💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › rev-dia-anarchism-in-action.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 13:35:27. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Anarchism in Action Author: Rev Dia Date: 2018 Language: en Topics: Introductory, economic alternatives, Direct Democracy, Justice, science, technology, eco-defense, Environmentalism, military, anti-militarism, self-defense, welfare, education Source: Retrieved on 26th January 2022 from a translation of https://revdia.org/?s=%D0%90%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%85%D1%96%D0%B7%D0%BC+%D0%B2+%D0%B4%D1%96%D1%97
Probably everyone who has ever crossed paths with the ideas of anarchism
has asked questions himself, or heard from others the opinion that
anarchism is a utopia, a fairy tale that is good in words, but which can
not be realized. Arguments are usually of the same type, that it is
contrary to human nature, that states have always existed, that it is a
utopia and has never been implemented anywhere. But anarchism is one of
the oldest political ideologies developed, refined, and considered by
many great men. There have been and still are thousands of examples of
the implementation of the concepts of anarchism in the world. With this
article we begin a series of publications in which we will analyze the
implementation of all the principles of anarchism on real examples.
Today we will start with the economy.
Anarchists in economic terms are supporters of the lower planned
economy. Which means that all means of production must be equally owned
by society as a whole. The concept of economy is based on two key
factors — supply and demand. In the current situation, the offer is not
based on the real needs of each individual, but on the needs of those
who have the money to buy a thing. For example, it is much more
profitable for a builder to build luxury homes for the rich than housing
for the poor. Because a person with a lot of money can afford to buy
more than one cottage per 200 hectares. While the poor man can not
afford a one-room apartment in Khrushchev. However, it is the poor who
are in dire need of housing, but because they are unable to afford it,
large families must be crowded in one-bedroom apartments or on the
streets. When an official has dozens of dachas in different countries
where he lives, he does not even live.
The planned economy easily solves this problem, because the proposals
are formed on the real needs of everyone. People themselves will use the
tools of direct democracy (which we will discuss in more detail in a
future publication in this series) to decide what and in what quantities
to produce.
As for the supply, now we can see how many people are employed in the
field of parasitic professions, which in themselves do not produce
anything, but earn only at bureaucratic institutions (lawyers, lawyers,
judges ...), buying goods in areas that simply serve the capitalist
system (various sellers, security guards, customs officers,
entrepreneurs…), or serve the state (officials, police, military ..),
there is mass unemployment, as it is advantageous for an employer to
take one worker for 12 hours than two workers for 6 hours. And how much
work goes on advertising, disposable packages, cheap toys, products that
are created only to break soon and ensure the purchase of the next
version. These professions are completely useless in terms of
production. The planned economy, in turn, needs only the productive
professions. Which will reduce the working day and week many times over,
as the number of hours for the production of goods / services will
remain the same, but people who are currently engaged in parasitic
occupations or the unemployed will be involved in production.
The planned economy is a powerful thing that allows you to meet the
needs of everyone, and reduce dozens of times the amount of time spent
on work.
But here it is by no means necessary to draw parallels with the state
planned economy, which was implemented in the same USSR. In a
state-planned economy, all property is in the hands of the state, not
the people. And it is managed by officials. They are not motivated to
improve the lives of the people. That is why they can conduct an
“economic experiment” in which they will take all the grain from the
peasants and sell it abroad, which took place in real history and caused
the famine in Ukraine. For the official, this is a net profit that has
had a positive impact on the country’s economy. But if the people owned
the resources, it is very unlikely that they would start starving
themselves to boost the economy.
And now let’s move on to examples of its implementation in real life.
During the Spanish Civil War, workers in the occupied factories fully
coordinated the entire wartime economy. Anarchist organizations (namely
the CNT union) formed the basis of the new society. Of particular note
is the industrial center of Barcelona, ​​where the CNT has become the
structure that organized the economy. Each factory independently
organized work with election technical and administrative positions. The
same type of factories in each region were organized into a Regional
Federation of a specific industry. The regional federations of the
region merged into the Regional Economic Councils. Finally, the regional
Federations and Councils merged into the National Industrial Federations
and the National Economic Federations. The Barcelona Congress of Catalan
Collectives addressed a huge range of issues, such as proposing a plan
to build an aluminum factory needed for military purposes. They found
the necessary materials, organized the joint work of chemists, engineers
and technologists. In addition, the Congress decided to reduce
unemployment in the cities by working out a plan with the peasants to
cultivate new land for agricultural purposes and attract urban
unemployed.
And in Valencia, CNT organized an entire orange industry. 270 square
kilometers of territories in cities and villages were involved in the
plantations. All of them were engaged in cultivation, purchase and
export. At the same time, the grassroots management of the workers
themselves got rid of thousands of intermediaries. In Laredo, the
fishing industry was collectivized: workers expropriated ships, also
fired intermediaries, and the money saved was used to modernize ships or
to pay wages. Catalonia’s textile industry had 250,000 workers in dozens
of factories. As part of collectivization, they fired high-paying
directors, increased their salaries by 15%, reduced working hours from
60 to 40 hours per week, and purchased new machines. In general, the
Catalan workers have shown impressive results in managing the complex
infrastructure of industrial society that they have seized. Employees
have proven that they can organize and even improve their work without
any bosses. For the first time since the end of the street clashes,
workers have voted to raise wages for the lowest paid jobs. Gas, water
and electricity were also collectivized. The staff that managed the
water supply reduced tariffs by 50% and was still able to donate large
sums of money to anti-fascist police committees. Railways were also
seized, and where technicians fled, skilled workers were replaced. They
successfully coped with the task, despite the lack of formal education,
because experience with technicians taught them to keep roads in working
order. Public transport workers in Barcelona (out of 7,000 of whom 6,500
were CNT members) saved a lot of money in a very simple way: they fired
directors and other unnecessary managers. They then reduced working
hours to 40 per week and raised their salaries by 60% (for low-paid
workers) to 10% (for high-paid workers). In addition, they helped the
entire population by lowering tariffs and arranging free travel for
schoolchildren and wounded police officers, repairing damaged equipment
and streets, clearing them of barricades, putting the transport system
into operation five days after the cessation of fighting in Barcelona
and 700 trolleybuses (600 before the revolution) were repainted in red
and black. Some cities have completely abolished money and private
property. Some have organized a quota system to meet everyone’s needs.
In the city of Magdalena de Pulpice, for example, money was also
completely abolished. “Everyone works and everyone has the right to get
what they need, for free. He just goes to the store, where all the
groceries and other necessities are presented. Which is distributed free
of charge, it is only recorded who took what, “said a local resident.
Accounting for who took what allowed the community to distribute
resources evenly during times of scarcity and, as a rule, provided
transparency.
If someone still has objections to whether workers will be able to
organize production themselves without managers and hierarchies, then
modernity can cite many more examples of workers’ self-organization.
In December 2001, the economic crisis in Argentina provoked people to
extreme measures, first began attacks on banks, which escalated into a
mass popular uprising. Argentina is always cited as an example of an
“excellent student” of neoliberal organizations (such as the
International Monetary Fund). But policies that have enriched foreign
investors and given Argentina’s middle-class life “like in the first
world” have created poverty in much of the country. Anti-capitalist
resistance was already widespread among the unemployed and the poor, and
after the middle class lost all its savings as a result of the crisis,
millions took to the streets, ignoring all the excuses of politicians,
economists and the media. They chanted, “Que se vayan todos!” (They all
have to go!). Dozens of people were killed by police, but the people
were not intimidated. Hundreds of factories left by their owners were
occupied by workers who continued to produce to support their families.
The teams that seized the factories introduced salary levels and
distributed managerial responsibilities to all workers. They made
decisions at open meetings and some workers learned, for example,
accounting. To prevent a new class of managers, some factories have
introduced a rotation of managerial responsibilities or a rule that
people in management positions must work in the shops and engage in
post-employment accounting or marketing. Sometimes the seized factories
exchanged raw materials and products with each other, creating a shadow
economy in a spirit of solidarity.
