea. This is because they think that revolutions are by their
very nature violent and coercive and so are against anarchist
principles. In the words of Proudhon (in reply to Marx):

"Perhaps you still hold the opinion that no reform is possible
without a helping *coup de main,* without what used to be called
a revolution but which is quite simply a jolt. I confess that
my most recent studies have led me to abandon this view, which
I understand and would willingly discuss, since for a long
time I held it myself. I do not think that this is what we
need in order to succeed, and consequently we must not suggest
*revolutionary* action as the means of social reform because
this supposed means would simply be an appeal to force and to
arbitrariness. In brief, it would be a contradiction." 
[_Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon_, p. 151]

Also they point to the fact that the state is far better armed 
than the general population, better trained and (as history 
proves) more than willing to slaughter as many people as 
required to restore "order." In face of this power, they
argue, revolution is doomed to failure.

Those opposed to revolution come from all tendencies of the 
movement. Traditionally, Individualist anarchists are usually
against the idea of revolution, as was Proudhon. However, with 
the failure of the Russian Revolution and the defeat of the 
C.N.T.-F.A.I. in Spain, some social anarchists have rethought support
for revolution. Rather than seeing revolution as the key way of 
creating a free society they consider it doomed to failure as the 
state is too strong a force to be overcome by insurrection. Instead 
of revolution, such anarchists support the creation of alternatives, 
such as co-operatives, mutual banks and so on, which will help 
transform capitalism into libertarian socialism. Such alternative 
building, combined with civil disobedience and non-payment of taxes, 
is seen as the best way to creating anarchy.

Most revolutionary anarchists agree on the importance of building
libertarian alternatives in the here and now. They would agree
with Bakunin when he argued that such organisations as libertarian
unions, co-operatives and so on are essential "so that when the
Revolution, brought about by the natural force of circumstances,
breaks out, there will be a real force at hand which knows what
to do and by virtue thereof is capable of taking the Revolution
into its own hands and imparting to it a direction salutary for
the people: a serious, international organisation of worker's
organisations of all countries, capable of replacing the
departing political world of the States and the bourgeoisie."
[_The Political Philosophy of Bakunin_, p. 323] Thus, for
most anarchists, the difference of evolution and revolution is
one of little import -- anarchists should support libertarian 
tendencies within society as they support revolutionary situations
when they occur. 

Moreover, revolutionary anarchists argue that, ultimately, 
capitalism cannot be reformed away nor will the state wither
away under the onslaught of libertarian institutions and 
attitudes. They do not consider it possible to "burn Property
little by little" via "some system of economics" which will
"put back into society . . . the wealth which has been taken
out of society by another system of economics", to use 
Proudhon's expression. [Op. Cit., p. 151] Therefore, libertarian
tendencies within capitalism may make life better under that
system but they cannot, ultimately, get rid of it. This implies
a social revolution, they argue. Such anarchists agree with
Alexander Berkman when he writes:

"This is no record of any government or authority, of any group
or class in power having given up its mastery voluntarily. In
every instance it required the use of force, or at least the
threat of it." [_ABC of Anarchism_, p. 32]

Even the end of State capitalism ("Communism") in the Eastern
Block does not contradict this argument. Without the mass 
action of the population, the regime would have continued.
Faced with a massive popular revolt, the Commissars realised
that it was better to renounce power than have it taken from
them. Thus mass rebellion, the start of any true revolution,
was required.

Moreover, the argument that the state is too powerful to
be defeated has been proven wrong time and time again. Every
revolution has defeated a military machine which previously
been claimed to be unbeatable. For example, the people armed
is Spain defeated the military in two-thirds of the country.
Ultimately, the power of the state rests on its troops
following orders. If those troops rebel, then the state is
powerless. That is why anarchists have always produced
anti-militarist propaganda urging troops to join strikers
and other people in revolt. Revolutionary anarchists, therefore,
argue that any state can be defeated, if the circumstances are
right and the work of anarchists is to encourage those
circumstances.

In addition, revolutionary anarchists argue that even if anarchists
did not support revolutionary change, this would not stop such
events happening. Revolutions are the product of developments
in human society and occur whether we desire them or not. They
start with small rebellions, small acts of refusal by individuals,
groups, workplaces, communities and grow. These acts of rebellion
are inevitable in any hierarchical society, as is their spreading
wider and wider. Revolutionary anarchists argue that anarchists
must, by the nature of our politics and our desire for freedom,
support such acts of rebellion and, ultimately, social revolution.
Not to do so means ignoring people in struggle against our
common enemy and ignoring the means by which anarchists ideas
and attitudes will grow within existing society. Thus Alexander 
Berkman is right when he wrote:

"That is why it is no prophecy to foresee that some day it
must come to decisive struggle between the masters of life
and the dispossessed masses.

"As a matter if fact, that struggle is going on all the time.
There is a continuous warfare between capital and labour. That
warfare generally proceeds within so-called legal forms. But
even these erupt now and then in violence, as during strikes
and lockouts, because the armed fist of government is always
at the service of the masters, and that fist gets into action
the moment capital feels its profits threatened: then it drops
the mask of 'mutual interests' and 'partnership' with labour
and resorts to the final argument of every master, to coercion
and force.

"It is therefore certain that government and capital will
not allow themselves to be quietly abolished if they can
help it; nor will they miraculously 'disappear' of themselves,
as some people pretend to believe. It will require a 
revolution to get rid of them." [Op. Cit., p. 33]

However, all anarchists are agreed that any revolution should
be as non-violent as possible. Violence is the tool of oppression
and, for anarchists, violence is only legitimate as a means of
self-defence against authority. Therefore revolutionary anarchists
do not seek "violent revolution" -- they are just aware that when
people refuse to kow-tow to authority then that authority will 
use violence against them. This use of violence has been directed
against non-violent forms of direct action and so those anarchists
who reject revolution will not avoid state violence directed
against.
Nor do revolutionary anarchists think that revolution is in
contradiction to the principles of anarchism. As Malatesta
put it, "[f]or two people to live in peace they must both
want peace; if one insists on using force to oblige the other
to work for him and serve him, then the other, if he wishes
to retain his dignity as a man and not be reduced to abject
slavery, will be obliged, in spite of his love of peace, to 
resist force with adequate means." [Malatesta, _Life and
Ideas_, p. 54] Under any hierarchical system, those in 
authority do not leave those subject to them in peace. The 
boss does not treat his/her workers as equals, working 
together by free agreement without differences in power. 
Rather, the boss orders the worker about and uses the 
threat of sanctions to get compliance. Similarly with 
the state. Under these conditions, revolution cannot be 
authoritarian -- for it is not authoritarian to destroy 
authority! To quote Rudolf Rocker:

"We . . . know that a revolution cannot be made with 
rosewater. And we know, too, that the owning classes 
will never yield up their privileges spontaneously. 
On the day of victorious revolution the workers will 
have to impose their will on the present owners of 
the soil, of the subsoil and of the means of production, 
which cannot be done -- let us be clear on this -- without 
the workers taking the capital of society into their own 
hands, and, above all, without their having demolished the 
authoritarian structure which is, and will continue to be, 
the fortress keeping the masses of the people under dominion. 
Such an action is, without doubt, an act of liberation; 
a proclamation of social justice; the very essence of social 
revolution, which has nothing in common with the utterly 
bourgeois principle of dictatorship." [_Anarchism and Sovietism_]

Errico Malatesta comments reflect well the position of
revolutionary anarchists with regards to the use
of force:

"We neither seek to impose anything by force nor do we
wish to submit to a violent imposition.

