			Anarchist Theory FAQ

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	Why are anarchists in favour of equality? 
	A.2.5	Why is solidarity important to anarchists?
	A.2.6	Why do anarchists argue for self-liberation?
	A.2.7	Is it possible to be an anarchist without opposing hierarchy?
	A.2.8	What sort of society do anarchists want?
	A.2.9	What will abolishing hierarchy mean and achieve?
	A.2.10	Why do anarchists support direct democracy?
	A.2.11	Why is voluntarism not enough?
 
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 is anarcha-feminism? 
 
A.4 Who are the major anarchist thinkers? 
 
A.5 What are some examples of "Anarchy in Action"? 
	A.5.1	The Paris Commune 
	A.5.2 	Anarchists in the Russian Revolution. 
	A.5.3 	Anarchism and the Spanish Revolution. 

Section A - What is Anarchism? 
  
As Clifford Harper elegantly puts it, "Like 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. 16]  
 
This Anarchist Theory FAQ is part of this process and desire to create
a free society. It is an attempt to explain the basics of anarchist ideas
and theory, indicate the main threads of anarchist thought and indicate
a few examples of anarchism working in practice. This FAQ is an edited
version of section A of _An Anarchist FAQ_ (which can be found at
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/). In this FAQ, we refer to this
webpage as the "main FAQ"Due to space considerations, we had to
miss out certain sections of Section A (nevermind the other sections 
of the FAQ!). These "missing" sections include information on Green 
anarchism, anarcho-pacifism, religious anarchism, "anarchism without
adjectives" and a host of other topics. We would urge readers to visit
our webpage for these and other sections. 

One more point. Do not expect any references to "anarcho"-capitalism 
in this FAQ. This is because it is an *anarchist* FAQ and "anarcho"-capitalism
is not a form of anarchism. We discuss this in Section F of the main FAQ
and we will not do so here (sections A.1.3, A.1.4 and A.2.7, among others,
gives some idea of why "anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchist).

For anarchists, the principle of *hierarchical authority* underlies the 
major institutions of all "civilised" societies, whether capitalist or 
"communist" and is the major problem of the ills that afflict us. 
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 
capitalist companies and corporations, government bureaucracies, 
armies, political parties, religious organisations, universities, etc. 
It then goes on to show how the authoritarian relations inherent 
in the such hierarchies negatively affect individuals, their society, 
and culture. In the first part of the main FAQ (sections A - E) we 
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. 133-134] 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 "be 
managed by individuals or voluntary associations." [Ben Tucker, 
_Anarchist Reader_, p. 149] Later sections of the main FAQ 
(sections I and J) ill describe  anarchism's positive proposals for 
organising society in this way, "from the bottom up." However, 
some of the constructive core of anarchism will be seen even in 
this edited version of section A of the main FAQ.  

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, 
(right-wing) "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 
Mikhail 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."  
 
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" [_Statism and Anarchy_ - cited 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 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 
expresses 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. 12] 
 
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." [Ibid., 
	pp. 12-13]. 
 
This FAQ is part of the process of changing the commonly-held ideas  
regarding anarchism and the meaning of anarchy. 
 
A.1.1 What does "anarchy" mean? 
 
The word "anarchy" is "from Greek, prefix *a*, meaning "not," "the want 
of," "the absence of," or "the lack of", plus *archos*, meaning "a ruler," 
"director", "chief," "person in charge," "commander." The Greek words 
*anarchos,* and *anarchia* meant "having no government -- being without  
a government." [Peter A. Angeles, _The Harper Collins Dictionary of 
Philosophy_, Second Edition, pp. 11-12] 
 
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 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.  
 
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 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 . . .  
[and] the politics of government or of authority . . . [are] identical . . .  
[and] linked in various ways. . . What capital does to labour . . . the  
State [does] to liberty . . ." [quoted by Max Nettlau, _A Short History  
of Anarchism_, pp. 43-44] 
 
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." [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_,  
p. 158] 
 
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. 
 
A.1.2 What does "anarchism" mean? 
 
To quote Peter Kropotkin, Anarchism is "the no-government system of  
socialism. . . ." [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_, 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," in _Man!_, M. Graham (Ed), 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 in  
_Native American Anarchism - A Study of Left-Wing American Individualism_  
by Eunice Schuster, 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. 
 