One of the most famous cases is the Zanon ceramic factory in southern
Argentina. The owner closed it in 2001, and in January 2002 the workers
seized the factory. They began to govern it through open meetings and
commissions. From the workers and provided sales, management, planning,
security, compliance with sanitary norms, procurement, production and
work with the press. After the seizure, they re-hired workers who were
fired before the factory closed. In 2004, the team numbered 270 people,
and they produced 50% of production before closing. With the help of
doctors and psychologists, they organized a system of medical care at
the company. The workers found that just 2 WORKING DAYS a week was
enough to pay their salaries, so they reduced prices by 60% and set up a
network of suppliers to distribute ceramic tiles throughout the city. In
addition to the production of tiles, Zanon joined social movements: the
factory gave money to hospitals and schools, sold tiles cheaply to the
poor, hosted film screenings, performances and concerts, actions in
solidarity with other companies. In addition, the factory supported the
struggle of the Araucanian Indians. In the future, when the clay
supplier refused to work with Zanon for political reasons, the Araucans
began supplying clay to the factory. By April 2003, police, with the
support of the unions, had made four attempts to destroy the factory.
All of them were repulsed by workers together with residents of the
district and activists.
In July 2001, employees of the El Tigre supermarket in the Argentine
city of Rosario seized their jobs. The owner closed the store two months
earlier and declared himself bankrupt, and the workers had not been paid
for many months. After fruitless protests, workers opened El Tigre and
began running it on their own, with all workers participating in
decision-making through a general meeting mechanism. Quite in
solidarity, they lowered prices and began selling fruits and vegetables
from local farmers’ cooperatives and products produced in other seized
factories. In addition, they donated part of the premises to the
cultural center for the whole district. It hosted political debates,
student meetings, theater performances.
Now the Zanon plant has been renamed FaSinPat. On August 14, 2009, the
Neuquen Chamber of Deputies, yielding to popular pressure, finally
recognized the expropriation of the plant as legal.
Skeptics often deny the anarchist examples of small “primitive”
societies, arguing that large-scale organization is not possible given
population growth and scientific progress. But, in fact, nothing
prevents a large team from organizing into many small groups.
Small-scale organization is clearly possible. Even in the high-tech
industry, for example, Gore factories are quite successful in
coordinating with each other, suppliers and consumers, while keeping the
organization low. Each unit is able to organize its internal relations
just as accurately able to organize external ones.
The thesis that an army of officials and various managers is needed to
make decisions is just a myth. Most of the decisions we make in our
daily lives with friends, acquaintances, colleagues, and family, we make
based on interaction, not authority. Everyone has experience in
collective decision making.
Politically, anarchists are supporters of direct democracy. The
institution of direct democracy is based on collective decision-making.
All decisions are made either by collective vote or by delegation.
Scientific progress has greatly expanded and facilitated the range of
tools that can be used for horizontal decision-making. Direct democracy
is much more progressive and effective than any hierarchical system. For
comparison, first consider the current top-down decision-making system.
Now we can see a situation where the average person has no opportunity
to influence decision-making, even on issues that directly affect him.
Yes, in most countries there are elections, when every few years they
give the opportunity to vote for a candidate. But the elections are
completely ineffective and a failure in terms of people’s control over
power. To run for office, you need to have a considerable fortune to pay
for campaign wear and tear, which significantly limits the number of
people who can run in the election. In order to have enough money, you
need to own your own business. Most big businessmen do not run directly,
but sponsor their representative or even several. It is obvious that
after winning the election, such a candidate will defend the interests
of his investor, not the people. It follows that the set of candidates
we have are representatives of big business or their relatives, lovers,
friends or classmates. Therefore, it is not surprising that whoever wins
the next election, the situation of the people does not change. In
addition, a deputy is elected for a specific term, during which he has
unlimited powers in the area under his control, and the mechanism of
early re-election is almost impossible to launch. And it is simply
impossible for one person to understand the problems of everyone and at
the same time be a technical specialist in all areas.
Direct democracy, in turn, proposes to control power through delegation.
A delegate is elected to fulfill a specific goal, after which he loses
all authority. Society gives him instructions on how it would like to
see the end result, and reserves the right to withdraw it at any time.
Thus, control over the implementation is completely in the hands of the
people. But most decisions are still made directly, through meetings,
and thanks to the development of the Internet and technology, decisions
can be made without leaving home with one click, and discuss them in
forums.
Let’s move on to examples of the implementation of the principles of
direct democracy in life. Korean anarchists were given the opportunity
to demonstrate people’s ability to make their own decisions in 1929. At
the time, the Korean Anarcho-Communist Federation (KACF) had enough
support to create an autonomous zone in Xingming Province, outside
Korea, in Manchuria, but with 2 million Koreans. immigrants. They used
the assembly and the decentralized federal structure that grew out of
the KACF to create village councils that merged into county and regional
councils to discuss issues related to common agriculture, education, and
finance. They also formed an army led by anarchist Kim Jwa-Jin, which
used guerrilla tactics against Soviet and Japanese forces. KACF sections
in China, Korea and Japan have organized international support for the
movement. However, sandwiched between Stalin’s and Japanese armies, the
autonomous province was finally defeated in 1931. But for two years,
many residents freed themselves from the power of landlords and rulers
and reaffirmed their ability to make collective decisions, organize
their daily lives, create their own dream with their own hands, and
protect it from the occupying armies.
One of the main inspirers of the anti-globalization movement of the
21^(st) century was the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (SANO). It
originated on October 17, 1983 in a poor region of Chiaps, Mexico. The
peasants of Chiapas were constantly seeking protection and leaving their
settlements for several reasons. First, many were dissatisfied with the
authoritarian rule of the Kasiks, wealthy influential elders. Second,
the Indians came under pressure from pastoralists. Since the 1960s, the
government has felled valuable timber and vacated areas for extensive
livestock and agriculture. To protect the territories, wealthy
landowners have long held paramilitary formations — the so-called “Free
Fighting Brigades of Chiapas”, which date back to the Mexican Revolution
of 1910–1920. Brigade fighters, unofficially known as the White Guard,
often raided Indian settlements to destroy and seize territory. The
Zapatista movement declared itself in full force on January 1, 1994, at
the time of the entry into force of the North American Free Trade
Agreement. At that time, the Indians took part in an armed uprising led
by SANO, for which the Zapatistas had been preparing for almost ten
years. Old rifles and wooden models were the main weapons in the hands
of SANO fighters. However, they began their uprising in the midst of the
New Year holidays, so the rebels managed to occupy several key cities in
Chiapas and close all transport hubs for a couple of days. As a result
of the Zapatista uprising, at least 145 people were killed and no
government casualties were reported. Soon the government counterattacked
and the separatists had to retreat inland. Mass demonstrations took
place in support of the rebels across the country, forcing the
government to negotiate with them. Since 1994, the Zapatista movement
has been creating a system of direct democracy. It has become a network
form of organization, hundreds of thousands of people are involved in
the decision-making process. There are 32 municipalities, each with 50
to 100 communities. The presence of 5 language groups, mountainous
terrain, jungle and bad roads complicate the task of organizing in the
district.
Before the uprising, many communities did not have enough fertile land,
so people worked, often in appalling conditions, on local landowners’
farms. After the uprising, many landowners fled, and in most cases the
abandoned land was seized and used to create new communities. Regular
weekly assemblies are held after Sunday Mass, and sometimes even part of
it. The Assembly is open and everyone over the age of 12 has the right
to speak and vote, although voting is very rare. These meetings can last
up to an hour, and usually raise practical issues related to work or
spending. The Assembly elects delegates who are appointed to coordinate
work in specific areas. Delegates perform their duties for a limited
period of time (one to two years) and may be re-elected if the community
feels that the delegate is not doing his or her job as desired by
society. There are also teams that perform specific tasks within the
community. They are formed at the assembly and are responsible to it,
but otherwise they are completely autonomous. Diez produces: coffee,
honey, bread, some also sew, raise cattle and chickens. Some of the
products of these groups go to the members themselves, and the surplus
is sent to the central repository of the community, which is also
controlled by the assembly. For big issues, such as making peace or
declaring war, a “consultation” must take place — roughly speaking, the
decision-making process is like a referendum, accompanied by lively
discussions within local communities. This process takes months in all
teams are held councils. On which they study, analyze and discuss. Then
there is a vote. After which the official results are announced. These
reports included: date, place of meeting, number of people present (men,
women and children over 12), opinions and positions of principle.