"We intend to use force against government, because it
is by force that we are kept in subjection by government.

"We intend to expropriate the owners of property because
it is by force that they withhold the raw materials and
wealth, which is the fruit of human labour, and use it
to oblige others to work in their interest.

"We shall resist with force whoever would wish by force,
to retain or regain the means to impose his will and
exploit the labour of others. . .

"With the exception of these cases, in which the use of
violence is justified as a defence against force, we
are always against violence, and for self-determination."
[Op. Cit., p. 56]

This is the reason why most anarchists are revolutionaries. 
They do not think it against the principles of anarchism 
and consider it the only real means of creating a free 
society -- a society in which the far greater, and permanent, 
violence which keeps the majority of humanity in servitude 
can be ended once and for all.

J.7.2 Is social revolution possible? 

One objection to the possibility of social revolution is based on what 
we might call "the paradox of social change."  This argument goes as
follows: authoritarian institutions reward and select people with an
authoritarian type of personality for the most influential positions in
society; such types of people have both (a) an interest in perpetuating
authoritarian institutions (from which they benefit) and (b) the power to
perpetuate them; hence they create a self-sustaining and tightly closed
system which is virtually impervious to the influence of non-authoritarian
types.  Therefore, institutional change presupposes individual change,
which presupposes institutional change, and so on.  Unless it can be
shown, then, that institutions and human psychology can both be changed
*at the same time*, hope for a genuine social revolution (instead of just
another rotation of elites) appears to be unrealistic.

Connected with this problem is the fact that the psychological root 
of the hierarchical society is addiction to power -- over other people, 
over nature, over the body and human emotions -- and that this addiction 
is highly contagious. That is, as soon as any group of people anywhere 
in the world becomes addicted to power, those within range of their
aggression also feel compelled to embrace the structures of power,
including centralised control over the use of deadly force,  in order 
to protect themselves from their neighbours. But once these structures 
of power are adopted, authoritarian institutions become self-perpetuating.

In this situation, fear becomes the underlying emotion behind the
conservatism, conformity, and mental inertia of the majority, who 
in that state become vulnerable to the self-serving propaganda of 
authoritarian elites alleging the necessity of the state, strong 
leaders, militarism, "law and order," capitalist bosses, etc.  
Hence the simultaneous transformation of institutions and 
individual psychology becomes even more difficult to imagine.

Serious as these obstacles may be, they do not warrant despair. To see
why, let's note first that "paradigm shifts" in science have not generally
derived from new developments in one field alone but from a convergence of
cumulative developments in several different fields at once. For example,
the Einsteinian revolution which resulted in the overthrow of the
Newtonian paradigm was due to simultaneous progress in mathematics,
physics, astronomy and other sciences that all influenced, reacted on, and
cross-fertilised each other (see Thomas Kuhn, _The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions_, 1962).  Similarly, if there is going to be a "paradigm
shift" in the social realm, i.e. from hierarchical to non-hierarchical
institutions, it is likely to emerge from the convergence of a number of
different socio-economic and political developments at the same time. We
have discussed these developments in section J.4 and so will not repeat
ourselves here. In a hierarchical society, the oppression which authority
produces resistance, and so hope. The "instinct for freedom" cannot be
repressed forever.

That is why anarchists stress the importance of direct action and
self-help (see sections J.2 and J.4). By the very process of struggle,
by practising self-management, direct action, solidarity people 
create the necessary "paradigm shift" in both themselves and 
society as a whole. In the words of Malatesta, "[o]nly freedom
or the struggle for freedom can be the school for freedom." 
[_Life and Ideas_, p. 59] Thus the struggle against authority
is the school of anarchy -- it encourages libertarian tendencies
in society and the transformation of individuals into anarchists.
In a revolutionary situation, this process is accelerated. It
is worth quoting Murray Bookchin at length on this subject:

"Revolutions are profoundly educational processes, indeed veritable
cauldrons in which all kinds of conflicting ideas and tendencies
are sifted out in the minds of a revolutionary people. . .

"Individuals who enter into a revolutionary process are by no
means the same after the revolution as they were before it began.
Those who encounter a modicum of success in revolutionary times
learn more within a span of a few weeks or months than they
might have learned over their lifetime in non-revolutionary
times. Conventional ideas fall away with extraordinary rapidity;
values and prejudices that were centuries in the making disappear
almost overnight. Strikingly innovative ideas are quickly
adopted, tested, and, where necessary, discarded. Even newer
ideas, often flagrantly radical in character, are adopted
with an elan that frightens ruling elites -- however radical
the latter may profess to be -- and they soon become deeply
rooted in the popular consciousness. Authorities hallowed by
age-old tradition are suddenly divested of their prestige,
legitimacy, and power to govern. . .

"So tumultuous socially and psychologically are revolutions
in general that they constitute a standing challenge to
ideologues, including sociobiologists, who assert that
human behaviour is fixed and human nature predetermined.
Revolutionary changes reveal a remarkable flexibility in
'human nature,' yet few psychologists have elected to study
the social and psychological tumult of revolution as well
as the institutional changes it so often produces. Thus much
must be said with fervent emphasis: *to continue to judge the
behaviour of a people during and after a revolution by the
same standards one judged them by beforehand is completely
myopic.*

"I wish to argue [like all anarchists] that the capacity of
a revolution to produce far-reaching ideological and moral
changes in a people stems primarily from the opportunity
it affords ordinary, indeed oppressed, people to exercise
popular self-management -- to enter directly, rapidly, and
exhilaratingly into control over most aspects of their social
and personal lives. To the extent that an insurrectionary
people takes over the reins of power from the formerly
hallowed elites who oppressed them and begins to restructure
society along radically populist lines, individuals grow
aware of latent powers within themselves that nourish
their previously suppressed creativity, sense of self-worth,
and solidarity. They learn that society is neither immutable
nor sanctified, as inflexible custom had previously taught
them; rather, it is malleable and subject, within certain
limits, to change according to human will and desire."
[_The Third Revolution_, vol. 1, pp. 6-7]

So, social revolutions are possible. Anarchists anticipate 
successful co-operation within certain circumstance. People
who are in the habit of taking orders from bosses are not
capable of creating a new society. Tendencies towards
freedom, self-management, co-operation and solidarity are
not simply an act of ethical will which overcomes the 
competitive and hierarchical behaviour capitalism generates
within those who live in it. Capitalism is, as Malatesta
argued, based on competition -- and this includes the working
class. Thus conflict is endemic to working class life under
capitalism. However, *co-operation* is stimulated within 
our class by our struggles to survive in and resist the 
system. This tendency for co-operation generated by struggle
against capitalism also produces the habits required for
a free society -- by struggling to change the world (even
a small part of it), people also change themselves. Direct
action produces empowered and self-reliant people who can
manage their own affairs themselves. It is on the liberating 
effects of struggle, the tendencies towards individual and 
collective self-management and direct action it generates, the 
needs and feelings for solidarity and creative solutions to 
pressing problems it produces that anarchists base their
positive answer on whether social revolution is possible. 
History has shown that we are right. It will do so again.

