Section A - What is Anarchism? 
 
A.1 What is anarchism?  
	A.1.1	What does "anarchy" mean? 
	A.1.2 What does "anarchism" mean? 
	A.1.3	Why is anarchism also called libertarian socialism?	 
	A.1.4 Are anarchists socialists?  
	A.1.5 Where does anarchism come from? 
 
A.2 What does anarchism stand for? 
	A.2.1 What is the essence of anarchism?  
	A.2.2 Why do anarchists emphasise liberty? 
	A.2.3 Are anarchists in favour of organisation? 
	A.2.4 Are anarchists in favour of "absolute" liberty? 
	A.2.5 Why are anarchists in favour of equality?  
	A.2.6 Why is solidarity important to anarchists? 
	A.2.7 Why do anarchists argue for self-liberation? 
	A.2.8 Is it possible to be an anarchist without opposing 
	      hierarchy? 
	A.2.9 What sort of society do anarchists want? 
	A.2.10 What will abolishing hierarchy mean and achieve? 
	A.2.11 Why do most anarchists support direct democracy? 
	A.2.12 Is consensus an alternative to direct democracy? 
	A.2.13 Are anarchists individualists or collectivists? 
	A.2.14 Why is voluntarism not enough? 
	A.2.15 What about human nature? 
	A.2.16 Does anarchism require "perfect" people to work? 
	A.2.17 Aren't most people too stupid for a free society to work? 
	A.2.18 Do anarchists support terrorism? 
	A.2.19 What ethical views do anarchists hold? 
	A.2.20 Why are most anarchists atheists?
 
A.3 What types of anarchism are there? 
	A.3.1 What are the differences between individualist and 
	   	social anarchists? 
	A.3.2 Are there different types of social anarchism? 
	A.3.3 What kinds of green anarchism are there? 
	A.3.4 Is anarchism pacifistic? 
	A.3.5 What is anarcha-feminism? 
	A.3.6	What is Cultural Anarchism? 
	A.3.7 Are there religious anarchists? 
	A.3.8 What is "anarchism without adjectives"? 
	A.3.9 What is anarcho-primitivism?
 
A.4 Who are the major anarchist thinkers? 
	A.4.1 Are there any thinkers close to anarchism?
	A.4.2 Are there any liberal thinkers close to anarchism?
	A.4.3 Are there any socialist thinkers close to anarchism?
	A.4.4 Are there any Marxist thinkers close to anarchism?
 
A.5 What are some examples of "Anarchy in Action"? 
	A.5.1	The Paris Commune 
	A.5.2 The Haymarket Martyrs 
	A.5.3 Building the syndicalist unions 
	A.5.4 Anarchists in the Russian Revolution. 
	A.5.5 Anarchists in the Italian Factory Occupations 
	A.5.6 Anarchism and the Spanish Revolution. 
	A.5.7 The May-June revolt in France, 1968. 
 
Section A - What is Anarchism? 
 
Modern civilisation faces three potentially catastrophic crises:  
(1) social breakdown, a shorthand term for rising rates of poverty, 
homelessness, crime, violence, alienation, drug and alcohol 
abuse, social isolation, political apathy, dehumanisation, the 
deterioration of community structures of self-help and mutual 
aid, etc.; (2) destruction of  the planet's delicate ecosystems on 
which all complex forms of life depend; and (3) the proliferation 
of weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons.  
 
Orthodox opinion, including that of Establishment "experts," 
mainstream media, and politicians, generally regards these crises 
as separable, each having its own causes and therefore capable of 
being dealt with on a piecemeal basis, in isolation from the other 
two. Obviously, however, this "orthodox" approach isn't working, 
since the problems in question are getting worse. Unless some 
better approach is taken soon, we are clearly headed for disaster, 
either from catastrophic war, ecological Armageddon, or a descent 
into urban savagery -- or all of the above.  
 
Anarchism offers a unified and coherent way of making sense of 
these crises, by tracing them to a common source. This source is 
the principle of *hierarchical authority,* which underlies the 
major institutions of all "civilised" societies, whether capitalist 
or "communist." Anarchist analysis therefore starts from the fact 
that all of our major institutions are in the form of hierarchies, 
i.e. organisations that concentrate power at the top of a pyramidal 
structure, such as corporations, government bureaucracies, armies, 
political parties, religious organisations, universities, etc. It 
then goes on to show how the authoritarian relations inherent in 
such hierarchies negatively affect individuals, their society, and 
culture. In the first part of this FAQ (sections A to E) we will 
present the anarchist analysis of hierarchical authority and its 
negative effects in greater detail.  
 
It should not be thought, however, that anarchism is just a critique of 
modern civilisation, just "negative" or "destructive." Because it is much 
more than that. For one thing, it is also a proposal for a free society.  
Emma Goldman expressed what might be called the "anarchist question" as 
follows: "The problem that confronts us today. . . is how to be one's 
self and yet in oneness with others, to feel deeply with all human beings 
and still retain one's own characteristic qualities." [_Red Emma Speaks_, 
pp. 158-159] In other words, how can we create a society in which the 
potential for each individual is realised but not at the expense of 
others? In order to achieve this, anarchists envision a society in which, 
instead of being controlled "from the top down" through hierarchical 
structures of centralised power, the affairs of humanity will, to quote 
Benjamin Tucker, "be managed by individuals or voluntary associations." 
[_Anarchist Reader_, p. 149] While later sections of the FAQ (sections 
I and J) will describe anarchism's positive proposals for organising 
society in this way, "from  the bottom up," some of the constructive core 
of anarchism will be seen even in the earlier sections. The positive 
core of anarchism can even be seen in the anarchist critique of such 
flawed solutions to the social question as Marxism and right-wing 
"libertarianism" (sections F and H, respectively).
 
As Clifford Harper elegantly put it, "[l]ike all great ideas, anarchism is 
pretty simple when you get down to it -- human beings are at their best 
when they are living free of authority, deciding things among themselves 
rather than being ordered about." [_Anarchy: A Graphic Guide_, p. vii] 
Due to their desire to maximise individual and therefore social freedom, 
anarchists wish to dismantle all institutions that repress people: 
 
"Common to all Anarchists is the desire to free society of all political 
and social coercive institutions which stand in the way of the development 
of a free humanity." [Rudolf Rocker, _Anarcho-Syndicalism_, p. 9]  
 
As we'll see, all such institutions are hierarchies, and their repressive 
nature stems directly from their hierarchical form.  
 
Anarchism is a socio-economic and political theory, but not an ideology. 
The difference is *very* important. Basically, theory means you have 
ideas; an ideology means ideas have you. Anarchism is a body of ideas, 
but they are flexible, in a constant state of evolution and flux, and open 
to modification in light of new data. As society changes and develops, so 
does anarchism. An ideology, in contrast, is a set of "fixed" ideas which 
people believe dogmatically, usually ignoring reality or "changing" it so 
as to fit with the ideology, which is (by definition) correct. All such 
"fixed" ideas are the source of tyranny and contradiction, leading to 
attempts to make everyone fit onto a Procrustean Bed. This will be true 
regardless of the ideology in question -- Leninism, Objectivism, 
"Libertarianism," or whatever -- all will all have the same effect: the 
destruction of real individuals in the name of a doctrine, a doctrine that 
usually serves the interest of some ruling elite. Or, as Michael Bakunin 
puts it:  
 
"Until now all human history has been only a perpetual and bloody 
immolation of millions of poor human beings in honour of some 
pitiless abstraction -- God, country, power of state, national honour, 
historical rights, judicial rights, political liberty, public welfare."  
[_God and the State_, p. 59]
 
Dogmas are static and deathlike in their rigidity, often the work of some 
dead "prophet," religious or secular, whose followers erect his or her 
ideas into an idol, immutable as stone. Anarchists want the living to 
bury the dead so that the living can get on with their lives. The living 
should rule the dead, not vice versa. Ideologies are the nemesis of 
critical thinking and consequently of freedom, providing a book of rules 
and "answers" which relieve us of the "burden" of thinking for ourselves. 
 
In producing this FAQ on anarchism it is not our intention to give you 
the "correct" answers or a new rule book. We will explain a bit about 
what anarchism has been in the past, but we will focus more on its modern 
forms and why *we* are anarchists today. The FAQ is an attempt to provoke 
thought and analysis on your part. If you are looking for a new ideology, 
then sorry, anarchism is not for you. 
 
While anarchists try to be realistic and practical, we are not 
"reasonable" people. "Reasonable" people uncritically accept what 
the "experts" and "authorities" tell them is true, and so they will 
always remain slaves! Anarchists know that, as Bakunin wrote:  
 
"[a] person is strong only when he stands upon his own truth, when 
he speaks and acts from his deepest convictions. Then, whatever the 
situation he may be in, he always knows what he must say and do. He 
may fall, but he cannot bring shame upon himself or his causes." 
[quoted in Albert Meltzer, _I couldn't Paint Golden Angels_, p. 2] 
 
What Bakunin describes is the power of independent thought, which is the 
power of freedom. We encourage you not to be "reasonable," not to accept 
what others tell you, but to think and act for yourself! 
 
One last point: to state the obvious, this is *not* the final word on 
anarchism. Many anarchists will disagree with much that is written here, 
but this is to be expected when people think for themselves. All we wish 
to do is indicate the *basic* ideas of anarchism and give our analysis of 
certain topics based on how we understand and apply these ideas. We are 
sure, however, that all anarchists will agree with the core ideas we 
present, even if they may disagree with our application of them here and 
there. 
 
A.1 What is anarchism? 
 
Anarchism is a political theory which aims to create anarchy, "the 
absence of a master, of a sovereign." [P-J Proudhon, _What is Property_, 
p. 264] In other words, anarchism is a political theory which aims 
to create a society within which individuals freely co-operate together  
as equals. As such anarchism opposes all forms of hierarchical 
control -- be that control by the state or a capitalist -- as harmful 
to the individual and their individuality as well as unnecessary. 
 
In the words of anarchist L. Susan Brown: 
 
"While the popular understanding of anarchism is of a violent, anti-State 
movement, anarchism is a much more subtle and nuanced tradition then a 
simple opposition to government power. Anarchists oppose the idea that 
power and domination are necessary for society, and instead advocate 
more co-operative, anti-hierarchical forms of social, political and 
economic organisation." [_The Politics of Individualism_, p. 106] 
 
However, "anarchism" and "anarchy" are undoubtedly the most misrepresented  
ideas in political theory. Generally, the words are used to mean "chaos" or 
"without order," and so, by implication, anarchists desire social chaos 
and a return to the "laws of the jungle." 
 
This process of misrepresentation is not without historical parallel. For 
example, in countries which have considered government by one person 
(monarchy) necessary, the words "republic" or "democracy" have been used 
precisely like "anarchy," to imply disorder and confusion. Those with a 
vested interest in preserving the status quo will obviously wish to imply 
that opposition to the current system cannot work in practice, and that a 
new form of society will only lead to chaos. Or, as Errico Malatesta 
expressed it:  
 
"since it was thought that government was necessary and that without  
government there could only be disorder and confusion, it was natural  
and logical that anarchy, which means absence of government, should  
sound like absence of order." [_Anarchy_, p. 16] 
 
Anarchists want to change this "common-sense" idea of "anarchy," so people 
will see that government and other hierarchical social relationships are 
both harmful *and* unnecessary: 
 
"Change opinion, convince the public that government is not only  
unnecessary, but extremely harmful, and then the word anarchy, just  
because it means absence of government, will come to mean for everybody:  
natural order, unity of human needs and the interests of all, complete  
freedom within complete solidarity." [Op. Cit., pp. 12-13]

This FAQ is part of the process of changing the commonly-held ideas  
regarding anarchism and the meaning of anarchy. But that is not all.
As well as combating the distortions produced by the "common-sense" 
idea of "anarchy", we also have to combat the distortions that anarchism 
and anarchists have been subjected to over the years by our political 
and social enemies. For, as Bartolomeo Vanzetti put it, anarchists are 
"the radical of the radical -- the black cats, the terrors of many, of 
all the bigots, exploiters, charlatans, fakers and oppressors. 
Consequently we are also the more slandered, misrepresented, 
misunderstood and persecuted of all." [Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo 
Vanzetti, _The Letters of Sacco and Vanzetti_, p. 274] 

Vanzetti knew what he was talking about. He and his comrade Nicola 
Sacco were framed by the US state for a crime they did not commit 
and were, effectively, electrocuted for being foreign anarchists in
1927. So this FAQ will have to spend some time correcting the slanders 
and distortions that anarchists have been subjected to by the capitalist
media, politicians, ideologues and bosses (not to mention the distortions 
by our erstwhile fellow radicals like liberals and Marxists). Hopefully
once we are finished you will understand why those in power have spent
so much time attacking anarchism -- it is the one idea which can effectively 
ensure liberty for all and end all systems based on a few having power
over the many.

A.1.1 What does "anarchy" mean? 
 
The word "anarchy" is from the Greek, prefix *an* (or *a*), meaning 
"not," "the want of," "the absence of," or "the lack of", plus *archos*, 
meaning "a ruler," "director", "chief," "person in charge," or "authority." 
Or, as Peter Kropotkin put it, Anarchy comes from the Greek words meaning
"contrary to authority." [_Anarchism_, p. 284]

While the Greek words *anarchos* and *anarchia* are often taken to
mean "having no government" or "being without a government," as can be 
seen, the strict, original meaning of anarchism was not simply "no 
government." "An-archy" means "without a ruler," or more generally, 
"without authority," and it is in this sense that anarchists have 
continually used the word. For example, we find Kropotkin arguing
that anarchism "attacks not only capital, but also the main sources
of the power of capitalism: law, authority, and the State." [Op. Cit.,
p. 150] For anarchists, anarchy means "not necessarily absence of 
order, as is generally supposed, but an absence of rule." [Benjamin 
Tucker, _Instead of a Book_, p. 13] Hence David Weick's excellent 
summary:

"Anarchism can be understood as the *generic* social and political
idea that expresses negation of *all* power, sovereignty, domination,
and hierarchical division, and a will to their dissolution. . . 
Anarchism is therefore more than anti-statism . . . [even if] 
government (the state) . . . is, appropriately, the central focus 
of anarchist critique." [_Reinventing Anarchy_, p. 139]

For this reason, rather than being purely anti-government or 
anti-state, anarchism is primarily a movement against *hierarchy.* 
Why? Because hierarchy is the organisational structure that 
embodies authority. Since the state is the "highest" form of 
hierarchy, anarchists are, by definition, anti-state; but this 
is *not* a sufficient definition of anarchism. This means that 
real anarchists are opposed to all forms of hierarchical 
organisation, not only the state. In the words of Brian Morris:

"The term anarchy comes from the Greek, and essentially means 'no
ruler.' Anarchists are people who reject all forms of government
or coercive authority, all forms of hierarchy and domination. 
They are therefore opposed to what the Mexican anarchist Flores
Magon called the 'sombre trinity' -- state, capital and the
church. Anarchists are thus opposed to both capitalism and to
the state, as well as to all forms of religious authority. But
anarchists also seek to establish or bring about by varying means,
a condition of anarchy, that is, a decentralised society without
coercive institutions, a society organised through a federation
of voluntary associations." ["Anthropology and Anarchism," pp. 35-41,
_Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed_ no. 45, p. 38]

Reference to "hierarchy" in this context is a fairly recent 
development -- the "classical" anarchists such as Proudhon, 
Bakunin and Kropotkin did use the word, but rarely (they usually 
preferred "authority," which was used as short-hand for 
"authoritarian"). However, it's clear from their writings that 
theirs was a philosophy against hierarchy, against any inequality 
of power or privileges between individuals. Bakunin spoke of this 
when he attacked "official" authority but defended "natural 
influence," and also when he said: 
 
"Do you want to make it impossible for anyone to oppress his 
fellow-man? Then make sure that no one shall possess power." 
[_The Political Philosophy of Bakunin_, p. 271]  
 
As Jeff Draughn notes, "while it has always been a latent part of 
the 'revolutionary project,' only recently has this broader concept 
of anti-hierarchy arisen for more specific scrutiny. Nonetheless, 
the root of this is plainly visible in the Greek roots of the word 
'anarchy.'" [_Between Anarchism and Libertarianism: Defining a New 
Movement_] 
 
We stress that this opposition to hierarchy is, for anarchists, 
not limited to just the state or government. It includes all 
authoritarian  economic and social relationships as well as 
political ones, particularly those associated with capitalist 
property and wage labour. This can be seen from Proudhon's argument 
that "*Capital* . . . in the political field is analogous to 
*government* . . . The economic idea of capitalism, the politics 
of government or of authority, and the theological idea of the 
Church are three identical ideas, linked in various ways. To attack
one of them is equivalent to attacking all of them . . . What 
capital does to labour, and the State to liberty, the Church does
to the spirit. This trinity of absolutism is as baneful in practice
as it is in philosophy. The most effective means for oppressing
the people would be simultaneously to enslave its body, its will
and its reason." [quoted by Max Nettlau, _A Short History of 
Anarchism_, pp. 43-44] Thus we find Emma Goldman opposing 
capitalism as it meant "that man [or woman] must sell his [or 
her] labour" and, therefore, "that his [or her] inclination 
and judgement are subordinated to the will of a master." [_Red 
Emma Speaks_, p. 50] Forty years earlier Bakunin made the same 
point when he argued that under the current system "the worker 

sells his person and his liberty for a given time" to the 
capitalist in exchange for a wage. [Op. Cit., p. 187]
 
Thus "anarchy" means more than just "no government," it means 
opposition to all forms of authoritarian organisation and 
hierarchy. In Kropotkin's words, "the origin of the anarchist 
inception of society . . . [lies in] the criticism . . . of 
the hierarchical organisations and the authoritarian conceptions 
of  society; and . . . the analysis of the tendencies that are 
seen in the progressive movements of mankind." [Op. Cit., p. 158] 
For Malatesta, anarchism "was born in a moral revolt against
social injustice" and that the "specific causes of social ills"
could be found in "capitalistic property and the State." When
the oppressed "sought to overthrow both State and property -- 
then it was that anarchism was born." [_Errico Malatesta: 
His Life and Ideas_, p. 19]

Thus any attempt to assert that anarchy is purely anti-state is 
a misrepresentation of the word and the way it has been used by 
the anarchist movement. As Brian Morris argues, "when one 
examines the writings of classical anarchists . . . as well as 
the character of anarchist movements . . . it is clearly evident 
that it has never had this limited vision [of just being against 
the state]. It has always challenged all forms of authority and 
exploitation, and has been equally critical of capitalism and 
religion as it has been of the state." [Op. Cit., p. 40]

And, just to state the obvious, anarchy does not mean chaos nor do 
anarchists seek to create chaos or disorder. Instead, we wish to 
create a society based upon individual freedom and voluntary 
co-operation. In other words, order from the bottom up, not 
disorder imposed from the top down by authorities. Such a 
society would be a true anarchy, a society without rulers.

While we discuss what an anarchy could look like in section I,
Noam Chomsky sums up the key aspect when he stated that in a
truly free society "any interaction among human beings that is 
more than personal -- meaning that takes institutional forms of 
one kind or another -- in community, or workplace, family, larger 
society, whatever it may be, should be under direct control of its 
participants. So that would mean workers' councils in industry, 
popular democracy in communities, interaction between them, free 
associations in larger groups, up to organisation of international 
society. " [_Anarchism Interview_] Society would no longer be divided 
into a hierarchy of bosses and workers, governors and governed. Rather, 
an anarchist society would be based on free association in participatory 
organisations and run from the bottom up. Anarchists, it should be noted, 
try to create as much of this society today, in their organisations,
struggles and activities, as they can.

A.1.2 What does "anarchism" mean? 
 
To quote Peter Kropotkin, Anarchism is "the no-government system of  
socialism." [_Anarchism_, p. 46] In other words, "the abolition of 
exploitation and oppression of man by man, that is the abolition of 
private property [i.e. capitalism] and government." [Errico Malatesta, 
_Towards Anarchism_, p. 75] 
 
Anarchism, therefore, is a political theory that aims to create a 
society which is without political, economic or social hierarchies. 
Anarchists maintain that anarchy, the absence of rulers, is a viable 
form of social system and so work for the maximisation of individual 
liberty and social equality. They see the goals of liberty and equality 
as mutually self-supporting. Or, in Bakunin's famous dictum:  
 
"We are convinced that freedom without Socialism is privilege 
and injustice, and that Socialism without freedom is slavery 
and brutality." [_The Political Philosophy of Bakunin_, p. 269] 
 
The history of human society proves this point. Liberty without 
equality is only liberty for the powerful, and equality without 
liberty is impossible and a justification for slavery.  
 
While there are many different types of anarchism (from individualist  
anarchism to communist-anarchism -- see section A.3 for more details), 
there has always been two common positions at the core of all of them 
-- opposition to government and opposition to capitalism. In the words 
of the individualist-anarchist Benjamin Tucker, anarchism insists "on 
the abolition of the State and the abolition of usury; on no more 
government of man by man, and no more exploitation of man by man." 
[cited by Eunice Schuster, _Native American Anarchism_, p. 140] All 
anarchists view profit, interest and rent as *usury* (i.e. as 
exploitation) and so oppose them and the conditions that create them 
just as much as they oppose government and the State. 
 
More generally, in the words of L. Susan Brown, the "unifying link" within  
anarchism "is a universal condemnation of hierarchy and domination and  
a willingness to fight for the freedom of the human individual." [_The 
Politics of Individualism_, p. 108] For anarchists, a person cannot be 
free if they are subject to state or capitalist authority. As Voltairine
de Cleyre summarised:

"Anarchism . . . teaches the possibility of a society in which the
needs of life may be fully supplied for all, and in which the 
opportunities for complete development of mind and body shall be
the heritage of all . . . [It] teaches that the present unjust
organisation of the production and distribution of wealth must
finally be completely destroyed, and replaced by a system which
will insure to each the liberty to work, without first seeking a
master to whom he [or she] must surrender a tithe of his [or her]
product, which will guarantee his liberty of access to the sources
and means of production. . . Out of the blindly submissive, it 
makes the discontented; out of the unconsciously dissatisfied, it
makes the consciously dissatisfied . . . Anarchism seeks to arouse
the consciousness of oppression, the desire for a better society,
and a sense of the necessity for unceasing warfare against capitalism
and the State." [_Anarchy! An Anthology of Emma Goldman's Mother
Earth_, pp. 23-4]
 
So Anarchism is a political theory which advocates the creation of 
anarchy, a society based on the maxim of "no rulers." To achieve this, 
"[i]n common with all socialists, the anarchists hold that the private 
ownership of land, capital, and machinery has had its time; that it is 
condemned to disappear: and that all requisites for production must, and 
will, become the common property of society, and be managed in common 
by the producers of wealth. And . . . they maintain that the ideal of the 
political organisation of society is a condition of things where the 
functions of government are reduced to minimum. . . [and] that the 
ultimate aim of society is the reduction of the functions of government  
to nil -- that is, to a society without government, to an-archy." [Peter 
Kropotkin, Op. Cit., p. 46] 
 
Thus anarchism is both positive and negative. It analyses and critiques 
current society while at the same time offering a vision of a potential 
new society -- a society that fulfils certain human needs which the 
current one denies. These needs, at their most basic, are liberty, 
equality and solidarity, which will be discussed in section A.2. 

Anarchism unites critical analysis with hope, for, as Bakunin (in his
pre-anarchist days) pointed out, "the urge to destroy is a creative 
urge." One cannot build a better society without understanding what 
is wrong with the present one.

However, it must be stressed that anarchism is more than just a means
of analysis or a vision of a better society. It is also rooted in 
struggle, the struggle of the oppressed for their freedom. In other 
words, it provides a means of achieving a new system based on the needs
of people, not power, and which places the planet before profit. To
quote Scottish anarchist Stuart Christie:

"Anarchism is a movement for human freedom. It is concrete, democratic
and egalitarian . . . Anarchism began -- and remains -- a direct challenge
by the underprivileged to their oppression and exploitation. It opposes
both the insidious growth of state power and the pernicious ethos of
possessive individualism, which, together or separately, ultimately 
serve only the interests of the few at the expense of the rest.

"Anarchism is both a theory and practice of life. Philosophically, it 
aims for the maximum accord between the individual, society and nature. 
Practically, it aims for us to organise and live our lives in such a
way as to make politicians, governments, states and their officials
superfluous. In an anarchist society, mutually respectful sovereign
individuals would be organised in non-coercive relationships within
naturally defined communities in which the means of production and
distribution are held in common.

"Anarchists are not dreamers obsessed with abstract principles and 
theoretical constructs . . . Anarchists are well aware that a perfect
society cannot be won tomorrow. Indeed, the struggle lasts forever!
However, it is the vision that provides the spur to struggle against
things as they are, and for things that might be . . .

"Ultimately, only struggle determines outcome, and progress towards
a more meaningful community must begin with the will to resist every
form of injustice. In general terms, this means challenging all
exploitation and defying the legitimacy of all coercive authority.
If anarchists have one article of unshakeable faith, it is that,
once the habit of deferring to politicians or ideologues is lost, 
and that of resistance to domination and exploitation acquired, then
ordinary people have a capacity to organise every aspect of their 
lives in their own interests, anywhere and at any time, both freely
and fairly.

"Anarchists do not stand aside from popular struggle, nor do they
attempt to dominate it. They seek to contribute practically whatever
they can, and also to assist within it the highest possible levels
of both individual self-development and of group solidarity. It is
possible to recognise anarchist ideas concerning voluntary relationships,
egalitarian participation in decision-making processes, mutual aid
and a related critique of all forms of domination in philosophical,
social and revolutionary movements in all times and places."
[_My Granny made me an Anarchist_, pp. 162-3]

Anarchism, anarchists argue, is simply the theoretical expression of 
our capacity to organise ourselves and run society without bosses or 
politicians. It allows working class and other oppressed people to 
become conscious of our power as a class, defend our immediate 
interests, and fight to revolutionise society as a whole. Only by
doing this can we create a society fit for human beings to live in.

It is no abstract philosophy. Anarchist ideas are put into practice 
everyday. Wherever oppressed people stand up for their rights, take 
action to defend their freedom, practice solidarity and co-operation, 
fight against oppression, organise themselves without leaders and bosses, 
the spirit of anarchism lives. Anarchists simply seek to strengthen 
these libertarian tendencies and bring them to their full fruition.  
As we discuss in section J, anarchists apply their ideas in many ways 
within capitalism in order to change it for the better until such time 
as we get rid of it completely. Section I discusses what we aim to 
replace it with, i.e. what anarchism aims for.
 
A.1.3 Why is anarchism also called libertarian socialism? 
 
Many anarchists, seeing the negative nature of the definition of 
"anarchism," have used other terms to emphasise the inherently positive 
and constructive aspect of their ideas. The most common terms used are 
"free socialism," "free communism," "libertarian socialism," and 
"libertarian communism." For anarchists, libertarian socialism, 
libertarian communism, and anarchism are virtually interchangeable.  
As Vanzetti put it:

"After all we are socialists as the social-democrats, the socialists, 
the communists, and the I.W.W. are all Socialists. The difference -- 
the fundamental one --  between us and all the other is that they are 
authoritarian while we are libertarian; they believe in a State or 
Government of their own; we believe in no State or Government." [Nicola 
Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, _The Letters of Sacco and Vanzetti_, 
p. 274] 
 
But is this correct? Considering definitions from the _American 
Heritage Dictionary_, we find: 
 
LIBERTARIAN: one who believes in freedom of action and thought; 
one who believes in free will. 
 
SOCIALISM: a social system in which the producers possess both 
political power and the means of producing and distributing goods. 
 
Just taking those two first definitions and fusing them yields: 
 
LIBERTARIAN SOCIALISM: a social system which believes in 
freedom of  action and thought and free will, in which the producers 
possess both political power and the means of producing and 
distributing goods. 
 
(Although we must add that our usual comments on the lack of political 
sophistication of dictionaries still holds. We only use these definitions 
to show that "libertarian" does not imply "free market" capitalism nor 
"socialism" state ownership. Other dictionaries, obviously, will have 
different definitions -- particularly for socialism. Those wanting to 
debate dictionary definitions are free to pursue this unending and 
politically useless hobby but we will not). 
 
However, due to the creation of the Libertarian Party in the USA,  
many people now consider the idea of "libertarian socialism" to be a 
contradiction in terms. Indeed, many "Libertarians" think anarchists are 
just attempting to associate the "anti-libertarian" ideas of "socialism" 
(as Libertarians conceive it) with Libertarian ideology in order to make 
those "socialist" ideas more "acceptable" -- in other words, trying to 
steal the "libertarian" label from its rightful possessors.  
 
Nothing could be further from the truth. Anarchists have been using the 
term "libertarian" to describe themselves and their ideas since the 1850's. 
According to anarchist historian Max Nettlau, the revolutionary anarchist 
Joseph Dejacque published _Le Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement Social_ in 
New York between 1858 and 1861 while the use of the term "libertarian 
communism" dates from November, 1880 when a French anarchist congress 
adopted it. [Max Nettlau, _A Short History of Anarchism_, p. 75 and p. 145] 
The use of the term "Libertarian" by anarchists became more popular from 
the 1890s onward after it was used in France in an attempt to get round 
anti-anarchist laws and to avoid the negative associations of the word 
"anarchy" in the popular mind (Sebastien Faure and Louise Michel published 
the paper _Le Libertaire_  -- _The Libertarian_ -- in France in 1895, for 
example).  Since then, particularly outside America, it has *always* been 
associated with anarchist ideas and movements.  Taking a more recent example, 
in the USA, anarchists organised "The Libertarian League" in July 1954, which 
had staunch anarcho-syndicalist principles and lasted until 1965. The US-based  
"Libertarian" Party, on the other hand has only existed since the early  
1970's, well over 100 years after anarchists first used the term to describe  
their political ideas (and 90 years after the expression "libertarian  
communism" was first adopted). It is that party, not the anarchists, who  
have "stolen" the word. Later, in Section B, we will discuss why the idea  
of a "libertarian" capitalism (as desired by the Libertarian Party) is  
a contradiction in terms.  

As we will also explain in Section I, only a libertarian socialist system 
of ownership can maximise individual freedom. Needless to say, state 
ownership -- what is commonly *called* "socialism" -- is, for anarchists, 
not socialism at all. In fact, as we will elaborate in Section H, state 
"socialism" is just a form of capitalism, with no socialist content 
whatever. As Rudolf Rocker noted, for anarchists, socialism is "not a 
simple question of a full belly, but a question of culture that would 
have to enlist the sense of personality and the free initiative of the 
individual; without freedom it would lead only to a dismal state 
capitalism which would sacrifice all individual thought and feeling 
to a fictitious collective interest." [quoted by Colin Ward, 
"Introduction", Rudolf Rocker, _The London Years_, p. 1] 

Given the anarchist pedigree of the word "libertarian," few anarchists 
are happy to see it stolen by an ideology which shares little with our
ideas. In the United States, as Murray Bookchin noted, the "term 'libertarian'
itself, to be sure, raises a problem, notably, the specious identification
of an anti-authoritarian ideology with a straggling movement for 'pure
capitalism' and 'free trade.' This movement never created the word: it
appropriated it from the anarchist movement of the [nineteenth] century.
And it should be recovered by those anti-authoritarians . . . who try to
speak for dominated people as a whole, not for personal egotists who
identify freedom with entrepreneurship and profit." Thus anarchists in 
America should "restore in practice a tradition that has been denatured
by" the free-market right. [_The Modern Crisis_, pp. 154-5] And as we
do that, we will continue to call our ideas libertarian socialism.

A.1.4 Are anarchists socialists? 
 
Yes. All branches of anarchism are opposed to capitalism. This is because 
capitalism is based upon oppression and exploitation (see sections B and C).  
Anarchists reject the "notion that men cannot work together unless they  
have a driving-master to take a percentage of their product" and think 
that in an anarchist society "the real workmen will make their own  
regulations, decide when and where and how things shall be done." By 
so doing workers would free themselves "from the terrible bondage of 
capitalism." [Voltairine de Cleyre, _Anarchism_, p. 32 and p. 34] 
 
(We must stress here that anarchists are opposed to *all* economic 
forms which are based on domination and exploitation, including 
feudalism, Soviet-style "socialism" -- better called "state 
capitalism" --, slavery and so on. We concentrate on capitalism 
because that is what is dominating the world just now). 
 
Individualists like Benjamin Tucker along with social anarchists like 
Proudhon and Bakunin proclaimed themselves "socialists." They did so 
because, as Kropotkin put it in his classic essay "Modern Science and 
Anarchism," "[s]o long as Socialism was understood in its wide, generic, 
and true sense -- as an effort to *abolish* the exploitation of Labour by 
Capital -- the Anarchists were marching hand-in-hands with the Socialists 
of that time." [_Evolution and Environment_, p. 81] Or, in Tucker's words, 
"the bottom claim of Socialism [is] that labour should be put in possession 
of its own," a claim that both "the two schools of Socialistic thought . . . 
State Socialism and Anarchism" agreed upon. [_The Anarchist Reader_, p. 144] 
Hence the word "socialist" was originally defined to include "all those 
who believed in the individual's right to possess what he or she produced." 
[Lance Klafta, "Ayn Rand and the Perversion of Libertarianism," in 
_Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed_, no. 34] This opposition to 
exploitation (or usury) is shared by all true anarchists and places 
them under the socialist banner.

For most socialists, "the only guarantee not to be robbed of the fruits
of your labour is to possess the instruments of labour." [Peter Kropotkin,
_The Conquest of Bread_, p. 145] For this reason Proudhon, for example,
supported workers' co-operatives, where "every individual employed in the
association . . . has an undivided share in the property of the company"
because by "participation in losses and gains . . . the collective force
[i.e. surplus] ceases to be a source of profits for a small number of 
managers: it becomes the property of all workers." [_The General Idea
of the Revolution_, p. 222 and p. 223] Thus, in addition to desiring the 
end of exploitation of labour by capital, true socialists also desire a 
society within which the producers own and control the means of production
(including, it should be stressed, those workplaces which supply services). 
The means by which the producers will do this is a moot point in anarchist 
and other socialist circles, but the desire remains a common one. Anarchists
favour direct workers' control and either ownership by workers' associations
or by the commune (see section A.3 on the different types of anarchists). 

Moreover, anarchists also reject capitalism for being authoritarian *as
well as* exploitative. Under capitalism, workers do not govern themselves 
during the production process nor have control over the product of their 
labour. Such a situation is hardly based on equal freedom for all, nor 
can it be non-exploitative, and is so opposed by anarchists. This 
perspective can best be found in the work of Proudhon's (who inspired 
both Tucker and Bakunin) where he argues that anarchism would see 
"[c]apitalistic and proprietary exploitation stopped everywhere 
[and] the wage system abolished" for "either the workman. . . will 
be simply the employee of the proprietor-capitalist-promoter; or he 
will participate . . . In the first case the workman is subordinated, 
exploited: his permanent condition is one of obedience. . . In the 
second case he resumes his dignity as a man and citizen. . . he forms 
part of the producing organisation, of which he was before but the 
slave . . . we need not hesitate, for we have no choice. . . it is 
necessary to form an ASSOCIATION among workers . . . because without 
that, they would remain related as subordinates and superiors, and 
there would ensue two. . . castes of masters and wage-workers, which 
is repugnant to a free and democratic society." [Op. Cit., p. 233 and 
pp. 215-216]

Therefore *all* anarchists are anti-capitalist ("If labour owned 
the wealth it produced, there would be no capitalism" [Alexander 
Berkman, _What is Anarchism?_, p. 44]). Benjamin Tucker, for example 
-- the anarchist most influenced by liberalism (as we will discuss 
later) -- called his ideas "Anarchistic-Socialism" and denounced 
capitalism as a system based upon "the usurer, the receiver of 
interest, rent and profit." Tucker held that in an anarchist, 
non-capitalist, free-market society, capitalists will become redundant 
and exploitation of labour by capital would cease, since "labour. . . 
will. . . secure its natural wage, its entire product." [_The 
Individualist Anarchists_, p. 82 and p. 85] Such an economy would 
be based on mutual banking and the free exchange of products between 
co-operatives, artisans and peasants. For Tucker, and other 
Individualist anarchists, capitalism is not a true free market, 
being marked by various laws and monopolies which ensure that 
capitalists have the advantage over working people, so resulting in 
the latters exploitation via profit, interest and rent (see section 
G for a fuller discussion). Even Max Stirner, the arch-egoist, had 
nothing but scorn for capitalist society and its various "spooks," 
which for him meant ideas that are treated as sacred or religious, 
such as private property, competition, division of labour, and so 
forth. 
 
So anarchists consider themselves as socialists, but socialists of a 
specific  kind -- *libertarian socialists*. As the individualist 
anarchist Joseph A. Labadie puts it (echoing both Tucker and Bakunin): 
 
"It is said that Anarchism is not socialism. This is a mistake. 
Anarchism is voluntary Socialism. There are two kinds of Socialism, 
archistic and anarchistic, authoritarian and libertarian, state and 
free. Indeed, every proposition for social betterment is either to 
increase or decrease the powers of external wills and forces over 
the individual. As they increase they are archistic; as they decrease 
they are anarchistic." [_Anarchism: What It Is and What It Is Not_] 
 
Labadie stated on many occasions that "all anarchists are socialists,  
but not all socialists are anarchists." Therefore, Daniel Guerin's  
comment that  "Anarchism is really a synonym for socialism. The  
anarchist is primarily a socialist whose aim is to abolish the  
exploitation of man by man" is echoed throughout the history  
of the anarchist movement, be it the social or individualist wings 
[_Anarchism_, p. 12]. Indeed, the Haymarket Martyr Adolph Fischer 
used almost exactly the same words as Labadie to express the same
fact -- "every anarchist is a socialist, but every socialist is not 
necessarily an anarchist" -- while acknowledging that the movement
was "divided into two factions; the communistic anarchists and the
Proudhon or middle-class anarchists." [_The Autobiographies of the
Haymarket Martyrs_, p. 81]
 
So while social and individualist anarchists do disagree on many 
issues -- for example, whether a true, that is non-capitalist, 
free market would be the best means of maximising liberty -- they 
agree that capitalism is to be opposed as exploitative and oppressive 
and that an anarchist society must, by definition, be based on 
associated, not wage, labour. Only associated labour will "decrease 
the powers of external wills and forces over the individual" during 
working hours and such self-management of work by those who do it 
is the core ideal of real socialism. This perspective can be seen 
when Joseph Labadie argued that the trade union was "the 
exemplification of gaining freedom by association" and that 
"[w]ithout his union, the workman is much more the slave of 
his employer than he is with it." [_Different Phases of the 
Labour Question_]  
 
However, the meanings of words change over time. Today "socialism"  
almost always refers to *state* socialism, a system that all anarchists  
have opposed as a denial of freedom and genuine socialist ideals.  
All anarchists would agree with Noam Chomsky's statement on this 
issue:  
 
"If the left is understood to include 'Bolshevism,' then I would 
flatly dissociate myself from the left. Lenin was one of the greatest 
enemies of socialism." [_Marxism, Anarchism, and Alternative Futures_,
p. 779]
 
Anarchism developed in constant opposition to the ideas of Marxism, 
social democracy and Leninism. Long before Lenin rose to power, Michael 
Bakunin warned the followers of Marx against the "Red bureaucracy" that 
would institute "the worst of all despotic governments" if Marx's 
state-socialist ideas were ever implemented. Indeed, the works of 
Stirner, Proudhon and especially Bakunin all predict the horror of 
State Socialism with great accuracy. In addition, the anarchists were 
among the first and most vocal critics and opposition to the Bolshevik 
regime in Russia. 
 
Nevertheless, being socialists, anarchists do share *some* ideas with  
*some* Marxists (though none with Leninists). Both Bakunin and Tucker  
accepted Marx's analysis and critique of capitalism as well as his  
labour theory of value (see section C). Marx himself was heavily  
influenced by Max Stirner's book _The Ego and Its Own_, which contains  
a brilliant critique of what Marx called "vulgar" communism as well as  
state socialism. There have also been elements of the Marxist movement  
holding views very similar to social anarchism (particularly the  
anarcho-syndicalist branch of social anarchism) -- for example,  
Anton Pannekoek, Rosa Luxembourg, Paul Mattick and others, who are  
very far from Lenin. Karl Korsch and others wrote sympathetically of  
the anarchist revolution in Spain. There are many continuities from  
Marx to Lenin, but there are also continuities from Marx to more  
libertarian Marxists, who were harshly critical of Lenin and 
Bolshevism and whose ideas approximate anarchism's desire for the  
free association of equals. 
 
Therefore anarchism is basically a form of socialism, one that stands 
in direct opposition to what is usually defined as "socialism" (i.e. 
state ownership and control). Instead of "central planning," which 
many people associate with the word "socialism," anarchists advocate 
free association and co-operation between individuals, workplaces and 
communities and so oppose state "socialism" as a form of state capitalism 
in which "[e]very man [and woman] will be a wage-receiver, and the
State the only wage payer." [Benjamin Tucker, _The Individualist
Anarchists_, p. 81] Thus anarchist's reject Marxism (what most
people think of as "socialism") as just "[t]he idea of the State 
as Capitalist, to which the Social-Democratic fraction of the 
great Socialist Party is now trying to reduce Socialism." [Peter
Kropotkin, _The Great French Revolution_, vol. 1, p. 31] The anarchist 
objection to the identification of Marxism, "central planning" 
and State Socialism/Capitalism with socialism will be discussed 
in section H.  
 
It is because of these differences with state socialists, and to reduce 
confusion,  most anarchists just call themselves "anarchists," as it is 
taken for granted  that anarchists are socialists. However, with the rise 
of the so-called "libertarian" right in the USA, some pro-capitalists 
have taken to calling themselves "anarchists" and that is why we have 
laboured the point somewhat here.  Historically, and logically, anarchism 
implies anti-capitalism, i.e. socialism, which is something, we stress, 
that all anarchists have agreed upon (for a fuller discussion of why 
"anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchist see section F). 
 
A.1.5 Where does anarchism come from? 
 
Where does anarchism come from? We can do no better than quote the 
_The Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists_ produced 
by participants of the Makhnovist movement in the Russian Revolution  
(see Section A.5.4). They point out that: 
 
"The class struggle created by the enslavement of workers and their  
aspirations to liberty gave birth, in the oppression, to the idea of  
anarchism: the idea of the total negation of a social system based on  
the principles of classes and the State, and its replacement by a free  
non-statist society of workers under self-management. 
 
"So anarchism does not derive from the abstract reflections of an  
intellectual or a philosopher, but from the direct struggle of workers  
against capitalism, from the needs and necessities of the workers, from  
their aspirations to liberty and equality, aspirations which become  
particularly alive in the best heroic period of the life and struggle  
of the working masses. 
 
"The outstanding anarchist thinkers, Bakunin, Kropotkin and others,  
did not invent the idea of anarchism, but, having discovered it in  
the masses, simply helped by the strength of their thought and  
knowledge to specify and spread it." [pp. 15-16] 
 
Like the anarchist movement in general, the Makhnovists were a mass  
movement of working class people resisting the forces of authority, both  
Red (Communist) and White (Tsarist/Capitalist) in the Ukraine from 1917  
to 1921. As Peter Marshall notes "anarchism . . . has traditionally 
found its chief supporters amongst workers and peasants." [_Demanding 
the Impossible_, p. 652] 
 
Anarchism was created in, and by, the struggle of the oppressed for 
freedom. For Kropotkin, for example, "Anarchism . . . originated in 
everyday struggles" and "the Anarchist movement was renewed each 
time it received an impression from some great practical lesson: 
it derived its origin from the teachings of life itself." [_Evolution 
and Environment_, p. 58 and p. 57] For Proudhon, "the proof" of his 
mutualist ideas lay in the "current practice, revolutionary practice" 
of "those labour associations . . . which have spontaneously . . . 
been formed in Paris and Lyon . . . [show that the] organisation of 
credit and organisation of labour amount to one and the same." [_No 
Gods, No Masters_, vol. 1, pp. 59-60] Indeed, as one historian argues, 
there was "close similarity between the associational ideal of 
Proudhon . . . and the program of the Lyon Mutualists" and that 
there was "a remarkable convergence [between the ideas], and it 
is likely that Proudhon was able to articulate his positive program 
more coherently because of the example of the silk workers of Lyon. 
The socialist ideal that he championed was already being realised, 
to a certain extent, by such workers." [K. Steven Vincent, 
_Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican Socialism_, 
p. 164]

Thus anarchism comes from the fight for liberty and our desires 
to lead a fully human  life, one in which we have time to live, 
to love and to play. It was not created by a few people divorced 
from life, in ivory towers looking down upon society and making 
judgements upon it based on their notions of what is right and 
wrong. Rather, it was a product of working class struggle and 
resistance to authority, oppression and exploitation. As Albert 
Meltzer put it: 

"There were never theoreticians of Anarchism as such, though 
it produced a number of theoreticians who discussed aspects 
of its philosophy. Anarchism has remained a creed that has 
been worked out in action rather than as the putting into 
practice of an intellectal ideas. Very often, a bourgeois 
writer comes along and writes down what has already been 
worked out in practice by workers and peasants; he [or she] 
is attributed by bourgeois historians as being a leader, and by 
successive bourgeois writers (citing the bourgeois historians) 
as being one more case that proves the working class relies on 
bourgeois leadership." [_Anarchism: Arguments for and against_, 
p. 18] 

In Kropotkin's eyes, "Anarchism had its origins in the same
creative, constructive activity of the masses which has
worked out in times past all the social institutions of 
mankind -- and in the revolts . . . against the representatives
of force, external to these social institutions, who had laid 
their hands on these institutions and used them for their own
advantage." More recently, "Anarchy was brought forth by the
same critical and revolutionary protest which gave birth to
Socialism in general." Anarchism, unlike other forms of 
socialism, "lifted its sacrilegious arm, not only against
Capitalism, but also against these pillars of Capitalism: Law,
Authority, and the State." All anarchist writers did was to 
"work out a general expression of [anarchism's] principles, 
and the theoretical and scientific basis of its teachings" 
derived from the experiences of working class people in struggle 
as well as analysing the evolutionary tendencies of society 
in general. [Op. Cit., p. 19 and p. 57]

However, anarchistic tendencies and organisations in society have 
existed long before Proudhon put pen to paper in 1840 and declared 
himself an anarchist. While anarchism, as a specific political 
theory, was born with the rise of capitalism (Anarchism "emerged 
at the end of the eighteenth century . . .[and] took up the dual 
challenge of overthrowing both Capital and the State." [Peter 
Marshall, Op. Cit., p. 4]) anarchist writers have analysed 
history for libertarian tendencies. Kropotkin argued, for 
example, that "from all times there have been Anarchists and 
Statists." [Op. Cit., p. 16] In _Mutual Aid_ (and elsewhere) 
Kropotkin analysed the libertarian aspects of previous societies
and noted those that successfully implemented (to some degree) 
anarchist organisation or aspects of anarchism. He recognised 
this tendency of actual examples of anarchistic ideas to predate 
the creation of the "official" anarchist movement and argued that:

"From the remotest, stone-age antiquity, men [and women] have realised
the evils that resulted from letting some of them acquire personal
authority. . . Consequently they developed in the primitive clan,
the village community, the medieval guild . . . and finally in the
free medieval city, such institutions as enabled them to resist
the encroachments upon their life and fortunes both of those strangers
who conquered them, and those clansmen of their own who endeavoured
to establish their personal authority." [_Anarchism_, pp. 158-9]

Kropotkin placed the struggle of working class people (from which modern
anarchism sprung) on par with these older forms of popular organisation.
He argued that "the labour combinations. . . were an outcome of the same
popular resistance to the growing power of the few -- the capitalists
in this case" as were the clan, the village community and so on, as
were "the strikingly independent, freely federated activity of the 
'Sections' of Paris and all great cities and many small 'Communes'
during the French Revolution" in 1793. [Op. Cit., p. 159]

Thus, while anarchism as a political theory is an expression of 
working class struggle and self-activity against capitalism and 
the modern state, the ideas of anarchism have continually expressed 
themselves in action throughout human existence. Many indigenous 
peoples in North America and elsewhere, for example, practised 
anarchism for thousands of years before anarchism as a specific 
political theory existed. Similarly, anarchistic tendencies and 
organisations have existed in every major revolution -- the New 
England Town Meetings during the American Revolution, the Parisian 
'Sections' during the French Revolution, the workers' councils and 
factory committees during the Russian Revolution to name just a 
few examples (see Murray Bookchin's _The Third Revolution_ for 
details). This is to be expected if anarchism is, as we argue, 
a product of resistance to authority then any society with 
authorities will provoke resistance to them and generate 
anarchistic tendencies (and, of course, any societies without 
authorities cannot help but being anarchistic).

In other words, anarchism is an expression of the struggle against 
oppression  and exploitation, a generalisation of working people's 
experiences and analyses of what is wrong with the current system 
and an expression of our hopes and dreams for a better future. This 
struggle existed before it was called anarchism, but the historic 
anarchist movement (i.e. groups of people calling their ideas 
anarchism and aiming for an anarchist society) is essentially a 
product of working class struggle against capitalism and the state, 
against oppression and exploitation, and *for* a free society of 
free and equal individuals. 
 
A.2 What does anarchism stand for? 
 
These words by Percy Bysshe Shelley gives an idea of what anarchism 
stands for in practice and what ideals drive it:  
 
	 The man 
	 Of virtuous soul commands not, nor obeys: 
	 Power, like a desolating pestilence, 
	 Pollutes whate'er it touches, and obedience, 
	 Bane of all genius, virtue, freedom, truth, 
	 Makes slaves of men, and, of the human frame, 
	 A mechanised automaton. 
 
As Shelley's lines suggest, anarchists place a high priority on liberty, 
desiring it both for themselves and others. They also consider 
individuality -- that which makes one a unique person -- to be a most 
important aspect of humanity. They recognise, however, that individuality 
does not exist in a vacuum but is a *social* phenomenon. Outside of 
society, individuality is impossible, since one needs other people in 
order to develop, expand, and grow.  
 
Moreover, between individual and social development there is a reciprocal  
effect: individuals grow within and are shaped by a particular society,  
while at the same time they help shape and change aspects of that society  
(as well as themselves and other individuals) by their actions and thoughts.  
A society not based on free individuals, their hopes, dreams and ideas would  
be hollow and dead. Thus, "the making of a human being. . . is a collective  
process, a process in which both community and the individual *participate.*"  
[Murray Bookchin, _The Modern Crisis_, p. 79] Consequently, any political  
theory which bases itself purely on the social or the individual is false.  
 
In order for individuality to develop to the fullest possible extent, 
anarchists consider it essential to create a society based on three 
principles: liberty, equality and solidarity. These principles are 
shared by all anarchists. Thus we find the communist-anarchist Peter 
Kropotkin talking about a revolution inspired by "the beautiful words, 
Liberty, Equality and Solidarity." [_The Conquest of Bread_, p. 128] 
Individualist-anarchist Benjamin Tucker wrote of a similar vision, 
arguing that anarchism "insists on Socialism . . . on true Socialism, 
Anarchistic Socialism: the prevalance on earth of Liberty, Equality, 
and Solidarity." [_Instead of a Book_, p. 363] All three principles are 
interdependent.
 
Liberty is essential for the full flowering of human intelligence, 
creativity, and dignity. To be dominated by another is to be denied the 
chance to think and act for oneself, which is the only way to grow and 
develop one's individuality. Domination also stifles innovation and 
personal responsibility, leading to conformity and mediocrity. Thus the 
society that maximises the growth of individuality will necessarily be 
based on voluntary association, not coercion and authority. To quote 
Proudhon, "All associated and all free." Or, as Luigi Galleani puts it, 
anarchism is "the autonomy of the individual within the freedom of 
association" [_The End of Anarchism?_, p. 35] (See further section 
A.2.2 -- "Why do anarchists emphasise liberty?"). 
 
If liberty is essential for the fullest development of individuality, then 
equality is essential for genuine liberty to exist. There can be no real 
freedom in a class-stratified, hierarchical society riddled with gross 
inequalities of power, wealth, and privilege. For in such a society only 
a few -- those at the top of the hierarchy -- are relatively free, while 
the rest are semi-slaves. Hence without equality, liberty becomes a 
mockery -- at best the "freedom" to choose one's master (boss), as under 
capitalism. Moreover, even the elite under such conditions are not really 
free, because they must live in a stunted society made ugly and barren by 
the tyranny and alienation of the majority. And since individuality 
develops to the fullest only with the widest contact with other free 
individuals, members of the elite are restricted in the possibilities for 
their own development by the scarcity of free individuals with whom to 
interact. (See also A.2.5 -- "Why are anarchists in favour of equality?)  
 
Finally, solidarity means mutual aid: working voluntarily and 
co-operatively with others who share the same goals and interests. But 
without liberty and equality, society becomes a pyramid of competing 
classes based on the domination of the lower by the higher strata. In 
such a society, as we know from our own, it's "dominate or be dominated," 
"dog eat dog," and "everyone for themselves." Thus "rugged individualism" 
is promoted at the expense of community feeling, with those on the bottom 
resenting those above them and those on the top fearing those below them.  
Under such conditions, there can be no society-wide solidarity, but only a 
partial form of solidarity within classes whose interests are opposed, 
which weakens society as a whole. (See also A.2.6 -- "Why is solidarity 
important to anarchists?") 
 
It should be noted that solidarity does not imply self-sacrifice or  
self-negation. As Errico Malatesta makes clear: 
 
"we are all egoists, we all seek our own satisfaction. But the anarchist  
finds his greatest satisfaction in struggling for the good of all, for the  
achievement of a society in which he [sic] can be a brother among brothers,  
and among healthy, intelligent, educated, and happy people. But he who is  
adaptable, who is satisfied to live among slaves and draw profit from the  
labour of slaves, is not, and cannot be, an anarchist." [_Errico Malatesta:
His Life and Ideas_,  p. 23]
 
For anarchists, *real* wealth is other people and the planet on which  
we live. Or, in the words of Emma Goldman, it "consists in things of 
utility and beauty, in things which help to create strong, beautiful 
bodies and surroundings inspiring to live in . . . [Our] goal is the 
freest possible expression of all the latent powers of the individual 
. . . Such free display of human energy being possible only under 
complete individual and social freedom," in other words "social 
equality." [_Red Emma Speaks_, pp. 67-8] 
 
Also, honouring individuality does not mean that anarchists are 
idealists, thinking that people or ideas develop outside of society.  
Individuality and ideas grow and develop within society, in response to 
material and intellectual interactions and experiences, which people 
actively analyse and interpret. Anarchism, therefore, is a *materialist* 
theory, recognising that ideas develop and grow from social interaction 
and individuals' mental activity (see Michael Bakunin's _God and the 
State_ for the classic discussion of materialism versus idealism). 
 
This means that an anarchist society will be the creation of human beings, 
not some deity or other transcendental principle, since "[n]othing ever  
arranges itself, least of all in human relations. It is men [sic] who do  
the arranging, and they do it according to their attitudes and understanding  
of things." [Alexander Berkman, _What is Anarchism?_, p. 185] 
 
Therefore, anarchism bases itself upon the power of ideas and the ability 
of people to act and transform their lives based on what they consider to 
be right. In other words, liberty.  
 
A.2.1 What is the essence of anarchism? 
 
As we have seen, "an-archy" implies "without rulers" or "without (hierarchical)  
authority." Anarchists are not against "authorities" in the sense of experts  
who are particularly knowledgeable, skilful, or wise, though they believe  
that such authorities should have no power to force others to follow their 
recommendations (see section B.1 for more on this distinction). In a  
nutshell, then, anarchism is anti-authoritarianism. 
 
Anarchists are anti-authoritarians because they believe that no human 
being should dominate another. Anarchists, in L. Susan Brown's words, 
"believe in the inherent dignity and worth of the human individual." 
[_The Politics of Individualism_, p. 107] Domination is inherently  
degrading and demeaning, since it submerges the will and judgement of  
the dominated to the will and judgement of the dominators, thus destroying  
the dignity and self-respect that comes only from personal autonomy.  
Moreover, domination makes possible and generally leads to exploitation,  
which is the root of alienation, inequality, poverty, and social breakdown. 
 
In other words, then, the essence of anarchism (to express it positively)  
is free co-operation between equals to maximise their liberty and  
individuality.  
 
Co-operation between equals is the key to anti-authoritarianism. By  
co-operation we can develop and protect our own intrinsic value as 
unique individuals as well as enriching our lives and liberty for 
"[n]o individual can recognise his own humanity, and consequently 
realise it in his lifetime, if not by recognising it in others and 
co-operating in its realisation for others . . . My freedom is the
freedom of all since I am not truly free in thought an din fact,
except when my freedom and my rights are confirmed and approved in
the freedom and rights of all men [and women] who are my equals." 
[Michael Bakunin, quoted by Errico Malatesta, _Anarchy_, p. 30]  
 
While being anti-authoritarians, anarchists recognise that human beings 
have a social nature and that they mutually influence each other. We 
cannot escape the "authority" of this mutual influence, because, as 
Bakunin reminds us:  
 
"The abolition of this mutual influence would be death. And when we  
advocate the freedom of the masses, we are by no means suggesting the  
abolition of any of the natural influences that individuals or groups  
of individuals exert on them. What we want is the abolition of  
influences which are artificial, privileged, legal, official."  
[quoted by Malatesta, _Anarchy_, p. 51] 
 
In other words, those influences which stem from hierarchical authority. 
 
A.2.2 Why do anarchists emphasise liberty? 
 
An anarchist can be regarded, in Bakunin's words, as a "fanatic lover 
of freedom, considering it as the unique environment within which 
the intelligence, dignity and happiness of mankind can develop and 
increase." [_Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings_, p. 196] Because 
human beings are thinking creatures, to deny them liberty is to deny 
them the opportunity to think for themselves, which is to deny their 
very existence as humans. For anarchists, freedom is a product of our 
humanity, because: 
 
"The very fact. . . that a person has a consciousness of self, of being  
different from others, creates a desire to act freely. The craving for  
liberty and self-expression is a very fundamental and dominant trait."  
[Emma Goldman, _Red Emma Speaks_, p. 439] 
 
For this reason, anarchism "proposes to rescue the self-respect and 
independence of the individual from all restraint and invasion by authority.  
Only in freedom can man [sic] grow to his full stature. Only in freedom 
will he learn to think and move, and give the very best of himself. Only 
in freedom will he realise the true force of the social bonds which tie 
men together, and which are the true foundations of a normal social life."  
[Op. Cit., pp. 72-3] 
 
Thus, for anarchists, freedom is basically individuals pursuing their  
own good in their own way. Doing so calls forth the activity and power  
of individuals as they make decisions for and about themselves and their  
lives. Only liberty can ensure individual development and diversity. This 
is because when individuals govern themselves and make their own decisions 
they have to exercise their minds and this can have no other effect 
than expanding and stimulating the individuals involved. As Malatesta
put it, "[f]or people to become educated to freedom and the management
of their own interests, they must be left to act for themselves, to
feel responsibility for their own actions in the good or bad that comes
from them. They'd make mistakes, but they'd understand from the
consequences where they'd gone wrong and try out new ways." [_Fra
Contadini_, p. 26]
 
So, liberty is the precondition for the maximum development of 
one's individual potential, which is also a social product and can be 
achieved only in and through community. A healthy, free community will 
produce free individuals, who in turn will shape the community and enrich 
the social relationships between the people of whom it is composed.  
Liberties, being socially produced, "do not exist because they have been 
legally set down on a piece of paper, but only when they have become the 
ingrown habit of a people, and when any attempt to impair them will meet 
with the violent resistance of the populace . . . One compels respect 
from others when one knows how to defend one's dignity as a human being. 
This is not only true in private life; it has always been the same in 
political life as well." In fact, we "owe all the political rights and
privileges which we enjoy today in greater or lesser measures, not to
the good will of their governments, but to their own strength." [Rudolf 
Rocker, _Anarcho-syndicalism_, p. 75] 

It is for this reason anarchists support the tactic of "Direct Action"
(see section J.2) for, as Emma Goldman argued, in an unfree society
we have "as much liberty as [we are] willing to take. Anarchism 
therefore stands for direct action, the open defiance of, and 
resistance to, all laws and restrictions, economic, social, and 
moral." It requires "integrity, self-reliance, and courage. In 
short, it calls for free, independent spirits" and so "only 
persistent resistance" can "finally set [us] free. Direct 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." [_Red Emma Speaks_, pp. 76-7]

Direct action is, in other words, the application of liberty,
used to resist oppression in the here and now as well as the 
means of creating a free society. It creates the necessary 
individual mentality and social conditions in which liberty 
flourishes. Both are essential as liberty develops only within 
society, not in opposition to it. Thus Murray Bookchin writes:  
 
"What freedom, independence, and autonomy people have in a given 
historical period is the product of long social traditions and . . . a 
*collective* development -- which is not to deny that individuals play 
an important role in that development, indeed are ultimately obliged 
to do so if they wish to be free." [_Social Anarchism or Lifestyle 
Anarchism_, p. 15] 
 
But freedom requires the right *kind* of social environment in which 
to grow and develop. Such an environment *must* be decentralised 
and based on the direct management of work by those who do it. 
For centralisation means coercive authority (hierarchy), whereas 
self-management is the essence of freedom. Self-management 
ensures that the individuals involved use (and so develop) all 
their abilities -- particularly their mental ones. Hierarchy, in 
contrast, substitutes the activities and thoughts of a few for the 
activities and thoughts of all the individuals involved. Thus, 
rather than developing their abilities to the full, hierarchy 
marginalises the many and ensures that their development 
is blunted (see also section B.1).
 
It is for this reason that anarchists oppose both capitalism and 
statism. As the French anarchist Sebastien Faure noted, authority 
"dresses itself in two principal forms: the political form, that 
is the State; and the economic form, that is private property." 
[cited by Peter Marshall, _Demanding the Impossible_, p. 43] 
Capitalism, like the state, is based on centralised authority 
(i.e. of the boss over the worker), the very purpose of which 
is to keep the management of work out of the hands of those who 
do it. This means "that the serious, final, complete liberation 
of the workers is possible only upon one condition: that of the 
appropriation of capital, that is, of raw material and all the 
tools of labour, including land, by the whole body of the 
workers." [Michael Bakunin, quoted by Rudolf Rocker, Op. Cit.,
p. 50]  
 
Hence, as Noam Chomsky argues, a "consistent anarchist must oppose 
private ownership of the means of production and the wage slavery 
which is a component of this system, as incompatible with the principle 
that labour  must be freely undertaken and under the control of the 
producer." ["Notes on Anarchism", _For Reasons of State_, p. 158] 
 
Thus, liberty for anarchists means a non-authoritarian society in  
which individuals and groups practice self-management, i.e. they  
govern themselves. The implications of this are important. First, 
it implies that an anarchist society will be non-coercive, that 
is, one in which violence or the threat of violence will not be 
used to "convince" individuals to do anything. Second, it implies 
that anarchists are firm supporters of individual sovereignty, 
and that, because of this support, they also oppose institutions 
based on coercive authority, i.e. hierarchy. And finally, it 
implies that anarchists' opposition to "government" means only 
that they oppose centralised, hierarchical, bureaucratic 
organisations or government. They do not oppose self-government 
through confederations of decentralised, grassroots organisations, 
so long as these are based on direct democracy rather than the 
delegation of power to "representatives" (see section A.2.9 
for more on anarchist organisation). For authority is the 
opposite of liberty, and hence any form of organisation based on 
the delegation of power is a threat to the liberty and dignity of  
the people subjected to that power.  
 
Anarchists consider freedom to be the only social environment within 
which human dignity and diversity can flower. Under capitalism and 
statism, however, there is no freedom for the majority, as private 
property and hierarchy ensure that the inclination and judgement of 
most individuals will be subordinated to the will of a master, 
severely restricting their liberty and making impossible the "full 
development of all the material, intellectual and moral capacities 
that are latent in every one of us." [Michael Bakunin, _Bakunin on 
Anarchism_,  p. 261] 

(See section B for further discussion of the hierarchical and 
authoritarian nature of capitalism and statism). 
 
A.2.3 Are anarchists in favour of organisation? 
 
Yes. Without association, a truly human life is impossible. Liberty 
*cannot* exist without society and organisation. As George Barrett, 
pointed out: 
 
"To get the full meaning out of life we must co-operate, and to 
co-operate we must make agreements with our fellow-men. But to 
suppose that such agreements mean a limitation of freedom is 
surely an absurdity; on the contrary, they are the exercise of 
our freedom. 
 
"If we are going to invent a dogma that to make agreements is 
to damage freedom, then at once freedom becomes tyrannical, for 
it forbids men to take the most ordinary everyday pleasures. For 
example, I cannot go for a walk with my friend because it is 
against the principle of Liberty that I should agree to be at a 
certain place at a certain time to meet him. I cannot in the least 
extend my own power beyond myself, because to do so I must 
co-operate with someone else, and co-operation implies an agreement, 
and that is against Liberty. It will be seen at once that this 
argument is absurd. I do not limit my liberty, but simply exercise 
it, when I agree with my friend to go for a walk.

