💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › morpheus-basic-principles-of-anarchism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 12:29:33. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Basic Principles of Anarchism Author: Morpheus Date: 25th June 2003 Language: en Topics: introductory, principles Source: Retrieved on 2nd August 2020 from https://web.archive.org/web/20070303054259fw_/http://question-everything.mahost.org/Socio-Politics/BasicAnarchy.html
This is a complete myth with no basis in reality. Anarchists do not
advocate chaos and anarchy does not mean chaos. Similar slander used to
be said about the ideas of democracy and republics. In places where a
Monarchy was thought necessary the idea of elected governments was often
equated with complete chaos. This association is the result of slander
by the powerful (the state, corporations, etc.) that control the media
and is, unfortunately, not a surprise. Since anarchists seek to
overthrow them it is not surprising that they would slander anarchism
with all sorts of absurd nonsense.
Another common stereotype is that of the mad bomb-throwing anarchist who
advocates carnage and destruction for the sake of it. This too is a
myth. Anarchists do not normally go around throwing bombs at everyone
nor do we consider beating up old ladies a virtue. It is true that there
have been anarchists who have used violence to advance their cause but
this is true of every political philosophy. Republicans and democrats
have used much more violence throughout history then anarchists, yet
they are never demonized as crazed bomb throwers. Indeed, the state is
not only inherently violent but the most violent organization in human
history. It uses violence on a systemic level (in the form of police &
militaries) and is responsible for numerous genocides. The state is
vastly more violent than the most violent of anarchists.
The vast majority of anarchists are not opposed to organization. What
anarchists are opposed to is hierarchical organization — organizations
in which one group of people tells the other members what to do. Instead
anarchists advocate organization without authority, where all members
have an equal say in group decisions.
Anarchy comes from the Greek and literally means “no rulers.” Anarchists
are anti-authoritarians who seek to abolish domination. It is important
to differentiate between different two types of authority: legitimate
(or rational) authority and illegitimate (or irrational) authority. In
other words, there’s a difference between being an authority and having
authority. Being an authority means that a person is recognized as
competent for any particular task based on her or his knowledge and
individual skills. It is socially acknowledged expertise. Legitimate
authorities are experts who are particularly knowledgeable, skillful or
wise in any particular area. It may be in our best interests to follow
their recommendations, but they have no power to force us to do so, nor
should they. Legitimate authority is this kind of authority, the
authority of an expert.
Having authority is a social relationship based on status and power
derived from a hierarchical position within a group. It means dividing
society/the group into the order givers and the order takers. The order
givers, the authorities, tell the order takers what to do and they must
obey. This is illegitimate authority. A boss, for example, is an
illegitimate authority because employees must obey his orders. When
something is described as “authoritarian” it usually means that it uses
illegitimate authority.
Hierarchy is essentially institutionalized authority. It is a
pyramidally structured organization consisting of a series of grades,
ranks or offices of increasing power, prestige, and/or remuneration.
Those with lower ranks must obey those with higher ranks. Hierarchies
maintain control by coercion — the threat of negative sanctions
(physical, economic, social, etc.) against those who don’t obey.
Hierarchical organizations are, by definition, organizations that are
run by elites. Those on the top, the elite, have more power then those
on the bottom. Hierarchical authority is the authority that is inherent
in any hierarchy. This is the same thing as illegitimate (or irrational)
authority — that is, relations of command and obedience. Another name
for this is domination.
Anarchism is extreme skepticism of authority. The basic idea is to
abolish domination in favor of a society based on voluntary cooperation.