Obviously, general meetings are too chaotic to resolve private issues.
Problems that need coordination among several communities have
necessitated the creation of local councils. They are called autonomous
municipalities. 100 communities, such as the Mexican anarchist Ricardo
Magon, are an autonomous municipality. The Autonomous Municipality of
Land and Freedom on the border with Guatemala includes a total of 120
communities. Societies in the territory of the Indians themselves decide
to join the municipality in assemblies with the participation of all
members of this community. The communities then elect their
representatives to the municipality. Each representative is elected for
an individual community and may be removed if the community’s mandate is
not met. A person who holds a position in the municipality does not
receive a salary for it, but the costs of the representative are paid by
the community, which he or he represents through the cooperation of
community members. Sometimes board members support a representative in
his or her work on the farm so that he or she is not distracted from
working on the board. Chiaps is very poor, and the fact that structures
of direct democracy can exist there, in the pernicious conditions of
creeping war, demonstrates how effective it is.
The MST movement in Brazil generally specializes in seizing land from
large landowners for further settlement there. It arose against the
background of great social fragmentation. The country has a large number
of poor landless people, and most of the resources were in the hands of
a small number of landowners. The MST informally has one and a half
million members who interact with each other on the basis of direct
democracy. During the 1980s and 1999s, new MST settlements were set up
by activists from organizations looking for landless people in rural
areas or mainly in poor urban areas who wanted to form a group and seize
land. They then had to go through a two-month base period, during which
they held meetings and debates to try to create a sense of community,
closeness and common political views. They then seized a plot of unused
land belonging to a large landowner, selected delegates to unite on a
federal basis with other organizations, and began farming. Activists
working with the local MST periodically came to see if the settlement
needed help with tools and materials to resolve internal differences or
protect itself from the police, military, or large landowners, who often
conspired to threaten and kill MST members. Now the organization is
actively pursuing educational projects: opening universities and
schools.
Let us emphasize once again that the idea of ​​the impossibility of human
existence without the state is a myth. Mankind has lived in horizontal
societies for most of its history, but many settlements and cities now
live on collective decision-making. And those who continue, despite all
the facts to claim that a person can realize himself only within the
state, drive themselves into a dead end. Because in all history the
state has never served the needs of the people. It has always been an
institution of oppression. And officials had a decent life within the
state.
It is crime and the penitentiary system that are usually the main
arguments in defense of the need for the state apparatus. That without
the police, prisons and laws, thousands of criminals will appear on the
streets at once, who will not allow decent citizens to live in peace.
And only laws deter our world from being absorbed by the chaos of crime.
All this is perceived by most people as an axiom that does not need
proof. But this “axiom” does not stand up to criticism and exists only
through state propaganda.
The police and the state are often the main cause of crime.
Historically, law enforcement agencies did not arise out of society’s
need to protect themselves from criminals. In particular, one of the
first modern police forces is the London Police, founded by Robert Peel
in 1829. What do we know about Britain in the 19^(th) century? It is a
time of large-scale protests, strikes and riots. It was for the purpose
of suppressing the labor movement that the first police force in Great
Britain was created. It performs this function all over the world to
this day. Policemen like to cover various media, movies and shows as
brave heroes. But the experience of most people who have been in contact
with the police is strikingly different from the propaganda image. The
emergence of the police was not a response to crime or an attempt to
solve this problem, on the contrary, its formation has given rise to new
types of offenses.
Most of the criminals behind bars are members of the poor, who have been
driven to break the law by their difficult economic situation. The
state, instead of helping such people, prefers to put them in prison,
which only worsens the situation. Not only are all prisoners
budget-funded, but prison conditions do not help to correct a person. On
the contrary, in prisons a person breaks down psychologically. And the
guards are not ashamed to make money on prisoners by distributing drugs
and alcohol among them. After being released from prison, a person
receives a stamp that will make it difficult to find a job and
socialize. Most face endless hardships after release, relapse, and end
up in prison again. Quite often people, because of poverty, deliberately
commit crimes in order to end up behind bars and thus get at least some
shelter and food.
It is no secret that the largest crimes are committed by police,
officials and oligarchs. But they will never end up in prison. Because
in the state there can be no question of equality before the law. A good
lawyer is free to interpret the law as he sees fit. Laws are written by
officials. That is why they can not only violate them, but also write,
adapting to their criminal schemes. And their implementation is
monitored by the police, which gives unlimited opportunities in the area
under their control. Not surprisingly, it is the police who cover up all
illegal business. And the highest-ranking official, the president, is
generally free to violate his own law, because he is not under anyone’s
control. We remember the story of Poroshenko and Roshen. In a society
where there is no social equality, there can be no question of equality
before the law.
Anarchists offer an alternative — a society that can defend itself and
resolve internal conflicts without the intervention of the police, the
courts or prisons. A society that does not divide everyone into
law-abiding citizens and criminals. Anarchists prefer to fight criminals
by solving the economic and psychological problems that give rise to
crime. And the state and the police are considered one of the main
sources of crime. Consider the historical examples of evidence of these
anarchist principles.
Let’s start with the prisoners who served time in the maximum security
prison in Massachusetts, proved that so-called criminals are less
responsible for violence in our society than law enforcement. After the
Attica prison uprising in 1971, the country focused on the failures of
the penitentiary system in correcting and rehabilitating people. The
governor of Massachusetts has appointed a reformist commissioner to the
Office of Corrections. Meanwhile, a union of prisoners was formed at
Walpole Prison to protect itself and other prisoners from guards, block
the prison administration, and organize educational and health programs
for prisoners. They demanded more visits, the opportunity to work on a
paid or voluntary basis outside the prison, and to earn money to help
their families. And the main thing they hoped for was to end the
relapses and finally abandon the prison system. Black prisoners formed
the Black Power cultural and educational group to unite and fight
racism. First of all, they tried to end the racial war between the
prisoners, which was provoked by the guards. Despite the repression, the
leaders of all groups signed a truce, which was guaranteed by the
promise to kill any prisoner who violated it. At the beginning of the
Volpol Prisoners’ Union, a senior police inspector tried to separate
them and launched a campaign of repression against black prisoners. But
in response, all prisoners went on strike, refusing to work or leaving
their cells behind. For three months, they were beaten, solitary,
starved, denied medical care, addicted to tranquilizers distributed free
of charge by security guards, and held in appalling conditions when
their excrement and garbage accumulated in their cells and were not
exported. But the prisoners refused to surrender or separate. In the
end, the state had to give up: they ran out of license plates made by
Walpole prisoners, and the press did not comment well on the prison due
to the conflict. The prisoners met their first demand: the resignation
of a senior police inspector. They then gained additional rights: an
increase in the number of visitors, the opportunity to go on holiday,
their own programs, a review of cases and the release of prisoners in
solitary confinement, and the presence of civilian observers in prison.