"If, on the other hand, I decide from my superior knowledge that
it is good for my friend to take exercise, and therefore I attempt
to compel him to go for a walk, then I begin to limit freedom.
This is the difference between free agreement and government."
[_Objections to Anarchism_, pp. 348-9]
 
As far as organisation goes, anarchists think that "far from creating 
authority, [it] is the only cure for it and the only means whereby each 
of us will get used to taking an active and conscious part in collective 
work, and cease being passive instruments in the hands of leaders." 
[Errico Malatesta, _Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas_, p. 86] Thus 
anarchists are well aware of the need to organise in a structured and 
open manner. As Carole Ehrlich points out, while anarchists "aren't 
opposed to structure" and simply "want to abolish *hierarchical* 
structure" they are "almost always stereotyped as wanting no structure 
at all." This is not the case, for "organisations that would build in 
accountability, diffusion of power among the maximum number of persons, 
task rotation, skill-sharing, and the spread of information and resources" 
are based on "good social anarchist principles of organisation!" 
["Socialism, Anarchism and Feminism", _Quiet Rumours: An Anarcha-Feminist 
Reader_, p. 47 and p. 46]

The fact that anarchists are in favour of organisation may seem strange 
at first, but it is understandable. "For those with experience only of
authoritarian organisation," argue two British anarchists, "it appears
that organisation can only be totalitarian or democratic, and that 
those who disbelieve in government must by that token disbelieve in
organisation at all. That is not so." [Stuart Christie and Albert
Meltzer, _The Floodgates of Anarchy_, p. 122] In other words, because 
we live in a society in which virtually all forms of organisation are 
authoritarian, this makes them appear to be the only kind possible. 
What is usually not recognised is that this mode of organisation is 
historically conditioned, arising within a specific kind of society 
-- one whose motive principles are domination and exploitation. 
According to archaeologists and anthropologists, this kind of 
society has only existed for about 5,000 years, having appeared with 
the first primitive states based on conquest and slavery, in which the 
labour of slaves created a surplus which supported a ruling class.  
 
Prior to that time, for hundreds of thousands of years, human and 
proto-human societies were what Murray Bookchin calls "organic," that 
is, based on co-operative forms of economic activity involving mutual 
aid, free access to productive resources, and a sharing of the products 
of communal labour according to need. Although such societies probably 
had status rankings based on age, there were no hierarchies in the 
sense of institutionalised dominance-subordination relations enforced 
by coercive sanctions and resulting in class-stratification involving 
the economic exploitation of one class by another (see Murray Bookchin, 
_The Ecology of Freedom_).  
 
It must be emphasised, however, that anarchists do *not* advocate  
going "back to the Stone Age." We merely note that since the 
hierarchical-authoritarian mode of organisation is a relatively recent 
development in the course of human social evolution, there is no reason 
to suppose that it is somehow "fated" to be permanent. We do not think 
that human beings are genetically "programmed" for authoritarian, 
competitive, and aggressive behaviour, as there is no credible 
evidence to support this claim. On the contrary, such behaviour is 
socially conditioned, or *learned,* and as such, can be *unlearned* 
(see Ashley Montagu, _The Nature of Human Aggression_). We are not 
fatalists or genetic determinists, but believe in free will, which 
means that people can change the way they do things, including the 
way they organise society.  
 
And there is no doubt that society needs to be better organised, because 
presently most of its wealth -- which is produced by the majority -- and  
power gets distributed to a small, elite minority at the top of the social  
pyramid, causing deprivation and suffering for the rest, particularly for  
those at the bottom.  Yet because this elite controls the means of coercion  
through its control of the state (see B.2.4), it is able to suppress the  
majority and ignore its suffering -- a phenomenon that occurs on a smaller 
scale within all hierarchies. Little wonder, then, that people within 
authoritarian and centralised structures come to hate them as a denial of 
their freedom. As Alexander Berkman puts it: 
 
"Any one who tells you that Anarchists don't believe in organisation
is talking nonsense. Organisation is everything, and everything is
organisation. The whole of life is organisation, conscious or unconscious 
. . . But there is organisation and organisation. Capitalist society is 
so badly organised that its various members suffer: just as when you have 
a pain in some part of you, your whole body aches and you are ill. . . , 
not a single member of the organisation or union may with impunity be 
discriminated against, suppressed or ignored. To do so would be the same 
as to ignore an aching tooth: you would be sick all over." [Op. Cit., 
p. 198]
 
Yet this is precisely what happens in capitalist society, with the result 
that it is, indeed, "sick all over."  
 
For these reasons, anarchists reject authoritarian forms of organisation 
and instead support associations based on free agreement. Free agreement  
is important because, in Berkman's words, "[o]nly when each is a free and  
independent unit, co-operating with others from his own choice because of  
mutual interests, can the world work successfully and become powerful."  
[Op. Cit., p. 199] As we discuss in section A.2.14, anarchists stress
that free agreement has to be complemented by direct democracy (or, as it
is usually called by anarchists, self-management) within the association 
itself otherwise "freedom" become little more than picking masters.

Anarchist organisation is based on a massive decentralisation of power 
back into the hands of the people, i.e. those who are directly affected 
by the decisions being made. To quote Proudhon:

"Unless democracy is a fraud and the sovereignty of the People a
joke, it must be admitted that each citizen in the sphere of his
[or her] industry, each municipal, district or provincial council
within its own territory . . . should act directly and by itself 
in administering the interests which it includes, and should 
exercise full sovereignty in relation to them." [_The General
Idea of the Revolution_, p. 276]

It also implies a need for federalism to co-ordinate joint interests. 
For anarchism, federalism is the natural complement to self-management. 
With the abolition of the State, society "can, and must, organise
itself in a different fashion, but not from top to bottom . . . The
future social organisation must be made solely from the bottom upwards,
by the free association or federation of workers, firstly in their
unions, then in the communes, regions, nations and finally in a 
great federation, international and universal. Then alone will be
realised the true and life-giving order of freedom and the common
good, that order which, far from denying, on the contrary affirms
and brings into harmony the interests of individuals and of society."
[Bakunin, _Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings_, pp. 205-6] Because 
a "truly popular organisation begins . . . from below" and so "federalism 
becomes a political institution of Socialism, the free and spontaneous 
organisation of popular life." Thus libertarian socialism "is 
federalistic in character." [Bakunin, _The Political Philosophy
of Bakunin_, pp. 273-4 and p. 272]

Therefore, anarchist organisation is based on direct democracy (or
self-management) and federalism (or confederation). These are the 
expression and environment of liberty. Direct (or participatory) 
democracy is essential because liberty and equality imply the need 
for forums within which people can discuss and debate as equals and 
which allow for the free exercise of what Murray Bookchin calls 
"the creative role of dissent." Federalism is necessary to ensure
that common interests are discussed and joint activity organised in
a way which reflects the wishes of all those affected by them. To
ensure that decisions flow from the bottom up rather than being 
imposed from the top down by a few rulers.

Anarchist ideas on libertarian organisation and the need for direct 
democracy and confederation will be discussed further in sections 
A.2.9 and A.2.11. 
 
A.2.4 Are anarchists in favour of "absolute" liberty? 
 
No. Anarchists do not believe that everyone should be able to "do 
whatever they like," because some actions invariably involve the 
denial of the liberty of others.  
 
For example, anarchists do not support the "freedom" to rape, 
to exploit, or to coerce others. Neither do we tolerate authority. 
On the contrary, since authority is a threat to liberty, equality, 
and solidarity (not to mention human dignity), anarchists 
recognise the need to resist and overthrow it.  
 
The exercise of authority is not freedom. No one has a "right" to rule 
others. As Malatesta points out, anarchism supports "freedom for 
everybody . . . with the only limit of the equal freedom for others; 
which does *not* mean . . . that we recognise, and wish to respect, the 
'freedom' to exploit, to oppress, to command, which is oppression and 
certainly not freedom." [_Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas_, p. 53]
 
In a capitalist society, resistance to all forms of hierarchical 
authority is the mark of a free person -- be it private (the boss) 
or public (the state). As Henry David Thoreau pointed out in his 
essay on "Civil Disobedience" (1847) 
 
"Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must 
be slaves." 
 
A.2.5 Why are anarchists in favour of equality? 
 
As mentioned in A.2, anarchists are dedicated to social equality 
because it is the only context in which individual liberty can 
flourish.  However, there has been much nonsense written about 
"equality," and much of what is commonly believed about it is 
very strange indeed. Before discussing what anarchist *do* mean 
by equality, we have to indicate what we *do not* mean by it. 
 
Anarchists do *not* believe in "equality of endowment," which is 
not only  non-existent but would be *very* undesirable if it could 
be brought about. Everyone is unique. Biologically determined human 
differences not only exist but are "a cause for joy, not fear or 
regret." Why? Because "life among clones would not be worth living, 
and a sane person will only rejoice that others have abilities that 
they do not share." [Noam Chomsky, _Marxism, Anarchism, and 
Alternative Futures_, p. 782]
 
That some people *seriously* suggest that anarchists mean by "equality" 
is at everyone should be *identical* is a sad reflection on the state 
of present-day intellectual culture and the corruption of words -- a 
corruption used to divert attention from an unjust and authoritarian 
system and side-track people into discussions of biology. "The
uniqueness of the self in no way contradicts the principle of
equality," noted Erich Fromm, "The thesis that men are born equal
implies that they all share the same fundamental human qualities,
that they share the same basic fate of human beings, that they all
have the same inalienable claim on freedom and happiness. It
furthermore means that their relationship is one of solidarity,
not one of domination-submission. What the concept of equality 
does not mean is that all men are alike." [_The Fear of Freedom_,
p. 228] Thus it would be fairer to say that anarchists seek equality
*because* we recognise that everyone is different and, consequently,
seek the full affirmation and development of that uniqueness.

Nor are anarchists in favour of so-called "equality of outcome." We 
have *no* desire to live in a society were everyone gets the same 
goods, lives in the same kind of house, wears the same uniform, etc. 
Part of the reason for the anarchist revolt against capitalism and 
statism is that they standardise so much of life (see George 
Reitzer's _The McDonaldization of Society_ on why capitalism is 
driven towards standardisation and conformity, for example). In the
words of Alexander Berkman:

"The spirit of authority, law, written and unwritten, tradition 
and custom force us into a common grove and make a man [or woman]
a will-less automation without independence or individuality . . . 
All of us are its victims, and only the exceptionally strong succeed
in breaking its chains, and that only partly." [_What is Anarchism?_, 
p. 165]

Anarchists, therefore, have little to desire to make this "common
grove" even deeper. Rather, we desire to destroy it and every social
relationship and institution that creates it in the first place.
 
"Equality of outcome" can only be introduced and maintained by force, 
which would *not* be equality anyway, as some would have more power 
than others! "Equality of outcome" is particularly hated by anarchists, 
as we recognise that every individual has different needs, abilities, 
desires and interests. To make all consume the same would be tyranny. 
Obviously, if one person needs medical treatment and another does not, 
they do not receive an "equal" amount of medical care. The same is 
true of other human needs. As Alexander Berkman put it: 

""equality does not mean an equal amount but equal *opportunity* . . . 
Do not make the mistake of identifying equality in liberty with the 
forced equality of the convict camp. True anarchist equality implies 
freedom, not quantity. It does not mean that every one must eat, 
drink, or wear the same things, do the same work, or live in the 
same manner. Far from it: the very reverse in fact." 

"Individual needs and tastes differ, as appetites differ. It is *equal opportunity to satisfy* them that constitutes true equality. 

"Far from levelling, such equality opens the door for the greatest
possible variety of activity and development. For human character 
is diverse . . . Free opportunity of expressing and acting out 
your individuality means development of natural dissimilarities
and variations." [Op. Cit., pp. 164-5]
 
For anarchists, the "concepts" of "equality" as "equality of outcome" 
or "equality of endowment" are meaningless. However, in a hierarchical
society, "equality of opportunity" and "equality of outcome" *are* 
related. Under capitalism, for example, the opportunities each 
generation face are dependent on the outcomes of the previous ones. 
This means that under capitalism "equality of opportunity" without 
a rough "equality of outcome" (in the sense of income and resources)
becomes meaningless, as there is no real equality of opportunity for 
the off-spring of a millionaire and that of a road sweeper. Those 
who argue for "equality of opportunity" while ignoring the barriers 
created by previous outcomes indicate that they do not know what 
they are talking about -- opportunity in a hierarchical society 
depends not only on an open road but also upon an equal start. 
From this obvious fact springs the misconception that anarchists 
desire "equality of outcome" -- but this applies to a hierarchical 
system, in a free society this would not the case (as we will see). 

Equality, in anarchist theory, does not mean denying individual 
diversity or uniqueness. As Bakunin observes: 
 
"once equality has triumphed and is well established, will various 
individuals' abilities and their levels of energy cease to differ? 
Some will exist, perhaps not so many as now, but certainly some will
always exist. It is proverbial that the same tree never bears two 
identical leaves, and this will probably be always be true. And
it is even more truer with regard to human beings, who are much 
more complex than leaves. But this diversity is hardly an evil. On
the contrary. . . it is a resource of the human race. Thanks to this
diversity, humanity is a collective whole in which the one individual  
complements all the others and needs them. As a result, this infinite  
diversity of human individuals is the fundamental cause and the
very  basis of their solidarity. It is all-powerful argument for 
equality." ["All-Round Education", _The Basic Bakunin_, pp. 117-8] 
 
Equality for anarchists means *social* equality, or, to use Murray 
Bookchin's term, the "equality of unequals" (some like Malatesta
used the term "equality of conditions" to express the same idea). By 
this he means that an anarchist society recognises the differences in 
ability and need of individuals but does not allow these differences to 
be turned into power. Individual differences, in other words, "would 
be of  no consequence, because inequality in fact is lost in the 
collectivity when it cannot cling to some legal fiction or institution." 
[Michael Bakunin, _God and the State_, p. 53] 

If hierarchical social relationships, and the forces that create them, 
are abolished in favour of ones that encourage participation and 
are based on the principle of "one person, one vote" then natural 
differences would not be able to be turned into hierarchical power. 
For example, without capitalist property rights there would not be 
means by which a minority could monopolise the means of life 
(machinery and land) and enrich themselves by the work of 
others via the wages system and usury (profits, rent and interest). 
Similarly, if workers manage their own work, there is no class of 
capitalists to grow rich off their labour. Thus Proudhon:

"Now, what can be the origin of this inequality?

"As we see it, . . . that origin is the realisation within society of
this triple abstraction: capital, labour and talent.

"It is because society has divided itself into three categories of
citizen corresponding to the three terms of the formula. . . that
caste distinctions have always been arrived at, and one half of
the human race enslaved to the other. . . socialism thus consists
of reducing the aristocratic formula of capital-labour-talent into
the simpler formula of labour!. . . in order to make every
citizen simultaneously, equally and to the same extent capitalist,
labourer and expert or artist." [_No Gods, No Masters_, vol. 1,
pp. 57-8]

Like all anarchists, Proudhon saw this integration of functions
as the key to equality and freedom and proposed self-management
as the means to achieve it. Thus self-management is the key to 
social equality. Social equality in the workplace, for example, 
means that everyone has an equal say in the policy decisions on 
how the workplace develops and changes. Anarchists are strong 
believers in the maxim "that which touches all, is decided by all." 
 
This does not mean, of course, that expertise will be ignored or that 
everyone will decide everything. As far as expertise goes, different 
people have different interests, talents, and abilities, so obviously they 
will want to study different things and do different kinds of work. It is 
also obvious that when people are ill they consult a doctor -- an expert 
-- who manages his or her own work rather than being directed by a 
committee. We are sorry to have to bring these points up, but once the 
topics of social equality and workers' self-management come up, some 
people start to talk nonsense. It is common sense that a hospital managed 
in a socially equal way will *not* involve non-medical staff voting on how 
doctors should perform an operation! 
 
In fact, social equality and individual liberty are inseparable. Without 
the collective self-management of decisions that affect a group (equality) 
to complement the individual self-management of decisions that affect 
the individual (liberty), a free society is impossible. For without both, 
some will have power over others, making decisions *for* them (i.e. 
governing them), and thus some will be more free than others. Which
implies, just to state the obvious, anarchists seek equality in *all*
aspects of life, not just in terms of wealth. Anarchists "demand for 
every person not just his [or her] entire measure of the wealth of 
society but also his [or her] portion of social power." [Malatesta and 
Hamon, _No Gods, No Masters_, vol. 2, p. 20] Thus self-management is 
needed to ensure both liberty *and* equality.

Social equality is required for individuals to both govern and express 
themselves, for the self-management it implies means "people working 
in face-to-face relations with their fellows in order to bring the 
uniqueness of their own perspective to the business of solving 
common problems and achieving common goals." [George Benello, 
_From the Ground Up_, p. 160] Thus equality allows the expression 
of individuality and so is a necessary base for individual liberty.
 
Section F.3 ("Why do 'anarcho'-capitalists generally place little or no 
value on equality?") discusses anarchist ideas on equality further. Noam 
Chomsky's essay "Equality" (contained in _The Chomsky Reader_) is a good 
summary of libertarian ideas on the subject.
 
A.2.6 Why is solidarity important to anarchists? 
 
Solidarity, or mutual aid, is a key idea of anarchism. It is the link 
between the individual and society, the means by which individuals can 
work together to meet their common interests in an environment that 
supports and nurtures both liberty and equality. For anarchists, mutual 
aid is a fundamental feature of human life, a source of both strength and 
happiness and a fundamental requirement for a fully human existence. 
 
Erich Fromm, noted psychologist and socialist humanist, points out that the 
"human desire to experience union with others is rooted in the specific 
conditions of existence that characterise the human species and is one 
of  the strongest motivations of human behaviour." [_To Be or To Have_, 
p. 107] Therefore anarchists consider the desire to form "unions" (to use 
Max Stirner's term) with other people to be a natural need. These unions, 
or associations, must be based on equality and individuality in order to 
be fully satisfying to those who join them -- i.e. they must be organised 
in an anarchist manner, i.e. voluntary, decentralised, and 
non-hierarchical. 
 
Solidarity -- co-operation between individuals -- is necessary for 
life and is far from a denial of liberty. Solidarity, observed 
Errico Malatesta, "is the only environment in which Man can express
his personality and achieve his optimum development and enjoy the
greatest possible wellbeing." This "coming together of individuals
for the wellbeing of all, and of all for the wellbeing of each," 
results in "the freedom of each not being limited by, but 
complemented -- indeed finding the necessary *raison d'etre* in 
-- the freedom of others." [_Anarchy_, p. 29] In other words,
solidarity and co-operation means treating each other as equals,
refusing to treat others as means to an end and creating relationships
which support freedom for all rather than a few dominating the many.
Emma Goldman reiterated this theme, noting "what wonderful results 
this unique force of man's individuality has achieved when strengthened 
by co-operation with other individualities . . . co-operation -- as 
opposed to internecine strife and struggle -- has worked for the 
survival and evolution of the species. . . . only mutual aid and 
voluntary co-operation . . . can create the basis for a free 
individual and associational life." [_Red Emma Speaks_, p. 118]
 
Solidarity means associating together as equals in order to satisfy our 
common interests and needs. Forms of association not based on solidarity 
(i.e. those based on inequality) will crush the individuality of those 
subjected to them. As Ret Marut points out, liberty needs solidarity, the 
recognition of common interests:  
 
"The most noble, pure and true love of mankind is the love of oneself. *I* 
want to be free! *I* hope to be happy! *I* want to appreciate all the 
beauties of the world. But my freedom is secured *only* when all other 
people around me are free. I can only be happy when all other people 
around me are happy. I can only be joyful when all the people I see and 
meet look at the world with joy-filled eyes. And *only* then can I eat my 
fill with pure enjoyment when I have the secure knowledge that other 
people, too, can eat their fill as I do. And for that reason it is a 
question of *my own contentment,* only of *my own self,* when I rebel 
against every danger which threatens my freedom and my happiness. . ." 
[Ret Marut (a.k.a. B. Traven), _The BrickBurner_ magazine quoted by 
Karl S. Guthke, _B. Traven: The life behind the legends_, pp. 133-4] 
 
To practice solidarity means that we recognise, as in the slogan of 
Industrial Workers of the World, that "an injury to one is an injury to 
all." Solidarity, therefore, is the means to protect individuality and  
liberty and so is an expression of self-interest. As Alfie Kohn points out:  
 
"when we think about co-operation. . . we tend to associate the concept  
with fuzzy-minded idealism. . . This may result from confusing co-operation  
with altruism. . . Structural co-operation defies the usual egoism/altruism  
dichotomy. It sets things up so that by helping you I am helping myself at  
the same time. Even if my motive initially may have been selfish, our fates  
now are linked. We sink or swim together. Co-operation is a shrewd and highly  
successful strategy - a pragmatic choice that gets things done at work and  
at school even more effectively than competition does. . . There is also  
good evidence that co-operation is more conductive to psychological health  
and to liking one another." [_No Contest: The Case Against Competition_,  
p. 7] 
 
And, within a hierarchical society, solidarity is important not only 
because of the satisfaction it gives us, but also because it is necessary 
to resist those in power. Malatesta's words are relevant here:

"the oppressed masses who have never completely resigned themselves
to oppress and poverty, and who . . . 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." [_Anarchy_, p. 33]

By standing together, we can increase our strength and get what we 
want. Eventually, by organising into groups, we can start to manage 
our own collective affairs together and so replace the boss once and 
for all. "*Unions* will. . . multiply the individual's means and secure 
his assailed property." [Max Stirner, _The Ego and Its Own_, p. 258] 
By acting in solidarity, we can also replace the current system with 
one more to our liking: "in union there is strength." [Alexander
Berkman, _What is Anarchism?_, p. 74]
 
Solidarity is thus the means by which we can obtain and ensure our own 
freedom. We agree to work together so that we will not have to work for 
*another.* By agreeing to share with each other we increase our options so 
that we may enjoy *more,* not less. Mutual aid is in my self-interest --  
that is, I see that it is to my advantage to reach agreements with others  
based on mutual respect and social equality; for if I dominate someone,  
this means that the conditions exist which allow domination, and so in  
all probability I too will be dominated in turn. 
 
As Max Stirner saw, solidarity is the means by which we ensure that our 
liberty is strengthened and defended from those in power who want to rule 
us: "Do you yourself count for nothing then?", he asks. "Are you bound to 
let anyone do anything he wants to you? Defend yourself and no one will 
touch you. If millions of people are behind you, supporting you, then you 
are a formidable force and you will win without difficulty." [quoted in 
in Luigi Galleani's _The End of Anarchism?_, p. 79 -- different translation  
in _The Ego and Its Own_, p. 197] 
 
Solidarity, therefore, is important to anarchists because it is the means 
by which liberty can be created and defended against power. Solidarity is 
strength and a product of our nature as social beings. However, solidarity  
should not be confused with "herdism," which implies passively following a 
leader. In order to be effective, solidarity must be created by free people,  
co-operating together as *equals.* The "big WE" is *not* solidarity, although  
the desire for "herdism" is a product of our need for solidarity and union.  
It is a "solidarity" corrupted by hierarchical society, in which people are  
conditioned to blindly obey leaders.  
 
A.2.7 Why do anarchists argue for self-liberation? 
 
Liberty, by its very nature, cannot be given. An individual cannot 
be freed by another, but must break his or her own chains through 
their own effort. Of course, self-effort can also be part of collective 
action, and in many cases it has to be in order to attain its ends. As 
Emma Goldman points out: 
 
"History tells us that every oppressed class [or group or individual]  
gained true liberation from its masters by its own efforts."  
[_Red Emma Speaks_, p. 167]
 
Anarchists have long argued that people can only free themselves 
by their own actions. The various methods anarchists suggest to aid this 
process will be discussed in section J ("What Do Anarchists Do?") and  
will not be discussed here. However, these methods all involve people 
organising themselves, setting their own agendas, and acting in ways that 
empower them and eliminate their dependence on leaders to do things for 
them. Anarchism is based on people "acting for themselves" (performing  
what anarchists call "direct action" -- see section J.2 for details). 
 
Direct action has an empowering and liberating effect on those involved 
in it. Self-activity is the means by which the creativity, initiative, 
imagination and critical thought of those subjected to authority can be 
developed. It is the means by which society can be changed. As Errico 
Malatesta pointed out:

"Between man and his social environment there is a reciprocal action. 
Men make society what it is and society makes men what they are, and 
the result is therefore a kind of vicious circle. To transform society 
men [and women] must be changed, and to transform men, society must be 
changed . . . Fortunately existing society has not been created by 
the inspired will of a dominating class, which has succeeded in 
reducing all its subjects to passive and unconscious instruments of 
its interests. It is the result of a thousand internecine struggles, 
of a thousand human and natural factors . . .

"From this the possibility of progress . . . We must take advantage
of all the means, all the possibilities and the opportunities that
the present environment allows us to act on our fellow men [and 
women] and to develop their consciences and their demands . . . 
to claim and to impose those major social transformations which
are possible and which effectively serve to open the way to 
further advances later . . . We must seek to get all the people
. . . to make demands, and impose itself and take for itself all
the improvements and freedoms it desires as and when it reaches
the state of wanting them, and the power to demand them . . . 
we must push the people to want always more and to increase its 
pressures [on the ruling elite], until it has achieved complete 
emancipation." [_Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas_, pp. 188-9] 
 
Society, while shaping all individuals, is also created by them, through 
their actions, thoughts, and ideals. Challenging institutions that 
limit one's freedom is mentally liberating, as it sets in motion the 
process of questioning authoritarian relationships in general. This 
process gives us insight into how society works, changing our ideas and 
creating new ideals. To quote Emma Goldman again: "True emancipation 
begins. . . in woman's soul." And in a man's too, we might add. It is 
only here that we can "begin [our] inner regeneration, [cutting] loose 
from the weight of prejudices, traditions and customs." [Op. Cit., p.
167] But this process must be self-directed, for as Max Stirner notes, 
"the man who is set free is nothing but a freed man. . . a dog dragging 
a piece of chain with him." [_The Ego and Its Own_, p. 168] By changing
the world, even in a small way, we change ourselves.
 
In an interview during the Spanish Revolution, the Spanish anarchist 
militant Durutti said, "we have a new world in our hearts." Only 
self-activity and self-liberation allows us to create such a vision 
and gives us the confidence to try to actualise it in the real world. 
 
Anarchists, however, do not think that self-liberation must wait  
for the future, after the "glorious revolution." The personal is 
political, and given the nature of society, how we act in the here 
and now will influence the future of our society and our lives. 
Therefore, even in pre-anarchist society anarchists try to create, 
as Bakunin puts it, "not only the ideas but also the facts of the 
future itself." We can do so by creating alternative social 
relationships and organisations, acting as free people in a 
non-free society. Only by our actions in the here and now can 
we lay the foundation for a free society. Moreover, this process 
of self-liberation goes on all the time:

"Subordinates of all kinds exercise their capacity for critical 
self-reflection every day -- that is why masters are thwarted,
frustrated and, sometimes, overthrown. But unless masters are
overthrown, unless subordinates engage in political activity,
no amount of critical reflection will end their subjection and
bring them freedom." [Carole Pateman, _The Sexual Contract_, 
p. 205]

Anarchists aim to encourage these tendencies in everyday life 
to reject, resist and thwart authority and bring them to their
logical conclusion -- a society of free individuals, co-operating
as equals in free, self-managed associations. Without this process
of critical self-reflection, resistance and self-liberation a
free society is impossible. Thus, for anarchists, anarchism comes
from the natural resistance of subordinated people striving to
act as free individuals within a hierarchical world. This process
of resistance is called by many anarchists the "class struggle" 
(as it is working class people who are generally the most 
subordinated group within society) or, more generally, "social 
struggle." It is this everyday resistance to authority (in all 
its forms) and the desire for freedom which is the key to 
the anarchist revolution. It is for this reason that "anarchists 
emphasise over and over that the class struggle provides the 
only means for the workers [and other oppressed groups] to 
achieve control over their destiny." [Marie-Louise Berneri, 
_Neither East Nor West_, p. 32]

Revolution is a process, not an event, and every "spontaneous 
revolutionary action" usually results from and is based upon 
the patient work of many years of organisation and education by 
people with "utopian" ideas. The process of "creating the new 
world in the shell of the old" (to use another I.W.W. expression), 
by building alternative institutions and relationships, is but one 
component of what must be a long tradition of revolutionary 
commitment and militancy. 
 
As Malatesta made clear, "to encourage popular organisations of 
all kinds is the logical consequence of our basic ideas, and 
should therefore be an integral part of our programme. . . 
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." 
[Op. Cit., p. 90] 

Unless a process of self-emancipation occurs, a free society is 
impossible. Only when individuals free themselves, both materially 
(by abolishing the state and capitalism) and intellectually (by 
freeing themselves of submissive attitudes towards authority), 
can a free society be possible. We should not forget that capitalist 
and state power, to a great extent, is power over the minds of those 
subject to them (backed up, of course, with sizeable force if the
mental domination fails and people start rebelling and resisting). In 
effect, a spiritual power as the ideas of the ruling class dominate 
society and permeate the minds of the oppressed. As long as this 
holds, the working class will acquiesce to authority, oppression 
and exploitation as the normal condition of life. Minds submissive 
to the doctrines and positions of their masters cannot hope to win 
freedom, to revolt and fight. Thus the oppressed must overcome the 
mental domination of the existing system before they can throw 
off its yoke (and, anarchists argue, direct action is the means 
of doing both -- see sections J.2 and J.4). Capitalism and statism 
must be beaten spiritually and theoretically before it is beaten 
materially (many anarchists call this mental liberation "class
consciousness" -- see section B.7.3). And self-liberation through 
struggle against oppression is the only way this can be done. Thus
anarchists encourage (to use Kropotkin's term) "the spirit of
revolt." 

Self-liberation is a product of struggle, of self-organisation,
solidarity and direct action. Direct action is the means of creating 
anarchists, free people, and so "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." This is because "[s]uch a struggle . . . better than 
any indirect means, permits the worker to obtain some temporary 
improvements in the present conditions of work, 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 [or her] thoughts concerning the 
possibility of organising consumption, production and exchange without 
the intervention of the capitalist and the state," that is, see the
possibility of a free society. Kropotkin, like many anarchists,
pointed to the Syndicalist and Trade Union movements as a means of
developing libertarian ideas within existing society (although he,
like most anarchists, did not limit anarchist activity exclusively
to them). Indeed, any movement which "permit[s] the working men
[and women] to realise their solidarity and to feel the community
of their interests . . . prepare[s] the way for these conceptions" of
communist-anarchism, i.e. the overcoming the spiritual domination of
existing society within the minds of the oppressed. [_Evolution and 
Environment_, p. 83 and p. 85]

For anarchists, in the words of a Scottish Anarchist militant, the 
"history of human progress [is] seen as the history of rebellion and 
disobedience, with the individual debased by subservience to authority 
in its many forms and able to retain his/her dignity only through 
rebellion and disobedience." [Robert Lynn, _Not a Life Story, Just a 
Leaf from It_, p. 77] This is why anarchists stress self-liberation 
(and self-organisation, self-management and self-activity). Little
wonder Bakunin considered "rebellion" as one of the "three fundamental
principles [which] constitute the essential conditions of all
human development, collective or individual, in history." [_God
and the State_, p. 12] This is simply because individuals and 
groups cannot be freed by others, only by themselves. Such 
rebellion (self-liberation) is the *only* means by which existing 
society becomes more libertarian and an anarchist society a possibility. 

A.2.8 Is it possible to be an anarchist without opposing hierarchy? 
 
No. We have seen that anarchists abhor authoritarianism. But if one is  
an anti-authoritarian, one must oppose all hierarchical institutions,  
since they embody the principle of authority. For, as Emma Goldman
argued, "it is not only government in the sense of the state which
is destructive of every individual value and quality. It is the
whole complex authority and institutional domination which strangles 
life. It is the superstition, myth, pretence, evasions, and 
subservience which support authority and institutional domination." 
[_Red Emma Speaks_, p. 435] This means that "there is and will always 
be a need to discover and overcome structures of hierarchy, authority 
and domination and constraints on freedom: slavery, wage-slavery 
[i.e. capitalism], racism, sexism, authoritarian schools, etc." 
[Noam Chomsky, _Language and Politics_, p. 364]

Thus the consistent anarchist must oppose hierarchical relationships
as well as the state. Whether economic, social or political, to be
an anarchist means to oppose hierarchy. The argument for this (if 
anybody needs one) is as follows: 
 
A hierarchy is a pyramidally-structured organisation composed of a series 
of grades, ranks, or offices of increasing power, prestige, and (usually) 
remuneration. Scholars who have investigated the hierarchical form have 
found that the two primary principles it embodies are domination and 
exploitation. For example, in his classic article "What Do Bosses Do?" 
(_Review of Radical Political Economics_, Vol. 6, No. 2), a study of 
the modern factory, Steven Marglin found that the main function of the 
corporate hierarchy is not greater productive efficiency (as capitalists 
claim), but greater control over workers, the purpose of such control 
being more effective exploitation. 
 
Control in a hierarchy is maintained by coercion, that is, by the 
threat of negative sanctions of one kind or another: physical, economic, 
psychological, social, etc. Such control, including the repression of  
dissent and rebellion, therefore necessitates centralisation: a set  
of power relations in which the greatest control is exercised by the  
few at the top (particularly the head of the organisation), while those  
in the middle ranks have much less control and the many at the bottom  
have virtually none. 
 
Since domination, coercion, and centralisation are essential 
features of authoritarianism, and as those features are embodied in 
hierarchies, all hierarchical institutions are authoritarian. Moreover,  
for anarchists, any organisation marked by hierarchy, centralism and 
authoritarianism is state-like, or "statist." And as anarchists oppose 
both the state and authoritarian relations, anyone who does not seek to 
dismantle *all* forms of hierarchy cannot be called an anarchist. This
applies to capitalist firms. As Noam Chomsky points out, the structure
of the capitalist firm is extremely hierarchical, indeed fascist, in 
nature:

"a fascist system. . . It's absolutist. Power goes from top down 
. . . the ideal state is top down control with the public essentially
following orders.

"Let's take a look at a corporation. . . [I]f you look at what 
they are, power goes strictly top down, from the board of 
directors to managers to lower managers to ultimately the people 
on the shop floor, typing messages, and so on. There's no flow 
of power or planning from the bottom up. People can disrupt and 
make suggestions, but the same is true of a slave society. The 
structure of power is linear, from the top down." [_Keeping the 
Rabble in Line_, p. 237]

David Deleon indicates these similarities between the company
and the state well when he writes:

"Most factories are like military dictatorships. Those at the
bottom are privates, the supervisors are sergeants, and on up
through the hierarchy. The organisation can dictate everything
from our clothing and hair style to how we spend a large portion
of our lives, during work. It can compel overtime; it can require
us to see a company doctor if we have a medical complaint; it
can forbid us free time to engage in political activity; it
can suppress freedom of speech, press and assembly -- it can use
ID cards and armed security police, along with closed-circuit
TVs to watch us; it can punish dissenters with 'disciplinary
layoffs' (as GM calls them), or it can fire us. We are forced,
by circumstances, to accept much of this, or join the millions
of unemployed. . . In almost every job, we have only the 'right'
to quit. Major decisions are made at the top and we are expected
to obey, whether we work in an ivory tower or a mine shaft."
["For Democracy Where We Work: A rationale for social 
self-management", _Reinventing Anarchy, Again_, Howard J. 
Ehrlich (ed.), pp. 193-4]

Thus the consistent anarchist must oppose hierarchy in all its
forms, including the capitalist firm. Not to do so is to support
*archy* -- which an anarchist, by definition, cannot do. In other
words, for anarchists, "[p]romises to obey, contracts of (wage) 
slavery, agreements requiring the acceptance of a subordinate 
status, are all illegitimate because they do restrict and 
restrain individual autonomy." [Robert Graham, "The Anarchist 
Contract", _Reinventing Anarchy, Again_, Howard J. Ehrlich (ed.),
p. 77] Hierarchy, therefore, is against the basic principles which
drive anarchism. It denies what makes us human and "divest[s] the
personality of its most integral traits; it denies the very notion
that the individual is *competent* to deal not only with the
management of his or her personal life but with its most 
important context: the *social* context." [Murray Bookchin,
_The Ecology of Freedom_, p. 129]

Some argue that as long as an association is voluntary, whether it 
has an hierarchical structure is irrelevant. Anarchists disagree. 
This is for two reasons. Firstly, under capitalism workers are
driven by economic necessity to sell their labour (and so liberty)
to those who own the means of life. This process re-enforces the
economic conditions workers face by creating "massive disparities
in wealth . . . [as] workers. . . sell their labour to the 
capitalist at a price which does not reflect its real value." 
Therefore:

"To portray the parties to an employment contract, for example, 
as free and equal to each other is to ignore the serious 
inequality of bargaining power which exists between the worker 
and the employer. To then go on to portray the relationship 
of subordination and exploitation which naturally results as the 
epitome of freedom is to make a mockery of both individual liberty 
and social justice." [Robert Graham, Op. Cit., p. 70] 

It is for this reason that anarchists support collective action
and organisation: it increases the bargaining power of working
people and allows them to assert their autonomy (see section J).

Secondly, if we take the key element as being whether an association 
is voluntary or not we would have to argue that the current state
system must be considered as "anarchy." In a modern democracy no 
one forces an individual to live in a specific state. We are free 
to leave and go somewhere else. By ignoring the hierarchical nature 
of an association, you can end up supporting organisations based 
upon the denial of freedom (including capitalist companies, the 
armed forces, states even) all because they are "voluntary." As 
Bob Black argues, "[t]o demonise state authoritarianism while ignoring 
identical albeit contract-consecrated subservient arrangements 
in the large-scale corporations which control the world economy 
is fetishism at its worst." ["The Libertarian as Conservative,"
_The Abolition of Work and other essays_, p. 142] Anarchy is more 
than being free to pick a master. 
 
Therefore opposition to hierarchy is a key anarchist position, 
otherwise you just become a "voluntary archist" - which is hardly 
anarchistic. For more on this see section A.2.14 (Why is voluntarism 
not enough?). 
 
Anarchists argue that organisations do not need to be hierarchical, they  
can be based upon co-operation between equals who manage their own 
affairs directly. In this way we can do without hierarchical structures  
(i.e. the delegation of power in the hands of a few). Only when an  
association is self-managed by its members can it be considered truly 
anarchistic. 
 
We are sorry to belabour this point, but some capitalist apologists, 
apparently wanting to appropriate the "anarchist" name because of its 
association with freedom, have recently claimed that one can be both a 
capitalist and an anarchist at the same time (as in so-called "anarcho" 
capitalism). It should now be clear that since capitalism is based on 
hierarchy (not to mention statism and exploitation), "anarcho"-capitalism  
is a contradiction in terms. (For more on this, see section F) 
 
A.2.9 What sort of society do anarchists want? 
 
Anarchists desire a decentralised society, based on free association. We 
consider this form of society the best one for maximising the values we 
have outlined above -- liberty, equality and solidarity. Only by a 
rational decentralisation of power, both structurally and territorially, 
can individual liberty be fostered and encouraged. The delegation of power 
into the hands of a minority is an obvious denial of individual liberty 
and dignity. Rather than taking the management of their own affairs away 
from people and putting it in the hands of others, anarchists favour 
organisations which minimise authority, keeping power at the base, in 
the hands of those who are affected by any decisions reached. 
 
Free association is the cornerstone of an anarchist society. Individuals 
must be free to join together as they see fit, for this is the basis of 
freedom and human dignity. However, any such free agreement must be based 
on decentralisation of power; otherwise it will be a sham (as in capitalism),  
as only equality provides the necessary social context for freedom to 
grow and development. Therefore anarchists support directly democratic 
collectives, based on "one person one vote" (for the rationale of direct 
democracy as the political counterpart of free agreement, see section 
A.2.11, "Why are most anarchists in favour of direct democracy?").  
 
We should point out here that an anarchist society does not imply some 
sort of idyllic state of harmony within which everyone agrees. Far from 
it! As Luigi Galleani points out, "[d]isagreements and friction will  
always exist. In fact they are an essential condition of unlimited progress. 
But once the bloody area of sheer animal competition - the struggle for 
food - has been eliminated, problems of disagreement could be solved 
without the slightest threat to the social order and individual liberty."  
[_The End of Anarchism?_, p. 28] Anarchism aims to "rouse the spirit of 
initiative in individuals and in groups." These will "create in their
mutual relations a movement and a life based on the principles of free
understanding" and recognise that "*variety, conflict even, is life
and that uniformity is death.*" [Peter Kropotkin, _Anarchism_, p. 143]
 
Therefore, an anarchist society will be based upon co-operative 
conflict as "[c]onflict, per se, is not harmful. . . disagreements 
exist [and should not be hidden] . . . What makes disagreement 
destructive is not the fact of conflict itself but the addition of 
competition." Indeed, "a rigid demand for agreement means that 
people will effectively be prevented from contributing their 
wisdom to a group effort." [Alfie Kohn, _No Contest: The Case 
Against Competition_, p. 156] It is for this reason that most 
anarchists reject consensus decision making in large groups 
(see section A.2.12). 
 
So, in an anarchist society associations would be run by mass 
assemblies of all involved, based upon extensive discussion, 
debate and co-operative conflict between equals, with purely 
administrative tasks being handled by elected committees. These 
committees would be made up of mandated, recallable and temporary 
delegates who carry out their tasks under the watchful eyes of 
the assembly which elected them. Thus in an anarchist society, 
"we'll look after our affairs ourselves and decide what to
do about them. And when, to put our ideas into action, there
is a need to put someone in charge of a project, we'll tell
them to do [it] in such and such a way and no other . . . 
nothing would be done without our decision. So our delegates,
instead of people being individuals whom we've given the right
to order us about, would be people . . . [with] no authority,
only the duty to carry out what everyone involved wanted."
[Errico Malatesta, _Fra Contadini_, p. 34] If the delegates act 
against their mandate or try to extend their influence or work 
beyond that already decided by the assembly (i.e. if they start 
to make policy decisions), they can be instantly recalled and 
their decisions abolished. In this way, the organisation remains  
in the hands of the union of individuals who created it. 
 
This self-management by the members of a group at the base and the power 
of recall are essential tenets of any anarchist organisation. The *key* 
difference between a statist or hierarchical system and an anarchist 
community is who wields power. In a parliamentary system, for example, 
people give power to a group of representatives to make decisions for 
them for a fixed period of time. Whether they carry out their promises 
is irrelevant as people cannot recall them till the next election. Power 
lies at the top and those at the base are expected to obey. Similarly, 
in the capitalist workplace, power is held by an unelected minority of 
bosses and managers at the top and the workers are expected to obey. 

In an anarchist society this relationship is reversed. No one individual 
or group (elected or unelected) holds power in an anarchist community
or association. Instead decisions are made using direct democratic 
principles and, when required, the community can elect or appoint 
delegates to carry out these decisions. There is a clear distinction 
between policy making (which lies with everyone who is affected) and 
the co-ordination and administration of any adopted policy (which is 
the job for delegates). 
 
These egalitarian communities, founded by free agreement, also freely 
associate together in confederations. Such a free confederation would 
be run from the bottom up, with decisions following from the elemental 
assemblies upwards. The confederations would be run in the same manner 
as the collectives. There would be regular local regional, "national" 
and international conferences in which all important issues and problems  
affecting the collectives involved would be discussed. In addition,  
the fundamental, guiding principles and ideas of society would 
be debated and policy decisions made, put into practice, reviewed,  
and co-ordinated. The delegates would simply "take their given mandates
to the relative meetings and try to harmonise their various needs
and desires. The deliberations would always be subject to the control
and approval of those who delegated them" and so "there would be
no danger than the interest of the people [would] be forgotten."
[Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 36] 

Action committees would be formed, if required, to co-ordinate and 
administer the decisions of the assemblies and their congresses, under 
strict control from below as discussed above. Delegates to such bodies  
would have a limited tenure and, like the delegates to the congresses,
have a fixed mandate -- they are not able  to make decisions on behalf 
of the people they are delegates for. In addition, like the delegates 
to conferences and congresses, they would be subject to instant recall 
by the assemblies and congresses from which they emerged in the first 
place. In this way any committees required to co-ordinate join activities 
would be, to quote Malatesta's words, "always under the direct control 
of the population" and so express the "decisions taken at popular
assemblies." [_Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas_, p. 175 and 
p. 129]
 
Most importantly, the basic community assemblies can overturn any decisions  
reached by the conferences and withdraw from any confederation. Any  
compromises that are made by a delegate during negotiations have to go  
back to a general assembly for ratification. Without that ratification  
any compromises that are made by a delegate are not binding on the  
community that has delegated a particular task to a particular individual  
or committee. In addition, the assemblies can call confederal conferences  
to discuss new developments and to inform action committees about changing  
wishes and to instruct them on what to do about any developments and ideas. 

In other words, any delegates required within an anarchist organisation 
or society are *not* representatives (as they are in a democratic 
government). Kropotkin makes the difference clear:

"The question of true delegation versus representation can be better
understood if one imagines a hundred or two hundred men [and women],
who meet each day in their work and share common concerns . . . who
have discussed every aspect of the question that concerns them and
have reached a decision. They then choose someone and send him [or
her] to reach an agreement with other delegates of the same kind. . . 
The delegate is not authorised to do more than explain to other
delegates the considerations that have led his [or her] colleagues
to their conclusion. Not being able to impose anything, he [or she]
will seek an understanding and will return with a simple proposition
which his mandatories can accept or refuse. This is what happens
when true delegation comes into being." [_Words of a Rebel_, p. 132] 

Unlike in a representative system, *power* is not delegated into the
hands of the few. Rather, any delegate is simply a mouthpiece for
the association that elected (or otherwise selected) them in the
first place. All delegates and action committees would be mandated
and subject to instant recall to ensure they express the wishes of 
the assemblies they came from rather than their own. In this way 
government is replaced by anarchy, a network of free associations 
and communities co-operating as equals based on a system of mandated 
delegates, instant recall, free agreement and free federation from 
the bottom up. 

Only this system would ensure the "free organisation of the people, 
an organisation from below upwards." This "free federation from
below upward" would start with the basic "association" and their
federation "first into a commune, then a federation of communes 
into regions, of regions into nations, and of nations into an 
international fraternal association." [Michael Bakunin, _The
Political Philosophy of Bakunin_, p. 298] This network of anarchist 
communities would work on three levels. There would be "independent 
Communes for the territorial organisation, and of federations of 
Trade Unions [i.e. workplace associations] for the organisation 
of men [and women] in accordance with their different functions
. . . [and] free combines and societies . . . for the satisfaction 
of all possible and imaginable needs, economic, sanitary, and 
educational; for mutual protection, for the propaganda of ideas,
for arts, for amusement, and so on." [Peter Kropotkin, _Evolution 
and Environment_, p. 79] All would be based on self-management, free
association, free federation and self-organisation from the bottom up.

By organising in this manner, hierarchy is abolished in all aspects of
live, because the people at the base of the organisation are in control, 
*not* their delegates. Only this form of organisation can replace 
government (the initiative and empowerment of the few) with anarchy 
(the initiative and empowerment of all). This form of organisation 
would exist in all activities which required group work and the 
co-ordination of many people. It would be, as Bakunin said, the 
means "to integrate individuals into structures which they could 
understand and control." [quoted by Cornelious Castoriadis,
_Political and Social Writings_, vol. 2, p. 97] For individual 
initiatives, the individual involved would manage them. 
 
As can be seen, anarchists wish to create a society based upon structures  
that ensure that no individual or group is able to wield power over others.  
Free agreement, confederation and the power of recall, fixed mandates and  
limited tenure are mechanisms by which power is removed from the hands of  
governments and placed in the hands of those directly affected by the  
decisions. 

For a fuller discussion on what an anarchist society would look like 
see section I. Anarchy, however, is not some distant goal but rather 
an aspect of current struggles against oppression and exploitation. 
Means and ends are linked, with direct action generating mass 
participatory organisations and preparing people to directly manage 
their own personal and collective interests. This is because anarchists, 
as we discuss in section I.2.3, see the framework of a free society 
being based on the organisations created by the oppressed in their 
struggle against capitalism in the here and now. In this sense,
collective struggle creates the organisations as well as the individual 
attitudes anarchism needs to work. The struggle against oppression is 
the school of anarchy. It teaches us not only how to be anarchists but 
also gives us a glimpse of what an anarchist society would be like, 
what its initial organisational framework could be and the experience 
of managing our own activities which is required for such a society to 
work. As such, anarchists try to create the kind of world we want
in our current struggles and do not think our ideas are only applicable
"after the revolution." Indeed, by applying our principles today we
bring anarchy that much nearer.

A.2.10 What will abolishing hierarchy mean and achieve? 
 
The creation of a new society based upon libertarian organisations 
will have an incalculable effect on everyday life. The empowerment of 
millions of people will transform society in ways we can only guess 
at now.  

However, many consider these forms of organisation as impractical 
and doomed to failure. To those who say that such confederal, 
non-authoritarian organisations would produce confusion and 
disunity, anarchists maintain that the statist, centralised and 
hierarchical form of organisation produces indifference instead 
of involvement, heartlessness instead of solidarity, uniformity 
instead of unity, and privileged elites instead of equality. More 
importantly, such organisations destroy individual initiative and 
crush independent action and critical thinking. (For more on 
hierarchy, see section B.1 -- "Why are anarchists against 
authority and hierarchy?").  
 
That libertarian organisation can work and is based upon (and 
promotes) liberty was demonstrated in the Spanish Anarchist 
movement. Fenner Brockway, Secretary of the British Independent 
Labour Party, when visiting Barcelona during the 1936 revolution, 
noted that "the great solidarity that existed among the Anarchists 
was due to each individual relying on his [sic] own strength and 
not depending upon leadership. . . . The organisations must, to be 
successful, be combined with free-thinking people; not a mass, but 
free individuals" [quoted by Rudolf Rocker, _Anarcho-syndicalism_,  
p. 67f] 
 
As sufficiently indicated already, hierarchical, centralised structures 
restrict freedom. As Proudhon noted: "the centralist system is all very  
well as regards size, simplicity and construction: it lacks but one  
thing -- the individual no longer belongs to himself in such a system, he 
cannot feel his worth, his life, and no account is taken of him at all." 
[quoted in _Paths in Utopia_, Martin Buber, p. 33]
 
The effects of hierarchy can be seen all around us. It does not work.  
Hierarchy and authority exist everywhere, in the workplace, at home, in  
the street. As Bob Black puts it, "[i]f you spend most of your waking life  
taking orders or kissing ass, if you get habituated to hierarchy, you will  
become passive-aggressive, sado-masochistic, servile and stupefied, and  
you will carry that load into every aspect of the balance of your life."  
["The Libertarian as Conservative," _The Abolition of Work and other
essays_, pp. 147-8]
 
This means that the end of hierarchy will mean a *massive* transformation 
in everyday life. It will involve the creation of individual-centred 
organisations within which all can exercise, and so develop, their  
abilities to the fullest. By involving themselves and participating  
in the decisions that affect them, their workplace, their community and 
society, they can ensure the full development of their individual  
capacities. 

With the free participation of all in social life, we would 
quickly see the end of inequality and injustice. Rather than people 
existing to make ends meet and being used to increase the wealth and 
power of the few as under capitalism, the end of hierarchy would see 
(to quote Kropotkin) "the well-being of all" and it is "high time 
for the worker to assert his [or her] right to the common inheritance,
and to enter into possession of it." [_The Conquest of Bread_, p. 35
and p. 44] For only taking possession of the means of life (workplaces, 
housing, the land, etc.) can ensure "liberty and justice, for 
liberty and justice are not decreed but are the result of economic 
independence. They spring from the fact that the individual is
able to live without depending on a master, and to enjoy . . . the 
product of his [or her] toil." [Ricardo Flores Magon, _Land
and Liberty_, p. 62] Therefore liberty requires the abolition of 
capitalist private property rights in favour of "use rights." 
(see section B.3 for more details). Ironically, the "abolition of 
property will free the people from homelessness and nonpossession."
[Max Baginski, "Without Government," _Anarchy! An Anthology of 
Emma Goldman's Mother Earth_, p. 11] Thus anarchism promises "both 
requisites of happiness -- liberty and wealth." In anarchy, "mankind 
will live in freedom and in comfort." [Benjamin Tucker, _Why I am an 
Anarchist_, p. 135 and p. 136] 

Only self-determination and free agreement on every level of society 
can develop the responsibility, initiative, intellect and solidarity 
of individuals and society as a whole. Only anarchist organisation 
allows the vast talent which exists within humanity to be accessed 
and used, enriching society by the very process of enriching and 
developing the individual. Only by involving everyone in the process of 
thinking, planning, co-ordinating and implementing the decisions that 
affect them can freedom blossom and individuality be fully developed and 
protected. Anarchy will release the creativity and talent of the mass of 
people enslaved by hierarchy. 
 
Anarchy will even be of benefit for those who are said to benefit from 
capitalism and its authority relations. Anarchists "maintain that *both* 
rulers and ruled are spoiled by authority; *both* exploiters and exploited 
are spoiled by exploitation." [Peter Kropotkin, _Act for Yourselves_, p. 
83] This is because "[i]n any hierarchical relationship the dominator as 
well as the submissive pays his dues. The price paid for the 'glory of 
command' is indeed heavy. Every tyrant resents his duties. He is relegated 
to drag the dead weight of the dormant creative potential of the 
submissive all along the road of his hierarchical excursion." [For 
Ourselves, _The Right to Be Greedy_, Thesis 95]
 
A.2.11 Why are most anarchists in favour of direct democracy? 
 
For most anarchists, direct democratic voting on policy decisions 
within free associations is the political counterpart of free 
agreement (this is also known as "self-management"). The reason 
is that "many forms of domination can be carried out in a 'free.' 
non-coercive, contractual manner. . . and it is naive. . . to think 
that mere opposition to political control will in itself lead to an 
end of oppression." [John P. Clark, _Max Stirner's Egoism_, p. 93] 
Thus the relationships we create *within* an organisation is as
important in determining its libertarian nature as its voluntary
nature (see section A.2.14 for more discussion).
 
It is obvious that individuals must work together in order to lead a  
fully human life. And so, "[h]aving to join with others humans" the 
individual has three options: "he [or she] must submit to the will of 
others (be enslaved) or subject others to his will (be in authority) or 
live with others in fraternal agreement in the interests of the greatest 
good of all (be an associate). Nobody can escape from this necessity." 
[Malatesta, _Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas_, p. 85] 
 
Anarchists obviously pick the last option, association, as the only means  
by which individuals can work together as free and equal human beings,  
respecting the uniqueness and liberty of one another. Only within direct 
democracy can individuals express themselves, practice critical thought and  
self-government, so developing their intellectual and ethical capacities  
to the full. In terms of increasing an individual's freedom and their  
intellectual, ethical and social faculties, it is far better to be sometimes  
in a minority than be subject to the will of a boss all the time. So what  
is the theory behind anarchist direct democracy? 

As Bertrand Russel noted, the anarchist "does not wish to abolish 
government in the sense of collective decisions: what he does wish 
to abolish is the system by which a decision is enforced upon those 
who oppose it." [_Roads to Freedom_, p. 85] Anarchists see 
self-management as the means to achieve this. Once an individual 
joins a community or workplace, he or she becomes a "citizen" 
(for want of a better word) of that association. The association 
is organised around an assembly of all its members (in the case 
of large workplaces and towns, this may be a functional 
sub-group such as a specific office or neighbourhood). In this 
assembly, in concert with others, the content of his or her political 
obligations are defined. In acting within the association, people 
must exercise critical judgement and choice, i.e. manage their 
own activity. Rather than promising to obey (as in hierarchical 
organisations like the state or capitalist firm), individuals 
participate in making their own collective decisions, their own
commitments to their fellows. This means that political obligation 
is not owed to a separate entity above the group or society, such 
as the state or company, but to one's fellow "citizens." 

Although the assembled people collectively legislate the rules governing 
their association, and are bound by them as individuals, they are also 
superior to them in the sense that these rules can always be modified or 
repealed. Collectively, the associated "citizens" constitute a political 
"authority", but as this "authority" is based on horizontal relationships 
between themselves rather than vertical ones between themselves and an 
elite, the "authority" is non-hierarchical ("rational" or "natural," see 
section B.1 -- "Why are anarchists against authority and hierarchy?" --
for more on this). Thus Proudhon: 
 
"In place of laws, we will put contracts [i.e. free agreement]. -- No  
more laws voted by a majority, nor even unanimously; each citizen,  
each town, each industrial union, makes its own laws." [_The General 
Idea of the Revolution_, pp. 245-6] 

Such a system does not mean, of course, that everyone participates
in every decision needed, no matter how trivial. While any decision 
can be put to the assembly (if the assembly so decides, perhaps 
prompted by some of its members), in practice certain activities 
(and so purely functional decisions) will be handled by the 
association's elected administration. This is because, to quote
a Spanish anarchist activist, "a collectivity as such cannot write
a letter or add up a list of figures or do hundreds of chores which
only an individual can perform." Thus the need "to *organise the
administration.*" Supposing an association is "organised without 
any directive council or any hierarchical offices" which "meets
in general assembly once a week or more often, when it settles
all matters needful for its progress" it still "nominates a
commission with *strictly administrative functions.*" However,
the assembly "prescribes a definite line of conduct for this 
commission or gives it an *imperative mandate*" and so "would
be *perfectly anarchist.*" As it "follows that *delegating* these
tasks to qualified individuals, who are *instructed in advance how
to proceed,* . . . does not mean an abdication of that collectivity's
own liberty." [Jose Llunas Pujols, quoted by Max Nettlau, _A
Short History of Anarchism_, p. 187] This, it should be noted,
follows Proudhon's ideas that within the workers' associations 
"all positions are elective, and the by-laws subject to the 
approval of the members." [Proudhon, Op. Cit., p. 222] 

Instead of capitalist or statist hierarchy, self-management (i.e. 
direct democracy) would be the guiding principle of the freely 
joined associations that make up a free society. This would apply
to the federations of associations an anarchist society would
need to function. "All the commissions or delegations nominated
in an anarchist society," correctly argued Jose Llunas Pujols,
"must be subject to replacement and recall at any time by the
permanent suffrage of the section or sections that elected them."
Combined with the "imperative mandate" and "purely administrative
functions," this "make[s] it thereby impossible for anyone to
arrogate to himself [or herself] a scintilla of authority."
[quoted by Max Nettlau, Op. Cit., pp. 188-9] Again, Pujols follows
Proudhon who demanded twenty years previously the "implementation
of the binding mandate" to ensure the people do not "adjure 
their sovereignty." [_No Gods, No Masters_, vol. 1, p. 63]

By means of a federalism based on mandates and elections, anarchists 
ensure that decisions flow from the bottom-up. By making our own
decisions, by looking after our joint interests ourselves, we exclude 
others ruling over us. Self-management, for anarchists, is essential
to ensure freedom within the organisations so needed for any decent 
human existence. 

Of course it could be argued that if you are in a minority, you are 
governed by others ("Democratic rule is still rule" [L. Susan Brown,  
_The Politics of Individualism_, p. 53]). Now, the concept of direct  
democracy as we have described it is not necessarily tied to the concept  
of majority rule. If someone finds themselves in a minority on a particular  
vote, he or she is confronted with the choice of either consenting or  
refusing to recognise it as binding. To deny the minority the opportunity  
to exercise its judgement and choice is to infringe its autonomy and to  
impose obligation upon it which it has not freely accepted. The coercive 
imposition of the majority will is contrary to the ideal of self-assumed 
obligation, and so is contrary to direct democracy and free association. 
Therefore, far from being a denial of freedom, direct democracy within the 
context of free association and self-assumed obligation is the only means 
by which liberty can be nurtured ("Individual autonomy limited by the 
obligation to hold given promises." [Malatesta, quoted by quoted by Max 
Nettlau, _Errico Malatesta: The Biography of an Anarchist_]). Needless 
to say, a minority, if it remains in the association, can argue its case 
and try to convince the majority of the error of its ways. 
 
And we must point out here that anarchist support for direct democracy does  
not suggest we think that the majority is always right. Far from it! The case  
for democratic participation is not that the majority is always right, but  
that no minority can be trusted not to prefer its own advantage to the 
good of the whole. History proves what common-sense predicts, namely that 
anyone with dictatorial powers (by they a head of state, a boss, a husband, 
whatever) will use their power to enrich and empower themselves at the 
expense of those subject to their decisions. 
 
Anarchists recognise that majorities can and do make mistakes and that is 
why our theories on association place great importance on minority rights. 
This can be seen from our theory of self-assumed obligation, which bases 
itself on the right of minorities to protest against majority decisions 
and makes dissent a key factor in decision making. Thus Carole Pateman: 
 
"If the majority have acted in bad faith. . . [then the] minority will  
have to take political action, including politically disobedient action 
if appropriate, to defend their citizenship and independence, and the 
political association itself. . . Political disobedience is merely one 
possible expression of the active citizenship on which a self-managing 
democracy is based . . . The social practice of promising involves the 
right to refuse or change commitments; similarly, the practice of 
self-assumed political obligation is meaningless without the practical 
recognition of the right of minorities to refuse or withdraw consent, 
or where necessary, to disobey." [_The Problem of Political Obligation_, 
p. 162] 
 
Moving beyond relationships within associations, we must highlight how 
different associations work together. As would be imagined, the links  
between associations follow the same outlines as for the associations  
themselves. Instead of individuals joining an association, we have  
associations joining confederations. The links between associations in  
the confederation are of the same horizontal and voluntary nature as  
within associations, with the same rights of "voice and exit" for members  
and the same rights for minorities. In this way society becomes an  
association of associations, a community of communities, a commune of 
communes, based upon maximising individual freedom by maximising  
participation and self-management. 
 
The workings of such a confederation are outlined in section A.2.9 (What  
sort of society do anarchists want?) and discussed in greater detail in  
section I (What would an anarchist society look like?). 
 
This system of direct democracy fits nicely into anarchist theory. 
Malatesta speaks for all anarchists when he argued that "anarchists 
deny the right of the majority to govern human society in general." 
As can be seen, the majority has no right to enforce itself on a 
minority -- the minority can leave the association at any time and 
so, to use Malatesta's words, do not have to "submit to the decisions 
of the majority before they have even heard what these might be." 
[_The Anarchist Revolution_, p. 100 and p. 101] Hence, direct  
democracy within voluntary association does not create "majority rule"  
nor assume that the minority must submit to the majority no matter what. 
In effect, anarchist supporters of direct democracy argue that it 
fits Malatesta's argument that: 
 
"Certainly anarchists recognise that where life is lived in common it 
is often necessary for the minority to come to accept the opinion of 
the majority. When there is an obvious need or usefulness in doing 
something and, to do it requires the agreement of all, the few should 
feel the need to adapt to the wishes of the many . . . But such  
adaptation on the one hand by one group must be on the other be  
reciprocal, voluntary and must stem from an awareness of need and  
of goodwill to prevent the running of social affairs from being  
paralysed by obstinacy. It cannot be imposed as a principle and  
statutory norm. . ." [Op. Cit., p. 100] 
 
As the minority has the right to secede from the association as well as 
having extensive rights of action, protest and appeal, majority rule  
is not imposed as a principle. Rather, it is purely a decision making 
tool which allows minority dissent and opinion to be expressed (and 
acted upon) while ensuring that no minority forces its will on the 
majority. In other words, majority decisions are not binding on the 
minority. After all, as Malatesta argued: 
 
"one cannot expect, or even wish, that someone who is firmly convinced 
that the course taken by the majority leads to disaster, should sacrifice 
his [or her] own convictions and passively look on, or even worse, should 
support a policy he [or she] considers wrong." [_Errico Malatesta: His 
Life and Ideas_, p. 132] 
 
Even the Individual Anarchist Lysander Spooner acknowledged that direct  
democracy has its uses when he noted that "[a]ll, or nearly all, voluntary  
associations give a majority, or some other portion of the members less  
than the whole, the right to use some *limited* discretion as to the  
*means* to be used to accomplish the ends in view." However, only the  
unanimous decision of a jury (which would "judge the law, and the justice  
of the law") could determine individual rights as this "tribunal fairly  
represent[s] the whole people" as "no law can rightfully be enforced 
by the association in its corporate capacity, against the goods, rights, 
or person of any individual, except it be such as *all* members of the 
association agree that it may enforce" (his support of juries results 
from Spooner acknowledging that it "would be impossible in practice" for 
*all* members of an association to agree) [_Trial by Jury_, p. 130-1f, 
p. 134, p. 214, p. 152 and p. 132] 
 
Thus direct democracy and individual/minority rights need not clash.  
In practice, we can imagine direct democracy would be used to make most 
decisions within most associations (perhaps with super-majorities required 
for fundamental decisions) plus some combination of a jury system and  
minority protest/direct action and evaluate/protect minority claims/rights  
in an anarchist society. The actual forms of freedom can only be created 
through practical experience by the people directly involved. 
 