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 maximises 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 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.  
 
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.  
 
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 dictionaries are noted for their lack of political 
sophistication. 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. The  
revolutionary anarchist Joseph Dejacque published _Le Libertaire, Journal  
du Mouvement social_ in New York between 1858 and 1861 [Max Nettlau, _A  
Short History of Anarchism_, p. 75]. According to anarchist historian Max  
Nettlau, the use of the term "libertarian communism" dates from November,  
1880 when a French anarchist congress adopted it [Ibid., 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 (particularly in Section B of the full FAQ)
we will discuss why the idea of a "libertarian" capitalism (as desired 
by the Libertarian Party) is a contradiction in terms.  
 
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 of the main FAQ). 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," pp. 30-34, _Man!_,  
M. Graham (Ed), p. 32, 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" and so on. We just concentrate on capitalism 
because that is what is dominating the world just now). 
 
Individualists like Ben Tucker along with social anarchists like Proudhon 
and Bakunin proclaimed themselves "socialists." They did so because the 
word "socialist" was originally defined to include "all those who believed 
in the individual's right to possess what he or she produced." ["Ayn Rand 
and the Perversion of Libertarianism," in _Anarchy: A Journal of Desire 
Armed_, no. 34] In order to achieve this, socialists desire a society 
within which the producers own and control the means of production. 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 is it non-exploitative, and is so opposed  
by anarchists. 
 
Therefore *all* anarchists are anti-capitalist. Ben Tucker, for example --  
the anarchist most influenced by liberalism (as we will discuss later)  
-- called his ideas "Anarchistic-Socialism" and denounced the  
capitalist as "the usurer, the receiver of interest, rent and profit." Tucker  
held that in an anarchist, non-capitalist, free-market society, capitalists  
will become redundant, since "labour. . . will. . . secure its natural  
wage, its entire product." Such an economy will 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 ensuring 
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): 
 
	"[i]t 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" [quoted by Guerin, Op. Cit., p.12]).  
 
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." [_Red and Black 
	Revolution_, issue 2].  
 
Anarchism developed in constant opposition to the ideas of Marxism, social 
democracy and Leninism. Long before Lenin rose to power, Mikhail 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 
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.  
 
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 of
the main FAQ)
 
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: 
 
	"[t]he 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.  
It 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.  
 
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. 
 
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, which 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.2.4 "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.2.5, "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." [_Life and Ideas_,  p. 23]  
 
For anarchists, *real* wealth is other people and the planet on which  
we live.  
 
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 Mikhail Bakunin's _God and the 
State_ for the classic discussion of materialism verses 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, _ABC of Anarchism_, p. 42] 
 
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 of the main FAQ 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." [Michael Bakunin, cited by Malatesta in _Anarchy_, p. 27]  
 
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:  
 
	"[t]he 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, 
	in _Anarchy_, p. 50] 
 
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 
liberty, considering it as the unique condition under which intelligence, 
dignity and human happiness can develop and grow. . . . " [_The Paris 
Commune and the Idea of the State_]. 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. 393] 
 
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."  
[Ibid., p. 59] 
 
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. 
 
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." [Rudolf Rocker, _Anarcho-syndicalism_, p. 64] 
 
In short, 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_] 
 
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.  
 
It is for this reason that anarchists oppose both capitalism and statism. 
Capitalism, like the state, is based on centralised authority, 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, _Bakunin on Anarchism_, p. 255]  
 
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_] 
 
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."  
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 powers that are latent in each person" [Bakunin,  
Op. Cit.] (see section B of the main FAQ 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, in 
_Objections to Anarchism_, points out: 
 
	"[t]o 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." 
 
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, _Life and Ideas_, p. 86].  
 
The fact that anarchists are in favour of organisation may seem strange at 
first, but this is because we live in a society in which virtually all 
forms of organisation are authoritarian, making 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 section B.2.4 of the main FAQ), 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: 
 
	"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" [Alexander Berkman, Op. Cit., 
	p. 53].  
 
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. 53]. In the "political" sphere, this means direct democracy  
and confederation, which 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."  
 