J.7.3 Doesn't revolution mean violence?

While many try and paint revolutions (and anarchists) as being violent
by their very nature, the social revolution desired by anarchists is
essentially non-violent. This is because, to quote Bakunin, "[i]n order
to launch a radical revolution, it is . . . necessary to attack
positions and things and to destroy [the institution of] property 
and the State, but there will be no need to destroy men and to 
condemn ourselves to the inevitable reaction which is unfailingly
produced in every society by the slaughter of men." [_Michael Bakunin:
Selected Writings_, pp. 168-9]

As Bakunin noted elsewhere, the end of property is also non-violent:

"How to smash the tyranny of capital? Destroy capital? But that 
would be to destroy all the riches accumulated on earth, all primary
materials, all the instruments of labour, all the means of labour. . .
Thus capital cannot and must not be destroyed. It must be preserved . . .
there is but a single solution -- *the intimate and complete union
of capital and labour* . . . the workers must obtain not individual
but *collective* property in capital . . . the collective property
of capital . . . [is] the absolutely necessary conditions for of
the emancipation *of labour and of the workers.*" [_The Basic 
Bakunin_, pp. 90-1]

The essentially non-violent nature of anarchist ideas of social 
revolution can be seen from the Seattle General Strike of 1919. 
Here is a quote from the Mayor of Seattle (we do not think we 
need to say that he was not on the side of the strikers):

    "The so-called sympathetic Seattle strike was an attempted 
     revolution. That there was no violence does not alter the 
     fact . . . The intent, openly and covertly announced, was 
     for the overthrow of the industrial system; here first, then 
     everywhere . . . True, there were no flashing guns, no bombs, 
     no killings. Revolution, I repeat, doesn't need violence. 
     The general strike, as practised in Seattle, is of itself the 
     weapon of revolution, all the more dangerous because quiet.
     To succeed, it must suspend everything; stop the entire life 
     stream of a community . . . That is to say, it puts the 
     government out of operation. And that is all there is to
     revolt -- no matter how achieved." [quoted by Howard Zinn,
     _A People's History of the United States_, pp. 370-1]

If the strikers had occupied their workplaces and local communities
can created popular assemblies then the attempted revolution would
have become an actual one without any use of violence at all. This 
indicates the strength of ordinary people and the relative weakness 
of government and capitalism -- they only work when they can force 
people to respect them.

In Italy, a year latter, the occupations of the factories and land
started. As Malatesta pointed out, "in _Umanita Nova_ [the daily
anarchist newspaper] we . . . said that if the movement spread to
all sectors of industry, that is workers and peasants followed
the example of the metallurgists, of getting rid of the bosses
and taking over the means of production, the revolution would
succeed without shedding a single drop of blood." Thus the 
"occupation of the factories and the land suited perfectly 
our programme of action." [_Life and Ideas_, p. 135]

Therefore the notion that a social revolution is necessarily
violent is a false one. For anarchists, social revolution is
essentially an act of self-liberation (of both the individuals
involved and society as a whole). It has nothing to do with
violence, quite the reverse, as anarchists see it as the means
to end the rule and use of violence in society. Therefore 
anarchists hope that any revolution is essentially non-violent,
with any violence being defensive in nature.

Of course, many revolutions are marked by violence. However,
as Alexander Berkman argues, this is not the aim of anarchism
or the revolution and has far more to do with previous repression 
and domination than anarchist ideas:

"We know that revolution begins with street disturbances and 
outbreaks; it is the initial phase which involves force and
violence. But that is merely the spectacular prologue of the
real revolution. The age long misery and indignity suffered by 
the masses burst into disorder and tumult, the humiliation and
injustice meekly borne for decades find vents in facts of fury
and destruction. That is inevitable, and it is solely the
master class which is responsible for this preliminary 
character of revolution. For it is even more true socially
than individually that 'whoever sows the wind will reap the
whirlwind;' the greater the oppression and wretchedness to
which the masses had been made to submit, the fiercer the
rage [of] the social storm. All history proves it . . ."
[_ABC of Anarchism_, p. 50]

He also argues that "[m]ost people have very confused notions
about revolution. To them it means just fighting, smashing
things, destroying. It is the same as if rolling up your
sleeves for work should be considered the work itself that 
you have to do. The fighting bit of the revolution is merely 
the rolling up of your sleeves." The task of the revolution is 
the "destruction of the existing conditions" and "*conditions* 
are not destroyed [by] breaking and smashing things. You can't 
destroy wage slavery by wrecking the machinery in the mills and 
factories . . . You won't destroy government by setting fire to 
the White House." He correctly points out that to think of
revolution "in terms of violence and destruction is to 
misinterpret and falsify the whole idea of it. In practical 
application such a conception is bound to lead to disastrous 
results." [Op. Cit., pp. 40-1]

Thus when anarchists like Bakunin speak of revolution as 
"destruction" they mean that the idea of authority and obedience 
must be destroyed, along with the institutions that are based on 
such ideas. We do not mean, as can be clearly seen, the destruction 
of people or possessions. Nor do we imply the glorification of 
violence -- quite the reserve, as anarchists seek to limit violence 
to that required for self-defence against oppression and authority.

Therefore a social revolution *may* involve some violence. It may 
also mean no-violence at all. It depends on the revolution and how
widely anarchist ideas are spread. One thing is sure, for anarchists
social revolution is *not* synonymous violence. Indeed, violence
usually occurs when the ruling class resists the action of the
oppressed -- that is, when those in authority act to protect their
social position.

The wealthy and their state will do anything in their power to prevent 
having a large enough percentage of anarchists in the population to 
simply "ignore" the government and property out of existence. If 
things got that far, the government would suspend the legal rights, 
elections and round up influential subversives. The question is, what

do anarchists do in response to these actions?  If anarchists are in
the majority or near it, then defensive violence would likely succeed.
For example, "the people armed" crushed the fascist coup of July 19th, 
1936 in Spain and resulted in one of the most important experiments in
anarchism the world has ever seen. This should be contrasted with the
aftermath of the factory occupations in Italy in 1920 and the fascist
terror which crushed the labour movement. In other words, you cannot 
just ignore the state even if the majority are acting, you need to abolish 
it and organise self-defence against attempts to re-impose it or
capitalism.

We discuss the question of self-defence and the protection of the
revolution in section J.7.6.