Lastly, we must stress that anarchist support for direct democracy does 
not mean that this solution is to be favoured in all circumstances. For 
example, many small associations may favour consensus decision making  
(see the next section on consensus and why most anarchists do not think  
that it is a viable alternative to direct democracy). However, most  
anarchists think that direct democracy within free association is the  
best (and most realistic) form of organisation which is consistent with  
anarchist principles of individual freedom, dignity and equality. 
 
A.2.12 Is consensus an alternative to direct democracy? 
 
The few anarchists who reject direct democracy within free associations 
generally support consensus in decision making. Consensus is based 
upon everyone on a group agreeing to a decision before it can be put 
into action. Thus, it is argued, consensus stops the majority ruling  
the minority and is more consistent with anarchist principles. 
 
Consensus, although the "best" option in decision making, as all  
agree, has its problems. As Murray Bookchin points out in describing  
his experience of consensus, it can have authoritarian implications:
 
"In order . . . to create full consensus on a decision, minority 
dissenters were often subtly urged or psychologically coerced to decline 
to vote on a troubling issue, inasmuch as their dissent would essentially 
amount to a one-person veto. This practice, called 'standing aside' in 
American consensus processes, all too often involved intimidation of  
the dissenters, to the point that they completely withdrew from the 
decision-making process, rather than make an honourable and continuing 
expression of their dissent by voting, even as a minority, in accordance 
with their views. Having withdrawn, they ceased to be political beings  
-- so that a 'decision' could be made. . . . 'consensus' was ultimately 
achieved only after dissenting members nullified themselves as participants  
in the process. 
 
"On a more theoretical level, consensus silenced that most vital aspect of 
all dialogue, *dissensus*. The ongoing dissent, the passionate dialogue that 
still persists even after a minority accedes temporarily to a majority 
decision, . . . [can be] replaced. . . . by dull monologues -- and the 
uncontroverted and deadening tone of consensus. In majority decision-making,  
the defeated minority can resolve to overturn a decision on which they have  
been defeated -- they are free to openly and persistently articulate reasoned  
and potentially persuasive disagreements. Consensus, for its part, honours  
no minorities, but mutes them in favour of the metaphysical 'one' of the  
'consensus' group." ["Communalism: The Democratic Dimension of Anarchism", 
_Democracy and Nature_, no. 8, p.8] 
 
Bookchin does not "deny that consensus may be an appropriate form of 
decision-making in small groups of people who are thoroughly familiar  
with one another." But he notes that, in practical terms, his own  
experience has shown him that "when larger groups try to make decisions  
by consensus, it usually obliges them to arrive at the lowest 
common intellectual denominator in their decision-making: the least 
controversial or even the most mediocre decision that a sizeable assembly 
of people can attain is adopted-- precisely because everyone must agree 
with it or else withdraw from voting on that issue." [Op. Cit., p. 7] 
 
Therefore, due to its potentially authoritarian nature, most anarchists  
disagree that consensus is the political aspect of free association. 
While it is advantageous to try to reach consensus, it is usually 
impractical to do so -- especially in large groups -- regardless of its 
other, negative effects. Often it demeans a free society or association  
by tending to subvert individuality in the name of community and dissent 
in the name of solidarity. Neither true community nor solidarity are 
fostered when the individual's development and self-expression are aborted 
by public disapproval and pressure. Since individuals are all unique, 
they will have unique viewpoints which they should be encouraged to 
express, as society evolves and is enriched by the actions and ideas of 
individuals.  
 
In other words, anarchist supporters of direct democracy stress the  
"*creative* role of dissent" which, they fear, "tends to fade away in 
the grey uniformity required by consensus." [Op. Cit., p. 8]  
 
We must stress that anarchists are *not* in favour of a mechanical decision 
making process in which the majority just vote the minority away and 
ignore them. Far from it! Anarchists who support direct democracy see 
it as a dynamic debating process in which majority and minority listen 
to and respect each other as far possible and create a decision which 
all can live with (if possible). They see the process of participation  
within directly democratic associations as the means of creating common  
interests, as a process which will encourage diversity, individual and 
minority expression and reduce any tendency for majorities to marginalise  
or oppress minorities by ensuring discussion and debate occurs on important  
issues. 
 
A.2.13 Are anarchists individualists or collectivists? 
 
The short answer is: neither. This can be seen from the fact that liberal  
scholars denounce anarchists like Bakunin for being "collectivists" while  
Marxists attack Bakunin and anarchists in general for being "individualists."  
 
This is hardly surprising, as anarchists reject both ideologies as nonsense.  
Whether they like it or not, non-anarchist individualists and collectivists  
are two sides of the same capitalist coin. This can best shown be by  
considering modern capitalism, in which "individualist" and "collectivist"  
tendencies continually interact, often with the political and economic  
structure swinging from one pole to the other. Capitalist collectivism  
and individualism are both one-sided aspects of human existence, and like  
all manifestations of imbalance, deeply flawed. 
 
For anarchists, the idea that individuals should sacrifice themselves  
for the "group" or "greater good" is nonsensical. Groups are made up of 
individuals, and if people think only of what's best for the group, the 
group will be a lifeless shell. It is only the dynamics of individual 
interaction within groups which give them life. "Groups" cannot think, 
only individuals can. This fact, ironically, leads authoritarian 
"collectivists" to a most particular kind of "individualism," namely the 
"cult of the personality" and leader worship. This is to be expected, 
since such collectivism lumps individuals into abstract groups, denies 
their individuality, and ends up with the need for someone with enough 
individuality to make decisions -- a problem that is "solved" by the 
leader principle. Stalinism and Nazism are excellent examples of this 
phenomenon.  
 
Therefore, anarchists recognise that individuals are the basic unit of 
society and that only individuals have interests and feelings. This  
means they oppose "collectivism" and the glorification of the group. 
In anarchist theory the group exists only to aid and develop the 
individuals involved in them. This is why we place so much stress on 
groups structured in a libertarian manner -- only a libertarian  
organisation allows the individuals within a group to fully express 
themselves, manage their own interests directly and to create social 
relationships which encourage individuality and individual freedom. 
So while society and the groups they join shapes the individual, the 
individual is the true basis of society. Hence Malatesta: 
 
"Much has been said about the respective roles of individual initiative 
and social action in the life and progress of human societies . . .  
[E]verything is maintained and kept going in the human world thanks to 
individual initiative . . . The real being is man, the individual. Society 
or the collectivity -- and the *State* or government which claims to 
represent it -- 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 initiatives, but is the  
resultant of initiatives, thoughts and actions of all individuals who 
make up society . . . [T]he question is not really changing the  
relationship between society and the individual . . . [I]t is a question 
of preventing some individuals from oppressing others; of giving 
all individuals the same rights and the same means of action; and of 
replacing the initiative to the few [which Malatesta defines as a 
key aspect of government/hierarchy], which inevitably results in the 
oppression of everyone else . . . " [_Anarchy_, pp. 38-39] 
 
These considerations do not mean that "individualism" finds favour with 
anarchists. As Emma Goldman pointed out, "'rugged individualism'. . .  
is only a masked attempt to repress and defeat the individual and his 
individuality. So-called Individualism is the social and economic
*laissez-faire*: the exploitation of the masses by the [ruling]
classes by means of legal trickery, spiritual debasement and 
systematic indoctrination of the servile spirit . . . That corrupt 
and perverse 'individualism' is the straitjacket of individuality
 . . [It] has inevitably resulted in the greatest modern slavery,
the crassest class distinctions driving millions to the breadline.
'Rugged individualism' has meant all the 'individualism' for the 
masters, while the people are regimented into a slave caste to serve 
a handful of self-seeking 'supermen.'" [_Red Emma Speaks_, p. 112] 
 
While groups cannot think, individuals cannot live or discuss by  
themselves. Groups and associations are an essential aspect of  
individual life. Indeed, as groups generate social relationships  
by their very nature, they help *shape* individuals. In other words,  
groups structured in an authoritarian way will have a negative impact  
on the freedom and individuality of those within them. However, due to 
the abstract nature of their "individualism," capitalist individualists  
fail to see any difference between groups structured in a libertarian  
manner rather than in an authoritarian one -- they are both "groups".  
Because of their one-sided perspective on this issue, "individualists"  
ironically end up supporting some of the most "collectivist" institutions  
in existence -- capitalist companies -- and, moreover, always find a  
need for the state despite their frequent denunciations of it. These  
contradictions stem from capitalist individualism's dependence on  
individual contracts in an unequal society, i.e. *abstract* individualism. 
 
In contrast, anarchists stress *social* "individualism" (another, perhaps 
better, term for this concept could be "communal individuality"). Anarchism  
"insists that the centre of gravity in society is the individual -- that he  
[sic] must think for himself, act freely, and live fully . . . If he is to  
develop freely and fully, he must be relieved from the interference and  
oppression of others . . . [T]his has nothing in common with . . . 'rugged  
individualism.' Such predatory individualism is really flabby, not rugged.  
At the least danger to its safety, it runs to cover of the state and wails  
for protection . . .  Their 'rugged individualism' is simply one of the  
many pretences the ruling class makes to mask unbridled business and  
political extortion." [Emma Goldman, Op. Cit., pp. 442-3] 
 
Anarchism rejects the *abstract* individualism of capitalism, with its  
ideas of "absolute" freedom of the individual which is constrained by  
others. This theory ignores the social context in which freedom exists  
and grows. "The freedom we want, " Malatesta argued, "for ourselves
and for others, is not an absolute metaphysical, abstract freedom 
which in practice is inevitably translated into the oppression of the
weak; but it is a real freedom, possible freedom, which is the 
conscious community of interests, voluntary solidarity." [_Anarchy_,
p. 43] 
 
A society based on abstract individualism  results in an inequality 
of power between the contracting individuals and so entails the need for  
an authority based on laws above them and organised coercion to enforce the  
contracts between them. This consequence is evident from capitalism and, 
most notably, in the "social contract" theory of how the state developed. 
In this theory it is assumed that individuals are "free" when they are  
isolated from each other, as they allegedly were originally in the  
"state of nature." Once they join society, they supposedly create a  
"contract" and a state to administer it. However, besides being a fantasy 
with no basis in reality (human beings have *always* been social animals),  
this "theory" is actually a justification for the state's having extensive  
powers over society; and this in turn is a justification of the capitalist  
system, which requires a strong state. It also mimics the results of the  
capitalist economic relations upon which this theory is built. Within  
capitalism, individuals "freely" contract together, but in practice the  
owner rules the worker for as long as the contract is in place. (See  
sections A.2.14 and B.4 for further details). 

Thus anarchists reject capitalist "individualism" as being,
to quote Kropotkin, "a narrow and selfish individualism" which,
moreover, is "a foolish egoism which belittles the individual"
and is "not individualism at all. It will not lead to what was
established as a goal; that is the complete broad and most 
perfectly attainable development of individuality." The hierarchy
of capitalism results in "the impoverishment of individuality" 
rather than its development. To this anarchists contrast "the 
individuality which attains the greatest individual development 
possible through the highest communist sociability in what concerns
both its primordial needs and its relationships with others
in general." [_Selected Writings on Anarchism and Revolution_,
p. 295, p. 296 and p. 297] For anarchists, our freedom is enriched 
by those around us when we work with them as equals and not as
master and servant. 

In practice, both individualism and collectivism lead to a denial of both 
individual liberty and group autonomy and dynamics. In addition, each 
implies the other, with collectivism leading to a particular form of 
individualism and individualism leading to a particular form of 
collectivism.  
 
Collectivism, with its implicit suppression of the individual, 
ultimately impoverishes the community, as groups are only given 
life by the individuals who comprise them. Individualism, with 
its explicit suppression of community (i.e. the people with whom 
you live or work), ultimately impoverishes the individual, since 
individuals do not exist apart from society but can only exist 
within it. In addition, individualism ends up denying the "select 
few" the insights and abilities of the individuals who make up 
the rest of society, and so is a source of self-denial. This is 
Individualism's fatal flaw (and contradiction), namely "the 
impossibility for the individual to attain a really full 
development in the conditions of oppression of the mass by the 
'beautiful aristocracies'. His [or her] development would remain 
uni-lateral." [Peter Kropotkin, _Anarchism_, p. 293] 
 
True liberty and community exist elsewhere. 
 
A.2.14 Why is voluntarism not enough? 
 
Voluntarism means that association should be voluntary in order to maximise  
liberty. Anarchists are, obviously, voluntarists, thinking that only in 
free association, created by free agreement, can individuals develop, 
grow, and express their liberty. However, it is evident that under 
capitalism voluntarism is not enough in itself to maximise liberty.  
 
Voluntarism implies promising (i.e. the freedom to make agreements), and 
promising implies that individuals are capable of independent judgement 
and rational deliberation. In addition, it presupposes that they can 
evaluate and change their actions and relationships. Contracts under 
capitalism, however, contradict these implications of voluntarism. For, 
while technically "voluntary" (though as we show in section B.4, this is 
not really the case), capitalist contracts result in a denial of liberty.  
This is because the social relationship of wage-labour involves promising 
to obey in return for payment. And as Carole Pateman points out, "to promise 
to obey is to deny or to limit, to a greater or lesser degree, individuals'
freedom and equality and their ability to exercise these capacities [of
independent judgement and rational deliberation]. To promise to obey 
is to state, that in certain areas, the person making the promise 
is no longer free to exercise her capacities and decide upon her own 
actions, and is no longer equal, but subordinate." [_The Problem of 
Political Obligation_, p. 19] This results in those obeying no longer
making their own decisions. Thus the rational for voluntarism (i.e.
that individuals are capable of thinking for themselves and must be 
allowed to express their individuality and make their own decisions) is
violated in a hierarchical relationship as some are in charge and the
many obey (see also section A.2.8). Thus any voluntarism which generates
relationships of subordination is, by its very nature, incomplete and
violates its own justification.

This can be seen from capitalist society, in which workers sell their
freedom to a boss in order to live. In effect, under capitalism you are 
only free to the extent that you can choose whom you will obey! Freedom, 
however, must mean more than the right to change masters. Voluntary 
servitude is still servitude. For if, as Rousseau argued, sovereignty,
"for the same reason as makes it inalienable, cannot be represented"
neither can it be sold nor temporarily nullified by a hiring contract.
Rousseau famously argued that the "people of England regards itself
as free; but it is grossly mistaken; it is free only during the
election of members of parliament. As soon as they are elected, 
slavery overtakes it, and it is nothing." [_The Social Contract
and Discourses_, p. 266] Anarchists expand on this analysis. To 
paraphrase Rousseau:  
 
	Under capitalism the worker regards herself as free;  
	but she is grossly mistaken; she is free only when  
	she signs her contract with her boss. As soon as it  
	is signed, slavery overtakes her and she is nothing  
	but an order taker. 

To see why, to see the injustice, we need only quote Rousseau:

"That a rich and powerful man, having acquired immense possessions
in land, should impose laws on those who want to establish themselves
there, and that he should only allow them to do so on condition that
they accept his supreme authority and obey all his wishes; that, I
can still conceive . . . Would not this tyrannical act contain a
double usurpation: that on the ownership of the land and that on
the liberty of the inhabitants?" [Op. Cit., p. 316]

Hence Proudhon's comment that "Man may be made by property a slave 
or a despot by turns." [_What is Property?_, p. 371] Little wonder
we discover Bakunin rejecting "any contract with another individual 
on any footing but the utmost equality and reciprocity" as this would 
"alienate his [or her] freedom"  and so would be a "a relationship of 
voluntary servitude with another individual." Anyone making such a
contract in a free society (i.e. anarchist society) would be "devoid of
any sense of personal dignity." [_Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings_, 
pp. 68-9] 

Therefore anarchists stress the need for direct democracy in voluntary 
associations in order to ensure that the concept of "freedom" is not a 
sham and a justification for domination, as it is under capitalism. Only 
self-managed associations can create relationships of equality rather 
than of subordination between its members.

It is for this reason that anarchists have opposed capitalism and 
urged "workers to form themselves into democratic societies, with 
equal conditions for all members, on pain of a relapse into feudalism." 
[Proudhon, _The General Idea of the Revolution_, p. 277] For similar 
reasons, anarchists (with the notable exception of Proudhon) opposed 
marriage as it turned women into "a bonded slave, who takes her 
master's name, her master's bread, her master's commands, and serves 
her master's passions . . . who can control no property, not even her 
own body, without his consent." [Voltairine de Cleyre, quoted by Paul 
Avrich, _An American Anarchist: The Life of Voltairine de Cleyre_, 
p. 160] While marriage, due to feminist agitation, in many countries 
has been reformed towards the anarchist ideal of a free union of equals, 
it still is based on the patriarchal principles anarchists like
Goldman and de Cleyre identified and condemned (see section A.3.5
for more on feminism and anarchism). 

Clearly, voluntary entry is a necessary but not a sufficient condition
to defend an individual's liberty. This is to be expected as it ignores
(or takes for granted) the social conditions in which agreements are 
made and, moreover, ignores the social relationships created by them
("For the worker who *must sell* his labour, it is impossible to remain 
*free.*" [Kropotkin, _Selected Writings on Anarchism and Revolution_, 
p. 305]). Any social relationships based on abstract individualism are 
likely to be based upon force, power, and authority, *not* liberty. This 
of course assumes a definition of liberty according to which individuals 
exercise their capacities and decide their own actions. Therefore, 
voluntarism is *not* enough to create a society that maximises liberty. 
This is why anarchists think that voluntary association *must* be 
complemented by self-management (direct democracy) *within* these 
associations. For anarchists, the assumptions of voluntarism imply 
self-management. Or, to use Proudhon's words, "as individualism is the 
primordial fact of humanity, so association is its complementary term." 
[_System of Economical Contradictions_, p. 430] 

Of course, it could be objected that anarchists value some forms of 
social relationships above others and that a true libertarian must 
allow people the freedom to select their own social relationships. 
Anarchists argue that this objection misses the point.

To answer the second objection first, in a society based on private 
property (and so statism), those with property have more power, 
which they can use to perpetuate their authority. "Wealth is power, 
poverty is weakness," in the words of Albert Parsons. This means 
that under capitalism the much praised "freedom to choose" is 
extremely limited. It becomes, for the vast majority, the freedom 
to pick a master (under slavery, quipped Parsons, the master
"selected . . . his own slaves. Under the wage slavery system 
the wage slave selects his master."). Under capitalism, Parsons
stressed, "those disinherited of their natural rights must hire 
out and serve and obey the oppressing class or starve. There 
is no other alternative.  Some things are priceless, chief among 
which are life and liberty. A freeman [or woman] is not for sale 
or hire." [_Anarchism_, p. 99 and p. 98] And why should we excuse 
servitude or tolerate those who desire to restrict the liberty 
of others? The "liberty" to command is the liberty to enslave, 
and so is actually a denial of liberty. 

Regarding the first objection, anarchists plead guilty. We *are* 
prejudiced against the reduction of human beings to the status of  
robots. We are prejudiced in favour of human dignity and freedom.  
We are prejudiced, in fact, in favour of humanity and individuality.  
 
(Section A.2.9 discusses why direct democracy is the necessary social 
counterpart to voluntarism (i.e. free agreement). Section B.4 discusses 
why capitalism cannot be based on equal bargaining power between property 
owners and the propertyless). 
 
A.2.15 What about "human nature"? 
 
Anarchists, far from ignoring "human nature," have the only political 
theory that gives this concept deep thought and reflection. Too often, 
"human nature" is flung up as the last line of defence in an argument 
against anarchism, because it is thought to be beyond reply. This is 
not the case, however. 
 
First of all, human nature is a complex thing. If, by human nature, 
it is meant "what humans do," it is obvious that human nature is 
contradictory -- love and hate, compassion and heartlessness, peace 
and violence, and so on, have all been expressed by people and so 
are all products of "human nature." Of course, what is considered 
"human nature" can change with changing social circumstances. For 
example, slavery was considered part of "human nature" and "normal" 
for thousands of years. Homosexuality was considered perfectly 
normal by the ancient Greeks yet thousands of years later the
Christian church denounced it as unnatural. War only become 
part of "human nature" once states developed. Hence Chomsky:

"Individuals are certainly capable of evil . . . But individuals
are capable of all sorts of things. Human nature has lots of ways
of realising itself, humans have lots of capacities and options.
Which ones reveal themselves depends to a large extent on the
institutional structures. If we had institutions which permitted
pathological killers free rein, they'd be running the place. The
only way to survive would be to let those elements of your nature
manifest themselves.

"If we have institutions which make greed the sole property of
human beings and encourage pure greed at the expense of other 
human emotions and commitments, we're going to have a society
based on greed, with all that follows. A different society might
be organised in such a way that human feelings and emotions of
other sorts, say, solidarity, support, sympathy become dominant.
Then you'll have different aspects of human nature and personality
revealing themselves." [_Chronicles of Dissent_, pp. 158]

Therefore, environment plays an important part in defining what 
"human nature" is, how it develops and what aspects of it are 
expressed. Indeed, one of the greatest myths about anarchism is
the idea that we think human nature is inherently good (rather,
we think it is inherently sociable). How it develops and expresses
itself is dependent on the kind of society we live in and create.
A hierarchical society will shape people in certain (negative) 
ways and produce a "human nature" radically different from a
libertarian one. So "when we hear men [and women] saying that
Anarchists imagine men [and women] much better than they really
are, we merely wonder how intelligent people can repeat that
nonsense. Do we not say continually that the only means of 
rendering men [and women] less rapacious and egotistic, less
ambitious and less slavish at the same time, is to eliminate
those conditions which favour the growth of egotism and rapacity,
of slavishness and ambition?" [Peter Kropotkin, _Act for 
Yourselves_, p. 83] 

As such, the use of "human nature" as an argument against anarchism 
is simply superficial and, ultimately, an evasion. It is an excuse 
not to think. "Every fool," as Emma Goldman put it, "from king to 
policemen, from the flatheaded parson to the visionless dabbler in 
science, presumes to speak authoritatively of human nature. The 
greater the mental charlatan, the more definite his insistence on 
the wickedness and weakness of human nature. Yet how can any one 
speak of it to-day, with every soul in prison, with every heart 
fettered, wounded, and maimed?" Change society, create a better
social environment and then we can judge what is a product of 
our natures and what is the product of an authoritarian system.
For this reason, anarchism "stands for the liberation of the 
human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the 
human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the 
shackles and restraint of government." For "[f]reedom, expansion, 
opportunity, and above all, peace and repose, alone can teach us 
the real dominant factors of human nature and all its wonderful 
possibilities." [_Red Emma Speaks_, p. 73]
 
This does not mean that human beings are infinitely plastic, with 
each individual born a *tabula rasa* (blank slate) waiting to be 
formed by "society" (which in practice means those who run it). 
As Noam Chomsky argues, "I don't think its possible to give a 
rational account of the concept of alienated labour on that 
assumption [that human nature is nothing but a historical 
product], nor is it possible to produce something like a moral 
justification for the commitment to some kind of social change, 
except on the basis of assumptions about human nature and how 
modifications in the structure of society will be better able to 
conform to some of the fundamental needs that are part of our 
essential nature." [_Language and Politics_, p. 215] We do not 
wish to enter the debate about what human characteristics 
are and are not "innate." All we will say is that human beings 
have an innate ability to think and learn -- that much is obvious, 
we feel -- and that humans are sociable creatures, needing the 
company of others to feel complete and to prosper. Moreover,
they have the ability to recognise and oppose injustice and 
oppression (Bakunin rightly considered "*the power to think* 
and *the desire to rebel*" as "precious faculties." [_God and
the State_, p. 9]).
 
These three features, we think, suggest the viability of an anarchist 
society. The innate ability to think for oneself automatically 
makes all forms of hierarchy illegitimate, and our need for social 
relationships implies that we can organise without the state. The 
deep unhappiness and alienation afflicting modern society reveals 
that the centralisation and authoritarianism of capitalism and the 
state is denying some innate needs within us. In fact, as mentioned 
earlier, for the great majority of its existence the human race 
*has* lived in anarchic communities, with little or no hierarchy. 
That modern society calls such people "savages" or "primitive" is 
pure arrogance. So who can tell whether anarchism is against 
"human nature"? Anarchists have accumulated much evidence to 
suggest that it may not be. 
 
As for the charge the anarchists demand too much of "human 
nature," it is often *non* anarchists who make the greatest 
claims on it. For "while our opponents seem to admit there is 
a kind of salt of the earth -- the rulers, the employers, the 
leaders -- who, happily enough, prevent those bad men -- the 
ruled, the exploited, the led -- from becoming still worse than 
they are" we anarchists "maintain that *both* rulers and ruled are
spoiled by authority" and "*both* exploiters and exploited are
spoiled by exploitation." So "there is [a] difference, and a 
very important one. *We* admit the imperfections of human 
nature, but we make no exception for the rulers. *They* make 
it, although sometimes unconsciously, and because we make
no such exception, they say that we are dreamers." [Peter 
Kropotkin, _Act for Yourselves_, p. 83] If human nature is 
so bad, then giving some people power over others and hoping 
this will lead to justice and freedom is hopelessly utopian.  

Moreover, as noted, Anarchists argue that hierarchical organisations 
bring out the worse in human nature. Both the oppressor and the 
oppressed are negatively affected by the authoritarian 
relationships so produced. "It is a characteristic of privilege 
and of every kind of privilege," argued Bakunin, "to kill the 
mind and heart of man . . . That is a social law which admits 
no exceptions . . . It is the law of equality and humanity." 
[_God and the State_, p. 31] And while the privileged become 
corrupted by power, the powerless (in general) become servile 
in heart and mind (luckily the human spirit is such that there
will always be rebels no matter the oppression for where there
is oppression, there is resistance and, consequently, hope). As 
such, it seems strange for anarchists to hear non-anarchists 
justify hierarchy in terms of the (distorted) "human nature" it 
produces.

Sadly, too many have done precisely this. It continues to this
day. For example, with the rise of "sociobiology," some claim 
(with very little *real* evidence) that capitalism is a product 
of our "nature," which is determined by our genes. These claims 
are simply a new variation of the "human nature" argument and 
have, unsurprisingly, been leapt upon by the powers that be. 
Considering the dearth of evidence, their support for this 
"new" doctrine must be purely the result of its utility to those 
in power -- i.e. the fact that it is useful to have an "objective" 
and "scientific" basis to rationalise inequalities in wealth and 
power (for a discussion of this process see _Not in Our Genes:
Biology, Ideology and Human Nature_ by Steven Rose, R.C. Lewontin 
and Leon J. Kamin).

This is not to say that it does not hold a grain of truth. As
scientist Stephen Jay Gould notes, "the range of our potential
behaviour is circumscribed by our biology" and if this is what
sociobiology means "by genetic control, then we can scarcely
disagree." However, this is not what is meant. Rather, it is a
form of "biological determinism" that sociobiology argues for.
Saying that there are specific genes for specific human traits
says little for while "[v]iolence, sexism, and general nastiness
*are* biological since they represent one subset of a possible
range of behaviours" so are "peacefulness, equality, and kindness."
And so "we may see their influence increase if we can create 
social structures that permit them to flourish." That this may
be the case can be seen from the works of sociobiologists 
themselves, who "acknowledge diversity" in human cultures while
"often dismiss[ing] the uncomfortable 'exceptions' as temporary
and unimportant aberrations." This is surprising, for if you
believe that "repeated, often genocidal warfare has shaped our
genetic destiny, the existence of nonaggressive peoples is
embarrassing." [_Ever Since Darwin_, p. 252, p. 257 and p. 254] 

Like the social Darwinism that preceded it, sociobiology 
proceeds by first projecting the dominant ideas of current society 
onto nature (often unconsciously, so that scientists mistakenly 
consider the ideas in question as both "normal" and "natural"). 
Then the theories of nature produced in this manner are transferred 
*back* onto society and history, being used to "prove" that the 
principles of capitalism (hierarchy, authority, competition, etc.) 
are eternal *laws,* which are then appealed to as a justification 
for the status quo! Amazingly, there are many supposedly intelligent 
people who take this sleight-of-hand seriously. 

This can be seen when "hierarchies" in nature are used to explain,
and so justify, hierarchies in human societies. Such analogies
are misleading for they forget the institutional nature of 
human life. As Murray Bookchin notes in his critique of sociobiology, 
a "weak, enfeebled, unnerved, and sick ape is hardly likely to become 
an 'alpha' male, much less retain this highly ephemeral 'status.'
By contrast, the most physically and mentally pathological human
rulers have exercised authority with devastating effect in the
course of history." This "expresses a power of hierarchical
*institutions* over persons that is completely reversed in
so-called 'animal hierarchies' where the absence of institutions
is precisely the only intelligible way of talking about 'alpha
males' or 'queen bees.'" ["Sociobiology or Social Ecology",
_Which way for the Ecology Movement?_, p. 58] Thus what makes
human society unique is conveniently ignored and the real 
sources of power in society are hidden under a genetic screen.
 
The sort of apologetics associated with appeals to "human nature" 
(or sociobiology at its worse) are natural, of course, because every 
ruling class needs to justify their right to rule. Hence they support 
doctrines that defined the latter in ways appearing to justify elite 
power -- be it sociobiology, divine right, original sin, etc. Obviously, 
such doctrines have always been wrong . . . until now, of course, as 
it is obvious our current society truly conforms to "human nature" and 
it has been scientifically proven by our current scientific priesthood!  
 
The arrogance of this claim is truly amazing. History has not stopped. 
One thousand years from now, society will be completely different from 
what it is presently or from what anyone has imagined. No government in 
place at the moment will still be around, and the current economic system 
will not exist. The only thing that may remain the same is that people 
will still be claiming that their new society is the "One True System" 
that completely conforms to human nature, even though all past systems 
did not. 
 
Of course, it does not cross the minds of supporters of capitalism that 
people from different cultures may draw different conclusions from the 
same facts -- conclusions that may be *more* valid. Nor does it occur to 
capitalist apologists that the theories of the "objective" scientists may 
be framed in the context of the dominant ideas of the society they live 
in. It comes as no surprise to anarchists, however, that scientists 
working in Tsarist Russia developed a theory of evolution based on 
*co-operation* within species, quite unlike their counterparts in 
capitalist Britain, who developed a theory based on *competitive struggle* 
within and between species. That the latter theory reflected the dominant 
political and economic theories of British society (notably competitive 
individualism) is pure coincidence, of course.

Kropotkin's classic work _Mutual Aid_, for example, was written in 
response to the obvious inaccuracies that British representatives of 
Darwinism had projected onto nature and human life. Building upon the 
mainstream Russian criticism of the British Darwinism of the time, 
Kropotkin showed (with substantial empirical evidence) that "mutual 
aid" within a group or species played as important a role as "mutual 
struggle" between individuals within those groups or species (see
Stephan Jay Gould's essay "Kropotkin was no Crackpot" in his book
_Bully for Brontosaurus_ for details and an evaluation). It was, he 
stressed, a "factor" in evolution along with competition, a factor
which, in most circumstances, was far more important to survival. 
Thus co-operation is just as "natural" as competition so proving 
that "human nature" was not a barrier to anarchism as co-operation
between members of a species can be the best pathway to advantage
individuals. 

To conclude. Anarchists argue that anarchy is not against "human nature"
for two main reasons. Firstly, what is considered as being "human nature" 
is shaped by the society we live in and the relationships we create. This
means a hierarchical society will encourage certain personality traits
to dominate while an anarchist one would encourage others. As such,
anarchists "do not so much rely on the fact that human nature will change
as they do upon the theory that the some nature will act differently
under different circumstances." Secondly, change "seems to be one of 
the fundamental laws of existence" so "who can say that man [sic!] has 
reached the limits of his possibilities." [George Barrett, _Objections
to Anarchism_, pp. 360-1 and p. 360]

For useful discussions on anarchist ideas on human nature, both of
which refute the idea that anarchists think human beings are naturally
good, see Peter Marshall's "Human nature and anarchism" [David Goodway
(ed.), _For Anarchism: History, Theory and Practice_, pp. 127-149]
and David Hartley's "Communitarian Anarchism and Human Nature" 
[_Anarchist Studies_, vol. 3, no. 2, Autumn 1995, pp. 145-164].

A.2.16 Does anarchism require "perfect" people to work? 
 
No. Anarchy is not a utopia, a "perfect" society. It will be a *human* 
society, with all the problems, hopes, and fears associated with human 
beings. Anarchists do not think that human beings need to be "perfect" 
for anarchy to work. They only need to be free. Thus Christie and 
Meltzer:

"[A] common fallacy [is] that revolutionary socialism [i.e. anarchism]
is an 'idealisation' of the workers and [so] the mere recital of their
present faults is a refutation of the class struggle . . . it seems
morally unreasonable that a free society . .  . could exist without
moral or ethical perfection. But so far as the overthrow of [existing]
society is concerned, we may ignore the fact of people's shortcomings
and prejudices, so long as they do not become institutionalised. One
may view without concern the fact . . . that the workers might achieve
control of their places of work long before they had acquired the
social graces of the 'intellectual' or shed all the prejudices of the
present society from family discipline to xenophobia. What does it
matter, so long as they can run industry without masters? Prejudices
wither in freedom and only flourish while the social climate is 
favourable to them . . . What we say is . . . that once life can 
continue without imposed authority from above, and imposed authority
cannot survive the withdrawal of labour from its service, the
prejudices of authoritarianism will disappear. There is no cure
for them other than the free process of education." [_The Floodgates
of Anarchy_, pp. 36-7]

Obviously, though, we think that a free society will produce people who  
are more in tune with both their own and others individuality and needs,  
thus reducing individual conflict. Remaining disputes would be solved by  
reasonable methods, for example, the use of juries, mutual third parties,  
or community and workplace assemblies (see section I.5.8 for a discussion
of how could be done for anti-social activities as well as disputes). 

Like the "anarchism-is-against-human-nature" argument (see section 
A.2.15), opponents of anarchism usually assume "perfect" people -- 
people who are not corrupted by power when placed in positions of 
authority, people who are strangely unaffected by the distorting effects 
of hierarchy, privilege, and so forth. However, anarchists make no such  
claims about human perfection. We simply recognise that vesting power 
in the hands of one person or an elite is never a good idea, as people 
are not perfect.

It should be noted that the idea that anarchism requires a "new" (perfect)
man or woman is often raised by the opponents of anarchism to discredit 
it (and, usually, to justify the retention of hierarchical authority, 
particularly capitalist relations of production). After all, people are
not perfect and are unlikely ever to be. As such, they pounce on every
example of a government falling and the resulting chaos to dismiss 
anarchism as unrealistic. The media loves to proclaim a country to be
falling into "anarchy" whenever there is a disruption in "law and order"
and looting takes place. 

Anarchists are not impressed by this argument. A moment's reflection 
shows why, for the detractors make the basic mistake of assuming 
an anarchist society without anarchists! (A variation of such claims 
is raised by the right-wing "anarcho"-capitalists to discredit real 
anarchism. However, their "objection" discredits their own claim to 
be anarchists for they implicitly assume an anarchist society without anarchists!). Needless to say, an "anarchy" made up of people who 
still saw the need for authority, property and statism would soon 
become authoritarian (i.e. non-anarchist) again. This is because 
even if the government disappeared tomorrow, the same system 
would soon grow up again, because "the strength of the government 
rests not with itself, but with the people. A great tyrant may be a 
fool, and not a superman. His strength lies not in himself, but in the 
superstition of the people who think that it is right to obey him. So 
long as that superstition exists it is useless for some liberator to 
cut off the head of tyranny; the people will create another, for 
they have grown accustomed to rely on something outside themselves." 
[George Barrett, _Objections to Anarchism_, p. 355] 

Hence Alexander Berkman:

"Our social institutions are founded on certain ideas; as long as
the latter are generally believed, the institutions built on 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." [_What is Anarchism?_, p. xii]

In other words, anarchy needs *anarchists* in order to be created and 
survive. But these anarchists need not be perfect, just people who 
have freed themselves, by their own efforts, of the superstition that 
command-and-obedience relations and capitalist property rights are 
necessary. The implicit assumption in the idea that anarchy needs 
"perfect" people is that freedom will be given, not taken; hence the 
obvious conclusion follows that an anarchy requiring "perfect" people 
will fail. But this argument ignores the need for self-activity and 
self-liberation in order to create a free society. For anarchists, 
"history is nothing but a struggle between the rulers and the ruled, 
the oppressors and the oppressed." [Peter Kropotkin, _Act for Yourselves_, 
p. 85] Ideas change through struggle and, consequently, in the struggle
against oppression and exploitation, we not only change the world, we 
change ourselves at the same time. So it is the struggle for freedom 
which creates people capable of taking the responsibility for their 
own lives, communities and planet. People capable of living as equals 
in a free society, so making anarchy possible. 

As such, the chaos which often results when a government disappears is 
not anarchy nor, in fact, a case against anarchism. It simple means that 
the necessary preconditions for creating an anarchist society do not 
exist. Anarchy would be the product of collective struggle at the heart 
of society, not the product of external shocks. Nor, we should note,
do anarchists think that such a society will appear "overnight." Rather, 
we see the creation of an anarchist system as a process, not an event.
The ins-and-outs of how it would function will evolve over time in the
light of experience and objective circumstances, not appear in a perfect 
form immediately (see section H.2.5 for a discussion of Marxist claims 
otherwise).

Therefore, anarchists do not conclude that "perfect" people are necessary
anarchism to work because the anarchist is "no liberator with a divine 
mission to free humanity, but he is a part of that humanity struggling 
onwards towards liberty." As such, "[i]f, then, by some external means 
an Anarchist Revolution could be, so to speak, supplied ready-made and 
thrust upon the people, it is true that they would reject it and rebuild 
the old society. If, on the other hand, the people develop their ideas 
of freedom, and they themselves get rid of the last stronghold of 
tyranny --- the government -- then indeed the revolution will be 
permanently accomplished." [George Barrett, Op. Cit., p. 355] 

This is not to suggest that an anarchist society must wait until
*everyone* is an anarchist. Far from it. It is highly unlikely, for
example, that the rich and powerful will suddenly see the errors
of their ways and voluntarily renounce their privileges. Faced
with a large and growing anarchist movement, the ruling elite
has always used repression to defend its position in society.
The use of fascism in Spain (see section A.5.6) and Italy (see
section A.5.5) show the depths the capitalist class can sink to.
Anarchism will be created in the face of opposition by the ruling
minorities and, consequently, will need to defend itself against
attempts to recreate authority (see section H.2.1 for a refutation 
of Marxist claims anarchists reject the need to defend an anarchist
society against counter-revolution).
 
Instead anarchists argue that we should focus our activity on
convincing those subject to oppression and exploitation that 
they have the power to resist both and, ultimately, can end 
both by destroying the social institutions that cause them.
As Malatesta argued, "we need the support of the masses to
build a force of sufficient strength to achieve our specific
task of radical change in the social organism by the direct
action of the masses, we must get closer to them, accept them
as they are, and from within their ranks seek to 'push' them
forward as much as possible." [_Errico Malatesta: His Life and 
Ideas_, pp. 155-6] This would create the conditions that make
possible a rapid evolution towards anarchism as what was 
initially accepted by a minority "but increasingly finding
popular expression, will make its way among the mass of the
people" and "the minority will become the People, the great
mass, and that mass rising up against property and the State,
will march forward towards anarchist communism." [Kropotkin,
_Words of a Rebel_, p. 75] Hence the importance anarchists
attach to spreading our ideas and arguing the case for
anarchism. This creates conscious anarchists from those 
questioning the injustices of capitalism and the state.

This process is helped by the nature of hierarchical society
and the resistance it naturally developed in those subject to it.
Anarchist ideas develop spontaneously through struggle. As we 
discuss in section I.2.3, anarchistic organisations are often 
created as part of the resistance against oppression and exploitation
which marks every hierarchical system and can., potentially, be
the framework of a few society. As such, the creation of libertarian 
institutions is, therefore, always a possibility in any situation. 
A peoples' experiences may push them towards anarchist conclusions, 
namely the awareness that the state exists to protect the wealthy 
and powerful few and to disempower the many. That while it is needed 
to maintain class and hierarchical society, it is not needed to 
organise society nor can it do so in a just and fair way for all. 
This is possible. However, without a conscious anarchist presence 
any libertarian tendencies are likely to be used, abused and finally 
destroyed by parties or religious groups seeking political power 
over the masses (the Russian Revolution is the most famous example
of this process). It is for that reason anarchists organise to
influence the struggle and spread our ideas (see section J.3 for 
details). For it is the case that only when anarchist ideas 
"acquire a predominating influence" and are "accepted by a 
sufficiently large section of the population" will we "have 
achieved anarchy, or taken a step towards anarchy." For 
anarchy "cannot be imposed against the wishes of the people."
[Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 159 and p. 163]

So, to conclude, the creation of an anarchist society is not dependent 
on people being perfect but it is dependent on a large majority being 
anarchists and wanting to reorganise society in a libertarian manner. 
This will not eliminate conflict between individuals nor create a
fully formed anarchist humanity overnight but it will lay the ground 
for the gradual elimination of whatever prejudices and anti-social 
behaviour that remain after the struggle to change society has 
revolutionised those doing it.
 
A.2.17 Aren't most people too stupid for a free society to work? 
 
We are sorry to have to include this question in an anarchist FAQ, but we 
know that many political ideologies explicitly assume that ordinary people 
are too stupid to be able to manage their own lives and run society. All 
aspects of the capitalist political agenda, from Left to Right, contain 
people who make this claim. Be it Leninists, fascists, Fabians or 
Objectivists, it is assumed that only a select few are creative and 
intelligent and that these people should govern others. Usually, this 
elitism is masked by fine, flowing rhetoric about "freedom," "democracy" 
and other platitudes with which the ideologues attempt to dull people's 
critical thought by telling them want they want to hear. 
 
It is, of course, also no surprise that those who believe in "natural" 
elites always class themselves at the top. We have yet to discover an 
"objectivist", for example, who considers themselves part of the great 
mass of "second-handers" (it is always amusing to hear people who 
simply parrot the ideas of Ayn Rand dismissing other people so!) or 
who will be a toilet cleaner in the unknown "ideal" of "real" capitalism. Everybody reading an elitist text will consider him or herself to be 
part of the "select few." It's "natural" in an elitist society to 
consider elites to be natural and yourself a potential member of one! 
 
Examination of history shows that there is a basic elitist ideology which 
has been the essential rationalisation of all states and ruling classes 
since their emergence at the beginning of the Bronze Age. This ideology 
merely changes its outer garments, not its basic inner content.  
 
During the Dark Ages, for example, it was coloured by Christianity, being  
adapted to the needs of the Church hierarchy. The most useful "divinely  
revealed" dogma to the priestly elite was "original sin": the notion that  
human beings are basically depraved and incompetent creatures who need 
"direction from above," with priests as the conveniently necessary 
mediators between ordinary humans and "God." The idea that average people 
are basically stupid and thus incapable of governing themselves is a 
carry over from this doctrine, a relic of the Dark Ages.  
 
In reply to all those who claim that most people are "second-handers" or 
cannot develop anything more than "trade union consciousness," all we can 
say is that it is an absurdity that cannot withstand even a superficial 
look at history, particularly the labour movement. The creative powers 
of those struggling for freedom is often truly amazing, and if this 
intellectual power and inspiration is not seen in "normal" society, this 
is the clearest indictment possible of the deadening effects of hierarchy 
and the conformity produced by authority. (See also section B.1 for more 
on the effects of hierarchy). As Bob Black points outs: 
 
"You are what you do. If you do boring, stupid, monotonous work, chances  
are you'll end up boring, stupid, and monotonous. Work is a much better  
explanation for the creeping cretinisation all around us than even such  
significant moronising mechanisms as television and education. People who  
are regimented all their lives, handed to work from school and bracketed by  
the family in the beginning and the nursing home in the end, are habituated  
to hierarchy and psychologically enslaved. Their aptitude for autonomy is  
so atrophied that their fear of freedom is among their few rationally  
grounded phobias. Their obedience training at work carries over into  
the families *they* start, thus reproducing the system in more ways than  
one, and into politics, culture and everything else. Once you drain the  
vitality from people at work, they'll likely submit to hierarchy and  
expertise in everything. They're used to it." [_The Abolition of Work
and other essays_, pp. 21-2]
 
When elitists try to conceive of liberation, they can only think of it 
being *given* to the oppressed by kind (for Leninists) or stupid (for 
Objectivists) elites. It is hardly surprising, then, that it fails. 
Only self-liberation can produce a free society. The crushing and 
distorting effects of authority can only be overcome by self-activity. 
The few examples of such self-liberation prove that most people, once 
considered incapable of freedom by others, are more than up for the task. 

Those who proclaim their "superiority" often do so out of fear that their 
authority and power will be destroyed once people free themselves from the 
debilitating hands of authority and come to realise that, in the words 
of Max Stirner, "the great are great only because we are on our knees." 

As Emma Goldman remarked about women's equality, "[t]he extraordinary 
achievements of women in every walk of life have silenced forever the 
loose talk of women's inferiority. Those who still cling to this fetish do 
so because they hate nothing so much as to see their authority challenged. 
This is the characteristic of all authority, whether the master over his 
economic slaves or man over women. However, everywhere woman is escaping 
her cage, everywhere she is going ahead with free, large strides." 
[_Vision on Fire_, p. 256] The same comments are applicable, for example, 
to the very successful experiments in workers' self-management during 
the Spanish Revolution. 

Then, of course, the notion that people are too stupid for anarchism to
work also backfires on those who argue it. Take, for example, those who
use this argument to advocate democratic government rather than anarchy.
Democracy, as Luigi Galleani noted, means "acknowledging the right and
the competence of the people to select their rulers." However, "whoever
has the political competence to choose his [or her] own rulers is, by
implication, also competent to do without them, especially when the
causes of economic enmity are uprooted." [_The End of Anarchism?_, p. 37]
Thus the argument for democracy against anarchism undermines itself,
for "if you consider these worthy electors as unable to look after 
their own interests themselves, how is it that they know how to 
choose for themselves the shepherds who must guide them? And how will 
they be able to solve this problem of social alchemy, of producing the 
election of a genius from the votes of a mass of fools?" [Malatesta, 
_Anarchy_, pp. 53-4]

As for those who consider dictatorship as the solution to human stupidity, 
the question arises why are these dictators immune to this apparently 
universal human trait? And, as Malatesta noted, "who are the best? And
who will recognise these qualities in them?" [Op. Cit., p. 53] If they 
impose themselves on the "stupid" masses, why assume they will not exploit 
and oppress the many for their own benefit? Or, for that matter, that they 
are any more intelligent than the masses? The history of dictatorial and 
monarchical government suggests a clear answer to those questions. A similar 
argument applies for other non-democratic systems, such as those based
on limited suffrage. For example, the Lockean (i.e. classical liberal
or right-wing libertarian) ideal of a state based on the rule of property
owners is doomed to be little more than a regime which oppresses the 
majority to maintain the power and privilege of the wealthy few. Equally, 
the idea of near universal stupidity bar an elite of capitalists (the 
"objectivist" vision) implies a system somewhat less ideal than the 
perfect system presented in the literature. This is because most people 
would tolerate oppressive bosses who treat them as means to an end
rather than an end in themselves. For how can you expect people to 
recognise and pursue their own self-interest if you consider them 
fundamentally as the "uncivilised hordes"? You cannot have it both ways
and the "unknown ideal" of pure capitalism would be a grubby, oppressive 
and alienating as "actually existing" capitalism.

As such, anarchists are firmly convinced that arguments against anarchy 
based on the lack of ability of the mass of people are inherently 
self-contradictory (when not blatantly self-servicing). If people 
are too stupid for anarchism then they are too stupid for any system you 
care to mention. Ultimately, anarchists argue that such a perspective
simply reflects the servile mentality produced by a hierarchical society
rather than a genuine analysis of humanity and our history as a species.
To quote Rousseau: 

"when I see multitudes of entirely naked savages scorn European 
voluptuousness and endure hunger, fire, the sword, and death to preserve 
only their independence, I feel that it does not behove slaves to reason 
about freedom." [quoted by Noam Chomsky, _Marxism, Anarchism, and 
Alternative Futures_, p. 780] 

A.2.18 Do anarchists support terrorism? 
 
No. This is for three reasons. 

Firstly, terrorism means either targeting or not worrying about killing 
innocent people. For anarchy to exist, it must be created by the mass of 
people. One does not convince people of one's ideas by blowing them up.
Secondly, anarchism is about self-liberation. One cannot blow up a 
social relationship. Freedom cannot be created by the actions of an 
elite few destroying rulers *on behalf of* the majority. Simply put, 
a "structure based on centuries of history cannot be destroyed with a 
few kilos of explosives." [Kropotkin, quoted by Martin A. Millar, 
_Kropotkin_, p. 174] For so long as people feel the need for rulers, 
hierarchy will exist (see section A.2.16 for more on this). As we 
have stressed earlier, freedom cannot be given, only taken. Lastly, 
anarchism aims for freedom. Hence Bakunin's comment that "when 
one is carrying out a revolution for the liberation of humanity, one 
should respect the life and liberty of men [and women]." [quoted by K.J. Kenafick, _Michael Bakunin and Karl Marx_, p. 125] For anarchists, 
means determine the ends and terrorism by its very nature violates 
life and liberty of individuals and so cannot be used to create an 
anarchist society. The history of, say, the Russian Revolution, 
confirmed Kropotkin's insight that "[v]ery sad would be the future
revolution if it could only triumph by terror." [quoted by Millar,
Op. Cit., p. 175]

Moreover anarchists are *not* against individuals but the institutions 
and social relationships that cause certain individuals to have power 
over others and abuse (i.e. use) that power. Therefore the anarchist 
revolution is about destroying structures, not people. As Bakunin 
pointed out, "we wish not to kill persons, but to abolish status 
and its perquisites" and anarchism "does not mean the death of 
the individuals who make up the bourgeoisie, but the death of the 
bourgeoisie as a political and social entity economically distinct 
from the working class." [_The Basic Bakunin_, p. 71 and p. 70] In 
other words, "You can't blow up a social relationship" (to quote 
the title of an anarchist pamphlet which presents the anarchist 
case against terrorism).

How is it, then, that anarchism is associated with violence? 
Partly this is because the state and media insist on referring to 
terrorists who are *not* anarchists as anarchists. For example, the 
German Bader-Meinhoff gang were often called "anarchists" despite 
their self-proclaimed Marxist-Leninism. Smears, unfortunately, work. 
Similarly, as Emma Goldman pointed out, "it is a known fact known
to almost everyone familiar with the Anarchist movement that a great 
number of [violent] acts, for which Anarchists had to suffer, 
either originated with the capitalist press or were instigated, if 
not directly perpetrated, by the police." [_Red Emma Speaks_, p. 262] 

An example of this process at work can be seen from the current
anti-globalisation movement. In Seattle, for example, the media
reported "violence" by protestors (particularly anarchist ones)
yet this amounted to a few broken windows. The much greater 
*actual* violence of the police against protestors (which, 
incidentally, started *before* the breaking of a single window) 
was not considered worthy of comment. Subsequent media coverage
of anti-globalisation demonstrations followed this pattern, firmly
connecting anarchism with violence in spite of that the protesters
have been the ones to suffer the greatest violence at the hands of
the state. As anarchist activist Starhawk notes, "if breaking 
windows and fighting back when the cops attack is 'violence,' then 
give me a new word, a word a thousand times stronger, to use when 
the cops are beating non-resisting people into comas." [_Staying 
on the Streets_, p. 130]

Similarly, at the Genoa protests in 2001 the mainstream media presented 
the protestors as violent even though it was the state who killed one 
of them and hospitalised many thousands more. The presence of police 
agent provocateurs in creating the violence was unmentioned by the 
media. As Starhawk noted afterwards, in Genoa "we encountered a 
carefully orchestrated political campaign of state terrorism. The 
campaign included disinformation, the use of infiltrators and 
provocateurs, collusion with avowed Fascist groups . . . , the 
deliberate targeting of non-violent groups for tear gas and beating, 
endemic police brutality, the torture of prisoners, the political 
persecution of organisers . . . They did all those openly, in a way 
that indicates they had no fear of repercussions and expected political 
protection from the highest sources." [Op. Cit., pp. 128-9] This
was, unsurprisingly, not reported by the media.

Subsequent protests have seen the media indulge in yet more 
anti-anarchist hype, inventing stories to present anarchists are
hate-filled individuals planning mass violence. For example, in
Ireland in 2004 the media reported that anarchists were planning 
to use poison gas during EU related celebrations in Dublin. Of 
course, evidence of such a plan was not forthcoming and no such 
action happened. Neither did the riot the media said anarchists were 
organising. A similar process of misinformation accompanied the
anti-capitalist May Day demonstrations in London and the protests
against the Republican National Congress in New York. In spite of
being constantly proved wrong after the event, the media always
prints the scare stories of anarchist violence (even inventing
events at, say Seattle, to justify their articles and to demonise 
anarchism further). Thus the myth that anarchism equals violence
is perpetrated. Needless to say, the same papers that hyped the
(non-existent) threat of anarchist violence remained silent on the
actual violence of, and repression by, the police against demonstrators
which occurred at these events. Neither did they run apologies after 
their (evidence-less) stories of doom were exposed as the nonsense 
they were by subsequent events.

This does not mean that Anarchists have not committed acts of 
violence. They have (as have members of other political and 
religious movements). The main reason for the association of 
terrorism with anarchism is because of the "propaganda by the 
deed" period in the anarchist movement. 
 
This period -- roughly from 1880 to 1900 -- was marked by a small 
number of anarchists assassinating members of the ruling class 
(royalty, politicians and so forth). At its worse, this period saw 
theatres and shops frequented by members of the bourgeoisie targeted. 
These acts were termed "propaganda by the deed." Anarchist support for 
the tactic was galvanised by the assassination of Tsar Alexander II in 
1881 by Russian Populists (this event prompted Johann Most's famous 
editorial in _Freiheit_, entitled "At Last!", celebrating regicide 
and the assassination of tyrants). However, there were deeper reasons 
for anarchist support of this tactic: firstly, in revenge for acts 
of repression directed towards working class people; and secondly, 
as a means to encourage people to revolt by showing that their 
oppressors could be defeated.

Considering these reasons it is no coincidence that propaganda by 
the deed began in France after the 20 000-plus deaths due to the 
French state's brutal suppression of the Paris Commune, in which 
many anarchists were killed. It is interesting to note that while 
the anarchist violence in revenge for the Commune is relatively well 
known, the state's mass murder of the Communards is relatively unknown.
Similarly, it may be known that the Italian Anarchist Gaetano Bresci
assassinated King Umberto of Italy in 1900 or that Alexander Berkman
tried to kill Carnegie Steel Corporation manager Henry Clay Frick in
1892. What is often unknown is that Umberto's troops had fired upon 
and killed protesting peasants or that Frick's Pinkertons had also
murdered locked-out workers at Homestead. 

Such downplaying of statist and capitalist violence is hardly 
surprising. "The State's behaviour is violence," points out
Max Stirner, "and it calls its violence 'law'; that of the
individual, 'crime.'" [_The Ego and Its Own_, p. 197] Little
wonder, then, that anarchist violence is condemned but the
repression (and often worse violence) that provoked it ignored 
and forgotten. Anarchists point to the hypocrisy of the accusation
that anarchists are "violent" given that such claims come from 
either supporters of government or the actual governments themselves,
governments "which came into being through violence, which maintain
themselves in power through violence, and which use violence 
constantly to keep down rebellion and to bully other nations."
[Howard Zinn, _The Zinn Reader_, p. 652]

We can get a feel of the hypocrisy surrounding condemnation of 
anarchist violence by non-anarchists by considering their response 
to state violence. For example, many capitalist papers and individuals 
in the 1920s and 1930s celebrated Fascism as well as Mussolini and 
Hitler. Anarchists, in contrast, fought Fascism to the death and 
tried to assassinate both Mussolini and Hitler. Obviously supporting
murderous dictatorships is not "violence" and "terrorism" but 
resisting such regimes is! Similarly, non-anarchists can support 
repressive and authoritarian states, war and the suppression of 
strikes and other forms of unrest by violence ("restoring law and 
order") and not be considered "violent." Anarchists, in contrast, 
are condemned as "violent" and "terrorist" because a few of them 
tried to revenge such acts of oppression and state/capitalist 
violence! Similarly, it seems the height of hypocrisy for someone
to denounce the anarchist "violence" which produces a few broken
windows in, say, Seattle while supporting the actual violence of
the police in imposing the state's rule or, even worse, supporting
the American invasion of Iraq in 2003. If anyone should be considered
violent it is the supporter of state and its actions yet people do
not see the obvious and "deplore the type of violence that the 
state deplores, and applaud the violence that the state practises."
[Christie and Meltzer, _The Floodgates of Anarchy_, p. 132]

It must be noted that the majority of anarchists did not support 
this tactic. Of those who committed "propaganda by the deed" 
(sometimes called "attentats"), as Murray Bookchin points out,
only a "few . . .  were members of Anarchist groups. The majority
. . . were soloists." [_The Spanish Anarchists_, p. 102] Needless
to say, the state and media painted all anarchists with the same
brush. They still do, sometimes inaccurately (such as blaming
Bakunin for such acts even though he had been dead years before
the tactic was even discussed in anarchist circles!).

All in all, the "propaganda by the deed" phase of anarchism was 
a failure, as the vast majority of anarchists soon came to see. 
Kropotkin can be considered typical. He "never liked the slogan 
*propaganda by deed,* and did not use it to describe his own 
ideas of revolutionary action." However, in 1879 while still 
"urg[ing] the importance of collective action" he started 
"expressing considerable sympathy and interest in *attentats*" 
(these "collective forms of action" were seen as acting "at 
the trade union and communal level"). In 1880 he "became less
preoccupied with collective action and this enthusiasm for
acts of revolt by individuals and small groups increased." 
This did not last and Kropotkin soon attached "progressively 
less importance to isolated acts of revolt" particularly once 
"he saw greater opportunities for developing collective action
in the new militant trade unionism." [Caroline Cahm, _Kropotkin 
and the Rise of Revolutionary Anarchism_, p. 92, p. 115, p. 129, 
pp. 129-30, p. 205] By the late 1880s and early 1890s he came 
to disapprove of such acts of violence. This was partly due to 
simple revulsion at the worse of the acts (such as the Barcelona 
Theatre bombing in response to the state murder of anarchists 
involved in the Jerez uprising of 1892 and Emile Henry's bombing 
of a cafe in response to state repression) and partly due to the 
awareness that it was hindering the anarchist cause. 

Kropotkin recognised that the "spate of terrorist acts" of the 
1880s had caused "the authorities into taking repressive action 
against the movement" and were "not in his view consistent 
with the anarchist ideal and did little or nothing to promote
popular revolt." In addition, he was "anxious about the 
isolation of the movement from the masses" which "had increased 
rather than diminished as a result of the preoccupation with" 
propaganda by deed. He "saw the best possibility for popular 
revolution in the . . . development of the new militancy in the 
labour movement. From now on he focussed his attention increasingly 
on the importance of revolutionary minorities working among the
masses to develop the spirit of revolt." However, even during
the early 1880s when his support for individual acts of revolt 
(if not for propaganda by the deed) was highest, he saw the 
need for collective class struggle and, therefore, "Kropotkin 
always insisted on the importance of the labour movement in the 
struggles leading up to the revolution." [Op. Cit., pp. 205-6, 
p. 208 and p. 280] 

Kropotkin was not alone. More and more anarchists came to see 
"propaganda by the deed" as giving the state an excuse to clamp 
down on both the anarchist and labour movements. Moreover, it 
gave the media (and opponents of anarchism) a chance to associate 

anarchism with mindless violence, thus alienating much of the 
population from the movement. This false association is renewed 
at every opportunity, regardless of the facts (for example, even 
though Individualist Anarchists rejected "propaganda by the deed" 
totally, they were also smeared by the press as "violent" and 
"terrorists").
 
In addition, as Kropotkin pointed out, the assumption behind propaganda 
by the deed, i.e. that everyone was waiting for a chance to rebel, was 
false. In fact, people are products of the system in which they live; 
hence they accepted most of the myths used to keep that system going. 
With the failure of propaganda by the deed, anarchists turned back to what 
most of the movement had been doing anyway: encouraging the class struggle 
and the process of self-liberation. This turn back to the roots of 
anarchism can be seen from the rise in anarcho-syndicalist unions after 
1890 (see section A.5.3). 
 
Despite most anarchists' tactical disagreement with propaganda by 
deed, few would consider it to be terrorism or rule out assassination 
under all circumstances. Bombing a village during a war because there 
*might* be an enemy in it is terrorism, whereas assassinating a murdering 
dictator or head of a repressive state is defence at best and revenge 
at worst. As anarchists have long pointed out, if by terrorism it is 
meant "killing innocent people" then the state is the greatest terrorist 
of them all (as well as having the biggest bombs and other weapons of
destruction available on the planet). If the people committing "acts 
of terror" are really anarchists, they would do everything possible 
to avoid harming innocent people and never use the statist line that 
"collateral damage" is regrettable but inevitable. This is why the
vast majority of "propaganda by the deed" acts were directed towards
individuals of the ruling class, such as Presidents and Royalty, and
were the result of previous acts of state and capitalist violence.

So "terrorist" acts have been committed by anarchists. This is a fact. 
However, it has nothing to do with anarchism as a socio-political 
theory. As Emma Goldman argued, it was "not Anarchism, as such, but 
the brutal slaughter of the eleven steel workers [that] was the urge 
for Alexander Berkman's act." [Op. Cit., p. 268] Equally, members of 
*other* political and religious groups have also committed such acts. 
As the Freedom Group of London argued:

"There is a truism that the man [or woman] in the street seems 
always to forget, when he is abusing the Anarchists, or whatever
party happens to be his *bete noire* for the moment, as the 
cause of some outrage just perpetrated. This indisputable
fact is that homicidal outrages have, from time immemorial,
been the reply of goaded and desperate classes, and goaded
and desperate individuals, to wrongs from their fellowmen [and
women], which they felt to be intolerable. Such acts are the 
violent recoil from violence, whether aggressive or repressive 
. . . their cause lies not in any special conviction, but in the 
depths of . . . human nature itself. The whole course of history, 
political and social, is strewn with evidence of this." [quoted by 
Emma Goldman, Op. Cit., p. 259]

Terrorism has been used by many other political, social and 
religious groups and parties. For example, Christians, Marxists, 
Hindus, Nationalists, Republicans, Moslems, Sikhs, Fascists, 
Jews and Patriots have all committed acts of terrorism. Few of these 
movements or ideas have been labelled as "terrorist by nature" or 
continually associated with violence -- which shows anarchism's 
threat to the status quo. There is nothing more likely to discredit 
and marginalise an idea than for malicious and/or ill-informed 
persons to portray those who believe and practice it as 
"mad bombers" with no opinions or ideals at all, just an 
insane urge to destroy.   
 
Of course, the vast majority of Christians and so on have opposed terrorism 
as morally repugnant and counter-productive. As have the vast majority of  
anarchists, at all times and places. However, it seems that in our case  
it is necessary to state our opposition to terrorism time and time again. 
 
So, to summarise - only a small minority of terrorists have ever been 
anarchists, and only a small minority of anarchists have ever been 
terrorists. The anarchist movement as a whole has always recognised that 
social relationships cannot be assassinated or bombed out of existence. 
Compared to the violence of the state and capitalism, anarchist violence
is a drop in the ocean. Unfortunately most people remember the acts of
the few anarchists who have committed violence rather than the acts of
violence and repression by the state and capital that prompted those acts.
 
A.2.19 What ethical views do anarchists hold? 
 
Anarchist viewpoints on ethics vary considerably, although all share 
a common belief in the need for an individual to develop within themselves 
their own sense of ethics. All anarchists agree with Max Stirner that 
an individual must free themselves from the confines of existing morality 
and question that morality - "I decide whether it is the *right thing* for 
me; there is no right *outside* me." [_The Ego and Its Own_, p. 189] 
 
Few anarchists, however, would go so far as Stirner and reject *any* concept 
of social ethics at all (saying that, Stirner does value some universal 
concepts although they are egoistic ones). Such extreme moral relativism  
is almost as bad as moral absolutism for most anarchists (moral relativism  
is the view that there is no right or wrong beyond what suits an individual  
while moral absolutism is that view that what is right and wrong is 
independent of what individuals think). 
 
It is often claimed that modern society is breaking up because of excessive  
"egoism" or moral relativism. This is false. As far as moral relativism goes, 
this is a step forward from the moral absolutism urged upon society by various  
Moralists and true-believers because it bases itself, however slimly, upon 
the idea of individual reason. However, as it denies the existence (or  
desirability) of ethics it is but the mirror image of what it is rebelling  
against. Neither option empowers the individual or is liberating. 
 