Anarchist ideas on libertarian organisation and the need for direct 
democracy and confederation will be discussed further in sections A.2.8
and A.2.9. 
 
A.2.4 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 _Red and Black Revolution_, No. 2].  
 
That some people *seriously* suggest that anarchists means by "equality" that  
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.  
 
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].  
 
"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. 
 
For anarchists, these "concepts" of "equality" are meaningless. Equality, 
in anarchist theory, does not mean denying individual diversity or 
uniqueness. As Bakunin observes: 
 
	"once equality has triumphed and is well established, will 
	there be no longer any difference in the talents and degree 
	of application of the various individuals? There will be a 
	difference, not so many as exist today, perhaps, but there 
	will always be differences. Of that there can be no doubt. 
	This is a proverbial truth which will probably never  
	cease to be true -- that no tree ever brings forth two leaves 
	that are exactly identical. How much more will this be true 
	of men, men being much more complicated creatures than 
	leaves. But such diversity, far from constituting an affliction 
	is. . . one of the assets of mankind. Thanks to it, the human 
	race is a collective whole wherein each human being 
	complements the rest and has need of them; so that this 
	infinite variation in human beings is the very cause and 
	chief basis of their solidarity -- an important argument 
	in favour of equality" [_Integral Education_] 
 
Equality for anarchists means *social* equality, or, to use Murray 
Bookchin's term, the "equality of unequals." By this he means that 
hierarchical social relationships are abolished in favour of ones that 
encourage participation and are based on the principle of "one person, one 
vote." Therefore, 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. 
 
A.2.5 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. "What wonderful results this unique 
force of man's individuality has achieved when strengthened by co-operation 
with other individualities," Emma Goldman observes. "Co-operation -- as 
opposed to internecine strife and struggle -- has worked for the survival 
and evolution of the species. . . . [O]nly mutual aid and voluntary 
co-operation. . . can create the basis for a free individual and 
associational life" [_Red Emma Speaks_, p. 95]. 
 
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. 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. There is power in "union."  
 
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.2.6 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. 142]. 
 
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?") of
the main FAQ 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"). 
 
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 points out "[b]etween 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. . . .  
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. . . . It is the result of a thousand 
internecine struggles, of a thousand human and natural factors. . . . "  
[_Life and Ideas_, p. 188] 
 
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., page 
142]. 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." [Max Stirner, Op. Cit., p. 168] 
 
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 in our 
hearts 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.  
 
Revolution is a process, not an event, and every "spontaneous revolutionary  
action" is 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  
IWW 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] 
 
A.2.7 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. 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 article "What Do Bosses Do?" (_Review  
of Radical Political Economics_, 6, 7), 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. 
 
Some argue that as long as an association is voluntary, whether it has an  
hierarchical structure is irrelevant. Anarchists disagree. If we take 
the key element as being whether an association is voluntary or not we 
would have to argue that the current statist system must be considered as  
"anarchy" - 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." 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.2.12 (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 of the main
FAQ) 
 
A.2.8 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.2.10, "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] 
 
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." [Alfie Kohn, _No Contest: 
The Case Against Competition_, p. 156] Indeed, "a rigid demand for  
agreement means that people will effectively be prevented from contributing 
their wisdom to a group effort." [Ibid.] It is for this reason that most 
anarchists reject consensus decision making in large groups. 
 
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. 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 power of recall is an essential tenet 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 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. In an anarchist society this  
relationship is reversed. No one individual or group (elected or unelected)  
holds power in an anarchist community. 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.  
 
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 have a fixed mandate - they are not able  
to make decisions on behalf of the people they are delegates for. 
 
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. 
 
By organising in this manner, hierarchy is abolished, 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." 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 of the main FAQ. 
 
A.2.9 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?" 
of the main FAQ).  
 
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. 58] 
 
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, "If 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_]. 
 
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. 
 
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 Yourself_, 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." [_The  
Right to Be Greedy_, For Ourselves]. 
 
A.2.10 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. 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] 
 
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." 
[Errico Malatesta, _The Anarchist Revolution_, 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? 
 
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. 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 society would be based upon industrial democracy, for within the 
workers' associations "all positions are elective, and the by-laws subject 
to the approval of the members." [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. 
 
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. 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?) of the main FAQ. 
 