As the anarchist Noam Chomsky said:
“I think it only makes sense to seek out and identify structures of
authority, hierarchy, and domination in every aspect of life, and to
challenge them; unless a justification for them can be given, they are
illegitimate, and should be dismantled, to increase the scope of human
freedom. That includes political power, ownership and management,
relations among men and women, parents and children, our control over
the fate of future generations (the basic moral imperative behind the
environmental movement, in my view), and much else. Naturally this means
a challenge to the huge institutions of coercion and control: the state,
the unaccountable private tyrannies that control most of the domestic
and international economy, and so on. But not only these. That is what I
have always understood to be the essence of anarchism: the conviction
that the burden of proof has to be placed on authority, and that it
should be dismantled if that burden cannot be met. Sometimes the burden
can be met. If I’m taking a walk with my grandchildren and they dart out
into a busy street, I will use not only authority but also physical
coercion to stop them. The act should be challenged, but I think it can
readily meet the challenge. And there are other cases; life is a complex
affair, we understand very little about humans and society, and grand
pronouncements are generally more a source of harm than of benefit. But
the perspective is a valid one, I think, and can lead us quite a long
way.” [1]
Following Chomsky’s logic, anarchists argue that hierarchy, bodies of
people having authority over others, is unjustified and should be
abolished. Some anarchists take this a step further and oppose other
forms of authority; a few argue that “legitimate authority” (expertise)
is also unjustified, but most do not. Unless a good justification can be
given for any form of authority it should be abolished. In the case of
hierarchical authority anarchist believe there is no valid justification
for it; all major hierarchical institutions should be abolished. Instead
of dividing society into a hierarchy of order givers and order takers
everyone should have control over their own life and an equal say in
group decisions.
As explained above, anarchists are opposed to domination. Relations of
command and obedience are not only unnecessary but also inherently
detrimental to humanity. Everyone should have control of their own life
instead of being bossed around by others.
Capitalism is an economic system based upon wage labor. Under capitalism
a small group of people, the capitalist class, owns the means of
production (land, factories, mines, etc.) and the working class (the
majority of the population) must sell their labor to the capitalist
class in order to survive. If the workers do not sell their labor they
will starve because they do not have access to the means of production —
the capitalist class monopolizes them. The ownership of the means of
production by the capitalists does not have to be direct but can be
through an organization they control, such as corporations. Anarchists
are also opposed to all other class systems but focus on capitalism
because it is the dominant economic system today. Class is economic
hierarchy. Other class systems include feudalism, soviet-style
“socialism” (which many anarchists consider to be a form of
state-capitalism) and slavery.
Sociologists define the state (also called government) as an
organization with a monopoly (or near monopoly) on the legitimate use of
violence. It is a centralized rule making body with a pyramidal,
hierarchical structure that uses its monopoly of force to boss around
all those within its territory. It maintains various armed bodies of
people (police, military) and coercive institutions (courts, prisons)
with which it coerces the population into obeying its dictates. Because
of its hierarchical structure and monopoly of force the state always
acts to enforce the rule of a small elite. It exists not to “enforce
order” or anything like that but to enforce the will of the ruling
class. Anarchists are opposed to all states, including:
Elected governments are run by and for a small elite, just like all
other states. Elected representatives are not tied in any substantial
way to particular policies, regardless of the preferences of the
electorate. Ordinary people have no real control over the decisions of
the politicians — once elected they can make what ever decisions they
want regardless of what most people want. Representatives are separated
from the population but exposed to powerful pressure groups including
state bureaucracies, corporations, lobbyists and political party power
brokers.
Attempts to overthrow the capitalist class and implement a socialist
“workers’ state” inevitably lead to the replacement of the old ruling
class with a new, bureaucratic ruling class that exploits the working
class just as the old ruling class did. There is no effective way for
the working class as a whole to control the state. It has a monopoly of
force and will simply use that monopoly to establish itself as a new
ruling class. Decision making power lies with the leaders, not with the
masses of ordinary workers. When the politburo or parliament or council
of people’s commissars or other leaders are making the decisions the
workers are not.
Patriarchy is male domination — a social relation in which men have
power over women; gender hierarchy. In every society men and women are
expected to behave in certain ways and if they do not they are subjected
to various forms of coercion ranging from being made fun of to violence
to exile. How a man or woman is expected to behave in a given society is
called their gender. This is different from sex, which refers to the
biological characteristics that distinguish male from female. Gender
varies greatly from society to society. Under patriarchy gender is
constructed so that, on average, men have more power than women. The
results of this are quite negative — in addition to diminishing women’s
freedom it also results in sexual harassment, reduced opportunities for
women, rape and various other forms of sexual violence. Anarchists
advocate equality of the sexes.