The guards did not like it, and they resigned in protest of the loss of
control. They thought that this act would show how necessary they were,
but to their shame it had the opposite effect. For two months, the
prisoners themselves controlled the prison. There were no guards inside,
but the state controlled the perimeter to avoid escapes. Civilian
observers continued to remain in prison for 24 hours, but were trained
to stand aside, documenting circumstances, communicating with prisoners,
and preventing violence from security guards, which sometimes appeared
inside. Walpole was one of the most dangerous prisons in the country,
but as long as it was run by prisoners, the rate of homicides and rapes
was zero. Prisoners dispelled two main myths about the criminal justice
system: people who have committed a crime should be isolated, forcibly
rehabilitated, and not independently control the process of their
correction. The guards tried to stop this disgraceful experiment of
abolishing the prison. The Prisoners’ Union was a powerful enough social
force to provoke a political crisis. To keep his job, the head of the
department was forced to return the guards to the prison. Key figures in
law enforcement agencies — police, security, prosecutors — politicians
and media workers opposed the reform and made it impossible to achieve
it within democratic means. Civilian observers unhesitatingly agreed
that the guards had returned the chaos and violence to the prison,
deliberately destroying the peaceful achievements of the prisoners’
self-organization. Eventually, to destroy the prisoners’ union, security
guards called police, who shot several prisoners and tortured the main
organizers. The most famous leader of Black Power was able to save his
life only through armed self-defense. Many civilian observers and the
head of the Correctional Facility himself, who was soon forced to
resign, came to the conclusion that prisons should be abolished. The
detainees who captured Walpole continued to fight for their freedom and
dignity. Now in Walpole Prison, now called MCI Cedar Junction, people
are being sent to mental hospitals, tortured and killed for those who
dared to fight for their right to work for a safer society.
The history of Exarcheia, a district in the center of Athens, has shown
for many years that the police do not protect us, but rather threaten
us. The Exarchate has long been the basis of the anarchist movement and
counterculture. The area has protected itself from gentrification and
police scrutiny through fierce resistance through radical direct action.
After the destruction of property or public pressure, the police
surrendered and agreed that the streets belonged to the people.
Undercover police officers who entered the area were repeatedly brutally
beaten. In preparation for the Olympic Games, the city authorities tried
to renovate the Exarchate Park to turn it from a place to walk into a
tourist attraction. The new plan provided for many inconveniences, such
as a large fountain and no benches. Residents of the district organized
a rally, came there with their own renovation plan and told the
construction company that they would work according to the residents’
plan, not the city’s. The constant destruction of construction
equipment, in the end, showed the construction company who is the owner.
Today, the renovated park is pleasing to the eye with lots of greenery
and new benches. The Exarchate is often attacked by the police, and
there is always an assault squad nearby. In recent years, the police
have tried to occupy the Exarchate, deploying armed police officers
ready to attack at any time on the perimeter of the area. Residents
often prevent the police from carrying out their functions in a normal
manner. People paint graffiti and glue posters in broad daylight. This
is an area where the law does not apply. Be that as it may, this is the
safest area of ​​Athens. The crimes are political in nature and not
directed against the individual. It’s safe to walk down the street alone
at night, unless, of course, you’re a cop, the people on the streets are
relaxed and friendly, and personal property is safe, unless it’s
expensive cars and things like that. The police are not liked here, they
are not waiting, and they are not needed here.
And it is in this situation that the police show their true face. It is
not a public necessity and was created not as a reaction to crime, but
as an institution to maintain control over society. Unable to break the
rebellious spirit of the Exarchate, the police used a more aggressive
tactic — military occupation of the area. On December 6, 2008, this
approach led to the inevitable: two cops shot dead 15-year-old anarchist
Alexis Grigoropolus in the heart of the Exarchate. After the anarchists
began counterattacks: throughout Greece, police officers were beaten
with batons, stones, set fire to Molotov cocktails and in several cases
they were shot with firearms. The liberated areas of Athens and other
Greek cities are growing, and police are afraid to evict new squats
because people have proven they are stronger. In recent years, police
have tried to flood the area, and in particular the anarchist movement,
with drugs such as heroin. They directly incited drug addicts to hang
out in the Exarchate Park. Anarchists and other residents of the area
had to defend themselves against this type of police violence. They
organized resistance to drug cartels, caught and expelled distributors,
and sometimes led to armed skirmishes between residents and drug
traffickers. Residents are still repelling gangs and constantly
conducting raids and raids. In particular, the K-VOX squat fought
actively and during 2015–2016 activists managed to completely expel drug
traffickers from the area. The K-VOX squat, by the way, was
unsuccessfully seized by the police in 2013. The media is now instilling
fear in people, increasing the number of reports of crimes against
society and linking it to the existence of autonomous provinces. In
fact, crime is an instrument of the state used to intimidate people,
isolate them from each other and create the illusion of the need for the
state. But the state is nothing but a mafia that has taken control of
the whole society, and the laws are a description of everything they
stole from us.
The most brutal crimes have their roots in the cultural tradition. The
rate of crimes such as murder will drop significantly in anarchic
societies, as most of the causes are poverty, glorification of violence
on television, prisons and police, military service, sexism, racism,
stereotypes and low level of education — will disappear completely or
significantly decrease.
Thus, in an anarchic society, violent crimes will be much less common.
But if they do happen, will society be more vulnerable to criminals?
However, no one can deny that murderous psychopaths may appear from time
to time. Suffice it to say that a society capable of overthrowing the
government is unlikely to succumb to lone murderous psychopaths.
Anarchism is often used as a synonym for chaos, but the real root of
chaos is the state apparatus. It is the police, prisons and the law that
are conducive to crime. A free society is able to defend itself.
Another myth of capitalism is that competition provides technical
progress. That as if without competition people will lose motivation to
develop. In the real world, capitalist competition often does not help,
but hinders the development of science. Because, in order to promote
their position in the market, it is profitable not only to invest in the
development of new technologies and modernization of enterprises, but
also to hinder the normal development of competitors. Capitalism and
state control pose a number of problems that complicate the work of
scientists.
One such problem is copyright. Although it seemed that they should
motivate the work of scientists by guaranteeing them the right to
dispose of and profit from their invention, but as often happens,
intellectual property mostly does not belong to those who created it.
The inventions are the joint work of many laboratory employees who
receive neither recognition nor profits because their corporation
acquires patent ownership. Patents themselves often slow down the spread
of inventions because they inflate the price of their use. And sometimes
progressive discoveries are completely frozen. As do large oil
companies, which buy patents for the production of batteries used in
modern electric vehicles, thereby regulating, or rather, limiting and
restraining their production. The development of these technologies is
extremely unprofitable for oil giants because it threatens their
economic dominance. And modernization is an extra huge expense.
Therefore, it is more profitable for them to artificially prevent the
development of advanced technologies. And the most horrible thing about
copyright is that various drugs are also branded, which prevents them
from being easily accessible to the masses, and creates pharmaceutical
monopolies. That is, new vaccines that would help kill dangerous viruses
are subject to patent restrictions, which inflate prices and limit their
production. As an example, patent restrictions on common vaccines were
seriously discussed at the UN Conference on Ebola.
Another major attraction of competition is planned aging. To stay in the
market, entrepreneurs need to constantly buy their products. Therefore,
instead of focusing on improvements, businessmen are deliberately
underestimating the quality of things for quick damage and malfunctions,
which would motivate its owner to buy a new one. Also, they are
constantly stamping new versions of their product, which are only
cosmetically different in several functions from the previous ones.
Thus, all resources are invested in the development of low-quality scrap
metal and marketing campaigns, which does not help the development of
new technologies.
The state, in turn, although provides grants for the development of
innovation, but most of the special priority are those technologies that
strengthen its position. Insane public finances are spent on developing
new weapons, improving police equipment, or developing surveillance
systems. The money for subsidies is drawn from the state budget, which
is replenished from taxes. But the people who pay for them have no tools
to control what new technology they end up spending on. But businessmen
often invest money to promote a loyal deputy in the administrative
apparatus, which will continue to allocate various benefits and
scientific subsidies to support their business. At the same time, he can
pass bills against competitors. Such as the introduction of new excise
taxes, tax increases, strengthening state control. Which will have a
positive impact on the development of the patron’s corporation, but
projects that could really improve the lives of society will not receive
funding and will not be implemented.