J.7.4 What would a social revolution involve?

Social revolution necessitates putting anarchist ideas into 
daily practice. Therefore it implies that direct action, 
solidarity and self-management become increasingly the 
dominant form of living in a society. It implies the
transformation of society from top to bottom. We can do
no better than quote Errico Malatesta on what revolution
means:

"The Revolution is the creation of new living institutions,
new groupings, new social relationships; it is the
destruction of privileges and monopolies; it is the new
spirit of justice, of brotherhood, of freedom which must 
renew the whole of social life, raise the moral level and 
the material conditions of the masses by calling on them 
to provide, through their direct and conscious action, for 
their own futures. Revolution is the organisation of all
public services by those who in them in their own interest
as well as the public's; Revolution is the destruction of
all of coercive ties; it is the autonomy of groups, of
communes, of regions; Revolution is the free federation
brought about by a desire for brotherhood, by individual
and collective interests, by the needs of production and
defence; Revolution is the constitution of innumerable
free groupings based on ideas, wishes, and tastes of all
kinds that exist among the people; Revolution is the
forming and disbanding of thousands of representative,
district, communal, regional, national bodies which,
without having any legislative power, serve to make
known and to co-ordinate the desires and interests of
people near and far and which act through information,
advice and example. Revolution is freedom proved in 
the crucible of facts -- and lasts so long as freedom 
lasts. . ." [_Life and Ideas_, p. 153]

This, of course, presents a somewhat wide vision of the
revolutionary process. We will need to give some more
concrete examples of what a social revolution would
involve. However, before so doing, we stress that these
are purely examples drawn from previous revolutions 
and are not written in stone. Every revolution creates
its own forms of organisation and struggle. The next
one will be no different. Just as we argued in section I,
an anarchist revolution will create its own forms of
freedom, forms which may share aspects with previous
forms but which are unique to themselves. All we do
here is give a rough overview of what we expect (based
on previous revolutions) to see occur in a social
revolution. We are not predicting the future. As
Kropotkin put it:

"A question which we are often asked is: 'How will you
organise the future society on Anarchist principles?'
If the question were put to . . . someone who fancies
that a group of men [or women] is able to organise
society as they like, it would seem natural. But in
the ears of an Anarchist, it sounds very strangely,
and the only answer we can give to it is: 'We
cannot organise you. It will depend upon *you* what
sort of organisation you choose.'" [_Act for Yourselves_, 
p. 32]

And organise themselves they have. In each social revolution,
the oppressed have organised themselves into many different
self-managed organisations. These bodies include the Sections
during the Great French Revolution, the workers councils
("soviets" or "rate") during the Russian and German revolutions,
the industrial and rural collectives during the Spanish
Revolution, the workers councils during the Hungarian 
revolution of 1956, assemblies and action committees during
the 1968 revolt in France, and so on. These bodies were 
hardly uniform in nature and some were more anarchistic
than others, but the tendency towards self-management and
federation existing in them all. This tendency towards
anarchistic solutions and organisation is not unsurprising,
for, as Nestor Makhno argued, "[i]n carrying through the
revolution, under the impulsion of the anarchism that is
innate in them, the masses of humanity search for free
associations. Free assemblies always command their
sympathy. The revolutionary anarchist must help them
to formulate this approach as best they can." [_The
Struggle Against the State and Other Essays_, p. 85]

In addition, we must stress that we are discussing an *anarchist*
social revolution in this section. As we noted in section I.2.2, 
anarchists recognise that any revolution will take on different 
forms in different areas and develop in different ways and at 
different speeds. We leave it up to others to describe their
vision of revolution (for Marxists, the creation of a "workers'
state" and the seizure of power by the "proletarian" vanguard
or party, and so on). 

So what would a libertarian social revolution involve? Firstly, 

a revolution "it is not the work of one day. It means a whole
period, mostly lasting for several years, during which the 
country is in a state of effervescence; when thousands of
formerly indifferent spectators take a lively part in public
affairs . . [and] criticises and repudiates the institutions
which are a hindrance to free development; when it boldly
enters upon problems which formerly seemed insoluble."
[Peter Kropotkin, Op. Cit., pp. 25-6] Thus, it would be
a *process* in which revolutionary attitudes, ideas, actions 
and organisations spread in society until the existing 
system is overthrown and a new one takes its place. It 
does not come overnight. Rather it is an accumulative
development, marked by specific events of course, but
fundamentally it goes on in the fabric of society. For
example, the *real* Russian revolution went on during the
period between the 1917 February and October insurrections
when workers took over their workplaces, peasants seized
their land and new forms of social life (soviets, factory
committees, co-operatives, etc.) were formed and people
lost their previous submissive attitudes to authority by
using direct action to change their lives for the better
(see _The Unknown Revolution_ by Voline for more details
and evidence of this revolutionary process in action).
Similarly, the Spanish Revolution occurred after the 19th
of July, 1936, when workers again took over their workplaces,
peasants formed collectives and militias were organised to
fit fascism (see _Collectives in the Spanish Revolution_
by Gaston Leval for details).

Secondly, "there *must* be a rapid modification of outgrown
economical and political institutions, an overthrow of the
injustices accumulated by centuries past, a displacement of
wealth and political power." [Op. Cit., p. 25]

This aspect is the key one. Without the abolition of the
state and capitalism, not real revolution has taken place.
As Bakunin argued, "the program of social revolution" is
"the abolition of all exploitation and all political or
juridical as well as governmental and bureaucratic 
oppression, in other words, to the abolition of all
classes through the equalisation of economic conditions,
and the abolition of their last buttress, the state."
That is, "the total and definitive liberation of the
proletariat from economic exploitation and state
oppression." [_Statism and Anarchy_, pp. 48-9]

We should stress here that, regardless of what Marxists
may say, anarchists see the destruction of capitalism 
occurring *at the same time as* the destruction of the
state. We do not aim to abolish the state first, then
capitalism as Engels asserted we did. This perspective
of a simultaneous political and economic revolution is
clearly seen when Bakunin wrote that a city in revolt
would "naturally make haste to organise itself as best
it can, in revolutionary style, after the workers have
joined into associations and made a clean sweep of all
the instruments of labour and every kind of capital and
building; armed and organised by streets and *quartiers,*
they will form the revolutionary federation of all the
*quartiers,* the federative commune. . . All . . .the
revolutionary communes will then send representatives
to organise the necessary services and arrangements
for production and exchange . . . and to organise 
common defence against the enemies of the Revolution."
[_Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings_, p. 179]

As can be seen from Bakunin's comments just quoted that an 
essential part of a social revolution is the "expropriation 
of landowners and capitalists for the benefit of all." This 
would be done by workers occupying their workplaces and 
placing them under workers' self-management. Individual 
self-managed workplaces would then federate on a local
and industrial basis into workers' councils to co-ordinate 
joint activity, discuss common interests and issues as
well as ensuring common ownership and universalising
self-management. "We must push the workers to take possession 
of the factories, to federate among themselves and work for
the community, and similarly the peasants should take
over the land and the produce usurped by the landlords,
and come to an agreement with the industrial workers on 
the necessary exchange of goods." [Errico Malatesta, 
Op. Cit., p. 198 and p. 165]