Heterosexism is a natural outcome of the form of patriarchy that exists
in the west and many other parts of the world. Gender in most modern
patriarchical societies is constructed so that heterosexual behavior is
the norm. Homosexuals deviate from how men and women are expected to
behave and so are subjected to various forms of coercion as a result.
There is thus a hierarchy between hetero and homosexuals. Anarchists are
opposed to any sort of oppression on the basis of one’s sexuality.
Race is a social construction. It divides a population into a
hierarchical set of “races” with those on top — the white race — having
privileges and power over those in other “lower” races. Race is
hereditary. Usually people are assigned to their race based on some
meaningless characteristic, such as skin color. Race is not at all
biological but is a pure social construction. Looking at different
societies that have different constructions of race easily proves this.
What Americans call blacks are actually broken into several different
races in most Latin American countries (blacks, mulattos, etc). In the
US Irish, Italians and East Europeans were considered non-white a
hundred years ago but today are considered whites. In Rwanda two groups
most Americans would consider black, Hutus and Tutsis, are regarded as
two different races. White supremacy first arose with the Atlantic Slave
Trade as a way of justifying it and of splitting the working class to
insure that poor whites did not ally with rebellious blacks.
Imperialism is a social relationship in which the rulers of one country
dominate the population of another country or territory. At present the
United States is the main imperialist nation, dominating most other
countries in the world. Past imperialist powers have included the Soviet
Union, Rome, Germany, England and the Aztecs.
Anarchists are extremely skeptical about the need for any kind of
authority. At minimum all anarchists believe that hierarchy should be
abolished and some take this further and oppose other forms of
authority. Instead of hierarchy, everyone should have control over their
own life and an equal say in group decisions.
Everyone should be allowed to associate freely with those they choose
and to disassociate themselves when they choose. Individuals should not
be forced into social relations against their will. Society should be
based upon free agreement, rather than coercion.
Instead of attempting to dominate each other social relations should be
based on solidarity and voluntary cooperation. When individuals come
together to help each other they can accomplish more than when they work
against each other.
Freedom means the ability to control one’s own life instead of being
controlled by others, as is the case with hierarchy. This is sometimes
called liberty or autonomy. Controlling other people’s lives is not
freedom but a restriction of freedom.
In groups decisions should be made in a manner so that everyone has an
equal say. People should govern themselves, rather than dividing people
into some who give orders and some who obey as in hierarchical
organizations.
Anarchists believe in an egalitarian society. This does not mean some
totalitarian society where everyone is identical or lives identical
lives. It does not mean denying individual diversity or uniqueness.
Rather anarchists believe in equality of both wealth and power — a
natural consequence of the abolition of hierarchy.
Anarchists favor social, economic and political equality for men and
women. The domination of men over women should be abolished and all
people given control of their own lives.
There have been many different visions of what an anarchist society
would look like. Any vision that abolishes the things anarchists are
opposed to and is consistent with the earlier stated principles of
anarchism is compatible with anarchy. There are, however, many
institutions that have been proposed by anarchists to run a
non-hierarchical society. Most of these are not based on idle
speculation but by looking at how actually existing anarchist societies
have worked. Some of them are:
Also called general assemblies or mass assemblies. In any organization
people can come together to meet and discuss whatever common problems or
activities they face. At these assemblies everyone should have an equal
opportunity to participate in both the discussion/debate and the final
decisions. These can be formed in workplaces where they would take over
the running of all workplaces. Worker assemblies would then meet
regularly to plan production, divvy up the tasks that need to be
accomplished, etc. They can be formed in each neighborhood in order to
deal with whatever particular issues confront that neighborhood and
organize to deal with them. These are based on free association so
whenever a group of people wants to get together to accomplish some goal
they can simply form a general assembly to organize it. Free association
also means that no one would have to participate in an assembly if they
did not want to. Such assemblies can be formed to organize around
anything — not only around workplace and neighborhood issues but
potentially also universities, clubs, space exploration, etc. Worker
assemblies, neighborhood assemblies, university assemblies, community
assemblies and the like can all be formed to run society without
hierarchy, based on self-management.