Anarchists completely criticize this approach in the development of
science. Both with the economy and scientific progress is not adjusted
to the needs of the majority, but to the needs of financial elites. In
turn, anarchists believe that everyone should have access to new
discoveries without restrictions. That, thanks to free access, everyone
will be able to improve the latest methods, and they will be able to
spread faster in society. And the best useful inventions come from those
who need them. And for this they do not need either the state or
capitalism. There are many examples in the history of the practice of
anarchism of inventing new technologies to solve urgent problems.
Ukrainian anarchist Makhno was the first in history to use mobile
machine guns — wheelbarrows, the effectiveness of which against enemies
who use traditional tactics was staggering. After the Spanish
revolutionaries seized the land of the landlords, the peasants lost the
need to grow a single crop for export. Farmers improved the soil and
increased the efficiency of the farm through mixed planting: they
planted shade-tolerant grains under orange trees. The Levantine Peasant
Federation (also in Spain) organized an agricultural university, and
other groups established a center for the study of plant diseases.
Millions of peasants live in the densely populated mountain valleys of
New Guinea. These communities have no state and are based on consensus.
Until recently, they had no contact with the West. Although racist
Europeans considered them “Stone Age savages”, they developed one of the
most sophisticated tillage systems in the world. These technologies are
so specific and numerous that they can be studied for years. Confident
Western scientists are still unable to explain how most of these
technologies work. And these technologies have proven their
effectiveness. For seven thousand years, these mountaineers have been
using a dynamic but sustainable form of agriculture. It saves them from
major environmental changes that could destroy less innovative
societies. They have methods of irrigation, changes in soil moisture,
cross-cultivation and many others. They have no leaders, and decisions
are made collectively. Due to the lack of copyright, inventions are
freely and rapidly distributed in a large decentralized society. Many
skeptics smile with contempt at the thought that nations that do not
even use metal tools can be an example of technological development.
However, technology is not necessarily accompanied by electronic
gadgets. Technology is adaptation to the environment. The people of New
Guinea have adapted to their conditions with a complex set of techniques
that have allowed them to meet all their needs without destroying the
environment. Western civilization did not even come close to such a
result.
There are a lot of anarchic examples that are more in line with the
computer age. Relatively recently, open source programs have become
widespread. Decentralized networks with thousands of people working
together on a voluntary and open basis. They have created sophisticated
software on which the economy of the information age now depends. Large
corporations patent and close the codes of their software products, and
as part of the open source approach, it is available to everyone so that
everyone can view or improve it. As a result, most open programs are
better, and usually easier to fix. Traditionally, patented software is
less resistant to virus attacks because fewer eyes watch for
vulnerabilities.
Kickstarter is a powerful alternative to government subsidies.
Kickstarter is a site for funding creative projects, where various
talented people post presentations of their projects, anyone who is
interested can transfer money to them. Although both the state and
corporations have a large resource base, at the same time, most of the
sponsors on the kickstarter are ordinary people. Due to the fact that
there are thousands of them, they are free to finance huge projects that
would not otherwise be able to find financial support. In this way,
people have the opportunity to finance projects in which they are
interested.
Another example of an open decentralized platform is Wikipedia. It
appeared recently, in 2001. Today it is the largest encyclopedia in the
world, with more than 10 million articles in more than 250 languages.
These articles are not written by experts. Wikipedia is created by
everyone. Anyone can write or edit articles. This openness and trust
creates the opportunity for many people to quickly edit information. The
broad wikipedia community has a tremendous capacity for self-regulation.
Therefore, the facts of vandalism, incorrect editing or fake articles
are quickly revealed. Wikipedia articles carry much more knowledge than
a small elite group of status scholars. There have been several known
cases of deliberate sabotage, such as when the staff of The Colbert
Report rewrote the story in one of the articles and used it in their
program. However, this damage was quickly corrected, as is often the
case with incorrect information. A more complex problem is corporations
that use Wikipedia for PR and hire employees to edit articles to create
a good company image. However, thanks to millions of users, Wikipedia
effectively fights such cases and contains much more information about
corporate crimes than any traditional encyclopedia whose author can be
bribed.
Anarchists are also often the initiators of some technical developments
in the field of IT. The state is constantly trying to control the
Internet. Censorship limits more and more different resources. But there
is a relentless fight against piracy. The Internet is essentially a
network for the free dissemination of information that officials and
business owners do not like. Anarchists, in turn, developed software to
circumvent censorship. In particular, bitmask is a development of
anarchists.
Capitalism and competition have long since become obsolete. They do not
help the development of technology, but bind them. Only free access to
the achievements of science and the subsidization of inventions by
society itself will ensure effective scientific progress that will work
to meet the needs of everyone.
It is very difficult to imagine any other political system than the
connection between capitalism and the state, which would be so
devastating to the environment. This couple endangered the survival of
the entire human race. It creates incentives for the exploitation and
destruction of nature and creates a society incapable of protecting its
habitat. In this article, we will look at examples of how states are
greedily destroying the environment. And what alternatives anarchists
offer to protect the environment.
The main driving force of capitalism is making a profit. He is
constantly looking for new places on the world map that can be ruined
for the greatest economic benefit. It is not profitable for them to
modernize their enterprises in order to make their pollution less
dangerous, because they will lose money and will not receive any profits
in their favor, which in the conditions of fierce competition in the
market will lead to bankruptcy. Financial elites are not ashamed to
spray our planet for money, thus making it increasingly uninhabitable.
In large industrial cities, people suffocate from smog. And more and
more areas on Earth are being polluted with garbage every day. And
everyone can watch the effects of global climate change. But most people
who join the fight against capitalism because of global environmental
problems continue to look to the state and hope that it will be able to
limit and resolve the situation. One of the flagship examples that the
majority focuses on is Japan. A country where deforestation and
hazardous emissions have been severely restricted at the state level.
There are now five national wildlife protection areas with a total area
of ​​5,631 ha and ten nature reserves with a total area of ​​21,593 ha. Only
research activities are allowed in these areas. The strictness of
control can be illustrated by the following example: it was forbidden to
remove even broken branches from protected areas. In addition to these
zones, at the end of March 1999, Japan had regional protected areas with
a total area of ​​73,727 hectares. It should also be noted that today in
Japan there are 28 national parks and 55 quasi-national parks in the
most beautiful natural parts of the country. And here, it would seem,
what is not an example of successful government regulation? And the
problem is that although Japan has limited the exploitation of nature in
its country, it still continues to destroy nature on a huge scale beyond
its borders. Japanese society is consuming an increasing amount of
imported wood, thus increasing felling in other countries. This led not
only to environmental destruction, but also to wars for the seizure of
important resources. An analogy can be observed in Western Europe, where
state conservation was carried out through the colonial exploitation of
third world countries. For nature, unlike humans, there are no borders
between countries. Therefore, its protection in one place by destroying
it in another does not change the overall situation.
Capitalism and the state all share the same myth of nature as supports
its exploitation. This mania for greatness has already shown its,
without a doubt, suicidal nature. Instead, anarchism promotes a culture
that takes into account various environmental issues. Owners of
corporations do not think about how people will survive in smog-clouded
cities. The only thing that matters to them is their own income. As we
have discussed in more detail in our article on the anarchist economy,
it is based on the needs of everyone. And living in a healthy
environment is one of the main. The grassroots planned economy is
independent of fierce competition in the market and does not promote a
culture of consumption, so it can afford to invest in the modernization
of enterprises, as people themselves are interested in protecting nature
because it affects disease, mortality and quality of life.
Anarchists do not yet have the experience to solve global environmental
problems due to the fact that stateless, anarchist societies in recent
history have not covered most of the Earth. However, anarchists, as a
movement without borders, exercise global coordination. They are
organizing international protests against major sources of pollution and
their state lobbyists, such mobilizations are taking place during the G8
summits, to hold demonstrations against countries most responsible for
global warming and other issues, to which hundreds of thousands of
people from dozens of countries have responded. In response to the
global activity of corporations, anarchists are coordinating and
protesting around the world.