In this way capitalism is replaced by new economic
system based on self-managed work. The end of hierarchy in
the economy, in other words. These workplace assemblies
and local, regional, etc., federations would start to 
organise production to meet human needs rather than
capitalist profit. While most anarchists would like to
see the introduction of communistic relations begin as
quickly as possible in such an economy, most are realistic
enough to recognise that tendencies towards libertarian 
communism will be depend on local conditions. As Malatesta
argued:

"It is then that graduation really comes into operation.
We shall have to study all the practical problems of life:
production, exchange, the means of communication, relations
between anarchist groupings and those living under some
kind of authority, between communist collectives and those
living in an individualistic way; relations between town
and country, the utilisation for the benefit of everyone
of all natural resources of the different regions [and
so on] . . . And in every problem [anarchists] should
prefer the solutions which not only are economically
superior but which satisfy the need for justice and
freedom and leave the way open for future improvements,
which other solutions might not." [Op. Cit., p. 173]

No central government could organise such a transformation.
No centralised body could comprehend the changes required
and decide between the possibilities available to those
involved. Hence the very complexity of life, and the 
needs of social living, will push a social revolution
towards anarchism. "Unavoidably," argued Kropotkin, "the
Anarchist system of organisation -- free local action
and free grouping -- will come into play." [Op. Cit., 
p. 72] Without this local action and the free agreement
between local groups to co-ordinate activity, a revolution
would be dead in the water and fit only to produce a
new bureaucratic class structure, as the experience of
the Russian Revolution proves. Unless the economy is
transformed from the bottom up by those who work within 
it, socialism is impossible. If it is re-organised from
the top-down by a centralised body all that will be
achieved is state capitalism and rule by bureaucrats
instead of capitalists.

Therefore, the key economic aspect of a social revolution
is the end of capitalist oppression by the direct action
of the workers themselves and their re-organisation of
their work and the economy by their own actions, organisations
and initiative from the bottom-up. As Malatesta argued:

"To destroy radically this oppression without any danger
of it re-emerging, all people must be convinced of their
right to the means of production, and be prepared to 
exercise this basic right by expropriating the landowners,
the industrialists and financiers, and putting all social
wealth at the disposal of the people." [Op. Cit., p. 167]

However, the economic transformation is but part of the
picture. As Kropotkin argued, "throughout history we see 
that each change in the economic relations of a community 
is accompanied by a corresponding change in what may be 
called political organisation . . . Thus, too, it will be 
with Socialism. If it contemplates a new departure in economics 
it *must* be prepared for a new departure in what is called
political organisation." [Op. Cit., p. 39] Thus the anarchist
social revolution also aims to abolish the state and create
a confederation of self-governing communes to ensure its
final elimination. To really destroy something you must 
replace it with something better. Hence anarchism will
destroy the state by a confederation of self-managed, free 
communities (or communes). 

This destruction of the state is essential. This is because
"those workers who want to free themselves, or even only
to effectively improve their conditions, will be forced
to defend themselves from the government . . . which by
legalising the right to property and protecting it with
brute force, constitutes a barrier to human progress,
which must be beaten down . . . if one does not wish to
remain indefinitely under present conditions or even
worse." Therefore, "[f]rom the economic struggle one must 
pass to the political struggle, that is to the struggle 
against government." [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 195]

Thus a social revolution will have to destroy the state
bureaucracy and the states forces of violence and coercion 
(the police, armed forces, intelligence agencies, and so 
on). If this is not done then the state will come back and
crush the revolution. Such a destruction of the state
does not involve violence against individuals, but rather
the end of hierarchical organisations, positions and 
institutions. It would involve, for example, the disbanding
of the police, army, navy, state officialdom etc. and the 
transformation of police stations, army and naval bases, 
state bureaucracy's offices into something more useful 
(or, as in the case of prisons, their destruction).
Town halls would be occupied and used by community and
industrial groups, for example. Mayors' offices could be 
turned into creches, for example. Police stations, if they
have not been destroyed, could, perhaps, be turned into 
storage centres for goods. In William Morris' utopian novel,
_News from Nowhere_, the Houses of Parliament were turned
into a manure storage facility. And so on. Those who used 
to work in such occupations would be asked to pursue a more 
fruitful way of life or leave the community. In this way,
all harmful and useless institutions would be destroyed or
transformed into something useful and of benefit to society.

In addition, as well as the transformation/destruction of
the buildings associated with the old state, the decision
making process for the community previously usurped by 
the state would come back into the hands of the people.
Alternative, self-managed organisations would be created
in every community to manage community affairs. From these 
community assemblies, confederations would spring up to 
co-ordinate joint activities and interests. These
neighbourhood assemblies and confederations would be 
means by which power would be dissolved in society and 
government finally eliminated in favour of freedom (both 
individual and collective). 

Ultimately, anarchism means creating positive alternatives
to existing institutions which provide some useful function.
For example, we propose self-management as an alternative
to capitalist production. We propose self-governing communes
to organise social life instead of the state. "One only
destroys, and effectively and permanently," argued Malatesta, 
"that which one replaces by something else; and to put off
to a later date the solution of problems which present
themselves with the urgency of necessity, would be to give
time to the institutions one is intending to abolish to
recover from the shock and reassert themselves, perhaps
under other names, but certainly with the same structure."
[Op. Cit., p. 159] This was the failure of the Spanish
Revolution, which ignored the state rather than abolish
it via new, self-managed organisations (see section I.8).

Hence a social revolution would see the "[o]rganisation
of social life by means of free association and
federations of producers and consumers, created and
modified according to the wishes of their members,
guided by science and experience, and free from any
kind of imposition which does not spring from natural
needs, to which everyone, convinced by a feeling of
overriding necessity, voluntarily submits." [Errico
Malatesta, _Life and Ideas_, p. 184] 

These organisations, we must stress, are usually products 
of the revolution and the revolutionary process itself: 

"Assembly and community must arise from within the 
revolutionary process itself; indeed, the revolutionary 
process must *be* the formation of assembly and community,
and with it, the destruction of power. Assembly and
community must become 'fighting words,' not distinct
panaceas. They must be created as *modes of struggle*
against existing society . . . The future assemblies
of people in the block, the neighbourhood or the
district -- the revolutionary sections to come --
will stand on a higher social level than all the
present-day committees, syndicates, parties and
clubs adorned by the most resounding 'revolutionary'
titles. They will be the living nuclei of utopia
in the decomposing body of bourgeois society" In
this way, the "specific gravity of society . . .
[will] be shifted to its base -- the armed people
in permanent assembly." [_Post-Scarcity Anarchism_,
pp. 167-8 and pp. 168-9]

Such organisations are required because, in the words 
of Murray Bookchin, "[f]reedom has its forms . . . a 
liberatory revolution always poses the question of what 
social forms will replace existing ones. At one point or 
another, a revolutionary people must deal with how it 
will manage the land and the factories from which it 
requires the means of life. It must deal with the manner 
in which it will arrive at decisions that affect the 
community as a whole. Thus if revolutionary thought is 
to be taken at all seriously, it must speak directly to 
the problems and forms of social management." [Op. Cit., 
p. 143] If this is not done, capitalism and the state will 
not be destroyed and the social revolution will fail. Only
be destroying hierarchical power by abolishing state and
capitalism by self-managed organisations can individuals
free themselves and society.