The different assemblies can coordinate their activities through the use
of a council system. This is done by each assembly assigning a contact
person(s) (sometimes called a spoke or delegate) to meet with other
contact people from other assemblies which they want to coordinate
things with. The meeting of contact people is called a council or
spokescouncil. Position of contact person should rotate frequently. Each
contact person is mandated, meaning that they are instructed by the
assembly that they come from on how to deal with any issue. The contact
people would be given binding instructions, committing them to a
framework of policies, developed by their assembly, within which they
would have to act. If at any time they violate their mandate their
assembly would instantly recall them and their decisions revoked.
Decision making power stays in the assemblies; contact people simply
convey and implement those positions. Contact people do not have any
authority or special privileges. Councils are organized from the bottom
up, with control staying in the assemblies. They are not hierarchical
organizations but simply coordinate the activities of the assemblies
without authority. Instead of hierarchy there are decentralized
confederations and networks. This differs from representative
institutions in that decision making power stays in the assemblies
whereas representatives can make whatever decisions they want and have
authority over others. These councils can be formed to coordinate the
activities of assemblies on whatever level needed. Worker councils can
coordinate the activities of the worker assemblies; neighborhood
councils can coordinate the activities of different neighborhood
assemblies, etc. They can also do this on a regional scale — forming
regional worker councils, etc — and those regional confederations can
use the same method to coordinate with each other. In all cases decision
making power stays with the assemblies upon which the councils are based
— the assemblies would be the core of any organization.
Any decision making process in which everyone has control over their own
life and all members have an equal say, rather than dividing people into
order givers and order takers, is theoretically compatible with
anarchism. Although there are many different ways in which this can be
done, there are two main methods of non-hierarchical decision making
which are advocated by most anarchists:
In consensus everyone in the group must agree to a decision before it
can be put into action. All contributions are valued and participation
is encouraged. Any member can block consensus, stopping a decision they
strongly object to. Members may also “stand aside,” allowing a decision
they do not like to be made without blocking or supporting it.
Decisions would be made by directly voting on the options — the option
with a majority of votes is implemented. Anarchists who advocate direct
democracy do not believe in a mechanical process whereby the majority
just votes away the minority and ignores them. It is intended to be a
dynamic discussion process where different people listen to each other
and exchange ideas. Direct Democracy is combined with free association
as well — meaning that anyone who is out-voted does not absolutely have
to abide by the decision. They can simply leave the group.
These decision making processes would be used in the popular assemblies,
councils, etc. There are many variations on them and it is also possible
to synthesize consensus and direct democracy. Some groups could use
direct democracy but require the majority be of a certain size (such as
2/3rds or 3/4ths) instead of a simple majority. Another variation is to
attempt to achieve the largest majority possible.
There have been many different economic systems envisioned by
anarchists. These different visions are not necessarily incompatable
with each other and could probably co-exist within the same society. The
main ones are:
In mutualism people would be either self-employed or part of a
worker-controlled cooperative (individual cooperatives would be run by
worker assemblies as described above). They would produce goods and
trade them on a market. Although mutualism uses markets to coordinate
production it is not capitalist because wage labor would be abolished.
No one would sell their labor to others but would instead work in
cooperatives or for themselves.
In Collectivism markets would be abolished. Instead of using markets to
coordinate production they would set up workers councils, as described
above, to coordinate production. Each workplace would be run by it’s own
worker assembly and each assembly would federate with other workplace
assemblies in the area, forming a local workers council. The workers
councils would federate with each other (forming more councils) as
needed on many levels. Money would be kept and people paid on the basis
of how much they work. Most collectivists believe that collectivism
would eventually evolve into a gift economy.