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." [Op. Cit., p. 100] 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." [Op. Cit., 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." [_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.2.11 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 contracts), 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 of the
main, 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. However, as Carole Pateman 
points out in _The Problem of Political Obligation_, "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." [p. 19]
 
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. 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. 
 
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. 
 
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. 
 
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. 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. 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.2.10 discusses why direct democracy is the necessary social 
counterpart to voluntarism (i.e. free agreement). Section B.4 of the main
FAQ discusses why capitalism cannot be based on equal bargaining 
power between property owners and the propertyless. 
 
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 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. . . .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. 17].  
 
It is within this 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 have always  
been the vast majority, with individualist anarchism being  
restricted mostly to the United States. In addition, anarchists  
disagree over 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.  
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. They are  
primarily evolutionists, not revolutionists, and dislike social anarchists'  
use of direct action to create revolutionary situations. Most social  
anarchists recognise the need for education and to create alternatives,  
but they 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 in social struggle. 
 
The second major difference concerns the form of anarchist economy  
proposed. Individualists prefer a market-based system of distribution  
to the social anarchists use-based system. Both agree that use rights  
must replace property rights, but the individualist denies that this  
should include the product of the workers labour. In addition, they  
accept that people should be able to sell the means of production they  
use, if they so desire. 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, called mutualism, will result in  
workers control of production and the end of capitalist exploitation  
and usury. 
 
This second difference is the most important. The individualist fears  
being forced to join a collective and thus losing his or her freedom  
to exchange freely with others. However, social anarchists have always  
recognised the need for voluntary collectivisation. If people desire  
to work by themselves, this is not seen as a problem. In addition, a  
collective 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: 
 
	"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. However, if in  
the name of freedom they 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! As Luigi Galleani pointed  
out in _The End of Anarchism?_:  
 
	"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." [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. This, in all likelihood, "opens. . . the way for  
reconstituting under the heading of 'defence' all the functions of  
the State" [Peter Kropotkin, _Revolutionary Pamphlets_, p. 297]. 
 
Ben Tucker, the anarchist most influenced by 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." As Albert Melzter  
points out, this can have 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. 8]. 
 
This problem can be "got round" by accepting, along with Proudhon  
(the source of Tucker's Mutualist ideas), the need for co-operatives  
to run non-artisan workplaces. And while the individualists attack  
"usury," they 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, would result  
in a few big banks dominating, with a direct economic interest in  
supporting capitalist rather than co-operative investment. 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?" -- of the main FAQ) 
 
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-operates 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." [_Charles A. Dana, _Proudhon and his "Bank of the People",  
pp. 44-45] 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."  
[Op. Cit., p. 45] The social anarchist version of mutualism differs 
from the individualist form by having the mutual banks owned by the 
local community instead of being independent co-operatives. 
 
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. Only by extending the principle of co-operation  
beyond individual workplaces can individual liberty be maximised (see section  
I.1.3 for why most anarchists are opposed to markets). 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. 
 
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.  
However, most anarcho-collectivists think that, over time, as production  
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 maxim, "From each according to their abilities, to each according  
to their needs." They just disagree on how quickly this will come about. 
 
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.   
 
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_, p. 55]. 
 
The difference between syndicalists and other revolutionary social anarchists  
is slight and purely revolves around the question of anarcho-syndicalist  
unions. Both collectivists and communists 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. They 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. 
 
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 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. Most  
non-syndicalists consider the fusion of anarchism and unionism  
a source of potential *confusion* that would result in both  
movements failing to do their respect work correctly. 
 
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. 
 
A.3.3 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. 
 
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, 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. In  
addition, all the major anarchist thinkers (bar Proudhon) were supporters  
of women's equality. The "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). 
 
Anarchism and feminism have shared 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." [quoted by Clifford Harper, _Anarchy: A Graphic Guide_, p. 182] 
 
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.  
 
Peggy Kornegger has drawn attention to the 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." [Ibid.] Similarly, the 
Zero Collective argues that Anarcha-feminism "consists in recognising 
the anarchism of feminism and consciously developing it." [_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 or 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 Mujures 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, p. 91] 
 
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.  
 
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 preserver 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, Carline 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. 
 