Consequently, both of these attitudes hold enormous attraction to 
authoritarians, as a populace that is either unable to form an opinion about 
things (and will tolerate anything) or who blindly follow the commands of  
the ruling elite are of great value to those in power. Both are rejected by  
most anarchists in favour of an evolutionary approach to ethics based upon  
human reason to develop the ethical concepts and interpersonal empathy to  
generalise these concepts into ethical attitudes within society as well as  
within individuals. An anarchistic approach to ethics therefore shares the 
critical individual investigation implied in moral relativism but grounds 
itself into common feelings of right and wrong. As Proudhon argued: 
 
"All progress begins by abolishing something; every reform rests upon 
denunciation of some abuse; each new idea is based upon the proved 
insufficiency of the old idea." 
 
Most anarchists take the viewpoint that ethical standards, like life itself, 
are in a constant process of evolution. This leads them to reject the various 
notions of "God's Law," "Natural Law," and so on in favour of a theory of  
ethical development based upon the idea that individuals are entirely  
empowered to question and assess the world around them -- in fact, they  
require it in order to be truly free. You cannot be an anarchist and blindly  
accept *anything*! Michael Bakunin, one of the founding anarchist thinkers,  
expressed this radical scepticism as so: 
 
"No theory, no ready-made system, no book that has ever been written will 
save the world. I cleave to no system. I am a true seeker." 

Any system of ethics which is not based on individual questioning can
only be authoritarian. Erich Fromm explains why:

"Formally, authoritarian ethics denies man's capacity to know what is 
good or bad; the norm giver is always an authority transcending the 
individual. Such a system is based not on reason and knowledge but on 
awe of the authority and on the subject's feeling of weakness and 
dependence; the surrender of decision making to the authority results 
from the latter's magic power; its decisions can not and must not be 
questioned. *Materially*, or according to content, authoritarian ethics
answers the question of what is good or bad primarily in terms of the 
interests of the authority, not the interests of the subject; it is 
exploitative, although the subject may derive considerable benefits, 
psychic or material, from it." [_Man For Himself_, p. 10]
 
Therefore Anarchists take, essentially, a scientific approach to problems.  
Anarchists arrive at ethical judgements without relying on the mythology of  
spiritual aid, but on the merits of their own minds. This is done through  
logic and reason, and is a far better route to resolving moral questions  
than obsolete, authoritarian systems like orthodox religion and certainly  
better than the "there is no wrong or right" of moral relativism. 
 
So, what are the source of ethical concepts? For Kropotkin, "nature has thus  
to be recognised as the *first ethical teacher of man.* The social instinct, 
innate in men as well as in all the social animals, -- this is the origin 
of all ethical conceptions and all subsequent development of morality." 
[_Ethics_, p. 45] 
 
Life, in other words, is the basis of anarchist ethics. This means that,  
essentially (according to anarchists), an individual's ethical viewpoints  
are derived from three basic sources: 
 
1) from the society an individual lives in. As Kropotkin pointed out,  
"Man's conceptions of morality are completely dependent upon the form that  
their social life assumed at a given time in a given locality . . . this  
[social life] is reflected in the moral conceptions of men and in the moral  
teachings of the given epoch." [Op. Cit., p. 315] In other words, experience  
of life and of living. 
 
2) A critical evaluation by individuals of their society's ethical norms, 
as indicated above. This is the core of Erich Fromm's argument that "Man  
must accept the responsibility for himself and the fact that only using his  
own powers can he give meaning to his life.  . . *there is no meaning to life  
except the meaning man gives his life by the unfolding of his powers, by  
living productively.*" [_Man for Himself_, p. 45] In other words, individual 
thought and development. 
 
3) The feeling of empathy - "the true origin of the moral sentiment . . .
[is] simply in the feeling of sympathy." ["Anarchist Morality", _Anarchism_, 
p. 94] In other words, an individual's ability to feel and share experiences 
and concepts with others. 
 
This last factor is very important for the development of a sense of 
ethics. As Kropotkin argued, "[t]he more powerful your imagination, the  
better you can picture to yourself what any being feels when it is made  
to suffer, and the more intense and delicate will your moral sense be. . . 
And the more you are accustomed by circumstances, by those surrounding you,  
or by the intensity of your own thought and your imagination, to *act* as  
your own thought and imagination urge, the more will the moral sentiment 
grow in you, the more will it became habitual" [Op. Cit., p. 95] 

 
So, anarchism is based (essentially) upon the ethical maxim "treat others as 
you would like them to treat you under similar circumstances." Anarchists 
are neither egoists nor altruists when it come to moral stands, they are 
simply *human.* 
 
As Kropotkin noted, "egoism" and "altruism" both have their roots in the  
same motive -- "however great the difference between the two actions in  
their result of humanity, the motive is the same. It is the quest for  
pleasure." [Op. Cit., p. 85] 
 
For anarchists, a person's sense of ethics must be developed by themselves 
and requires the full use of an individual's mental abilities as part of 
a social grouping, as part of a community. As capitalism and other forms 
of authority weaken the individual's imagination and reduce the number of  
outlets for them to exercise their reason under the dead weight of hierarchy  
as well as disrupting community, little wonder that life under capitalism  
is marked by a stark disregard for others and lack of ethical behaviour.  

Combined with these factors is the role played by inequality within 
society. Without equality, there can be no real ethics for "Justice 
implies Equality. . . only those who consider *others* as their
*equals* can obey the rule: 'Do not do to others what you do not wish 
them to do to you.' A serf-owner and a slave merchant can evidently
not recognise . . . the 'categorial imperative' [of treating people as
ends in themselves and not as means] as regards serfs [or slaves] because
they do not look upon them as equals." Hence the "greatest obstacle
to the maintenance of a certain moral level in our present societies
lies in the absence of social equality. Without *real* equality, the
sense of justice can never be universally developed, because *Justice
implies the recognition of Equality.*" [Peter Kropotkin, _Evolution
and Environment_, p. 88 and p. 79] 

Capitalism, like any society, gets the ethical behaviour it deserves. 
 
In a society which moves between moral relativism and absolutism 
it is little wonder that egoism becomes confused with egotism. By 
disempowering individuals from developing their own ethical ideas 
and instead encouraging blind obedience to external authority (and 
so moral relativism once individuals think that they are without 
that authority's power), capitalist society ensures an impoverishment 
of individuality and ego. As Erich Fromm puts it: 
 
"The failure of modern culture lies not in its principle of 
individualism, not in the idea that moral virtue is the same as 
the pursuit of self-interest, but in the deterioration of the 
meaning of self-interest; not in the fact that people are *too 
much concerned with their self-interest,* but that they are *not 
concerned enough with the interest of their real self; not in  
the fact that they are too selfish, but that they do not love 
themselves.*" [_Man for Himself_, p. 139] 
 
Therefore, strictly speaking, anarchism is based upon an egoistic frame 
of reference -- ethical ideas must be an expression of what gives us 
pleasure as a whole individual (both rational and emotional, reason 
and empathy). This leads all anarchists to reject the false division 
between egoism and altruism and recognise that what many people (for 
example, capitalists) call "egoism" results in individual self-negation 
and a reduction of individual self-interest. As Kropotkin argues: 
 
"What was it that morality, evolving in animal and human societies, was 
striving for, if not for the opposition to the promptings of narrow 
egoism, and bringing up humanity in the spirit of the development of 
altruism? The very expressions 'egoism' and 'altruism' are incorrect, 
because there can be no pure altruism without an admixture of personal 
pleasure - and consequently, without egoism. It would therefore be more 
nearly correct to say that ethics aims at *the development of social 
habits and the weakening of the narrowly personal habits.* These last 
make the individual lose sight of society through his regard for his own 
person, and therefore they even fail to attain their object, i.e. the 
welfare of the individual, whereas the development of habits of work 
in common, and of mutual aid in general, leads to a series of beneficial 
consequences in the family as well as society." [_Ethics_, pp. 307-8] 
 
Therefore anarchism is based upon the rejection of moral absolutism 
(i.e. "God's Law," "Natural Law," "Man's Nature," "A is A") and the  
narrow egotism which moral relativism so easily lends itself to. Instead,  
anarchists recognise that there exists concepts of right and wrong which  
exist outside of an individual's evaluation of their own acts. 
 
This is because of the social nature of humanity. The interactions between 
individuals do develop into a social maxim which, according to Kropotkin, 
can be summarised as "[i]s it useful to society? Then it is good. Is it 
hurtful? Then it is bad." Which acts human beings think of as right or wrong 
is not, however, unchanging and the "estimate of what is useful or harmful 
. . . changes, but the foundation remains the same." ["Anarchist Morality", 
Op. Cit., p. 91 and p. 92] 
 
This sense of empathy, based upon a critical mind, is the fundamental basis 
of social ethics - the 'what-should-be' can be seen as an ethical criterion 
for the truth or validity of an objective 'what-is.' So, while recognising  
the root of ethics in nature, anarchists consider ethics as fundamentally a 
*human* idea -- the product of life, thought and evolution created by  
individuals and generalised by social living and community. 
 
So what, for anarchists, is unethical behaviour? Essentially anything 
that denies the most precious achievement of history: the liberty, 
uniqueness and dignity of the individual. 
 
Individuals can see what actions are unethical because, due to empathy, 
they can place themselves into the position of those suffering the 
behaviour. Acts which restrict individuality can be considered 
unethical for two (interrelated) reasons: 
 
Firstly, the protection and development of individuality in all enriches the 
life of every individual and it gives pleasure to individuals because of 
the diversity it produces. This egoist basis of ethics reinforces the 
second (social) reason, namely that individuality is good for society for  
it enriches the community and social life, strengthening it and allowing  
it to grow and evolve. As Bakunin constantly argued, progress is marked by 
a movement from "the simple to the complex" or, in the words of Herbert 
Read, it "is measured by the degree of differentiation within a society. 
If the individual is a unit in a corporate mass, his [or her] life will be  
limited, dull, and mechanical. If the individual is a unit on his [or her]  
own, with space and potentiality for separate action . . .he can develop - 
develop in the only real meaning of the word -- develop in consciousness 
of strength, vitality, and joy." ["The Philosophy of Anarchism," 
_Anarchy and Order_, p. 37] 
 
This defence of individuality is learned from nature. In an ecosystem,  
diversity is strength and so biodiversity becomes a source of basic ethical  
insight. In its most basic form, it provides a guide to "help us distinguish  
which of our actions serve the thrust of natural evolution and which of them  
impede them." [Murray Bookchin, _The Ecology of Freedom_, p. 342] 
 
So, the ethical concept "lies in the feeling of sociality, inherent in the  
entire animal world and in the conceptions of equity, which constitutes one  
of the fundamental primary judgements of human reason." Therefore anarchists 
embrace "the permanent presence of a *double tendency* -- towards greater 
development on the one side, of *sociality*, and, on the other side, of 
a consequent increase of the intensity of life which results in an increase 
of happiness for the *individuals*, and in progress -- physical, intellectual, 
and moral." [Kropotkin, _Ethics_, pp. 311-2 and pp. 19-20] 
 
Anarchist attitudes to authority, the state, capitalism, private property  
and so on all come from our ethical belief that the liberty of individuals  
is of prime concern and that our ability to empathise with others,  
to see ourselves in others (our basic equality and common individuality,  
in other words). 
 
Thus anarchism combines the subjective evaluation by individuals of a given 
set of circumstances and actions with the drawing of objective interpersonal  
conclusions of these evaluations based upon empathic bounds and discussion  
between equals. Anarchism is based on a humanistic approach to ethical  
ideas, one that evolves along with society and individual development. 
Hence an *ethical* society is one in which "[d]ifference among people 
will be respected, indeed fostered, as elements that enrich the unity of  
experience and phenomenon . . . [the different] will be conceived of as  
individual parts of a whole all the richer because of its complexity."  
[Murray Bookchin, _Post Scarcity Anarchism_, p. 82]

A.2.20 Why are most anarchists atheists?

It is a fact that most anarchists are atheists. They reject the idea
of god and oppose all forms of religion, particularly organised religion.
Today, in secularised western European countries, religion has lost 
its once dominant place in society. This often makes the militant 
atheism of anarchism seem strange. However, once the negative role 
of religion is understood the importance of libertarian atheism 
becomes obvious. It is because of the role of religion and its 
institutions that anarchists have spent some time refuting the idea 
of religion as well as propagandising against it. 

So why do so many anarchists embrace atheism? The simplest answer 
is that most anarchists are atheists because it is a logical extension 
of anarchist ideas. If anarchism is the rejection of illegitimate 
authorities, then it follows that it is the rejection of the so-called 
Ultimate Authority, God. Anarchism is grounded in reason, logic, and 
scientific thinking, not religious thinking. Anarchists tend to be 
sceptics, and not believers. Most anarchists consider the Church to 
be steeped in hypocrisy and the Bible a work of fiction, riddled with contradictions, absurdities and horrors. It is notorious in its 
debasement of women and its sexism is infamous. Yet men are treated 
little better. Nowhere in the bible is there an acknowledgement that 
human beings have inherent rights to life, liberty, happiness, dignity, 
fairness, or self-government. In the bible, humans are sinners, worms, 
and slaves (figuratively and literally, as it condones slavery). God 
has all the rights, humanity is nothing. 

This is unsurprisingly, given the nature of religion. Bakunin put it 
best:

"*The idea of God implies the abdication of human reason and justice; it
is the most decisive negation of human liberty, and necessarily ends in
the enslavement of mankind, both in theory and in practice.*

"Unless, then, we desire the enslavement and degradation of mankind
. . . we may not, must not make the slightest concession either to the 
God of theology or to the God of metaphysics. He who, in this mystical
alphabet, begins with A will inevitably end with Z; he who desires to
worship God must harbour no childish illusions about the matter, but
bravely renounce his liberty and humanity.

"If God is, man is a slave; now, man can and must be free; then, God 
does not exist." [_God and the State_, p. 25]

For most anarchists, then, atheism is required due to the nature of
religion. "To proclaim as divine all that is grand, just, noble, and
beautiful in humanity," Bakunin argued, "is to tacitly admit that 
humanity of itself would have been unable to produce it -- that is, 
that, abandoned to itself, its own nature is miserable, iniquitous,
base, and ugly. Thus we come back to the essence of all religion -- 
in other words, to the disparagement of humanity for the greater 
glory of divinity." As such, to do justice to our humanity and the 
potential it has, anarchists argue that we must do without the 
harmful myth of god and all it entails and so on behalf of "human 
liberty, dignity, and prosperity, we believe it our duty to recover 
from heaven the goods which it has stolen and return them to earth." 
[Op. Cit., p. 37 and p. 36]

As well as the theoretical degrading of humanity and its liberty, 
religion has other, more practical, problems with it from an 
anarchist point of view. Firstly, religions have been a source of
inequality and oppression. Christianity (like Islam), for example, 
has always been a force for repression whenever it holds any 
political or social sway (believing you have a direct line to god 
is a sure way of creating an authoritarian society). The Church 
has been a force of social repression, genocide, and the 
justification for every tyrant for nearly two millennia. When
given the chance it has ruled as cruelly as any monarch or
dictator. This is unsurprising:

"God being everything, the real world and man are nothing. God being
truth, justice, goodness, beauty, power and life, man is falsehood,
iniquity, evil, ugliness, impotence, and death. God being master, man is
the slave. Incapable of finding justice, truth, and eternal life by his
own effort, he can attain them only through a divine revelation. But
whoever says revelation, says revealers, messiahs, prophets, priests,
and legislators inspired by God himself; and these, as the holy
instructors of humanity, chosen by God himself to direct it in the path
of salvation, necessarily exercise absolute power. All men owe them
passive and unlimited obedience; for against the divine reason there is
no human reason, and against the justice of God no terrestrial justice
holds." [Bakunin, Op. Cit., p. 24]

Christianity has only turned tolerant and peace-loving when it is 
powerless and even then it has continued its role as apologist for 
the powerful. This is the second reason why anarchists oppose the
church for when not being the source of oppression, the church has
justified it and ensured its continuation. It has kept the working 
class in bondage for generations by sanctioning the rule of earthly 
authorities and teaching working people that it is wrong to fight 
against those same authorities. Earthly rulers received their 
legitimisation from the heavenly lord, whether political (claiming 
that rulers are in power due to god's will) or economic (the rich 
having been rewarded by god). The bible praises obedience, raising 
it to a great virtue. More recent innovations like the Protestant 
work ethic also contribute to the subjugation of working people. 

That religion is used to further the interests of the powerful can 
quickly be seen from most of history. It conditions the oppressed 
to humbly accept their place in life by urging the oppressed to be 
meek and await their reward in heaven. As Emma Goldman argued, 
Christianity (like religion in general) "contains nothing dangerous 
to the regime of authority and wealth; it stands for self-denial 
and self-abnegation, for penance and regret, and is absolutely 
inert in the face of every [in]dignity, every outrage imposed upon 
mankind." [_Red Emma Speaks_, p. 234] 

Thirdly, religion has always been a conservative force in society.
This is unsurprising, as it bases itself not on investigation and
analysis of the real world but rather in repeating the truths 
handed down from above and contained in a few holy books. Theism
is then "the theory of speculation" while atheism is "the science 
of demonstration." The "one hangs in the metaphysical clouds of the 
Beyond, while the other has its roots firmly in the soil. It is the 
earth, not heaven, which man must rescue if he is truly to be saved."
Atheism, then, "expresses the expansion and growth of the human mind"
while theism "is static and fixed." It is "the absolutism of theism, 
its pernicious influence upon humanity, its paralysing effect upon 
thought and action, which Atheism is fighting with all its power."
[Emma Goldman, Op. Cit., p. 243, p. 245 and pp. 246-7]

As the Bible says, "By their fruits shall ye know them." We anarchists 
agree but unlike the church we apply this truth to religion as well. 
That is why we are, in the main, atheists. We recognise the destructive 
role played by the Church, and the harmful effects of organised 
monotheism, particularly Christianity, on people. As Goldman summaries, 
religion "is the conspiracy of ignorance against reason, of darkness 
against light, of submission and slavery against independence and 
freedom; of the denial of strength and beauty, against the affirmation 
of the joy and glory of life." [Op. Cit., p. 240]

So, given the fruits of the Church, anarchists argue that it is time 
to uproot it and plant new trees, the trees of reason and liberty. 

That said, anarchists do not deny that religions contain important 
ethical ideas or truths. Moreover, religions can be the base for 
strong and loving communities and groups. They can offer a sanctuary 
from the alienation and oppression of everyday life and offer a guide 
to action in a world where everything is for sale. Many aspects of, 
say, Jesus' or Buddha's life and teachings are inspiring and worth 
following. If this were not the case, if religions were simply a tool 
of the powerful, they would have long ago been rejected. Rather, 
they have a dual-nature in that contain both ideas necessary to live 
a good life as well as apologetics for power. If they did not, the 
oppressed would not believe and the powerful would suppress them 
as dangerous heresies.

And, indeed, repression has been the fate of any group that
has preached a radical message. In the middle ages numerous 
revolutionary Christian movements and sects were crushed by 
the earthly powers that be with the firm support of the 
mainstream church. During the Spanish Civil War the Catholic 
church supported Franco's fascists, denouncing the killing of 
pro-Franco priests by supporters of the republic while remaining 
silent about Franco's murder of Basque priests who had supported 
the democratically elected government (Pope John Paul II is 
seeking to turn the dead pro-Franco priests into saints while 
the pro-Republican priests remain unmentioned). The Archbishop 
of El Salvador, Oscar Arnulfo Romero, started out as a conservative 
but after seeing the way in which the political and economic 
powers were exploiting the people became their outspoken champion. 
He was assassinated by right-wing paramilitaries in 1980 because 
of this, a fate which has befallen many other supporters of
liberation theology, a radical interpretation of the Gospels which 
tries to reconcile socialist ideas and Christian social thinking. 

Nor does the anarchist case against religion imply that religious
people do not take part in social struggles to improve society. 
Far from it. Religious people, including members of the church 
hierarchy, played a key role in the US civil rights movement of 
the 1960s. The religious belief within Zapata's army of peasants 
during the Mexican revolution did not stop anarchists taking part 
in it (indeed, it had already been heavily influenced by the
ideas of anarchist militant Ricardo Flores Magon). It is the 
dual-nature of religion which explains why many popular movements
and revolts (particularly by peasants) have taken used the rhetoric 
of religion, seeking to keep the good aspects of their faith will 
fighting the earthly injustice. For anarchists, it is the willingness 
to fight against injustice which counts, not whether someone believes 
in god or not. We just think that the social role of religion is to 
dampen down revolt, not encourage it. The tiny number of radical 
priests compared to those in the mainstream or on the right 
suggests the validity of our analysis.

It should be stressed that anarchists, while overwhelmingly hostile to 
the idea of the Church and an established religion, do not object to 
people practising religious belief on their own or in groups, so long 
as that practice doesn't impinge on the liberties of others. For example, 
a cult that required human sacrifice or slavery would be antithetical to 
anarchist ideas, and would be opposed. But peaceful systems of belief 
could exist in harmony within in anarchist society. The anarchist view 
is that religion is a personal matter, above all else -- if people want 
to believe in something, that's their business, and nobody else's as 
long as they do not impose those ideas on others. All we can do is 
discuss their ideas and try and convince them of their errors.

To end, it should noted that we are not suggesting that atheism 
is somehow mandatory for an anarchist. Far from it. As we discuss 
in section A.3.7, there are anarchists who do believe in god or some 
form of religion. For example, Tolstoy combined libertarian ideas 
with a devote Christian belief. His ideas, along with Proudhon's, 
influences the Catholic Worker organisation, founded by anarchists
Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin in 1933 and still active today. The 
anarchist activist Starhawk, active in the current anti-globalisation 
movement, has no problems also being a leading Pagan. However, for most 
anarchists, their ideas lead them logically to atheism for, as Emma 
Goldman put it, "in its negation of gods is at the same time the 
strongest affirmation of man, and through man, the eternal yea to 
life, purpose, and beauty." [_Red Emma Speaks_, p. 248]

A.3 What types of anarchism are there? 
 
Anarchists, while all sharing a few key ideas, can be grouped into 
broad categories, depending on the economic arrangements that they 
consider to be most suitable to human freedom. However, all types 
of anarchists share a basic approach. To quote Rudolf Rocker: 
 
"In common with the founders of Socialism, Anarchists demand the 
abolition of all economic monopolies and the common ownership of 
the soil and all other means of production, the use of which must 
be available to all without distinction; for personal and social
freedom is conceivable only on the basis of equal economic advantages
for everybody. Within the Socialist movement itself 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. 11]  
 
It is within this general context that anarchists disagree. The main  
differences are between "individualist" and "social" anarchists,  
although the economic arrangements each desire are not mutually 
exclusive. Of the two, social anarchists (communist-anarchists,
anarcho-syndicalists and so on) have always been the vast majority, 
with individualist anarchism being restricted mostly to the United 
States. In this section we indicate the differences between these
main trends within the anarchist movement. As will soon become clear,
while social and individualist anarchists both oppose the state and
capitalism, they disagree on the nature of a free society (and how to
get there). In a nutshell, social anarchists prefer communal solutions 
to social problems and a communal vision of the good society (i.e. a 
society that protects and encourages individual freedom). Individualist 
anarchists, as their name suggests, prefer individual solutions and have 
a more individualistic vision of the good society. However, we must
not let these difference cloud what both schools have in common, namely
a desire to maximise individual freedom and end state and capitalist
domination and exploitation.

In addition to this major disagreement, anarchists also disagree 
over such issues as syndicalism, pacifism, "lifestylism," animal 
rights and a whole host of other ideas, but these, while important, 
are only different aspects of anarchism. Beyond a few key ideas,  
the anarchist movement (like life itself) is in a constant state of 
change, discussion and thought -- as would be expected in a movement 
that values freedom so highly. 
 
To put our cards on the table, the writers of this FAQ place  
themselves firmly in the "social" strand of anarchism. This  
does not mean that we ignore the many important ideas associated  
with individualist anarchism, only that we think social anarchism  
is more appropriate for modern society, that it creates a stronger  
base for individual freedom, and that it more closely reflects the  
sort of society we would like to live in. 
 
A.3.1 What are the differences between individualist and social anarchists? 
 
While there is a tendency for individuals in both camps to claim that  
the proposals of the other camp would lead to the creation of some  
kind of state, the differences between individualists and social  
anarchists are not very great. Both are anti-state, anti-authority 
and anti-capitalist. The major differences are twofold. 
 
The first is in regard to the means of action in the here and now
(and so the manner in which anarchy will come about). Individualists 
generally prefer education and the creation of alternative institutions, 
such as mutual banks, unions, communes, etc. They usually support 
strikes and other non-violent forms of social protest (such as rent 
strikes, the non-payment of taxes and so on). Such activity, they
argue, will ensure that present society will gradually develop out 
of government into an anarchist one. They are primarily evolutionists, 
not revolutionists, and dislike social anarchists' use of direct action 
to create revolutionary situations. They consider revolution as being
in contradiction to anarchist principles as it involves the expropriation
of capitalist property and, therefore, authoritarian means. Rather they 
seek to return to society the wealth taken out of society by property by 
means of an new, alternative, system of economics (based around mutual 
banks and co-operatives). In this way a general "social liquidation" would
be rendered easy, with anarchism coming about by reform and not by
expropriation. 

Most social anarchists recognise the need for education and to create 
alternatives (such as libertarian unions), but most disagree that this 
is enough in itself. They do not think capitalism can be reformed piece 
by piece into anarchy, although they do not ignore the importance of reforms 
by social struggle that increase libertarian tendencies within capitalism.
Nor do they think revolution is in contradiction with anarchist principles
as it is not authoritarian to destroy authority (be it state or capitalist). 
Thus the expropriation of the capitalist class and the destruction of the
state by social revolution is a libertarian, not authoritarian, act by
its very nature as it is directed against those who govern and exploit 
the vast majority. In short, social anarchists are usually evolutionists 
*and* revolutionists, trying to strengthen libertarian tendencies within 
capitalism while trying to abolish that system by social revolution. However, 
as some social anarchists are purely evolutionists too, this difference is 
not the most important one dividing social anarchists from individualists.
 
The second major difference concerns the form of anarchist economy  
proposed. Individualists prefer a market-based system of distribution  
to the social anarchists need-based system. Both agree that the current
system of capitalist property rights must be abolished and that use
rights must replace property rights in the means of life (i.e. the
abolition of rent, interest and profits -- "usury," to use the 
individualist anarchists' preferred term for this unholy trinity).
In effect, both schools follow Proudhon's classic work _What is
Property?_ and argue that possession must replace property in a
free society (see section B.3 for a discussion of anarchist 
viewpoints on property). 

However, within this use-rights framework, the two schools of anarchism
propose different systems. The social anarchist generally argues for 
communal (or social) ownership and use. This would involve social
ownership of the means of production and distribution, with personal
possessions remaining for things you use, but not what was used to
create them. Thus "your watch is your own, but the watch factory belongs
to the people." "Actual use," continues Berkman, "will be considered 
the only title -- not to ownership but to possession. The organisation 
of the coal miners, for example, will be in charge of the coal mines, 
not as owners but as the operating agency . . . Collective possession, 
co-operatively managed in the interests of the community, will
take the place of personal ownership privately conducted for profit."
[_What is Anarchism?_, p. 217] 

This system would be based on workers' self-management of their work 
and (for most social anarchists) the free sharing of the product of 
that labour (i.e. an economic system without money). This is because
"in the present state of industry, when everything is interdependent,
when each branch of production is knit up with all the rest, the
attempt to claim an individualist origin for the products of 
industry is untenable." Given this, it is impossible to "estimate
the share of each in the riches which *all* contribute to amass"
and, moreover, the "common possession of the instruments of labour 
must necessarily bring with it the enjoyment in common of the 
fruits of common labour." [_Kropotkin, _The Conquest of Bread_,
p. 45 and p. 46] By this social anarchists simply mean that the 
social product which is produced by all would be available to all 
and each individual who has contributed productively to society can 
take what they need (how quickly we can reach such an ideal is a
moot point, as we discuss in section I.2.2). Some social anarchists, 
like mutualists for example, are against such a system of libertarian 
(or free) communism, but, in general, the vast majority of social 
anarchists look forward to the end of money and, therefore, of buying 
and selling. All agree, however, that anarchy will see "Capitalistic
and proprietary exploitation stopped everywhere" and "the wage system 
abolished" whether by "equal and just exchange" (like Proudhon) or 
by the free sharing (like Kropotkin). [Proudhon, _The General Idea of 
the Revolution_, p. 281]

In contrast, the individualist anarchist (like the mutualist) denies 
that this system of use-rights should include the product of the workers 
labour. Instead of social ownership, individualist anarchists propose a 
more market based system in which workers would possess their own means 
of production and exchange the product of their labour freely with other 
workers. They argue that capitalism is not, in fact, a truly free market. 
Rather, by means of the state, capitalists have placed fetters on the 
market to create and protect their economic and social power (market 
discipline for the working class, state aid for the ruling class in 
other words). These state created monopolies (of money, land, tariffs 
and patents) and state enforcement of capitalist property rights are 
the source of economic inequality and exploitation. With the abolition 
of government, *real* free competition would result and ensure the end 
of capitalism and capitalist exploitation (see Benjamin Tucker's essay 
_State Socialism and Anarchism_ for an excellent summary of this 
argument).

The Individualist anarchists argue that the means of production (bar land)
are the product of individual labour and so they accept that people should 
be able to sell the means of production they use, if they so desire. 
However, they reject capitalist property rights and instead favour an
"occupancy and use" system. If the means of production, say land, is not  
in use, it reverts back to common ownership and is available to others  
for use. They think this system, also called mutualism, will result in  
workers control of production and the end of capitalist exploitation  
and usury. This is because, logically and practically, a regime of 
"occupancy and use" cannot be squared with wage labour. If a workplace
needs a group to operate it then it must be owned by the group who use
it. If one individual claims to own it and it is, in fact, used by more
than that person then, obviously, "occupancy and use" is violated. Equally,
if an owner employs others to use the workplace then the boss can 
appropriate the product of the workers' labour, so violating the maxim 
that labour should receive its full product. Thus the principles of 
individualist anarchism point to anti-capitalist conclusions (see section 
G.3).
 
This second difference is the most important. The individualist fears  
being forced to join a community and thus losing his or her freedom  
(including the freedom to exchange freely with others). Max Stirner
puts this position well when he argues that "Communism, by the 
abolition of all personal property, only presses me back still
more into dependence on another, to wit, on the generality or
collectivity . . . [which is] a condition hindering my free
movement, a sovereign power over me. Communism rightly revolts
against the pressure that I experience from individual proprietors;
but still more horrible is the might that it puts in the hands of
the collectivity." [_The Ego and Its Own_, p. 257] Proudhon also 
argued against communism, stating that the community becomes the 
proprietor under communism and so capitalism and communism are 
based on property and so authority (see the section "Characteristics
of communism and of property" in _What is Property?_). Thus the 
Individualist anarchist argues that social ownership places the
individual's freedom in danger as any form of communism subjects
the individual to society or the commune. They fear that as well 
as dictating individual morality, socialisation would effectively 
eliminate workers' control as "society" would tell workers what to 
produce and take the product of their labour. In effect, they argue 
that communism (or social ownership in general) would be similar to 
capitalism, with the exploitation and authority of the boss replaced 
with that of "society."

Needless to say, social anarchists disagree. They argue that 
Stirner's and Proudhon's comments are totally correct -- but 
only about authoritarian communism. As Kropotkin argued, "before
and in 1848, the theory [of communism] was put forward in such
a shape as to fully account for Proudhon's distrust as to its
effect upon liberty. The old idea of Communism was the idea of
monastic communities under the severe rule of elders or of men
of science for directing priests. The last vestiges of liberty
and of individual energy would be destroyed, if humanity ever
had to go through such a communism." [_Act for Yourselves_, p. 98]
Kropotkin always argued that communist-anarchism was a *new*
development and given that it dates from the 1870s, Proudhon's
and Stirner's remarks cannot be considered as being directed
against it as they could not be familiar with it.

Rather than subject the individual to the community, social
anarchists argue that communal ownership would provide the
necessary framework to protect individual liberty in all aspects
of life by abolishing the power of the property owner, in whatever
form it takes. In addition, rather than abolish *all* individual 
"property," communist anarchism acknowledges the importance of 
individual possessions and individual space. Thus we find Kropotkin 
arguing against forms of communism that "desire to manage the 
community after the model of a family . . . [to live] all in 
the same house and . . . thus forced to continuously meet the 
same 'brethren and sisters' . . . [it is] a fundamental error to 
impose on all the 'great family' instead of trying, on the contrary, 
to guarantee as much freedom and home life to each individual." 
[_Small Communal Experiments and Why They Fail_, pp. 8-9] The aim 
of anarchist-communism is, to again quote Kropotkin, to place "the 
product reaped or manufactured at the disposal of all, leaving to 
each the liberty to consume them as he pleases in his own home." 
[_The Place of Anarchism in the Evolution of Socialist Thought_, 
p. 7] This ensures individual expression of tastes and desires and 
so individuality -- both in consumption *and* in production, as
social anarchists are firm supporters of workers' self-management.

Thus, for social anarchists, the Individualist Anarchist opposition 
to communism is only valid for state or authoritarian communism and 
ignores the fundamental nature of communist-anarchism. Communist
anarchists do not replace individuality with community but rather
use community to defend individuality. Rather than have "society"
control the individual, as the Individualist Anarchist fears, social 
anarchism is based on importance of individuality and individual
expression:

"Anarchist Communism maintains that most valuable of all conquests
-- individual liberty -- and moreover extends it and gives it a
solid basis -- economic liberty -- without which political liberty
is delusive; it does not ask the individual who has rejected god,
the universal tyrant, god the king, and god the parliament, to
give unto himself a god more terrible than any of the proceeding
-- god the Community, or to abdicate upon its altar his [or her] 
independence, his [or her] will, his [or her] tastes, and to renew
the vow of asceticism which he formally made before the crucified 
god. It says to him, on the contrary, 'No society is free so long
as the individual is not so! . . .'" [Op. Cit., pp. 14-15]

In addition, social anarchists have always recognised the need for 
voluntary collectivisation. If people desire to work by themselves, 
this is not seen as a problem (see Kropotkin's _The Conquest of 
Bread_, p. 61 and _Act for Yourselves_, pp. 104-5 as well as 
Malatesta's _Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas_, p. 99 and p. 103). 
This, social anarchists, stress does not in any way contradict their 
principles or the communist nature of their desired society as such 
exceptions are rooted in the "use rights" system both are based in (see 
section I.6.2 for a full discussion). In addition, for social anarchists
an association exists solely for the benefit of the individuals that  
compose it; it is the means by which people co-operate to meet their  
common needs. Therefore, *all* anarchists emphasise the importance  
of free agreement as the basis of an anarchist society. Thus all 
anarchists agree with Bakunin: 
 
"Collectivism could only imposed only on slaves, and this kind of
collectivism would then be the negation of humanity. In a free 
community, collectivism can only come about through the pressure 
of circumstances, not by imposition from above but by a free 
spontaneous movement from below." [_Bakunin on Anarchism_,  p. 200]
 
If individualists desire to work for themselves and exchange goods  
with others, social anarchists have no objection. Hence our comments
that the two forms of anarchism are not mutually exclusive. Social
anarchists support the right of individuals *not* to join a commune
while Individualist Anarchists support the rights of individuals to
pool their possessions as they see fit, including communistic
associations. However, if, in the name of freedom, an individual 
wished to claim property rights so as to exploit the labour of others, 
social anarchists would quickly resist this attempt to recreate statism 
in the name of "liberty." Anarchists do not respect the "freedom" to 
be a ruler! In the words of Luigi Galleani:
 
"No less sophistical is the tendency of those who, under the comfortable  
cloak of anarchist individualism, would welcome the idea of domination  
. . . But the heralds of domination presume to practice individualism  
in the name of their ego, over the obedient, resigned, or inert ego of 
others." [_The End of Anarchism?_, p. 40] 
 
Moreover, for social anarchists, the idea that the means of production  
can be sold implies that private property could be reintroduced in an  
anarchist society. In a free market, some succeed and others fail. As 
Proudhon argued, in competition victory goes to the strongest. When
one's bargaining power is weaker than another then any "free exchange"
will benefit the stronger party. Thus the market, even a non-capitalist
one, will tend to magnify inequalities of wealth and power over time
rather than equalising them. Under capitalism this is more obvious
as those with only their labour power to sell are in a weaker position
than those with capital but individualist anarchism would also be
affected. 

Thus, social anarchists argue, much against its will an individualist 
anarchist society would evolve away from fair exchanges back into 
capitalism. If, as seems likely, the "unsuccessful" competitors are 
forced into unemployment they may have to sell their labour to the 
"successful" in order to survive. This would create authoritarian 
social relationships and the domination of the few over the many 
via "free contracts." The enforcement of such contracts (and others 
like them), in all likelihood, "opens . . . the way for reconstituting 
under the heading of 'defence' all the functions of the State." [Peter 
Kropotkin, _Anarchism_, p. 297] 
 
Benjamin Tucker, the anarchist most influenced by liberalism and 
free market ideas, also faced the problems associated with all 
schools of abstract individualism -- in particular, the acceptance 
of authoritarian social relations as an expression of "liberty." 
This is due to the similarity of property to the state. Tucker 
argued that the state was marked by two things, aggression and 
"the assumption of authority over a given area and all within 
it, exercised generally for the double purpose of more complete 
oppression of its subjects and extension of its boundaries." 
[_Instead of a Book_, p. 22] However, the boss and landlord also 
has authority over a given area (the property in question) and 
all within it (workers and tenants). The former control the 
actions of the latter just as the state rules the citizen or 
subject. In other words, individual ownership produces the
same social relationships as that created by the state, as it
comes from the same source (monopoly of power over a given
area and those who use it).

Social anarchists argue that the Individualist Anarchists acceptance 
of individual ownership and their individualistic conception of individual
freedom can lead to the denial of individual freedom by the creation 
of social relationships which are essentially authoritarian/statist in 
nature. "The individualists," argued Malatesta, "give the greatest 
importance to an abstract concept of freedom and fail to take into 
account, or dwell on the fact that real, concrete freedom is the 
outcome of solidarity and voluntary co-operation." [_The Anarchist 
Revolution_, p. 16] Thus wage labour, for example, places the 
worker in the same relationship to the boss as citizenship places 
the citizen to the state, namely of one of domination and subjection. 
Similarly with the tenant and the landlord.

Such a social relationship cannot help but produce the other aspects 
of the state. As Albert Meltzer points out, this can have nothing but
statist implications, because "the school  of Benjamin Tucker -- by 
virtue of their individualism -- accepted the need for police to 
break strikes so as to guarantee the employer's 'freedom.' All this 
school of so-called Individualists accept . . . the necessity of 
the police force, hence for government, and the prime definition 
of anarchism is *no government.*" [_Anarchism: Arguments For and 
Against_, p. 14] It is partly for this reason social anarchists
support social ownership as the best means of protecting individual
liberty.
 
Accepting individual ownership this problem can only be "got round" 
by accepting, along with Proudhon (the source of Tucker's economic 
ideas), the need for co-operatives to run workplaces that require 
more than one worker. This naturally complements their support
for "occupancy and use" for land, which would effectively abolish 
landlords. Only when the people who use a resource own it can 
individual ownership not result in hierarchical authority (i.e.
statism/capitalism). This solution, as we argue in section G, is 
the one Individualist Anarchists *do* seem to accept. For example,
we find Joseph Labadie writing to his son urging him to get away
from wage earning and "the dominion of others." [quoted by Carlotta
Abderson, _All American Anarchist_, p. 222] As Wm. Gary Kline correctly 
points out, the US Individualist anarchists "expected a society of 
largely self-employed workmen with no significant disparity of wealth 
between any of them." [_The Individualist Anarchists_, p. 104] It is 
this vision of a self-employed society that ensures that their ideas 
are truly anarchist.

Moreover, while the individualists attack "usury," they usually
ignore the problem of capital accumulation, which results in 
*natural* barriers of entry into markets and so recreates usury 
in new forms (see section C.4 "Why does the market become dominated 
by big business?"). Hence a "free market" in banks, as advocated by 
Tucker and other Individualist Anarchists, could result in a few big 
banks dominating, with a direct economic interest in supporting 
capitalist rather than co-operative investment (as they would ensure
higher returns than co-operatives). The only real solution to this 
problem would be to ensure community ownership and management of 
banks, as originally desired by Proudhon. 
 
It is this recognition of the developments within the capitalist  
economy which make social anarchists reject individualist anarchism  
in favour of communalising, and so decentralising, production by  
freely associated and co-operative labour. (For more discussion on  
the ideas of the Individualist anarchists, see section G - "Is  
individualist anarchism capitalistic?") 
 
A.3.2 Are there different types of social anarchism? 
 
Yes. Social anarchism has four major trends -- mutualism, collectivism,  
communism and syndicalism. The differences are not great and simply 
involve differences in strategy. The one major difference that does exist 
is between mutualism and the other kinds of social anarchism. Mutualism is  
based around a form of market socialism -- workers' co-operatives exchanging 
the product of their labour via a system of community banks. This mutual 
bank network would be "formed by the whole community, not for the especial  
advantage of any individual or class, but for the benefit of all . . . 
[with] no interest . . . exacted on loans, except enough to cover risks  
and expenses." Such a system would end capitalist exploitation and oppression  
for by "introducing mutualism into exchange and credit we introduce it  
everywhere, and labour will assume a new aspect and become truly democratic."  
[Charles A. Dana, _Proudhon and his "Bank of the People"_, pp. 44-45 and 
p. 45] 

The social anarchist version of mutualism differs from the individualist 
form by having the mutual banks owned by the local community (or commune) 
instead of being independent co-operatives. This would ensure that they
provided investment funds to co-operatives rather than to capitalistic
enterprises. Another difference is that some social anarchist mutualists
support the creation of what Proudhon termed an "agro-industrial federation" 
to complement the federation of libertarian communities (called communes 
by Proudhon). This is a "confederation . . . intended to provide 
reciprocal security in commerce and industry" and large scale developments 
such as roads, railways and so on. The purpose of "specific federal 
arrangements is to protect the citizens of the federated states [sic!] 
from capitalist and financial feudalism, both within them and from the 
outside." This is because "political right requires to be buttressed by 
economic right." Thus the agro-industrial federation would be required 
to ensure the anarchist nature of society from the destabilising effects 
of market exchanges (which can generate increasing inequalities in wealth 
and so power). Such a system would be a practical example of solidarity, 
as "industries are sisters; they are parts of the same body; one cannot 
suffer without the others sharing in its suffering. They should therefore 
federate, not to be absorbed and confused together, but in order to 
guarantee mutually the conditions of common prosperity . . . Making such 
an agreement will not detract from their liberty; it will simply give 
their liberty more security and force." [_The Principle of Federation_, 
p. 70, p. 67 and p. 72]
 
The other forms of social anarchism do not share the mutualists support  
for markets, even non-capitalist ones. Instead they think that freedom is  
best served by communalising production and sharing information and products  
freely between co-operatives. In other words, the other forms of social
anarchism are based upon common (or social) ownership by federations of
producers' associations and communes rather than mutualism's system of 
individual co-operatives. In Bakunin's words, the "future social organisation
must be made solely from the bottom upwards, by the free association or
federation of workers, firstly in their unions, then in the communes,
regions, nations and finally in a great federation, international and
universal" and "the land, the instruments of work and all other capital
may become the collective property of the whole of society and be 
utilised only by the workers, in other words by the agricultural and
industrial associations." [_Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings_, p. 206 
and p. 174] Only by extending the principle of co-operation beyond individual 
workplaces can individual liberty be maximised and protected (see section 
I.1.3 for why most anarchists are opposed to markets). In this they share 
some ground with Proudhon, as can be seen. The industrial confederations 
would "guarantee the mutual use of the tools of production which are
the property of each of these groups and which will by a reciprocal 
contract become the collective property of the whole . . . federation.
In this way, the federation of groups will be able to . . . regulate
the rate of production to meet the fluctuating needs of society." 
[James Guillaume, _Bakunin on Anarchism_, p. 376] 

These anarchists share the mutualists support for workers' self-management 
of production within co-operatives but see confederations of these 
associations as being the focal point for expressing mutual aid, not 
a market. Workplace autonomy and self-management would be the basis 
of any federation, for "the workers in the various factories have not 
the slightest intention of handing over their hard-won control of the 
tools of production to a superior power calling itself the 'corporation.'"
[Guillaume, Op. Cit., p. 364] In addition to this industry-wide federation, 
there would also be cross-industry and community confederations to look 
after tasks which are not within the exclusive jurisdiction or capacity 
of any particular industrial federation or are of a social nature. Again, 
this has similarities to Proudhon's mutualist ideas.

Social anarchists share a firm commitment to common ownership of the means  
of production (excluding those used purely by individuals) and reject the  
individualist idea that these can be "sold off" by those who use them. The  
reason, as noted earlier, is because if this could be done, capitalism and  
statism could regain a foothold in the free society. In addition, other 
social anarchists do not agree with the mutualist idea that capitalism can 
be reformed into libertarian socialism by introducing mutual banking. For  
them capitalism can only be replaced by a free society by social revolution. 
 
The major difference between collectivists and communists is over the  
question of "money" after a revolution. Anarcho-communists consider the  
abolition of money to be essential, while anarcho-collectivists consider  
the end of private ownership of the means of production to be the key. 
As Kropotkin noted, collectivist anarchism "express[es] a state of things
in which all necessaries for production are owned in common by the labour
groups and the free communes, while the ways of retribution [i.e. 
distribution] of labour, communist or otherwise, would be settled by 
each group for itself." [_Anarchism_, p. 295] Thus, while communism 
and collectivism both organise production in common via producers'
associations, they differ in how the goods produced will be distributed.
Communism is based on free consumption of all while collectivism is 
more likely to be based on the distribution of goods according to the 
labour contributed. However, most anarcho-collectivists think that, 
over time, as productivity increases and the sense of community becomes 
stronger, money will disappear. Both agree that, in the end, society 
would be run along the lines suggested by the communist maxim: "From each 
according to their abilities, to each according to their needs." They 
just disagree on how quickly this will come about (see section I.2.2).

For anarcho-communists, they think that "communism -- at least partial --
has more chances of being established than collectivism" after a revolution.
[Op. Cit., p. 298] They think that moves towards communism are essential
as collectivism "begins by abolishing private ownership of the means of
production and immediately reverses itself by returning to the system
of remuneration according to work performed which means the re-introduction
of inequality." [Alexander Berkman, _What is Anarchism?_, p. 230] The
quicker the move to communism, the less chances of new inequalities 
developing. Needless to say, these positions are *not* that different 
and, in practice, the necessities of a social revolution and the level 
of political awareness of those introducing anarchism will determine which 
system will be applied in each area.

Syndicalism is the other major form of social anarchism. Anarcho-syndicalists,  
like other syndicalists, want to create an industrial union movement based on  
anarchist ideas. Therefore they advocate decentralised, federated unions that  
use direct action to get reforms under capitalism until they are strong  
enough to overthrow it. In many ways anarcho-syndicalism can be considered
as a new version of collectivist-anarchism, which also stressed the 
importance of anarchists working within the labour movement and creating
unions which prefigure the future free society.
 
Thus, even under capitalism, anarcho-syndicalists seek to create "free  
associations of free producers." They think that these associations would  
serve as "a practical school of anarchism" and they take very seriously  
Bakunin's remark that the workers' organisations must create "not only  
the ideas but also the facts of the future itself" in the pre-revolutionary  
period. 
 
Anarcho-syndicalists, like all social anarchists, "are convinced that a
Socialist economic order cannot be created by the decrees and statutes 
of a government, but only by the solidaric collaboration of the workers 
with hand and brain in each special branch of production; that is, 
through the taking over of the management of all plants by the producers 
themselves under such form that the separate groups, plants, and branches 
of industry are independent members of the general economic organism and  
systematically carry on production and the distribution of the products 
in the interest of the community on the basis of free mutual agreements." 
[Rudolf Rocker, _Anarcho-syndicalism_, pp. 62-3] 

Again, like all social anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists see the 
collective struggle and organisation implied in unions as the school 
for anarchism. As Eugene Varlin (an anarchist active in the First 
International who was murdered at the end of the Paris Commune) 
put it, unions have "the enormous advantage of making people
accustomed to group life and thus preparing them for a more extended
social organisation. They accustom people not only to get along with
one another and to understand one another, but also to organise 
themselves, to discuss, and to reason from a collective perspective."
Moreover, as well as mitigating capitalist exploitation and oppression
in the here and now, the unions also "form the natural elements of the 
social edifice of the future; it is they who can be easily transformed
into producers associations; it is they who can make the social 
ingredients and the organisation of production work." [quoted by 
Julian P. W. Archer, _The First International in France, 1864-1872_, 
p. 196]
 
The difference between syndicalists and other revolutionary social 
anarchists is slight and purely revolves around the question of 
anarcho-syndicalist unions. Collectivist anarchists agree that 
building libertarian unions is important and that work within the 
labour movement is essential in order to ensure "the development and
organisation . . . of the social (and, by consequence, anti-political)
power of the working masses." [Bakunin, _Michael Bakunin: Selected 
Writings_, p. 197] Communist anarchists usually also acknowledge 
the importance of working in the labour movement but they generally think 
that syndicalistic organisations will be created by workers in struggle, 
and so consider encouraging the "spirit of revolt" as more important than 
creating syndicalist unions and hoping workers will join them (of course,
anarcho-syndicalists support such autonomous struggle and organisation,
so the differences are not great). Communist-anarchists also do not 
place as great an emphasis on the workplace, considering struggles 
within it to be equal in importance to other struggles against hierarchy 
and domination outside the workplace (most anarcho-syndicalists would
agree with this, however, and often it is just a question of emphasis). 
A few communist-anarchists reject the labour movement as hopelessly
reformist in nature and so refuse to work within it, but these are
a small minority. 

Both communist and collectivist anarchists recognise the need for  
anarchists to unite together in purely anarchist organisations.  
They think it is essential that anarchists work together as  
anarchists to clarify and spread their ideas to others. Syndicalists  
often deny the importance of anarchist groups and federations, arguing  
that revolutionary industrial and community unions are enough in themselves.  
Syndicalists think that the anarchist and union movements can be fused  
into one, but most other anarchists disagree. Non-syndicalists point  
out the reformist nature of unionism and urge that to keep syndicalist  
unions revolutionary, anarchists must work within them as part of an
anarchist group or federation. Most non-syndicalists consider the fusion 
of anarchism and unionism a source of potential *confusion* that would 
result in the two movements failing to do their respective work correctly. 
For more details on anarcho-syndicalism see section J.3.8 (and section
J.3.9 on why many anarchists reject aspects of it). It should be 
stressed that non-syndicalist anarchists do *not* reject the need 
for collective struggle and organisation by workers (see section H.2.8 
on that particular Marxist myth).
 
In practice, few anarcho-syndicalists totally reject the need for an  
anarchist federation, while few anarchists are totally anti-syndicalist.  
For example, Bakunin inspired both anarcho-communist and anarcho-syndicalist  
ideas, and anarcho-communists like Kropotkin, Malatesta, Berkman and Goldman  
were all sympathetic to anarcho-syndicalist movements and ideas. 

For further reading on the various types of social anarchism, we would
recommend the following: mutualism is usually associated with the
works of Proudhon, collectivism with Bakunin's, communism with Kropotkin's, 
Malatesta's, Goldman's and Berkman's. Syndicalism is somewhat different, 
as it was far more the product of workers' in struggle than the work of a 
"famous" name (although this does not stop academics calling George Sorel 
the father of syndicalism, even though he wrote about a syndicalist movement 
that already existed. The idea that working class people can develop their
own ideas, by themselves, is usually lost on them). However, Rudolf Rocker 
is often considered a leading anarcho-syndicalist theorist and the works 
of Fernand Pelloutier and Emile Pouget are essential reading to understand 
anarcho-syndicalism. For an overview of the development of social anarchism 
and key works by its leading lights, Daniel Guerin's excellent anthology 
_No Gods No Masters_ cannot be bettered.
 
A.3.3 What kinds of green anarchism are there? 
 
An emphasis on anarchist ideas as a solution to the ecological crisis 
is a common thread in most forms of anarchism today. The trend goes back 
to the late nineteenth century and the works of Peter Kropotkin and Elisee 
Reclus. The latter, for example, argued that a "secret harmony exists 
between the earth and the people whom it nourishes, and when imprudent 
societies let themselves violate this harmony, they always end up 
regretting it." Similarly, no contemporary ecologist would disagree
with his comments that the "truly civilised man [and women] understands
that his [or her] nature is bound up with the interest of all and with
that of nature. He [or she] repairs the damage caused by his predecessors
and works to improve his domain." [quoted by George Woodcock, "Introduction",
Marie Fleming, _The Geography of Freedom_, p. 15]

With regards Kropotkin, he argued that an anarchist society would be based 
on a confederation of communities that would integrate manual and brain  
work as well as decentralising and integrating industry and agriculture 
(see his classic work _Fields, Factories, and Workshops_). This idea of an  
economy in which "small is beautiful" (to use the title of E.F. Schumacher's  
Green classic) was proposed nearly 70 years before it was taken up by what  
was to become the green movement. In addition, in _Mutual Aid_ Kropotkin  
documented how co-operation within species and between them and their  
environment is usually of more benefit to them than competition. Kropotkin's  
work, combined with that of William Morris, the Reclus brothers (both of  
whom, like Kropotkin, were world-renowned geographers), and many others  
laid the foundations for the current anarchist interest in ecological issues. 
 
However, while there are many themes of an ecological nature within 
classical anarchism, it is only relatively recently that the similarities 
between ecological thought and anarchism has come to the fore (essentially 
from the publication of Murray Bookchin's classic essay "Ecology and 
Revolutionary Thought" in 1965). Indeed, it would be no exaggeration 
to state that it is the ideas and work of Murray Bookchin that has placed 
ecology and ecological issues at the heart of anarchism and anarchist 
ideals and analysis into many aspects of the green movement. 
 
Before discussing the types of green anarchism (also called eco-anarchism) 
it would be worthwhile to explain exactly *what* anarchism and ecology 
have in common. To quote Murray Bookchin, "both the ecologist and the 
anarchist place a strong emphasis on spontaneity" and "to both the 
ecologist and the anarchist, an ever-increasing unity is achieved by 
growing differentiation. *An expanding whole is created by the 
diversification and enrichment of its parts.*" Moreover, "[j]ust 
as the ecologist seeks to expand the range of an eco-system and 
promote free interplay between species, so the anarchist seeks to 
expand the range of social experiments and remove all fetters to 
its development." [_Post-Scarcity Anarchism_, p. 72 and p. 78] 
 
Thus the anarchist concern with free development, decentralisation, 
diversity and spontaneity is reflected in ecological ideas and concerns. 
Hierarchy, centralisation, the state and concentrations of wealth reduce 
diversity and the free development of individuals and their communities 
by their very nature, and so weakens the social eco-system as well as 
the actual eco-systems human societies are part of. As Bookchin argues, 
"the reconstructive message of ecology. . . [is that] we must conserve 
and promote variety" but within modern capitalist society "[a]ll that 
is spontaneous, creative and individuated is circumscribed by the  
standardised, the regulated and the massified." [Op. Cit., p. 76 and
p. 65] So, in many ways, anarchism can be considered the application 
of ecological ideas to society, as anarchism aims to empower individuals 
and communities, decentralise political, social and economic power so 
ensuring that individuals and social life develops freely and so becomes 
increasingly diverse in nature. It is for this reason Brian Morris 
argues that "the only political tradition that complements and, as
it were, integrally connects with ecology -- in a genuine and authentic
way -- is that of anarchism." [_Ecology and Anarchism_, p. 132]
 
So what kinds of green anarchism are there? While almost all forms of 
modern anarchism consider themselves to have an ecological dimension,
the specifically eco-anarchist thread within anarchism has two main 
focal points, Social Ecology and "primitivist" anarchism. In addition, 
some anarchists are influenced by Deep Ecology, although not many. 
Undoubtedly Social Ecology is the most influential and numerous 
current. Social Ecology is associated with the ideas and works of Murray  
Bookchin, who has been writing on ecological matters since the 1950's  
and, from the 1960s, has combined these issues with revolutionary 
social anarchism. His works include _Post-Scarcity Anarchism_, _Toward 
an Ecological Society_, _The Ecology of Freedom_ and a host of others. 
 
Social Ecology locates the roots of the ecological crisis firmly in 
relations of domination between people. The domination of nature is 
seen as a product of domination within society, but this domination 
only reaches crisis proportions under capitalism. In the words of 
Murray Bookchin: 
 
"The notion that man must dominate nature emerges directly from the 
domination of man by man. . .  But it was not until organic community 
relations. . . dissolved into market relationships that the planet itself 
was reduced to a resource for exploitation. This centuries-long tendency 
finds its most exacerbating development in modern capitalism. Owing to 
its inherently competitive nature, bourgeois society not only pits humans 
against each other, it also pits the mass of humanity against the nature 
world. Just as men are converted into commodities, so every aspect of 
nature is converted into a commodity, a resource to be manufactured 
and merchandised wantonly . . . The plundering of the human spirit by 
the market place is paralleled by the plundering of the earth by capital."
[Op. Cit., p. 63] 

"Only insofar," Bookchin stresses, "as the ecology *consciously* cultivates 
an anti-hierarchical and a non-domineering sensibility, structure, and
strategy for social change can it retain its very *identity* as the voice
for a new balance between humanity and nature and its *goal* for a truly
ecological society." Social ecologists contrast this to what Bookchin 
labels "environmentalism" for while social ecology "seeks to eliminate
the concept of the domination of nature by humanity by eliminating
domination of human by human, environmentalism reflects an 'instrumentalist'
or technical sensibility in which nature is viewed merely as a passive
habit, an agglomeration of external objects and forces, that must be
made more 'serviceable' for human use, irrespective of what these uses
may be. Environmentalism . . . does not bring into question the underlying
notions of the present society, notably that man must dominate nature.
On the contrary, it seeks to facilitate that domination by developing
techniques for diminishing the hazards caused by domination." 
[Murray Bookchin, _Towards an Ecological Society_, p. 77]

Social ecology offers the vision of a society in harmony with nature,
one which "involves a fundamental reversal of all the trends that mark
the historic development of capitalist technology and bourgeois society
-- the minute specialisation of machines and labour, the concentration
of resources and people in gigantic industrial enterprises and urban
entities, the stratification and bureaucratisation of nature and human
beings." Such an ecotopia "establish entirely new eco-communities that
are artistically moulded to the eco-systems in which they are located."
Echoing Kropotkin, Bookchin argues that "[s]uch an eco-community . . . 
would heal the split between town and country, between mind and body by 
fusing intellectual with physical work, industry with agricultural in a
rotation or diversification of vocational tasks."  This society would
be based on the use of appropriate and green technology, a "new kind of
technology -- or eco-technology -- one composed of flexible, versatile
machinery whose productive applications would emphasise durability and
quality, not built in obsolescence, and insensate quantitative output
of shoddy goods, and a rapid circulation of expendable commodities . . .
Such an eco-technology would use the inexhaustible energy capacities of
nature -- the sun and wind, the tides and waterways, the temperature 
differentials of the earth and the abundance of hydrogen around us as
fuels -- to provide the eco-community with non-polluting materials or
wastes that could be recycled." [Bookchin, Op. Cit., pp. 68-9]

However, this is not all. As Bookchin stresses an ecological society "is
more than a society that tries to check the mounting disequilibrium that
exists between humanity and the natural world. Reduced to simple technical
or political issues, this anaemic view of such a society's function
degrades the issues raised by an ecological critique and leads them to
purely technical and instrumental approaches to ecological problems.
Social ecology is, first of all, a *sensibility* that includes not only
a critique of hierarchy and domination but a reconstructive outlook . . .
guided by an ethics that emphasises variety without structuring differences
into a hierarchical order . . . the precepts for such an ethics . . .
[are] participation and differentiation." [_The Modern Crisis_, pp. 24-5]

Therefore social ecologists consider it essential to attack hierarchy 
and capitalism, not civilisation as such as the root cause of ecological 
problems. This is one of the key areas in which they disagree with 
"Primitivist" Anarchist ideas, who tend to be far more critical of 
*all* aspects of modern life, with some going so far as calling for  
"the end of civilisation" including, apparently, all forms of technology 
and large scale organisation. We discuss these ideas in section A.3.9.
 
We must note here that other anarchists, while generally agreeing 
with its analysis and suggestions, are deeply critical of Social Ecology's
support for running candidates in municipal elections. While Social 
Ecologists see this as a means of creating popular self-managing 
assemblies and creating a counter power to the state, few anarchists 
agree. Rather they see it as inherently reformist as well as being 
hopelessly naive about the possibilities of using elections to bring 
about social change (see section J.5.14 for a fuller discussion of this). 
Instead they propose direct action as the only means to forward anarchist 
and ecological ideas, rejecting electioneering as a dead-end which ends 
up watering down radical ideas and corrupting the people involved (see 
section J.2 -- What is Direct Action?). 
 
Lastly, there is "deep ecology," which, because of its bio-centric nature, 
many anarchists reject as anti-human. There are few anarchists who think 
that *people,* as people, are the cause of the ecological crisis, which 
many deep ecologists seem to suggest. Murray Bookchin, for example, has 
been particularly outspoken in his criticism of deep ecology and the 
anti-human ideas that are often associated with it (see _Which Way for 
the Ecology Movement?_, for example). David Watson has also argued  
against Deep Ecology (see his _How Deep is Deep Ecology?_ written 
under the name George Bradford). Most anarchists would argue that  
it is not people but the current system which is the problem, and that  
only people can change it. In the words of Murray Bookchin: 
 
"[Deep Ecology's problems] stem from an authoritarian streak in a crude 
biologism that uses 'natural law' to conceal an ever-diminishing sense 
of humanity and papers over a profound ignorance of social reality by  
ignoring the fact it is *capitalism* we are talking about, not an 
abstraction called 'Humanity' and 'Society.'" [_The Philosophy of 
Social Ecology_, p. 160] 

Thus, as Morris stresses, "by focusing entirely on the category of 
'humanity' the Deep Ecologists ignore or completely obscure the social 
origins of ecological problems, or alternatively, biologise what are 
essentially social problems." To submerge ecological critique and analysis 
into a simplistic protest against the human race ignores the real causes 
and dynamics of ecological destruction and, therefore, ensures an end 
to this destruction cannot be found. Simply put, it is hardly "people" 
who are to blame when the vast majority have no real say in the 
decisions that affect their lives, communities, industries and 
eco-systems. Rather, it is an economic and social system that places 
profits and power above people and planet. By focusing on "Humanity" 
(and so failing to distinguish between rich and poor, men and women, 
whites and people of colour, exploiters and exploited, oppressors and 
oppressed) the system we live under is effectively ignored, and so 
are the institutional causes of ecological problems. This can be
"both reactionary and authoritarian in its implications, and 
substitutes a naive understanding of 'nature' for a critical study of
real social issues and concerns." [Morris, Op. Cit., p. 135]

 
Faced with a constant anarchist critique of certain of their spokes-persons  
ideas, many Deep Ecologists have turned away from the anti-human ideas 
associated with their movement. Deep ecology, particularly the organisation 
Earth First! (EF!), has changed considerably over time, and EF! now has a 
close working relationship with the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), 
a syndicalist union. While deep ecology is not a thread of eco-anarchism, it 
shares many ideas and is becoming more accepted by anarchists as EF! rejects 
its few misanthropic ideas and starts to see that hierarchy, not the human 
race, is the problem (for a discussion between Murray Bookchin and 
leading Earth Firster! Dave Foreman see the book _Defending the Earth_). 
 
A.3.4 Is anarchism pacifistic? 
 
A pacifist strand has long existed in anarchism, with Leo Tolstoy  
being one of its major figures. This strand is usually called 
"anarcho-pacifism" (the term "non-violent anarchist" is sometimes 
used, but this expression is unfortunate because it implies the 
rest of the movement are "violent," which is not the case!). The 
union  of anarchism and pacifism is not surprising given the 
fundamental ideals and arguments of anarchism. After all, violence, 
or the threat of violence or harm, is a key means by which individual 
freedom is destroyed. As Peter Marshall points out, "[g]iven the 
anarchist's respect for the sovereignty of the individual, in the  
long run it is non-violence and not violence which is implied by 
anarchist values." [_Demanding the Impossible_, p.637] Malatesta is 
even more explicit when he wrote that the "main plank of anarchism is 
the removal of violence from human relations" and that anarchists "are 
opposed to violence." [_Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas_, p. 53] 
 
However, although many anarchists reject violence and proclaim pacifism,  
the movement, in general, is not essentially pacifistic (in the sense of opposed  
all forms of violence at all times). Rather, it is anti-militarist, being 
against the organised violence of the state but recognising that there are 
important differences between the violence of the oppressor and the 
violence of the oppressed. This explains why the anarchist movement has 
always placed a lot of time and energy in opposing the military machine 
and capitalist wars while, at the same time, supporting and organising 
armed resistance against oppression (as in the case of the Makhnovist 
army during the Russian Revolution which resisted both Red and White 
armies and the militias the anarchists organised to resist the fascists  
during the Spanish Revolution -- see sections A.5.4 and A.5.6,  
respectively).  
 