Also called Parecon. This is similar to collectivism; the biggest
difference is that there are consumer assemblies in addition to worker
assemblies. The underlying values parecon seeks to implement are equity,
solidarity, diversity, and participatory self management. The main
institutions to attain these ends are council self management, balanced
job complexes, remuneration according to effort and sacrifice, and
participatory planning. Consumers and workers directly democratically
and cooperatively negotiate their production and consumption on an
individual basis and via worker and consumer councils and federations of
councils. Balanced job complexes share quality of work and empowering
work equitably throughout the workplace and the entire economy. Workers
are remunerated for effort and sacrifice, so in tandem with balanced job
complexes consumption bundles are roughly equal, with minor
discrepancies due to people’s chosen working hours and intensity.
Also called anarcho-communism or libertarian communism. A gift economy
would abolish money and trading all together. Production and
distribution would be done purely on the basis of need through a
confederation of free communes. The economy would be organized along the
lines of “from each according to ability, to each according to need.”
The “communism” in anarcho-communism has nothing to do with the
countries which some erroneously call “Communist” (USSR, China, etc.).
None of those countries actually claimed to be communist; they claimed
to be in a transition to communism. Anarcho-communists opposed these
dictatorships from the very beginning and have participated in many
rebellions against them. Anarcho-communists would do away with money,
central planning and the state — all of which were present in the USSR,
China, etc.
Primitivists would abolish industry, civilization and most forms of
technology. Instead anarcho-primitivists advocate a low-tech green
society. This would be either an agrarian or hunter-gatherer society.
Primitivists are split on the question of agriculture: some want to do
away with it all together and others would keep some forms of primitive
agriculture.
Anarchists believe in self-liberation. The liberation of the oppressed
can only come about through the actions of the oppressed themselves
(either individually or collectively). Those on the bottom of society
have to rebel against those on the top and refuse to obey them. People
cannot be forced to be free. Anarchy cannot be created by some vanguard
seizing power but only by the self-liberation of the oppressed.
Direct action means that instead of relying on someone else to act for
you (such as a politician) act for yourself. It is any action which
people themselves decide upon and organize themselves that is based on
their own collective strength and does not rely on getting intermediates
to act for them. Examples of direct action include strikes, boycotts,
sabotage, insurrections and civil disobedience. Direct action can also
be liberatory because it puts power in the hands of ordinary people;
instead of relying on someone else to do something we do it ourselves.
The means you use will greatly affect the ends you get. As such
anarchists organize along the same principles in which we advocate
organizing society: non-hierarchically. For this reason anarchist
organizations are often based around general assemblies and
spokescouncils. Many anarchists see the initial framework of anarchy
being created within the old society, before capitalism and the state
are abolished. Popular organs of self-management would be formed before
the overthrow of the old society. This includes neighborhood assemblies,
workers’ councils, syndicalist unions and the like. These
non-hierarchical organizations would fight against the institutions of
the old society (government, capitalism, patriarchy, etc.) and as the
old society is destroyed they take over the running of society.
In addition to differences over what an anarchist society should look
like, different anarchists also focus more on different issues.
Anarcha-Feminists focus on women’s liberation and the struggle against
patriarchy. Eco-Anarchists focus on ecology and the destruction of the
environment. Anarcho-syndicalists focus on unions and the labor
movement. The divisions between the various kinds of anarchists overlap
and are not absolute. Most different kinds of anarchists are willing to
co-exist and work together.
The majority of anarchists are revolutionaries who believe that an
anarchist society will come about as the result of a social revolution.
The government would be overthrown and abolished, the means of
production expropriated and placed under self-management and a rapid
transition to anarchy made. Others believe in an evolutionary approach —
that anarchy will come about as a result of a lengthy centuries-long
evolution.
Some anarchists are also pacifists who believe all forms of violence are
immoral. True pacifism logically implies anarchism. The state is
inherently violent and the most violent organization in human history;
other forms of hierarchy are usually violent as well. The majority of
anarchists are not pacifists, however. Although non-pacifist anarchists
do not glorify violence most believe that the use of violence in
self-defense and/or to overthrow hierarchy is justified.
Anarchists come from many different religions and philosophical
backgrounds — from atheistic materialism to postmodernism to egoism to
Taoism to Christianity and everything in between. Although most
anarchists are atheists/agnostics there are religious anarchists
including Pagans, Christians, Muslims and Jews. Any religion or
philosophy is theoretically compatible with anarchism so long as it does
not advocate things (such as a god-king) that contradict the basic ideas
above.
