Section A - What is Anarchism?

A.1 What is anarchism? 
	A.1.1	What does "anarchy" mean?
	A.1.2 	What does "anarchism" mean?
	A.1.3	Why is anarchism also called libertarian socialism?	
	A.1.4 	Are anarchists socialists? 
	A.1.5 	Where does anarchism come from?

A.2 What does anarchism stand for?
	A.2.1 	What is the essence of anarchism? 
	A.2.2 	Why do anarchists emphasise liberty?
	A.2.3 	Are anarchists in favour of organisation?
	A.2.4 	Are anarchists in favour of "absolute" liberty?
	A.2.5 	Why are anarchists in favour of equality? 
	A.2.6 	Why is solidarity important to anarchists?
	A.2.7 	Why do anarchists argue for self-liberation?
	A.2.8 	Is it possible to be an anarchist without opposing hierarchy?
	A.2.9 	What sort of society do anarchists want?
	A.2.10 	What will abolishing hierarchy mean and achieve?
	A.2.11 	Why do most anarchists support direct democracy?
	A.2.12 	Is consensus an alternative to direct democracy?
	A.2.13 	Are anarchists individualists or collectivists?
	A.2.14 	Why is voluntarism not enough?
	A.2.15 	What about Human Nature?
	A.2.16 	Does anarchism require "perfect" people to work?
	A.2.17 	Aren't most people too stupid for a free society to work?
	A.2.18 	Do anarchists support terrorism?
	A.2.19 	What ethical views do anarchists hold?

A.3 What types of anarchism are there?
	A.3.1 	What are the differences between individualist and social 
	        anarchists?
	A.3.2 	Are there different types of social anarchism?
	A.3.3 	What kinds of Green anarchism is there?
	A.3.4 	Is anarchism pacifistic?
	A.3.5 	What is anarcha-feminism?
	A.3.6	What is Cultural Anarchism?
	A.3.7 	Are there religious anarchists?
	A.3.8 	What is "anarchism without adjectives"?

A.4 Who are the major anarchist thinkers?

A.5 What are some examples of "Anarchy in Action"?
	A.5.1	The Paris Commune
	A.5.2 	The Haymarket Martyrs
	A.5.3 	Building the Syndicalist Unions
	A.5.4 	Anarchists in the Russian Revolution.
	A.5.5 	Anarchists in the Italian Factory Occupations
	A.5.6 	Anarchism and the Spanish Revolution.
	A.5.7 	The May-June revolt in France, 1968.

Section A - What is Anarchism?

Modern civilisation faces three potentially catastrophic crises: 
(1) social breakdown, a shorthand term for rising rates of poverty,
homelessness, crime, violence, alienation, drug and alcohol abuse, social
isolation, political apathy, dehumanisation, the deterioration of
community structures of self-help and mutual aid, etc.; (2) destruction of
the planet's delicate ecosystems on which all complex forms of life
depend; and (3) the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,
particularly nuclear weapons. 

Orthodox opinion, including that of Establishment "experts," mainstream
media, and politicians, generally regards these crises as separable, each
having its own causes and therefore capable of being dealt with on a
piecemeal basis, in isolation from the other two. Obviously, however, this
"orthodox" approach isn't working, since the problems in question are
getting worse. Unless some better approach is taken soon, we are clearly 
headed for disaster, either from catastrophic war, ecological Armageddon,
or a descent into urban savagery -- or all of the above. 

Anarchism offers a unified and coherent way of making sense of these
crises, by tracing them to a common source. This source is the principle
of *hierarchical authority,* which underlies the major institutions of all
"civilised" societies, whether capitalist or "communist." Anarchist
analysis therefore starts from the fact that all of our major institutions
are in the form of hierarchies, i.e. organisations that concentrate power
at the top of a pyramidal structure, such as corporations, government
bureaucracies, armies, political parties, religious organisations,
universities, etc. It then goes on to show how the authoritarian
relations inherent in the such hierarchies negatively affect individuals,
their society, and culture. In the first part of this FAQ (sections A -
E) we will present the anarchist analysis of hierarchical authority and
its negative effects in greater detail. 

It should not be thought, however, that anarchism is just a critique of
modern civilisation, just "negative" or "destructive." Because it is much
more than that. For one thing, it is also a proposal for a free society. 
Emma Goldman expressed what might be called the "anarchist question" as
follows: "The problem that confronts us today. . . is how to be one's
self and yet in oneness with others, to feel deeply with all human beings
and still retain one's own characteristic qualities" [_Red Emma Speaks_,
pp. 133-134]. In other words, how can we create a society in which the
potential for each individual is realised but not at the expense of
others? In order to achieve this, anarchists envision a society in which,
instead of being controlled "from the top down" through hierarchical
structures of centralised power, the affairs of humanity will "be managed
by individuals or voluntary associations" [Ben Tucker, _Anarchist Reader_,
p. 149]. Later sections of the FAQ (sections I and J) will describe 
anarchism's positive proposals for organising society in this way, "from 
the bottom up." However, some of the constructive core of anarchism will 
be seen even in the earlier sections. 

As Clifford Harper elegantly puts it, "Like all great ideas, anarchism is
pretty simple when you get down to it -- human beings are at their best
when they are living free of authority, deciding things among themselves
rather than being ordered about." [_Anarchy: A Graphic Guide_, p. vii]. 
Due to their desire to maximise individual and therefore social freedom,
anarchists wish to dismantle all institutions that repress people:

"Common to all Anarchists is the desire to free society of all political
and social coercive institutions which stand in the way of the development
of a free humanity" [Rudolf Rocker, _Anarcho-Syndicalism_, p. 16] 

As we'll see, all such institutions are hierarchies, and their repressive
nature stems directly from their hierarchical form. 

Anarchism is a socio-economic and political theory, but not an ideology.
The difference is *very* important. Basically, theory means you have
ideas; an ideology means ideas have you. Anarchism is a body of ideas,
but they are flexible, in a constant state of evolution and flux, and open
to modification in light of new data. As society changes and develops, so
does anarchism. An ideology, in contrast, is a set of "fixed" ideas which
people believe dogmatically, usually ignoring reality or "changing" it so
as to fit with the ideology, which is (by definition) correct. All such
"fixed" ideas are the source of tyranny and contradiction, leading to
attempts to make everyone fit onto a Procrustean Bed. This will be true
regardless of the ideology in question -- Leninism, Objectivism,
"Libertarianism," or whatever -- all will all have the same effect: the
destruction of real individuals in the name of a doctrine, a doctrine that
usually serves the interest of some ruling elite. Or, as Mikhail Bakunin
puts it: 

"Until now all human history has been only a perpetual and
bloody immolation of millions of poor human beings in honour of some
pitiless abstraction -- God, country, power of state, national honour,
historical rights, judicial rights, political liberty, public welfare." 

Dogmas are static and deathlike in their rigidity, often the work of some
dead "prophet," religious or secular, whose followers erect his or her
ideas into an idol, immutable as stone. Anarchists want the living to
bury the dead so that the living can get on with their lives. The living
should rule the dead, not vice versa. Ideologies are the nemesis of
critical thinking and consequently of freedom, providing a book of rules
and "answers" which relieve us of the "burden" of thinking for ourselves.

In producing this FAQ on anarchism it is not our intention to give you the
"correct" answers or a new rule book. We will explain a bit about what
anarchism has been in the past, but we will focus more on its modern forms
and why *we* are anarchists today. The FAQ is an attempt to provoke
thought and analysis on your part. If you are looking for a new ideology,
then sorry, anarchism is not for you.

While anarchists try to be realistic and practical, we are not
"reasonable" people. "Reasonable" people uncritically accept what the
"experts" and "authorities" tell them is true, and so they will always
remain slaves! Anarchists know that, as Bakunin wrote: 

"[a] person is strong only when he stands upon his own truth, when he speaks 
and acts from his deepest convictions. Then, whatever the situation he may be 
in, he always knows what he must say and do. He may fall, but he cannot bring
shame upon himself or his causes" [_Statism and Anarchy_ - cited in Albert 
Meltzer, _I couldn't Paint Golden Angels_, p. 2]. 

What Bakunin describes is the power of independent thought, which is the power
of freedom. We encourage you not to be "reasonable," not to accept what
others tell you, but to think and act for yourself!

One last point: to state the obvious, this is *not* the final word on
anarchism. Many anarchists will disagree with much that is written here,
but this is to be expected when people think for themselves. All we wish
to do is indicate the *basic* ideas of anarchism and give our analysis of
certain topics based on how we understand and apply these ideas. We are
sure, however, that all anarchists will agree with the core ideas we
present, even if they may disagree with our application of them here and
there.

A.1 What is anarchism?

Anarchism is a political theory which aims to create anarchy, "the
absence of a master, of a sovereign." [P-J Proudhon, _What is Property_,
p. 264] In other words, anarchism is a political theory which aims
to create a society within which individuals freely co-operate together 
as equals. As such anarchism opposes all forms of hierarchical control
- be that control by the state or capitalist - as harmful to the 
individual and their individuality as well as unnecessary.

In the words of anarchist L. Susan Brown:

"While the popular understanding of anarchism is of a violent, anti-State
movement, anarchism is a much more subtle and nuanced tradition then a
simple opposition to government power. Anarchists oppose the idea that
power and domination are necessary for society, and instead advocate
more co-operative, anti-hierarchical forms of social, political and
economic organisation." [_The Politics of Individualism_, p. 106]

However, "anarchism" and "anarchy" are undoubtedly the most misrepresented 
ideas in political theory. Generally, the words are used to mean "chaos" or
"without order," and so, by implication, anarchists desire social chaos
and a return to the "laws of the jungle."

This process of misrepresentation is not without historical parallel. For
example, in countries which have considered government by one person
(monarchy) necessary, the words "republic" or "democracy" have been used
precisely like "anarchy," to imply disorder and confusion. Those with a
vested interest in preserving the status quo will obviously wish to imply
that opposition to the current system cannot work in practice, and that a
new form of society will only lead to chaos. Or, as Errico Malatesta
expresses it: 

"since it was thought that government was necessary and that without 
government there could only be disorder and confusion, it was natural 
and logical that anarchy, which means absence of government, should 
sound like absence of order." [_Anarchy_, p. 12]

Anarchists want to change this "common-sense" idea of "anarchy," so people
will see that government and other hierarchical social relationships are
both harmful *and* unnecessary:

"Change opinion, convince the public that government is not only 
unnecessary, but extremely harmful, and then the word anarchy, just 
because it means absence of government, will come to mean for everybody: 
natural order, unity of human needs and the interests of all, complete 
freedom within complete solidarity." [Ibid., pp. 12-13].

This FAQ is part of the process of changing the commonly-held ideas 
regarding anarchism and the meaning of anarchy.

A.1.1 What does "anarchy" mean?

The word "anarchy" is "from Greek, prefix *a*, meaning "not," "the want
of," "the absence of," or "the lack of", plus *archos*, meaning "a ruler,"
"director", "chief," "person in charge," "commander." The Greek words
*anarchos,* and *anarchia* meant "having no government -- being without 
a government." [Peter A. Angeles, _The Harper Collins Dictionary of
Philosophy_, Second Edition, pp. 11-12]

As can be seen, the strict, original meaning of anarchism was not simply
"no government." "An-archy" means "without a ruler," or more generally,
"without authority," and it is in this sense that anarchists have
continually used the word. For this reason, rather than being purely
anti-government or anti-state, anarchism is primarily a movement against
*hierarchy.* Why? Because hierarchy is the organisational structure that
embodies authority. Since the state is the "highest" form of hierarchy,
anarchists are, by definition, anti-state; but this is *not* a sufficient
definition of anarchism. This means that real anarchists are opposed to all 
forms of hierarchical organisation, not only the state. 