On the question of non-violence, as a rough rule of thumb, the movement 
divides along Individualist and Social lines. Most Individualist anarchists 
support purely non-violent tactics of social change, as do the Mutualists.  
However, Individualist anarchism is not pacifist as such, as many support  
the idea of violence in self-defence against aggression. Most social 
anarchists, on the other hand, do support the use of revolutionary 
violence, holding that physical force will be required to overthrow 
entrenched power and to resist state and capitalist aggression (although 
it was an anarcho-syndicalist, Bart de Ligt, who wrote the pacifist classic, 
_The Conquest of Violence_). As Malatesta put it, violence, while being 
"in itself an evil," is "justifiable only when it is necessary to defend 
oneself and others from violence" and that a "slave is always in a state 
of legitimate defence and consequently, his violence against the boss, 
against the oppressor, is always morally justifiable." [Op. Cit., p. 55
and pp. 53-54] Moreover, they stress that, to use the words of Bakunin, 
since social oppression "stems far less from individuals than from the 
organisation of things and from social positions" anarchists aim to 
"ruthlessly destroy positions and things" rather than people, since the 
aim of an anarchist revolution is to see the end of privileged classes 
"not as individuals, but as classes." [quoted by Richard B. Saltman, 
_The Social and Political Thought of Michael Bakunin_ p. 121, p. 124 
and p. 122] 
 
Indeed, the question of violence is relatively unimportant to most anarchists, 
as they do not glorify it and think that it should be kept to a minimum 
during any social struggle or revolution. All anarchists would agree with 
the Dutch pacifist anarcho-syndicalist Bart de Ligt when he argued that 
"the violence and warfare which are characteristic conditions of the 
capitalist world do not go with the liberation of the individual, which 
is the historic mission of the exploited classes. The greater the violence, 
the weaker the revolution, even where violence has deliberately been put 
at the service of the revolution." [_The Conquest of Violence_, p. 75] 
 
Similarly, all anarchists would agree with de Ligt on, to use the name of one 
of his book's chapters, "the absurdity of bourgeois pacifism." For de Ligt, 
and all anarchists, violence is inherent in the capitalist system and any 
attempt to make capitalism pacifistic is doomed to failure. This is because, 
on the one hand, war is often just economic competition carried out by other 
means. Nations often go to war when they face an economic crisis, what they 
cannot gain in economic struggle they attempt to get by conflict. On the other 
hand, "violence is indispensable in modern society. . . [because] without it 
the ruling class would be completely unable to maintain its privileged position 
with regard to the exploited masses in each country. The army is used first and 
foremost to hold down the workers. . . when they become discontented." [Bart de 
Ligt, Op. Cit., p. 62] As long as the state and capitalism exist, violence is 
inevitable and so, for anarcho-pacifists, the consistent pacifist must be an 
anarchist just as the consistent anarchist must be a pacifist. 
 
For those anarchists who are non-pacifists, violence is seen as an 
unavoidable and unfortunate result of oppression and exploitation as 
well as the only means by which the privileged classes will renounce 
their power and wealth. Those in authority rarely give up their power 
and so must be forced. Hence the need for "transitional" violence "to 
put an end to the far greater, and permanent, violence which keeps the 
majority of mankind in servitude." [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 55] To 
concentrate on the issue of violence versus non-violence is to ignore 
the real issue, namely how do we change society for the better. As 
Alexander Berkman pointed out, those anarchists who are pacifists 
confuse the issue, like those who think "it's the same as if rolling 
up your sleeves for work should be considered the work  itself." To 
the contrary, "[t]he fighting part of revolution is merely rolling 
up your sleeves. The real, actual task is ahead." [_What is 
Anarchism?_, p. 183] And, indeed, most social struggle and 
revolutions start relatively peaceful (via strikes, occupations 
and so on) and only degenerate into violence when those in power 
try to maintain their position (a classic example of this is in 
Italy, in 1920, when the occupation of factories by their workers 
was followed by fascist terror -- see section A.5.5).  
 
As noted above, all anarchists are anti-militarists and oppose both 
the military machine (and so the "defence" industry) as well as 
statist/capitalist wars (although a few anarchists, like Rudolf Rocker 
and Sam Dolgoff, supported the anti-fascist capitalist side during the 
second world war as the lesser evil). The anti-war machine message of 
anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists was propagated long before the start 
of the first world war, with syndicalists and anarchists in Britain and 
North America reprinting a French CGT leaflet urging soldiers not to 
follow orders and repress their striking fellow workers. Emma Goldman 
and Alexander Berkman were both arrested and deported from America for 
organising a "No-Conscription League" in 1917 while many anarchists in 
Europe were jailed for refusing to join the armed forces in the first 
and second world wars. The anarcho-syndicalist influenced IWW was 
crushed by a ruthless wave of government repression due to the threat 
its organising and anti-war message presented to the powerful elites 
who favoured war. More recently, anarchists, (including people like  
Noam Chomsky and Paul Goodman) have been active in the peace movement  
as well as contributing to the resistance to conscription where it still 
exists. Anarchists took an active part in opposing such wars as the 
Vietnam War, the Falklands war as well as the Gulf wars of 1991 and 2003 
(including, in Italy and Spain, helping to organise strikes in protest 
against it). And it was during the 1991 Gulf War when many anarchists 
raised the slogan "No war but the class war" which nicely sums up the 
anarchist opposition to war -- namely an evil consequence of any class 
system, in which the oppressed classes of different countries kill 
each other for the power and profits of their rulers. Rather than take 
part in this organised slaughter, anarchists urge working people to 
fight for their own interests, not those of their masters: 
 
"More than ever we must avoid compromise; deepen the chasm between 
capitalists and wage slaves, between rulers and ruled; preach 
expropriation of private property and the destruction of states 
such as the only means of guaranteeing fraternity between peoples 
and Justice and Liberty for all; and we must prepare to accomplish 
these things." [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 251] 
 
We must note here that Malatesta's words were written in part against 
Peter Kropotkin who, for reasons best known to himself, rejected everything 
he had argued for decades and supported the allies in the First World War  
as a lesser evil against German authoritarianism and Imperialism. Of course,  
as Malatesta pointed out, "all Governments and all capitalist classes" do  
"misdeeds . . . against the workers and rebels of their own countries."  
[Op. Cit., p. 246] He, along with Berkman, Goldman and a host of other 
anarchists, put their name to International Anarchist Manifesto against 
the First World War. It expressed the opinion of the bulk of the anarchist 
movement (at the time and consequently) on war and how to stop it. It is 
worth quoting from:

"The truth is that the cause of wars . . . rests solely in the 
existence of the State, which is the form of privilege . . . Whatever
the form it may assume, the State is nothing but organised oppression
for the advantage of a privileged minority . . . 

"The misfortune of the peoples, who were deeply attached to peace,
is that, in order to avoid war, they placed their confidence in the
State with its intriguing diplomatists, in democracy, and in political
parties . .  . This confidence has been deliberately betrayed, and
continues to be so, when governments, with the aid of the whole of
the press, persuade their respective people that this war is a war
of liberation.

"We are resolutely against all wars between peoples, and . . . have
been, are, and ever will be most energetically opposed to war.

"The role of the Anarchists . . . is to continue to proclaim that 
there is only one war of liberation: that which in all countries is
waged by the oppressed against the oppressors, by the exploited against
the exploiters. Our part is to summon the slaves to revolt against 
their masters.

"Anarchist action and propaganda should assiduously and perseveringly
aim at weakening and dissolving the various States, at cultivating the
spirit of revolt, and arousing discontent in peoples and armies. . .

"We must take advantage of all the movements of revolt, of all the
discontent, in order to foment insurrection, and to organise the 
revolution which we look to put end to all social wrongs. . . Social
justice realised through the free organisation of producers: war 
and militarism done away with forever; and complete freedom won,
by the abolition of the State and its organs of destruction."
["International Anarchist Manifesto on the War," _Anarchy! An 
Anthology of Emma Goldman's Mother Earth_, pp. 386-8]

Thus, the attraction of pacifism to anarchists is clear. Violence *is* 
authoritarian and coercive, and so its use does contradict anarchist 
principles. That is why anarchists would agree with Malatesta when he 
argues that "[w]e are on principle opposed to violence and for this 
reason wish that the social struggle should be conducted as humanely 
as possible." [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 57] Most, if not all, anarchists 
who are not strict pacifists agree with pacifist-anarchists when they 
argue that violence can often be counterproductive, alienating people 
and giving the state an excuse to repress both the anarchist movement 
and popular movements for social change. All anarchists support 
non-violent direct action and civil disobedience, which often provide 
better roads to radical change.  
  
So, to sum up, anarchists who are pure pacifists are rare. Most accept the 
use of violence as a necessary evil and advocate minimising its use. All 
agree that a revolution which *institutionalises* violence will just 
recreate the state in a new form. They argue, however, that it is not 
authoritarian to destroy authority or to use violence to resist violence.  
Therefore, although most anarchists are not pacifists, most reject 
violence except in self-defence and even then kept to the minimum.  
 
A.3.5 What is Anarcha-Feminism? 
 
Although opposition to the state and all forms of authority had a strong 
voice among the early feminists of the 19th century, the more recent 
feminist movement which began in the 1960's was founded upon anarchist 
practice. This is where the term anarcha-feminism came from, referring  
to women anarchists who act within the larger feminist and anarchist 
movements to remind them of their principles. 

The modern anarcha-feminists built upon the feminist ideas of previous
anarchists, both male and female. Indeed, anarchism and feminism have 
always been closely linked. Many outstanding feminists have also been 
anarchists, including the pioneering Mary Wollstonecraft (author of 
_A Vindication of the Rights of Woman_), the Communard Louise Michel, 
and the American anarchists Voltairine de Cleyre and the tireless champion  
of women's freedom, Emma Goldman (see her famous essays "The Traffic in 
Women", "Woman Suffrage", "The Tragedy of Woman's Emancipation", "Marriage 
and Love" and "Victims of Morality", for example). _Freedom_, the world's  
oldest anarchist newspaper, was founded by Charlotte Wilson in 1886. 
Anarchist women like Virgilia D'Andrea and Rose Pesota played important
roles in both the libertarian and labour movements. The "Mujeres Libres"
("Free Women") movement in Spain during the Spanish revolution is a classic 
example of women anarchists organising themselves to defend their basic 
freedoms and create a society based on women's freedom and equality (see 
_Free Women of Spain_ by Martha Ackelsberg for more details on this 
important organisation). In addition, all the male major anarchist 
thinkers (bar Proudhon) were firm supporters of women's equality. For 
example, Bakunin opposed patriarchy and how the law "subjects [women] 
to the absolute domination of the man." He argued that "[e]qual rights 
must belong to men and women" so that women can "become independent
and be free to forge their own way of life." He looked forward to the
end of "the authoritarian juridical family" and "the full sexual 
freedom of women." [_Bakunin on Anarchism_, p. 396 and p. 397]

Thus anarchism has since the 1860s combined a radical critique of
capitalism and the state with an equally powerful critique of 
patriarchy (rule by men). Anarchists, particularly female ones,
recognised that modern society was dominated by men. As Ana Maria 
Mozzoni (an Italian anarchist immigrant in Buenos Aires) put it,
women "will find that the priest who damns you is a man; that the
legislator who oppresses you is a man, that the husband who reduces
you to an *object* is a man; that the libertine who harasses you is
a man; that the capitalist who enriches himself with your ill-paid
work and the speculator who calmly pockets the price of your body,
are men." Little has changed since then. Patriarchy still exists 
and, to quote the anarchist paper _La Questione Sociale_, it is 
still usually the case that women "are slaves both in social
and private life. If you are a proletarian, you have two tyrants:
the man and the boss. If bourgeois, the only sovereignty left to
you is that of frivolity and coquetry." [quoted by Jose Moya, 
_Italians in Buenos Aires's Anarchist Movement_, pp. 197-8 and
p. 200] 

Anarchism, therefore, is based on an awareness that fighting patriarchy 
is as important as fighting against the state or capitalism. To quote 
Louise Michel:

"The first thing that must change is the relationship between the
sexes. Humanity has two parts, men and women, and we ought to be
walking hand in hand; instead there is antagonism, and it will 
last as long as the 'stronger' half controls, or think its controls,
the 'weaker' half." [_The Red Virgin: Memoirs of Louise Michel_, p. 139]

Thus anarchism, like feminism, fights patriarchy and for women's 
equality. Both share much common history and a concern about 
individual freedom, equality and dignity for members of the female 
sex (although, as we will explain in more depth below, anarchists have  
always been very critical of mainstream/liberal feminism as not going 
far enough). Therefore, it is unsurprising that the new wave of feminism  
of the sixties expressed itself in an anarchistic manner and drew much  
inspiration from anarchist figures such as Emma Goldman. Cathy Levine  
points out that, during this time, "independent groups of women began  
functioning without the structure, leaders, and other factotums of the  
male left, creating, independently and simultaneously, organisations  
similar to those of anarchists of many decades and regions. No accident,  
either." ["The Tyranny of Tyranny," _Quiet Rumours: An Anarcha-Feminist
Reader_, p. 66] It is no accident because, as feminist scholars have 
noted, women were among the first victims of hierarchical society, 
which is thought to have begun with the rise of patriarchy and 
ideologies of domination during the late Neolithic era. Marilyn 
French argues (in _Beyond Power_) that the first major social 
stratification of the human race occurred when men began dominating 
women, with women becoming in effect a "lower" and "inferior" social 
class. 

The links between anarchism and modern feminism exist in both
ideas and action. Leading feminist thinker Carole Pateman notes 
that her "discussion [on contract theory and its authoritarian 
and patriarchal basis] owes something to" libertarian ideas, 
that is the "anarchist wing of the socialist movement." [_The 
Sexual Contract_, p. 14] Moreover, she noted in the 1980s how 
the "major locus of criticism of authoritarian, hierarchical, 
undemocratic forms of organisation for the last twenty years has 
been the women's movement . . . After Marx defeated Bakunin in 
the First International, the prevailing form of organisation in 
the labour movement, the nationalised industries and in the left 
sects has mimicked the hierarchy of the state . . . The women's 
movement has rescued and put into practice the long-submerged idea 
[of anarchists like Bakunin] that movements for, and experiments 
in, social change must 'prefigure' the future form of social 
organisation." [_The Disorder of Women_, p. 201]
 
Peggy Kornegger has drawn attention to these strong connections between 
feminism and anarchism, both in theory and practice. "The radical feminist 
perspective is almost pure anarchism," she writes. "The basic theory  
postulates the nuclear family as the basis of all authoritarian systems.  
The lesson the child learns, from father to teacher to boss to god, is  
to *obey* the great anonymous voice of Authority. To graduate from  
childhood to adulthood is to become a full-fledged automaton, incapable  
of questioning or even of thinking clearly." ["Anarchism: The Feminist
Connection," _Quiet Rumours: An Anarcha-Feminist Reader_, p. 26] 
Similarly, the Zero Collective argues that Anarcha-feminism "consists 
in recognising the anarchism of feminism and consciously developing it." 
["Anarchism/Feminism," pp. 3-7, _The Raven_, no. 21, p. 6] 
  
Anarcha-feminists point out that authoritarian traits and values, 
for example, domination, exploitation, aggressiveness, competitiveness,  
desensitisation etc., are highly valued in hierarchical civilisations and  
are traditionally referred to as "masculine." In contrast, non-authoritarian 
traits and values such as co-operation, sharing, compassion, sensitivity, 
warmth, etc., are traditionally regarded as "feminine" and are devalued.  
Feminist scholars have traced this phenomenon back to the growth of 
patriarchal societies during the early Bronze Age and their conquest of 
co-operatively based "organic" societies in which "feminine" traits and 
values were prevalent and respected. Following these conquests, however, 
such values came to be regarded as "inferior," especially for a man, since 
men were in charge of domination and exploitation under patriarchy. (See 
e.g. Riane Eisler, _The Chalice and the Blade_; Elise Boulding, _The 
Underside of History_). Hence anarcha-feminists have referred to the 
creation of a non-authoritarian, anarchist society based on co-operation, 
sharing, mutual aid, etc. as the "feminisation of society."  
 
Anarcha-feminists have noted that "feminising" society cannot be achieved 
without both self-management and decentralisation. This is because the 
patriarchal-authoritarian values and traditions they wish to overthrow  
are embodied and reproduced in hierarchies. Thus feminism implies 
decentralisation, which in turn implies self-management. Many feminists 
have recognised this, as reflected in their experiments with collective 
forms of feminist organisations that eliminate hierarchical structure and 
competitive forms of decision making. Some feminists have even argued 
that directly democratic organisations are specifically female political 
forms [see e.g. Nancy Hartsock "Feminist Theory and the Development of 
Revolutionary Strategy," in Zeila Eisenstein, ed., _Capitalist Patriarchy 
and the Case for Socialist Feminism_, pp. 56-77]. Like all anarchists, 
anarcha-feminists recognise that self-liberation is the key to women's 
equality and thus, freedom. Thus Emma Goldman: 
 
"Her development, her freedom, her independence, must come from and  
through herself. First, by asserting herself as a personality, and 
not as a sex commodity. Second, by refusing the right of anyone over 
her body; by refusing to bear children, unless she wants them, by 
refusing to be a servant to God, the State, society, the husband, the 
family, etc., by making her life simpler, but deeper and richer. That 
is, by trying to learn the meaning and substance of life in all its 
complexities; by freeing herself from the fear of public opinion and 
public condemnation." [_Anarchism and Other Essays_, p. 211] 
 
Anarcha-feminism tries to keep feminism from becoming influenced and 
dominated by authoritarian ideologies of either the right or left. It 
proposes direct action and self-help instead of the mass reformist 
campaigns favoured by the "official" feminist movement, with its  
creation of hierarchical and centralist organisations and its illusion  
that having more women bosses, politicians, and soldiers is a move 
towards "equality." Anarcha-feminists would point out that the so-called  
"management science" which women have to learn in order to become  
mangers in capitalist companies is essentially a set of techniques 
for controlling and exploiting wage workers in corporate hierarchies, 
whereas "feminising" society requires the elimination of capitalist 
wage-slavery and managerial domination altogether. Anarcha-feminists  
realise that learning how to become an effective exploiter or oppressor  
is not the path to equality (as one member of the Mujeres Libres put  
it, "[w]e did not want to substitute a feminist hierarchy for a  
masculine one" [quoted by Martha A. Ackelsberg, _Free Women of Spain_.  
p. 2] -- also see section B.1.4 for a further discussion on patriarchy 
and hierarchy). 
 
Hence anarchism's traditional hostility to liberal (or mainstream)  
feminism, while supporting women's liberation and equality. Federica  
Montseny (a leading figure in the Spanish Anarchist movement) argued  
that such feminism advocated equality for women, but did not challenge  
existing institutions. She argued that (mainstream) feminism's "only  
ambition is to give to women of a particular class the opportunity to  
participate more fully in the existing system of privilege" and if these  
institutions "are unjust when men take advantage of them, they will still  
be unjust if women take advantage of them." [quoted by Martha A. Ackelsberg,  
Op. Cit., pp. 90-91 and p. 91] Thus, for anarchists, women's freedom did 
not mean an equal chance to become a boss or a wage slave, a voter or
a politician, but rather to be a free and equal individual co-operating
as equals in free associations. "Feminism," stressed Peggy Kornegger,
"doesn't mean female corporate power or a women President; it means no
corporate power and no Presidents. The Equal Rights Amendment will not
transform society; it only gives women the 'right' to plug into a
hierarchical economy. Challenging sexism means challenging all hierarchy
-- economic, political, and personal. And that means an anarcha-feminist
revolution." [Op. Cit., p. 27] 

Anarchism, as can be seen, included a class and economic analysis
which is missing from mainstream feminism while, at the same time,
showing an awareness to domestic and sex-based power relations 
which eluded the mainstream socialist movement. This flows from
our hatred of hierarchy. As Mozzoni put it, "Anarchy defends the
cause of all the oppressed, and because of this, and in a special
way, it defends your [women's] cause, oh! women, doubly oppressed
by present society in both the social and private spheres." [quoted
by Moya, Op. Cit., p. 203] This means that, to quote a Chinese
anarchist, what anarchists "mean by equality between the sexes is
not just that the men will no longer oppress women. We also want
men to no longer to be oppressed by other men, and women no longer
to be oppressed by other women." Thus women should "completely 
overthrow rulership, force men to abandon all their special 
privileges and become equal to women, and make a world with 
neither the oppression of women nor the oppression of men."
[He Zhen, quoted by Peter Zarrow, _Anarchism and Chinese 
Political Culture_, p. 147] 

So, in the historic anarchist movement, as Martha Ackelsberg notes,  
liberal/mainstream feminism was considered as being "too narrowly  
focused as a strategy for women's emancipation; sexual struggle 
could not be separated from class struggle or from the anarchist 
project as a whole." [Op. Cit., p. 91] Anarcha-feminism continues 
this tradition by arguing that all forms of hierarchy are wrong, 
not just patriarchy, and that feminism is in conflict with its 
own ideals if it desires simply to allow women to have the same 
chance of being a boss as a man does. They simply state the obvious,
namely that they "do not believe that power in the hands of women 
could possibly lead to a non-coercive society" nor do they "believe
that anything good can come out of a mass movement with a 
leadership elite." The "central issues are always power and
social hierarchy" and so people "are free only when they have
power over their own lives." [Carole Ehrlich, "Socialism, Anarchism
and Feminism", _Quiet Rumours: An Anarcha-Feminist Reader_, p. 44]
For if, as Louise Michel put it, "a proletarian is a slave; the 
wife of a proletarian is even more a slave" ensuring that the wife
experiences an equal level of oppression as the husband misses the
point. [Op. Cit., p. 141]

Anarcha-feminists, therefore, like all anarchists oppose capitalism 
as a denial of liberty. The ideal that an "equal opportunity" capitalism  
would free women ignores the fact that any such system would still see 
working class women oppressed by bosses (be they male or female). For 
anarcha-feminists, the struggle for women's liberation cannot be  
separated from the struggle against hierarchy *as such.* As L. Susan  
Brown puts it: 
 
"Anarchist-feminism, as an expression of the anarchist sensibility 
applied to feminist concerns, takes the individual as its starting 
point and, in opposition to relations of domination and subordination, 
argues for non-instrumental economic forms that preserve individual 
existential freedom, for both men and women." [_The Politics of 
Individualism_, p. 144] 

Anarcha-feminists have much to contribute to our understanding of 
the origins of the ecological crisis in the authoritarian values of 
hierarchical civilisation. For example, a number of feminist scholars 
have argued that the domination of nature has paralleled the domination  
of women, who have been identified with nature throughout history (See, 
for example, Caroline Merchant, _The Death of Nature_, 1980). Both women  
and nature are victims of the obsession with control that characterises  
the authoritarian personality. For this reason, a growing number of both 
radical ecologists and feminists are recognising that hierarchies must be 
dismantled in order to achieve their respective goals.  
 
In addition, anarcha-feminism reminds us of the importance of treating 
women equally with men while, at the same time, respecting women's  
differences from men. In other words, that recognising and respecting  
diversity includes women as well as men. Too often many male anarchists  
assume that, because they are (in theory) opposed to sexism, they are  
not sexist in practice. Such an assumption is false. Anarcha-feminism  
brings the question of consistency between theory and practice to the 
front of social activism and reminds us all that we must fight not 
only external constraints but also internal ones. 

This means that anarcha-feminism urges us to practice what we 
preach. Faced with the sexism of male anarchists who spoke of sexual
equality, women anarchists in Spain organised themselves into the
_Mujeres Libres_ organisation to combat it. They did not believe in
leaving their liberation to some day after the revolution. Their
liberation was a integral part of that revolution and had to be 
started today. In this they repeated the conclusions of anarchist
women in Illinois Coal towns who grew tried of hearing their male
comrades "shout in favour" of sexual equality "in the future society"
while doing nothing about it in the here and now. They used a 
particularly insulting analogy, comparing their male comrades to
priests who "make false promises to the starving masses . . . [that]
there will be rewards in paradise." The argued that mothers should
make their daughters "understand that the difference in sex does 
not imply inequality in rights" and that as well as being "rebels
against the social system of today," they "should fight especially
against the oppression of men who would like to retain women as
their moral and material inferior." [Ersilia Grandi, quoted by 
Caroline Waldron Merithew, _Anarchist Motherhood_, p. 227] They
formed the "Luisa Michel" group to fight against capitalism and
patriarchy in the upper Illinois valley coal towns over three
decades before their Spanish comrades organised themselves.

For anarcha-feminists, combating sexism is a key aspect of the struggle 
for freedom. It is not, as many Marxist socialists argued before the 
rise of feminism, a diversion from the "real" struggle against capitalism
which would somehow be automatically solved after the revolution. It is 
an essential part of the struggle:

"We do not need any of your titles . . . We want none of them. What
we do want is knowledge and education and liberty. We know what our
rights are and we demand them. Are we not standing next to you
fighting the supreme fight? Are you not strong enough, men, to
make part of that supreme fight a struggle for the rights of women?
And then men and women together will gain the rights of all humanity."
[Louise Michel, Op. Cit., p. 142]

A key part of this revolutionising modern society is the transformation
of the current relationship between the sexes. Marriage is a particular
evil for "the old form of marriage, based on the Bible, 'till death doth
part,' . . . [is] an institution that stands for the sovereignty of the 
man over the women, of her complete submission to his whims and commands." 
Women are reduced "to the function of man's servant and bearer of his 
children." [Goldman, Op. Cit., pp. 220-1] Instead of this, anarchists 
proposed "free love," that is couples and families based on free agreement between equals rather than one partner being in authority and the other 
simply obeying. Such unions would be without sanction of church or state 
for "two beings who love each other do not need permission from a third 
to go to bed." [Mozzoni, quoted by Moya, Op. Cit., p. 200] 

Equality and freedom apply to more than just relationships. Neither men 
nor state should say what a women does with her body. This means that a 
women should control her own body and, of course, also means control 
over her own reproductive organs. Thus anarcha-feminists, like anarchists 
in general, are pro-choice and pro-reproductive rights (i.e. the right 
of a women to control her own reproductive decisions). This is a long 
standing position. Emma Goldman was persecuted and incarcerated because 
of her public advocacy of birth control methods and the extremist notion 
that women should decide when they become pregnant (as feminist writer
Margaret Anderson put it, "In 1916, Emma Goldman was sent to prison for
advocating that 'women need not always keep their mouth shut and their
wombs open.'").

Anarcha-feminism does not stop there. Like anarchism in general, it 
aims at changing *all* aspects of society not just what happens in 
the home. For, as Goldman asked, "how much independence is gained if 
the narrowness and lack of freedom of the home is exchanged for the 
narrowness and lack of freedom of the factory, sweat-shop, department 
store, or office?" Thus women's equality and freedom had to be fought 
everywhere and defended against all forms of hierarchy. Nor can they 
be achieved by voting. Real liberation, argue anarcha-feminists, is 
only possible by direct action and anarcha-feminism is based on women's 
self-activity and self-liberation for while the "right to vote, or 
equal civil rights, may be good demands . . . true emancipation begins 
neither at the polls nor in the courts. It begins in woman's soul . . . 
her freedom will reach as far as her power to achieve freedom reaches." 
[Goldman, Op. Cit., p. 216 and p. 224]

The history of the women's movement proves this. Every gain has 
come from below, by the action of women themselves. As Louise 
Michel put it, "[w]e women are not bad revolutionaries. Without 
begging anyone, we are taking our place in the struggles; otherwise, 
we could go ahead and pass motions until the world ends and gain 
nothing." [Op. Cit., p. 139] If women waited for others to act 
for them their social position would never have changed. This
includes getting the vote in the first place. Faced with the
militant suffrage movement for women's votes, British anarchist 
Rose Witcop recognised that it was "true that this movement shows 
us that women who so far have been so submissive to their masters, 
the men, are beginning to wake up at last to the fact they are not 
inferior to those masters." Yet she argued that women would not be 
freed by votes but "by their own strength." [quoted by Sheila Rowbotham, 
_Hidden from History_, pp. 100-1 and p. 101] The women's movement
of the 1960s and 1970s showed the truth of that analysis. In spite
of equal voting rights, women's social place had remained unchanged
since the 1920s. 

Ultimately, as Anarchist Lily Gair Wilkinson stressed, the "call 
for 'votes' can never be a call to freedom. For what is it to vote? 
To vote is to register assent to being ruled by one legislator or 
another?" [quoted by Sheila Rowbotham, Op. Cit., p. 102] It does not
get to the heart of the problem, namely hierarchy and the authoritarian
social relationships it creates of which patriarchy is only a subset of. 
Only by getting rid of all bosses, political, economic, social and sexual
can *genuine* freedom for women be achieved and "make it possible 
for women to be human in the truest sense. Everything within her 
that craves assertion and activity should reach its fullest 
expression; all artificial barriers should be broken, and the road 
towards greater freedom cleared of every trace of centuries of 
submission and slavery." [Emma Goldman, Op. Cit., p. 214]

A.3.6 What is Cultural Anarchism? 
 
For our purposes, we will define cultural anarchism as the promotion of 
anti-authoritarian values through those aspects of society traditionally 
regarded as belonging to the sphere of "culture" rather than "economics" 
or "politics" -- for example, through art, music, drama, literature,  
education, child-rearing practices, sexual morality, technology, and so 
forth.   
 
Cultural expressions are anarchistic to the extent that they 
deliberately attack, weaken, or subvert the tendency of most 
traditional cultural forms to promote authoritarian values and 
attitudes, particularly domination and exploitation.  Thus a 
novel that portrays the evils of militarism can be considered as 
cultural anarchism if it goes beyond the simple "war-is-hell" model 
and allows the reader to see how militarism is connected with 
authoritarian institutions (e.g. capitalism and statism) or methods 
of authoritarian conditioning (e.g. upbringing in the traditional 
patriarchal family). Or, as John Clark expresses it, cultural anarchism 
implies "the development of arts, media, and other symbolic forms that 
expose various aspects of the system of domination and contrast them 
with a system of values based on freedom and community." This "*cultural*
struggle" would be part of a general struggle "to combat the material
and ideological power of all dominating classes, whether economic,
political, racial, religious, or sexual, with a multi-dimensional
practice of liberation." In other words, an "expanded conception of
class analysis" and "an amplified practice of class struggle" which
includes, but is not limited to, "*economic* actions like strikes,
boycotts, job actions, occupation, organisations of direct action
groups and federations of libertarian workers' groups and 
development of workers' assemblies, collectives and cooperatives"
and "*political* activity" like the "active interference with 
implementation of repressive governmental policies," the "non-compliance
and resistance against regimentation and bureaucratisation of society" 
and "participation in movements for increasing direct participation
in decision-making and local control." [_The Anarchist Moment_, p. 31]
 
Cultural anarchism is important -- indeed essential -- because 
authoritarian values are embedded in a total system of domination with 
many aspects besides the political and economic.  Hence those values 
cannot be eradicated even by a combined economic and political revolution 
if there it is not also accompanied by profound psychological changes in 
the majority of the population.   For mass acquiescence in the current 
system is rooted in the psychic structure of human beings (their 
"character structure," to use Wilhelm Reich's expression), which is 
produced by many forms of conditioning and  socialisation that have 
developed with patriarchal-authoritarian civilisation during the past 
five or six thousand years.   
 
In other words, even if capitalism and the state were overthrown 
tomorrow, people would soon create new forms of authority in their place.  
For authority -- a strong leader, a chain of command, someone to give 
orders and relieve one of the responsibility of thinking for oneself -- 
are what the submissive/authoritarian personality feels most comfortable 
with.  Unfortunately, the majority of human beings fear real freedom, and 
indeed, do not know what to do with it -- as is shown by a long string of 
failed revolutions and freedom movements in which the revolutionary ideals 
of freedom, democracy, and equality were betrayed and a new hierarchy and 
ruling class were quickly created.  These failures are generally 
attributed to the machinations of reactionary politicians and capitalists, 
and to the perfidy of revolutionary leaders; but reactionary politicians 
only attract followers because they find a favourable soil for the growth 
of their authoritarian ideals in the character structure of ordinary 
people.  
 
Hence the prerequisite of an anarchist revolution is a lengthy period of 
consciousness-raising in which people gradually become aware of 
submissive/authoritarian traits within themselves, see how those traits 
are reproduced by conditioning, and understand how they can be mitigated 
or eliminated through new forms of culture, particularly new child-rearing 
and educational methods.  We will explore this issue more fully in section 
B.1.5 (What is the mass-psychological basis for authoritarian 
civilisation?),  J.6 (What methods of child rearing do anarchists 
advocate?), and J.5.13 (What are Modern Schools?). 
 
Cultural anarchist ideas are shared by almost all schools of anarchist thought  
and consciousness-raising is considered an essential part of any anarchist 
movement. For anarchists, its important to <i>"build the new world in the 
shell of the old"</i> in all aspects of our lives and creating an anarchist 
culture is part of that activity. Few anarchists, however, consider 
consciousness-raising as enough in itself and so combine cultural anarchist 
activities with organising, using direct action and building libertarian 
alternatives in capitalist society. The anarchist movement is one 
that combines practical self-activity with cultural work, with both 
activities feeding into and supporting the other. 
 
A.3.7 Are there religious anarchists? 
 
Yes, there are. While most anarchists have opposed religion and the 
idea of God as deeply anti-human and a justification for earthly 
authority and slavery, a few believers in religion have taken their 
ideas to anarchist conclusions. Like all anarchists, these religious 
anarchists have combined an opposition to the state with a critical 
position with regards to private property and inequality. In other  
words, anarchism is not necessarily atheistic. Indeed, according to 
Jacques Ellul, "biblical thought leads directly to anarchism, and 
that this is the only 'political anti-political' position in  
accord with Christian thinkers." [quoted by Peter Marshall,  
_Demanding the Impossible_, p. 75] 
 
There are many different types of anarchism inspired by religious ideas. 
As Peter Marshall notes, the "first clear expression of an anarchist  
sensibility may be traced back to the Taoists in ancient China from  
about the sixth century BC" and "Buddhism, particularly in its Zen  
form, . . . has . . . a strong libertarian spirit." [Op. Cit., p. 53 
and p. 65] Some, like the anti-globalisation activist Starhawk, combine 
their anarchist ideas with Pagan and Spiritualist influences. However, 
religious anarchism usually takes the form of Christian Anarchism, 
which we will concentrate on here.  
 
Christian Anarchists take seriously Jesus' words to his followers 
that "kings and governors have domination over men; let there be  
none like that among you." Similarly, Paul's dictum that there 
"is no authority except God" is taken to its obvious conclusion 
with the denial of state authority within society. Thus, for a 
true Christian, the state is usurping God's authority and it is 
up to each individual to govern themselves and discover that 
(to use the title of Tolstoy's famous book) _The Kingdom of  
God is within you_. 
 
Similarly, the voluntary poverty of Jesus, his comments on the 
corrupting effects of wealth and the Biblical claim that the 
world was created for humanity to be enjoyed in common have all 
been taken as the basis of a socialistic critique of private 
property and capitalism. Indeed, the early Christian church (which 
could be considered as a liberation movement of slaves, although 
one that was later co-opted into a state religion) was based upon  
communistic sharing of material goods, a theme which has continually  
appeared within radical Christian movements (indeed, the Bible 
would have been used to express radical libertarian aspirations  
of the oppressed, which, in later times, would have taken the form 
of anarchist or Marxist terminology). Thus clergyman's John Ball's  
egalitarian comments (as quoted by Peter Marshall [Op. Cit., p. 89])
during the Peasant Revolt in 1381 in England: 
 
		"When Adam delved and Eve span, 
		 Who was then a gentleman?" 
 
The history of Christian anarchism includes the *Heresy of the  
Free Spirit* in the Middle Ages, numerous Peasant revolts and the  
*Anabaptists* in the 16th century. The libertarian tradition within  
Christianity surfaced again in the 18th century in the writings of  
William Blake and the American Adam Ballou reached anarchist conclusions  
in his _Practical Christian Socialism_ in 1854. However, Christian  
anarchism became a clearly defined thread of the anarchist movement 
with the work of the famous Russian author Leo Tolstoy. 
 
Tolstoy took the message of the Bible seriously and came to consider 
that a true Christian must oppose the state. From his reading of 
the Bible, Tolstoy drew anarchist conclusions: 
 
"ruling means using force, and using force means doing to him whom  
force is used, what he does not like and what he who uses force would 
certainly not like done to himself. Consequently ruling means doing 
to others what we would not they should do unto us, that is, doing 
wrong." [_The Kingdom of God is Within You_, p. 242] 
 
Thus a true Christian must refrain from governing others. From this  
anti-statist position he naturally argued in favour of a society  
self-organised from below: 
 
"Why think that non-official people could not arrange their life for  
themselves, as well as Government people can arrange it nor for 
themselves but for others?" [_The Anarchist Reader_, p. 306] 
 
Tolstoy urged non-violent action against oppression, seeing a spiritual 
transformation of individuals as the key to creating an anarchist 
society. As Max Nettlau argues, the "great truth stressed by Tolstoy  
is that the recognition of the power of  the good, of goodness, of  
solidarity -- and of all that is called love -- lies within *ourselves*,  
and that it can and must be awakened, developed and exercised *in our  
own behaviour.*" [_A Short History of Anarchism_, pp. 251-2]  
 
Like all anarchists, Tolstoy was critical of private property and 
capitalism. Like Henry George (whose ideas, like those of Proudhon,  
had a strong impact on him) he opposed private property in land,  
arguing that "were it not for the defence of landed property, and  
its consequent rise in price, people would not be crowded into such  
narrow spaces, but would scatter over the free land of which there  
is still so much in the world." Moreover, "in this struggle [for  
landed property] it is not those who work in the land, but always  
those who take part in government violence, who have the advantage."  
Thus Tolstoy recognised that property rights in anything beyond use 
require state violence to protect them as possession is "always 
protected by custom, public opinion, by feelings of justice and 
reciprocity, and they do not need to be protected by violence." 
[Op. Cit., p. 307] Indeed, he argues that: 
 
"Tens of thousands of acres of forest lands belonging to one proprietor 
-- while thousands of people close by have no fuel -- need protection 
by violence. So, too, do factories and works where several generations 
of workmen have been defrauded and are still being defrauded. Yet more 
do the hundreds of thousands of bushels of grain, belonging to one 
owner, who has held them back to sell at triple price in time of 
famine." [Op. Cit., p. 307] 
 
Tolstoy argued that capitalism morally and physically ruined individuals  
and that capitalists were "slave-drivers." He considered it impossible  
for a true Christian to be a capitalist, for a "manufacturer is a man  
whose income consists of value squeezed out of the workers, and whose  
whole occupation is based on forced, unnatural labour" and therefore, 
"he must first give up ruining human lives for his own profit." [_The  
Kingdom Of God is Within You_, p. 338 and p. 339] Unsurprisingly, 
Tolstoy argued that co-operatives were the "only social activity which 
a moral, self-respecting person who doesn't want to be a party of 
violence can take part in." [quoted by Peter Marshall, Op. Cit., p. 378] 
 
From his opposition to violence, Tolstoy rejects both state and 
private property and urged pacifist tactics to end violence within 
society and create a just society. In Nettlau's words, he "asserted  
. . . *resistance to evil*; and to one of the ways of resistance -  
by active force - he added another way: *resistance through  
disobedience, the passive force.*" [Op. Cit., p. 251] In his  
ideas of a free society, Tolstoy was clearly influenced by rural 
Russian life *and* the works of Peter Kropotkin (such as _Fields, 
Factories and Workshops_), P-J Proudhon and the non-anarchist Henry 
George. 
 
Tolstoy's ideas had a strong influence on Gandhi, who inspired his 
fellow country people to use non-violent resistance to kick Britain  
out of India. Moreover, Gandhi's vision of a free India as a federation 
of peasant communes is similar to Tolstoy's anarchist vision of a 
free society (although we must stress that Gandhi was not an anarchist).  
The *Catholic Worker Group* in the United States was also heavily  
influenced by Tolstoy (and Proudhon), as was Dorothy Day a staunch 
Christian pacifist and anarchist who founded it in 1933. The influence 
of Tolstoy and religious anarchism in general can also be found in 
*Liberation Theology* movements in Latin and South America who combine 
Christian ideas with social activism amongst the working class and 
peasantry (although we should note that Liberation Theology is more 
generally inspired by state socialist ideas rather than anarchist 
ones). 

So there is a minority tradition within anarchism which draws 
anarchist conclusions from religion. However, as we noted in section
A.2.20, most anarchists disagree, arguing that anarchism implies 
atheism and it is no coincidence that the biblical thought has,
historically, been associated with hierarchy and defence of earthly
rulers. Thus the vast majority of anarchists have been and are atheists,
for "to worship or revere any being, natural or supernatural, will
always be a form of self-subjugation and servitude that will give rise
to social domination. As [Bookchin] writes: 'The moment that human
beings fall on their knees before anything that is 'higher' than 
themselves, hierarchy will have made its first triumph over freedom.'"
[Brian Morris, _Ecology and Anarchism_, p. 137] This means that most
anarchists agree with Bakunin that if God existed it would be necessary, 
for human freedom and dignity, to abolish it. Given what the Bible
says, few anarchists think it can be used to justify libertarian ideas 
rather than support authoritarian ones. 

Atheist anarchists point to the fact that the Bible is notorious for 
advocating all kinds of abuses. How does the Christian anarchist reconcile 
this? Are they a Christian first, or an anarchist? Equality, or adherence
to the Scripture? For a believer, it seems no choice at all. If the Bible
is the word of God, how can an anarchist support the more extreme positions
it takes while claiming to believe in God, his authority and his laws?
 
For example, no capitalist nation would implement the no working on 
the Sabbath law which the Bible expounds. Most Christian bosses have 
been happy to force their fellow believers to work on the seventh day in 
spite of the Biblical penalty of being stoned to death ("Six days shall work 
be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath 
of rest to the Lord: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death."
Exodus 35:2). Would a Christian anarchist advocate such a punishment for
breaking God's law? Equally, a nation which allowed a woman to be stoned 
to death for not being a virgin on her wedding night would, rightly, be 
considered utterly evil. Yet this is the fate specified in the "good
book" (Deuteronomy 22:13-21). Would premarital sex by women be considered 
a capital crime by a Christian anarchist? Or, for that matter, should "a 
stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, 
or the voice of his mother" also suffer the fate of having "all the men of 
his city . . . stone him with stones, that he die"? (Deuteronomy 21:18-21) 
Or what of the Bible's treatment of women: "Wives, submit yourselves unto 
your own husbands." (Colossians 3:18) Women are also ordered to "keep 
silence in the churches." (I Corinthians 14:34-35). Male rule is explicitly 
stated: "I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ; and the 
head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians 
11:3)  

Clearly, a Christian anarchist would have to be as highly selective as 
non-anarchist believers when it comes to applying the teachings of the 
Bible. The rich rarely proclaim the need for poverty (at least for 
themselves) and seem happy to forgot (like the churches) the difficulty 
a rich man apparently has entering heaven, for example. They seem happy 
to ignore Jesus' admonition that "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell 
that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in 
heaven: and come and follow me." (Matthew 19:21). The followers of the 
Christian right do not apply this to their political leaders, or, for 
that matter, their spiritual ones. Few apply the maxim to "Give to every 
man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them 
not again." (Luke 6:30, repeated in Matthew 5:42) Nor do they hold "all 
things common" as practised by the first Christian believers. (Acts 4:32)
So if non-anarchist believers are to be considered as ignoring the 
teachings of the Bible by anarchist ones, the same can be said of them 
by those they attack.

Moreover, idea that Christianity is basically anarchism is hard to 
reconcile with its history. The Bible has been used to defend injustice 
far more than it has been to combat it. In countries where Churches hold 
*de facto* political power, such as in Ireland, in parts of South America, 
in nineteenth and early twentieth century Spain and so forth, typically 
anarchists are strongly anti-religious because the Church has the power 
to suppress dissent and class struggle. Thus the actual role of the 
Church belies the claim that the Bible is an anarchist text.

In addition, most social anarchists consider Tolstoyian pacifism as 
dogmatic and extreme, seeing the need (sometimes) for violence to 
resist greater evils. However, most anarchists would agree with 
Tolstoyians on the need for individual transformation of values as
a key aspect of creating an anarchist society and on the importance 
of non-violence as a general tactic (although, we must stress, that 
few anarchists totally reject the use of violence in self-defence, 
when no other option is available). 
 
A.3.8 What is "anarchism without adjectives"? 
 
In the words of historian George Richard Esenwein, "anarchism without  
adjectives" in its broadest sense "referred to an unhyphenated form 
of anarchism, that is, a doctrine without any qualifying labels such 
as communist, collectivist, mutualist, or individualist. For others, 
. . . [it] was simply understood as an attitude that tolerated the 
coexistence of different anarchist schools." [_Anarchist Ideology and 
the Working Class Movement in Spain, 1868-1898_, p. 135] 
 
The originator of the expression was Cuban born Fernando Tarrida del 
Marmol who used it in November, 1889, in Barcelona. He directed his 
comments towards the communist and collectivist anarchists in Spain 
who at the time were having an intense debate over the merits of 
their two theories. "Anarchism without adjectives" was an attempt  
to show greater tolerance between anarchist tendencies and to be 
clear that anarchists should not impose a preconceived economic 
plan on anyone -- even in theory. Thus the economic preferences  
of anarchists should be of "secondary importance" to abolishing  
capitalism and the state, with free experimentation the one rule 
of a free society. 
 
Thus the theoretical perspective known as "anarquismo sin adjetives" 
("anarchism without adjectives") was one of the by-products of a 
intense debate within the movement itself. The roots of the argument 
can be found in the development of Communist Anarchism after Bakunin's 
death in 1876. While not entirely dissimilar to Collectivist Anarchism 
(as can be seen from James Guillaume's famous work "On Building the 
New Social Order" within _Bakunin on Anarchism_, the collectivists did 
see their economic system evolving into free communism), Communist 
Anarchists developed, deepened and enriched Bakunin's work just as Bakunin  
had developed, deepened and enriched Proudhon's. Communist Anarchism 
was associated with such anarchists as Elisee Reclus, Carlo Cafiero,  
Errico Malatesta and (most famously) Peter Kropotkin.  
 
Quickly Communist-Anarchist ideas replaced Collectivist Anarchism as the 
main anarchist tendency in Europe, except in Spain. Here the major issue 
was not the question of communism (although for Ricardo Mella this played 
a part) but a question of the modification of strategy and tactics implied 
by Communist Anarchism. At this time (the 1880s), the Communist Anarchists 
stressed local (pure) cells of anarchist militants, generally opposed 
trade unionism (although Kropotkin was not one of these as he saw the 
importance of militant workers organisations) as well as being somewhat  
anti-organisation as well. Unsurprisingly, such a change in strategy 
and tactics came in for a lot of discussion from the Spanish Collectivists 
who strongly supported working class organisation and struggle.  
 
This conflict soon spread outside of Spain and the discussion found its 
way into the pages of _La Revolte_ in Paris. This provoked many anarchists 
to agree with Malatesta's argument that "[i]t is not right for us, to 
say  the least, to fall into strife over mere hypotheses." [quoted by 
Max Nettlau, _A Short History of Anarchism_, p. 173] Over time, most  
anarchists agreed (to use Nettlau's words) that "we cannot foresee the  
economic development of the future" [Op. Cit., p. 201] and so started to  
stress what they had in common (opposition to capitalism and the state)  
rather than the different visions of how a free society would operate. 
As time progressed, most Communist-Anarchists saw that ignoring the 
labour movement ensured that their ideas did not reach the working 
class while most Collectivist-Anarchists stressed their commitment to 
communist ideals and their arrival sooner, rather than later, after 
a revolution. Thus both groups of anarchists could work together as
there was "no reason for splitting up into small schools, in our
eagerness to overemphasise certain features, subject to variation in
time and place, of the society of the future, which is too remote 
from us to permit us to envision all its adjustments and possible
combinations." Moreover, in a free society "the methods and the 
individual forms of association and agreements, or the organisation
of labour and of social life, will not be uniform and we cannot, at
this moment, make and forecasts or determinations concerning them."
[Malatesta, quoted by Nettlau, Op. Cit., p. 173]

Thus, Malatesta continued, "[e]ven the question as between 
anarchist-collectivism and anarchist-communism is a matter of 
qualification, of method and agreement" as the key is that, no
matter the system, "a new moral conscience will come into being,
which will make the wage system repugnant to men [and women] just
as legal slavery and compulsion are now repugnant to them." If this
happens then, "whatever the specific forms of society may turn out
to be, the basis of social organisation will be communist." As long
as we "hold to fundamental principles and . . . do our utmost to
instil them in the masses" we need not "quarrel over mere words or
trifles but give post-revolutionary society a direction towards 
justice, equality and liberty." [quoted by Nettlau, Op. Cit., p. 173
and p. 174]

Similarly, in the United States there was also an intense debate at the 
same time between Individualist and Communist anarchists. There Benjamin  
Tucker was arguing that Communist-Anarchists were not anarchists while  
John Most was saying similar things about Tucker's ideas. Just as people  
like Mella and Tarrida put forward the idea of tolerance between anarchist 
groups, so anarchists like Voltairine de Cleyre "came to label herself 
simply 'Anarchist,' and called like Malatesta for an 'Anarchism without 
Adjectives,' since in the absence of government many different  
experiments would probably be tried in various localities in order 
to determine the most appropriate form." [Peter Marshall, _Demanding 
the Impossible_, p. 393] In her own words, a whole range of economic
systems would be "advantageously tried in different localities. I 
would see the instincts and habits of the people express themselves 
in a free choice in every community; and I am sure that distinct 
environments would call out distinct adaptations." Ultimately, only
"[l]iberty and experiment alone can determine the best forms of 
society" and therefore "I no longer label myself otherwise than
'Anarchist' simply." [quoted by Paul Avrich, _An American Anarchist_,
pp. 153-4]
 
These debates had a lasting impact on the anarchist movement, with such 
noted anarchists as de Cleyre, Malatesta, Nettlau and Reclus adopting 
the tolerant perspective embodied in the expression "anarchism without 
adjectives" (see Nettlau's _A Short History of Anarchism_, pages 195 to 
201 for an excellent summary of this). It is also, we add, the dominant  
position within the anarchist movement today with most anarchists  
recognising the right of other tendencies to the name "anarchist"  
while, obviously, having their own preferences for specific types  
of anarchist theory and their own arguments why other types are 
flawed. However, we must stress that the different forms of anarchism  
(communism, syndicalism, religious etc.) are not mutually exclusive and  
you do not have to support one and hate the others. This tolerance 
is reflected in the expression "anarchism without adjectives." 
 
One last point, some "anarcho"-capitalists have attempted to use the 
tolerance associated with "anarchism without adjectives" to argue  
that their ideology should be accepted as part of the anarchist 
movement. After all, they argue, anarchism is just about getting rid 
of the state, economics is of secondary importance. However, such a 
use of "anarchism without adjectives" is bogus as it was commonly 
agreed at the time that the types of economics that were being  
discussed were *anti-capitalist* (i.e. socialistic). For Malatesta,
for example, there were "anarchists who foresee and propose other
solution, other future forms of social organisation" than communist
anarchism, but they "desire, just as we do, to destroy political 
power and private property." "Let us do away," he argued, "with
all exclusivism of schools of thinking" and let us "come to an 
understanding on ways and means, and go forwards." [quoted by Nettlau, 
Op. Cit., p. 175] In other words, it was agreed that capitalism had 
to be abolished along with the state and once this was the case free 
experimentation would develop. Thus the struggle against the state 
was just one part of a wider struggle to end oppression and 
exploitation and could not be isolated from these wider aims. As 
"anarcho"-capitalists do not seek the abolition of capitalism along 
with the state they are not anarchists and so "anarchism without 
adjectives" does not apply to the so-called "anarchist" capitalists 
(see section F on why "anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchist). 

This is not to say that after a revolution "anarcho"-capitalist communities 
would not exist. Far from it. If a group of people wanted to form such a 
system then they could, just as we would expect a community which supported 
state socialism or theocracy to live under that regime. Such enclaves of 
hierarchy would exist simply because it is unlikely that everyone on the
planet, or even in a given geographical area, will become anarchists all
at the same time. The key thing to remember is that no such system would be 
anarchist and, consequently, is not "anarchism without adjectives." 

A.3.9 What is anarcho-primitivism?

As discussed in section A.3.3, most anarchists would agree with 
Situationist Ken Knabb in arguing that "in a liberated world 
computers and other modern technologies could be used to eliminate 
dangerous or boring tasks, freeing everyone to concentrate on more 
interesting activities." Obviously "[c]ertain technologies -- nuclear 
power is the most obvious example -- are indeed so insanely dangerous 
that they will no doubt be brought to a prompt halt. Many other 
industries which produce absurd, obsolete or superfluous commodities 
will, of course, cease automatically with the disappearance of their 
commercial rationales. But many technologies . . ., however they may 
presently be misused, have few if any *inherent* drawbacks. It's 
simply a matter of using them more sensibly, bringing them under 
popular control, introducing a few ecological improvements, and 
redesigning them for human rather than capitalistic ends." [_Public 
Secrets_, p. 79 and p. 80] Thus most eco-anarchists see the use of 
appropriate technology as the means of creating a society which 
lives in balance with nature.

However, a (very) small but vocal minority of self-proclaimed Green 
anarchists disagree. Writers such as John Zerzan, John Moore and 
David Watson have expounded a vision of anarchism which, they claim, 
aims to critique every form of power and oppression. This is often 
called "anarcho-primitivism,"  which according to Moore, is simply "a 
shorthand term for a radical current that critiques the totality of 
civilisation from an anarchist perspective, and seeks to initiate a 
comprehensive transformation of human life." [_Primitivist Primer_] 

How this current expresses itself is diverse, with the most extreme 
elements seeking the end of all forms of technology, division of 
labour, domestication, "Progress", industrialism, what they call 
"mass society" and, for some, even symbolic culture (i.e. numbers, 
language, time and art). They tend to call any system which includes 
these features "civilisation" and, consequently, aim for "the destruction 
of civilisation". How far back they wish to go is a moot point. Some 
see the technological level that existed before the Industrial Revolution 
as acceptable, many go further and reject agriculture and all forms 
of technology beyond the most basic. For them, a return to the wild, 
to a hunter-gatherer mode of life, is the only way for anarchy is exist 
and dismiss out of hand the idea that appropriate technology can be used 
to create an anarchist society based on industrial production which 
minimises its impact on ecosystems.

Thus we find the primitivist magazine "Green Anarchy" arguing that those, 
like themselves, "who prioritise the values of personal autonomy or wild 
existence have reason to oppose and reject all large-scale organisations 
and societies on the grounds that they necessitate imperialism, slavery 
and hierarchy, regardless of the purposes they may be designed for." They 
oppose capitalism as it is "civilisation's current dominant manifestation." 
However, they stress that it is "Civilisation, not capitalism per se, was 
the genesis of systemic authoritarianism, compulsory servitude and social 
isolation. Hence, an attack upon capitalism that fails to target 
civilisation can never abolish the institutionalised coercion that fuels 
society. To attempt to collectivise industry for the purpose of democratising 
it is to fail to recognise that all large-scale organisations adopt a 
direction and form that is independent of its members' intentions." Thus, 
they argue, genuine anarchists must oppose industry and technology for 
"[h]ierarchical institutions, territorial expansion, and the mechanisation 
of life are all required for the administration and process of mass 
production to occur." For primitivists, "[o]nly small communities of 
self-sufficient individuals can coexist with other beings, human or not, 
without imposing their authority upon them." Such communities would share 
essential features with tribal societies, "[f]or over 99% of human history, 
humans lived within small and egalitarian extended family arrangements, 
while drawing their subsistence directly from the land." [_Against Mass 
Society_]

While such tribal communities, which lived in harmony with nature and had 
little or no hierarchies, are seen as inspirational, primitivists look (to 
use the title of a John Zerzan book) forward to seeing the "Future Primitive." 
As John Moore puts it, "the future envisioned by anarcho-primitivism . . . 
is without precedent. Although primitive cultures provide intimations of 
the future, and that future may well incorporate elements derived from 
those cultures, an anarcho-primitivist world would likely be quite 
different from previous forms of anarchy." [Op. Cit.]

For the primitivist, other forms of anarchism are simply self-managed 
alienation within essentially the same basic system we now endure, minus 
its worse excesses. Hence John Moore's comment that "classical anarchism" 
wants "to take over civilisation, rework its structures to some degree, 
and remove its worst abuses and oppressions. However, 99% of life in 
civilisation remains unchanged in their future scenarios, precisely 
because the aspects of civilisation they question are minimal . . . 
overall life patterns wouldn't change too much." Thus "[f]rom the 
perspective of anarcho-primitivism, all other forms of radicalism 
appear as reformist, whether or not they regard themselves as 
revolutionary." [Op. Cit.] 

In reply, "classical anarchists" point out three things. Firstly, to 
claim that the "worst abuses and oppressions" account for 1% of capitalist 
society is simply nonsense and, moreover, something an apologist of that 
system would happily agree with. Secondly, it is obvious from reading any 
"classical" anarchist text that Moore's assertions are nonsense. "Classical" 
anarchism aims to transform society radically from top to bottom, not tinker 
with minor aspects of it. Do primitivists really think that people who went 
to the effort to abolish capitalism would simply continue doing 99% of the 
same things they did before hand? Of course not. In other words, it is not 
enough to get rid of the boss, although this is a necessary first step!
Thirdly, and most importantly, Moore's argument ensures that his vision 
of a good society would never be achieved without genocide on an 
unimaginable scale. 

So, as can be seen, primitivism has little or no bearing to the traditional
anarchist movement and its ideas. The visions of both are simply 
incompatible, with the ideas of the latter dismissed as authoritarian 
by the former. Unsurprisingly, the ideas of primitivism and other 
anarchists are hard to reconcile. Equally unsurprisingly, other anarchists 
question whether primitivism is practical in the short term or even 
desirable in the long. While supporters of primitivism like to portray 
it as the most advanced and radical form of anarchism, other anarchists 
are less convinced. They consider it as a confused ideology which draws 
its followers into absurd positions and, moreover, is utterly impractical. 
They would agree with Ken Knabb comments that primitivism is rooted in 
"fantasies [which] contain so many obvious self-contradictions that it 
is hardly necessary to criticise them in any detail. They have questionable 
relevance to actual past societies and virtually no relevance to present 
possibilities. Even supposing that life was better in one or another 
previous era, *we have to begin from where we are now.* Modern technology 
is so interwoven with all aspects of our life that it could not be abruptly 
discontinued without causing a global chaos that would wipe out billions 
of people." [Op. Cit., p. 79]

The reason for this is simply that we live in a highly industrialised and 
interconnected system in which most people do not have the skills required 
to live in a hunter-gatherer or even agricultural society. Moreover, it 
is extremely doubtful that six billion people *could* survive as hunter-gatherers even if they had the necessary skills. As Brian Morris notes, 
"[t]he future we are told is 'primitive.' How this is to be achieved 
in a world that presently sustains almost six billion people (for evidence
suggests that the hunter-gatherer lifestyle is only able to support 1
or 2 people per sq. mile)" primitivists like Zerzan do not tell us. 
["Anthropology and Anarchism," pp. 35-41, _Anarchy: A Journal of Desire 
Armed_ no. 45, p. 38]

This means that any "primitivist" rebellion has two options. Either it 
produces a near instant transformation into a primitivist system and, 
as a consequence, kills billions of people by hunger as well as causing 
extensive ecological destruction or it involves a lengthy transition 
period during which "civilisation" and its industrial legacies are 
decommissioned safely, population levels drop naturally to an appropriate
level and people regain the necessary skills required for their new 
existence.

Sadly, option one, namely an almost overnight transformation, is what 
appears to be implied by most primitivist writers. Moore, for example, 
talks about "when civilisation collapses" ("through its own volition, 
through our efforts, or a combination of the two"). This implies an 
extremely speedy process, over which mere mortals have little say or
control. This is confirmed when he talks about the need for "positive 
alternatives" to be built now as "the social disruption caused by 
collapse could easily create the psychological insecurity and social 
vacuum in which fascism and other totalitarian dictatorships could 
flourish." [Op. Cit.] A revolution based on "collapse," "insecurity" 
and "social disruption" does not sound like a recipe for a successful 
social revolution based on mass participation and social experimentation. 

Then there is the anti-organisation dogmas expounded by primitivism. 
Moore is typical, asserting that "[o]rganisations, for anarcho-primitivists, 
are just rackets, gangs for putting a particular ideology in power" and 
reiterates the point by saying primitivists stand for "the abolition of 
all power relations, including the State . . . and any kind of party or organisation." [Op. Cit.] Yet without organisation, no modern society 
could function. There would be a total and instant collapse which would 
see not only mass starvation but also ecological destruction as nuclear 
power stations meltdown, industrial waste seeps into the surrounding 
environment, cities and towns decay and hordes of starving people fighting 
over what vegetables, fruits and animals they could find in the countryside.
Clearly an anti-organisation dogma can only be reconciled with the idea
of a near overnight "collapse" of civilisation, not with a steady progress
towards a long term goal. Equally, how many "positive alternatives" could
exist without organisation? 

Faced with the horrors that such a "collapse" would entail, those few 
primitivists who have thought the issue through end up accepting the 
need for a transition period. However, to do so exposes the contradictions 
within primitivism. For if you accept that there is a need for a transition 
from 'here' to 'there' then primitivism automatically excludes itself from 
the anarchist tradition. The reason is simple. Moore asserts that "mass 
society" involves "people working, living in artificial, technologised 
environments, and [being] subject to forms of coercion and control." 
[Op. Cit.] If this is true then any primitivist transition would, by 
definition, not be libertarian. For it is an obvious fact that the human 
population size cannot be reduced significantly by voluntary means in a 
short period of time. This means that agriculture and most industries 
will have to continue for some time. Similarly with large cities and 
towns as an instant and general exodus from the cities would be impossible. 
Then there is the legacy of industrial society which simply cannot be
left to decay on its own. To take just one obvious example, leaving 
nuclear power plants to melt down would hardly be eco-friendly. Moreover, 
it is doubtful that the ruling elite will just surrender its power 
without resistance and, consequently, any social revolution would need 
to defend itself against attempts to reintroduce hierarchy. Needless 
to say, a revolution which shunned all organisation and industry as 
inherently authoritarian would not be able to do this (it would have
been impossible to produce the necessary military supplies to fight 
Franco's fascist forces during the Spanish Revolution if the workers 
had not converted and used their workplaces to do so, to note another 
obvious example). 

As such, "mass society" will have to remain for some time after a 
successful revolution and, consequently from a primitivist perspective, 
be based on "forms of coercion and control." There is an ideology which 
proclaims the need for a transitional system which will be based on 
coercion, control and hierarchy which will, in time, disappear into 
a stateless society. It also, like primitivism, stresses that industry 
and large scale organisation is impossible without hierarchy and authority. 
That ideology is Marxism. Thus it seems ironic to "classical" anarchists 
to hear self-proclaimed anarchists repeating Engels arguments against 
Bakunin as arguments for "anarchy" (see section H.4 for a discussion of 
Engels' claims that industry excludes autonomy).

Thus the key problem with primitivism can be seen. It offers no practical 
means of achieving its goals in a libertarian manner. As Knabb summarises, 
"[w]hat begins as a valid questioning of excessive faith in science and 
technology ends up as a desperate and even less justified faith in the 
return of a primeval paradise, accompanied by a failure to engage the 
present system in any but an abstract, apocalyptical way." To avoid this, 
it is necessary to take into account where we are now and, consequently, 
we will have to "seriously consider how we will deal with all the practical 
problems that will be posed in the interim." [Knabb, Op. Cit., p. 80
and p. 79] Sadly, primitivist ideology excludes this possibility by 
dismissing the starting point any real revolution would begin from as 
being inherently authoritarian. As any transition period towards 
primitivism would involve people working and living in "mass society,"
it condemns itself as utterly impractical. 