As well as these economic and political changes, there would
be other changes as well -- far too many to chronicle here.
For example, "[w]e will see to it that all empty and 
under-occupied houses are used so that no one will be without
a roof over his [or her] head. We will hasten to abolish banks
and title deeds and all that represents and guarantees the
power of the State and capitalist privilege. And we will
try to reorganise things in such a way that it will be
impossible for bourgeois society to be reconstituted."
[Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 165] Similarly, free associations
will spring up on a whole range of issues and for a
whole range of interests and needs. Social life will
become transformed, as will many aspects of personal
life and personal relationships. We cannot say in which
way, bar there will be a general libertarian movement
in all aspects of life as women resist and overcome
sexism, gays resist and end homophobia, the young will
expect to be treated as individuals, not property, and
so on. 

Society will become more diverse, open, free and 
libertarian in nature. And, hopefully, it and the
struggle that creates it will be *fun* -- anarchism
is about making life worth living and so any struggle
must reflect that. The use of fun in the struggle is 
important. There is no incongruity in conducting serious 
business and having fun. We are sure this will piss off 
the "serious" Left no end. The aim of revolution is to
emancipate *individuals* not abstractions like "the
proletariat," "society," "history" and so on. And 
having fun is part and parcel of that liberation. As
Emma Goldman said, "If I can't dance, it's not my
revolution." Revolutions should be "festivals of 
the oppressed" -- we cannot "resolve the anarchic, 
intoxicating phase that opens all the great revolutions
of history merely into an expression of class interest
and the opportunity to redistribute social wealth."
[Murray Bookchin, Op. Cit., p. 277f]

Therefore a social revolution involves a transformation
of society from the bottom up by the creative action of
working class people. This transformation would be conducted
through self-managed organisations which will be the basis
for abolishing hierarchy, state and capitalism. "There
can be no separation of the revolutionary process from
the revolutionary goal. *A society based on self-administration
must be achieved by means of self-administration.* . . .
If we define 'power' as the power of man over man, power
can only be destroyed by the very process in which man
acquires power over his own life and in which he not
only 'discovers' himself, but, more meaningfully, formulates
his selfhood in all its social dimensions." [Murray Bookchin,
Op. Cit., p. 167]


J.7.5 What is the role of anarchists in a social revolution?

All the great social revolutions have been spontaneous. Indeed,
it is cliche that the revolutionaries are usually the most
surprised when a revolution breaks out. Nor do anarchists
assume that a revolution will initially be libertarian in
nature. All we assume is that there will be libertarian
tendencies which anarchists are work within and try and
strengthen. Therefore the role of anarchists and anarchist
organisations is to try and push a revolution towards a social 
revolution by encouraging the tendencies we discussed in the 
last section and by arguing for anarchist ideas and solutions. 
In the words of Vernon Richards:

"We do not for one moment assume that all social revolutions
are necessarily anarchist. But whatever form the revolution
against authority takes, the role of anarchists is clear:
that of inciting the people to abolish capitalistic property
and the institutions through which it exercises its power
for the exploitation of the majority by a minority." 
[_Lessons of the Spanish Revolution_, p. 44]

For anarchists, their role in a social revolution is clear.
They try to spread anarchist ideas and encourage autonomous
organisation and activity by the oppressed. For example, during 
the Russian Revolution anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists
played a key role in the factory committee movement for
workers' self-management. They combated Bolshevik attempts
to substitute state control for workers' self-management
and encouraged workplace occupations and federations of
factory committees (see Maurice Brinton's _The Bolsheviks
and Workers' Control_ for a good introduction to the movement
for workers' self-management during the Russian Revolution
and Bolshevik hostility to it). Similarly, they supported
the soviets (councils elected by workers in their workplaces)
but opposed their transformation from revolutionary bodies
into state organs (and so little more than organs of the
Communist Party and so the enemies of self-management). The 
anarchists tried to "work for their conversion from centres 
of authority and decrees into non-authoritarian centres, 
regulating and keeping things in order but not suppressing 
the freedom and independence of local workers' organisations. 
They must become centres which link together these autonomous 
organisations." [G. P. Maksimov in Paul Avrich (ed.) _The 
Anarchists in the Russian Revolution_, p. 105]

Therefore, the anarchist role, as Murray Bookchin puts it, 
is to "preserve and extend the anarchic phase that opens 
all the great social revolutions" by working "*within the 
framework of the forms created by the revolution,* not within 
the forms created by the party. What this means is that their 
commitment is to the revolutionary organs of self-management 
. . . to the *social* forms, not the *political* forms. 
Anarcho-communists [and other revolutionary anarchists] 
seek to persuade the factory committees, assemblies or 
soviets to make themselves into *genuine organs of popular
self-management,* not to dominate them, manipulate them,
or hitch them to an all-knowing political party." 
[_Post-Scarcity Anarchism_, p. 215 and p. 217]

Equally as important, "is that the people, all people,
should lose their sheeplike instincts and habits with 
which their minds have been inculcated by an age-long
slavery, and that they should learn to think and act
freely. It is to this great task of spiritual liberation
that anarchists must especially devote their attention."
[Malatesta, Op. Cit., pp. 160-1] Unless people think
and act for themselves, no social revolution is possible
and anarchy will remain just a tendency with authoritarian
societies.

Practically, this means the encouragement of self-management
and direct action. Anarchists thus "push the people to
expropriate the bosses and put all goods in common and
organise their daily lives themselves, through freely
constituted associations, without waiting for orders from
outside and refusing to nominate or recognise any 
government or constituted body in whatever guise . . . 
even in a provisional capacity, which ascribes to itself
the right to lay down the law and impose with force its
will on others." [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 197] This
is because, to quote Bakunin, anarchists do "not accept, 
even in the process of revolutionary transition, either 
constituent assemblies, provisional governments or so-called 
revolutionary dictatorships; because we are convinced that 
revolution is only sincere, honest and real in the hands of 
the masses, and that when it is concentrated in those of a 
few ruling individuals it inevitably and immediately becomes 
reaction." [_Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings_, p. 237]

As the history of every revolution shows, "revolutionary
government" is a contradiction in terms. Government bodies
mean "the transferring of initiative from the armed workers
to a central body with executive powers. By removing the
initiative from the workers, the responsibility for the
conduct of the struggle and its objectives [are] also
transferred to a governing hierarchy, and this could
have no other than an adverse effect on the morale of
the revolutionary fighters." [Vernon Richards, _Lessons
of the Spanish Revolution_, pp. 42-3] Such a centralisation
of power means the suppression of local initiatives, the
replacing of self-management with bureaucracy and the
creation of a new, exploitative and oppressive class of
officials and party hacks. Only when power rests in the
hands of everyone can a social revolution exist and a
free society created. If this is not done, if the state
replaces the self-managed associations of a free people,
all that happens is the replacement of one class system
by another. This is because the state is an instrument
of minority rule -- it can never become an instrument 
of majority rule, its centralised, hierarchical and 
authoritarian nature excludes such a possibility (see
section H for more discussion on this issue).