For example, the large-scale protests, boycotts and acts of sabotage
against Shell Oil, which were coordinated between people in Nigeria,
Europe and North America during the 1980s and 1990s. across the country
during a global boycott aimed at punishing a campaign in support of a
government responsible for policies of racial discrimination against
indigenous peoples in South Africa. In the Netherlands, the underground
anti-authoritarian group RARA (Revolutionary Anti-Racist Action)
organized a series of bombings of Shell Oil facilities, which played a
crucial role in forcing the company to withdraw from South Africa. In
1995, when Shell planned to flood an old oil rig in the North Sea, it
was forced to abandon the plan after protests in Denmark and Britain,
arson and shelling of Shell gas stations in two German cities, as well
as a boycott that reduced prices for petroleum products in this country
by 10%. All these activities are a prototype of global networks that can
protect the environment in the anarchic future. If we succeed in
destroying capitalism and the state, we will eliminate the greatest
systemic destroyers of the environment, as well as the structural
barriers that now complicate mass action to protect nature.
Here is an example of solving environmental problems in a horizontal
society. As much of the Netherlands is below sea level and almost the
entire land is at risk of flooding, farmers have had to constantly work
to maintain and improve the water regulation system. Flood dams were a
common part of the infrastructure that benefited everyone, but
maintaining them in working order required everyone’s contribution for
the benefit of all. Each individual farmer benefited from evading water
regulation responsibilities, but society as a whole could lose in the
event of a flood. This example is particularly important because Dutch
society is devoid of the anarchic values ​​common to indigenous societies.
This area has long been converted to Christianity, and here were sown
its harmful to nature and hierarchical values. For hundreds of years it
was under state control, but still the empire collapsed, and in the
XII-XIII centuries the Netherlands was essentially deprived of state
control. Central power in the form of church dignitaries, feudal lords
and guilds remained strong in the southern regions and Zealand (where
capitalism later emerged), but in northern regions such as Friesland,
society was largely decentralized and horizontal. At that time, the
contacts between the cities were separated by a huge number of miles — a
few days away. Keeping in touch with them was as difficult as keeping in
touch with the opposite end of the earth today. Despite such
difficulties, rural communities, towns and villages have been able to
build and maintain large-scale infrastructure to reclaim land near the
reservoir and protect against flooding in the face of fluctuating sea
levels. Neighborhood councils organized joint work teams or shared
responsibilities between communities, and built and maintained dams,
canals, locks, and drainage systems needed to protect society as a
whole. It was a comprehensive bottom-up approach, from local
communities, which solved the environmental problem through
self-organization.
The destruction of nature by capitalism makes anarchism not just a more
progressive system, but a condition for the survival of mankind. If we
do not destroy the modern system, it will destroy our planet.
The institution of the army is the legitimate child of the modern
political system, so it is not surprising that it has absorbed most of
what is so strongly criticized by anarchists. Despite all the
restrictions on human rights imposed by the military, it is objective in
carrying out its tasks effectively. If the anarchists want to oppose the
current system, they must, one way or another, have an alternative force
behind them to defeat the troops that will defend the officials.
We will not focus on the army’s shortcomings, as the scale of its human
rights violations is obvious to everyone. She herself is a good example
of how powerless the people are against the state apparatus. In every
country of the world a person can be forcibly mobilized and sent to war.
Of course, no one takes into account the political beliefs of
conscripts. Nevertheless, we are assured that the source of power is the
people. State propaganda justifies this curtailment of human rights by
the need to protect the homeland from external aggressors. The state
always needs such an aggressor for its normal functioning; if it does
not exist, it will certainly invent it, because it is very convenient to
limit our rights and hide the problems of domestic policy behind the
scenes of the fight against the external enemy. You don’t have to go far
to follow the example — both in Ukraine and in neighboring Russia, the
idea that all protest sentiments are playing into the hands of the
Kremlin or the State Department is now being actively promoted. Crazy
money is allocated for the maintenance of the army. Expenditures on the
“war” have always been one of the largest in state budgets. In
particular, 153.242 billion hryvnias were set aside for law enforcement
agencies in Ukraine this year, and 86 billion hryvnias were allocated
for healthcare. The state allocates no less to support military
propaganda. It is obvious that all these resources, as well as
able-bodied people involved in military service, would be much more
effective in improving living standards. And most ironically, the army
does not protect us. And does not defend our interests. Moreover, in
many parts of the world, the military is being used to quell protests.
Anarchists are convinced that a free armed people is able to defend
itself, so they consider it necessary to ensure that everyone has the
right to own a weapon (of course, after a mental health test). Training
should be carried out on a voluntary basis, in the shortest possible
time, according to the most intensive program in the training centers at
the place of residence. Meetings should be held periodically to check
the readiness, condition of the entrusted property, skills recovery and
retraining. The hierarchical structure of the army is organized by the
institute of elected commanders, ie in wartime or in training the
commander must unquestioningly obey, and in quiet time he must answer
before the meeting and may be re-elected. So, the army will really
protect the interests of the people. To be more precise, the people
themselves will be an army.
A striking example of such alternative military structures was the Black
Guard. It was created as an alternative to traditional army structures,
and it was about training units capable of operating in guerrilla
conditions. In view of this, anarchist practice, instead of a
disciplined integrated army, has created a number of disciplined wives
who act not in open combat but in guerrilla units. It was formed in
1917–1918. Detachments of the Black Guard were in different parts of the
country. For example, detachments of Black Guards operated in Ukraine in
1917 (in particular, Nestor Makhno formed the Black Guard Regiment in
Gulyaipol), and in Moscow in April 1918 there were 50 units of the Black
Guard, which were formed on March 5 by the Moscow Federation of
Anarchist Groups. The army was replenished with volunteers, and all
officers were elected. The strength of the Black Guard grew right before
our eyes. In addition, until March 1918, the anarchists controlled 25
mansions in Moscow, some of which were located near strategically
important points of the city. In the entire history of the Soviet
revolution, it was in Ukraine that anarchism proved to be the strongest.
The rebels called themselves the Revolutionary Insurgent Army (RPA).
They are often called simply Makhnovists. As the number of the insurgent
anarchist army grew, it developed into a more formal structure to carry
out strategic coordination on several fronts. At the same time, in
essence, it continued to be a voluntary police force based on peasant
support. The main directions of policy and strategy were adopted as a
result of the general meeting of peasants and workers. The flexible
joint structure and strong support from the peasantry helped rather than
hindered the liberation of a 450-by-750-kilometer area with a total
population of 7 million. The Makhnovists of southern Ukraine managed to
preserve the anarchic nature of their lives and struggles in the
extremely difficult conditions of hostilities. They tried to stop the
Jewish pogroms, while Ukrainian nationalists and Bolsheviks fanned the
flames of anti-Semitism to blame the Jews for all the problems. The
Makhnovists preferred to defend the region without interfering in their
socio-economic system, and this position of “non-interference” was
reinforced by the emphasis on direct democracy within the movement. Each
unit elected its own commander, who could be removed by decision of the
same group of soldiers. Commanders were not honored, they did not have
material privileges, during the attack they had no right to sit in the
rear. The attitude of the peasants towards them was unique compared to
other hostile forces. The Makhnovists could not exist without popular
support, and the peasantry voluntarily provided them with horses, food,
medical care, shelter, and intelligence during the protracted guerrilla
war with the Red Army.
The tactics of decentralized troops are increasingly being used in
modern wars, even by states. One such successful example is the 2006
Lebanese-Israeli war. The Israeli army is one of the world’s best
centralized armies. Professional, well-off, experienced and highly
disciplined. But in the fighting in southern Lebanon, Hezbollah used the
tactics of decentralized leadership, which was able to break the
numerically and qualitatively superior Israeli army. This tactic, based
on the operations of autonomous groups of fighters, was developed based
on the experience of hostilities in the Afghan, Vietnamese and Iran-Iraq
wars. Hezbollah’s besieged units received assistance from the nearest
unit, not on the basis of orders received, but on the basis of current
circumstances, when individual units made decisions on their own. The
militants operated without units typical of a centralized army: both
guerrilla warfare methods and the tactics of small units were used.