There are many examples of anarchist principles in real life. Some of
them come from the daily lives of ordinary people living in contemporary
hierarchical societies. One example is “a group of friends going on a
camping trip. They plan their trip, and each person brings useful skills
and tools to share. They work together to set up tents, fish, cook,
clean up, with no one in a position of authority over anyone else. The
group organizes itself, chores are done, and everyone passes the time as
they please, alone or in groups with others. People discuss their
concerns and possible solutions are proposed. No one is bound to go
along with the group, but choosing to spend time together implies a
willingness to at least try to work out constructive solutions to the
problems and frictions that will inevitably arise. If no resolution is
possible, the dissenting individuals can form another grouping or leave
without fear of persecution by the rest of the group.” [2] Similar
non-hierarchical forms of organization happen all the time even in the
most authoritarian of societies. They’re informal and small scale but it
is an example of anarchy in action. In an anarchist society
non-hierarchical forms of organization would be the dominant form of
organization.
There have been many examples of anarchist societies throughout history;
most of them have been agrarian or hunter-gatherer societies. The
immense majority of human history was lived in primitive anarchy. The
human race has been around between 50,000 and 500,000 years (depending
on how you define human and what estimates you use). The first states
came around about 7,000 years ago in Mesopotamia. For a long time after
states and classes were created they were limited to certain parts of
the world while much of the globe lived in anarchy. It is only in the
last couple of centuries that states came to rule the entire world,
primarily as a result of conquest. Although far from perfect, most
primitivist societies were not the Hobbesian hellholes they are often
portrayed as (see Stone Age Economics by Marshall Sahlins). Well known
indigenous anarcho-primitivist societies include the !Kung and the Igbo
(prior to western imperialism).
In early 1918 the new Bolshevik government of Russia made peace with
Germany and agreed to give up the Ukraine, formerly part of the Russian
Empire, to Germany. The inhabitants of the Ukraine had little say in
this and were opposed to it. A rebellion against German rule erupted
which turned into an anarchist revolution. The revolution was rooted
primarily among peasants although it included cities at its height.
Village assemblies and communes were formed throughout much of the
Ukraine. When it included cities factories were taken over by the
workers. They formed decentralized democratic militias, which fought
guerilla warfare against numerous statist armies that invaded the
Ukraine during this time period. The Anarcho-Communist Nestor Makhno
played a major role in organizing these militias. They successfully
defeated the Germans, Austrians, Ukrainian Nationalists, and two white
invasions led by General Denikin and then General Wrangel (the Whites
were ultra-reactionary armies fighting the Bolsheviks in Russia). In
1921 the Bolsheviks, having recently won the civil war against the
Whites, invaded the Ukraine. They used their vastly superior resources
to conquer the Ukraine and implement a reign of terror.
On July 19, 1936 General Fransisco Franco launched a Fascist coup
against the Spanish Republic. In response the CNT, an
anarcho-syndicalist union, and the UGT, a union affiliation with the
Spanish Socialist Party, called a general strike. The Republic refused
to release arms to the workers so they broke into the barracks and
distributed arms to the people. They fought and defeated the Fascist
coup in two-thirds of Spain. The state was effectively destroyed; the
military was in rebellion and the police forces had dissolved during the
fighting. The workers and peasants proceeded to take over the land and
factories. Collectives were formed throughout anti-fascist Spain.
Collectivism was the main economic system, although a few villages
abolished money and implemented anarcho-communism. There were also
elements of mutualism implemented in some places. Decentralized militias
were formed to fight against the Fascists. After three years of civil
war the fascists won. The victory of fascism was due not only to their
superior arms and assistance from Hitler & Mussolini but also strategic
errors made by the anarcho-syndicalists and backstabbing by Marxist and
Republican “allies” in the fight against fascism.
Nothing. Would you replace a tumor?
If human nature is bad then hierarchy should be abolished because those
on the top will inevitably abuse their power. If human nature is good
then there is no need for hierarchy because people will do good things
without being dominated by others. Either way, we should have anarchy.