A.4 Who are the major anarchist thinkers? 
 
Although Gerard Winstanley (_The Law of Freedom_, 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, 
*Mikhail 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 communist and individualist anarchism by his egoist 
critique of capitalism and the state that supports it. 
 
In place of 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).  
 
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* and *federalism* 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. Proudhon's 
ideas are the immediate source for both social and individualist 
anarchism, with each thread emphasising different aspects of mutualism. 
Proudhon's major works include _What is Property_, _Economic 
Contradictions_, and _The Political Capacity of the Working Classes_. 
 
Mikhail Bakunin, the central figure in the development of modern anarchist  
activism and ideas, emphasised the role of *collectivism,* *mass insurrection,*  
and *spontaneous revolt* in the launching of a free, classless society. 
He 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. Many of his ideas are almost identical to what 
would later be called syndicalism. Bakunin influenced many union movements 
-- especially in Spain, where a major anarchist social revolution took 
place. His works include _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. 
 
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. His major 
works included _Mutual Aid_, _The Conquest of Bread_, _Field, Factories, 
and Workshops_, _Modern Science and Anarchism_, _Act for Yourself_, 
_The State: Its Historic Role_, and many others. 
 
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. 
 
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. Of 
the many other anarchists who could be mentioned here, we can mention but 
a few.  
 
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 (see _Anarchism and  
Other Essays_ and _Red Emma Speaks_). Alexander Berkman, Emma's  
lifelong companion, produced a classic introduction to anarchist  
ideas called _What is Communist Anarchism?_ (also known as the _ABC  
of Anarchism_). Both he and Goldman were expelled by the US government 
to Russia after the 1917 revolution there as they were considered 
too dangerous to be allowed to remain in the land of the free. Voltairine  
de Cleyre also 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_. 
 
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 (see _Anarchy_ or _The Anarchist Revolution_ and _Malatesta:  
Life and Ideas_, both edited by Vernon Richards). Luigi Galleani produced a  
very powerful anti-organisational anarchist-communism which proclaimed that  
"Communism is simply the economic foundation by which the individual has the  
opportunity to regulate himself and carry out his functions" [_The End of  
Anarchism?_]. Camillo Berneri, before being murdered by the Communists  
during the Spanish Revolution, continued the fine tradition of critical,  
practical anarchism associated with Italian anarchism. 
 
As far as individualist anarchism goes, the undoubted "king" was Ben 
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!). Tucker was followed by Lawrence 
Labadie who 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 _Deterring Democracy_, _Necessary 
Illusions_, _World Orders, Old and New_ 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. Colin Ward in _Anarchy in 
Action_ and elsewhere has updated Kropotkin's _Mutual Aid_ by uncovering 
and documenting the anarchistic nature of everyday life even within  
capitalism. His work on housing has emphasised the importance of  
collective self-help and social management of housing against the  
twin evils of privatisation and nationalisation.  
 
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 noted, "anarchism originated 
among the people, and it will preserve its vitality and creative force so 
long as it remains a movement of the people." 
 
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. 
 
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 1976 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 origins of Mayday and the Haymarket
events (1886), the syndicalist revolt (1910 to 1914) and the shop 
steward movement (1917-21) in Britain, Germany (1919-21), the
factory occupations in Italy (1920) 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), 
Paris, 1968, 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, 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" [_Bakunin on Anarchism_, p. 263]. 
 
The Paris Commune was created after France was defeated by Prussia in the 
Franco-Prussian war. The French government tried to send in troops to 
regain the Parisian National Guard's cannon to prevent it from falling into  
the hands of the population. The soldiers refused to fire on the jeering  
crowd and turned their weapons on their officers. This was March 18th; the 
Commune had begun. 
 
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. 
 
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. 
 
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. 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, 
ibid., 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, it 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" [_Fighting the Revolution_, p. 16]. In 
addition, its attempts at economic reform did not go far enough, making no 
attempt to turn all workplaces into co-operatives and forming associations 
of these co-operatives to co-ordinate and support each other's economic 
activities. However, as the city was under constant siege by the French 
army, it is understandable that the Communards had other things on their 
minds. 
 
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" [Kropotkin, _Revolutionary Pamphlets_, p. 19], and 
so the council became "the greatest obstacle to the revolution" [Bakunin, 
Op. Cit. p. 241].  
 