Reference to "hierarchy" in this context is a fairly recent development --
the "classical" anarchists such as Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin did use 
the word, but rarely (they usually preferred "authority," which was used as
short-hand for "authoritarian"). However, it's clear from their writings 
that theirs was a philosophy against hierarchy, against any inequality of 
power or privileges between individuals. Bakunin spoke of this when attacked 
"official" authority but defended "natural influence," and also when he said:

"Do you want to make it impossible for anyone to oppress his fellow-man? 
Then make sure that no one shall possess power." [_The Political Philosophy 
of Bakunin_, p. 271] 

As Jeff Draughn notes, "while it has always been a latent part of the
'revolutionary project,' only recently has this broader concept of 
anti-hierarchy arisen for more specific scrutiny. Nonetheless, the root
of this is plainly visible in the Greek roots of the word 'anarchy'" 
[_Between Anarchism and Libertarianism: Defining a New Movement_]

We stress that this opposition to hierarchy is, for anarchists, not 
limited to just the state or government. It includes all authoritarian 
economic and social relationships as well as political ones, particularly 
those associated with capitalist property and wage labour. This can be seen
from Proudhon's argument that "*Capital* . . . in the political field is 
analogous to *government* . . . The economic idea of capitalism . . . 
[and] the politics of government or of authority . . . [are] identical . . . 
[and] linked in various ways. . . What capital does to labour . . . the 
State [does] to liberty . . ." [quoted by Max Nettlau, _A Short History 
of Anarchism_, pp. 43-44]

Thus "anarchy" means more than just "no government," it means opposition to
all forms of authoritarian organisation and hierarchy. In Kropotkin's words, 
"the origin of the anarchist inception of society . . . [lies in] the criticism 
. . . of the hierarchical organisations and the authoritarian conceptions of 
society; and . . . the analysis of the tendencies that are seen in the 
progressive movements of mankind." [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_, 
p. 158]

And, just to state the obvious, anarchy does not mean chaos nor do anarchists
seek to create chaos or disorder. Instead, we wish to create a society 
based upon individual freedom and voluntary co-operation. In other words,
order from the bottom up, not disorder imposed from the top down by 
authorities.

A.1.2 What does "anarchism" mean?

To quote Peter Kropotkin, Anarchism is "the no-government system of 
socialism. . . ." [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_, p. 46] In other
words, "the abolition of exploitation and oppression of man by man, that 
is the abolition of private property [i.e. capitalism] and government." 
[Errico Malatesta, "Towards Anarchism," in _Man!_, M. Graham (Ed), p. 75]

Anarchism, therefore, is a political theory that aims to create a society 
which is without political, economic or social hierarchies. Anarchists 
maintain that anarchy, the absence of rulers, is a viable form of social 
system and so work for the maximisation of individual liberty and social 
equality. They see the goals of liberty and equality as mutually 
self-supporting. Or, in Bakunin's famous dictum: 

"We are convinced that freedom without Socialism is privilege and 
injustice, and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality." 
[_The Political Philosophy of Bakunin_, p. 269]

The history of human society proves this point. Liberty without equality
is only liberty for the powerful, and equality without liberty is
impossible and a justification for slavery. 

While there are many different types of anarchism (from individualist 
anarchism to communist-anarchism -- see section A.3 for more details),
there has always been two common positions at the core of all of them -- 
opposition to government and opposition to capitalism. In the words of 
the individualist-anarchist Benjamin Tucker, anarchism insists on "the 
abolition of the State and the abolition of usury; on no more government 
of man by man, and no more exploitation of man by man." [cited in 
_Native American Anarchism - A Study of Left-Wing American Individualism_ 
by Eunice Schuster, p. 140] All anarchists view profit, interest and rent 
as *usury* (i.e. as exploitation) and so oppose them and the conditions 
that create them just as much as they oppose government and the State.

More generally, in the words of L. Susan Brown, the "unifying link" within 
anarchism "is a universal condemnation of hierarchy and domination and a willingness to fight for the freedom of the human individual." [_The
Politics of Individualism_, p. 108] For anarchists, a person cannot be
free if they are subject to state or capitalist authority.

So Anarchism is a political theory which advocates the creation of
anarchy, a society based on the maxim of "no rulers." To achieve this,
"[i]n common with all socialists, the anarchists hold that the private
ownership of land, capital, and machinery has had its time; that it is
condemned to disappear: and that all requisites for production must, and
will, become the common property of society, and be managed in common by
the producers of wealth. And. . . they maintain that the ideal of the
political organisation of society is a condition of things where the
functions of government are reduced to minimum. . . [and] that the
ultimate aim of society is the reduction of the functions of government 
to nil -- that is, to a society without government, to an-archy." [Peter
Kropotkin, Op. Cit., p. 46]

Thus anarchism is both positive and negative. It analyses and critiques
current society while at the same time offering a vision of a potential
new society -- a society that maximises certain human needs which the
current one denies. These needs, at their most basic, are liberty,
equality and solidarity, which will be discussed in section A.2.

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

A.1.3 Why is anarchism also called libertarian socialism?

Many anarchists, seeing the negative nature of the definition of
"anarchism," have used other terms to emphasise the inherently positive
and constructive aspect of their ideas. The most common terms used are
"free socialism," "free communism," "libertarian socialism," and
"libertarian communism." For anarchists, libertarian socialism,
libertarian communism, and anarchism are virtually interchangeable. 

Considering definitions from the _American Heritage Dictionary_, we find:

LIBERTARIAN: one who believes in freedom of action and thought; one who
believes in free will.

SOCIALISM: a social system in which the producers possess both political
power and the means of producing and distributing goods.

Just taking those two first definitions and fusing them yields:

LIBERTARIAN SOCIALISM: a social system which believes in freedom of action
and thought and free will, in which the producers possess both political
power and the means of producing and distributing goods.

(Although we must add that our usual comments on the lack of political
sophistication of dictionaries still holds. We only use these definitions
to show that "libertarian" does not imply "free market" capitalism nor
"socialism" state ownership. Other dictionaries, obviously, will have
different definitions -- particularly for socialism. Those wanting to
debate dictionary definitions are free to pursue this unending and
politically useless hobby but we will not).

However, due to the creation of the Libertarian Party in the USA, 
many people now consider the idea of "libertarian socialism" to be a
contradiction in terms. Indeed, many "Libertarians" think anarchists are
just attempting to associate the "anti-libertarian" ideas of "socialism"
(as Libertarians conceive it) with Libertarian ideology in order to make
those "socialist" ideas more "acceptable" -- in other words, trying to
steal the "libertarian" label from its rightful possessors. 

Nothing could be further from the truth. Anarchists have been using the term
"libertarian" to describe themselves and their ideas since the 1850's. The 
revolutionary anarchist Joseph Dejacque published _Le Libertaire, Journal 
du Mouvement social_ in New York between 1858 and 1861 [Max Nettlau, _A 
Short History of Anarchism_, p. 75]. According to anarchist historian Max 
Nettlau, the use of the term "libertarian communism" dates from November, 
1880 when a French anarchist congress adopted it [Ibid., p. 145]. The use
of the term "Libertarian" by anarchists became more popular from the 1890s
onward after it was used in France in an attempt to get round anti-anarchist 
laws and to avoid the negative associations of the word "anarchy" in the 
popular mind (Sebastien Faure and Louise Michel published the paper 
_Le Libertaire_  -- _The Libertarian_ -- in France in 1895, for example). 
Since then, particularly outside America, it has *always* been associated 
with anarchist ideas and movements.  Taking a more recent example, in the 
USA, anarchists organised "The Libertarian League" in July 1954, which had 
staunch anarcho-syndicalist principles and lasted until 1965. The US-based 
"Libertarian" Party, on the other hand has only existed since the early 
1970's, well over 100 years after anarchists first used the term to describe 
their political ideas (and 90 years after the expression "libertarian 
communism" was first adopted). It is that party, not the anarchists, who 
have "stolen" the word. Later, in Section B, we will discuss why the idea 
of a "libertarian" capitalism (as desired by the Libertarian Party) is 
a contradiction in terms. 

As we will also explain in Section I, only a libertarian-socialist system
of ownership can maximise individual freedom. Needless to say, state
ownership -- what is commonly *called* "socialism" -- is, for anarchists,
not socialism at all. In fact, as we will elaborate in Section H, state
"socialism" is just a form of capitalism, with no socialist content
whatever.

A.1.4 Are anarchists socialists?

Yes. All branches of anarchism are opposed to capitalism. This is because 
the latter is based on domination and exploitation (see sections B and C). 
Anarchists reject the "notion that men cannot work together unless they
have a driving-master to take a percentage of their product" and think
that in an anarchist society "the real workmen will make their own 
regulations, decide when and where and how things shall be done." By
so doing workers would free themselves "from the terrible bondage of
capitalism." [Voltairine de Cleyre, "Anarchism," pp. 30-34, _Man!_, 
M. Graham (Ed), p. 32, p. 34]

Individualists like Ben Tucker along with social anarchists like Proudhon
and Bakunin proclaimed themselves "socialists." They did so because the
word "socialist" was originally defined to include "all those who believed
in the individual's right to possess what he or she produced." ["Ayn Rand
and the Perversion of Libertarianism," in _Anarchy: A Journal of Desire
Armed_, no. 34]. In order to achieve this, socialists desire a society
within which the producers own and control the means of production. Under
capitalism, workers do not govern themselves during the production process
nor have control over the product of their labour. Such a situation is hardly
based on equal freedom for all and is so opposed by anarchists.

Therefore *all* anarchists are anti-capitalist. Ben Tucker, for example -- 
the anarchist most influenced by liberalism (as we will discuss later) -- 
called his ideas "Anarchistic-Socialism" and denounced the capitalist as 
"the usurer, the receiver of interest, rent and profit." Tucker held 
that in an anarchist, non-capitalist, free-market society, capitalists 
will become redundant, since "labour. . . will. . . secure its natural 
wage, its entire product." Such an economy will be based on mutual banking 
and the free exchange of products between co-operatives, artisans and 
peasants. Even Max Stirner, the arch-egoist, had nothing but scorn for 
capitalist society and its various "spooks," which for him meant ideas 
that are treated as sacred or religious, such as private property, 
competition, division of labour, and so forth.

So anarchists consider themselves as socialists, but socialists of a
specific kind - *libertarian socialists*. As the individualist 
anarchist Joseph A. Labadie puts it (echoing both Tucker and Bakunin):

"[i]t is said that Anarchism is not socialism. This is a mistake.
Anarchism is voluntary Socialism. There are two kinds of Socialism,
archistic and anarchistic, authoritarian and libertarian, state and free.
Indeed, every proposition for social betterment is either to increase or
decrease the powers of external wills and forces over the individual. As
they increase they are archistic; as they decrease they are anarchistic."
[_Anarchism: What It Is and What It Is Not_]

While social and individualist anarchists do disagree on many issues --
for example, whether a free market would be the best means of maximising
liberty -- they agree that capitalism is to be opposed and that an
anarchist society must, by definition, be based on associated, not wage,
labour.  Only associated labour will "decrease the powers of external 
wills and forces over the individual" during working hours and such 
self-management of work by those who do it is the core ideal of real 
socialism. However, the meanings of words change over time. Today
"socialism" almost always refers to *state* socialism, a system that all
anarchists have opposed as a denial of freedom and genuine socialist
ideals. All anarchists would agree with Noam Chomsky's statement on this
issue: 

"If the left is understood to include 'Bolshevism,' then I would
flatly dissociate myself from the left. Lenin was one of the greatest
enemies of socialism." [_Red and Black Revolution_, issue 2]. 

Anarchism developed in constant opposition to the ideas of Marxism, social
democracy and Leninism. Long before Lenin rose to power, Mikhail Bakunin
warned the followers of Marx against the "Red bureaucracy" that would
institute "the worst of all despotic governments" if Marx's
state-socialist ideas were ever implemented. 

Nevertheless, being socialists, anarchists do share *some* ideas with 
*some* Marxists (though none with Leninists). Both Bakunin and Tucker 
accepted Marx's analysis and critique of capitalism as well as his 
labour theory of value (see section C). Marx himself was heavily 
influenced by Max Stirner's book _The Ego and Its Own_, which contains 
a brilliant critique of what Marx called "vulgar" communism as well as 
state socialism. There have also been elements of the Marxist movement 
holding views very similar to social anarchism (particularly the 
anarcho-syndicalist branch of social anarchism) -- for example, 
Anton Pannekoek, Rosa Luxembourg, Paul Mattick and others, who are 
very far from Lenin. Karl Korsch and others wrote sympathetically of 
the anarchist revolution in Spain. There are many continuities from 
Marx to Lenin, but there are also continuities from Marx to more 
libertarian Marxists, who were harshly critical of Lenin and
Bolshevism and whose ideas approximate anarchism's desire for the 
free association of equals.

Therefore anarchism is basically a form of socialism, one that stands in
direct opposition to what is usually defined as "socialism" (i.e. state
control). As Daniel Guerin pointed out in his book _Anarchism_, "Anarchism 
is really a synonym for socialism. The anarchist is primarily a
socialist whose aim is to abolish the exploitation of man by man." 
Instead of "central planning," anarchists advocate free association and
co-operation between individuals, workplaces and communities and 
so oppose "state" socialism as a form of state capitalism. The 
anarchist objection to the identification of "central planning" with
socialism will be discussed in section H.

A.1.5 Where does anarchism come from?