During the fighting, they acted in units of up to 50 people, often in
groups of 15–20 people. There were also small groups of 6–8 people with
5–8 anti-aircraft guns, 1–2 machine guns, and an additional supply of
missiles was in well-disguised bunkers. These groups operated mainly at
night and, using PNB, struck enemy tanks and other armored vehicles at a
distance of 1.5–2 km. The skilful use of ATGM by the militants was noted
not only to defeat the enemy personnel who occupied positions in houses
and various buildings. Especially effective in the latter case were the
old ATGM “Baby”. Grenade launchers were actively used to destroy
manpower. Tactics of sudden attacks were actively used, which turned
almost into hand-to-hand combat, which did not allow Israeli troops to
use helicopters and machine guns. An example of this is the battle for
Hezbollah headquarters, when for several days Israeli soldiers not only
did not defeat the combatants in shelters at a depth of 20–30 meters,
but also found themselves surrounded. The Israeli military, which took
part in the fighting, notes the good command and organization of Sheikh
Nasrallah’s troops. Even when the IDF managed to inflict severe blows on
the Shiites, the decentralized system of government functioned. For
example, in Bint Jbel, Israeli paratroopers and Golan fighters killed up
to 70% of the militants, but even on the last day of the war the city
was not controlled by the IDF, its losses increased with each passing
day, and Hezbollah field commanders responded. for this area of ​​“work”,
did not stop directing the actions of the militants and sent help to
Bint Jbeil. The situation in Aita al-Shaab was not the best: the
Israelis besieged the village for several weeks, constantly striking it,
but the resistance of the Shiites did not diminish. At the same time,
Israeli losses grew. Israeli special forces officers said that even
during the raid on Baal-Bek, when the surprise for the Shiites was
complete, the militants resisted the Israeli paratroopers in an
organized manner. Although Hezbollah has nothing to do with anarchists,
it is an authoritarian organization of pro-Iranian Shiite Muslim
fundamentalists. It is controlled by an extensive bureaucracy and has a
business with a turnover of hundreds of millions of dollars. There is no
reason to suspect these extremely unsympathetic people of their love of
anarchist methods and tactics. However, theory and practice have led
them to use decentralization methods that have proven to be best suited
to the conditions of war in the region.
However, questions may arise as to how protest movements will be able to
repel highly professional and well-armed armies. In general, the protest
movements have repeatedly defeated professional troops. This usually
happened in times of economic crisis. In the late 1990s, the World Bank
threatened to refuse a large loan on which the Bolivian government
depended heavily if it did not agree to privatize all water resources in
Cochabamba (one of Bolivia’s largest cities). Authorities agreed to the
terms and signed a contract with a consortium led by corporations from
England, Italy, Spain, the United States and Bolivia. The water
consortium, unaware of local conditions, immediately raised water
prices, forcing many families to pay a fifth of their monthly income
just for the right to use water. In addition, a strict policy of
disconnection from the water supply of any house that did not pay its
bills on time was imposed. In January 2000, major protests erupted
against water privatization. The crowds of protesters in the city
consisted mostly of indigenous peasants. They were quickly joined by
laid-off workers, street vendors, youth, students, and anarchists.
Protesters seized the central square and barricaded the city’s main
roads. They staged a general strike, which paralyzed city life for 4
days. On February 4, the main protest march was attacked by police and
soldiers. 200 demonstrators were arrested. 70 people and 51 law
enforcement officers were injured in the clashes. In April, the people
recaptured the central square of Cochabamba, and when the government
launched an active crackdown, protests spread to the cities of La Paz,
Oruro and Potosi, as well as a large number of rural areas. Most of the
main routes in the country have been blocked. On April 8, the Bolivian
president declared 90 days of martial law. Martial law forbade the
gathering of more than 4 people, restricted political activity, allowed
the police to make arbitrary arrests, imposed a curfew, and imposed
military censorship on radio stations. Episodically policemen joined
demonstrations, demanding increased salaries, and even participated in
some rebellions. But as soon as the government raised their salaries,
they returned to work and resumed the usual practice of beating
protesters and arresting former comrades-in-arms. Across the country,
people revolted against the police and military with Molotov stones and
cocktails. The number of killed and wounded was growing. On April 9,
soldiers trying to dismantle a barricade on a highway clashed with
resistance and opened fire, killing two and wounding several other
protesters. Witnesses attacked the soldiers, seized weapons and opened
fire in response. They later stormed the hospital, captured a military
captain who had been wounded in a shootout, and shot him. In the face of
growing violence from protesters, despite (but rather due to) numerous
killings and brutal repression by the army and police, the state was
forced to terminate its contract with the water consortium and repeal a
law on April 11 allowing the privatization of water in Cochabamba. The
Department of Water Supply was handed over to the Coordinating Committee
of Local Residents, formed in the heart of the protest movement. Some of
the participants in the described events later went to Washington to
take part in anti-globalization protests and demonstrations. They set
themselves the goal of closing the annual World Bank summit. The protest
spilled far beyond the local privatization of water supply. The
resistance took the form of a social uprising and contained a socialist
theory of renunciation of neoliberalism, capitalism, credit obligations,
and multinational property rights to Bolivian gas. The practice of
roadblocks continued with daily acts and sabotage of government attempts
to take control of their villages. There were at least a dozen cases
when a mayor or other government official was too annoying and abusive
and lynched.
It is very difficult for states to oppose their own people. “Democratic”
regimes do not neglect the imposition of martial law, but it opens the
door to a number of dangerous opportunities. Dissatisfied people can
take up arms. If the struggle continues to enjoy popular support and
gain popularity, the majority of the people will begin to treat the
government as occupiers. As a last resort, a military coup and the
spread of the struggle are possible. In Greece, the military circulated
during protests that if the army was thrown to quell the uprising,
soldiers would hand over weapons to the people and open fire on police.
Military intervention is an inevitable step on the part of the
authorities in any struggle against the state. But if social movements
can show courage and organizational ability, defeat the police, they can
deal with the military or lure them to their side. Thanks to the
rhetoric of “democratic” governments, modern soldiers are much less
psychologically prepared to quell riots in their homeland than abroad.
In addition, the states of the modern world are strongly interconnected.
For example, the political crisis in China could destroy the US economy,
which in turn will trigger a chain reaction around the world. We have
not yet reached the point where there is a chance to overthrow the
global system of government, but it is important that under certain
conditions, the state is unable to resist us. And the bubbles of
autonomous spaces continue to exist and grow in various parts of the
system, which declares its universality and non-alternative. The system
was not defeated solely because, in most such political clashes,
populist slogans are seized by various parties or adventurers, who then
destroy all the gains of the protests.
But if anti-authoritarian movements can take the lead in the global
resistance movement, it will give us all hope for the future.
Another eternal argument for the protection of the state apparatus is
that it provides social protection for its citizens. Many believe that
without the state, vulnerable groups will be left without support. That
without officials it is impossible to finance various educational,
health or social projects. Let’s take a closer look at whether the state
is really needed to address these issues, and what alternatives
anarchists offer.
To begin with, one fact must be clearly understood: the bureaucracy does
not produce anything and does not have its own resources. All the money
that the state has at its disposal comes from your taxes with us.
Officials are only redistributing funds. That is, it is hypocritical to
say that the state provides us with free education or medicine.
Assistance from the state is as free as goods in the store. However, in
the same store we can choose between different products, or not buy at
all to save money. But we can’t control the services from the state,
especially if we pay for them, regardless of their quality or necessity.
A very interesting system comes out when we are required to pay money
and we cannot trace or influence what exactly will be spent. We should
not forget about the possibility of manipulation by those officials who
are just looking for opportunities to appropriate budget funds. Can this
be called social guarantees?