Given that a hierarchical society will misuse many technologies, it is 
understandable that some people can come see "technology" as the main 
problem and seek its end. However, those who talk about simply abolishing 
all forms of injustice and oppression overnight without discussing how 
it will be achieved may sound extremely radical, but, in reality, they 
are not. In fact they are building blocks to genuine social change by 
ensuring that no mass movement would ever be revolutionary enough to 
satisfy their critique and, as such, there is no point even trying. As 
Ken Knabb puts it:

"Those who proudly proclaim their 'total opposition' to all compromise, 
all authority, all organisation, all theory, all technology, etc., usually 
turn out to have no *revolutionary* perspective whatsoever -- no practical 
conception of how the present system might be overthrown or how a 
post-revolutionary society might work. Some even attempt to justify this 
lack by declaring that a mere revolution could never be radical enough to 
satisfy their eternal ontological rebelliousness. Such all-or-nothing 
bombast may temporarily impress a few spectators, but its ultimate effect 
is simply to make people blas." [Op. Cit., pp. 31-32] 

Then there is the question of the means suggested for achieving 
primitivism. Moore argues that the "kind of world envisaged by 
anarcho-primitivism is one unprecedented in human experience in 
terms of the degree and types of freedom anticipated . . . so 
there can't be any limits on the forms of resistance and insurgency 
that might develop." [Op. Cit.] Non-primitivists reply by saying 
that this implies primitivists don't know what they want nor how to get 
there. Equally, they stress that there *must be* limits on what are 
considered acceptable forms of resistance. This is because means shape 
the ends created and so authoritarian means will result in authoritarian 
ends. Tactics are not neutral and support for certain tactics betray
an authoritarian perspective.

This can be seen from the UK magazine "Green Anarchist," part of the
extreme end of "Primitivism" and which argued in favour of a return to 
"Hunter-Gatherer" forms of human society, opposing technology as being 
hierarchical by its very nature. Due to the inherent unattractiveness 
of such "primitivist" ideas for most people, it could never come about 
by libertarian means (i.e. by the free choice of individuals who create 
it by their own acts) and so cannot be anarchist as very few people 
would actually voluntarily embrace such a situation. This led to 
"Green Anarchist" developing a form of eco-vanguardism in order, to 
use Rousseau's expression, to "force people to be free." This reached 
its logical conclusion when the magazine supported the actions and 
ideas of the (non-anarchist) Unabomber and published an article 
("The Irrationalists") by one of the then two editors stating that 
"the Oklahoma bombers had the right idea. The pity was that they did 
not blast any more government offices . . . The Tokyo sarin cult had 
the right idea. The pity was that in testing the gas a year prior to 
the attack they gave themselves away." [_Green Anarchist_, no. 51, p. 11] 
A defence of these remarks was published in the next issue and a 
subsequent exchange of letters in the US-based _Anarchy: A Journal of 
Desire Armed_ magazine (numbers 48 to 52) saw the other "Green Anarchist" 
editor (at the time) justify this sick, authoritarian nonsense as simply 
examples of "unmediated resistance" conducted "under conditions of extreme 
repression." Whatever happened to the anarchist principle that means 
shape the ends? This means there *are* "limits" on tactics, as some 
tactics are not and can never be libertarian.

However, few eco-anarchists take such an extreme position. Most 
"primitivist" anarchists rather than being anti-technology and 
anti-civilisation as such instead (to use David Watson's expression) 
believe it is a case of the "affirmation of aboriginal lifeways" and 
of taking a far more critical approach to issues such as technology, 
rationality and progress than that associated with Social Ecology. 
These eco-anarchists reject "a dogmatic primitivism which claims 
we can return in some linear way to our primordial roots" just 
as much as the idea of "progress," "*superseding* both Enlightenment 
and Counter-Enlightenment" ideas and traditions. For these 
eco-anarchists, Primitivism "reflects not only a glimpse at 
life before the rise of the state, but also a legitimate response 
to real conditions of life under civilisation" and so we should 
respect and learn from "palaeolithic and neolithic wisdom traditions" 
(such as those  associated with Native American tribes and other 
aboriginal peoples). While we "cannot, and would not want to abandon 
secular modes of thinking and experiencing the world . . . we cannot 
reduce the experience of life, and the fundamental, inescapable questions 
*why* we live, and *how* we live, to secular terms. . . Moreover, the 
boundary between the spiritual and the secular is not so clear. A 
dialectical understanding that we are our history would affirm an 
inspirited reason that honours not only atheistic Spanish revolutionaries 
who died for *el ideal,* but also religious pacifist prisoners of 
conscience, Lakota ghost dancers, taoist hermits and executed sufi 
mystics." [David Watson, _Beyond Bookchin: Preface for a future 
social ecology_, p. 240, p. 103, p. 240 and pp. 66-67] 
 
Such "primitivist" anarchism is associated with a range of magazines, mostly  
US-based, like _Fifth Estate_. For example, on the question of technology, 
such eco-anarchists argue that "[w]hile market capitalism was a spark 
that set the fire, and  remains at the centre of the complex, it is only part 
of something larger: the forced adaptation of organic human societies to 
an economic-instrumental civilisation and its mass technics, which are 
not only hierarchical and external but increasingly 'cellular' and internal. 
It makes no sense to layer the various elements of this process in a  
mechanistic hierarchy of first cause and secondary effects." [David 
Watson, Op. Cit., pp. 127-8] For this reason "Primitivist" anarchists are 
more critical of all aspects of technology, including calls by social 
ecologists for the use of *appropriate* technology essential in order to 
liberate humanity and the planet. As Watson argues: 
 
"To speak of technological society is in fact to refer to *the technics 
generated within capitalism,* which in turn generate new forms of 
capital. The notion of a distinct realm of social relations that  
determine this technology is not only ahistorical and undialectical, 
it reflects a kind of simplistic base/superstructure schema." [Op. Cit., 
p. 124]  
 
Thus it is not a case of who *uses* technology which determines its 
effects, rather the effects of technology are determined to a large 
degree by the society that creates it. In other words, technology is 
selected which tends to re-enforce hierarchical power as it is those 
in power who generally select which technology is introduced within 
society (saying that, oppressed people have this excellent habit of  
turning technology against the powerful and technological change  
and social struggle are inter-related -- see section D.10). Thus even  
the use of appropriate technology involves more than selecting from  
the range of available technology at hand, as these technologies have 
certain effects regardless of who uses them. Rather it is a question of  
critically evaluating all aspects of technology and modifying and rejecting  
it as required to maximise individual freedom, empowerment and happiness.  
Few Social Ecologists would disagree with this approach, though, and  
differences are usually a question of emphasis rather than a deep  
political point.  

However, few anarchists are convinced by an ideology which, as Brian Morris 
notes, dismisses the "last eight thousand years or so of human history" as 
little more than a source "of tyranny, hierarchical control, mechanised 
routine devoid of any spontaneity. All those products of the human creative 
imagination -- farming, art, philosophy, technology, science, urban living, 
symbolic culture -- are viewed negatively by Zerzan -- in a monolithic sense." 
While there is no reason to worship progress, there is just as little need
to dismiss all change and development out of hand as oppressive. Nor are 
they convinced by Zerzan's "selective culling of the anthropological 
literature." [Morris, Op. Cit., p. 38] In addition, a position of "turning 
back the clock" is deeply flawed, for while aboriginal societies are generally 
very anarchistic, certain of these societies did develop into statist, 
propertarian ones implying that a future anarchist society that are 
predominantly inspired by and seek to reproduce key elements of prehistoric 
forms of anarchy is not the answer. 

Primitivism confuses two radically different positions, namely support 
for a literal return to primitive lifeways and the use of examples from 
primitive life as a tool for social critique. Few anarchists would disagree
with the second position as they recognise that current does not equal better 
and, consequently, past cultures and societies can have positive (as well as 
negative) aspects to them which can shed like on what a genuinely human 
society can be life. Similarly if "primitivism" simply involved
questioning technology along with authority, few would disagree. However, 
this sensible position is, in the main, subsumed within the first one, the 
idea that an anarchist society would be a literal return to hunter-gatherer 
society. That this is the case can be seen from primitivist writings. Some 
primitivists stress that they are not suggesting the Stone Age as a model 
for their desired society nor a return to gathering and hunting, yet they 
seem to exclude any other options by their critique. 

So to suggest that primitivism is simply a critique or some sort of 
"anarchist speculation" (to use John Moore's term) seems incredulous. 
If you demonise technology, organisation, "mass society" and "civilisation" 
as inherently authoritarian, you cannot turn round and advocate their use 
in a transition period or even in a free society. As such, the critique 
points to a mode of action and a vision of a free society and to suggest 
otherwise is simply incredulous. Equally, if you praise foraging bands and 
shifting horticultural communities of past and present as examples of 
anarchy then critics are entitled to conclude that primitivists desire 
a similar system for the future. This is reinforced by the critiques of 
industry, technology, "mass society" and agriculture.

Until such time as "primitivists" clearly state which of the two forms of
primitivism they subscribe to, other anarchists will not take their ideas 
that seriously. Given that they fail to answer such basic questions of how 
they plan to deactivate industry safely and avoid mass starvation without 
the workers' control, international links and federal organisation they 
habitually dismiss out of hand as new forms of "governance," other 
anarchists do not hold much hope that it will happen soon. Ultimately,
we are faced with the fact that a revolution will start in society as 
it is. Anarchism recognises this and suggests a means of transforming it. 
Primitivism shies away from such minor problems and, consequently, has
little to recommend it. It is for this reason that most anarchists 
actually argue that such forms of "primitivism" are not anarchist at 
all, as the return to a "Hunter-Gatherer" society would result in mass 
starvation in almost all countries as the social infrastructure collapses
so that the "lucky" few that survive can be "wild" and free from such 
tyrannies as hospitals, books and electricity. 

This is not to suggest, of course, that non-primitivist anarchists think
that everyone in a free society must have the same level of technology.
Far from it. An anarchist society would be based on free experimentation.
Different individuals and groups will pick the way of life that best suits
them. Those who seek less technological ways of living will be free to do
so as will those who want to apply the benefits of (appropriate) technologies.
Similarly, all anarchists support the struggles of those in the developing
world against the onslaught of (capitalist) civilisation and the demands of
(capitalist) progress. 

For more on "primitivist" anarchism see John Zerzan's _Future Primitive_ 
as well as David Watson's _Beyond Bookchin_ and _Against the Mega-Machine_. 
Ken Knabb's essay _The Poverty of Primitivism_ is an excellent critique of 
primitivism as is Brian Oliver Sheppard's _Anarchism vs. Primitivism_.
 
A.4 Who are the major anarchist thinkers? 
 
Although Gerard Winstanley (_The New Law of Righteousness_, 1652) and 
William Godwin (_Enquiry Concerning Political Justice_, 1793) had begun 
to unfold the philosophy of anarchism in the 17th and 18th centuries, it 
was not until the second half of the 19th century that anarchism emerged 
as a coherent theory with a systematic, developed programme. This work 
was mainly started by four people -- a German, *Max Stirner* (1806-1856), 
a Frenchman, *Pierre-Joseph Proudhon* (1809-1865), and two Russians, 
*Michael Bakunin* (1814-1876) and *Peter Kropotkin* (1842-1921). They took 
the ideas in common circulation within sections of the working population 
and expressed them in written form. 
 
Born in the atmosphere of German romantic philosophy, Stirner's anarchism 
(set forth in _The Ego and Its Own_) was an extreme form of individualism, 
or *egoism,* which placed the unique individual above all else -- state, 
property, law or duty. His ideas remain a cornerstone of anarchism. Stirner 
attacked both capitalism and state socialism, laying the foundations of both 
social and individualist anarchism by his egoist critique of capitalism 
and the state that supports it. In place of the state and capitalism, Max 
Stirner urges the "union of egoists," free associations of unique individuals 
who co-operate as equals in order to maximise their freedom and satisfy their 
desires (including emotional ones for solidarity, or "intercourse" as Stirner 
called it). Such a union would be non-hierarchical, for, as Stirner wonders, 
"is an association, wherein most members allow themselves to be lulled as 
regards their most natural and most obvious interests, actually an Egoist's 
association? Can they really be 'Egoists' who have banded together when one 
is a slave or a serf of the other?" [_No Gods, No Masters_, vol. 1, p. 24] 
 
Individualism by definition includes no concrete programme for changing  
social conditions. This was attempted by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, the first 
to describe himself openly as an anarchist. His theories of *mutualism,*
*federalism* and workers' *self-management* and *association* had a profound 
effect on the growth of anarchism as a mass movement and spelled out clearly 
how an anarchist world could function and be co-ordinated. It would be no 
exaggeration to state that Proudhon's work defined the fundamental nature 
of anarchism as both an anti-state and anti-capitalist movement and set 
of ideas. Bakunin, Kropotkin and Tucker all claimed inspiration from his 
ideas and they are the immediate source for both social and individualist anarchism, with each thread emphasising different aspects of mutualism (for
example, social anarchists stress the associational aspect of them while 
individualist anarchists the non-capitalist market side). Proudhon's major 
works include _What is Property_, _System of Economical Contradictions_, 
_The Principle of Federation_ and _The Political Capacity of the Working 
Classes_. His most detailed discussion of what mutualism would look like 
can be found in his _The General Idea of the Revolution_. His ideas heavily
influenced both the French Labour movement and the Paris Commune of 1871.

Proudhon's ideas were built upon by Michael Bakunin, who humbly suggested 
that his own ideas were simply Proudhon's "widely developed and pushed
right to . . . [their] final consequences." [_Michael Bakunin: Selected
Writings_, p. 198] However, he is doing a disservice to his own role in
developing anarchism. For Bakunin is the central figure in the development 
of modern anarchist  activism and ideas. He emphasised the importance of 
*collectivism,* *mass insurrection,* *revolution* and involvement in the
militant *labour movement* as the means of creating a free, classless society. 
Moreover, he repudiated Proudhon's sexism and added patriarchy to the list
of social evils anarchism opposes. Bakunin also emphasised the social nature 
of humanity and individuality, rejecting the abstract individualism of 
liberalism as a denial of freedom. His ideas become dominant in the 20th 
century among large sections of the radical labour movement. Indeed, many 
of his ideas are almost identical to what would later be called syndicalism
or anarcho-syndicalism. Bakunin influenced many union movements -- especially 
in Spain, where a major anarchist social revolution took place in 1936. His works include _Anarchy and Statism_ (his only book), _God and the State_, 
_The Paris Commune and the Idea of the State_, and many others. _Bakunin 
on Anarchism_, edited by Sam Dolgoff is an excellent collection of his 
major writings. Brian Morris' _Bakunin: The Philosophy of Freedom_ is an
excellent introduction to Bakunin's life and ideas.
 
Peter Kropotkin, a scientist by training, fashioned a sophisticated and  
detailed anarchist analysis of modern conditions linked to a thorough-going 
prescription for a future society -- *communist-anarchism* -- which 
continues to be the most widely-held theory among anarchists. He 
identified *mutual aid* as the best means by which individuals can develop 
and grow, pointing out that competition *within* humanity (and other 
species) was often not in the best interests of those involved. Like 
Bakunin, he stressed the importance of direct, economic, class struggle
and anarchist participation in any popular movement, particularly in
labour unions. Taking Proudhon's and Bakunin's idea of the *commune,* he
generalised their insights into a vision of how the social, economic and
personal life of a free society would function. He aimed to base anarchism 
"on a scientific basis by the study of the tendencies that are apparent
now in society and may indicate its further evolution" towards anarchy
while, at the same time, urging anarchists to "promote their ideas directly
amongst the labour organisations and to induce those union to a direct
struggle against capital, without placing their faith in parliamentary
legislation." [_Anarchism_, p. 298 and p. 287] Like Bakunin, he was a
revolutionary and, like Bakunin, his ideas inspired those struggle for
freedom across the globe. His major works included _Mutual Aid_, _The 
Conquest of Bread_, _Field, Factories, and Workshops_, _Modern Science 
and Anarchism_, _Act for Yourselves_, _The State: Its Historic Role_, 
_Words of a Rebel_, and many others. A collection of his revolutionary 
pamphlets is available under the title _Anarchism_ and is essential 
reading for anyone interested in his ideas. Graham Purchase's _Evolution
and Revolution_ is an excellent evaluation of his ideas and how they
are still relevant today.
 
The various theories proposed by these "founding anarchists" are not, 
however, mutually exclusive: they are interconnected in many ways, and 
to some extent refer to different levels of social life. Individualism 
relates closely to the conduct of our private lives: only by recognising 
the uniqueness and freedom of others and forming unions with them can we 
protect and maximise our own uniqueness and liberty; mutualism relates to 
our general relations with others: by mutually working together and 
co-operating we ensure that we do not work for others. Production under 
anarchism would be collectivist, with people working together for their 
own, and the common, good, and in the wider political and social world 
decisions would be reached communally. 

It should also be stressed that anarchist schools of thought are *not*
named after individual anarchists. Thus anarchists are *not* 
"Bakuninists", "Proudhonists" or "Kropotkinists" (to name three
possibilities). Anarchists, to quote Malatesta, "follow ideas
and not men, and rebel against this habit of embodying a principle
in a man." This did not stop him calling Bakunin "our great master 
and inspiration." [_Errico Malatesta: Life and Ideas_, p. 199 and
p. 209] Equally, not everything written by a famous anarchist 
thinker is automatically libertarian. Bakunin, for example, only 
became an anarchist in the last ten years of his life (this does 
not stop Marxists using his pre-anarchists days to attack anarchism!). 
Proudhon turned away from anarchism in the 1850s before returning
to a more anarchistic (if not strictly anarchist) position just before 
his death in 1865. Similarly, Kropotkin's or Tucker's arguments in 
favour of supporting the Allies during the First World War had nothing 
to do with anarchism. Thus to say, for example, that anarchism is flawed 
because Proudhon was a sexist pig simply does not convince anarchists. 
No one would dismiss democracy, for example, because Rousseau opinion's 
on women were just as sexist as Proudhon's. As with anything, modern 
anarchists analyse the writings of previous anarchists to draw inspiration, 
but a dogma. Consequently, we reject the non-libertarian ideas of "famous"
anarchists while keeping their positive contributions to the development
of anarchist theory. We are sorry to belabour the point, but much of
Marxist "criticism" of anarchism basically involves pointing out the 
negative aspects of dead anarchist thinkers and it is best simply to
state clearly the obvious stupidity of such an approach.

Anarchist ideas of course did not stop developing when Kropotkin died.
Neither are they the products of just four men. Anarchism is by its very 
nature an evolving theory, with many different thinkers and activists. 
When Bakunin and Kropotkin were alive, for example, they drew aspects
of their ideas from other libertarian activists. Bakunin, for example,
built upon the practical activity of the followers of Proudhon in the
French labour movement in the 1860s. Kropotkin, while the most associated
with developing the theory communist-anarchism, was simply the most
famous expounder of the ideas that had developed after Bakunin's death 
in the libertarian wing of the First International and before he became
an anarchist. Thus anarchism is the product of tens of thousands of 
thinkers and activists across the globe, each shaping and developing 
anarchist theory to meet their needs as part of the general movement for
social change. Of the many other anarchists who could be mentioned here, 
we can mention but a few.  

Stirner is not the only famous anarchist to come from Germany. It also
produced a number of original anarchist thinkers. Gustav Landauer was
expelled from the Marxist Social-Democratic Party for his radical views
and soon after identified himself as an anarchist. For him, anarchy was
"the expression of the liberation of man from the idols of state, the
church and capital" and he fought "*State* socialism, levelling from
above, bureaucracy" in favour of "free association and union, the
absence of authority." His ideas were a combination of Proudhon's and
Kropotkin's and he saw the development of self-managed communities and
co-operatives as the means of changing society. He is most famous for
his insight that the "state is a condition, a certain relationship 
among human beings, a mode of behaviour between them; we destroy it 
by contracting other relationships, by behaving differently towards
one another." [quoted by Peter Marshall, _Demanding the Impossible_,
p. 410 and p. 411] He took a leading part in the Munich revolution of
1919 and was murdered during its crushing by the German state. His 
book _For Socialism_ is an excellent summary of his main ideas. 

Other notable German anarchists include Johann Most, originally a Marxist
and an elected member of the Reichstag, he saw the futility of voting
and became an anarchist after being exiled for writing against the
Kaiser and clergy. He played an important role in the American anarchist
movement, working for a time with Emma Goldman. More a propagandist 
than a great thinker, his revolutionary message inspired numerous
people to become anarchists. Then there is Rudolf Rocker, a bookbinder
by trade who played an important role in the Jewish labour movement
in the East End of London (see his autobiography, _The London Years_,
for details). He also produced the definite introduction to
_Anarcho-syndicalism_ as well as analysing the Russian Revolution in
articles like _Anarchism and Sovietism_ and defending the Spanish 
revolution in pamphlets like _The Tragedy of Spain_. His _Nationalism 
and Culture_ is a searching analysis of human culture through the
ages, with an analysis of both political thinkers and power politics.
He dissects nationalism and explains how the nation is not the cause
but the result of the state as well as repudiating race science for
the nonsense it is.
 
In the United States Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman were two of 
the  leading anarchist thinkers and activists. Goldman united Stirner's  
egoism with Kropotkin's communism into a passionate and powerful  
theory which combined the best of both. She also placed anarchism  
at the centre of feminist theory and activism as well as being an
advocate of syndicalism (see her book _Anarchism and Other Essays_ 
and the collection of essays, articles and talks entitled _Red Emma 
Speaks_). Alexander Berkman, Emma's lifelong companion, produced a 
classic introduction to anarchist ideas called _What is Anarchism?_ 
(also known as _What is Communist Anarchism?_ and the _ABC of 
Anarchism_). Like Goldman, he supported anarchist involvement in the
labour movement was a prolific writer and speaker (the book _Life of
An Anarchist_ gives an excellent selection of his best articles, books
and pamphlets). In December 1919, both he and Goldman were expelled by 
the US government to Russia after the 1917 revolution had radicalised 
significant parts of the American population. There as they were 
considered too dangerous to be allowed to remain in the land of the 
free. Exactly two years later, their passports arrived to allow them
to leave Russia. The Bolshevik slaughter of the Kronstadt revolt in 
March 1921 after the civil war ended had finally convinced them that 
the Bolshevik dictatorship meant the death of the revolution there.
The Bolshevik rulers were more than happy to see the back of two 
genuine revolutionaries who stayed true to their principles. Once 
outside Russia, Berkman wrote numerous articles on the fate of the
revolution (including the _The Russian Tragedy_ and _The Kronstadt
Rebellion_) as well as publishing his diary in book from as _The 
Bolshevik Myth_. Goldman produced her classic work _My Disillusionment
in Russia_ as well as publishing her famous autobiography _Living My
Life_. She also found time to refute Trotsky's lies about the Kronstadt
rebellion in _Trotsky Protests Too Much_.

As well as Berkman and Goldman, the United States also produced other
notable activists and thinkers. Voltairine de Cleyre played an important 
role in the US anarchist movement, enriching both US and international 
anarchist theory with her articles, poems and speeches. Her work includes 
such classics as _Anarchism and American Traditions_ and _Direct Action_. 
These are included, along with other articles and some of her famous poems, 
in the _The Voltairine de Cleyre Reader_. In addition, the book _Anarchy! 
An Anthology of Emma Goldman's Mother Earth_ contains a good selection 
of her writings as well as other anarchists active at the time. Also 
of interest is the collection of the speeches she made to mark the 
state murder of the Chicago Martyrs in 1886 (see _The First Mayday: The 
Haymarket Speeches 1895-1910_). Every November the 11th, except when 
illness made it impossible, she spoke in their memory. For those interested 
in the ideas of that previous generation of anarchists which the Chicago 
Martyrs represented, Albert Parsons' _Anarchism: Its Philosophy and 
Scientific Basis_ is essential reading.

Elsewhere in the Americas, Ricardo Flores Magon helped lay the ground for
the Mexican revolution of 1910 by founding the (strangely named) _Mexican
Liberal Party_ in 1905 which organised two unsuccessful uprising against
the Diaz dictatorship in 1906 and 1908. Through his paper _Tierra y 
Libertad_ ("Land and Liberty") he influenced the developing labour movement
as well as Zapata's peasant army. He continually stressed the need to
turn the revolution into a *social* revolution which will "give the lands
to the people" as well as "possession of the factories, mines, etc." Only
this would ensure that the people "will not be deceived." Talking of the
Agrarians (the Zapatista army), Ricardo's brother Enrique he notes that
they "are more or less inclined towards anarchism" and they can work
together because both are "direct actionists" and "they act perfectly 
revolutionary. They go after the rich, the authorities and the priestcraft"
and have "burnt to ashes private property deeds as well as all official
records" as well as having "thrown down the fences that marked private
properties." Thus the anarchists "propagate our principles" while the
Zapatista's "put them into practice." [quoted by David Poole, _Land
and Liberty_, p. 17 and p. 25] Ricardo died as a political prisoner in
an American jail and is, ironically, considered a hero of the revolution 
by the Mexican state.
 
Italy, with its strong and dynamic anarchist movement, has produced some  
of the best anarchist writers. Errico Malatesta spent over 50 years fighting  
for anarchism across the world and his writings are amongst the best in  
anarchist theory. For those interested in his practical and inspiring 
ideas then his short pamphlet _Anarchy_ cannot be beaten. Collections of
his articles can be found in _The Anarchist Revolution_ and _Errico Malatesta:  
His Life and Ideas_, both edited by Vernon Richards. His dialogue _Fra 
Contadini: A Dialogue on Anarchy_ was translated into many languages,
with 100,000 copies printed in Italy in 1920 when the revolution Malatesta
had fought for all his life looked likely. At this time Malatesta edited
_Umanita Nova_ (the first Italian daily anarchist paper, it soon gained
a circulation of 50 000) as well as writing the programme for the _Unione
Anarchica Italiana_, a national anarchist organisation of some 20000. For
his activities during the factory occupations he was arrested at the age
of 67 along with 80 other anarchists activists. Other Italian anarchists
of note include Malatesta's friend Luigi Fabbri (sadly little of his work
has been translated into English bar _Bourgeois Influences on Anarchism_
and _Anarchy and 'Scientific' Communism_) Luigi Galleani produced a  
very powerful anti-organisational anarchist-communism which proclaimed 
(in _The End of Anarchism?_) that  "Communism is simply the economic 
foundation by which the individual has the opportunity to regulate himself 
and carry out his functions." Camillo Berneri, before being murdered by 
the Communists during the Spanish Revolution, continued the fine tradition 
of critical, practical anarchism associated with Italian anarchism. His
study of Kropotkin's federalist ideas is a classic (_Peter Kropotkin: 
His Federalist Ideas_). His daughter Marie-Louise Berneri, before her 
tragic early death, contributed to the British anarchist press (see 
her _Neither East Nor West: Selected Writings 1939-48_ and _Journey
Through Utopia_).

In Japan, Hatta Shuzo developed Kropotkin's communist-anarchism in new
directions between the world wars. Called "true anarchism," he created
an anarchism which was a concrete alternative to the mainly peasant
country he and thousands of his comrades were active in. While rejecting
certain aspects of syndicalism, they organised workers into unions as 
well as working with the peasantry for the "foundation stones on which 
to build the new society that we long for are none other than the 
awakening of the tenant farmers" who "account for a majority of the
population." Their new society was based on decentralised communes 
which combined industry and agriculture for, as one of Hatta's comrade's 
put it, "the village will cease to be a mere communist agricultural 
village and become a co-operative society which is a fusion of 
agriculture and industry." Hatta rejected the idea that they sought 
to go back to an ideal past, stating that the anarchists were "completely 
opposite to the medievalists. We seek to use machines as means of 
production and, indeed, hope for the invention of yet more ingenious 
machines." [quoted by John Crump, _Hatta Shuzo and Pure Anarchism in 
Interwar Japan_, p. 122-3, and p. 144] 

As far as individualist anarchism goes, the undoubted "pope" was Benjamin
Tucker. Tucker, in his _Instead of Book_, used his intellect and wit to 
attack all who he considered enemies of freedom (mostly capitalists, but 
also a few social anarchists as well! For example, Tucker excommunicated
Kropotkin and the other communist-anarchists from anarchism. Kropotkin 
did not return the favour). Tucker built on the such notable thinkers as 
Josiah Warren, Lysander Spooner, Stephen Pearl Andrews and William B.
Greene, adapting Proudhon's mutualism to the conditions of pre-capitalist
America (see Rudolf Rocker's _Pioneers of American Freedom_ for details). 
Defending the worker, artisan and small-scale farmer from a state intent
on building capitalism by means of state intervention, Tucker argued that
capitalist exploitation would be abolished by creating a totally free 
non-capitalist market in which the four state monopolies used to create capitalism would be struck down by means of mutual banking and "occupancy 
and use" land and resource rights. Placing himself firmly in the socialist 
camp, he recognised (like Proudhon) that all non-labour income was theft
and so opposed profit, rent and interest. he translated Proudhon's _What
is Property_ and _System of Economical Contradictions_ as well as Bakunin's
_God and the State_. Tucker's compatriot, Joseph Labadie was an active
trade unionist as well as contributor to Tucker's paper _Liberty_. His
son, Lawrence Labadie carried the individualist-anarchist torch after 
Tucker's death, believing that "that freedom in every walk of life is 
the greatest possible means of elevating the human race to happier 
conditions." 
 
Undoubtedly the Russian Leo Tolstoy is the most famous writer associated  
with religious anarchism and has had the greatest impact in spreading the  
spiritual and pacifistic ideas associated with that tendency. Influencing  
such notable people as Gandhi and the *Catholic Worker Group* around Dorothy  
Day, Tolstoy presented a radical interpretation of Christianity which  
stressed individual responsibility and freedom above the mindless  
authoritarianism and hierarchy which marks so much of mainstream  
Christianity. Tolstoy's works, like those of that other radical libertarian  
Christian William Blake, have inspired many Christians towards a libertarian 
vision of Jesus' message which has been hidden by the mainstream churches.  
Thus Christian Anarchism maintains, along with Tolstoy, that "Christianity  
in its true sense puts an end to government" (see, for example, Tolstoy's  
_The Kingdom of God is within you_ and Peter Marshall's _William Blake:  
Visionary Anarchist_). 
 
More recently, Noam Chomsky (in such works as _Deterring Democracy_, 
_Necessary Illusions_, _World Orders, Old and New_, _Rogue States_,
_Hegemony or Survival_ and many others) and Murray Bookchin 
(_Post-Scarcity Anarchism_, _The Ecology of Freedom_, _Towards an 
Ecological Society_, and _Remaking Society_, among others) have 
kept the social anarchist movement at the front of political theory 
and analysis. Bookchin's work has placed anarchism at the centre of 
green thought and has been a constant threat to those wishing to mystify 
or corrupt the movement to create an ecological society. _The Murray
Bookchin Reader_ contains a representative selection of his writings. 
Chomsky's well documented critiques of U.S. imperialism and how the 
media operates are his most famous works, but he has also written 
extensively about the anarchist tradition and its ideas, most famously 
in "Notes on Anarchism" in _For Reasons of State_ and his defence of 
the anarchist social revolution against bourgeois historians in 
"Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship" in _American Power and the 
New Mandarins_. His more explicitly anarchist essays can be found 
in _Radical Priorities_ and _Language and Politics_. Both 
_Understanding Power_ and _The Chomsky Reader_ are excellent
introductions to his thought.

Britain has also seen an important series of anarchist thinkers. Hebert
Read (probably the only anarchist to ever accept a knighthood!) wrote
several works on anarchist philosophy and theory (see his _Anarchy and
Order_ compilation of essays). His anarchism flowered directly from his
aesthetic concerns and he was a committed pacifist. As well as giving
fresh insight and expression to the tradition themes of anarchism, he
contributed regularly to the anarchist press (see the collection of
articles _A One-Man Manifesto and other writings from Freedom Press_).
Another pacifist anarchist was Alex Comfort. As well as writing the _Joy
of Sex_, Comfort was an active pacifist and anarchist. He wrote 
particularly on pacifism, psychiatry and sexual politics from a 
libertarian perspective. His most famous anarchist book was _Authority
and Delinquency_ and a collection of his anarchist pamphlets and 
articles was published under the title _Writings against Power and 
Death_.

However, the most famous and influential British anarchist must be Colin 
Ward. He became an anarchist when stationed in Glasgow during the Second
World War and came across the local anarchist group there. Once an 
anarchist, he has contributed to the anarchist press extensively. As 
well as being an editor of _Freedom_, he also edited the influential
monthly magazine _Anarchy_ during the 1960s (a selection of articles
picked by Ward can be found in the book _A Decade of Anarchy_). However,
his most famous single book is _Anarchy in Action_ where he has updated 
Kropotkin's _Mutual Aid_ by uncovering and documenting the anarchistic 
nature of everyday life even within capitalism. His extensive writing on 
housing has emphasised the importance of collective self-help and social 
management of housing against the twin evils of privatisation and nationalisation (see, for example, his books _Talking Houses_ and 
_Housing: An Anarchist Approach_). He has cast an anarchist eye on 
numerous other issues, including water use (_Reflected in Water: A Crisis 
of Social Responsibility_), transport (_Freedom to go: after the motor age_) 
and the welfare state (_Social Policy: an anarchist response_). His
_Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction_ is a good starting point for
discovering anarchism and his particular perspective on it while _Talking 
Anarchy_ provides an excellent overview of both his ideas and life. Lastly 
we must mention both Albert Meltzer and Nicolas Walter, both of whom 
contributed extensively to the anarchist press as well as writing two 
well known short introductions to anarchism (_Anarchism: Arguments for 
and against_ and _About Anarchism_, respectively).
 
We could go on; there are many more writers we could mention. But  
besides these, there are the thousands of "ordinary" anarchist militants 
who have never written books but whose common sense and activism have 
encouraged the spirit of revolt within society and helped build the new 
world in the shell of the old. As Kropotkin put it, "anarchism was born
*among the people*; and it will continue to be full of life and creative 
power only as long as it remains a thing of the people." [_Anarchism_, 
p. 146]  

So we hope that this concentration on anarchist thinkers should not 
be taken to mean that there is some sort of division between activists 
and intellectuals in the movement. Far from it. Few anarchists are 
purely thinkers or activists. They are usually both. Kropotkin,
for example, was jailed for his activism, as was Malatesta and
Goldman. Makhno, most famous as an active participate in the
Russian Revolution, also contributed theoretical articles to 
the anarchist press during and after it. The same can be said of
Louise Michel, whose militant activities during the Paris Commune
and in building the anarchist movement in France after it did not
preclude her writing articles for the libertarian press. We are 
simply indicating key anarchists thinkers so that those interested 
can read about their ideas directly.

A.4.1 Are there any thinkers close to anarchism?

Yes. There are numerous thinkers who are close to anarchism. They
come from both the liberal and socialist traditions. While this may
be considered surprising, it is not. Anarchism has links with both
ideologies. Obviously the individualist anarchists are closest to
the liberal tradition while social anarchists are closest to the 
socialist.

Indeed, as Nicholas Walter put it, "Anarchism can be seen as a 
development from either liberalism or socialism, or from both 
liberalism and socialism. Like liberals, anarchists want freedom;
like socialists, anarchists want equality." However, "anarchism 
is not just a mixture of liberalism and socialism . . . we differ
fundamentally from them." [_About Anarchism_, p. 29 and p. 31] In 
this he echoes Rocker's comments in _Anarcho-Syndicalism_. And this 
can be a useful tool for seeing the links between anarchism and other 
theories however it must be stressed that anarchism offers an 
*anarchist* critique of both liberalism and socialism and we should
not submerge the uniqueness of anarchism into other philosophies.

Section A.4.2 discusses liberal thinkers who are close to anarchism,
while section A.4.3 highlights those socialists who are close to
anarchism. There are even Marxists who inject libertarian ideas into
their politics and these are discussed in section A.4.4. And, of 
course, there are thinkers who cannot be so easily categorised and 
will be discussed here.

Economist David Ellerman has produced an impressive body of work arguing
for workplace democracy. Explicitly linking his ideas the early British
Ricardian socialists and Proudhon, in such works as _The Democratic 
Worker-Owned Firm_ and _Property and Contract in Economics_ he has 
presented both a rights based and labour-property based defence of 
self-management against capitalism. He argues that "[t]oday's economic 
democrats are the *new abolitionists* trying to abolish the whole 
institution of renting people in favour of democratic self-management 
in the workplace" for his "critique is not new; it was developed 
in the Enlightenment doctrine of inalienable rights. It was applied 
by abolitionists against the voluntary self-enslavement contract 
and by political democrats against the voluntary contraction defence 
of non-democratic government." [_The Democratic Worker-Owned Firm_, 
p. 210] Anyone, like anarchists, interested in producer co-operatives 
as alternatives to wage slavery will find his work of immense interest.

Ellerman is not the only person to stress the benefits of co-operation.
Alfie Kohn's important work on the benefits of co-operation builds upon
Kropotkin's studies of mutual aid and is, consequently, of interest to
social anarchists. In _No Contest: the case against competition_ and
_Punished by Rewards_, Kohn discusses (with extensive empirical evidence)
the failings and negative impact of competition on those subject to it.
He addresses both economic and social issues in his works and shows that
competition is not what it is cracked up to be.

Within feminist theory, Carole Pateman is the most obvious libertarian
influenced thinker. Independently of Ellerman, Pateman has produced a
powerful argument for self-managed association in both the workplace 
and society as a whole. Building upon a libertarian analysis of 
Rousseau's arguments, her analysis of contract theory is ground 
breaking. If a theme has to be ascribed to Pateman's work it could 
be freedom and what it means to be free. For her, freedom can 
only be viewed as self-determination and, consequently, the 
absence of subordination. Consequently, she has advocated 
a participatory form of democracy from her first major work, 
_Participation and Democratic Theory_ onwards. In that book,
a pioneering study of in participatory democracy, she exposed 
the limitations of liberal democratic theory, analysed the 
works of Rousseau, Mill and Cole and presented empirical 
evidence on the benefits of participation on the individuals 
involved. 

In the _Problem of Political Obligation_, Pateman discusses 
the "liberal" arguments on freedom and finds them wanting. 
For the liberal, a person must consent to be ruled by another 
but this opens up the "problem" that they might not consent 
and, indeed, may never have consented. Thus the liberal 
state would lack a justification. She deepens her analysis to
question why freedom should be equated to consenting to be ruled
and proposed a participatory democratic theory in which people
collectively make their own decisions (a self-assumed obligation
to your fellow citizens rather to a state). In discussing 
Kropotkin, she showed her awareness of the social anarchist
tradition to which her own theory is obviously related.

Pateman builds on this analysis in her _The Sexual Contract_,
where she dissects the sexism of classical liberal and democratic
theory. She analyses the weakness of what calls 'contractarian' 
theory (classical liberalism and right-wing "libertarianism") 
and shows how it leads not to free associations of self-governing 
individuals but rather social relationships based on authority, 
hierarchy and power in which a few rule the many. Her analysis
of the state, marriage and wage labour are profoundly libertarian,
showing that freedom must mean more than consenting to be ruled. 
This is the paradox of capitalist liberal, for a person is
assumed to be free in order to consent to a contract but once 
within it they face the reality subordination to another's 
decisions (see section A.4.2 for further discussion). 

Her ideas challenge some of Western culture's core beliefs about 
individual freedom and her critiques of the major Enlightenment 
political philosophers are powerful and convincing. Implicit is 
a critique not just of the conservative and liberal tradition, 
but of the patriarchy and hierarchy contained within the Left 
as well. As well as these works, a collection of her essays is 
available called _The Disorder of Women_.

Within the so-called "anti-globalisation" movement Naomi Klein shows
an awareness of libertarian ideas and her own work has a libertarian
thrust to it (we call it "so-called" as its members are internationalists, 
seeking a globalisation from below not one imposed from above by and for 
a few). She first came to attention as the author of _No Logo_, which
charts the growth of consumer capitalism, exposing the dark reality 
behind the glossy brands of capitalism and, more importantly, highlighting
the resistance to it. No distant academic, she is an active participant 
in the movement she reports on in _Fences and Windows_, a collection of 
essays on globalisation, its consequences and the wave of protests 
against it.

Klein's articles are well written and engaging, covering the reality of 
modern capitalism, the gap, as she puts it, "between rich and power but 
also between rhetoric and reality, between what is said and what is done.
Between the promise of globalisation and its real effects." She shows 
how we live in a world where the market (i.e. capital) is made "freer" 
while people suffer increased state power and repression. How an 
unelected Argentine President labels that country's popular assemblies 
"antidemocratic." How rhetoric about liberty is used as a tool to defend 
and increase private power (as she reminds us, "always missing from 
[the globalisation] discussion is the issue of power. So many of the
debates that we have about globalisation theory are actually about 
power: who holds it, who is exercising it and who is disguising it, 
pretending it no longer matters"). [_Fences and Windows_, pp 83-4
and p. 83]

And how people across the world are resisting. As she puts it, 
"many [in the movement] are tired of being spoken for and about. 
They are demanding a more direct form of political participation." 
She reports on a movement which she is part of, one which aims for a 
globalisation from below, one "founded on principles of transparency, 
accountability and self-determination, one that frees people instead 
of liberating capital." This means being against a "corporate-driven 
globalisation . . . that is centralising power and wealth into fewer 
and fewer hands" while presenting an alternative which is about 
"decentralising power and building community-based decision-making 
potential -- whether through unions, neighbourhoods, farms, villages, 
anarchist collectives or aboriginal self-government." All strong 
anarchist principles and, like anarchists, she wants people to manage 
their own affairs and chronicles attempts around the world to do just 
that (many of which, as Klein notes, are anarchists or influenced by 
anarchist ideas, sometimes knowing, sometimes not). [Op. Cit., p. 77, 
p. 79 and p. 16]

While not an anarchist, she is aware that real change comes from below, 
by the self-activity of working class people fighting for a better world.
Decentralisation of power is a key idea in the book. As she puts it, the 
"goal" of the social movements she describes is "not to take power for 
themselves but to challenge power centralisation on principle" and so 
creating "a new culture of vibrant direct democracy . . . one that is
fuelled and strengthened by direct participation." She does not urge the movement to invest itself with new leaders and neither does she (like 
the Left) think that electing a few leaders to make decisions for us 
equals "democracy" ("the goal is not better faraway rules and rulers 
but close-up democracy on the ground"). Klein, therefore, gets to the 
heart of the matter. Real social change is based on empowering the 
grassroots, "the desire for self-determination, economic sustainability
and participatory democracy." Given this, Klein has presented 
libertarian ideas to a wide audience. [Op. Cit., p. xxvi, 
p. xxvi-xxvii, p. 245 and p. 233]

Other notable libertarian thinkers include Henry D. Thoreau, 
Albert Camus, Aldous Huxley, Lewis Mumford, Lewis Mumford and 
Oscar Wilde. Thus there are numerous thinkers who approach anarchist 
conclusions and who discuss subjects of interest to libertarians. As 
Kropotkin noted a hundred years ago, these kinds of writers "are full 
of ideas which show how closely anarchism is interwoven with the work 
that is going on in modern thought in the same direction of enfranchisement 
of man from the bonds of the state as well as from those of capitalism." 
[_Anarchism_, p. 300] The only change since then is that more names
can be added to the list.

Peter Marshall discusses the ideas of most, but not all, of the
non-anarchist libertarians we mention in this and subsequent sections
in his book history of anarchism, _Demanding the Impossible_. Clifford 
Harper's _Anarchy: A Graphic Guide_ is also a useful guide for finding 
out more.

A.4.2 Are there any liberal thinkers close to anarchism?

As noted in the last section, there are thinkers in both the liberal and 
socialist traditions who approach anarchist theory and ideals. This 
understandable as anarchism shares certain ideas and ideals with both. 

However, as will become clear in sections A.4.3 and A.4.4, anarchism 
shares most common ground with the socialist tradition it is a part of. 
This is because classical liberalism is a profoundly elitist tradition. 
The works of Locke and the tradition he inspired aimed to justify 
hierarchy, state and private property. As Carole Pateman notes, 
"Locke's state of nature, with its father-rulers and capitalist economy,
would certainly not find favour with anarchists" any more than his vision
of the social contract and the liberal state it creates. A state, which 
as Pateman recounts, in which "only males who own substantial amounts of
material property are [the] politically relevant members of society" and
exists "precisely to preserve the property relationships of the developing
capitalist market economy, not to disturb them." For the majority, the
non-propertied, they expressed "tacit consent" to be ruled by the few
by "choosing to remain within the one's country of birth when reaching
adulthood." [_The Problem of Political Obligation_, p. 141, p. 71, p. 78 
and p. 73] 

Thus anarchism is at odds with what can be called the pro-capitalist
liberal tradition which, flowing from Locke, builds upon his rationales
for hierarchy.  As David Ellerman notes, "there is a whole liberal
tradition of apologising for non-democratic government based on 
consent -- on a voluntary social contract alienating governing rights
to a sovereign." In economics, this is reflected in their support for
wage labour and the capitalist autocracy it creates for the "employment
contract is the modern limited workplace version" of such contracts.
[_The Democratic Worker-Owned Firm_, p. 210] This pro-capitalist 
liberalism essentially boils down to the liberty to pick a master or,
if you are among the lucky few, to become a master yourself. The idea
that freedom means self-determination for all at all times is alien to 
it. Rather it is based on the idea of "self-ownership," that you "own"
yourself and your rights. Consequently, you can sell (alienate) your 
rights and liberty on the market. As we discuss in section B.4, in
practice this means that most people are subject to autocratic rule
for most of their waking hours (whether in work or in marriage).

The modern equivalent of classical liberalism is the right-wing 
"libertarian" tradition associated with Milton Friedman, Robert Nozick,
von Hayek and so forth. As they aim to reduce the state to simply the
defender to private property and enforcer of the hierarchies that
social institution creates, they can by no stretch of the imagination
be considered near anarchism. What is called "liberalism" in, say,
the United States is a more democratic liberal tradition and has,
like anarchism, little in common with the shrill pro-capitalist 
defenders of the minimum state. While they may (sometimes) be happy
to denounce the state's attacks on individual liberty, they are more
than happy to defend the "freedom" of the property owner to impose
exactly the same restrictions on those who use their land or capital.

Given that feudalism combined ownership and rulership, that the
governance of people living on land was an attribute of the ownership
of that land, it would be no exaggeration to say that the right-wing 
"libertarian" tradition is simply its modern (voluntary) form. It is 
no more libertarian than the feudal lords who combated the powers of 
the King in order to protect their power over their own land and serfs.
As Chomsky notes, "the 'libertarian' doctrines that are fashionable 
in the US and UK particularly . . . seem to me to reduce to advocacy 
of one or another form of illegitimate authority, quite often real 
tyranny." [_Marxism, Anarchism, and Alternative Futures_, p. 777] 
Moreover, as Benjamin Tucker noted with regards their predecessors, 
while they are happy to attack any state regulation which benefits 
the many or limits their power, they are silent on the laws (and 
regulations and "rights") which benefit the few. 

However there is another liberal tradition, one which is essentially
pre-capitalist which has more in common with the aspirations of 
anarchism. As Chomsky put it:

"These ideas [of anarchism] grow out the Enlightenment; their roots are 
in Rousseau's _Discourse on Inequality_, Humbolt's _The Limits of State 
Action_, Kant's insistence, in his defence of the French Revolution, 
that freedom is the precondition for acquiring the maturity for freedom, 
not a gift to be granted when such maturity is achieved . . . With 
the development of industrial capitalism, a new and unanticipated 
system of injustice, it is libertarian socialism that has preserved and 
extended the radical humanist message of the Enlightenment and the 
classical liberal ideals that were perverted into an ideology to sustain 
the emerging social order. In fact, on the very same assumptions that led 
classical liberalism to oppose the intervention of the state in social 
life, capitalist social relations are also intolerable. This is clear, 
for example, from the classic work of [Wilhelm von] Humboldt, _The Limits 
of State Action_, which anticipated and perhaps inspired [John Stuart] 
Mill . . . This classic of liberal thought, completed in 1792, is in its 
essence profoundly, though prematurely, anticapitalist. Its ideas must 
be attenuated beyond recognition to be transmuted into an ideology of 
industrial capitalism." ["Notes on Anarchism", _For Reasons of State_, 
p. 156]

Chomsky discusses this in more detail in his essay "Language and 
Freedom" (contained in both _Reason of State_ and _The Chomsky 
Reader_). As well as Humbolt and Mill, such "pre-capitalist" 
liberals would include such radicals as Thomas Paine, who 
envisioned a society based on artisan and small farmers (i.e. 
a pre-capitalist economy) with a rough level of social equality 
and, of course, a minimal government. His ideas inspired working 
class radicals across the world and, as E.P. Thompson reminds us,
Paine's _Rights of Man_ was "a foundation-text of the English [and
Scottish] working-class movement." While his ideas on government 
are "close to a theory of anarchism," his reform proposals "set
a source towards the social legislation of the twentieth century."
[_The Making of the English Working Class_, p. 99, p. 101 and p. 102]
His combination of concern for liberty and social justice places him
close to anarchism.

Then there is Adam Smith. While the right (particularly elements of 
the "libertarian" right) claim him as a classic liberal, his ideas 
are more complex than that. For example, as Noam Chomsky points out, 
Smith advocated the free market because "it would lead to perfect 
equality, equality of condition, not just equality of opportunity." 
[_Class Warfare_, p. 124] As Smith himself put it, "in a society 
where things were left to follow their natural course, where there 
is perfect liberty" it would mean that "advantages would soon return 
to the level of other employments" and so "the different employments of 
labour and stock must . . . be either perfectly equal or continually
tending to equality." Nor did he oppose state intervention or state
aid for the working classes. For example, he advocated public 
education to counter the negative effects of the division of labour.
Moreover, he was against state intervention because whenever "a 
legislature attempts to regulate differences between masters and
their workmen, its counsellors are always the masters. When regulation,
therefore, is in favour of the workmen, it is always just and equitable;
but it is otherwise when in favour of the masters." He notes how "the
law" would "punish" workers' combinations "very severely" while
ignoring the masters' combinations ("if it dealt impartially, it 
would treat the masters in the same manner"). [_The Wealth of Nations_,
p. 88 and p. 129] Thus state intervention was to be opposed in general 
because the state was run by the few for the few, which would make state 
intervention benefit the few, not the many. It is doubtful Smith would
have left his ideas on laissez-faire unchanged if he had lived to see
the development of corporate capitalism. It is this critical edge of 
Smith's work are conveniently ignored by those claiming him for the
classical liberal tradition.

Smith, argues Chomsky, was "a pre-capitalist and anti-capitalist 
person with roots in the Enlightenment." Yes, he argues, "the classical 
liberals, the [Thomas] Jeffersons and the Smiths, were opposing the 
concentrations of power that they saw around them . . . They didn't 
see other forms of concentration of power which only developed later. 
When they did see them, they didn't like them. Jefferson was a good 
example. He was strongly opposed to the concentrations of power that 
he saw developing, and warned that the banking institutions and the 
industrial corporations which were barely coming into existence in 
his day would destroy the achievements of the Revolution." [Op. Cit., 
p. 125]

As Murray Bookchin notes, Jefferson "is most clearly identified in 
the early history of the United States with the political demands 
and interests of the independent farmer-proprietor." [_The Third 
Revolution_, vol. 1, pp. 188-9] In other words, with pre-capitalist
economic forms. We also find Jefferson contrasting the "aristocrats" 
and the "democrats." The former are "those who fear and distrust the
people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands
of the higher classes." The democrats "identify with the people,
have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the honest
& safe . . . depository of the public interest," if not always
"the most wise." [quoted by Chomsky, _Powers and Prospects_, 
p. 88] As Chomsky notes, the "aristocrats" were "the advocates 
of the rising capitalist state, which Jefferson regarded with 
dismay, recognising the obvious contradiction between democracy 
and the capitalism." [Op. Cit., p. 88] 

Jefferson even went so far as to argue that "a little rebellion now 
and then is a good thing . . . It is a medicine necessary for the 
sound health of government . . . The tree of liberty must be refreshed 
from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." [quoted by 
Howard Zinn, _A People's History of the United States_, p. 94] However,
his libertarian credentials are damaged by him being both a President
of the United States and a slave owner but compared to the other 
"founding fathers" of the American state, his liberalism is of a 
democratic form. As Chomsky reminds us, "all the Founding Fathers 
hated democracy -- Thomas Jefferson was a partial exception, but 
only partial." The American state, as a classical liberal state,
was designed (to quote James Madison) "to protect the minority of
the opulent from the majority." Or, to repeat John Jay's principle,
the "people who own the country ought to govern it." [_Understanding 
Power_, p. 315] If American is a (formally) democracy rather than an
oligarchy, it is in spite of rather than because of classical liberalism.

Then there is John Stuart Mill who recognised the fundamental contradiction 
in classical liberalism. How can an ideology which proclaims itself for 
individual liberty support institutions which systematically nullify that 
liberty in practice? For this reason Mill attacked patriarchal marriage, 
arguing that marriage must be a voluntary association between equals, 
with "sympathy in equality . . . living together in love, without power
on one side or obedience on the other." Rejecting the idea that there
had to be "an absolute master" in any association, he pointed out that
in "partnership in business . . . it is not found or thought necessary
to enact that in every partnership, one partner shall have entire 
control over the concern, and the others shall be bound to obey his rule."
["The Subjection of Women," quoted by Susan L. Brown, _The Politics of
Individualism_, pp. 45-6] 

Yet his own example showed the flaw in liberal support for capitalism, 
for the employee *is* subject to a relationship in which power accrues 
to one party and obedience to another. Unsurprisingly, therefore, he 
argued that the "form of association . . . which is mankind continue 
to improve, must be expected in the end to predominate, is not that 
which can exist between a capitalist as chief, and workpeople without 
a voice in management, but the association of the labourers themselves 
on terms of equality, collectively owning the capital . . . and working
under managers elected and removable by themselves." [_The Principles
of Political Economy_, p. 147] Autocratic management during working
hours is hardly compatible with Mill's maxim that "[o]ver himself, over 
his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." Mill's opposition
to centralised government and wage slavery brought his ideas closer 
to anarchism than most liberals, as did his comment that the "social 
principle of the future" was "how to unite the greatest individual 
liberty of action with a common ownership in the raw materials of 
the globe, and equal participation of all in the benefits of combined 
labour." [quoted by Peter Marshall, _Demanding the Impossible_, 
p. 164] His defence of individuality, _On Liberty_, is a classic, 
if flawed, work and his analysis of socialist tendencies ("Chapters 
on Socialism") is worth reading for its evaluation of their pros and 
cons from a (democratic) liberal perspective. 

Like Proudhon, Mill was a forerunner of modern-day market socialism 
and a firm supporter of decentralisation and social participation.
This, argues Chomsky, is unsurprising for pre-capitalist classical 
liberal thought "is opposed to state intervention in social life, 
as a consequence of deeper assumptions about the human need for 
liberty, diversity, and free association. On the same assumptions, 
capitalist relations of production, wage labour, competitiveness, 
the ideology of 'possessive individualism' -- all must be regarded 
as fundamentally antihuman. Libertarian socialism is properly to be 
regarded as the inheritor of the liberal ideals of the Enlightenment." 
["Notes on Anarchism", Op. Cit., p. 157]

Thus anarchism shares commonality with pre-capitalist and democratic
liberal forms. The hopes of these liberals were shattered with the
development of capitalism. To quote Rudolf Rocker's analysis:

"Liberalism and Democracy were pre-eminently political concepts, and 
since the great majority of the original adherents of both maintained 
the right of ownership in the old sense, these had to renounce them 
both when economic development took a course which could not be 
practically reconciled with the original principles of Democracy, 
and still less with those of Liberalism. Democracy, with its motto 
of 'all citizens equal before the law,' and Liberalism with its 'right 
of man over his own person,' both shipwrecked on the realities of the 
capitalist economic form. So long as millions of human beings in every 
country had to sell their labour-power to a small minority of owners, 
and to sink into the most wretched misery if they could find no buyers, 
the so-called 'equality before the law' remains merely a pious fraud, 
since the laws are made by those who find themselves in possession of 
the social wealth. But in the same way there can also be no talk of 
a 'right over one's own person,' for that right ends when one is 
compelled to submit to the economic dictation of another if he does
not want to starve." [_Anarcho-Syndicalism_, p. 10]

A.4.3 Are there any socialist thinkers close to anarchism?

Anarchism developed in response to the development of capitalism
and it is in the non-anarchist socialist tradition which anarchism 
finds most fellow travellers. 

The earliest British socialists (the so-called Ricardian Socialists) 
following in the wake of Robert Owen held ideas which were similar 
to those of anarchists. For example, Thomas Hodgskin expounded ideas 
similar to Proudhon's mutualism while William Thompson developed a 
non-state, communal form of socialism based on "communities of 
mutual co-operative" which had similarities to anarcho-communism 
(Thompson had been a mutualist before becoming a communist in light 
of the problems even a non-capitalist market would have). John Francis 
Bray is also of interest, as is the radical agrarianist Thomas Spence 
who developed a communal form of land-based socialism which 
expounded many ideas usually associated with anarchism (see "The 
Agrarian Socialism of Thomas Spence" by Brian Morris in his book 
_Ecology and Anarchism_). Moreover, the early British trade union 
movement "developed, stage by stage, a theory of syndicalism" 40 
years before Bakunin and the libertarian wing of the First 
International did. [E.P. Thompson, _The Making of the English 
Working Class_, p. 912] Noel Thompson's _The Real Rights of Man_ 
is a good summary of all these thinkers and movements, as is
E.P. Thompson's classic social history of working class life 
(and politics) of this period, _The Making of the English 
Working Class_.

Libertarian ideas did not die out in Britain in the 1840s. There was 
also the quasi-syndicalists of the Guild Socialists of the 1910s and 
1920s who advocated a decentralised communal system with workers' 
control of industry. G.D.H. Cole's _Guild Socialism Restated_ is the 
most famous work of this school, which also included author's S.G. 
Hobson and A.R. Orage (Geoffrey Osteregaard's _The Tradition of 
Workers' Control_ provides an good summary of the ideas of Guild 
Socialism). Bertrand Russell, another supporter of Guild Socialism, 
was attracted to anarchist ideas and wrote an extremely informed and 
thoughtful discussion of anarchism, syndicalism and Marxism in his
classic book _Roads to Freedom_. 

While Russell was pessimistic about the possibility of anarchism 
in the near future, he felt it was "the ultimate idea to which 
society should approximate." As a Guild Socialist, he took it 
for granted that there could "be no real freedom or democracy 
until the men who do the work in a business also control its 
management." His vision of a good society is one any anarchist 
would support: "a world in which the creative spirit is alive, 
in which life is an adventure full of joy and hope, based upon 
the impulse to construct than upon the desire to retain what we 
possess or to seize what is possessed by others. It must be a 
world in which affection has free play, in which love is purged 
of the instinct for domination, in which cruelty and envy have 
been dispelled by happiness and the unfettered development of 
all the instincts that build up life and fill it with mental 
delights." [quoted by Noam Chomsky, _Problems of Knowledge and 
Freedom_, pp. 59-60, p. 61 and p. x] An informed and interesting 
writer on many subjects, his thought and social activism has 
influenced many other thinkers, including Noam Chomsky (whose 
_Problems of Knowledge and Freedom_ is a wide ranging discussion 
on some of the topics Russell addressed).

Another important British libertarian socialist thinker and activist
was William Morris. Morris, a friend of Kropotkin, was active in the
_Socialist League_ and led its anti-parliamentarian wing. While stressing
he was not an anarchist, there is little real difference between the ideas
of Morris and most anarcho-communists (Morris said he was a communist and 
saw no need to append "anarchist" to it as, for him, communism was 
democratic and liberatory). A prominent member of the "Arts and Crafts"
movement, Morris argued for humanising work and it was, to quoted the 
title of one of his most famous essays, as case of _Useful Work vrs
Useless Toil_. His utopia novel _News from Nowhere_ paints a compelling
vision of a libertarian communist society where industrialisation has
been replaced with a communal craft-based economy. It is a utopia which
has long appealed to most social anarchists. For a discussion of Morris'
ideas, placed in the context of his famous utopia, see _William Morris
and News from Nowhere: A Vision for Our Time_ (Stephen Coleman and
Paddy O'Sullivan (eds.))

Also of note is the Greek thinker Cornelius Castoriadis. Originally
a Trotskyist, Castoriadis evaluation of Trotsky's deeply flawed 
analysis of Stalinist Russia as a degenerated workers' state lead 
him to reject first Leninism and then Marxism itself. This led him
to libertarian conclusions, seeing the key issue not who owns the
means of production but rather hierarchy. Thus the class struggle was
between those with power and those subject to it. This led him to
reject Marxist economics as its value analysis abstracted from (i.e.
ignored!) the class struggle at the heart of production (Autonomist
Marxism rejects this interpretation of Marx, but they are the only
Marxists who do). Castoriadis, like social anarchists, saw the future
society as one based on radical autonomy, generalised self-management 
and workers' councils organised from the bottom up. His three volume
collected works (_Political and Social Writings_) are essential reading
for anyone interested in libertarian socialist politics and a radical
critique of Marxism.

The American radical historian Howard Zinn has sometimes called himself 
an anarchist and is well informed about the anarchist tradition (he 
wrote an excellent introductory essay on "Anarchism" for a US edition 
of a Herbert Read book) . As well as his classic _A People's History of
the United States_, his writings of civil disobedience and non-violent 
direct action are essential. An excellent collection of essays by this
libertarian socialist scholar has been produced under the title _The 
Zinn Reader_. Another notable libertarian socialists close to anarchism 
are Edward Carpenter (see, for example, Sheila Rowbotham's _Edward
Carpenter: Prophet of the New Life_) and Simone Weil (_Oppression
and Liberty_)

It would also be worthwhile to mention those market socialists who, 
like anarchists, base their socialism on workers' self-management.
Rejecting central planning, they have turned back to the ideas of
industrial democracy and market socialism advocated by the likes of
Proudhon (although, coming from a Marxist background, they generally
fail to mention the link which their central-planning foes stress).
Allan Engler (in _Apostles of Greed_) and David Schweickart (in
_Against Capitalism_ and _After Capitalism_) have provided useful
critiques of capitalism and presented a vision of socialism rooted
in co-operatively organised workplaces. While retaining an element 
of government and state in their political ideas, these socialists 
have placed economic self-management at the heart of their economic
vision and, consequently, are closer to anarchism than most socialists.

A.4.4 Are there any Marxist thinkers close to anarchism?


None of the libertarian socialists we highlighted in the last section 
were Marxists. This is unsurprising as most forms of Marxism are 
authoritarian. However, this is not the case for all schools of Marxism. 
There are important sub-branches of Marxism which shares the anarchist 
vision of a self-managed society. These include Council Communism, 
Situationism and Autonomism. Perhaps significantly, these few Marxist 
tendencies which are closest to anarchism are, like the branches of 
anarchism itself, not named after individuals. We will discuss each
in turn.

Council Communism was born in the German Revolution of 1919 when 
Marxists inspired by the example of the Russian soviets and disgusted 
by the centralism, opportunism and betrayal of the mainstream Marxist 
social-democrats, drew similar anti-parliamentarian, direct actionist 
and decentralised conclusions to those held by anarchists since Bakunin. 
Like Marx's libertarian opponent in the First International, they argued 
that a federation of workers' councils would form the basis of a 
socialist society and, consequently, saw the need to build militant 
workplace organisations to promote their formation. Lenin attacked 
these movements and their advocates in his diatribe _Left-wing Communism: 
An Infantile Disorder_, which council communist Herman Gortor demolished 
in his _An Open Letter to Comrade Lenin_. By 1921, the council communists 
broke with the Bolshevism that had already effectively expelled them 
from both the national Communist Parties and the Communist International. 

Like the anarchists, they argued that Russia was a state-capitalist party 
dictatorship and had nothing to be with socialism. And, again like anarchists, 
the council communists argue that the process of building a new society, 
like the revolution itself, is either the work of the people themselves or 
doomed from the start. As with the anarchists, they too saw the Bolshevik 
take-over of the soviets (like that of the trade unions) as subverting the 
revolution and beginning the restoration of oppression and exploitation. 

To discover more about council communism, the works of Paul Mattick are
essential reading. While best known as a writer on Marxist economic 
theory in such works as _Marx and Keynes_, _Economic Crisis and Crisis 
Theory_ and _Economics, Politics and the Age of Inflation_, Mattick had 
been a council communist since the German revolution of 1919/1920. His 
books _Anti-Bolshevik Communism_ and _Marxism: The Last Refuge of the 
Bourgeoisie?_ are excellent introductions to his political ideas. Also 
essential reading is Anton Pannekeok's works. His classic _Workers' 
Councils_  explains council communism from first principles while his 
_Lenin as Philosopher_ dissects Lenin's claims to being a Marxist 
(Serge Bricianer, _Pannekoek and the Workers' Councils_ is the best 
study of the development of Panekoek's ideas). In the UK, the militant 
suffragette Sylvia Pankhurst became a council communist under the impact 
of the Russian Revolution and, along with anarchists like Guy Aldred, led 
the opposition to the importation of Leninism into the communist movement 
there (see Mark Shipway's _Anti-Parliamentary Communism: The Movement for Workers Councils in Britain, 1917-45_ for more details of libertarian 
communism in the UK). Otto Ruhle and Karl Korsch are also important 
thinkers in this tradition.