Where does anarchism come from? We can do no better than quote the
_The Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists_ produced
by participants of the Makhnovist movement in the Russian Revolution 
(see Section A.5.4). They point out that:

"[t]he class struggle created by the enslavement of workers and their 
aspirations to liberty gave birth, in the oppression, to the idea of 
anarchism: the idea of the total negation of a social system based on 
the principles of classes and the State, and its replacement by a free 
non-statist society of workers under self-management.

"So anarchism does not derive from the abstract reflections of an 
intellectual or a philosopher, but from the direct struggle of workers 
against capitalism, from the needs and necessities of the workers, from 
their aspirations to liberty and equality, aspirations which become 
particularly alive in the best heroic period of the life and struggle 
of the working masses.

"The outstanding anarchist thinkers, Bakunin, Kropotkin and others, 
did not invent the idea of anarchism, but, having discovered it in 
the masses, simply helped by the strength of their thought and 
knowledge to specify and spread it." [pp. 15-16]

Like the anarchist movement in general, the Makhnovists were a mass 
movement of working class people resisting the forces of authority, both 
Red (Communist) and White (Tsarist/Capitalist) in the Ukraine from 1917 
to 1921. As Peter Marshall notes "anarchism . . . has traditionally found 
its chief supporters amongst workers and peasants." [_Demanding the 
Impossible_, p. 652]

Anarchism was created in, and by, the struggle of the oppressed for freedom. 
It comes from the fight for liberty and our desires to lead a fully human 
life, one in which we have time to live, to love and to play. It was not 
created by a few people divorced from life, in ivory towers looking down 
upon society and making judgements upon it based on their notions of what 
is right and wrong. 

In other words, anarchism is an expression of the struggle against oppression 
and exploitation, a generalisation of working people's experiences and 
analyses of what is wrong with the current system and an expression of our 
hopes and dreams for a better future.

A.2 What does anarchism stand for?

These words by Percy Bysshe Shelley gives an idea of what anarchism stands
for in practice and what ideals drive it: 

	 The man
	 Of virtuous soul commands not, nor obeys:
	 Power, like a desolating pestilence,
	 Pollutes whate'er it touches, and obedience,
	 Bane of all genius, virtue, freedom, truth,
	 Makes slaves of men, and, of the human frame,
	 A mechanised automaton.

As Shelley's lines suggest, anarchists place a high priority on liberty,
desiring it both for themselves and others. They also consider
individuality -- that which makes one a unique person -- to be a most
important aspect of humanity. They recognise, however, that individuality
does not exist in a vacuum but is a *social* phenomenon. Outside of
society, individuality is impossible, since one needs other people in
order to develop, expand, and grow. 

Moreover, between individual and social development there is a reciprocal 
effect: individuals grow within and are shaped by a particular society, 
while at the same time they help shape and change aspects of that society 
(as well as themselves and other individuals) by their actions and thoughts. 
A society not based on free individuals, their hopes, dreams and ideas would 
be hollow and dead. Thus, "the making of a human being. . . is a collective 
process, a process in which both community and the individual *participate*" 
[Murray Bookchin, _The Modern Crisis_, p. 79]. Consequently, any political 
theory which bases itself purely on the social or the individual is false. 

In order for individuality to develop to the fullest possible extent,
anarchists consider it essential to create a society based on three
principles: liberty, equality and solidarity, which are interdependent. 

Liberty is essential for the full flowering of human intelligence,
creativity, and dignity. To be dominated by another is to be denied the
chance to think and act for oneself, which is the only way to grow and
develop one's individuality. Domination also stifles innovation and
personal responsibility, leading to conformity and mediocrity. Thus the
society that maximises the growth of individuality will necessarily be
based on voluntary association, not coercion and authority. To quote
Proudhon, "All associated and all free." Or, as Luigi Galleani puts it,
anarchism is "the autonomy of the individual within the freedom of
association" [_The End of Anarchism?_, p. 35] (See further section A.2.2,
"Why do anarchists emphasise liberty?").

If liberty is essential for the fullest development of individuality, then
equality is essential for genuine liberty to exist. There can be no real
freedom in a class-stratified, hierarchical society riddled with gross
inequalities of power, wealth, and privilege. For in such a society only
a few -- those at the top of the hierarchy -- are relatively free, while
the rest are semi-slaves. Hence without equality, liberty becomes a
mockery -- at best the "freedom" to choose one's master (boss), as under
capitalism. Moreover, even the elite under such conditions are not really
free, because they must live in a stunted society made ugly and barren by
the tyranny and alienation of the majority. And since individuality
develops to the fullest only with the widest contact with other free
individuals, members of the elite are restricted in the possibilities for
their own development by the scarcity of free individuals with whom to
interact. (See also A.2.5 "Why are anarchists in favour of equality?) 

Finally, solidarity means mutual aid: working voluntarily and
co-operatively with others who share the same goals and interests. But
without liberty and equality, society becomes a pyramid of competing
classes based on the domination of the lower by the higher strata. In
such a society, as we know from our own, it's "dominate or be dominated,"
"dog eat dog," and "everyone for themselves." Thus "rugged individualism"
is promoted at the expense of community feeling, with those on the bottom
resenting those above them and those on the top fearing those below them. 
Under such conditions, there can be no society-wide solidarity, but only a
partial form of solidarity within classes whose interests are opposed,
which weakens society as a whole. (See also A.2.6, "Why is solidarity
important to anarchists?")

It should be noted that solidarity does not imply self-sacrifice or 
self-negation. As Errico Malatesta makes clear:

"we are all egoists, we all seek our own satisfaction. But the anarchist 
finds his greatest satisfaction in struggling for the good of all, for the 
achievement of a society in which he [sic] can be a brother among brothers, 
and among healthy, intelligent, educated, and happy people. But he who is 
adaptable, who is satisfied to live among slaves and draw profit from the 
labour of slaves, is not, and cannot be, an anarchist." [_Life and Ideas_, 
p. 23]. 

For anarchists, *real* wealth is other people and the planet on which 
we live. 

Also, honouring individuality does not mean that anarchists are
idealists, thinking that people or ideas develop outside of society. 
Individuality and ideas grow and develop within society, in response to
material and intellectual interactions and experiences, which people
actively analyse and interpret. Anarchism, therefore, is a *materialist*
theory, recognising that ideas develop and grow from social interaction
and individuals' mental activity (see Mikhail Bakunin's _God and the
State_ for the classic discussion of materialism verses idealism).

This means that an anarchist society will be the creation of human beings,
not some deity or other transcendental principle, since "[n]othing ever 
arranges itself, least of all in human relations. It is men [sic] who do 
the arranging, and they do it according to their attitudes and understanding 
of things." [Alexander Berkman, _ABC of Anarchism_, p. 42]

Therefore, anarchism bases itself upon the power of ideas and the ability
of people to act and transform their lives based on what they consider to
be right. In other words, liberty. 

A.2.1 What is the essence of anarchism?

As we have seen, "an-archy" implies "without rulers" or "without (hierarchical) 
authority." Anarchists are not against "authorities" in the sense of experts 
who are particularly knowledgeable, skilful, or wise, though they believe 
that such authorities should have no power to force others to follow their
recommendations (see section B.1 for more on this distinction). In a 
nutshell, then, anarchism is anti-authoritarianism.

Anarchists are anti-authoritarians because they believe that no human
being should dominate another. Anarchists, in L. Susan Brown's words,
"believe in the inherent dignity and worth of the human individual."
[_The Politics of Individualism_, p. 107] Domination is inherently 
degrading and demeaning, since it submerges the will and judgement of 
the dominated to the will and judgement of the dominators, thus destroying 
the dignity and self-respect that comes only from personal autonomy. 
Moreover, domination makes possible and generally leads to exploitation, 
which is the root of alienation, inequality, poverty, and social breakdown.

In other words, then, the essence of anarchism (to express it positively) 
is free co-operation between equals to maximise their liberty and 
individuality. 

Co-operation between equals is the key to anti-authoritarianism. By 
co-operation we can develop and protect our own intrinsic value as unique 
individuals as well as enriching our lives and liberty for "[n]o individual 
can recognise his own humanity, and consequently realise it in his lifetime, 
if not by recognising it in others and co-operating in its realisation for 
others." [Michael Bakunin, cited by Malatesta in _Anarchy_, p. 27] 

While being anti-authoritarians, anarchists recognise that human beings
have a social nature and that they mutually influence each other. We
cannot escape the "authority" of this mutual influence, because, as
Bakunin reminds us: 

"[t]he abolition of this mutual influence would be death. And when we 
advocate the freedom of the masses, we are by no means suggesting the 
abolition of any of the natural influences that individuals or groups 
of individuals exert on them. What we want is the abolition of 
influences which are artificial, privileged, legal, official." 
[quoted by Malatesta, in _Anarchy_, p. 50]

In other words, those influences which stem from hierarchical authority.

A.2.2 Why do anarchists emphasise liberty?

An anarchist can be regarded, in Bakunin's words, as a "fanatic lover of
liberty, considering it as the unique condition under which intelligence,
dignity and human happiness can develop and grow. . . . " [_The Paris
Commune and the Idea of the State_]. Because human beings are thinking
creatures, to deny them liberty is to deny them the opportunity to think
for themselves, which is to deny their very existence as humans. For
anarchists, freedom is a product of our humanity, because:

"the very fact . . . that a person has a consciousness of self, of being 
different from others, creates a desire to act freely. The craving for 
liberty and self-expression is a very fundamental and dominant trait." 
[Emma Goldman, _Red Emma Speaks_, p. 393]

For this reason, anarchism "proposes to rescue the self-respect and
independence of the individual from all restraint and invasion by authority. 
Only in freedom can man [sic] grow to his full stature. Only in freedom
will he learn to think and move, and give the very best of himself. Only
in freedom will he realise the true force of the social bonds which tie
men together, and which are the true foundations of a normal social life." 
[Ibid., p. 59]

Thus, for anarchists, freedom is basically individuals pursuing their 
own good in their own way. Doing so calls forth the activity and power 
of individuals as they make decisions for and about themselves and their 
lives. Only liberty can ensure individual development and diversity. This
is because when individuals govern themselves and make their own decisions
they have to exercise their minds and this can have no other effect
than expanding and stimulating the individuals involved.

So, liberty is the precondition for the maximum development of one's 
individual potential, which is also a social product and can be
achieved only in and through community. A healthy, free community will
produce free individuals, who in turn will shape the community and enrich
the social relationships between the people of whom it is composed. 
Liberties, being socially produced, "do not exist because they have been
legally set down on a piece of paper, but only when they have become the
ingrown habit of a people, and when any attempt to impair them will meet
with the violent resistance of the populace . . . One compels respect from
others when one knows how to defend one's dignity as a human being. This
is not only true in private life; it has always been the same in
political life as well." [Rudolf Rocker, _Anarcho-syndicalism_, p. 64]

In short, liberty develops only within society, not in opposition to it. 
Thus Murray Bookchin writes: 

"What freedom, independence, and autonomy people have in a given historical 
period is the product of long social traditions and . . . a collective 
development -- which is not to deny that individuals play an important 
role in that development, indeed are ultimately obliged to do so if they 
wish to be free." [_Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism_]

But freedom requires the right *kind* of social environment in which to
grow and develop. Such an environment *must* be decentralised and based
on the direct management of work by those who do it. For centralisation
means coercive authority (hierarchy), whereas self-management is the 
essence of freedom. Self-management ensures that the individuals 
involved use (and so develop) all their abilities -- particularly 
their mental ones. Hierarchy, in contrast, substitutes the activities
and thoughts of a few for the activities and thoughts of all the
individuals involved. Thus, rather than developing their abilities
to the full, hierarchy marginalises the many and ensures that their 
development is blunted. 

It is for this reason that anarchists oppose both capitalism and statism.
Capitalism, like the state, is based on centralised authority, the very
purpose of which is to keep the management of work out of the hands 
of those who do it. This means "that the serious, final, complete
liberation of the workers is possible only upon one condition: that 
of the appropriation of capital, that is, of raw material and all 
the tools of labour, including land, by the whole body of the workers."
[Michael Bakunin, _Bakunin on Anarchism_, p. 255] 

Hence, as Noam Chomsky argues, a "consistent anarchist must oppose private 
ownership of the means of production and the wage slavery which is a 
component of this system, as incompatible with the principle that labour 
must be freely undertaken and under the control of the producer." [_Notes 
on Anarchism_]

Thus, liberty for anarchists means a non-authoritarian society in 
which individuals and groups practice self-management, i.e. they 
govern themselves. The implications of this are important. First, it 
implies that an anarchist society will be non-coercive, that is, one 
in which violence or the threat of violence will not be used to "convince"
individuals to do anything. Second, it implies that anarchists are firm
supporters of individual sovereignty, and that, because of this support,
they also oppose institutions based on coercive authority, i.e. hierarchy. 
And finally, it implies that anarchists' opposition to "government" means 
only that they oppose centralised, hierarchical, bureaucratic organisations 
or government. They do not oppose self-government through confederations 
of decentralised, grassroots organisations, so long as these are based on 
direct democracy rather than the delegation of power to "representatives." 
For authority is the opposite of liberty, and hence any form of organisation 
based on the delegation of power is a threat to the liberty and dignity of 
the people subjected to that power. 