If people are too evil to rule themselves then they are far too evil to
rule other people. The immense majority of human history has been lived
in hunter-gatherer societies, a form of primitivist anarchy. If human
nature favors any particular social system it favors hunter-gatherer
anarchy because that is what the majority of human history has been
lived in. Given the immense diversity of social systems humans have
created over the eons it is unlikely that human nature, if it even
exists, plays a great role in determining social structure.
Individual politicians and members of the capitalist class from the old
society would be allowed to become part of the new society as equals.
They would lose all their former powers and privileges and live
alongside everyone else as equals. Those who do not want to are free to
become hermits or leave. Anyone who does not want to participate in the
various collective organizations would be free to leave and would be
given access to a portion of the means of production so that they could
support themselves on their own. During the Spanish Revolution “if you
didn’t want to join the collective you were given some land but only as
much as you could work yourself. You were not allowed to employ”
wage-laborers.” [3] They could attempt to set up alternative systems so
long as they are completely voluntary. They could attempt to reestablish
capitalism (or some other form of oppression) so long as it was
completely non-violent and voluntary but doing so would be extremely
difficult because few people would volunteer to be poor and work in
their sweatshops. Few people will volunteer to be oppressed, especially
in an anarchist society where hierarchy would be viewed quite
negatively. Reestablishing some form of domination through purely
voluntary and non-violent means would therefore be almost impossible.
and Statist Armies?
The same tactics used to overthrow hierarchy, direct action, could be
used against counter-revolutionary armies. This includes, but is not
limited to, civil disobedience, strikes, insurrections, street fighting,
etc. If necessary the population could be armed and a decentralized
network of democratic militias formed to wage guerilla warfare against
the statist forces. This can be done against both foreign invaders (if
one part of the world is in anarchy and the other is authoritarian) and
against domestic counter-revolutionaries who attempt to use violence to
force everyone back into an authoritarian society.
Crime is the result of hierarchy; the abolition of hierarchy will cause
it to disappear. 95% of crime is caused by patriarchy, private property
and capitalism (stealing, etc.); its abolition will result in the end of
95% of crime. What little is left over could be better dealt with by the
community than by any police force. Many historical pre-capitalist
societies had little or no crime; a few weeks after the Spanish
Revolution began crime plummeted. The state has proven completely
incapable of combating crime — it has been trying to prevent crime for
years yet has been a complete failure. At best it merely punishes people
after the fact. “Prisons fail to improve or reform anyone. Local people
aware of each others’ circumstances would be able to apply more suitable
solutions, in keeping with the needs of the victim and the offender. The
present penal system, on the other hand, _creates_ criminal behaviour.
Long term prisoners are often rendered incapable of surviving outside an
institution that makes all their decisions for them. How is locking
people up with others of an anti-social turn of mind ... supposed to
develop responsibility and reasonable behaviour? Of course it does just
the opposite. The majority of prisoners re-offend.”[4] The state and
capitalism are far worse then crime; they kill and rob on a scale far
greater then any ordinary criminal. Under the present system petty
criminals go to prison but the big criminals run the country.
It is possible to coordinate activities without hierarchy. Any group of
people can get together and hold a general assembly where they can divvy
up the tasks they need to do and decide who will do what. If needed they
can assign one or more people to act as coordinators. Such coordinators
would simply implement the plans developed by the general assembly and
would have no authority themselves. In the Ukrainian and Spanish
Revolutions when workers took over factories the worker assemblies often
created factory committees that performed administrative and
coordination tasks. Decision making power stayed with the worker
assemblies, the factory committees simply implemented what the workers
decided in their assemblies. Coordination between multiple assemblies
can be done through the council system.
[1] “Chomsky on Anarchism, Marxism and Hope for the Future” Inteview in
Red & Black Magazine 1995
[2] “Consent or Coercion” by Affinity Group of Evolutionary Anarchists
[3] “The Spanish Civil War: Anarchism In Action” by Eddie Conlon,
Chapter 2
[4] “Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About Anarchy” by Anarchist
Media Group, Cardiff (UK)