Building upon the ideas of council communism, the Situationists developed
their ideas in important new directions. Working in the late 1950s and 
1960s, they combined council communist ideas with surrealism and other
forms of radical art to produce an impressive critique of post-war 
capitalism. Unlike Castoriadis, whose ideas influenced them, the 
Situationists continued to view themselves as Marxists, developing 
Marx's critique of capitalist economy into a critique of capitalist
society as alienation had shifted from being located in capitalist 
production into everyday life. They coined the expression "The Spectacle"
to describe a social system in which people become alienated from their
own lives and played the role of an audience, of spectators. Thus
capitalism had turned being into having and now, with the spectacle,
it turned having into appearing. They argued that we could not wait for 
a distant revolution, but rather should liberate ourselves in the here
and now, creating events ("situations") which would disrupt the 
ordinary and normal to jolt people out of their allotted roles within
society. A social revolution based on sovereign rank and file assemblies
and self-managed councils would be the ultimate "situation" and the
aim of all Situationists. 

While critical of anarchism, the differences between the two theories
are relatively minor and the impact of the Situationists on anarchism 
cannot be underestimated. Many anarchists embraced their critique of 
modern capitalist society, their subversion of modern art and culture
for revolutionary purposes and call for revolutionising everyday life.
Ironically, while Situationism viewed itself as an attempt to transcend
tradition forms of Marxism and anarchism, it essentially became subsumed
by anarchism. The classic works of situationism are Guy Debord's _Society
of the Spectacle_ and Raoul Veneigem's _The Revolution of Everyday Life_.
The _Situationist International Anthology_ (edited by Ken Knabb) is 
essential reading for any budding Situationists, as is Knabb's own 
_Public Secrets_.

Lastly there is Autonomist Marxism. Drawing on the works of the
council communism, Castoriadis, situationism and others, it 
places the class struggle at the heart of its analysis of 
capitalism. It initially developed in Italy during the 1960s and
has many currents, some closer to anarchism than others. While
the most famous thinker in the Autonomist tradition is probably
Antonio Negri (who coined the wonderful phrase "money has only
one face, that of the boss" in _Marx Beyond Marx_) his ideas 
are more within traditional Marxist. For an Autonomist whose ideas
are closer to anarchism, we need to turn to the US thinker and
activist who has written the one of the best summaries of 
Kropotkin's ideas in which he usefully indicates the similarities
between anarcho-communism and Autonomist Marxism ("Kropotkin,
Self-valorisation and the Crisis of Marxism," _Anarchist Studies_, 
vol. 2, no. 3). His book _Reading Capital Politically_ is an 
essential text for understanding Autonomism and its history.

For Cleaver, "autonomist Marxism" as generic name for a variety of 
movements, politics and thinkers who have emphasized the autonomous power 
of workers -- autonomous from capital, obviously, but also from their 
official organisations (e.g. the trade unions, the political parties) 
and, moreover, the power of particular groups of working class people to 
act autonomously from other groups (e.g. women from men). By "autonomy" 
it is meant the ability of working class people to define their own 
interests and to struggle for them and, critically, to go beyond mere 
reaction to exploitation and to take the offensive in ways that shape 
the class struggle and define the future. Thus they place working class 
power at the centre of their thinking about capitalism, how it develops
and its dynamics as well as in the class conflicts within it. This
is not limited to just the workplace and just as workers resist the 
imposition of work inside the factory or office, via slowdowns, strikes
and sabotage, so too do the non-waged resist the reduction of their lives 
to work. For Autonomists, the creation of communism is not something 
that comes later but is something which is repeatedly created by current 
developments of new forms of working class self-activity. 

The similarities with social anarchism are obvious. Which probably 
explains why Autonomists spend so much time analysing and quoting 
Marx to justify their ideas for otherwise other Marxists will follow 
Lenin's lead on the council communists and label them anarchists and 
ignore them! For anarchists, all this Marx quoting seems amusing. 
Ultimately, if Marx really was an Autonomist Marxist then why do 
Autonomists have to spend so much time re-constructing what Marx 
"really" meant? Why did he not just say it clearly to begin with? 
Similarly, why root out (sometimes obscure) quotes and (sometimes
passing) comments from Marx to justify your insights? Does something
stop being true if Marx did not mention it first?  Whatever the
insights of Autonomism its Marxism will drag it backwards by rooting
its politics in the texts of two long dead Germans. Like the surreal
debate between Trotsky and Stalin in the 1920s over "Socialism in One 
Country" conducted by means of Lenin quotes, all that will be proved 
is not whether a given idea is right but simply that the mutually
agreed authority figure (Lenin or Marx) may have held it. Thus 
anarchists suggest that Autonomists practice some autonomy when it
comes to Marx and Engels.

Other libertarian Marxists close to anarchism include Erich Fromm
and Wilhelm Reich. Both tried to combine Marx with Freud to produce
a radical analysis of capitalism and the personality disorders it
causes. Erich Fromm, in such books as _The Fear of Freedom_, _Man 
for Himself_, _The Sane Society_ and _To Have or To Be?_ developed 
a powerful and insightful analysis of capitalism which discussed how 
it shaped the individual and built psychological barriers to freedom 
and authentic living. His works discuss many important topics, 
including ethics, the authoritarian personality (what causes it and 
how to change it), alienation, freedom, individualism and what a 
good society would be like. 

Fromm's analysis of capitalism and the "having" mode of life are 
incredibly insightful, especially in context with today's consumerism.
For Fromm, the way we live, work and organise together influence 
how we develop, our health (mental and physical), our happiness more 
than we suspect. He questions the sanity of a society which covets 
property over humanity and adheres to theories of submission and 
domination rather than self-determination and self-actualisation. 
His scathing indictment of modern capitalism shows that it is the 
main source of the isolation and alienation prevalent in today. 
Alienation, for Fromm, is at the heart of the system (whether private
or state capitalism). We are happy to the extent that we realise 
ourselves and for this to occur our society must value the human 
over the inanimate (property).

Fromm rooted his ideas in a humanistic interpretation of Marx, 
rejecting Leninism and Stalinism as an authoritarian corruption 
of his ideas ("the destruction of socialism . .  . began with
Lenin."). Moreover, he stressed the need for a decentralised 
and libertarian form of socialism, arguing that the anarchists 
had been right to question Marx's preferences for states and 
centralisation. As he put it, the "errors of Marx and Engels
. . . [and] their centralistic orientation, were due to the
fact they were much more rooted in the middle-class tradition
of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, both psychologically
and intellectually, than men like Fourier, Owen, Proudhon and
Kropotkin." As the "contradiction" in Marx between "the principles
of centralisation and decentralisation," for Fromm "Marx and
Engels were much more 'bourgeois' thinkers than were men like
Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin and Landauer. Paradoxical as it
sounds, the Leninist development of Socialism represented a
regression to the bourgeois concepts of the state and of
political power, rather than the new socialist concept as it
was expressed so much clearer by Owen, Proudhon and others."
[_The Sane Society_, p. 265, p. 267 and p. 259] Fromm's Marxism, 
therefore, was fundamentally of a libertarian and humanist type
and his insights of profound importance for anyone interested in 
changing society for the better.

Wilheim Reich, like Fromm, set out to elaborate a social psychology 
based on both Marxism and psychoanalysis. For Reich, sexual repression 
led to people amenable to authoritarianism and happy to subject 
themselves to authoritarian regimes. While he famously analysed 
Nazism in this way (in _The Mass Psychology of Fascism_, his 
insights also apply to other societies and movements (it is no 
co-incidence, for example, that the religious right in America oppose
pre-martial sex and use scare tactics to get teenagers to associate 
it with disease, dirt and guilt). 

His argument is that due to sexual repression we develop what he called 
"character armour" which internalises our oppressions and ensures that 
we can function in a hierarchical society. This social conditioning is 
produced by the patriarchal family and its net results is a powerful 
reinforcement and perpetuation of the dominant ideology and the mass 
production of individuals with obedience built into them, individuals 
ready to accept the authority of teacher, priest, employer and politician 
as well as to endorse the prevailing social structure. This explains how 
individuals and groups can support movements and institutions which 
exploit or oppress them. In other words, act think, feel and act 
against themselves and, moreover, can internalise their own oppression 
to such a degree that they may even seek to defend their subordinate 
position.

Thus, for Reich, sexual repression produces an individual who is adjusted 
to the authoritarian order and who will submit to it in spite of all 
misery and degradation it causes them. The net result is fear of freedom, 
and a conservative, reactionary mentality. Sexual repression aids political 
power, not only through the process which makes the mass individual passive 
and unpolitical, but also by creating in their character structure an 
interest in actively supporting the authoritarian order. 

While his uni-dimensional focus on sex is misplaced, his analysis of how 
we internalise our oppression in order to survive under hierarchy is 
important for understanding why so many of the most oppressed people 
seem to love their social position and those who rule over them. By 
understanding this collective character structure and how it forms also
provides humanity with new means of transcending such obstacles to social
change. Only an awareness of how people's character structure prevents them 
from becoming aware of their real interests can it be combated and social 
self-emancipation assured.

Maurice Brinton's _The Irrational in Politics_ is an excellent short 
introduction to Reich's ideas which links their insights to libertarian 
socialism.

A.5 What are some examples of "Anarchy in Action"? 
 
Anarchism, more than anything else, is about the efforts of millions 
of revolutionaries changing the world in the last two centuries. Here 
we will discuss some of the high points of this movement, all of them 
of a profoundly anti-capitalist nature.  
 
Anarchism *is* about radically changing the world, not just making the  
present system less inhuman by encouraging the anarchistic tendencies  
within it to grow and develop. While no purely anarchist revolution has  
taken place yet, there have been numerous ones with a highly anarchist  
character and level of participation. And while these have *all* been 
destroyed, in each case it has been at the hands of outside force 
brought against them (backed either by Communists or Capitalists), not 
because of any internal problems in anarchism itself. These revolutions, 
despite their failure to survive in the face of overwhelming force, have 
been both an inspiration for anarchists and proof that anarchism is a 
viable social theory and can be practised on a large scale. 

What these revolutions share is the fact they are, to use Proudhon's
term, a "revolution from below" -- they were examples of "collective
activity, of popular spontaneity." It is only a transformation of
society from the bottom up by the action of the oppressed themselves
that can create a free society. As Proudhon asked, "[w]hat serious
and lasting Revolution was not made *from below,* by the people?"
For this reason an anarchist is a "revolutionary *from below.*"
Thus the social revolutions and mass movements we discuss in this
section are examples of popular self-activity and self-liberation
(as Proudhon put it in 1848, "the proletariat must emancipate itself").
[quoted by George Woodcock, _Pierre-Joseph Proudhon: A Biography_,
p. 143 and p. 125] All anarchists echo Proudhon's idea of revolutionary
change from below, the creation of a new society by the actions of
the oppressed themselves. Bakunin, for example, argued that anarchists
are "foes . . . of all State organisations as such, and believe that
the people can only be happy and free, when, organised from below by
means of its own autonomous and completely free associations, without
the supervision of any guardians, it will create its own life." 
[_Marxism, Freedom and the State_, p. 63] In section J.7 we discuss 
in more detail what anarchists think a social revolution is and
what it involves.

Many of these revolutions and revolutionary movements are relatively
unknown to non-anarchists. Most people will have heard of the Russian 
revolution but few will know of the popular movements which were its
life-blood before the Bolsheviks seized power or the role that the 
anarchists played in it. Few will have heard of the Paris Commune, 
the Italian factory occupations or the Spanish collectives. This is
unsurprising for, as Hebert Read notes, history "is of two kinds -- a
record of events that take place publicly, that make the headlines in
the newspapers and get embodied in official records -- we might call
this overground history" but "taking place at the same time, preparing
for these public events, anticipating them, is another kind of history,
that is not embodied in official records, an invisible underground 
history." [quoted by William R. McKercher, _Freedom and Authority_, 
p. 155] Almost by definition, popular movements and revolts are part
of "underground history", the social history which gets ignored in
favour of elite history, the accounts of the kings, queens, politicians 
and wealthy whose fame is the product of the crushing of the many.

This means our examples of "anarchy in action" are part of what the
Russian anarchist Voline called "The Unknown Revolution." Voline used 
that expression as the title of his classic account of the Russian 
revolution he was an active participant of. He used it to refer to 
the rarely acknowledged independent, creative actions of the people 
themselves. As Voline put it, "it is not known how to study a revolution" 
and most historians "mistrust and ignore those developments which occur 
silently in the depths of the revolution . . . at best, they accord 
them a few words in passing . . . [Yet] it is precisely these hidden 
facts which are important, and which throw a true light on the events 
under consideration and on the period." [_The Unknown Revolution_, p. 19]
Anarchism, based as it is on revolution from below, has contributed
considerably to both the "underground history" and the "unknown 
revolution" of the past few centuries and this section of the FAQ 
will shed some light on its achievements.

It is important to point out that these examples are of wide-scale social 

experiments and do not imply that we ignore the undercurrent of anarchist 
practice which exists in everyday life, even under capitalism. Both Peter 
Kropotkin (in _Mutual Aid_) and Colin Ward (in _Anarchy in Action_) have 
documented the many ways in which ordinary people, usually unaware of 
anarchism, have worked together as equals to meet their common interests.  
As Colin Ward argues, "an anarchist society, a society which organises 
itself without authority, is always in existence, like a seed beneath the 
snow, buried under the weight of the state and its bureaucracy, capitalism 
and its waste, privilege and its injustices, nationalism and its suicidal 
loyalties, religious differences and their superstitious separatism." 
[_Anarchy in Action_, p. 14]
 
Anarchism is not only about a future society, it is also about the social  
struggle happening today. It is not a condition but a process, which we 
create by our self-activity and self-liberation. 
 
By the 1960's, however, many commentators were writing off the anarchist  
movement as a thing of the past. Not only had fascism finished off 
European anarchist movements in the years before and during the war, but 
in the post-war period these movements were prevented from recovering by 
the capitalist West on one hand and the Leninist East on the other. Over 
the same period of time, anarchism had been repressed in the US, Latin 
America, China, Korea (where a social revolution with anarchist content 
was put down before the Korean War), and Japan. Even in the one or two 
countries that escaped the worst of the repression, the combination of  
the Cold War and international isolation saw libertarian unions like the 
Swedish SAC become reformist. 
 
But the 60's were a decade of new struggle, and all over the world the 
'New Left' looked to anarchism as well as elsewhere for its ideas. Many 
of the prominent figures of the massive explosion of May 1968 in France 
considered themselves anarchists. Although these movements themselves 
degenerated, those coming out of them kept the idea alive and began to 
construct new movements. The death of Franco in 1975 saw a massive 
rebirth of anarchism in Spain, with up to 500,000 people attending the 
CNT's first post-Franco rally. The return to a limited democracy in some 
South American countries in the late 70's and 80's saw a growth in 
anarchism there. Finally, in the late 80's it was anarchists who struck 
the first blows against the Leninist USSR, with the first protest march 
since 1928 being held in Moscow by anarchists in 1987. 
 
Today the anarchist movement, although still weak, organises tens of 
thousands of revolutionaries in many countries. Spain, Sweden and Italy all 
have libertarian union movements organising some 250,000 between them.  
Most other European countries have several thousand active anarchists.  
Anarchist groups have appeared for the first time in other countries, 
including Nigeria and Turkey. In South America the movement has recovered 
massively. A contact sheet circulated by the Venezuelan anarchist group 
_Corrio A_ lists over 100 organisations in just about every country. 
 
Perhaps the recovery is slowest in North America, but there, too, all the 
libertarian organisations seem to be undergoing significant growth. As 
this growth accelerates, many more examples of anarchy in action will be 
created and more and more people will take part in anarchist organisations 
and activities, making this part of the FAQ less and less important. 
 
However, it is essential to highlight mass examples of anarchism working 
on a large scale in order to avoid the specious accusation of "utopianism."  
As history is written by the winners, these examples of anarchy in action are 
often hidden from view in obscure books. Rarely are they mentioned in the 
schools and universities (or if mentioned, they are distorted). Needless to  
say, the few examples we give are just that, a few.  
 
Anarchism has a long history in many countries, and we cannot attempt to  
document every example, just those we consider to be important. We are also  
sorry if the examples seem Eurocentric. We have, due to space and time   
considerations, had to ignore the syndicalist revolt (1910 to 1914) and the 
shop steward movement (1917-21) in Britain, Germany (1919-21), Portugal (1974),  
the Mexican revolution, anarchists in the Cuban revolution, the struggle  
in Korea against Japanese (then US and Russian) imperialism during and after  
the Second World War, Hungary (1956), the "the refusal of work" revolt  
in the late 1960's (particularly in "the hot Autumn" in Italy, 1969), the 
UK miner's strike (1984-85), the struggle against the Poll Tax in Britain 
(1988-92), the strikes in France in 1986 and 1995, the Italian COBAS movement 
in the 80's and 90's, the popular assemblies and self-managed occupied 
workplaces during the Argentine revolt at the start of the 21st century 
and numerous other major struggles that have involved anarchist ideas of 
self-management (ideas that usually develop from the movement themselves, 
without anarchists necessarily playing a major, or "leading", role). For 
anarchists, revolutions and mass struggles are "festivals of the oppressed," 
when ordinary people start to act for themselves and change both themselves 
and the world. 
 
A.5.1 The Paris Commune 
 
The Paris Commune of 1871 played an important role in the development of 
both anarchist ideas and the movement. As Bakunin commented at the time: 
 
"revolutionary socialism [i.e. anarchism] has just attempted its first 
striking and practical demonstration in the Paris Commune . . . [It] 
show[ed] to all enslaved peoples (and are there any masses that are not 
slaves?) the only road to emancipation and health; Paris inflict[ed] a 
mortal blow upon the political traditions of bourgeois radicalism and 
[gave] a real basis to revolutionary socialism." [_Bakunin on Anarchism_, 
pp. 263-4]
 
The Paris Commune was created after France was defeated by Prussia in 
the Franco-Prussian war. The French government at Versailles tried to 
send in troops to regain the Parisian National Guard's cannon to prevent 
it from falling into the hands of the population. "Learning that the 
Versailles soldiers were trying to seize the cannon," recounted 
participant Louise Michel, "men and women of Montmarte swarmed up 
the Butte in  surprise manoeuvre. Those people who were climbing up 
the Butte believed they would die, but they were prepared to pay the
price." The soldiers refused to fire on the jeering crowd and turned 
their weapons on their officers. This was March 18th; the Commune had 
begun and "the people wakened . . . The eighteenth of March could have
belonged to the allies of kings, or to foreigners, or to the people.
It was the people's." [_Red Virgin: Memoirs of Louise Michel_, p. 64] 
 
In the free elections called by the Parisian National Guard, the 
citizens of Paris elected a council made up of a majority of Jacobins 
and Republicans and a minority of socialists (mostly Blanquists -- 
authoritarian socialists -- and followers of the anarchist Proudhon). 
This council proclaimed Paris autonomous and desired to recreate France 
as a confederation of communes (i.e. communities). Within the Commune, 
the elected council people were recallable and paid an average wage. In 
addition, they had to report back to the people who had elected them
and were subject to recall by electors if they did not carry out their 
mandates. 
 
Why this development caught the imagination of anarchists is clear -- 
it has strong similarities with anarchist ideas. In fact, the example of 
the Paris Commune was in many ways similar to how Bakunin had predicted 
that a revolution would have to occur -- a major city declaring itself 
autonomous, organising itself, leading by example, and urging the rest 
of the planet to follow it (see "Letter to Albert Richards" in _Bakunin 
on Anarchism_). The Paris Commune began the process of creating a new 
society, one organised from the bottom up. It was "a blow for the 
decentralisation of political power." [Voltairine de Cleyre, "The 
Paris Commune," _Anarchy! An Anthology of Emma Goldman's Mother
Earth_, p. 67]
 
Many anarchists played a role within the Commune -- for example Louise 
Michel, the Reclus brothers, and Eugene Varlin (the latter murdered in the 
repression afterwards). As for the reforms initiated by the Commune, such 
as the re-opening of workplaces as co-operatives, anarchists can see their 
ideas of associated labour beginning to be realised. By May, 43 workplaces
were co-operatively run and the Louvre Museum was a munitions factory
run by a workers' council. Echoing Proudhon, a meeting of the Mechanics
Union and the Association of Metal Workers argued that "our economic 
emancipation . . . can only be obtained through the formation of workers' 
associations, which alone can transform our position from that of wage 
earners to that of associates." They instructed their delegates to the 
Commune's Commission on Labour Organisation to support the following 
objectives:

"The abolition of the exploitation of man by man, the last vestige
of slavery;

"The organisation of labour in mutual associations and inalienable
capital."

In this way, they hoped to ensure that "equality must not be an empty
word" in the Commune. [_The Paris Commune of 1871: The View from the
Left_, Eugene Schulkind (ed.), p. 164] The Engineers Union voted at
a meeting on 23rd of April that since the aim of the Commune should
be "economic emancipation" it should "organise labour through
associations in which there would be joint responsibility" in order
"to suppress the exploitation of man by man." [quoted by Stewart
Edwards, _The Paris Commune 1871_, pp. 263-4]

As well as self-managed workers' associations, the Communards 
practised direct democracy in a network popular clubs, popular 
organisations similar to the directly democratic neighbourhood 
assemblies ("sections") of the French Revolution. "People, 
govern yourselves through your public meetings, through your press" 
proclaimed the newspaper of one Club. The commune was seen as an 
expression of the assembled people, for (to quote another Club) 
"Communal power resides in each arrondissement [neighbourhood] 
wherever men are assembled who have a horror of the yoke and of 
servitude." Little wonder that Gustave Courbet, artist friend 
and follower of Proudhon, proclaimed Paris as "a true paradise 
. . . all social groups have established themselves as federations 
and are masters of their own fate." [quoted by Martin Phillip 
Johnson, _The Paradise of Association_, p. 5 and p. 6]

In addition, the Commune's "Declaration to the French People" echoed 
many key anarchist ideas. It saw the "political unity" of society 
as being based on "the voluntary association of all local initiatives, 
the free and spontaneous concourse of all individual energies for 
the common aim, the well-being, the liberty and the security of all." 
[quoted by Edwards, Op. Cit., p. 218] The new society envisioned by 
the communards was one based on the "absolute autonomy of the Commune
. . . assuring to each its integral rights and to each Frenchman the 
full exercise of his aptitudes, as a man, a citizen and a labourer. 
The autonomy of the Commune will have for its limits only the equal 
autonomy of all other communes adhering to the contract; their 
association must ensure the liberty of France." ["Declaration to 
the French People", quoted by George Woodcock, _Pierre-Joseph 
Proudhon: A Biography_, pp. 276-7] With its vision of a confederation 
of communes, Bakunin was correct to assert that the Paris Commune was 
"a bold, clearly formulated negation of the State." [_Bakunin on 
Anarchism_, p. 264]

Moreover, the Commune's ideas on federation obviously reflected the 
influence of Proudhon on French radical ideas. Indeed, its vision of 
a communal France based on a federation of delegates bound by 
imperative mandates issued by their electors and subject to recall at 
any moment echoes Proudhon's ideas (Proudhon had argued in favour of 
the "implementation of the binding mandate" in 1848 [_No Gods, No 
Masters_, p. 63] and for federation of communes in his work _The 
Principle of Federation_). 

Thus both economically and politically the Paris Commune was heavily 
influenced by anarchist ideas. Economically, the theory of associated 
production expounded by Proudhon and Bakunin became consciously 
revolutionary practice. Politically, in the Commune's call for 
federalism and autonomy, anarchists see their "future social 
organisation. . . [being] carried out from the bottom up, by the 
free association or federation of workers, starting with associations, 
then going into the communes, the regions, the nations, and, finally, 
culminating in a great international and universal federation." 
[Bakunin, Op. Cit., p. 270]

However, for anarchists the Commune did not go far enough. It did not 
abolish the state within the Commune, as it had abolished it beyond 
it. The Communards organised themselves "in a Jacobin manner" (to use 
Bakunin's cutting term). As Peter Kropotkin pointed out, while 
"proclaiming the free Commune, the people of Paris proclaimed an
essential anarchist principle . . . they stopped mid-course" and 
gave "themselves a Communal Council copied from the old municipal
councils." Thus the Paris Commune did not "break with the tradition 
of the State, of representative government, and it did not attempt 
to achieve within the Commune that organisation from the simple to 
the complex it inaugurated by proclaiming the independence and 
free federation of the Communes." This lead to disaster as the
Commune council became "immobilised . . . by red tape" and lost
"the sensitivity that comes from continued contact with the 
masses . . . Paralysed by their distancing from the revolutionary
centre -- the people -- they themselves paralysed the popular 
initiative." [_Words of a Rebel_, p. 97, p. 93 and p. 97] 

In addition, its attempts at economic reform did not go far enough, 
making no attempt to turn all workplaces into co-operatives (i.e. 
to expropriate capital) and forming associations of these 
co-operatives to co-ordinate and support each other's economic 
activities. Paris, stressed Voltairine de Cleyre, "failed to 
strike at economic tyranny, and so came of what it could have 
achieved" which was a "free community whose economic affairs 
shall be arranged by the groups of actual producers and distributors, 
eliminating the useless and harmful element now in possession of the 
world's capital." [Op. Cit., p. 67] As the city was under constant 
siege by the French army, it is understandable that the Communards 
had other things on their minds. However, for Kropotkin such a 
position was a disaster: 

"They treated the economic question as a secondary one, which would be 
attended to later on, *after* the triumph of the Commune . . . But
the crushing defeat which soon followed, and the blood-thirsty 
revenge taken by the middle class, proved once more that the triumph
of a popular Commune was materially impossible without a parallel
triumph of the people in the economic field." [Op. Cit., p. 74]

Anarchists drew the obvious conclusions, arguing that "if no central 
government was needed to rule the independent Communes, if the national 
Government is thrown overboard and national unity is obtained by free 
federation, then a central *municipal* Government becomes equally useless 
and noxious. The same federative principle would do within the Commune."
[Kropotkin, _Evolution and Environment_, p. 75] Instead of abolishing 
the state within the commune by organising federations of directly 
democratic mass assemblies, like the Parisian "sections" of the 
revolution of 1789-93 (see Kropotkin's _Great French Revolution_ for 
more on these), the Paris Commune kept representative government and 
suffered for it. "Instead of acting for themselves . . . the people, 
confiding in their governors, entrusted them the charge of taking the 
initiative. This was the first consequence of the inevitable result of 
elections." The council soon became "the greatest obstacle to the 
revolution" thus proving the "political axiom that a government cannot 
be revolutionary." [_Anarchism_, p. 240, p. 241 and p. 249]
 
The council become more and more isolated from the people who elected  
it, and thus more and more irrelevant. "Shut up in the City Hall," 
argued Kropotkin, "charged to proceed after the forms established by
preceding governments, these ardent revolutionists, these reformers
found themselves smitten with incapacity and sterility . . . but it 
was not the men who were the cause of this failure -- it was the
system." [Kropotkin, Op. Cit., p. 240] And as its irrelevance grew, so  
did its authoritarian tendencies, with the Jacobin majority creating a  
"Committee of Public Safety" to "defend" (by terror) the "revolution."  
The Committee was opposed by the libertarian socialist minority and  
was, fortunately, ignored in practice by the people of Paris as they  
defended their freedom against the French army, which was attacking  
them in the name of capitalist civilisation and "liberty." On May 
21st, government troops entered the city, followed by seven days of 
bitter street fighting. Squads of soldiers and armed members of the 
bourgeoisie roamed the streets, killing and maiming at will. Over 
25,000 people were killed in the street fighting, many murdered after 
they had surrendered, and their bodies dumped in mass graves. As a
final insult, _Sacr Coeur_ was built by the bourgeoisie on the birth 
place of the Commune, the Butte of Montmarte, to atone for the radical 
and atheist revolt which had so terrified them. 

For anarchists, the lessons of the Paris Commune were threefold. Firstly, 
a decentralised confederation of communities is the necessary political 
form of a free society ("*This was the form that the social revolution
must take* -- the independent commune." [Kropotkin, Op. Cit., p. 163]). 
Secondly, "there is no more reason for a government inside a Commune 
than for government above the Commune." This means that an anarchist 
society will be based on a confederation of neighbourhood and workplace 
assemblies freely co-operating together. Thirdly, it is critically 
important to unify political and economic revolutions into a *social* 
revolution. "They tried to consolidate the Commune first and put off 
the social revolution until later, whereas the only way to proceed was 
*to consolidate the Commune by means of the social revolution!*" [Peter Kropotkin, _Words of a Rebel_, p. 97] 

For more anarchist perspectives on the Paris Commune see Kropotkin's
essay "The Paris Commune" in _Words of a Rebel_ (and _The Anarchist
Reader_) and Bakunin's "The Paris Commune and the Idea of the State"
in _Bakunin on Anarchism_.

A.5.2 The Haymarket Martyrs 

May 1st is a day of special significance for the labour movement. While
it has been hijacked in the past by the Stalinist bureaucracy in the 
Soviet Union and elsewhere, the labour movement festival of May Day
is a day of world-wide solidarity. A time to remember past struggles 
and demonstrate our hope for a better future. A day to remember that 
an injury to one is an injury to all.

The history of Mayday is closely linked with the anarchist movement
and the struggles of working people for a better world. Indeed, it 
originated with the execution of four anarchists in Chicago in 1886 
for organising workers in the fight for the eight-hour day. Thus
May Day is a product of "anarchy in action" -- of the struggle of
working people using direct action in labour unions to change the
world.

It began in the 1880s in the USA. In 1884, the Federation of Organised 
Trades and Labor Unions of the United States and Canada (created in 
1881, it changed its name in 1886 to the American Federation of Labor) 
passed a resolution which asserted that "eight hours shall constitute 
a legal day's work from and after May 1, 1886, and that we recommend to 
labour organisations throughout this district that they so direct their 
laws as to conform to this resolution". A call for strikes on May 1st, 
1886 was made in support of this demand.  
 
In Chicago the anarchists were the main force in the union movement, and  
partially as a result of their presence, the unions translated this call  
into strikes on May 1st. The anarchists thought that the eight hour day 
could only be won through direct action and solidarity. They considered 
that struggles for reforms, like the eight hour day, were not enough in 
themselves. They viewed them as only one battle in an ongoing class 
war that would only end by social revolution and the creation of a free
society. It was with these ideas that they organised and fought.

In Chicago alone, 400 000 workers went out and the threat of strike
action ensured that more than 45 000 were granted a shorter working 
day without striking. On May 3, 1886, police fired into a crowd of 
pickets at the McCormick Harvester Machine Company, killing at least 
one striker, seriously wounding five or six others, and injuring 
an undetermined number. Anarchists called for a mass meeting the 
next day in Haymarket Square to protest the brutality. According
to the Mayor, "nothing had occurred yet, or looked likely to occur to
require interference." However, as the meeting was breaking up a column
of 180 police arrived and ordered the meeting to end. At this moment a
bomb was thrown into the police ranks, who opened fire on the crowd. 
How many civilians were wounded or killed by the police was never 
exactly ascertained. 

A reign of terror swept over Chicago. Meeting halls, union offices, 
printing shops and private homes were raided (usually without warrants). 
Such raids into working-class areas allowed the police to round up all 
known anarchists and other socialists. Many suspects were beaten up and 
some bribed. "Make the raids first and look up the law afterwards" was 
the public statement of J. Grinnell, the States Attorney, when a question
was raised about search warrants. ["Editor's Introduction", _The
Autobiographies of the Haymarket Martyrs_, p. 7]
 
Eight anarchists were put on trial for accessory to murder. No pretence 
was made that any of the accused had carried out or even planned the 
bomb. Instead the jury were told "Law is on trial. Anarchy is on trial.  
These men have been selected, picked out by the Grand Jury, and indicted 
because they were leaders. They are no more guilty than the thousands who 
follow them. Gentlemen of the jury; convict these men, make examples of 
them, hang them and you save our institutions, our society." [Op. Cit.,
p. 8] The jury was selected by a special bailiff, nominated by the
State's Attorney and was composed of businessmen and a relative of 
one of the cops killed. The defence was not allowed to present evidence 
that the special bailiff had publicly claimed "I am managing this case 
and I know what I am about. These fellows are going to be hanged as 
certain as death". [Ibid.] Not surprisingly, the accused were convicted. 
Seven were sentenced to death, one to 15 years' imprisonment. 

An international campaign resulted in two of the death sentences being 
commuted to life, but the world wide protest did not stop the US state. 
Of the remaining five, one (Louis Lingg) cheated the executioner and 
killed himself on the eve of the execution. The remaining four (Albert 
Parsons, August Spies, George Engel and Adolph Fischer) were hanged 
on November 11th 1887. They are known in Labour history as the 
Haymarket Martyrs.  Between 150,000 and 500,000 lined the route taken
by the funeral cortege and between 10,000 to 25,000 were estimated to
have watched the burial.

In 1889, the American delegation attending the International Socialist 
congress in Paris proposed that May 1st be adopted as a workers' holiday. 
This was to commemorate working class struggle and the "Martyrdom of the 
Chicago Eight". Since then Mayday has became a day for international 
solidarity. In 1893, the new Governor of Illinois made official what 
the working class in Chicago and across the world knew all along and 
pardoned the Martyrs because of their obvious innocence and because 
"the trial was not fair". 

The authorities had believed at the time of the trial that such 
persecution would break the back of the labour movement. They were
wrong. In the words of August Spies when he addressed the court after 
he had been sentenced to die:  
 
"If you think that by hanging us you can stamp out the labour movement . . .  
the movement from which the downtrodden millions, the millions who toil  
in misery and want, expect salvation -- if this is your opinion, then  
hang us! Here you will tread on a spark, but there and there, behind  
you -- and in front of you, and everywhere, flames blaze up. It is a  
subterranean fire. You cannot put it out." [Op. Cit., pp. 8-9]

At the time and in the years to come, this defiance of the state and  
capitalism was to win thousands to anarchism, particularly in the US 
itself. Since the Haymarket event, anarchists have celebrated May Day
(on the 1st of May -- the reformist unions and labour parties moved
its marches to the first Sunday of the month). We do so to show our
solidarity with other working class people across the world, to
celebrate past and present struggles, to show our power and remind 
the ruling class of their vulnerability. As Nestor Makhno put it:

"That day those American workers attempted, by organising themselves,
to give expression to their protest against the iniquitous order
of the State and Capital of the propertied . . . 

"The workers of Chicago . . . had gathered to resolve, in common, 
the problems of their lives and their struggles. . . 

"Today too . . . the toilers . . . regard the first of May as
the occasion of a get-together when they will concern themselves
with their own affairs and consider the matter of their emancipation."
[_The Struggle Against the State and Other Essays_, pp. 59-60]

Anarchists stay true to the origins of May Day and celebrate its
birth in the direct action of the oppressed. Oppression and exploitation 
breed resistance and, for anarchists, May Day is an international symbol 
of that resistance and power -- a power expressed in the last words of 
August Spies, chiselled in stone on the monument to the Haymarket martyrs 
in Waldheim Cemetery in Chicago: 

"The day will come when our silence will be more powerful than the 
voices you are throttling today."
 
To understand why the state and business class were so determined to hang 
the Chicago Anarchists, it is necessary to realise they were considered 
the "leaders" of a massive radical union movement. In 1884, the Chicago 
Anarchists produced the world's first daily anarchist newspaper, the 
_Chicagoer Arbeiter-Zeiting_. This was written, read, owned and published 
by the German immigrant working class movement. The combined circulation 
of this daily plus a weekly (_Vorbote_) and a Sunday edition (_Fackel_) more 
than doubled, from 13,000 per issues in 1880 to 26,980 in 1886. Anarchist 
weekly papers existed for other ethnic groups as well (one English, one
Bohemian and one Scandinavian). 
 
Anarchists were very active in the Central Labour Union (which included 
the eleven largest unions in the city) and aimed to make it, in the words 
of Albert Parsons (one of the Martyrs), "the embryonic group of the 
future 'free society.'" The anarchists were also part of the _International
Working People's Association_ (also called the "Black International") which 
had representatives from 26 cities at its founding convention. The I.W.P.A. 
soon "made headway among trade unions, especially in the mid-west" and its 
ideas of "direct action of the rank and file" and  of trade unions "serv[ing] 
as the instrument of the working class for the complete destruction of 
capitalism and the nucleus for the formation of a new society" became 
known as the "Chicago Idea" (an idea which later inspired the Industrial 
Workers of the World which was founded in Chicago in 1905). ["Editor's 
Introduction," Op. Cit., p. 4] 

This idea was expressed in the manifesto issued at the I.W.P.A.'s 
Pittsburgh Congress of 1883:

"First -- Destruction of the existing class rule, by all means,
i.e. by energetic, relentless, revolutionary and international
action.

"Second -- Establishment of a free society based upon co-operative
organisation of production.

"Third -- Free exchange of equivalent products by and between
the productive organisations without commerce and profit-mongery.

"Fourth -- Organisation of education on a secular, scientific
and equal basis for both sexes.

"Fifth -- Equal rights for all without distinction to sex or race.

"Sixth -- Regulation of all public affairs by free contracts between
autonomous (independent) communes and associations, resting on
a federalistic basis." [Op. Cit., p. 42]

In addition to their union organising, the Chicago anarchist movement 
also organised social societies, picnics, lectures, dances, libraries 
and a host of other activities. These all helped to forge a distinctly 
working-class revolutionary culture in the heart of the "American Dream." 
The threat to the ruling class and their system was too great to allow 
it to continue (particularly with memories of the vast uprising of labour 
in 1877 still fresh. As in 1886, that revolt was also meet by state 
violence -- see _Strike!_ by J. Brecher for details of this strike 
movement as well as the Haymarket events). Hence the repression, kangaroo 
court, and the state murder of those the state and capitalist class 
considered "leaders" of the movement. 

For more on the Haymarket Martyrs, their lives and their ideas, the
_The Autobiographies of the Haymarket Martyrs_ is essential reading.
Albert Parsons, the only American born Martyr, produced a book which
explained what they stood for called _Anarchism: Its Philosophy and 
Scientific Basis_. Historian Paul Avrich's _The Haymarket Tragedy_ is
a useful in depth account of the events.
 
A.5.3 Building the Syndicalist Unions 
 
Just before the turn of the century in Europe, the anarchist 
movement began to create one of the most successful attempts 
to apply anarchist organisational ideas in everyday life. 
This was the building of mass revolutionary unions (also known
as syndicalism or anarcho-syndicalism). The syndicalist movement,
in the words of a leading French syndicalist militant, was
"a practical schooling in anarchism" for it was "a laboratory
of economic struggles" and organised "along anarchic lines."
By organising workers into "libertarian organisations," the
syndicalist unions were creating the "free associations of
free producers" within capitalism to combat it and, ultimately,
replace it. [Fernand Pelloutier, _No Gods, No Masters_, vol. 2, 
p.  57, p. 55 and p. 56]

While the details of syndicalist organisation varied from country
to country, the main lines were the same. Workers should form 
themselves into unions (or *syndicates*, the French for union). 
While organisation by industry was generally the preferred form, 
craft and trade organisations were also used. These unions were
directly controlled by their members and would federate together
on an industrial and geographical basis. Thus a given union would
be federated with all the local unions in a given town, region
and country as well as with all the unions within its industry
into a national union (of, say, miners or metal workers). Each
union was autonomous and all officials were part-time (and paid 
their normal wages if they missed work on union business). The
tactics of syndicalism were direct action and solidarity and its
aim was to replace capitalism by the unions providing the basic
framework of the new, free, society.

Thus, for anarcho-syndicalism, "the trade union is by no means a
mere transitory phenomenon bound up with the duration of capitalist
society, it is the germ of the Socialist economy of the future,
the elementary school of Socialism in general." The "economic
fighting organisation of the workers" gives their members "every
opportunity for direct action in their struggles for daily bread,
it also provides them with the necessary preliminaries for carrying 
through the reorganisation of social life on a [libertarian] Socialist 
plan by them own strength." [Rudolf Rocker, _Anarcho-Syndicalism_,
p. 59 and p. 62] Anarcho-syndicalism, to use the expression of the
I.W.W., aims to build the new world in the shell of the old.

In the period from the 1890's to the outbreak of World War I, 
anarchists built revolutionary unions in most European countries 
(particularly in Spain, Italy and France). In addition, anarchists 
in South and North America were also successful in organising 
syndicalist unions (particularly Cuba, Argentina, Mexico and 
Brazil). Almost all industrialised countries had some syndicalist 
movement, although Europe and South America had the biggest and 
strongest ones. These unions were organised in a confederal manner, 
from the bottom up, along anarchist lines. They fought with 
capitalists on a day-to-day basis around the issue of better 
wages and working conditions and the state for social reforms, but
they also sought to overthrow capitalism through the revolutionary 
general strike. 

Thus hundreds of thousands of workers around the world were applying 
anarchist ideas in everyday life, proving that anarchy was no utopian 
dream but a practical method of organising on a wide scale. That 
anarchist organisational techniques encouraged member participation, 
empowerment and militancy, and that they also successfully fought for 
reforms and promoted class consciousness, can be seen in the growth 
of anarcho-syndicalist unions and their impact on the labour movement. 
The Industrial Workers of the World, for example, still inspires union 
activists and has, throughout its long history, provided many union 
songs and slogans. 

However, as a mass movement, syndicalism effectively ended by the 1930s.
This was due to two factors. Firstly, most of the syndicalist unions 
were severely repressed just after World War I. In the immediate 
post-war years they reached their height. This wave of militancy was 
known as the "red years" in Italy, where it attained its high point 
with factory occupations (see section A.5.5). But these years also 
saw the destruction of these unions in country after county. In the 
USA, for example, the I.W.W. was crushed by a wave of repression backed 
whole-heartedly by the media, the state, and the capitalist class.  
Europe saw capitalism go on the offensive with a new weapon -- fascism. 
Fascism arose (first in Italy and, most infamously, in Germany) as an 
attempt by capitalism to physically smash the organisations the working 
class had built. This was due to radicalism that had spread across 
Europe in the wake of the war ending, inspired by the example of Russia.
Numerous near revolutions had terrified the bourgeoisie, who turned to
fascism to save their system. 

In country after country, anarchists were forced to flee into exile, 
vanish from sight, or became victims of assassins or concentration 
camps after their (often heroic) attempts at fighting fascism failed. 
In Portugal, for example, the 100,000 strong anarcho-syndicalist CGT 
union launched numerous revolts in the late 1920s and early 1930s 
against fascism. In January 1934, the CGT called for a revolutionary 
general strike which developed into a five day insurrection. A state 
of siege was declared by the state, which used extensive force to crush
the rebellion. The CGT, whose militants had played a prominent and 
courageous role in the insurrection, was completely smashed and Portugal
remained a fascist state for the next 40 years. [Phil Mailer, _Portugal:
The Impossible Revolution_, pp. 72-3] In Spain, the CNT (the most famous
anarcho-syndicalist union) fought a similar battle. By 1936, it claimed 
one and a half million members. As in Italy and Portugal, the capitalist 
class embraced fascism to save their power from the dispossessed, who 
were becoming confident of their power and their right to manage their 
own lives (see section A.5.6). 

As well as fascism, syndicalism also faced the negative influence of
Leninism. The apparent success of the Russian revolution led many 
activists to turn to authoritarian politics, particularly in English 
speaking countries and, to a lesser extent, France. Such notable
syndicalist activists as Tom Mann in England, William Gallacher in
Scotland and William Foster in the USA became Communists (the last
two, it should be noted, became Stalinist). Moreover, Communist 
parties deliberately undermined the libertarian unions, encouraging 
fights and splits (as, for example, in the I.W.W.). After the end of
the Second World War, the Stalinists finished off what fascism had
started in Eastern Europe and destroyed the anarchist and syndicalist
movements in such places as Bulgaria and Poland. In Cuba, Castro
also followed Lenin's example and did what the Batista and Machado
dictatorship's could not, namely smash the influential anarchist 
and syndicalist movements (see Frank Fernandez's _Cuban Anarchism_
for a history of this movement from its origins in the 1860s to
the 21st century).

So by the start of the second world war, the large and powerful anarchist 
movements of Italy, Spain, Poland, Bulgaria and Portugal had been crushed 
by fascism (but not, we must stress, without a fight). When necessary, 
the capitalists supported authoritarian states in order to crush the 
labour movement and make their countries safe for capitalism. Only Sweden
escaped this trend, where the syndicalist union the SAC is still organising 
workers. It is, in fact, like many other syndicalist unions active today, 
growing as workers turn away from bureaucratic unions whose leaders seem 
more interested in protecting their privileges and cutting deals with 
management than defending their members. In France, Spain and Italy and
elsewhere, syndicalist unions are again on the rise, showing that 
anarchist ideas are applicable in everyday life. 

Finally, it must be stressed that syndicalism has its roots in the
ideas of the earliest anarchists and, consequently, was not invented in
the 1890s. It is true that development of syndicalism came about, in 
part, as a reaction to the disastrous "propaganda by deed" period, 
in which individual anarchists assassinated government leaders in 
attempts to provoke a popular uprising and in revenge for the mass 
murders of the Communards and other rebels (see section A.2.18 for 
details). But in response to this failed and counterproductive campaign, 
anarchists went back to their roots and to the ideas of Bakunin. Thus, 
as recognised by the likes of Kropotkin and Malatesta, syndicalism was 
simply a return to the ideas current in the libertarian wing of the 
First International. 

Thus we find Bakunin arguing that "it is necessary to organise 
the power of the proletariat. But this organisation must be the 
work of the proletariat itself . . . Organise, constantly organise 
the international militant solidarity of the workers, in every trade 
and country, and remember that however weak you are as isolated
individuals or districts, you will constitute a tremendous,
invincible power by means of universal co-operation." As one  
American activist commented, this is "the same militant spirit 
that breathes now in the best expressions of the Syndicalist and 
I.W.W. movements" both of which express "a strong world wide revival 
of the ideas for which Bakunin laboured throughout his life." [Max 
Baginski, _Anarchy! An Anthology of Emma Goldman's Mother Earth_, 
p. 71] As with the syndicalists, Bakunin stressed the "organisation 
of trade sections, their federation . . . 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 Rudolf Rocker, Op. Cit.,
p. 50]

Such ideas were repeated by other libertarians. Eugene Varlin, whose
role in the Paris Commune ensured his death, advocated a socialism 
of associations, arguing in 1870 that syndicates were the "natural 
elements" for the rebuilding of society: "it is they that can easily 
be transformed into producer associations; it is they that can
put into practice the retooling of society and the organisation
of production." [quoted by Martin Phillip Johnson, _The Paradise of 
Association_, p. 139] As we discussed in section A.5.2, the Chicago
Anarchists held similar views, seeing the labour movement as both the 
means of achieving anarchy and the framework of the free society.
As Lucy Parsons (the wife of Albert) put it "we hold that the granges, 
trade-unions, Knights of Labour assemblies, etc., are the embryonic 
groups of the ideal anarchistic society . . ." [contained in Albert R. 
Parsons, _Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Scientific Basis_, p. 110] 
These ideas fed into the revolutionary unionism of the I.W.W. As one 
historian notes, the "proceedings of the I.W.W.'s inaugural convention 
indicate that the participants were not only aware of the 'Chicago Idea' 
but were conscious of a continuity between their efforts and the struggles 
of the Chicago anarchists to initiate industrial unionism." The Chicago 
idea represented "the earliest American expression of syndicalism."
[Salvatore Salerno, _Red November, Black November_, p. 71]

Thus, syndicalism and anarchism are not differing theories but, rather,
different interpretations of the same ideas (see for a fuller discussion
section H.2.8). While not all syndicalists are anarchists (some Marxists 
have proclaimed support for syndicalism) and not all anarchists are 
syndicalists (see section J.3.9 for a discussion why), all social 
anarchists see the need for taking part in the labour and other 
popular movements and encouraging libertarian forms of organisation
and struggle within them. By doing this, inside and outside of 
syndicalist unions, anarchists are showing the validity of our ideas. 
For, as Kropotkin stressed, the "next revolution must from its inception 
bring about the seizure of the entire social wealth by the workers 
in order to transform it into common property. This revolution can 
succeed only through the workers, only if the urban and rural workers
everywhere carry out this objective themselves. To that end, they
must initiate their own action in the period *before the revolution*;
this can happen only if there is a strong *workers' organisation.*"
[_Selected Writings on Anarchism and Revolution_, p. 20] Such popular
self-managed organisations cannot be anything but "anarchy in action."

A.5.4 Anarchists in the Russian Revolution. 
 
The Russian revolution of 1917 saw a huge growth in anarchism 
in that country and many experiments in anarchist ideas. However, 
in popular culture the Russian Revolution is seen not as a mass 
movement by ordinary people struggling towards freedom but as 
the means by which Lenin imposed his dictatorship on Russia. 
The truth is radically different. The Russian Revolution was
a mass movement from below in which many different currents
of ideas existed and in which millions of working people
(workers in the cities and towns as well as peasants) tried
to transform their world into a better place. Sadly, those
hopes and dreams were crushed under the dictatorship of the
Bolshevik party -- first under Lenin, later under Stalin.

The Russian Revolution, like most history, is a good example 
of the maxim "history is written by those who win." Most
capitalist histories of the period between 1917 and 1921 
ignore what the anarchist Voline called "the unknown 
revolution" -- the revolution called forth from below 
by the actions of ordinary people. Leninist accounts, at
best, praise this autonomous activity of workers so long
as it coincides with their own party line but radically
condemn it (and attribute it with the basest motives) as 
soon as it strays from that line. Thus Leninist accounts
will praise the workers when they move ahead of the 
Bolsheviks (as in the spring and summer of 1917) but 
will condemn them when they oppose Bolshevik policy once
the Bolsheviks are in power. At worse, Leninist accounts
portray the movement and struggles of the masses as little 
more than a backdrop to the activities of the vanguard party.

For anarchists, however, the Russian Revolution is seen 
as a classic example of a social revolution in which the
self-activity of working people played a key role. In
their soviets, factory committees and other class 
organisations, the Russian masses were trying to 
transform society from a class-ridden, hierarchical
statist regime into one based on liberty, equality and
solidarity. As such, the initial months of the Revolution
seemed to confirm Bakunin's prediction that the "future
social organisation must be made solely from the bottom
upwards, by the free associations or federations of 
workers, firstly in their unions, then in the communes,
regions, nations and finally in a great federation,
international and universal." [_Michael Bakunin: Selected
Writings_, p. 206] The soviets and factory committees
expressed concretely Bakunin's ideas and Anarchists 
played an important role in the struggle. 

The initial overthrow of the Tsar came from the direct action of 
the masses. In February 1917, the women of Petrograd erupted in
bread riots. On February 18th, the workers of the Putilov Works 
in Petrograd went on strike. By February 22nd, the strike had 
spread to other factories. Two days later, 200 000 workers 
were on strike and by February 25th the strike was virtually 
general. The same day also saw the first bloody clashes between 
protestors and the army. The turning point came on the 27th, when 
some troops went over to the revolutionary masses, sweeping along 
other units. This left the government without its means of 
coercion, the Tsar abdicated and a provisional government was
formed. 

So spontaneous was this movement that all the political parties 
were left behind. This included the Bolsheviks, with the 
"Petrograd organisation of the Bolsheviks oppos[ing] the 
calling of strikes precisely on the eve of the revolution 
destined to overthrow the Tsar. Fortunately, the workers ignored 
the Bolshevik 'directives' and went on strike anyway . . . Had the 
workers followed its guidance, it is doubtful that the revolution 
would have occurred when it did." [Murray Bookchin, _Post-Scarcity 
Anarchism_, p. 194]

The revolution carried on in this vein of direct action from 
below until the new, "socialist" state was powerful enough to 
stop it.

For the Left, the end of Tsarism was the culmination of 
years of effort by socialists and anarchists everywhere. It 
represented the progressive wing of human thought overcoming 
traditional oppression, and as such was duly praised by 
leftists around the world. However, *in* Russia things
were progressing. In the workplaces and streets and on the 
land, more and more people became convinced that abolishing 
feudalism politically was *not* enough. The overthrow of the 
Tsar made little real difference if feudal exploitation still 
existed in the economy, so workers started to seize their 
workplaces and peasants, the land. All across Russia, 
ordinary people started to build their own organisations, 
unions, co-operatives, factory committees and councils (or 
"soviets" in Russian). These organisations were initially 
organised in anarchist fashion, with recallable delegates 
and being federated with each other. 
 
Needless to say, all the political parties and organisations
played a role in this process. The two wings of the Marxist
social-democrats were active (the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks),
as were the Social Revolutionaries (a populist peasant based
party) and the anarchists. The anarchists participated in this 
movement, encouraging all tendencies to self-management and
urging the overthrow of the provisional government. They
argued that it was necessary to transform the revolution
from a purely political one into an economic/social one. Until
the return of Lenin from exile, they were the only political
tendency who thought along those lines.

Lenin convinced his party to adopt the slogan "All Power
to the Soviets" and push the revolution forward. This meant
a sharp break with previous Marxist positions, leading one
ex-Bolshevik turned Menshevik to comment that Lenin had 
"made himself a candidate for one European throne that has 
been vacant for thirty years -- the throne of Bakunin!" 
[quoted by Alexander Rabinowitch, _Prelude to Revolution_, 
p. 40] The Bolsheviks now turned to winning mass support,
championing direct action and supporting the radical actions
of the masses, policies in the past associated with anarchism
("the Bolsheviks launched . . . slogans which until then
had been particularly and insistently been voiced by the
Anarchists." [Voline, _The Unknown Revolution_, p. 210]). 
Soon they were winning more and more votes in the soviet and 
factory committee elections. As Alexander Berkman argues, the 
"Anarchist mottoes proclaimed by the Bolsheviks did not fail 
to bring results. The masses relied to their flag." [_What is 
Anarchism?_, p. 120]

The anarchists were also influential at this time. Anarchists 
were particularly active in the movement for workers 
self-management of production which existed around the 
factory committees (see M. Brinton, _The Bolsheviks and 
Workers Control_ for details). They were arguing for workers 
and peasants to expropriate the owning class, abolish all 
forms of government and re-organise society from the bottom 
up using their own class organisations -- the soviets, the 
factory committees, co-operatives and so on. They could 
also influence the direction of struggle. As Alexander 
Rabinowitch (in his study of the July uprising of 1917) 
notes:

"At the rank-and-file level, particularly within the 
[Petrograd] garrison and at the Kronstadt naval base, 
there was in fact very little to distinguish Bolshevik 
from Anarchist. . . The Anarchist-Communists and the 
Bolsheviks competed for the support of the same 
uneducated, depressed, and dissatisfied elements of 
the population, and the fact is that in the summer of 
1917, the Anarchist-Communists, with the support they 
enjoyed in a few important factories and regiments, 
possessed an undeniable capacity to influence the 
course of events. Indeed, the Anarchist appeal was 
great enough in some factories and military units 
to influence the actions of the Bolsheviks themselves." 
[Op. Cit., p. 64]

Indeed, one leading Bolshevik stated in June, 1917 (in 
response to a rise in anarchist influence), "[b]y fencing 
ourselves off from the Anarchists, we may fence ourselves 
off from the masses." [quoted by Alexander Rabinowitch, 
Op. Cit., p. 102]

The anarchists operated with the Bolsheviks during the
October Revolution which overthrew the provisional
government. But things changed once the authoritarian 
socialists of the Bolshevik party had seized power.
While both anarchists and Bolsheviks used many of the
same slogans, there were important differences between
the two. As Voline argued, "[f]rom the lips and pens of 
the Anarchists, those slogans were sincere and concrete,
for they corresponded to their principles and called for
action entirely in conformity with such principles. But
with the Bolsheviks, the same slogans meant practical
solutions totally different from those of the libertarians
and did not tally with the ideas which the slogans
appeared to express." [_The Unknown Revolution_, p. 210]

Take, for example, the slogan "All power to the Soviets."
For anarchists it meant exactly that -- organs for the 
working class to run society directly, based on mandated, 
recallable delegates. For the Bolsheviks, that slogan was 
simply the means for a Bolshevik government to be formed 
over and above the soviets. The difference is important, 
"for the Anarchists declared, if 'power' really should 
belong to the soviets, it could not belong to the Bolshevik
party, and if it should belong to that Party, as the
Bolsheviks envisaged, it could not belong to the soviets."
[Voline, Op. Cit., p. 213] Reducing the soviets to simply
executing the decrees of the central (Bolshevik) 
government and having their All-Russian Congress be 
able to recall the government (i.e. those with *real*
power) does not equal "all power," quite the reverse.

Similarly with the term "workers' control of production." 
Before the October Revolution Lenin saw "workers' control" 
purely in terms of the "universal, all-embracing workers' 
control over the capitalists." [_Will the Bolsheviks 
Maintain Power?_, p. 52] He did not see it in terms of 
workers' management of production itself (i.e. the 
abolition of wage labour) via federations of factory 
committees. Anarchists and the workers' factory committees 
did. As S.A. Smith correctly notes, Lenin used "the term 
['workers' control'] in a very different sense from that 
of the factory committees." In fact Lenin's "proposals . . . 
[were] thoroughly statist and centralist in character, 
whereas the practice of the factory committees was 
essentially local and autonomous." [_Red Petrograd_, 
p. 154] For anarchists, "if the workers' organisations
were capable of exercising effective control [over 
their bosses], then they also were capable of
guaranteeing all production. In such an event, private
industry could be eliminated quickly but progressively,
and replaced by collective industry. Consequently,
the Anarchists rejected the vague nebulous slogan of
'control of production.' They advocated *expropriation
-- progressive, but immediate -- of private industry
by the organisations of collective production.*" 
[Voline, Op. Cit., p. 221]

Once in power, the Bolsheviks systematically undermined the 
popular meaning of workers' control and replaced it with their 
own, statist conception. "On three occasions," one historian
notes, "in the first months of Soviet power, the [factory] 
committee leaders sought to bring their model into being. 
At each point the party leadership overruled them. The 
result was to vest both managerial *and* control powers 
in organs of the state which were subordinate to the 
central authorities, and formed by them." [Thomas F. 
Remington, _Building Socialism in Bolshevik Russia_, p. 38] 
This process ultimately resulted in Lenin arguing for, and 
introducing, "one-man management" armed with "dictatorial"
power (with the manager appointed from above by the state)
in April 1918. This process is documented in Maurice 
Brinton's _The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control_, which
also indicates the clear links between Bolshevik practice 
and Bolshevik ideology as well as how both differed from 
popular activity and ideas.

Hence the comments by Russian Anarchist Peter Arshinov:

"Another no less important peculiarity is that [the] October 
[revolution of 1917] has two meanings -- that which the working' 
masses who participated in the social revolution gave it, and 
with them the Anarchist-Communists, and that which was given 
it by the political party [the Marxist-Communists] that captured 
power from this aspiration to social revolution, and which 
betrayed and stifled all further development. An enormous gulf 
exists between these two interpretations of October. The October 
of the workers and peasants is the suppression of the power of 
the parasite classes in the name of equality and self-management. 
The Bolshevik October is the conquest of power by the party of 
the revolutionary intelligentsia, the installation of its 'State 
Socialism' and of its 'socialist' methods of governing the masses."
[_The Two Octobers_]

Initially, anarchists had supported the Bolsheviks, since the 
Bolshevik leaders had hidden their state-building ideology 
behind support for the soviets (as socialist historian Samuel 
Farber notes, the anarchists "had actually been an unnamed 
coalition partner of the Bolsheviks in the October Revolution." 
[_Before Stalinism_, p. 126]). However, this support quickly 
"withered away" as the Bolsheviks showed that they were, in 
fact, not seeking true socialism but were instead securing power 
for themselves and pushing not for collective ownership of land 
and productive resources but for government ownership. The 
Bolsheviks, as noted, systematically undermined the workers' 
control/self-management movement in favour of capitalist-like
forms of workplace management based around "one-man management"
armed with "dictatorial powers." 

As regards the soviets, the Bolsheviks systematically undermining
what limited independence and democracy they had. In response to 
the "great Bolshevik losses in the soviet elections" during the 
spring and summer of 1918 "Bolshevik armed force usually overthrew 
the results of these provincial elections." Also, the "government 
continually postponed the new general elections to the Petrograd 
Soviet, the term of which had ended in March 1918. Apparently, 
the government feared that the opposition parties would show 
gains." [Samuel Farber, Op. Cit., p. 24 and p. 22] In the 
Petrograd elections, the Bolsheviks "lost the absolute majority 
in the soviet they had previously enjoyed" but remained the 
largest party. However, the results of the Petrograd soviet 
elections were irrelevant as a "Bolshevik victory was
assured by the numerically quite significant representation
now given to trade unions, district soviets, factory-shop
committees, district workers conferences, and Red Army and
naval units, in which the Bolsheviks had overwhelming
strength." [Alexander Rabinowitch, "The Evolution of Local
Soviets in Petrograd", pp. 20-37, _Slavic Review_, Vol. 36,
No. 1, p. 36f] In other words, the Bolsheviks had undermined
the democratic nature of the soviet by swamping it by their
own delegates. Faced with rejection in the soviets, the
Bolsheviks showed that for them "soviet power" equalled party 
power. To stay in power, the Bolsheviks had to destroy the 
soviets, which they did. The soviet system remained "soviet" 
in name only. Indeed, from 1919 onwards Lenin, Trotsky and 
other leading Bolsheviks were admitting that they had created 
a party dictatorship and, moreover, that such a dictatorship
was essential for any revolution (Trotsky supported party 
dictatorship even after the rise of Stalinism). 

The Red Army, moreover, no longer was a democratic organisation.
In March of 1918 Trotsky had abolished the election of officers
and soldier committees:

"the principle of election is politically purposeless and 
technically inexpedient, and it has been, in practice, 
abolished by decree." [_Work, Discipline, Order_]

As Maurice Brinton correctly summarises:

"Trotsky, appointed Commissar of Military Affairs after 
Brest-Litovsk, had rapidly been reorganising the Red Army. 
The death penalty for disobedience under fire had been 
restored. So, more gradually, had saluting, special forms 
of address, separate living quarters and other privileges 
for officers. Democratic forms of organisation, including 
the election of officers, had been quickly dispensed with." 
[_The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control_, p. 37]

Unsurprisingly, Samuel Farber notes that "there is no 
evidence indicating that Lenin or any of the mainstream 
Bolshevik leaders lamented the loss of workers' control or 
of democracy in the soviets, or at least referred to these
losses as a retreat, as Lenin declared with the replacement
of War Communism by NEP in 1921." [_Before Stalinism_, p. 44]

Thus after the October Revolution, anarchists started to denounce
the Bolshevik regime and call for a "Third Revolution" which
would finally free the masses from all bosses (capitalist or
socialist). They exposed the fundamental difference between the
rhetoric of Bolshevism (as expressed, for example, in Lenin's
_State and Revolution_) with its reality. Bolshevism in power 
had proved Bakunin's prediction that the "dictatorship of
the proletariat" would become the "dictatorship *over* the
proletariat" by the leaders of the Communist Party. 

The influence of the anarchists started to grow. As Jacques 
Sadoul (a French officer) noted in early 1918:  

"The anarchist party is the most active, the most militant 
of the opposition groups and probably the most popular . . . 
The Bolsheviks are anxious." [quoted by Daniel Guerin, 
_Anarchism_, pp. 95-6] 

By April 1918, the Bolsheviks began the physical suppression 
of their anarchist rivals. On April 12th, 1918, the Cheka (the 
secret police formed by Lenin in December, 1917) attacked 
anarchist centres in Moscow. Those in other cities were 
attacked soon after. As well as repressing their most vocal 
opponents on the left, the Bolsheviks were restricting the 
freedom of the masses they claimed to be protecting. 
Democratic soviets, free speech, opposition political 
parties and groups, self-management in the workplace and  
on the land -- all were destroyed in the name of "socialism." 
All this happened, we must stress, *before* the start of the 
Civil War in late May, 1918, which most supporters of Leninism 
blame for the Bolsheviks' authoritarianism. During the civil 
war, this process accelerated, with the Bolsheviks' 
systematically repressing opposition from all quarters -- 
including the strikes and protests of the very class who 
they claimed was exercising its "dictatorship" while they 
were in power! 

It is important to stress that this process had started 
well *before* the start of the civil war, confirming anarchist 
theory that a "workers' state" is a contraction in terms. For 
anarchists, the Bolshevik substitution of party power for 
workers power (and the conflict between the two) did not 
come as a surprise. The state is the delegation of *power* -- 
as such, it means that the idea of a "workers' state" expressing 
"workers' power" is a logical impossibility. If workers *are* 
running society then power rests in their hands. If a state 
exists then power rests in the hands of the handful of people 
at the top, *not* in the hands of all. The state was designed 
for minority rule. No state can be an organ of working class 
(i.e. majority) self-management due to its basic nature, 
structure and design. For this reason anarchists have argued 
for a bottom-up federation of workers' councils as the 
agent of revolution and the means of managing society 
after capitalism and the state have been abolished. 