Anarchists consider freedom to be the only social environment within which
human dignity and diversity can flower. Under capitalism and statism,
however, there is no freedom for the majority, as private property and
hierarchy ensure that the inclination and judgement of most individuals
will be subordinated to the will of a master, severely restricting their
liberty and making impossible the "full development of all the material,
intellectual and moral powers that are latent in each person" [Bakunin, 
Op. Cit.] (see section B for further discussion of the hierarchical and 
authoritarian nature of capitalism and statism).

A.2.3 Are anarchists in favour of organisation?

Yes. Without association, a truly human life is impossible. Liberty
*cannot* exist without society and organisation. As George Barrett, in
_Objections to Anarchism_, points out:

"[t]o get the full meaning out of life we must co-operate, and to 
co-operate we must make agreements with our fellow-men. But to suppose 
that such agreements mean a limitation of freedom is surely an absurdity; 
on the contrary, they are the exercise of our freedom.

"If we are going to invent a dogma that to make agreements is to damage
freedom, then at once freedom becomes tyrannical, for it forbids men to
take the most ordinary everyday pleasures. For example, I cannot go for a
walk with my friend because it is against the principle of Liberty that I
should agree to be at a certain place at a certain time to meet him. I
cannot in the least extend my own power beyond myself, because to do so I
must co-operate with someone else, and co-operation implies an agreement,
and that is against Liberty. It will be seen at once that this argument is
absurd. I do not limit my liberty, but simply exercise it, when I agree
with my friend to go for a walk."

As far as organisation goes, anarchists think that "far from creating
authority, [it] is the only cure for it and the only means whereby each of
us will get used to taking an active and conscious part in collective
work, and cease being passive instruments in the hands of leaders." [Errico
Malatesta, _Life and Ideas_, p. 86]. 

The fact that anarchists are in favour of organisation may seem strange at
first, but this is because we live in a society in which virtually all
forms of organisation are authoritarian, making them appear to be the
only kind possible. What is usually not recognised is that this mode of 
organisation is historically conditioned, arising within a specific 
kind of society -- one whose motive principles are domination and 
exploitation. According to archaeologists and anthropologists, this kind
of society has only existed for about 5,000 years, having appeared with
the first primitive states based on conquest and slavery, in which the
labour of slaves created a surplus which supported a ruling class. 

Prior to that time, for hundreds of thousands of years, human and proto-human
societies were what Murray Bookchin calls "organic," that is, based on
co-operative forms of economic activity involving mutual aid, free access
to productive resources, and a sharing of the products of communal labour
according to need. Although such societies probably had status rankings
based on age, there were no hierarchies in the sense of institutionalised
dominance-subordination relations enforced by coercive sanctions and
resulting in class-stratification involving the economic exploitation of
one class by another [see Murray Bookchin, _The Ecology of Freedom_]. 

It must be emphasised, however, that anarchists do *not* advocate 
going "back to the Stone Age." We merely note that since the
hierarchical-authoritarian mode of organisation is a relatively recent
development in the course of human social evolution, there is no reason to
suppose that it is somehow "fated" to be permanent. We do not think that
human beings are genetically "programmed" for authoritarian, competitive,
and aggressive behaviour, as there is no credible evidence to support this
claim. On the contrary, such behaviour is socially conditioned, or
*learned,* and as such, can be *unlearned* [see Ashley Montagu, _The
Nature of Human Aggression_ ]. We are not fatalists or genetic
determinists, but believe in free will, which means that people can change
the way they do things, including the way they organise society. 

And there is no doubt that society needs to be better organised, because
presently most of its wealth -- which is produced by the majority -- and 
power gets distributed to a small, elite minority at the top of the social 
pyramid, causing deprivation and suffering for the rest, particularly for 
those at the bottom.  Yet because this elite controls the means of coercion 
through its control of the state (see B.2.4), it is able to suppress the 
majority and ignore its suffering -- a phenomenon that occurs on a smaller
scale within all hierarchies. Little wonder, then, that people within
authoritarian and centralised structures come to hate them as a denial of
their freedom. As Alexander Berkman puts it:

"capitalist society is so badly organised that its various members suffer: 
just as when you have a pain in some part of you, your whole body aches 
and you are ill. . . , not a single member of the organisation or union 
may with impunity be discriminated against, suppressed or ignored. To do 
so would be the same as to ignore an aching tooth: you would be sick all 
over" [Alexander Berkman, Op. Cit., p. 53]. 

Yet this is precisely what happens in capitalist society, with the 
result that it is, indeed, "sick all over." 

For these reasons, anarchists reject authoritarian forms of organisation
and instead support associations based on free agreement. Free agreement 
is important because, in Berkman's words, "[o]nly when each is a free and 
independent unit, co-operating with others from his own choice because of 
mutual interests, can the world work successfully and become powerful" 
[Op. Cit., p. 53]. In the "political" sphere, this means direct democracy 
and confederation, which are the expression and environment of liberty. 
Direct (or participatory) democracy is essential because liberty and 
equality imply the need for forums within which people can discuss and 
debate as equals and which allow for the free exercise of what Murray 
Bookchin calls "the creative role of dissent." 

Anarchist ideas on libertarian organisation and the need for direct
democracy and confederation will be discussed further in sections A.2.9
and A.2.10.

A.2.4 Are anarchists in favour of "absolute" liberty?

No. Anarchists do not believe that everyone should be able to "do
whatever they like," because some actions invariably involve the denial of the
liberty of others. 

For example, anarchists do not support the "freedom"
to rape, to exploit, or to coerce others. Neither do we tolerate
authority. On the contrary, since authority is a threat to liberty,
equality, and solidarity (not to mention human dignity), anarchists
recognise the need to resist and overthrow it. 

The exercise of authority is not freedom. No one has a "right" to rule others.
As Malatesta points out, anarchism supports "freedom for
everybody. . .with the only limit of the equal freedom for others; which
does *not* mean. . . that we recognise, and wish to respect, the
'freedom' to exploit, to oppress, to command, which is oppression and
certainly not freedom." [Errico Malatesta, _Life and Ideas_, p. 53].

In a capitalist society, resistance to all forms of hierarchical authority
is the mark of a free person -- be it private (the boss) or public (the
state). As Henry David Thoreau pointed out in his essay on "Civil
Disobedience" (1847)

"Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves."

A.2.5 Why are anarchists in favour of equality?

As mentioned in A.2, anarchists are dedicated to social equality because
it is the only context in which individual liberty can flourish. 
However, there has been much nonsense written about "equality," and much
of what is commonly believed about it is very strange indeed. Before
discussing what anarchist *do* mean by equality, we have to indicate what
we *do not* mean by it.

Anarchists do *not* believe in "equality of endowment," which is not only 
non-existent but would be *very* undesirable if it could be brought
about. Everyone is unique. Biologically determined human differences
not only exist but are "a cause for joy, not fear or regret." Why? 
Because "life among clones would not be worth living, and a sane person
will only rejoice that others have abilities that they do not share" [Noam
Chomsky _Red and Black Revolution_, No. 2]. 

That some people *seriously* suggest that anarchists means by "equality" that 
everyone should be *identical* is a sad reflection on the state of present-day 
intellectual culture and the corruption of words -- a corruption used to divert
attention from an unjust and authoritarian system and side-track people
into discussions of biology. 

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

"Equality of outcome" can only be introduced and maintained by force, which 
would *not* be equality anyway, as some would have more power than others! 
"Equality of outcome" is particularly hated by anarchists, as we recognise 
that every individual has different needs, abilities, desires and interests. 
To make all consume the same would be tyranny. Obviously, if one person needs 
medical treatment and another does not, they do not receive an "equal" amount 
of medical care. The same is true of other human needs.

For anarchists, these "concepts" of "equality" are meaningless. Equality,
in anarchist theory, does not mean denying individual diversity or
uniqueness. As Bakunin observes:

"once equality has triumphed and is well established, will there be no 
longer any difference in the talents and degree of application of the 
various individuals? There will be a difference, not so many as exist 
today, perhaps, but there will always be differences. Of that there 
can be no doubt. This is a proverbial truth which will probably never 
cease to be true -- that no tree ever brings forth two leaves that are 
exactly identical. How much more will this be true of men, men being 
much more complicated creatures than leaves. But such diversity, far 
from constituting an affliction is. . . one of the assets of mankind. 
Thanks to it, the human race is a collective whole wherein each human 
being complements the rest and has need of them; so that this infinite 
variation in human beings is the very cause and chief basis of their 
solidarity -- an important argument in favour of equality"
[_Integral Education_]

Equality for anarchists means *social* equality, or, to use Murray
Bookchin's term, the "equality of unequals." By this he means that
hierarchical social relationships are abolished in favour of ones that
encourage participation and are based on the principle of "one person, one
vote." Therefore, social equality in the workplace, for example, means
that everyone has an equal say in the policy decisions on how the
workplace develops and changes. Anarchists are strong believers in the
maxim "that which touches all, is decided by all."

This does not mean, of course, that expertise will be ignored or that
everyone will decide everything. As far as expertise goes, different
people have different interests, talents, and abilities, so obviously they
will want to study different things and do different kinds of work. It is
also obvious that when people are ill they consult a doctor -- an expert
-- who manages his or her own work rather than being directed by a
committee. We are sorry to have to bring these points up, but once the
topics of social equality and workers' self-management come up, some
people start to talk nonsense. It is common sense that a hospital managed
in a socially equal way will *not* involve non-medical staff voting on how
doctors should perform an operation!

In fact, social equality and individual liberty are inseparable. Without
the collective self-management of decisions that affect a group (equality)
to complement the individual self-management of decisions that affect the
individual (liberty), a free society is impossible. For without both,
some will have power over others, making decisions *for* them (i.e.
governing them), and thus some will be more free than others.

Section F.3 ("Why do 'anarcho'-capitalists generally place little or no
value on 'equality,' and what do they mean by that term?) discusses
anarchist ideas on equality further.

A.2.6 Why is solidarity important to anarchists?

Solidarity, or mutual aid, is a key idea of anarchism. It is the link
between the individual and society, the means by which individuals can
work together to meet their common interests in an environment that
supports and nurtures both liberty and equality. For anarchists, mutual
aid is a fundamental feature of human life, a source of both strength and
happiness and a fundamental requirement for a fully human existence.

Erich Fromm, noted psychologist and socialist humanist, points out that the
"human desire to experience union with others is rooted in the specific
conditions of existence that characterise the human species and is one of
the strongest motivations of human behaviour" [_To Be or To Have_, p.
107]. Therefore anarchists consider the desire to form "unions" (to use
Max Stirner's term) with other people to be a natural need. These unions,
or associations, must be based on equality and individuality in order to
be fully satisfying to those who join them -- i.e. they must be organised
in an anarchist manner, i.e. voluntary, decentralised, and
non-hierarchical.

Solidarity -- co-operation between individuals -- is necessary for life and
is far from a denial of liberty. "What wonderful results this unique
force of man's individuality has achieved when strengthened by co-operation
with other individualities," Emma Goldman observes. "Co-operation -- as
opposed to internecine strife and struggle -- has worked for the survival
and evolution of the species. . . . [O]nly mutual aid and voluntary
co-operation. . . can create the basis for a free individual and
associational life" [_Red Emma Speaks_, p. 95].