Quality health care is not available to many people, even in the richest
countries. Thousands of people die every year from diseases that could
be easily cured, there would be money for that. States are not able to
provide us with this necessary thing on which our lives depend, although
they demand money from us for it. And pensions are one of the biggest
scams in the world. The state collects interest from our salaries to the
pension fund. In addition to the fact that we have no control over this
money, officials are not ashamed to raise the retirement age and cut
pensions. What can be called such manipulations, if not fraud, if not
the theft of our money under the guise of pension payments? And free
public education in schools is a very good tool for advocacy, but in no
way helps the child to form the necessary knowledge base about the world
around him. The most important thing that public schools consistently
teach is to be a “law-abiding citizen.”
The anarchist economy, in turn, offers a very simple alternative. She
says that no one can know the needs of society better than society
itself, so why not give the community the opportunity to manage their
money and choose where to spend it. Let people with disabilities, the
elderly and other vulnerable groups have the right to vote in order to
influence themselves in which areas they need help.
In Argentina, during large-scale protests in response to the 2001
crisis, an economy of solidarity and concern for all members of the
community flourished. The Argentine economic collapse has not led to a
war of all against all, which we are so intimidated by state propaganda.
Instead, the result was an explosion of solidarity. Elderly and disabled
people were also not excluded from this mutual aid network. By
participating in district meetings, they were able to meet their needs
by making decisions that affected their lives. At one meeting,
participants suggested that homeowners waive property taxes and send the
money to support a local hospital. And the movements of the unemployed
practically won and built a new economy. In General Mosconi, an oil city
in the north, unemployment is around 40%. Now most of the city is
autonomous. The movement has already organized more than 300 projects to
support the needs of the population, including the elderly and the
disabled. Throughout the country, workers are seizing hospitals left in
ruins by the state, rebuilding them and financing them themselves.
During the Spanish Civil War, the Barcelona Medical Syndicate (organized
mostly by anarchists) supported 18 hospitals (6 of which he founded), 17
sanatoriums, 22 clinics, 6 psychiatric hospitals, 3 kindergartens and
one maternity hospital. Outpatient departments have been set up in all
the villages of Catalonia. Upon receipt of the request, the syndicate
referred doctors to patients. In order to resign, a doctor had to have a
good reason, because it was believed that medicine was in the service of
society, and not vice versa. Outpatient departments were funded by
voluntary contributions from local municipalities. The Anarchist Health
Workers’ Union brought together 8,000 people, including 1,020 doctors,
3,206 nurses, 133 dentists, 330 midwives and 153 herbalists. The union
operated 36 health centers throughout Catalonia and provided medical
services to the entire population of the region. There was one central
syndicate in each of the nine zones, and once a week a Steering
Committee met in Barcelona, ​​consisting of delegates, one from each
section. He solved common problems and created general plans. Each
department was autonomous in its field, but not isolated: they supported
each other. In addition to Catalonia, health care has been organized in
the teams of Aragon and the Levant.
As for the organization of education, anarchists also offer a very
simple alternative. To prevent education from becoming an advocacy tool,
people need to be given free access to various sources of information.
In order for education to be really useful, give the student the
opportunity to independently choose the areas that interest him and
individually shape the learning process. Quite often anarchists rely on
the work of Ferrer. Ferrer created the concept of “rational education”,
which he revealed in his works “Renewed School” and “Principles of
Scientific Morality”. Under “rational education” was understood the
intellectual, physical and moral development of the child with maximum
regard to his individual characteristics. The educator, according to
Ferrer, in his actions should be based on the interests of the child:
“The whole value of education should be to respect the will of the
child.” The purpose of the school is to educate “people who are able to
continuously evolve, who are able to renew their environment and
themselves; people whose main strength will be their mental independence
and who are not bound by any traditions and prejudices, will always be
ready to accept everything new, better. “ Ferrer considered it
unacceptable to subordinate the school to the state and the church. He
believed that the task of any state education system is to “teach a
child to obey, blindly believe and think according to social dogmas”, to
adapt people to the place in society that is imposed on him by the
ruling elites. One of the goals of the new school, as Ferrer suggested,
was to “snatch from the minds that divide people.” The main method of
education in our schools is coercion. Therefore, the roots of change in
it must be based on the “destruction of coercion”, the elimination of
“moral and ethical discipline”, which “imposes on children ready-made
ideas… destroy the will of the child.” For the development of a free
personality Ferrer considered it necessary to form critical thinking,
the ability to self-development and tolerance for another point of view.
Ferrer devoted his life to teaching children, opening the Escuela
Moderna (Modern School) for middle class children. He has been
imprisoned several times. But after the declaration of martial law in
1909, he was arrested again and found guilty of participating in the
riot after a long trial, although he was not even in the country during
the riot, shot in the Montjuic Fortress in Barcelona on October 13.
Anarchists experiment a lot with educational projects, for example,
anarchists from the United States organized “Free Schools”. Some of them
are just temporary initiatives, others are full-fledged schools. One of
them, the Albany Free School, has existed in the city for over 32 years.
The anti-authoritarian school pays attention not only to education, but
also to social justice — it offered a flexible scale of tuition fees and
does not deduct anyone for financial reasons. Not only are anarchists
experimenting with education, but there are now numerous commercial
initiatives that also teach children on the principle of free schools.
For the most part, these experimental schools are only available to
wealthy people, but Albany Free School has a very diverse student body,
including children from poor families. This school has no schedule or
mandatory lessons, it works according to the philosophy: “Trust the
children and they will learn.” Children under 8^(th) grade study at the
Free School, and a senior department has recently opened. The school has
a small farm, and this is another educational opportunity for students.
In addition, they work with social projects, such as public canteens and
kindergartens. Despite financial and other difficulties, the school is
quite successful.
The state does not give us anything for free. Free social assistance is
just a myth, or a cover for another fraudulent scheme of officials.
Society is able to independently manage its own funds to ensure a
quality standard of living. And he does not need any intermediaries.
It’s time for the final article in the series “Anarchism in Action”. In
total, 7 articles were written on the topics: economics, direct
democracy, crime control, army, science, environmental protection and
social support. There are many different branches of public life, and we
may not have been able to cover all the issues perfectly, but we did not
set ourselves such a task. Our goal was to show that anarchism is based
on truly effective methods, not the utopian dreams of sofa philosophers.
Anarchism is a real alternative that shows its progressiveness by life
examples, while the state apparatus is an outdated institution that
creates many problems. If the propagandists are right that the state is
the pinnacle of human development, then we are doomed to suffer from
injustice, poverty and crime.
Anarchism tells us that no matter what, a person can live with dignity,
regardless of place of birth. Without spending most of his precious life
on the hated job. That life is possible without greedy officials. And
anarchists have repeatedly shown in practice the reality of such an
alternative. The history of mankind is the history of the struggle
against the oppressors. Therefore, it is full of examples of the
implementation of anarchist principles. Only an ignoramus can stubbornly
say that anarchy never existed, despite all those examples of its
implementation. There are now hundreds of autonomous provinces and
regions in the world.
It is safe to say that anarchism works. However, it should be noted that
some social experiments of the anarchists failed. People did not always
cooperate, and adjusted their lives in the absence of the state, and
even some of the examples we cited eventually fell apart due to their
own internal shortcomings. And in most cases, despite their economic
progress and rising living standards, liberated communities were
brutally suppressed, dispersed by police, and oppressed by the military.
However, their experience is very valuable to us, we must learn from
their mistakes in order to more effectively defend our views in the
future. Anarchism will not come by itself, it will not come in the
future to replace the bureaucracy as a fairer system. Hundreds of people
have already been tortured in prisons, killed at barricades to regain
freedom in the state. The best thing we can do to honor their memory is
to keep fighting. If you take all the achievements of the anarchists,
all the autonomous districts and rights that have been won, they do not
owe their existence to passive viewers. The stories we have told show
that anarchism can work. But we have to build it ourselves.