Therefore an important role of anarchists is to undermine
hierarchical organisation by creating self-managed ones, 
by keeping the management and direction of a struggle
or revolution in the hands of those actually conducting 
it. It is *their* revolution, *not* a party's and so they 
should control and manage it. They are the ones who have 
to live with the consequences of it. "The revolution is 
safe, it grows and becomes strong," correctly argues 
Alexander Berkman, "as long as the masses feel that 
they are direct participants in it, that they are 
fashioning their own lives, that *they* are making 
the revolution, that they *are* the revolution. But 
the moment that their activities are usurped by a 
political party or are centred in some special 
organisation, revolutionary effort becomes limited 
to a comparatively small circle from the which the 
large masses are practically excluded. The natural 
result of that [is that] popular enthusiasm is dampened,
interest gradually weakens, initiative languishes,
creativeness wanes, and the revolution becomes the
monopoly of a clique which presently turns dictator."
[Op. Cit., p. 65]

The history of every revolution proves this point, we
feel, and so the role of anarchists and anarchist
organisations (like those described in section J.3)
is clear -- to keep a revolution revolutionary by 
encouraging libertarian ideas, organisation, tactics 
and activity. To requote Emma Goldman:

"No revolution can ever succeed as factor of liberation 
unless the MEANS used to further it be identical in spirit 
and tendency with the PURPOSE to be achieved." [_Patterns of
Anarchy_, p. 113]

Anarchists, therefore, aim to keep the means in line with
the goal and their role in any social revolution is to
combat authoritarian tendencies and parties while 
encouraging working class self-organisation, self-activity
and self-management and the spreading of libertarian
ideas and values within society.

J.7.6 How could an anarchist revolution defend itself?

To some, particularly Marxists, this section may seem in
contradiction with anarchist ideas. After all, did Marx
not argue in a diatribe against Proudhon that anarchist
"abolishing the state" implies the "laying down of arms"
by the working class? However, as will become very clear
nothing could be further from the truth. Anarchists have
always argued for defending a revolution -- by force, if
necessary. Anarchists do not think that abolishing the
state involves "laying down arms." We argue that Marx 
(and Marxists) confuse self-defence by "the people armed" 
with the state, a confusion which has horrific implications 
(as the history of the Russian Revolution shows -- see
section H for details).

So how would an anarchist revolution (and by implication,
society) defend itself? Firstly, we should note that it
will *not* defend itself by creating a centralised body,
a new state. If it did this then the revolution will have
failed and a new class society would have been created
(a society based on state bureaucrats and oppressed
workers as in the Soviet Union). Thus we reject Marx's
notion of "a revolutionary and transitory form" of 
state as confused in the extreme. [Marx quoted by Lenin,
_Essential Works of Lenin_, p. 315] Rather, we seek 
libertarian means to defend a libertarian revolution.
What would these libertarian means be?

History, as well as theory, points to them. In all the
major revolutions of this century which anarchists
took part in they formed militias to defend freedom.
For example, anarchists in many Russian cities formed
"Black Guards" to defend their expropriated houses
and revolutionary freedoms. In the Ukraine, Nestor 
Makhno helped organise a peasant-worker army to 
defend the social revolution against authoritarians 
of right and left. In the Spanish Revolution, the 
C.N.T. and F.A.I. organised militias to free those 
parts of Spain under fascist rule after the military 
coup in 1936.

(As an aside, we *must* point out that these militias
had nothing in common -- bar the name -- with the
present "militia movement" in the United States. The
anarchist militias were organised in a libertarian
manner and aimed to defend an anti-statist, anti-capitalist 
revolution from pro-state, pro-capitalist forces. In 
contrast, the US "militia movement" is organised in a 
military fashion, defend property rights and want to 
create their own governments.)

These anarchist militias were as self-managed as possible, 
with any "officers" elected and accountable to the troops
and having the same pay and living conditions as them.
Nor did they impose their ideas on others. When a
militia liberated a village, town or city they called
upon the population to organise their own affairs,
as they saw fit. All the militia did was present 
suggestions and ideas to the population. For example,
when the Makhnovists passed through a district they
would put on posters announcing:

"The freedom of the workers and the peasants is their
own, and not subject to any restriction. It is up
to the workers and peasants to act, to organise
themselves, to agree among themselves in all
aspects of their lives, as they themselves see fit
and desire. . . The Makhnovists can do no more than
give aid and counsel . . . In no circumstances can
they, nor do they wish to, govern." [quoted by Peter
Marshall, _Demanding the Impossible_, p. 473]

Needless to say, the Makhnovists counselled the
workers and peasants "to set up free peasants' and
workers' councils" as well as to expropriate the land 
and means of production. They argued that "[f]reedom of
speech, of the press and of assembly is the right of 
every toiler and any gesture contrary to that freedom 
constitutes an act of counter-revolution." [_No Gods, 
No Masters_, vol. 2, pp. 157-8] The Makhnovists also
organised regional congresses of peasants and workers
to discuss revolutionary and social issues (a fact
that annoyed the Bolsheviks, leading to Trotsky trying 
to ban one congress and arguing that "participation in 
said congress will be regarded as an act of high 
treason." [Op. Cit., p. 151] Little wonder workers' 
democracy withered under the Bolsheviks!).

The Makhnovists declared principles were voluntary
enlistment, the election of officers and self-discipline
according to the rules adopted by each unit themselves.
Remarkably effective, the Makhnovists were the force
that defeated Denikin's army and helped defeat Wrangel.
After the Whites were defeated, the Bolsheviks turned
against the Makhnovists and betrayed them. However,
while they existed the Makhnovists defended the freedom
of the working class to organise themselves against
both right and left statists. See Voline's _The Unknown
Revolution_ and Peter Arshinov' _History of the
Makhnovist Movement_ for more information.