Solidarity means associating together as equals in order to satisfy our
common interests and needs. Forms of association not based on solidarity
(i.e. those based on inequality) will crush the individuality of those
subjected to them. As Ret Marut points out, liberty needs solidarity, the
recognition of common interests: 

"The most noble, pure and true love of mankind is the love of oneself. *I*
want to be free! *I* hope to be happy! *I* want to appreciate all the
beauties of the world. But my freedom is secured *only* when all other
people around me are free. I can only be happy when all other people
around me are happy. I can only be joyful when all the people I see and
meet look at the world with joy-filled eyes. And *only* then can I eat my
fill with pure enjoyment when I have the secure knowledge that other
people, too, can eat their fill as I do. And for that reason it is a
question of *my own contentment,* only of *my own self,* when I rebel
against every danger which threatens my freedom and my happiness. . ."
[Ret Marut (a.k.a. B. Traven), _The BrickBurner_ magazine quoted by
Karl S. Guthke, _B. Traven: The life behind the legends_, pp. 133-4]

To practice solidarity means that we recognise, as in the slogan of
Industrial Workers of the World, that "an injury to one is an injury to
all." Solidarity, therefore, is the means to protect individuality and 
liberty and so is an expression of self-interest. As Alfie Kohn points out: 

"when we think about co-operation. . . we tend to associate the concept 
with fuzzy-minded idealism. . . This may result from confusing co-operation 
with altruism. . . Structural co-operation defies the usual egoism/altruism 
dichotomy. It sets things up so that by helping you I am helping myself at 
the same time. Even if my motive initially may have been selfish, our fates 
now are linked. We sink or swim together. Co-operation is a shrewd and highly 
successful strategy - a pragmatic choice that gets things done at work and 
at school even more effectively than competition does. . . There is also 
good evidence that co-operation is more conductive to psychological health 
and to liking one another." [_No Contest: The Case Against Competition_, 
p. 7]

And, within a hierarchical society, solidarity is important not only
because of the satisfaction it gives us, but also because it is necessary
to resist those in power. By standing together, we can increase our
strength and get what we want. Eventually, by organising into groups, we
can start to manage our own collective affairs together and so replace the
boss once and for all. "*Unions* will. . . multiply the individual's
means and secure his assailed property" [Max Stirner, _The Ego and Its
Own, p. 258]. By acting in solidarity, we can also replace the current
system with one more to our liking. There is power in "union." 

Solidarity is thus the means by which we can obtain and ensure our own
freedom. We agree to work together so that we will not have to work for
*another.* By agreeing to share with each other we increase our options so
that we may enjoy *more,* not less. Mutual aid is in my self-interest -- 
that is, I see that it is to my advantage to reach agreements with others 
based on mutual respect and social equality; for if I dominate someone, 
this means that the conditions exist which allow domination, and so in 
all probability I too will be dominated in turn.

As Max Stirner saw, solidarity is the means by which we ensure that our
liberty is strengthened and defended from those in power who want to rule
us: "Do you yourself count for nothing then?", he asks. "Are you bound to
let anyone do anything he wants to you? Defend yourself and no one will
touch you. If millions of people are behind you, supporting you, then you
are a formidable force and you will win without difficulty." [quoted in
in Luigi Galleani's _The End of Anarchism?_, p. 79 - different translation 
in _The Ego and Its Own_, p. 197]

Solidarity, therefore, is important to anarchists because it is the means
by which liberty can be created and defended against power. Solidarity is
strength and a product of our nature as social beings. However, solidarity 
should not be confused with "herdism," which implies passively following a
leader. In order to be effective, solidarity must be created by free people, 
co-operating together as *equals.* The "big WE" is *not* solidarity, although 
the desire for "herdism" is a product of our need for solidarity and union. 
It is a "solidarity" corrupted by hierarchical society, in which people are 
conditioned to blindly obey leaders. 

A.2.7 Why do anarchists argue for self-liberation?

Liberty, by its very nature, cannot be given. An individual cannot be
freed by another, but must break his or her own chains through
their own effort. Of course, self-effort can also be part of collective
action, and in many cases it has to be in order to attain its ends. As
Emma Goldman points out:

"history tells us that every oppressed class [or group or individual] 
gained true liberation from its masters by its own efforts" 
[_Red Emma Speaks_, p. 142].

Anarchists have long argued that people can only free themselves
by their own actions. The various methods anarchists suggest to aid this
process will be discussed in section J ("What Do Anarchists Do?") and 
will not be discussed here. However, these methods all involve people
organising themselves, setting their own agendas, and acting in ways that
empower them and eliminate their dependence on leaders to do things for
them. Anarchism is based on people "acting for themselves" (performing 
what anarchists call "direct action").

Direct action has an empowering and liberating effect on those involved in
it. Self-activity is the means by which the creativity, initiative,
imagination and critical thought of those subjected to authority can be
developed. It is the means by which society can be changed. As Errico
Malatesta points out "[b]etween man and his social environment there is a
reciprocal action. Men make society what it is and society makes men what
they are, and the result is therefore a kind of vicious circle. . . . 
Fortunately existing society has not been created by the inspired will of
a dominating class, which has succeeded in reducing all its subjects to 
passive and unconscious instruments. . . . It is the result of a thousand
internecine struggles, of a thousand human and natural factors. . . . " 
[_Life and Ideas_, p. 188]

Society, while shaping all individuals, is also created by them, through
their actions, thoughts, and ideals. Challenging institutions that
limit one's freedom is mentally liberating, as it sets in motion the
process of questioning authoritarian relationships in general. This
process gives us insight into how society works, changing our ideas and
creating new ideals. To quote Emma Goldman again: "True emancipation
begins. . . in woman's soul." And in a man's too, we might add. It is
only here that we can "begin [our] inner regeneration, [cutting] loose
from the weight of prejudices, traditions and customs" [Op. Cit., page
142]. But this process must be self-directed, for as Max Stirner notes,
"the man who is set free is nothing but a freed man. . . a dog dragging a
piece of chain with him." [Max Stirner, Op. Cit., p. 168]

In an interview during the Spanish Revolution, the Spanish anarchist
militant Durutti said, "we have a new world in our hearts." Only
self-activity and self-liberation allows us to create such a vision in our
hearts and gives us the confidence to try to actualise it in the real
world.

Anarchists, however, do not think that self-liberation must wait 
for the future, after the "glorious revolution." The personal is political,
and given the nature of society, how we act in the here and now will
influence the future of our society and our lives. Therefore, even in 
pre-anarchist society anarchists try to create, as Bakunin puts it, 
"not only the ideas but also the facts of the future itself." We can do 
so by creating alternative social relationships and organisations, acting 
as free people in a non-free society. Only by our actions in the here and
now can we lay the foundation for a free society. 

Revolution is a process, not an event, and every "spontaneous revolutionary 
action" is usually results from and is based upon the patient work of many 
years of organisation and education by people with "utopian" ideas. The 
process of "creating the new world in the shell of the old" (to use another 
IWW expression), by building alternative institutions and relationships, is
but one component of what must be a long tradition of revolutionary
commitment and militancy.

As Malatesta made clear, "to encourage popular organisations of all kinds
is the logical consequence of our basic ideas, and should therefore be an
integral part of our programme. . . anarchists do not want to emancipate
the people; we want the people to emancipate themselves. . . , we want
the new way of life to emerge from the body of the people and correspond
to the state of their development and advance as they advance." [Op. Cit. 
p. 90]

A.2.8 Is it possible to be an anarchist without opposing hierarchy?

No. We have seen that anarchists abhor authoritarianism. But if one is 
an anti-authoritarian, one must oppose all hierarchical institutions, 
since they embody the principle of authority. The argument for this 
(if anybody needs one) is as follows:

A hierarchy is a pyramidally-structured organisation composed of a series
of grades, ranks, or offices of increasing power, prestige, and (usually)
remuneration. Scholars who have investigated the hierarchical form have
found that the two primary principles it embodies are domination and
exploitation. For example, in his article "What Do Bosses Do?" (_Review 
of Radical Political Economics_, 6, 7), a study of the modern factory, 
Steven Marglin found that the main function of the corporate hierarchy 
is not greater productive efficiency (as capitalists claim), but greater
control over workers, the purpose of such control being more effective
exploitation.

Control in a hierarchy is maintained by coercion, that is, by the threat
of negative sanctions of one kind or another: physical, economic,
psychological, social, etc. Such control, including the repression of 
dissent and rebellion, therefore necessitates centralisation: a set 
of power relations in which the greatest control is exercised by the 
few at the top (particularly the head of the organisation), while those 
in the middle ranks have much less control and the many at the bottom 
have virtually none.

Since domination, coercion, and centralisation are essential
features of authoritarianism, and as those features are embodied in
hierarchies, all hierarchical institutions are authoritarian. Moreover, 
for anarchists, any organisation marked by hierarchy, centralism and
authoritarianism is state-like, or "statist." And as anarchists oppose
both the state and authoritarian relations, anyone who does not seek to
dismantle *all* forms of hierarchy cannot be called an anarchist.

Some argue that as long as an association is voluntary, whether it has an 
hierarchical structure is irrelevant. Anarchists disagree. If we take
the key element as being whether an association is voluntary or not we
would have to argue that the current statist system must be considered as 
"anarchy" - no one forces an individual to live in a specific state. We 
are free to leave and go somewhere else. By ignoring the hierarchical 
nature of an association, you can end up supporting organisations based 
upon the denial of freedom (including capitalist companies, the armed
forces, states even) all because they are "voluntary." Anarchy is more
than being free to pick a master.

Therefore opposition to hierarchy is a key anarchist position, otherwise
you just become a "voluntary archist" - which is hardly anarchistic. 
For more on this see section A.2.14 (Why is voluntarism not enough?).

Anarchists argue that organisations do not need to be hierarchical, they 
can be based upon co-operation between equals who manage their own affairs 
directly. In this way we can do without hierarchical structures 
(i.e. the delegation of power in the hands of a few). Only when an 
association is self-managed by its members can it be considered truly
anarchistic.

We are sorry to belabour this point, but some capitalist apologists,
apparently wanting to appropriate the "anarchist" name because of its
association with freedom, have recently claimed that one can be both a
capitalist and an anarchist at the same time (as in so-called "anarcho"
capitalism). It should now be clear that since capitalism is based on
hierarchy (not to mention statism and exploitation), "anarcho"-capitalism 
is a contradiction in terms. (For more on this, see section F)

A.2.9 What sort of society do anarchists want?

Anarchists desire a decentralised society, based on free association. We
consider this form of society the best one for maximising the values we
have outlined above -- liberty, equality and solidarity. Only by a
rational decentralisation of power, both structurally and territorially,
can individual liberty be fostered and encouraged. The delegation of power
into the hands of a minority is an obvious denial of individual liberty
and dignity. Rather than taking the management of their own affairs away
from people and putting it in the hands of others, anarchists favour
organisations which minimise authority, keeping power at the base, in
the hands of those who are affected by any decisions reached.

Free association is the cornerstone of an anarchist society. Individuals
must be free to join together as they see fit, for this is the basis of
freedom and human dignity. However, any such free agreement must be based
on decentralisation of power; otherwise it will be a sham (as in capitalism), 
as only equality provides the necessary social context for freedom to grow
and development. Therefore anarchists support directly democratic
collectives, based on "one person one vote" (for the rationale of direct
democracy as the political counterpart of free agreement, see section
A.2.11, "Why are most anarchists in favour of direct democracy?"). 

We should point out here that an anarchist society does not imply some
sort of idyllic state of harmony within which everyone agrees. Far from
it! As Luigi Galleani points out, "[d]isagreements and friction will 
always exist. In fact they are an essential condition of unlimited progress.
But once the bloody area of sheer animal competition - the struggle for
food - has been eliminated, problems of disagreement could be solved without
the slightest threat to the social order and individual liberty." 
[_The End of Anarchism?_, p. 28]

Therefore, an anarchist society will be based upon co-operative conflict
as "[c]onflict, per se, is not harmful. . . disagreements exist [and should
not be hidden] . . . What makes disagreement destructive is not the fact of
conflict itself but the addition of competition." [Alfie Kohn, _No Contest:
The Case Against Competition_, p. 156] Indeed, "a rigid demand for 
agreement means that people will effectively be prevented from contributing
their wisdom to a group effort." [Ibid.] It is for this reason that most
anarchists reject consensus decision making in large groups (see section
A.2.12).

So, in an anarchist society associations would be run by mass assemblies of 
all involved, based upon extensive discussion, debate and co-operative 
conflict between equals, with purely administrative tasks being handled by 
elected committees. These committees would be made up of mandated, recallable 
and temporary delegates who carry out their tasks under the watchful eyes of
the assembly which elected them. If the delegates act against their mandate 
or try to extend their influence or work beyond that already decided by the 
assembly (i.e. if they start to make policy decisions), they can be instantly 
recalled and their decisions abolished. In this way, the organisation remains 
in the hands of the union of individuals who created it.

This power of recall is an essential tenet of any anarchist organisation.
The *key* difference between a statist or hierarchical system and an 
anarchist community is who wields power. In a parliamentary system people 
give power to a group of representatives to make decisions for them for a 
fixed period of time. Whether they carry out their promises is irrelevant 
as people cannot recall them till the next election. Power lies at the
top and those at the base are expected to obey. In an anarchist society this 
relationship is reversed. No one individual or group (elected or unelected) 
holds power in an anarchist community. Instead decisions are made using direct 
democratic principles and, when required, the community can elect or appoint 
delegates to carry out these decisions.  There is a clear distinction between 
policy making (which lies with everyone who is affected) and the co-ordination 
and administration of any adopted policy (which is the job for delegates).