As we discuss in section H, the degeneration of the Bolsheviks
from a popular working class party into dictators over the
working class did not occur by accident. A combination of
political ideas and the realities of state power (and the
social relationships it generates) could not help but result
in such a degeneration. The political ideas of Bolshevism,
with its vanguardism, fear of spontaneity and identification 
of party power with working class power inevitably meant
that the party would clash with those whom it claimed to
represent. After all, if the party is the vanguard then,
automatically, everyone else is a "backward" element. This
meant that if the working class resisted Bolshevik policies
or rejected them in soviet elections, then the working class
was "wavering" and being influenced by "petty-bourgeois" and
"backward" elements. Vanguardism breeds elitism and, when
combined with state power, dictatorship. 

State power, as anarchists have always stressed, means the
delegation of power into the hands of a few. This automatically
produces a class division in society -- those with power
and those without. As such, once in power the Bolsheviks were 
isolated from the working class. The Russian Revolution 
confirmed Malatesta's argument that a "government, that is a
group of people entrusted with making laws and empowered to
use the collective power to oblige each individual to obey
them, is already a privileged class and cut off from the
people. As any constituted body would do, it will instinctively
seek to extend its powers, to be beyond public control, to
impose its own policies and to give priority to its special
interests. Having been put in a privileged position, the
government is already at odds with the people whose strength
it disposes of." [_Anarchy_, p. 34] A highly centralised state
such as the Bolsheviks built would reduce accountability
to a minimum while at the same time accelerating the isolation
of the rulers from the ruled. The masses were no longer
a source of inspiration and power, but rather an alien
group whose lack of "discipline" (i.e. ability to follow
orders) placed the revolution in danger. As one Russian
Anarchist argued, 

"The proletariat is being gradually enserfed by the state. The 
people are being transformed into servants over whom there has 
arisen a new class of administrators -- a new class born mainly 
form the womb of the so-called intelligentsia . . . We do not 
mean to say . . . that the Bolshevik party set out to create a 
new class system. But we do say that even the best intentions 
and aspirations must inevitably be smashed against the evils 
inherent in any system of centralised power. The separation of 
management from labour, the division between administrators and 
workers flows logically from centralisation. It cannot be 
otherwise." [_The Anarchists in the Russian Revolution_, 
pp. 123-4]

For this reason anarchists, while agreeing that there is an 
uneven development of political ideas within the working class, 
reject the idea that "revolutionaries" should take power on 
behalf of working people. Only when working people actually 
run society themselves will a revolution be successful. For
anarchists, this meant that "[e]ffective emancipation can
be achieved only by the *direct, widespread, and independent
action . . . of the workers themselves,* grouped . . . in
their own class organisations . . . on the basis of concrete 
action and self-government, *helped but not governed,* by 
revolutionaries working in the very midst of, and not above 
the mass and the professional, technical, defence and other 
branches." [Voline, Op. Cit., p. 197] By substituting party 
power for workers power, the Russian Revolution had made its 
first fatal step. Little wonder that the following prediction 
(from November 1917) made by anarchists in Russia came true:

"Once their power is consolidated and 'legalised', the Bolsheviks 
who are . . . men of centralist and authoritarian action will 
begin to rearrange the life of the country and of the people by 
governmental and dictatorial methods, imposed by the centre. 
The[y] . . . will dictate the will of the party to all Russia, 
and command the whole nation. *Your Soviets and your other local 
organisations will become little by little, simply executive organs 
of the will of the central government.* In the place of healthy, 
constructive work by the labouring masses, in place of free 
unification from the bottom, we will see the installation of 
an authoritarian and statist apparatus which would act from 
above and set about wiping out everything that stood in its 
way with an iron hand." [quoted by Voline, Op. Cit., p. 235]

The so-called "workers' state" could not be participatory
or empowering for working class people (as the Marxists 
claimed) simply because state structures are not designed 
for that. Created as instruments of minority rule, they
cannot be transformed into (nor "new" ones created which 
are) a means of liberation for the working classes. As 
Kropotkin put it, 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." [_Anarchism_, p. 170] In the 
words of an anarchist pamphlet written in 1918:

"Bolshevism, day by day and step by step, proves that state
power possesses inalienable characteristics; it can change
its label, its 'theory', and its servitors, but in essence
it merely remains power and despotism in new forms." [quoted
by Paul Avrich, "The Anarchists in the Russian Revolution,"
pp. 341-350, _Russian Review_, vol. 26, issue no. 4,  p. 347]

For insiders, the Revolution had died a few months after the 
Bolsheviks took over. To the outside world, the Bolsheviks and 
the USSR came to represent "socialism" even as they systematically 
destroyed the basis of real socialism. By transforming the soviets
into state bodies, substituting party power for soviet power, 
undermining the factory committees, eliminating democracy in 
the armed forces and workplaces, repressing the political 
opposition and workers' protests, the Bolsheviks effectively
marginalised the working class from its own revolution. 
Bolshevik ideology and practice were themselves important 
and sometimes decisive factors in the degeneration of the
revolution and the ultimate rise of Stalinism.

As anarchists had predicted for decades previously, in the
space of a few months, and before the start of the Civil War,
the Bolshevik's "workers' state" had become, like any state, 
an alien power *over* the working class and an instrument of 
minority rule (in this case, the rule of the party). The Civil 
War accelerated this process and soon party dictatorship was
introduced (indeed, leading Bolsheviks began arguing that it 
was essential in any revolution). The Bolsheviks put down the 
libertarian socialist elements within their country, with the 
crushing of the uprising at Kronstadt and the Makhnovist
movement in the Ukraine being the final nails in the coffin 
of socialism and the subjugation of the soviets. 
 
The Kronstadt uprising of February, 1921, was, for anarchists, of 
immense importance (see the appendix "What was the Kronstadt 
Rebellion?" for a full discussion of this uprising). The uprising 
started when the sailors of Kronstadt supported the striking workers 
of Petrograd in February, 1921. They raised a 15 point resolution, 
the first point of which was a call for soviet democracy. The 
Bolsheviks slandered the Kronstadt rebels as counter-revolutionaries 
and crushed the revolt. For anarchists, this was significant as the 
repression could not be justified in terms of the Civil War (which had
ended months before) and because it was a major uprising of ordinary 
people for *real* socialism. As Voline puts it:
 
"Kronstadt was the first entirely independent attempt of the 

people to liberate themselves of all yokes and carry out the 
Social Revolution: this attempt was made directly . . . by 
the working masses themselves, without political shepherds, 
without leaders or tutors. It was the first step towards the
third and social revolution." [Voline, Op. Cit., pp. 537-8]
 
In the Ukraine, anarchist ideas were most successfully applied. 
In areas under the protection of the Makhnovist movement, working 
class people organised their own lives directly, based on their 
own ideas and needs -- true social self-determination. Under the 
leadership of Nestor Makhno, a self-educated peasant, the movement 
not only fought against both Red and White dictatorships but also 
resisted the Ukrainian nationalists. In opposition to the call 
for "national self-determination," i.e. a new Ukrainian state, 
Makhno called instead for working class self-determination in 
the Ukraine and across the world. Makhno inspired his fellow
peasants and workers to fight for real freedom:

"Conquer or die -- such is the dilemma that faces the Ukrainian
peasants and workers at this historic moment . . . But we will
not conquer in order to repeat the errors of the past years,
the error of putting our fate into the hands of new masters;
we will conquer in order to take our destinies into our own
hands, to conduct our lives according to our own will and
our own conception of the truth." [quoted by Peter Arshinov,
_The History of the Makhnovist Movement_, p. 58]
 
To ensure this end, the Makhnovists refused to set up 
governments in the towns and cities they liberated, instead
urging the creation of free soviets so that the working
people could govern themselves. Taking the example of 
Aleksandrovsk, once they had liberated the city the
Makhnovists "immediately invited the working population
to participate in a general conference . . . it was
proposed that the workers organise the life of the city
and the functioning of the factories with their own
forces and their own organisations . . . The first
conference was followed by a second. The problems of
organising life according to principles of self-management
by workers were examined and discussed with animation
by the masses of workers, who all welcomed this ideas
with the greatest enthusiasm . . . Railroad workers
took the first step . . . They formed a committee
charged with organising the railway network of the
region . . . From this point, the proletariat of
Aleksandrovsk began to turn systematically to the problem
of creating organs of self-management." [Op. Cit., 
p. 149]

The Makhnovists argued that the "freedom of the workers and 
peasants is their own, and not subject to any restriction. It 
is up to the workers and peasants themselves to act, to 
organise themselves, to agree among themselves in all 
aspects of their lives, as they 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." 
[Peter Arshinov, quoted by Guerin, Op. Cit., p. 99] In 
Alexandrovsk, the Bolsheviks proposed to the Makhnovists 
spheres of action - their Revkom (Revolutionary Committee) 
would handle political affairs and the Makhnovists military 
ones. Makhno advised them "to go and take up some honest 
trade instead of seeking to impose their will on the  
workers." [Peter Arshinov in _The Anarchist Reader_, p. 141]

They also organised free agricultural communes which 
"[a]dmittedly . . . were not numerous, and included only
a minority of the population . . .  But what was most
precious was that these communes were formed by the poor 
peasants themselves. The Makhnovists never exerted any
pressure on the peasants, confining themselves to 
propagating the idea of free communes." [Arshinov, 
_History of the Makhnovist Movement_, p. 87] Makhno played 
an important role in abolishing the holdings of the landed 
gentry. The local soviet and their district and regional 
congresses equalised the use of the land between all 
sections of the peasant community. [Op. Cit., pp. 53-4]

Moreover, the Makhnovists took the time and energy to involve
the whole population in discussing the development of the
revolution, the activities of the army and social policy. 
They organised numerous conferences of workers', soldiers'
and peasants' delegates to discuss political and social
issues as well as free soviets, unions and communes. They 
organised a regional congress of peasants and workers when 
they had liberated Aleksandrovsk. When the Makhnovists 
tried to convene the third regional congress of peasants, 
workers and insurgents in April 1919 and an extraordinary 
congress of several regions in June 1919 the Bolsheviks
viewed them as counter-revolutionary, tried to ban them 
and declared their organisers and delegates outside the law. 

The Makhnovists replied by holding the conferences anyway
and asking "[c]an there exist laws made by a few people 
who call themselves revolutionaries, which permit them to
outlaw a whole people who are more revolutionary than they
are themselves?" and "[w]hose interests should the revolution
defend: those of the Party or those of the people who set
the revolution in motion with their blood?" Makhno himself
stated that he "consider[ed] it an inviolable right of the 
workers and peasants, a right won by the revolution, to call 
conferences on their own account, to discuss their affairs." 
[Op. Cit., p. 103 and p. 129]

In addition, the Makhnovists "fully applied the revolutionary
principles of freedom of speech, of thought, of the press,
and of political association. In all cities and towns
occupied by the Makhnovists, they began by lifting all 
the prohibitions and repealing all the restrictions 
imposed on the press and on political organisations by 
one or another power." Indeed, the "only restriction that 
the Makhnovists considered necessary to impose on the 
Bolsheviks, the left Socialist-Revolutionaries and other
statists was a prohibition on the formation of those
'revolutionary committees' which sought to impose a
dictatorship over the people."  [Op. Cit., p. 153 and
p. 154]

The Makhnovists rejected the Bolshevik corruption of the 
soviets and instead proposed "the free and completely 
independent soviet system of working people without 
authorities and their arbitrary laws." Their 
proclamations stated that the "working people 
themselves must freely choose their own soviets, 
which carry out the will and desires of the working  
people themselves, that is to say. ADMINISTRATIVE, 
not ruling soviets." Economically, capitalism would 
be abolished along with the state - the land and 
workshops "must belong to the working people themselves, 
to those who work in them, that is to say, they must be 
socialised." [Op. Cit., p. 271 and p. 273] 

The army itself, in stark contrast to the Red Army, was
fundamentally democratic (although, of course, the horrific
nature of the civil war did result in a few deviations from
the ideal -- however, compared to the regime imposed on the
Red Army by Trotsky, the Makhnovists were much more democratic 
movement). 
 
The anarchist experiment of self-management in the Ukraine came 
to a bloody end when the Bolsheviks turned on the Makhnovists 
(their former allies against the "Whites," or pro-Tsarists) 
when they were no longer needed. This important movement is 
fully discussed in the appendix "Why does the Makhnovist 
movement show there is an alternative to Bolshevism?" of our 
FAQ. However, we must stress here the one obvious lesson of the 
Makhnovist movement, namely that the dictatorial policies pursued 
by the Bolsheviks were not imposed on them by objective circumstances. 
Rather, the political ideas of Bolshevism had a clear influence in 
the decisions they made. After all, the Makhnovists were active
in the same Civil War and yet did not pursue the same policies
of party power as the Bolsheviks did. Rather, they successfully 
encouraged working class freedom, democracy and power in 
extremely difficult circumstances (and in the face of strong
Bolshevik opposition to those policies). The received wisdom 
on the left is that there was no alternative open to the 
Bolsheviks. The experience of the Makhnovists disproves this.
What the masses of people, as well as those in power, do and 
think politically is as much part of the process determining 
the outcome of history as are the objective obstacles that 
limit the choices available. Clearly, ideas do matter and, 
as such, the Makhnovists show that there was (and is) a 
practical alternative to Bolshevism -- anarchism. 

The last anarchist march in Moscow until 1987 took place at the 
funeral of Kropotkin in 1921, when over 10,000 marched behind 
his coffin. They carried black banners declaring "Where there 
is authority, there is no freedom" and "The Liberation of the 
working class is the task of the workers themselves." As the 
procession passed the Butyrki prison, the inmates sang anarchist 
songs and shook the bars of their cells.

Anarchist opposition within Russia to the Bolshevik regime started
in 1918. They were the first left-wing group to be repressed by the
new "revolutionary" regime. Outside of Russia, anarchists continued
to support the Bolsheviks until news came from anarchist sources
about the repressive nature of the Bolshevik regime (until then,
many had discounted negative reports as being from pro-capitalist
sources). Once these reliable reports came in, anarchists across
the globe rejected Bolshevism and its system of party power and
repression. The experience of Bolshevism confirmed Bakunin's
prediction that Marxism meant "the highly despotic government 
of the masses by a new and very small aristocracy of real or 
pretended scholars. The people are not learned, so they will 
be liberated from the cares of government and included in 
entirety in the governed herd." [_Statism and Anarchy_, 
pp. 178-9]

From about 1921 on, anarchists outside of Russia started describing 
the USSR as a "state-capitalist" nation to indicate that although 
individual bosses might have been eliminated, the Soviet state 
bureaucracy played the same role as individual bosses do in the 
West (anarchists *within* Russia had been calling it that since 
1918). For anarchists, "the Russian revolution . . . is trying 
to reach . . . economic equality . . . this effort has been made 
in Russia under a strongly centralised party dictatorship . . . 
this effort to build a communist republic on the basis of a 
strongly centralised state communism under the iron law of a 
party dictatorship is bound to end in failure. We are learning 
to know in Russia how *not* to introduce communism." [_Anarchism_, 
p. 254] 

For more information on the Russian Revolution and the role 
played by anarchists, see the appendix on "The Russian Revolution" 
of the FAQ. As well as covering the Kronstadt uprising and the 
Makhnovists, it discusses why the revolution failed, the role of
Bolshevik ideology played in that failure and whether there were
any alternatives to Bolshevism.

The following books are also recommended: _The Unknown Revolution_ 
by Voline; _The Guillotine at Work_ by G.P. Maximov; _The Bolshevik 
Myth_ and _The Russian Tragedy_, both by Alexander Berkman; _The 

Bolsheviks and Workers Control_ by M. Brinton; _The Kronstadt 
Uprising_ by Ida Mett; _The History of the Makhnovist Movement_ 
by Peter Arshinov. _My Disillusionment in Russia_ and _Living 
My Life_ by Emma Goldman.

Many of these books were written by anarchists active during 
the revolution, many imprisoned by the Bolsheviks and deported 
to the West due to international pressure exerted by 
anarcho-syndicalist delegates to Moscow who the Bolsheviks 
were trying to win over to Leninism. The majority of such 
delegates stayed true to their libertarian politics and 
convinced their unions to reject Bolshevism and break with 
Moscow. By the early 1920's all the anarcho-syndicalist union 
confederations had joined with the anarchists in rejecting 
the "socialism" in Russia as state capitalism and party 
dictatorship. 
 
A.5.5 Anarchists in the Italian Factory Occupations 
 
After the end of the First World War there was a massive radicalisation 
across Europe and the world. Union membership exploded, with strikes, 
demonstrations and agitation reaching massive levels. This was partly 
due to the war, partly to the apparent success of the Russian Revolution. 
This enthusiasm for the Russian Revolution even reached Individualist
Anarchists like Joseph Labadie, who like many other anti-capitalists, 
saw "the red in the east [giving] hope of a brighter day" and the 
Bolsheviks as making "laudable efforts to at least try some way out 
of the hell of industrial slavery." [quoted by Carlotta R. Anderson, 
_All-American Anarchist_ p. 225 and p. 241]

Across Europe, anarchist ideas became more popular and anarcho-syndicalist 
unions grew in size. For example, in Britain, the ferment produced the 
shop stewards' movement and the strikes on Clydeside; Germany saw the  
rise of IWW inspired industrial unionism and a libertarian form of 
Marxism called "Council Communism"; Spain saw a massive growth in the 
anarcho-syndicalist CNT. In addition, it also, unfortunately, saw the 
rise and growth of both social democratic and communist parties. Italy 
was no exception.

In Turin, a new rank-and-file movement was developing. This 
movement was based around the "internal commissions" (elected 
ad hoc grievance committees). These new organisations were 
based directly on the group of people who worked together 
in a particular work shop, with a mandated and recallable 
shop steward elected for each group of 15 to 20 or so 
workers. The assembly of all the shop stewards in a given 
plant then elected the "internal commission" for that 
facility, which was directly and constantly responsible 
to the body of shop stewards, which was called the 
"factory council."

Between November 1918 and March 1919, the internal commissions
had become a national issue within the trade union movement.
On February 20, 1919, the Italian Federation of Metal Workers 
(FIOM) won a contract providing for the election of "internal 
commissions" in the factories. The workers subsequently tried to 
transform these organs of workers' representation into factory 
councils with a managerial function. By May Day 1919, the
internal commissions "were becoming the dominant force within
the metalworking industry and the unions were in danger of
becoming marginal administrative units. Behind these alarming
developments, in the eyes of reformists, lay the libertarians."
[Carl Levy, _Gramsci and the Anarchists_, p. 135] By November 
1919 the internal commissions of Turin were transformed into 
factory councils.

The movement in Turin is usually associated with the weekly 
_L'Ordine Nuovo_ (The New Order), which first appeared on 
May 1, 1919. As Daniel Guerin summarises, it was "edited by 
a left socialist, Antonio Gramsci, assisted by a professor 
of philosophy at Turin University with anarchist ideas, 
writing under the pseudonym of Carlo Petri, and also of a 
whole nucleus of Turin libertarians. In the factories, the 
Ordine Nuovo group was supported by a number of people, 
especially the anarcho-syndicalist militants of the metal 
trades, Pietro Ferrero and Maurizio Garino. The manifesto 
of *Ordine Nuovo* was signed by socialists and libertarians 
together, agreeing to regard the factory councils as 
'organs suited to future communist management of both
the individual factory and the whole society.'" 
[_Anarchism_, p. 109] 

The developments in Turin should not be taken in isolation.
All across Italy, workers and peasants were taking action. 
In late February 1920, a rash of factory occupations
broke out in Liguria, Piedmont and Naples. In Liguria, the
workers occupied the metal and shipbuilding plants in
Sestri Ponente, Cornigliano and Campi after a breakdown
of pay talks. For up to four days, under syndicalist 
leadership, they ran the plants through factory councils.

During this period the Italian Syndicalist Union (USI) grew 
in size to around 800 000 members and the influence of the 
Italian Anarchist Union (UAI) with its 20 000 members and 
daily paper (_Umanita Nova_) grew correspondingly. As the 
Welsh Marxist historian Gwyn A. Williams points out "Anarchists 
and revolutionary syndicalists were the most consistently and 
totally revolutionary group on the left . . . the most  
obvious feature of the history of syndicalism and anarchism 
in 1919-20: rapid and virtually continuous growth . . . The 
syndicalists above all captured militant working-class opinion 
which the socialist movement was utterly failing to capture." 
[_Proletarian Order_, pp. 194-195] In Turin, libertarians
"worked within FIOM" and had been "heavily involved in the
*Ordine Nuovo* campaign from the beginning." [Op. Cit., 
p. 195] Unsurprisingly, *Ordone Nuovo* was denounced as
"syndicalist" by other socialists.

It was the anarchists and syndicalists who first raised the 
idea of occupying workplaces. Malatesta was discussing 
this idea in _Umanita Nova_ in March, 1920. In his words, 
"General strikes of protest no longer upset anyone . . . One
must seek something else. We put forward an idea: take-over
of factories. . . the method certainly has a future, because
it corresponds to the ultimate ends of the workers' movement
and constitutes an exercise preparing one for the ultimate
act of expropriation." [_Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas_, 
p. 134] In the same month, during "a strong syndicalist campaign 
to establish councils in Mila, Armando Borghi [anarchist secretary 
of the USI] called for mass factory occupations. In Turin, the
re-election of workshop commissars was just ending in a two-week 
orgy of passionate discussion and workers caught the fever. [Factory 
Council] Commissars began to call for occupations." Indeed, "the 
council movement outside Turin was essentially anarcho-syndicalist." 
Unsurprisingly, the secretary of the syndicalist metal-workers 
"urged support for the Turin councils because they represented
anti-bureaucratic direct action, aimed at control of the factory 
and could be the first cells of syndicalist industrial unions . . . 
The syndicalist congress voted to support the councils. . . . 
Malatesta . . . supported them as a form of direct action guaranteed 
to generate rebelliousness . . . *Umanita Nova* and *Guerra di Classe*
[paper of the USI] became almost as committed to the councils as 
*L'Ordine Nuovo* and the Turin edition of *Avanti.*" [Williams, 
Op. Cit., p. 200, p. 193 and p. 196]

The upsurge in militancy soon provoked an employer 
counter-offensive. The bosses organisation denounced 
the factory councils and called for a mobilisation 
against them. Workers were rebelling and refusing 
to follow the bosses orders -- "indiscipline" was
rising in the factories. They won state support for 
the enforcement of the existing industrial regulations. 
The national contract won by the FIOM in 1919 had 
provided that the internal commissions were banned from 
the shopfloor and restricted to non-working hours. 
This meant that the activities of the shop stewards'
movement in Turin -- such as stopping work to hold shop 
steward elections -- were in violation of the contract. 
The movement was essentially being maintained through 
mass insubordination. The bosses used this infringement 
of the agreed contract as the means combating the factory 
councils in Turin.

The showdown with the employers arrived in April, when a 
general assembly of shop stewards at Fiat called for sit-in 
strikes to protest the dismissal of several shop stewards. 
In response the employers declared a general lockout. The 
government supported the lockout with a mass show of force 
and troops occupied the factories and mounted machine guns
posts at them. When the shop stewards movement decided to 
surrender on the immediate issues in dispute after two 
weeks on strike, the employers responded with demands that 
the shop stewards councils be limited to non-working hours, 
in accordance with the FIOM national contract, and that 
managerial control be re-imposed.

These demands were aimed at the heart of the factory council
system and Turin labour movement responded with a massive 
general strike in defence of it. In Turin, the strike was
total and it soon spread throughout the region of Piedmont 
and involved 500 000 workers at its height. The Turin
strikers called for the strike to be extended nationally
and, being mostly led by socialists, they turned to the
CGL trade union and Socialist Party leaders, who rejected
their call. 

The only support for the Turin general strike came from unions 
that were mainly under anarcho-syndicalist influence, such as 
the independent railway and the maritime workers unions ("The 
syndicalists were the only ones to move."). The railway workers in 
Pisa and Florence refused to transport troops who were being sent to 
Turin. There were strikes all around Genoa, among dock workers and 
in workplaces where the USI was a major influence. So in spite being 
"betrayed and abandoned by the whole socialist movement," the April 
movement "still found popular support" with "actions . . . either 
directly led or indirectly inspired by anarcho-syndicalists." In Turin 
itself, the anarchists and syndicalists were "threatening to cut the 
council movement out from under" Gramsci and the *Ordine Nuovo* group. 
[Op. Cit., p. 207, p. 193 and p. 194]

Eventually the CGL leadership settled the strike on terms that accepted 
the employers' main demand for limiting the shop stewards' councils to 
non-working hours. Though the councils were now much reduced in activity 
and shop floor presence, they would yet see a resurgence of their position 
during the September factory occupations.

The anarchists "accused the socialists of betrayal. They criticised 
what they believed was a false sense of discipline that had bound 
socialists to their own cowardly leadership. They contrasted the 
discipline that placed every movement under the 'calculations, fears, 
mistakes and possible betrayals of the leaders' to the other discipline 
of the workers of Sestri Ponente who struck in solidarity with Turin, the 
discipline of the railway workers who refused to transport security 
forces to Turin and the anarchists and members of the Unione Sindacale 
who forgot considerations of party and sect to put themselves at the 
disposition of the Torinesi." [Carl Levy, Op. Cit., p. 161] Sadly, this 
top-down "discipline" of the socialists and their unions would be repeated 
during the factory occupations, with terrible results.

In September, 1920, there were large-scale stay-in strikes in Italy in 
response to an owner wage cut and lockout. "Central to the climate of 
the crisis was the rise of the syndicalists." In mid-August, the USI 
metal-workers "called for both unions to occupy the factories" and 
called for "a preventive occupation" against lock-outs. The USI saw 
this as the "expropriation of the factories by the metal-workers" 
(which must "be defended by all necessary measures") and saw the need 
"to call the workers of other industries into battle." [Williams, 
Op. Cit., p. 236, pp. 238-9] Indeed, "[i]f the FIOM had not embraced 
the syndicalist idea of an occupation of factories to counter an employer's 
lockout, the USI may well have won significant support from the politically 
active working class of Turin." [Carl Levy, Op. Cit., p. 129] These strikes 
began in the engineering factories and soon spread to railways, road 
transport, and other industries, with peasants seizing land. The strikers, 
however, did more than just occupy their workplaces, they placed them 
under workers' self-management. Soon over 500 000 "strikers" were at work, 
producing for themselves. Errico Malatesta, who took part in these events, 
writes: 
 
"The metal workers started the movement over wage rates. It was 
a strike of a new kind. Instead of abandoning the factories, the 
idea was to remain inside without working . . . Throughout Italy 
there was a revolutionary fervour among the workers and soon the 
demands changed their characters. Workers thought that the moment 
was ripe to take possession once [and] for all the means of 
production. They armed for defence . . . and began to organise 
production on their own . . . It was the right of property 
abolished in fact . . .; it was a new regime, a new form of 
social life that was being ushered in. And the government 
stood by because it felt impotent to offer opposition." 
[_Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas_, p. 134]

Daniel Guerin provides a good summary of the extent of the movement: 

"The management of the factories . . . [was] conducted by technical 
and administrative workers' committees. Self-management went quite a 
long way: in the early period assistance was obtained from the banks, 
but when it was withdrawn the self-management system issued its own 
money to pay the workers' wages. Very strict self-discipline was 
required, the use of alcoholic beverages forbidden, and armed 
patrols were organised for self-defence. Very close solidarity 
was established between the factories under self-management. Ores 
and coal were put into a common pool, and shared out equitably." 
[_Anarchism_, p. 109]  
 
Italy was "paralysed, with half a million workers occupying their
factories and raising red and black flags over them." The movement 
spread throughout Italy, not only in the industrial heartland 
around Milan, Turin and Genoa, but also in Rome, Florence,
Naples and Palermo. The "militants of the USI were certainly in
the forefront of the movement," while _Umanita Nova_ argued that
"the movement is very serious and we must do everything we can
to channel it towards a massive extension." The persistent call
of the USI was for "an extension of the movement to the whole
of industry to institute their 'expropriating general strike.'"
[Williams, Op. Cit., p. 236 and pp. 243-4] Railway workers, 
influenced by the libertarians, refused to transport troops, 
workers went on strike against the orders of the reformist 
unions and peasants occupied the land. The anarchists 
whole-heartedly supported the movement, unsurprisingly 
as the "occupation of the factories and the land suited 
perfectly our programme of action." [Malatesta, Op. Cit., 
p. 135] Luigi Fabbri described the occupations as having 
"revealed a power in the proletariat of which it had been 
unaware hitherto." [quoted by Paolo Sprinao, _The Occupation 
of the Factories_, p. 134]

However, after four weeks of occupation, the workers decided to 
leave the factories. This was because of the actions of the 
socialist party and the reformist trade unions. They opposed 
the movement and negotiated with the state for a return to 
"normality" in exchange for a promise to extend workers' 
control legally, in association with the bosses. The question
of revolution was decided by a vote of the CGL national
council in Milan on April 10-11th, without consulting the
syndicalist unions, after the Socialist Party leadership
refused to decide one way or the other. 

Needless to say, this promise of "workers' control" was not 
kept. The lack of independent inter-factory organisation made 
workers dependent on trade union bureaucrats for information 
on what was going on in other cities, and they used that power 
to isolate factories, cities, and factories from each other. 
This lead to a return to work, "in spite of the opposition of 
individual anarchists dispersed among the factories." 
[Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 136] The local syndicalist union 
confederations could not provide the necessary framework 
for a fully co-ordinated occupation movement as the 
reformist unions refused to work with them; and although 
the anarchists were a large minority, they were still a 
minority:

"At the 'interproletarian' convention held on 12 September
(in which the Unione Anarchia, the railwaymen's and maritime
workers union participated) the syndicalist union decided
that 'we cannot do it ourselves' without the socialist
party and the CGL, protested against the 'counter-revolutionary
vote' of Milan, declared it minoritarian, arbitrary and
null, and ended by launching new, vague, but ardent calls
to action." [Paolo Spriano, Op. Cit., p. 94]

Malatesta addressed the workers of one of the factories at Milan. 
He argued that "[t]hose who celebrate the agreement signed at 
Rome [between the Confederazione and the capitalists] as a great 
victory of yours are deceiving you. The victory in reality belongs 
to Giolitti, to the government and the bourgeoisie who are saved 
from the precipice over which they were hanging." During the
occupation the "bourgeoisie trembled, the government was powerless 
to face the situation." Therefore:

"To speak of victory when the Roman agreement throws you back under 
bourgeois exploitation which you could have got rid of is a lie. If 
you give up the factories, do this with the conviction [of] hav[ing] 
lost a great battle and with the firm intention to resume the struggle 
on the first occasion and to carry it on in a thorough way. . . 
Nothing is lost if you have no illusion [about] the deceiving 
character of the victory. The famous decree on the control of 
factories is a mockery . . .  because it tends to harmonise your 
interests and those of the bourgeois which is like harmonising 
the interests of the wolf and the sheep. Don't believe those of 
your leaders who make fools of you by adjourning the revolution 
from day to day. You yourselves must make the revolution when 
an occasion will offer itself, without waiting for orders which 
never come, or which come only to enjoin you to abandon action. 
Have confidence in yourselves, have faith in your future and you 
will win." [quoted by Max Nettlau, _Errico Malatesta: The 
Biography of an Anarchist_]

Malatesta was proven correct. With the end of the occupations,
the only victors were the bourgeoisie and the government. Soon
the workers would face Fascism, but first, in October 1920,
"after the factories were evacuated," the government (obviously
knowing who the real threat was) "arrested the entire leadership
of the USI and UAI. The socialists did not respond" and 
"more-or-less ignored the persecution of the libertarians
until the spring of 1921 when the aged Malatesta and other
imprisoned anarchists mounted a hunger strike from their
cells in Milan." [Carl Levy, Op. Cit., pp. 221-2] They were
acquitted after a four day trial.

The events of 1920 show four things. Firstly, that workers can
manage their own workplaces successfully by themselves, without 
bosses. Secondly, on the need for anarchists to be involved in
the labour movement. Without the support of the USI, the Turin
movement would have been even more isolated than it was. Thirdly, 
anarchists need to be organised to influence the class struggle.
The growth of the UAI and USI in terms of both influence and
size indicates the importance of this. Without the anarchists
and syndicalists raising the idea of factory occupations and
supporting the movement, it is doubtful that it would have
been as successful and widespread as it was. Lastly, that
socialist organisations, structured in a hierarchical fashion,
do not produce a revolutionary membership. By continually
looking to leaders, the movement was crippled and could not
develop to its full potential.
 
This period of Italian history explains the growth of Fascism in Italy. As 
Tobias Abse points out, "the rise of fascism in Italy cannot be detached 
from the events of the *biennio rosso,* the two red years of 1919 and 
1920, that preceded it. Fascism was a preventive counter-revolution . . . 
launched as a result of the failed revolution." ["The Rise of Fascism in 
an Industrial City", p. 54, in _Rethinking Italian Fascism_, David Forgacs 
(ed.), pp. 52-81] The term "preventive counter-revolution" was originally 
coined by the leading anarchist Luigi Fabbri.

As Malatesta argued at the time of the factory occupations, "[i]f we do  
not carry on to the end, we will pay with tears of blood for the fear we  
now instil in the bourgeoisie." [quoted by Tobias Abse, Op. Cit., p. 66] 
Later events proved him right, as the capitalists and rich landowners 
backed the fascists in order to teach the working class their place. In
the words of Tobias Abse: 

"The aims of the Fascists and their backers amongst the industrialists 
and agrarians in 1921-22 were simple: to break the power of the organised 
workers and peasants as completely as possible, to wipe out, with the 
bullet and the club, not only the gains of the *biennio rosso*, but 
everything that the lower classes had gained . . . between the turn 
of the century and the outbreak of the First World War." [Op. Cit., 
p. 54]

The fascist squads attacked and destroyed anarchist and socialist meeting
places, social centres, radical presses and Camera del Lavoro (local trade 
union councils). However, even in the dark days of fascist terror, the 
anarchists resisted the forces of totalitarianism. "It is no coincidence 
that the strongest working-class resistance to Fascism was in . . . towns 
or cities in which there was quite a strong anarchist, syndicalist or 
anarcho-syndicalist tradition." [Tobias Abse, Op. Cit., p. 56] 
 
The anarchists participated in, and often organised sections of, 
the _Arditi del Popolo_, a working-class organisation devoted to the 
self-defence of workers' interests. The Arditi del Popolo organised and 
encouraged working-class resistance to fascist squads, often defeating 
larger fascist forces (for example, "the total humiliation of thousands 
of Italo Balbo's squadristi by a couple of hundred Arditi del Popolo 
backed by the inhabitants of the working class districts" in the 
anarchist stronghold of Parma in August 1922 [Tobias Abse, Op. Cit., 
p. 56]). Unsurprisingly, the _Arditi del Popolo_ "appear to have been
strongest and most successful in areas where traditional working-class
political culture was less exclusively socialist and had strong 
anarchist or syndicalist traditions, for example, Bari, Livorno, 
Parma and Rome." [Antonio Sonnessa, "Working Class Defence Organisation,
Anri-Fascist Resistances and the *Arditi del Popolo* in Turin, 1919-22,"
pp. 183-218, _European History Quarterly_, vol. 33, no. 2, p. 184]

The Arditi del Popolo was the closest Italy got to the idea of a 
united, revolutionary working-class front against fascism, as had 
been suggested by Malatesta and the UAI. This movement "developed 
along anti-bourgeois and anti-fascist lines, and was marked by the 
independence of its local sections." [_Red Years, Black Years: 
Anarchist Resistance to Fascism in Italy_, p. 2] Rather than being 
just an "anti-fascist" organisation, the Arditi "were not a movement 
in defence of 'democracy' in the abstract, but an essentially 
working-class organisation devoted to the defence of the interests 
of industrial workers, the dockers and large numbers of artisans 
and craftsmen." [Tobias Abse, Op. Cit., p. 75] 

However, both the socialist and communist parties withdrew from the 
organisation. The socialists signed a "Pact of Pacification" with 
the Fascists in August 1921. The communists "preferred to withdraw 
their members from the Arditi del Popolo rather than let them work 
with the anarchists." [_Red Years, Black Years_, p. 17] Indeed, "[o]n
the same day as the Pact was signed, _Ordine Nuovo_ published a
PCd'I [Communist Party of Italy] communication warning communists
against involvement" in the Arditi del Popolo. Four days later,
the Communist leadership "officially abandoned the movement. Severe
disciplinary measures were threatened against those communists who
continued to participate in, or liase with," the organisation. Thus
by "the end of the first week of August 1921 the PSI, CGL and the
PCd'I had officially denounced" the organisation. "Only the anarchist
leaders, if not always sympathetic to the programme of the [Arditi
del Popolo], did not abandon the movement." Indeed, _Umanita Nova_
"strongly supported" it "on the grounds it represented a popular
expression of anti-fascist resistance and in defence of freedom 
to organise." [Antonio Sonnessa, Op. Cit., p. 195 and p. 194]

However, in spite of the decisions by their leaders, many rank and 
file socialists and communists took part in the movement. The latter
took part in open "defiance of the PCd'I leadership's growing abandonment" 
of it. In Turin, for example, communists who took part in the _Arditi 
del Polopo_ did so "less as communists and more as part of a wider, 
working-class self-identification . . . This dynamic was re-enforced 
by an important socialist and anarchist presence" there. The failure 
of the Communist leadership to support the movement shows the 
bankruptcy of Bolshevik organisational forms which were unresponsive 
to the needs of the popular movement. Indeed, these events show the 
"libertarian custom of autonomy from, and resistance to, authority was 
also operated against the leaders of the workers' movement, particularly 
when they were held to have misunderstood the situation at grass roots 
level." [Sonnessa, Op. Cit., p. 200, p. 198 and p. 193] 

Thus the Communist Party failed to support the popular resistance to
fascism. The Communist leader Antonio Gramsci explained why, arguing 
that "the party leadership's attitude on the question of the Arditi del 
Popolo . . . corresponded to a need to prevent the party members from 
being controlled by a leadership that was not the party's leadership." 
Gramsci added that this policy "served to disqualify a mass movement 
which had started from below and which could instead have been 
exploited by us politically." [_Selections from Political Writings
(1921-1926)_, p. 333] While being less sectarian towards the Arditi 
del Popolo than other Communist leaders, "[i]n common with all 
communist leaders, Gramsci awaited the formation of the PCd'I-led 
military squads." [Sonnessa, Op. Cit., p. 196] In other words, the 
struggle against fascism was seen by the Communist leadership as a 
means of gaining more members and, when the opposite was a possibility, 
they preferred defeat and fascism rather than risk their followers 
becoming influenced by anarchism.

As Abse notes, "it was the withdrawal of support by the Socialist 
and Communist parties at the national level that crippled" the 
Arditi [Op. Cit., p. 74]. Thus "social reformist defeatism and 
communist sectarianism made impossible an armed opposition that 
was widespread and therefore effective; and the isolated instances 
of popular resistance were unable to unite in a successful strategy." 
And fascism could have been defeated: "Insurrections at Sarzanna, 
in July 1921, and at Parma, in August 1922, are examples of the 
correctness of the policies which the anarchists urged in action and
propaganda. [_Red Years, Black Years_, p. 3 and p. 2] Historian Tobias 
Abse confirms this analysis, arguing that "[w]hat happened in Parma in 
August 1922 . . . could have happened elsewhere, if only the leadership 
of the Socialist and Communist parties thrown their weight behind the 
call of the anarchist Malatesta for a united revolutionary front 
against Fascism." [Op. Cit., p. 56]

In the end, fascist violence was successful and capitalist power 
maintained:

"The anarchists' will and courage were not enough to counter the 
fascist gangs, powerfully aided with material and arms, backed by 
the repressive organs of the state. Anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists 
were decisive in some areas and in some industries, but only a similar 
choice of direct action on the parts of the Socialist Party and the 
General Confederation of Labour [the reformist trade union] could 
have halted fascism." [_Red Years, Black Years_, pp. 1-2]

After helping to defeat the revolution, the Marxists helped ensure the 
victory of fascism.
 
Even after the fascist state was created, anarchists resisted both 
inside and outside Italy. Many Italians, both anarchist and non-anarchist, 
travelled to Spain to resist Franco in 1936 (see Umberto Marzochhi's 
_Remembering Spain: Italian Anarchist Volunteers in the Spanish Civil
War_ for details). During the Second World War, anarchists played a 
major part in the Italian Partisan movement. It was the fact that the 
anti-fascist movement was dominated by anti-capitalist elements that 
led the USA and the UK to place known fascists in governmental positions 
in the places they "liberated" (often where the town had already been 
taken by the Partisans, resulting in the Allied troops "liberating" 
the town from its own inhabitants!). 

Given this history of resisting fascism in Italy, it is surprising 
that some claim Italian fascism was a product or form of syndicalism. 
This is even claimed by some anarchists. According to Bob Black the 
"Italian syndicalists mostly went over to Fascism" and references 
David D. Roberts 1979 study _The Syndicalist Tradition and Italian 
Fascism_ to support his claim [_Anarchy after Leftism_, p. 64]. Peter 
Sabatini in a review in _Social Anarchism_ makes a similar statement, 
saying that syndicalism's "ultimate failure" was "its transformation 
into a vehicle of fascism." [_Social Anarchism_, no. 23, p. 99] What 
is the truth behind these claims?

Looking at Black's reference we discover that, in fact, most of the 
Italian syndicalists did not go over to fascism, if by syndicalists 
we mean members of the USI (the Italian Syndicalist Union). Roberts 
states that:

"The vast majority of the organised workers failed to respond 
to the syndicalists' appeals and continued to oppose [Italian] 
intervention [in the First World War], shunning what seemed to 
be a futile capitalist war. The syndicalists failed to convince 
even a majority within the USI . . . the majority opted for the 
neutralism of Armando Borghi, leader of the anarchists within 
the USI. Schism followed as De Ambris led the interventionist 
minority out of the confederation." [_The Syndicalist Tradition 
and Italian Fascism_,  p. 113]

However, if we take "syndicalist" to mean some of the intellectuals 
and "leaders" of the pre-war movement, it was a case that the "leading 
syndicalists came out for intervention quickly and almost unanimously" 
[Roberts, Op. Cit., p. 106] after the First World War started. Many 
of these pro-war "leading syndicalists" did become fascists. However,
to concentrate on a handful of "leaders" (which the majority did 
not even follow!) and state that this shows that the "Italian 
syndicalists mostly went over to Fascism" staggers belief. What is 
even worse, as seen above, the Italian anarchists and syndicalists 
were the most dedicated and successful fighters against fascism. In 
effect, Black and Sabatini have slandered a whole movement.

What is also interesting is that these "leading syndicalists" were 
not anarchists and so not anarcho-syndicalists. As Roberts notes 
"[i]n Italy, the syndicalist doctrine was more clearly the product 
of a group of intellectuals, operating within the Socialist party 
and seeking an alternative to reformism." They "explicitly denounced 
anarchism" and "insisted on a variety of Marxist orthodoxy." The 
"syndicalists genuinely desired -- and tried -- to work within 
the Marxist tradition." [Op. Cit., p. 66, p. 72, p. 57 and p. 79] 
According to Carl Levy, in his account of Italian anarchism, 
"[u]nlike other syndicalist movements, the Italian variation 
coalesced inside a Second International party. Supporter were 
partially drawn from socialist intransigents . . . the southern 
syndicalist intellectuals pronounced republicanism . . . Another 
component . . . was the remnant of the Partito Operaio." ["Italian 
Anarchism: 1870-1926" in _For Anarchism: History, Theory, and Practice_, 
David Goodway (Ed.), p. 51] 

In other words, the Italian syndicalists who turned to fascism were, 
firstly, a small minority of intellectuals who could not convince the 
majority within the syndicalist union to follow them, and, secondly, 
Marxists and republicans rather than anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists 
or even revolutionary syndicalists. 

According to Carl Levy, Roberts' book "concentrates on the syndicalist 
intelligentsia" and that "some syndicalist intellectuals . . . helped 
generate, or sympathetically endorsed, the new Nationalist movement . . . 
which bore similarities to the populist and republican rhetoric of the 
southern syndicalist intellectuals." He argues that there "has been far 
too much emphasis on syndicalist intellectuals and national organisers" 
and that syndicalism "relied little on its national leadership for its 
long-term vitality." [Op. Cit., p. 77, p. 53 and p. 51] If we do look 
at the membership of the USI, rather than finding a group which "mostly 
went over to fascism," we discover a group of people who fought fascism 
tooth and nail and were subject to extensive fascist violence. 

To summarise, Italian Fascism had nothing to do with syndicalism 
and, as seen above, the USI fought the Fascists and was destroyed 
by them along with the UAI, Socialist Party and other radicals. That
a handful of pre-war Marxist-syndicalists later became Fascists and 
called for a "National-Syndicalism" does not mean that syndicalism 
and fascism are related (any more than some anarchists later becoming 
Marxists makes anarchism "a vehicle" for Marxism!).

It is hardly surprising that anarchists were the most consistent and 
successful opponents of Fascism. The two movements could not be further 
apart, one standing for total statism in the service of capitalism while 
the other for a free, non-capitalist society. Neither is it surprising 
that when their privileges and power were in danger, the capitalists and 
the landowners turned to fascism to save them. This process is a common 
feature in history (to list just four examples, Italy, Germany, Spain 
and Chile). 

A.5.6 Anarchism and the Spanish Revolution. 

As Noam Chomsky notes, "a good example of a really large-scale 
anarchist revolution -- in fact the best example to my knowledge
-- is the Spanish revolution in 1936, in which over most of 
Republican Spain there was a quite inspiring anarchist revolution
that involved both industry and agriculture over substantial
areas . . . And that again was, by both human measures and 
indeed anyone's economic measures, quite successful. That is,
production continued effectively; workers in farms and factories
proved quite capable of managing their affairs without coercion
from above, contrary to what lots of socialists, communists, 
liberals and other wanted to believe." The revolution of 1936
was "based on three generations of experiment and thought and 
work which extended anarchist ideas to very large parts of the 
population." [_Radical Priorities_, p. 212]

Due to this anarchist organising and agitation, Spain in the 1930's 
had the largest anarchist movement in the world. At the start of 
the Spanish "Civil" war in July 1936, over one and one half million 
workers and peasants were members of the CNT (the National 
Confederation of Labour), an anarcho-syndicalist union federation, 
and 30,000 were members of the FAI (the Anarchist Federation of Iberia). 
The total population of Spain at this time was 24 million. 
 
The social revolution which met the Fascist coup on July 18th, 
1936, is the greatest experiment in libertarian socialism to 
date. Here the last mass syndicalist union, the CNT, not only 
held off the fascist rising but encouraged the widespread 
take-over of land and factories. Over seven million people, 
including about two million CNT members, put self-management 
into practise in the most difficult of circumstances and 
actually improved both working conditions and output.  
 
In the heady days after the 19th of July, the initiative 
and power truly rested in the hands of the rank-and-file 
members of the CNT and FAI. It was ordinary people, 
undoubtedly under the influence of Faistas (members of 
the FAI) and CNT militants, who, after defeating the fascist 
uprising, got production, distribution and consumption 
started again (under more egalitarian arrangements, of 
course), as well as organising and volunteering (in 
their tens of thousands) to join the militias, which were 
to be sent to free those parts of Spain that were under 
Franco. In every possible way the working class of Spain 
were creating by their own actions a new world based on 
their own ideas of social justice and freedom -- ideas 
inspired, of course, by anarchism and anarchosyndicalism.  
 
George Orwell's eye-witness account of revolutionary Barcelona 
in late December, 1936, gives a vivid picture of the social 
ttransformation that had begun: 
 
"The Anarchists were still in virtual control of Catalonia and 
the revolution was still in full swing. To anyone who had been 
there since the beginning it probably seemed even in December 
or January that the revolutionary period was ending; but when 
one came straight from England the aspect of Barcelona was  
something startling and overwhelming. It was the first time 
that I had ever been in a town where the working class was 
in the saddle. Practically every building of any size had 
been seized by the workers and was draped with red flags or 
with the red and black flag of the Anarchists; every wall 
was scrawled  with the hammer and sickle and with the 
initials of the revolutionary parties; almost every church 
had been gutted and its images burnt. Churches here and there 
were being systematically demolished by gangs of workman. 
Every shop and cafe had an inscription saying that it 
had been collectivised; even the bootblacks had been 
collectivised and their boxes painted red and black. 
Waiters and shop-walkers looked you in the face and  
treated you as an equal. Servile and even ceremonial 
forms of speech had temporarily disappeared.  Nobody 
said 'Senor' or 'Don' or even 'Usted'; everyone called 
everyone else 'Comrade' or 'Thou', and said 'Salud!' 
instead of 'Buenos dias'. . . Above all, there was a 
belief in the revolution and the future, a feeling of 
having suddenly emerged into an era of equality and 
freedom. Human beings were trying to behave as human 
beings and not as cogs in the capitalist machine." 
[_Homage to Catalonia_, pp. 2-3] 
 
The full extent of this historic revolution cannot be covered 
here. It will be discussed in more detail in section I.8 of 
the FAQ. All that can be done is to highlight a few points 
of special interest in the hope that these will give some 
indication of the importance of these events and encourage 
people to find out more about it. 
 
All industry in Catalonia was placed either under workers' 
self-management *or* workers' control (that is, either totally 
taking over *all* aspects of management, in the first case, or, 
in the second, controlling the old management). In some cases, 
whole town and regional economies were transformed into 
federations of collectives. The example of the Railway  
Federation (which was set up to manage the railway lines 
in Catalonia, Aragon and Valencia) can be given as a typical 
example. The base of the federation was the local assemblies:  
 
"All the workers of each locality would meet twice a week to 
examine all that pertained to the work to be done . . . The 
local general assembly named a committee to manage the general 
activity in each station and its annexes. At [these] meetings, 
the decisions (direccion) of this committee, whose members 
continued to work [at their previous jobs], would be subjected 
to the approval or disapproval of the workers, after giving 
reports and answering questions."  
 
The delegates on the committee could be removed by an assembly 
at any time and the highest co-ordinating body of the Railway 
Federation was the "Revolutionary Committee," whose members 
were elected by union assemblies in the various divisions. The 
control over the rail lines, according to Gaston Leval, "did 
not operate from above downwards, as in a statist and centralised  
system. The Revolutionary Committee had no such powers. . . The 
members of the. . . committee being content to supervise the 
general activity and to co-ordinate that of the different 
routes that made up the network." [Gaston Leval, _Collectives 
in the Spanish Revolution_, p. 255]
 
On the land, tens of thousands of peasants and rural day 
workers created voluntary, self-managed collectives. The 
quality of life improved as co-operation allowed the 
introduction of health care, education, machinery and 
investment in the social infrastructure. As well as increasing 
production, the collectives increased freedom. As one member 
puts it, "it was marvellous. . . to live in a collective, a 
free society where one could say what one thought, where if 
the village committee seemed unsatisfactory one could say. 
The committee took no big decisions without calling the 
whole village together in a general assembly. All this 
was wonderful." [quoted by Ronald Fraser, _Blood of 
Spain_, p. 360] 

We discuss the revolution in more detail in section I.8. For
example, sections I.8.3 and I.8.4 discuss in more depth how the 
industrial collectives. The rural collectives are discussed in 
sections I.8.5 and I.8.6. We must stress that these sections are 
summaries of a vast social movement, and more information can be 
gathered from such works as Gaston Leval's _Collectives in the 
Spanish Revolution_, Sam Dolfgoff's _The Anarchist Collectives_, 
Jose Peirats' _The CNT in the Spanish Revolution_ and a host of 
other anarchist accounts of the revolution.

On the social front, anarchist organisations created rational 
schools, a libertarian health service, social centres, and so 
on. The *Mujeres Libres* (free women) combated the traditional 
role of women in Spanish society, empowering thousands both 
inside and outside the anarchist movement (see _The Free Women 
of Spain_ by Martha A. Ackelsberg for more information on this 
very important organisation). This activity on the social front 
only built on the work started long before the outbreak of the 
war; for example, the unions often funded rational schools, 
workers centres, and so on. 
 
The voluntary militias that went to free the rest of Spain 
from Franco were organised on anarchist principles and 
included both men and women. There was no rank, no saluting 
and no officer class. Everybody was equal. George Orwell, a 
member of the POUM militia (the POUM was a dissident Marxist 
party, influenced by Leninism but not, as the Communists asserted, 
Trotskyist), makes this clear: 
 
"The essential point of the [militia] system was the social equality  
between officers and men. Everyone from general to private drew the  
same pay, ate the same food, wore the same clothes, and mingled on  
terms of complete equality. If you wanted to slap the general  
commanding the division on the back and ask him for a cigarette,  
you could do so, and no one thought it curious. In theory at any  
rate each militia was a democracy and not a hierarchy. It was  
understood that orders had to be obeyed, but it was also understood  
that when you gave an order you gave it as comrade to comrade and not  
as superior to inferior. There were officers and N.C.O.s, but there  
was no military rank in the ordinary sense; no titles, no badges, no  
heel-clicking and saluting. They had attempted to produce within the  
militias a sort of temporary working model of the classless society.  
Of course there was not perfect equality, but there was a nearer  
approach to it than I had ever seen or that I would have though  
conceivable in time of war. . . " [Op. Cit., p. 26] 
 
In Spain, however, as elsewhere, the anarchist movement was smashed 
between Stalinism (the Communist Party) on the one hand and Capitalism 
(Franco) on the other. Unfortunately, the anarchists placed anti-fascist 
unity before the revolution, thus helping their enemies to defeat both 
them and the revolution. Whether they were forced by circumstances into 
this position or could have avoided it is still being debated (see 
section I.8.10 for a discussion of why the CNT-FAI collaborated and 
section I.8.11 on why this decision was *not* a product of anarchist 
theory). 
 
Orwell's account of his experiences in the militia's indicates 
why the Spanish Revolution is so important to anarchists: 
 
"I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community 
of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness 
and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their 
opposites. Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands 
of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin,  
all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. 
In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was 
not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to 
say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by 
which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that 
of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilised life -- 
snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc. -- had 
simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society 
had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in 
the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there 
except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone 
else as his master . . . One had been in a community where 
hope was more normal than apathy or cynicism, where the 
word 'comrade' stood for comradeship and not, as in most 
countries, for humbug. One had breathed the air of equality. 
I am well aware that it is now the fashion to deny that  
Socialism has anything to do with equality. In every country 
in the world a huge tribe of party-hacks and sleek little 
professors are busy 'proving' that Socialism means no more 
than a planned state-capitalism with the grab-motive left 
intact. But fortunately there also exists a vision of  
Socialism quite different from this. The thing that 
attracts ordinary men to Socialism and makes them 
willing to risk their skins for it, the 'mystique' of 
Socialism, is the idea of equality; to the vast majority 
of people Socialism means a classless society, or it 
means nothing at all . . . In that community where no 
one was on the make, where there was a shortage of 
everything but no boot-licking, one got, perhaps, a 
crude forecast of what the opening stages of Socialism 
might be like. And, after all, instead of disillusioning 
me it deeply attracted me. . ." [Op. Cit., pp. 83-84]  
 
For more information on the Spanish Revolution, the following 
books are recommended: _Lessons of the Spanish Revolution_ by 
Vernon Richards; _Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution_ and
_The CNT in the Spanish Revolution_ by Jose Peirats; _Free 
Women of Spain_ by Martha A. Ackelsberg; _The Anarchist 
Collectives_ edited by Sam Dolgoff; "Objectivity and 
Liberal Scholarship" by Noam Chomsky (in _The Chomsky Reader_); 
_The Anarchists of Casas Viejas_ by Jerome R. Mintz; and 
_Homage to Catalonia_ by George Orwell. 
 
A.5.7 The May-June Revolt in France, 1968. 
 
The May-June events in France placed anarchism back on the radical 
landscape after a period in which many people had written the movement 
off as dead. This revolt of ten million people grew from humble 
beginnings. Expelled by the university authorities of Nanterre in 
Paris for anti-Vietnam War activity, a group of anarchists (including 
Daniel Cohn-Bendit) promptly called a protest demonstration. The 
arrival of 80 police enraged many students, who quit their studies
to join the battle and drive the police from the university. 
 
Inspired by this support, the anarchists seized the administration 
building and held a mass debate. The occupation spread, Nanterre 
was surrounded by police, and the authorities closed the university 
down. The next day, the Nanterre students gathered at the Sorbonne 
University in the centre of Paris. Continual police pressure and 
the arrest of over 500 people caused anger to erupt into five 
hours of street fighting. The police even attacked passers-by 
with clubs and tear gas. 
 
A total ban on demonstrations and the closure of the Sorbonne 
brought thousands of students out onto the streets. Increasing 
police violence provoked the building of the first barricades. 
Jean Jacques Lebel, a reporter, wrote that by 1 a.m., 
"[l]iterally thousands helped build barricades. . . women, 
workers, bystanders, people in pyjamas, human chains to carry 
rocks, wood, iron." An entire night of fighting left 350 police 
injured. On May 7th, a 50,000-strong protest march against the 
police was transformed into a day-long battle through the narrow 
streets of the Latin Quarter. Police tear gas was answered by 
molotov cocktails and the chant "Long Live the Paris Commune!" 
 
By May 10th, continuing massive demonstrations forced the Education 
Minister to start negotiations. But in the streets, 60 barricades had 
appeared and young workers were joining the students. The trade unions 
condemned the police violence. Huge demonstrations throughout France 
culminated on May 13th with one million people on the streets of Paris. 
 
Faced with this massive protest, the police left the Latin Quarter. 
Students seized the Sorbonne and created a mass assembly to spread 
the struggle. Occupations soon spread to every French University. 
From the Sorbonne came a flood of propaganda, leaflets, proclamations, telegrams, and posters. Slogans such as "Everything is Possible," 
"Be Realistic, Demand the Impossible," "Life without Dead Times," 
and "It is Forbidden to Forbid" plastered the walls. "All Power 
to the Imagination" was on everyone's lips. As Murray Bookchin 
pointed out, "the motive forces of revolution today . . . are 
not simply scarcity and material need, but also *the quality of 
everyday life . . . the attempt to gain control of one's own 
destiny.*" [_Post-Scarcity Anarchism_, pp. 249-250]

Many of the most famous slogans of those days originated from
the Situationists. The _Situationist International_ had been
formed in 1957 by a small group of dissident radicals and
artists. They had developed a highly sophisticated (if jargon
riddled) and coherent analysis of modern capitalist society 
and how to supersede it with a new, freer one. Modern life,
they argued, was mere survival rather than living, dominated
by the economy of consumption in which everyone, everything,
every emotion and relationship becomes a commodity. People
were no longer simply alienated producers, they were also
alienated consumers. They defined this kind of society
as the "Spectacle." Life itself had been stolen and so
revolution meant recreating life. The area of revolutionary
change was no longer just the workplace, but in everyday
existence:

"People who talk about revolution and class struggle
without referring explicitly to everyday life,
without understanding what is subversive about love
and what is positive in the refusal of constraints,
such people have a corpse in their mouth." [quoted by
Clifford Harper, _Anarchy: A Graphic Guide_, p. 153]

Like many other groups whose politics influenced the Paris
events, the situationists argued that "the workers' councils
are the only answer. Every other form of revolutionary
struggle has ended up with the very opposite of what it
was originally looking for." [quoted by Clifford Harper,
Op. Cit., p. 149] These councils would be self-managed
and not be the means by which a "revolutionary" party
would take power. Like the anarchists of _Noire et Rouge_
and the libertarian socialists of _Socialisme ou Barbarie_,
their support for a self-managed revolution from below had
a massive influence in the May events and the ideas that
inspired it. _Beneath the Paving Stones_ by Dark Star is a 
good anthology of situationist works relating to Paris 68
which also contains an eye-witness account of events.

On May 14th, the Sud-Aviation workers locked the management in its 
offices and occupied their factory. They were followed by the 
Cleon-Renault, Lockhead-Beauvais and Mucel-Orleans factories the 
next day. That night the National Theatre in Paris was seized to 
become a permanent assembly for mass debate. Next, France's 
largest factory, Renault-Billancourt, was occupied. Often the 
decision to go on indefinite strike was taken by the workers 
without consulting union officials. By May 17th, a hundred Paris 
Factories were in the hands of their workers. The weekend of the 
19th of May saw 122 factories occupied. By May 20th, the strike 
and occupations were general and involved six million people. 
Print workers said they did not wish to leave a monopoly of 
media coverage to TV and radio, and agreed to print newspapers 
as long as the press "carries out with objectivity the role 
of providing information which is its duty." In some cases 
print-workers insisted on changes in headlines or articles 
before they would print the paper. This happened mostly with 
the right-wing papers such as 'Le Figaro' or 'La Nation'. 
 
With the Renault occupation, the Sorbonne occupiers immediately
prepared to join the Renault strikers, and led by anarchist 
black and red banners, 4,000 students headed for the occupied 
factory. The state, bosses, unions and Communist Party were now 
faced with their greatest nightmare -- a worker-student alliance. 
Ten thousand police reservists were called up and frantic union 
officials locked the factory gates. The Communist Party urged 
their members to crush the revolt. They united with the government 
and bosses to craft a series of reforms, but once they turned to 
the factories they were jeered out of them by the workers. 
 
The struggle itself and the activity to spread it was organised 
by self-governing mass assemblies and co-ordinated by action 
committees. The strikes were often run by assemblies as well. 
As Murray Bookchin argues, the "hope [of the revolt] lay in 
the extension of self-management in all its forms -- the general 
assemblies and their administrative forms, the action committees, 
the factory strike committees -- to all areas of the economy, 
indeed to all areas of life itself." [Op. Cit., pp. 251-252] 
Within the assemblies, "a fever of life gripped millions, a 
rewaking of senses that people never thought they possessed." 
[Op. Cit., p. 251] It was not a workers' strike or a student
strike. It was a *peoples'* strike that cut across almost all 
class lines. 
 
On May 24th, anarchists organised a demonstration. Thirty thousand 
marched towards the Palace de la Bastille. The police had the 
Ministries protected, using the usual devices of tear gas and 
batons, but the Bourse (Stock Exchange) was left unprotected 
and a number of demonstrators set fire to it. 
 
It was at this stage that some left-wing groups lost their nerve. 
The Trotskyist JCR turned people back into the Latin Quarter. 
Other groups such as UNEF and Parti Socialiste Unife (United 
Socialist Party) blocked the taking of the Ministries of 
Finance and Justice. Cohn-Bendit said of this incident "As 
for us, we failed to realise how easy it would have been to 
sweep all these nobodies away. . . .It is now clear that if, 
on 25 May, Paris had woken to find the most important 
Ministries occupied, Gaullism would have caved in at 
once. . . . " Cohn-Bendit was forced into exile later 
that very night. 
 
As the street demonstrations grew and occupations continued, 
the state prepared to use overwhelming means to stop the 
revolt. Secretly, top generals readied 20,000 loyal troops 
for use on Paris. Police occupied communications centres 
like TV stations and Post Offices. By Monday, May 27th, 
the Government had guaranteed an increase of 35% in the 
industrial minimum wage and an all round-wage increase 
of 10%. The leaders of the CGT organised a march of 
500,000 workers through the streets of Paris two days 
later. Paris was covered in posters calling for a 
"Government of the People." Unfortunately the majority 
still thought in terms of changing their rulers rather 
than taking control for themselves. 
 
By June 5th most of the strikes were over and an air of 
what passes for normality within capitalism had rolled 
back over France. Any strikes which continued after this 
date were crushed in a military-style operation using 
armoured vehicles and guns. On June 7th, they made an 
assault on the Flins steelworks which started a four-day 
running battle which left one worker dead. Three days 
later, Renault strikers were gunned down by police, 
killing two. In isolation, those pockets of militancy 
stood no chance. On June 12th, demonstrations were banned, 
radical groups outlawed, and their members arrested. Under 
attack from all sides, with escalating state violence and 
trade union sell-outs, the General Strike and occupations 
crumbled. 
 
So why did this revolt fail? Certainly not because "vanguard" 
Bolshevik parties were missing. It was infested with them. 
Fortunately, the traditional authoritarian left sects were 
iisolated and outraged. Those involved in the revolt did not 
require a vanguard to tell them what to do, and the "workers' 
vanguards" frantically ran after the movement trying to 
catch up with it and control it. 
 
No, it was the lack of independent, self-managed confederal 
organisations to co-ordinate struggle which resulted in 
occupations being isolated from each other. So divided, 
they fell. In addition, Murray Bookchin argues that "an 
awareness among the workers that the factories had to be 
*worked,* not merely occupied or struck," was missing. 
[Op. Cit., p. 269]
 
This awareness would have been encouraged by the existence 
of a strong anarchist movement before the revolt. The
anti-authoritarian left, though very active, was too weak 
among striking workers, and so the idea of self-managed 
organisations and workers self-management was not widespread. 
However, the May-June revolt shows that events can change 
very rapidly. The working class, fused by the energy and 
bravado of the students, raised demands that could not be 
catered for within the confines of the existing system. The 
General Strike displays with beautiful clarity the potential 
power that lies in the hands of the working class. The mass 
assemblies and occupations give an excellent, if short-lived, 
example of anarchy in action and how anarchist ideas can 
quickly spread and be applied in practice.