The council become more and more isolated from the people who elected  
it, and thus more and more irrelevant. 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. 
 
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. Secondly, "there is no more reason for a 
government inside a Commune than for government above the Commune." 
[Peter Kropotkin, _Fighting the Revolution_, p. 19] This means that an 
anarchist community 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, Op. Cit., p. 19] 
 
A.5.2 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 Russian Revolution, like most history, is 
a good example of the maxim "history is written by those who win." Both 
capitalist and Leninist 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. 
 
The initial overthrow of the Tsar came from the direct action of the 
masses, and the revolution carried on in this vein until the new, 
"socialist" state was powerful enough to stop it. For the Left, the end 
of Tsarist was the culmination of years of effort by socialists and 
anarchists everywhere, representing the progressive wing of human thought 
overcoming traditional oppression, and as such was duly praised by leftists 
around the world. 
 
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. 
 
The anarchists participated in this movement, encouraging all tendencies 
to self-management. 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] 
 
Anarchists were particularly active in the movement for workers  
self-management of production (see M. Brinton, _The Bolsheviks and  
Workers Control_). 
 
But by early 1918, the authoritarian socialists of the Bolshevik party, 
once they had seized power, began the physical suppression of their 
anarchist rivals. Initially, anarchists had supported the Bolsheviks, 
since the Bolshevik leaders had hidden their state-building ideology 
behind support for the soviets.  
 
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,  
for example, systematically destroyed the workers' control movement, even  
though it was successfully increasing production in the face of difficult  
circumstances.  
 
Lenin suppressed workers' control on the spurious grounds that it would  
reduce the productivity of labour -- an argument that has subsequently  
been shown to be false by cases where workers' control has been 
established. It's interesting to note that today's capitalist apologists, 
who often claim workers' control would reduce productivity,  
are actually using a discredited Leninist argument.  
 
While eliminating the workers' control movement, the Bolsheviks also 
systematically undermined, arrested, and killed their most vocal 
opponents, the anarchists, as well as restricting the freedom of the 
masses they claimed to be protecting. Independent unions, political  
parties, the right to strike, self-management in the workplace and  
on the land -- all were destroyed in the name of "socialism." 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. The Bolsheviks put down the libertarian  
socialist elements within their country, the crushing of the uprisings  
at Kronstadt and 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. This is because it was the first major uprising of ordinary 
people for real socialism.  
 
	"Kronstadt was the first entirely independent attempt 
	of the people to free themselves of all control 
	and carry out the social revolution: this attempt  
	was made directly. . . by the working classes themselves, 
	without political shepherds, without leaders, or tutors" 
	[Voline, _The Unknown Revolution_, quoted by Guerin, 
	Ibid., p. 105]. 
 
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. The Makhnovists organised worker and  
peasant conferences (some of which the Bolsheviks tried to ban) as well  
as free soviets, unions and communes. He became known as the Ukrainian  
"Robin Hood."  
 
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 that give aid and counsel. . .In no circumstances can they,  
nor do they wish to, govern." [Peter Arshinov, quoted by Guerin, Ibid.,  
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]  
 
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." [_The 
History of the Makhnovist Movement_, p. 271 and p. 273] 
 
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. 
 
The last anarchist march in Moscow until 1987 took place at the funeral 
of Kropotkin in 1921, when some 10,000 marched behind his coffin. Many of 
these had been released from prison for the day and were to be murdered by 
Leninists in later years. From about 1921 on, anarchists 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.  
 
For more information on the Russian Revolution and the role played by 
anarchists, the following books are 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. 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.5.3 Anarchism and the Spanish Revolution. 
 
Spain in the 1930's had the largest anarchist movement in the world. At 
the start of the Spanish "Civil" war, 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 transformation that had 
begun: 
 
	"The Anarchists were still in virtual control of Catalonia 
	and the revolution was still in full swing.  . .  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  
marvelous. . . 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." [Ronald  
Frazer, _Blood of Spain_, p. 360] 
 
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.  

In Spain, however, as elsewhere, the anarchist movement was smashed 
between Leninism (the Communist Party) 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. 
 
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_ 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. 
 