These egalitarian communities, founded by free agreement, also freely
associate together in confederations. Such a free confederation would be
run from the bottom up, with decisions following from the elemental
assemblies upwards. The confederations would be run in the same manner as
the collectives. There would be regular local regional, "national" and 
international conferences in which all important issues and problems 
affecting the collectives involved would be discussed. In addition, 
the fundamental, guiding principles and ideas of society would
be debated and policy decisions made, put into practice, reviewed, 
and co-ordinated. 

Action committees would be formed, if required, to co-ordinate and
administer the decisions of the assemblies and their congresses, under
strict control from below as discussed above. Delegates to such bodies 
would have a limited tenure and have a fixed mandate - they are not able 
to make decisions on behalf of the people they are delegates for.

Most importantly, the basic community assemblies can overturn any decisions 
reached by the conferences and withdraw from any confederation. Any 
compromises that are made by a delegate during negotiations have to go 
back to a general assembly for ratification. Without that ratification 
any compromises that are made by a delegate are not binding on the 
community that has delegated a particular task to a particular individual 
or committee. In addition, the assemblies can call confederal conferences 
to discuss new developments and to inform action committees about changing 
wishes and to instruct them on what to do about any developments and ideas.

By organising in this manner, hierarchy is abolished, because the people
at the base of the organisation are in control, *not* their delegates. 
Only this form of organisation can replace government (the initiative and
empowerment of the few) with anarchy (the initiative and empowerment of
all). This form of organisation would exist in all activities which
required group work and the co-ordination of many people. It would be, as
Bakunin said, the means "to integrate individuals into structures which
they could understand and control." For individual initiatives, the
individual involved would manage them.

As can be seen, anarchists wish to create a society based upon structures 
that ensure that no individual or group is able to wield power over others. 
Free agreement, confederation and the power of recall, fixed mandates and 
limited tenure are mechanisms by which power is removed from the hands of 
governments and placed in the hands of those directly affected by the 
decisions. For a fuller discussion on what an anarchist society would
look like see section I.

A.2.10 What will abolishing hierarchy mean and achieve?

The creation of a new society based upon libertarian organisations will
have an incalculable effect on everyday life. The empowerment of millions
of people will transform society in ways we can only guess at now. 
However, many consider these forms of organisation as impractical and
doomed to failure.

To those who say that such confederal, non-authoritarian organisations
would produce confusion and disunity, anarchists maintain that the
statist, centralised and hierarchical form of organisation produces
indifference instead of involvement, heartlessness instead of solidarity,
uniformity instead of unity, and privileged elites instead of equality. 
More importantly, such organisations destroy individual initiative and
crush independent action and critical thinking. (For more on hierarchy,
see section B.1, "Why are anarchists against authority and hierarchy?" and
related sections). 

That libertarian organisation can work and is based upon (and promotes)
liberty was demonstrated in the Spanish Anarchist movement. Fenner
Brockway, Secretary of the British Independent Labour Party, when visiting
Barcelona during the 1936 revolution, noted that "the great solidarity that 
existed among the Anarchists was due to each individual relying on his [sic] 
own strength and not depending upon leadership. . . . The organisations 
must, to be successful, be combined with free-thinking people; not a 
mass, but free individuals" [quoted by Rudolf Rocker, _Anarcho-syndicalism_, 
p. 58]

As sufficiently indicated already, hierarchical, centralised structures
restrict freedom. As Proudhon noted: "the centralist system is all very 
well as regards size, simplicity and construction: it lacks but one 
thing -- the individual no longer belongs to himself in such a system, he
cannot feel his worth, his life, and no account is taken of him at all"
[quoted in _Paths in Utopia_, Martin Buber, p. 33]. 

The effects of hierarchy can be seen all around us. It does not work. 
Hierarchy and authority exist everywhere, in the workplace, at home, in 
the street. As Bob Black puts it, "If you spend most of your waking life 
taking orders or kissing ass, if you get habituated to hierarchy, you will 
become passive-aggressive, sado-masochistic, servile and stupefied, and 
you will carry that load into every aspect of the balance of your life." 
[_The Libertarian as Conservative_].

This means that the end of hierarchy will mean a *massive* transformation
in everyday life. It will involve the creation of individual-centred
organisations within which all can exercise, and so develop, their 
abilities to the fullest. By involving themselves and participating 
in the decisions that affect them, their workplace, their community and
society, they can ensure the full development of their individual 
capacities.

Only self-determination and free agreement on every level of
society can develop the responsibility, initiative, intellect and
solidarity of individuals and society as a whole. Only anarchist
organisation allows the vast talent which exists within humanity to be
accessed and used, enriching society by the very process of enriching and
developing the individual. Only by involving everyone in the process of
thinking, planning, co-ordinating and implementing the decisions that
affect them can freedom blossom and individuality be fully developed and
protected. Anarchy will release the creativity and talent of the mass of
people enslaved by hierarchy. 

Anarchy will even be of benefit for those who are said to benefit from
capitalism and its authority relations. Anarchists "maintain that *both*
rulers and ruled are spoiled by authority; *both* exploiters and exploited
are spoiled by exploitation" [Peter Kropotkin, _Act for Yourself_, p.
83]. This is because "[i]n any hierarchical relationship the dominator as
well as the submissive pays his dues. The price paid for the 'glory of
command' is indeed heavy. Every tyrant resents his duties. He is relegated
to drag the dead weight of the dormant creative potential of the
submissive all along the road of his hierarchical excursion." [_The 
Right to Be Greedy_, For Ourselves].

A.2.11 Why are most anarchists in favour of direct democracy?

For most anarchists, direct democratic voting on policy decisions within 
free associations is the political counterpart of free agreement. The 
reason is that "many forms of domination can be carried out in a 'free.'
non-coercive, contractual manner. . . and it is naive. . . to think that
mere opposition to political control will in itself lead to an end of
oppression." [John P. Clark, _Max Stirner's Egoism_, p. 93]

It is obvious that individuals must work together in order to lead a 
fully human life. And so, "[h]aving to join with others humans . . . [the
individual has three options;] he [or she] must submit to the will of
others (be enslaved) or subject others to his will (be in authority) or
live with others in fraternal agreement in the interests of the greatest
good of all (be an associate). Nobody can escape from this necessity."
[Errico Malatesta, _The Anarchist Revolution_, p. 85]

Anarchists obviously pick the last option, association, as the only means 
by which individuals can work together as free and equal human beings, 
respecting the uniqueness and liberty of one another. Only within direct
democracy can individuals express themselves, practice critical thought and 
self-government, so developing their intellectual and ethical capacities 
to the full. In terms of increasing an individual's freedom and their 
intellectual, ethical and social faculties, it is far better to be sometimes 
in a minority than be subject to the will of a boss all the time. So what 
is the theory behind anarchist direct democracy?

Once an individual joins a community or workplace, he or she becomes 
a "citizen" (for want of a better word) of that association. The association 
is organised around an assembly of all its members (in the case of large 
workplaces and towns, this may be a functional sub-group such as a specific 
office or neighbourhood). In this assembly, in concert with others, the 
content of his or her political obligations are defined. In acting within 
the association, people must exercise critical judgement and choice, i.e. 
manage their own activity. This means that political obligation is not 
owed to a separate entity above the group or society, such as the state 
or company, but to one's fellow "citizens."

Although the assembled people collectively legislate the rules governing
their association, and are bound by them as individuals, they are also
superior to them in the sense that these rules can always be modified or
repealed. Collectively, the associated "citizens" constitute a political
authority, but as this authority is based on horizontal relationships
between themselves rather than vertical ones between themselves and an
elite, the "authority" is non-hierarchical ("rational" or "natural," see
section B.1, "Why are anarchists against authority and hierarchy?" for
more on this). Thus Proudhon:

"In place of laws, we will put contracts [i.e. free agreement]. - No 
more laws voted by a majority, nor even unanimously; each citizen, 
each town, each industrial union, makes its own laws." [_The General
Idea of the Revolution_, pp. 245-6]

Such a society would be based upon industrial democracy, for within the
workers' associations "all positions are elective, and the by-laws subject
to the approval of the members." [Op. Cit., p. 222] Instead of capitalist
or statist hierarchy, self-management (i.e. direct democracy) would be the 
guiding principle of the freely joined associations that make up a free 
society.

Of course it could be argued that if you are in a minority, you are
governed by others ("Democratic rule is still rule" [L. Susan Brown, 
_The Politics of Individualism_, p. 53]). Now, the concept of direct 
democracy as we have described it is not necessarily tied to the concept 
of majority rule. If someone finds themselves in a minority on a particular 
vote, he or she is confronted with the choice of either consenting or 
refusing to recognise it as binding. To deny the minority the opportunity 
to exercise its judgement and choice is to infringe its autonomy and to 
impose obligation upon it which it has not freely accepted. The coercive
imposition of the majority will is contrary to the ideal of self-assumed
obligation, and so is contrary to direct democracy and free association.
Therefore, far from being a denial of freedom, direct democracy within the
context of free association and self-assumed obligation is the only means
by which liberty can be nurtured. Needless to say, a minority, if it remains
in the association, can argue its case and try to convince the majority of 
the error of its ways.

And we must point out here that anarchist support for direct democracy does 
not suggest we think that the majority is always right. Far from it! The case 
for democratic participation is not that the majority is always right, but 
that no minority can be trusted not to prefer its own advantage to the
good of the whole. History proves what common-sense predicts, namely that
anyone with dictatorial powers (by they a head of state, a boss, a husband,
whatever) will use their power to enrich and empower themselves at the
expense of those subject to their decisions.

Anarchists recognise that majorities can and do make mistakes and that is
why our theories on association place great importance on minority rights.
This can be seen from our theory of self-assumed obligation, which bases
itself on the right of minorities to protest against majority decisions
and makes dissent a key factor in decision making. Thus Carole Pateman:

"If the majority have acted in bad faith. . . [then the] minority will 
have to take political action, including politically disobedient action
if appropriate, to defend their citizenship and independence, and the
political association itself. . . Political disobedience is merely one
possible expression of the active citizenship on which a self-managing
democracy is based . . . The social practice of promising involves the
right to refuse or change commitments; similarly, the practice of
self-assumed political obligation is meaningless without the practical
recognition of the right of minorities to refuse or withdraw consent,
or where necessary, to disobey." [_The Problem of Political Obligation_,
p. 162]

Moving beyond relationships within associations, we must highlight how
different associations work together. As would be imagined, the links 
between associations follow the same outlines as for the associations 
themselves. Instead of individuals joining an association, we have 
associations joining confederations. The links between associations in 
the confederation are of the same horizontal and voluntary nature as 
within associations, with the same rights of "voice and exit" for members 
and the same rights for minorities. In this way society becomes an 
association of associations, a community of communities, a commune of
communes, based upon maximising individual freedom by maximising 
participation and self-management.

The workings of such a confederation are outlined in section A.2.9 (What 
sort of society do anarchists want?) and discussed in greater detail in 
section I (What would an anarchist society look like?).