A similar situation developed in Spain. After defeating
the military/fascist coup on 19th of July, 1936, the 
anarchists organised self-managed militias to liberate
those parts of Spain under Franco. These groups were
organised in a libertarian fashion from the bottom up:

"The establishment of war committees is acceptable to
all confederal militias. We start from the individual
and form groups of ten, which come to accommodations
among themselves for small-scale operations. Ten such
groups together make up one *centuria,* which appoints
a delegate to represent it. Thirty *centurias* make
up one column, which is directed by a war committee,
on which the delegates from the *centurias* have
their say. . . although every column retains its
freedom of action, we arrive at co-ordination of
forces, which is not the same thing as unity of
command." [_No Gods, No Masters_, vol. 2, pp. 256-7]

Like the Makhnovists, the anarchist militias in Spain
were not only fighting against reaction, they were
fighting for a better world. As Durruti argued, "Our 
comrades on the front know for whom and for what they 
fight. They feel themselves revolutionaries and they 
fight, not in defence of more or less promised new 
laws, but for the conquest of the world, of the 
factories, the workshops, the means of transportation, 
their bread and the new culture." [Op. Cit., p. 248]

When they liberated towns and villages, the militia
columns urged workers and peasants to collectivise
the land and means of production, to re-organise life
in a libertarian fashion. All across anti-Fascist
Spain workers and peasants did exactly that (see
section I.8 for more information). The militias only
defended the workers' and peasants' freedom to organise 
their own lives as they saw fit and did not force them 
to create collectives or dictate their form.

Unfortunately, like the Makhnovists, the C.N.T. militias 
were betrayed by their so-called allies on the left. The
anarchist troops were not given enough arms and were
left on the front to rot in inaction. The "unified"
command by the Republican State preferred not to arm
libertarian troops as they would use these arms to
defend themselves and their fellow workers against
the Republican and Communist led counter-revolution.
Ultimately, the "people in arms" won the revolution
and the "People's army" which replaced it lost the
war. See Abel Paz's _Durruti: The People Armed_,
Vernon Richards _Lessons of the Spanish Revolution_ 
and George Orwell's _Homage to Catalonia_ for more 
information.

While the cynic may point out that, in the end, these
revolutions and militias were defeated, it does not 
mean that their struggle was in vain or a future
revolution will not succeed. That would be like arguing
in 1940 that democracy is inferior to fascism because 
the majority of democratic states had been (temporarily)
defeated by fascism or fascist states. It does not mean
that these methods will fail in the future or that we
should embrace apparently more "successful" approaches
which end in the creation of a society the total opposite
of what we desire (means determine ends, after all, and
statist means will create statist ends and apparent 
"successes" -- like Bolshevism -- are the greatest of
failures in terms of our ideas and ideals). All we are doing 
here is pointing how anarchists have defended revolutions
in the past and that these methods were successful
for a long time in face of tremendous opposition forces. 

Thus, in practice, anarchists have followed Malatesta's
argument for the "creation of a voluntary militia, without 
powers to interfere as militia in the life of the community, 
but only to deal with any armed attacks by the forces of 
reaction to re-establish themselves, or to resist outside 
intervention by countries as yet not in a state of revolution."
[Op. Cit., p. 166] This militia would be based on an armed
population and "[t]he power of the people in arms can only 
be used in the defence of the revolution and the freedoms won 
by their militancy and their sacrifices." [Vernon Richards, 
_Lessons of the Spanish Revolution_, p. 44] It does not
seek to impose a revolution, for you cannot impose freedom
or force people to be free against their will.

Hence anarchists would seek to defend a revolution because,
while anarchism "is opposed to any interference with your
liberty . . . [and] against all invasion and violence" 
it recognises that when "any one attacks *you*, then it
is *he* who is invading you, he who is employing violence
against you. You have a right to defend yourself. More
than that, it is your duty, as an anarchist to protect
your liberty, to resist coercion and compulsion. . . 
In other words, the social revolution will attack no one,
but it will defend itself against invasion from any
quarter." [Alexander Berkman, _ABC of Anarchism_, p. 81]

As Berkman stresses, this revolutionary defence "must be
in consonance with th[e] spirit [of anarchism]. Self-defence
excludes all acts of coercion, of persecution or revenge.
It is concerned only with repelling attack and depriving
the enemy of opportunity to invade you." Any defence would
be based on "the strength of the revolution . . . First
and foremost, in the support of the people . . . If they
feel that they themselves are making the revolution, that
they have become masters of their lives, that they have
gained freedom and are building up their welfare, then in
that very sentiment you have the greatest strength of
the revolution. . . Let them believe in the revolution,
and they will defend it to the death." Thus the "armed
workers and peasants are the only effective defence of
the revolution." [Op. Cit., pp. 81-81]

Part of this strength lies in liberty, so no attempt 
would be made to "defend" the revolution against mere
talk, against the mere expression of an opinion. To
"suppress speech and press is not only a theoretical
offence against liberty; it is a direct blow at the
very foundations of the revolution. . . It would
generate fear and distrust, would hatch conspiracies,
and culminate in a reign of terror which has always
killed revolution in the pass." [Op. Cit., p. 83]

Moreover, in the case of foreign intervention, the 
importance of international solidarity is important.
As Bakunin argued, "a social revolution cannot be a 
revolution in one nation alone. It is by nature an 
international revolution." [_Michael Bakunin: Selected
Writings_, p. 49] Thus any foreign intervention would
face the problems of solidarity actions and revolts
on its own doorstep and not dare send its troops
abroad for long, if at all. Ultimately, the only 
way to support a revolution is to make your own. 

Within the revolutionary area, it is the actions of
liberated people than will defend it. Firstly, the
population would be armed and so counter-revolutionaries
would face stiff opposition to their attempts to 
recreate authority. Secondly, they would face liberated
individuals who would reject their attempts:

"The only way in which a state of Anarchy can be obtained
is for each man [or woman] who is oppressed to act as if
he [or she] were at liberty, in defiance of all authority
to the contrary . . . In practical fact, territorial
extension is necessary to ensure permanency to any given
individual revolution. In speaking of the Revolution, we
signify the aggregate of so many successful individual
and group revolts as will enable every person within the
revolutionised territory to act in perfect freedom . . .
without having to constantly dread the prevention or the
vengeance of an opposing power upholding the former system
. . . Under these circumstance it is obvious that any
visible reprisal could and would be met by a resumption of
the same revolutionary action on the part of the individuals
or groups affected, and that the *maintenance* of a state
of Anarchy in this manner would be far easier than the
gaining of a state of Anarchy by the same methods and in
the face of hitherto unshaken opposition." [Kropotkin,
Op. Cit., pp. 87-8]

Thus any authoritarian would face the direct action of a
free people, of free individuals, who would refuse to
co-operate with the would-be authorities and join in 
solidarity with their friends and fellow workers to
resist them. The only way a counter-revolution could
spread internally is if the mass of the population can
become alienated from the revolution and this is impossible
in an anarchist revolution as power remains in their
hands. If power rests in their hands, there is no danger
from counter-revolutionaries.

In the end, an anarchist revolution can be defended only 
by applying its ideas as widely as possible. Its defence
rests in those who make it. If the revolution is an expression
of their needs, desires and hopes then it will be defended
with the full passion of a free people. Such a revolution
*may* be defeated by superior force, who can tell? But the
possibility is that it will not and that is what makes it
worth trying. To not act because of the possibility of 
failure is to live half a life. Anarchism calls upon everyone
to life the kind of live they deserve as unique individuals
and desire as human beings. Individually we can make a
difference, together we can change the world.