This system of direct democracy fits nicely into anarchist theory. Malatesta 
speaks for all anarchists when he argued that "anarchists deny the right of
the majority to govern human society in general." [Op. Cit., p. 100] As can 
be seen, the majority has no right to enforce itself on a minority -- the 
minority can leave the association at any time and so, to use Malatesta's 
words, do not have to "submit to the decisions of the majority before they 
have even heard what these might be." [Op. Cit., p. 101] Hence, direct 
democracy within voluntary association does not create "majority rule" 
nor assume that the minority must submit to the majority no matter what.
In effect, anarchist supporters of direct democracy argue that it
fits Malatesta's argument that:

"Certainly anarchists recognise that where life is lived in common it
is often necessary for the minority to come to accept the opinion of
the majority. When there is an obvious need or usefulness in doing
something and, to do it requires the agreement of all, the few should
feel the need to adapt to the wishes of the many . . . But such 
adaptation on the one hand by one group must be on the other be 
reciprocal, voluntary and must stem from an awareness of need and 
of goodwill to prevent the running of social affairs from being 
paralysed by obstinacy. It cannot be imposed as a principle and 
statutory norm. . ." [Op. Cit., p. 100]

As the minority has the right to secede from the association as well as
having extensive rights of action, protest and appeal, majority rule 
is not imposed as a principle. Rather, it is purely a decision making
tool which allows minority dissent and opinion to be expressed (and
acted upon) while ensuring that no minority forces its will on the
majority. In other words, majority decisions are not binding on the
minority. After all, as Malatesta argued:

"one cannot expect, or even wish, that someone who is firmly convinced
that the course taken by the majority leads to disaster, should sacrifice
his [or her] own convictions and passively look on, or even worse, should
support a policy he [or she] considers wrong." [_Life and Ideas_, p. 132]

Even the Individual Anarchist Lysander Spooner acknowledged that direct 
democracy has its uses when he noted that "[a]ll, or nearly all, voluntary 
associations give a majority, or some other portion of the members less 
than the whole, the right to use some *limited* discretion as to the 
*means* to be used to accomplish the ends in view." However, only the 
unanimous decision of a jury (which would "judge the law, and the justice 
of the law") could determine individual rights as this "tribunal fairly 
represent[s] the whole people" as "no law can rightfully be enforced
by the association in its corporate capacity, against the goods, rights,
or person of any individual, except it be such as *all* members of the
association agree that it may enforce" (his support of juries results
from Spooner acknowledging that it "would be impossible in practice" for
*all* members of an association to agree) [_Trial by Jury_, p. 130-1f,
p. 134, p. 214, p. 152 and p. 132]

Thus direct democracy and individual/minority rights need not clash. 
In practice, we can imagine direct democracy would be used to make most
decisions within most associations (perhaps with super-majorities required
for fundamental decisions) plus some combination of a jury system and 
minority protest/direct action and evaluate/protect minority claims/rights 
in an anarchist society. The actual forms of freedom can only be created
through practical experience by the people directly involved.

Lastly, we must stress that anarchist support for direct democracy does
not mean that this solution is to be favoured in all circumstances. For
example, many small associations may favour consensus decision making 
(see the next section on consensus and why most anarchists do not think 
that it is a viable alternative to direct democracy). However, most 
anarchists think that direct democracy within free association is the 
best (and most realistic) form of organisation which is consistent with 
anarchist principles of individual freedom, dignity and equality.

A.2.12 Is consensus an alternative to direct democracy?

The few anarchists who reject direct democracy within free associations
generally support consensus in decision making. Consensus is based
upon everyone on a group agreeing to a decision before it can be put
into action. Thus, it is argued, consensus stops the majority ruling 
the minority and is more consistent with anarchist principles.

Consensus, although the "best" option in decision making, as all 
agree, has its problems. As Murray Bookchin points out in describing 
his experience of consensus, it can have authoritarian implications, 
because

"[i]n order. . . to create full consensus on a decision, minority
dissenters were often subtly urged or psychologically coerced to decline
to vote on a troubling issue, inasmuch as their dissent would essentially
amount to a one-person veto. This practice, called 'standing aside' in
American consensus processes, all too often involved intimidation of 
the dissenters, to the point that they completely withdrew from the
decision-making process, rather than make an honourable and continuing
expression of their dissent by voting, even as a minority, in accordance
with their views. Having withdrawn, they ceased to be political beings 
-- so that a 'decision' could be made. . . . '[C]onsensus' was ultimately
achieved only after dissenting members nullified themselves as participants 
in the process.

"On a more theoretical level, consensus silenced that most vital aspect of
all dialogue, *dissensus*. The ongoing dissent, the passionate dialogue that
still persists even after a minority accedes temporarily to a majority
decision, . . . [can be] replaced. . . . by dull monologues -- and the
uncontroverted and deadening tone of consensus. In majority decision-making, 
the defeated minority can resolve to overturn a decision on which they have 
been defeated -- they are free to openly and persistently articulate reasoned 
and potentially persuasive disagreements. Consensus, for its part, honours 
no minorities, but mutes them in favour of the metaphysical 'one' of the 
'consensus' group." ["Communalism: The Democratic Dimension of Anarchism",
_Democracy and Nature_, no. 8, p.8]

Bookchin does not "deny that consensus may be an appropriate form of
decision-making in small groups of people who are thoroughly familiar 
with one another." But he notes that, in practical terms, his own 
experience has shown him that "when larger groups try to make decisions 
by consensus, it usually obliges them to arrive at the lowest common 
intellectual denominator in their decision-making: the least
controversial or even the most mediocre decision that a sizeable assembly
of people can attain is adopted-- precisely because everyone must agree
with it or else withdraw from voting on that issue." [Op. Cit., p. 7]

Therefore, due to its potentially authoritarian nature, most anarchists 
disagree that consensus is the political aspect of free association.
While it is advantageous to try to reach consensus, it is usually
impractical to do so -- especially in large groups -- regardless of its
other, negative effects. Often it demeans a free society or association 
by tending to subvert individuality in the name of community and dissent
in the name of solidarity. Neither true community nor solidarity are
fostered when the individual's development and self-expression are aborted
by public disapproval and pressure. Since individuals are all unique,
they will have unique viewpoints which they should be encouraged to
express, as society evolves and is enriched by the actions and ideas of
individuals. 

In other words, anarchist supporters of direct democracy stress the 
"*creative* role of dissent" which, they fear, "tends to fade away in
the gray uniformity required by consensus." [Op. Cit., p. 8] 

We must stress that anarchists are *not* in favour of a mechanical decision
making process in which the majority just vote the minority away and
ignore them. Far from it! Anarchists who support direct democracy see
it as a dynamic debating process in which majority and minority listen
to and respect each other as far possible and create a decision which
all can live with (if possible). They see the process of participation 
within directly democratic associations as the means of creating common 
interests, as a process which will encourage diversity, individual and
minority expression and reduce any tendency for majorities to marginalise 
or oppress minorities by ensuring discussion and debate occurs on important 
issues.

A.2.13 Are anarchists individualists or collectivists?

The short answer is: neither. This can be seen from the fact that liberal 
scholars denounce anarchists like Bakunin for being "collectivists" while 
Marxists attack Bakunin and anarchists in general for being "individualists." 

This is hardly surprising, as anarchists reject both ideologies as nonsense. 
Whether they like it or not, non-anarchist individualists and collectivists 
are two sides of the same capitalist coin. This can best shown be by 
considering modern capitalism, in which "individualist" and "collectivist" 
tendencies continually interact, often with the political and economic 
structure swinging from one pole to the other. Capitalist collectivism 
and individualism are both one-sided aspects of human existence, and like 
all manifestations of imbalance, deeply flawed.

For anarchists, the idea that individuals should sacrifice themselves 
for the "group" or "greater good" is nonsensical. Groups are made up of
individuals, and if people think only of what's best for the group, the
group will be a lifeless shell. It is only the dynamics of individual
interaction within groups which give them life. "Groups" cannot think,
only individuals can. This fact, ironically, leads authoritarian
"collectivists" to a most particular kind of "individualism," namely the
"cult of the personality" and leader worship. This is to be expected,
since such collectivism lumps individuals into abstract groups, denies
their individuality, and ends up with the need for someone with enough
individuality to make decisions -- a problem that is "solved" by the
leader principle. Stalinism and Nazism are excellent examples of this
phenomenon. 

Therefore, anarchists recognise that individuals are the basic unit of
society and that only individuals have interests and feelings. This 
means they oppose "collectivism" and the glorification of the group.
In anarchist theory the group exists only to aid and develop the
individuals involved in them. This is way we place so much stress on
groups structured in a libertarian manner -- only a libertarian 
organisation allows the individuals within a group to fully express
themselves, manage their own interests directly and to create social
relationships which encourage individuality and individual freedom.
So while society and the groups they join shapes the individual, the
individual is the true basis of society. Hence Malatesta:

"Much has been said about the respective roles of individual initiative
and social action in the life and progress of human societies . . . 
[E]verything is maintained and kept going in the human world thanks to
individual initiative . . . The real being is man, the individual. Society
or the collectivity - and the *State* or government which claims to
represent it - if it is not a hollow abstraction, must be made up of
individuals. And it is in the organism of every individual that all 
thoughts and human actions inevitably have their origin, and from being
individual they become collective thoughts and acts when they are or
become accepted by many individuals. Social action, therefore, is neither
the negation nor the complement of individual initiatives, but is the 
resultant of initiatives, thoughts and actions of all individuals who
make up society . . . [T]he question is not really changing the 
relationship between society and the individual . . . [I]t is a question
of preventing some individuals from oppressing others; of giving
all individuals the same rights and the same means of action; and of
replacing the initiative to the few [which Malatesta defines as a
key aspect of government/hierarchy], which inevitably results in the
oppression of everyone else . . . " [_Anarchy_, pp. 36-37]

These considerations do not mean that "individualism" finds favour with
anarchists. As Emma Goldman pointed out, "'rugged individualism'. . . 
is only a masked attempt to repress and defeat the individual and his
individuality. . . . [It] has inevitably resulted in the crassest class
distinctions. . . [and] has meant all the 'individualism' for the masters,
while the people are regimented into a slave caste to serve a handful of
self-seeking 'supermen.'" [_Red Emma Speaks_, p. 89]

While groups cannot think, individuals cannot live or discuss by 
themselves. Groups and associations are an essential aspect of 
individual life. Indeed, as groups generate social relationships 
by their very nature, they help *shape* individuals. In other words, 
groups structured in an authoritarian way will have a negative impact 
on the freedom and individuality of those within them. However, due to
the abstract nature of their "individualism," capitalist individualists 
fail to see any difference between groups structured in a libertarian 
manner rather than in an authoritarian one -- they are both "groups". 
Because of their one-sided perspective on this issue, "individualists" 
ironically end up supporting some of the most "collectivist" institutions 
in existence -- capitalist companies -- and, moreover, always find a 
need for the state despite their frequent denunciations of it. These 
contradictions stem from capitalist individualism's dependence on 
individual contracts in an unequal society, i.e. *abstract* individualism.

In contrast, anarchists stress *social* "individualism" (another, perhaps
better, term for this concept could be "communal individuality"). Anarchism 
"insists that the centre of gravity in society is the individual -- that he 
[sic] must think for himself, act freely, and live fully . . . If he is to 
develop freely and fully, he must be relieved from the interference and 
oppression of others . . . [T]his has nothing in common with . . . 'rugged 
individualism.' Such predatory individualism is really flabby, not rugged. 
At the least danger to its safety, it runs to cover of the state and wails 
for protection . . .  Their 'rugged individualism' is simply one of the 
many pretences the ruling class makes to mask unbridled business and 
political extortion." [Ibid., p. 397]

Anarchism rejects the *abstract* individualism of capitalism, with its 
ideas of "absolute" freedom of the individual which is constrained by 
others. This theory ignores the social context in which freedom exists 
and grows. 

A society based on "individual contracts" usually results in an inequality
of power between the contracting individuals and so entails the need for 
an authority based on laws above them and organised coercion to enforce the 
contracts between them. This consequence is evident from capitalism and,
most notably, in the "social contract" theory of how the state developed.
In this theory it is assumed that individuals are "free" when they are 
isolated from each other, as they allegedly were originally in the 
"state of nature." Once they join society, they supposedly create a 
"contract" and a state to administer it. However, besides being a fantasy
with no basis in reality (human beings have *always* been social animals), 
this "theory" is actually a justification for the state's having extensive 
powers over society; and this in turn is a justification of the capitalist 
system, which requires a strong state. It also mimics the results of the 
capitalist economic relations upon which this theory is built. Within 
capitalism, individuals "freely" contract together, but in practice the 
owner rules the worker for as long as the contract is in place. (See 
sections A.2.14 and B.4 for further details).

In practice, both individualism and collectivism lead to a denial of both
individual liberty and group autonomy and dynamics. In addition, each
implies the other, with collectivism leading to a particular form of
individualism and individualism leading to a particular form of
collectivism. 

Collectivism, with its implicit suppression of the individual, ultimately
impoverishes the community, as groups are only given life by the
individuals who comprise them. Individualism, with its explicit
suppression of community (i.e. the people with whom you live or work),
ultimately impoverishes the individual, since individuals do not exist
apart from society but can only exist within it. In addition, individualism 
ends up denying the "select few" the insights and abilities of the 
individuals who make up the rest of society, and so is a source of
self-denial. This is Individualism's fatal flaw (and contradiction), 
namely "the impossibility for the individual to attain a really full 
development in the conditions of oppression of the mass by the 'beautiful 
aristocracies'. His [or her] development would remain uni-lateral." [Peter
Kropotkin, _Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_, p. 293]

True liberty and community exist elsewhere.

A.2.14 Why is voluntarism not enough?

Voluntarism means that association should be voluntary in order to maximise 
liberty. Anarchists are, obviously, voluntarists, thinking that only in
free association, created by free agreement, can individuals develop,
grow, and express their liberty. However, it is evident that under
capitalism voluntarism is not enough in itself to maximise liberty. 

Voluntarism implies promising (i.e. the freedom to make contracts), and
promising implies that individuals are capable of independent judgement
and rational deliberation. In addition, it presupposes that they can
evaluate and change their actions and relationships. Contracts under
capitalism, however, contradict these implications of voluntarism. For,
while technically "voluntary" (though as we show in section B.4, this is
not really the case), capitalist contracts result in a denial of liberty. 
This is because the social relationship of wage-labour involves promising
to obey in return for payment. However, as Carole Pateman points out in
_The Problem of Political Obligation_, "to promise to obey is to state,
that in certain areas, the person making the promise is no longer free to
exercise her capacities and decide upon her own actions, and is no longer
equal, but subordinate." [page 19]. 

In effect, under capitalism you are only free to the extent that you can
choose whom you will obey! Freedom, however, must mean more than the
right to change masters. Voluntary servitude is still servitude. To
paraphrase Rousseau: 

	Under capitalism the worker regards herself as free; 
	but she is grossly mistaken; she is free only when 
	she signs her contract with her boss. As soon as it 
	is signed, slavery overtakes her and she is nothing 
	but an order taker.

Therefore anarchists stress the need for direct democracy in voluntary
associations in order to ensure that the concept of "freedom" is not a
sham and a justification for domination, as it is under capitalism.

Any social relationships based on abstract individualism are likely to be
based upon force, power, and authority, *not* liberty. This of course
assumes a definition of liberty according to which individuals exercise
their capacities and decide their own actions. Therefore, voluntarism is
*not* enough to create a society that maximises liberty.

Of course, it could be objected that anarchists value some forms of social
relationships above others and that a true libertarian must allow people
the freedom to select their own social relationships. To answer the second
objection first, in a society based on private property (and so statism),
those with property have more power, which they can use to perpetuate
their authority. And why should we excuse servitude or tolerate those who
desire to restrict the liberty of others? The "liberty" to command is the
liberty to enslave, and so is actually a denial of liberty. 

Regarding the first objection, anarchists plead guilty. We *are*
prejudiced against the reduction of human beings to the status of 
robots. We are prejudiced in favour of human dignity and freedom. 
We are prejudiced, in fact, in favour of humanity and individuality. 

Section A.2.9 discusses why direct democracy is the necessary social
counterpart to voluntarism (i.e. free agreement). Section B.4 discusses
why capitalism cannot be based on equal bargaining power between property
owners and the propertyless.

A.2.15 What about "human nature"?

Anarchists, far from ignoring "human nature," have the only political
theory that gives this concept deep thought and reflection. Too often,
"human nature" is flung up as the last line of defence in an argument
against anarchism, because it is thought to be beyond reply. This is not
the case, however.

First of all, human nature is a complex thing. If, by human nature, it is
meant "what humans do," it is obvious that human nature is contradictory
-- love and hate, compassion and heartlessness, peace and violence, and so
on, have all been expressed by people and so are all products of "human
nature." Of course, what is considered "human nature" can change with
changing social circumstances. For example, slavery was considered part of
"human nature" and "normal" for thousands of years, and war only become
part of "human nature" once states developed. Therefore, environment
plays an important part in defining what "human nature" is. 

This does not mean that human beings are infinitely plastic, with each
individual born a *tabula rasa* (blank slate) waiting to be formed by
"society" (which in practice means those who run it). We do not wish to
enter the debate about what human characteristics are and are not
"innate." All we will say is that human beings have an innate ability to
think and learn -- that much is obvious, we feel -- and that humans are
sociable creatures, needing the company of others to feel complete and to
prosper. 

These two features, we think, suggest the viability of an
anarchist society. The innate ability to think for oneself automatically
makes all forms of hierarchy illegitimate, and our need for social
relationships implies that we can organise without the state. The deep
unhappiness and alienation afflicting modern society reveals that the
centralisation and authoritarianism of capitalism and the state is denying
some innate needs within us.

In fact, as mentioned earlier, for the great majority of its existence the
human race *has* lived in anarchic communities, with little or no
hierarchy. That modern society calls such people "savages" or "primitive"
is pure arrogance. So who can tell whether anarchism is against "human
nature"? Anarchists have accumulated much evidence to suggest that it may
not be.

As for the charge the anarchists demand too much of "human nature," it
is often *non* anarchists who make the greatest claims on it. For "while
our opponents seem to admit there is a kind of salt of the earth -- the
rulers, the employers, the leaders -- who, happily enough, prevent those
bad men -- the ruled, the exploited, the led -- from becoming much worse
than they are. . . , there is [a] difference, and a very important one. 
*We* admit the imperfections of human nature, but we make no exception for
the rulers. *They* make it, although sometimes unconsciously" [Peter
Kropotkin, _Act for Yourself_, p. 83] If human nature is so bad, then
giving some people power over others and hoping this will lead to justice
and freedom is hopelessly utopian. 

Today, however, with the rise of "sociobiology," some claim (with very
little *real* evidence) that capitalism is a product of our "nature,"
which is determined by our genes. These claims have been leapt upon by
the powers that be. Considering the dearth of evidence, their support for
this "new" doctrine must be purely the result of its utility to those in
power -- i.e. the fact that it is useful to have an "objective" and
"scientific" basis to rationalise that power. Like the social Darwinism
that preceded it, sociobiology proceeds by first projecting the dominant
ideas of current society onto nature (often unconsciously, so that
scientists mistakenly consider the ideas in question as both "normal" and
"natural"). Then the theories of nature produced in this manner are
transferred *back* onto society and history, being used to "prove" that
the principles of capitalism (hierarchy, authority, competition, etc.) are
eternal *laws,* which are then appealed to as a justification for the
status quo! Amazingly, there are many supposedly intelligent people who
take this sleight-of-hand seriously. 

This sort of apologetics is natural, of course, because every ruling class
has always claimed that their right to rule was based on "human nature,"
and hence supported doctrines that defined the latter in ways appearing to
justify elite power -- be it sociobiology, divine right, original sin,
etc. Obviously, such doctrines have always been wrong . . . until now,
of course, as it is obvious our current society truly conforms to "human 
nature" and it has been scientifically proven by our current scientific 
priesthood! 

The arrogance of this claim is truly amazing. History hasn't stopped. One 
thousand years from now, society will be completely different from what it 
is presently or from what anyone has imagined. No government in place at the 
moment will still be around, and the current economic system will not exist. 
The only thing that may remain the same is that people will still be claiming 
that their new society is the "One True System" that completely conforms to 
human nature, even though all past systems did not.

Of course, it does not cross the minds of supporters of capitalism that
people from different cultures may draw different conclusions from the
same facts -- conclusions that may be *more* valid. Nor does it occur to
capitalist apologists that the theories of the "objective" scientists may
be framed in the context of the dominant ideas of the society they live
in. It comes as no surprise to anarchists, however, that scientists
working in Tsarist Russia developed a theory of evolution based on
*co-operation* within species, quite unlike their counterparts in
capitalist Britain, who developed a theory based on *competitive struggle*
within and between species. That the latter theory reflected the dominant
political and economic theories of British society (notably competitive
individualism) is pure coincidence, of course. Kropotkin's _Mutual Aid_
was written in response to the obvious inaccuracies that British Social
Darwinism projected onto nature and human life.

A.2.16 Does anarchism require "perfect" people to work?

No. Anarchy is not a utopia, a "perfect" society. It will be a *human*
society, with all the problems, hopes, and fears associated with human
beings. Anarchists do not think that human beings need to be
"perfect" for anarchy to work. They only need to be free. 

Obviously, though, we think that a free society will produce people who 
are more in tune with both their own and others individuality and needs, 
thus reducing individual conflict. Remaining disputes would be solved by 
reasonable methods, for example, the use of juries, mutual third parties, 
or community and workplace assemblies.

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

It should be noted that the idea that anarchism requires a "new" man or
woman is often raised by the right-wing "anarcho"-capitalists to discredit
real anarchism and justify the retention of hierarchical authority,
specifically in capitalist relations of production. However, a moment's
reflection will show that their "objection" discredits their own claim to
be anarchists for they explicitly assume an anarchist society without
anarchists! Needless to say, an "anarchy" made up of people who still
needed authority and statism would soon become authoritarian and statist
(i.e. non-anarchist) again.

This is because even if the government were overthrown tomorrow, the same 
system would soon grow up again, because "the strength of the government
rests not with itself, but with the people. A great tyrant may be a fool 
and not a superman. His strength lies not in himself, but in the
superstition of the people who think that it is right to obey him. So long
as that superstition exists it is useless for some liberator to cut off
the head of tyranny; the people will create another, for they have grown
accustomed to rely on something outside themselves." [George Barret,
_Objections to Anarchism_].

In other words, anarchy needs *anarchists* in order to be created and
survive. But these anarchists need not be perfect, just people who have
freed themselves, by their own efforts, of the superstition that
command-and-obedience relations are necessary. The implicit assumption in
the idea of a "new" anarchist person is that freedom will be given, not
taken; hence the obvious conclusion follows that an anarchy requiring
"perfect" people will fail. But this argument ignores the need for
self-activity and self-liberation in order to create a free society. 

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

A.2.17 Aren't most people too stupid for a free society to work?

We are sorry to have to include this question in an anarchist FAQ, but we
know that many political ideologies explicitly assume that ordinary people
are too stupid to be able to manage their own lives and run society. All
aspects of the capitalist political agenda, from Left to Right, contain
people who make this claim. Be it Leninists, Fabians or Objectivists, it
is assumed that only a select few are creative and intelligent and that
these people should govern others. Usually, this elitism is masked by
fine, flowing rhetoric about "freedom," "democracy" and other platitudes
with which the ideologues attempt to dull people's critical thought by
telling them want they want to hear.

It is, of course, also no surprise that those who believe in "natural"
elites always class themselves at the top. We have yet to discover an
"objectivist", for example, who considers themselves part of the great
mass of "second-handers" or who will be a toilet cleaner in the unknown
"ideal" of "real" capitalism. Everybody reading an elitist text will
consider him or herself to be part of the "select few." It's "natural" in
an elitist society to consider elites to be natural and yourself a
potential member of one!

Examination of history shows that there is a basic elitist ideology which
has been the essential rationalisation of all states and ruling classes
since their emergence at the beginning of the Bronze Age. This ideology
merely changes its outer garments, not its basic inner content. 

During the Dark Ages, for example, it was coloured by Christianity, being 
adapted to the needs of the Church hierarchy. The most useful "divinely 
revealed" dogma to the priestly elite was "original sin": the notion that 
human beings are basically depraved and incompetent creatures who need
"direction from above," with priests as the conveniently necessary
mediators between ordinary humans and "God." The idea that average people
are basically stupid and thus incapable of governing themselves is a
carry over from this doctrine, a relic of the Dark Ages. 

In reply to all those who claim that most people are "second-handers" or
cannot develop anything more than "trade union consciousness," all we can
say is that it is an absurdity that cannot withstand even a superficial
look at history, particularly the labour movement. The creative powers of
those struggling for freedom is often truly amazing, and if this
intellectual power and inspiration is not seen in "normal" society, this
is the clearest indictment possible of the deadening effects of hierarchy
and the conformity produced by authority. (See also section B.1 for more
on the effects of hierarchy). As Bob Black points outs:

"You are what you do. If you do boring, stupid, monotonous work, chances 
are you'll end up boring, stupid, and monotonous. Work is a much better 
explanation for the creeping cretinisation all around us than even such 
significant moronising mechanisms as television and education. People who 
are regimented all their lives, handed to work from school and bracketed by 
the family in the beginning and the nursing home in the end, are habituated 
to hierarchy and psychologically enslaved. Their aptitude for autonomy is 
so atrophied that their fear of freedom is among their few rationally 
grounded phobias. Their obedience training at work carries over into 
the families *they* start, thus reproducing the system in more ways than 
one, and into politics, culture and everything else. Once you drain the 
vitality from people at work, they'll likely submit to hierarchy and 
expertise in everything. They're used to it" [_The Abolition of Work_].

When elitists try to conceive of liberation, they can only think of it
being *given* to the oppressed by kind (for Leninists) or stupid (for
Objectivists) elites. It is hardly surprising, then, that it fails. Only
self-liberation can produce a free society. The crushing and distorting 
effects of authority can only be overcome by self-activity. The few examples
of such self-liberation prove that most people, once considered incapable
of freedom, are more than up for the task.

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

As Emma Goldman remarks about women's equality, "[t]he extraordinary
achievements of women in every walk of life have silenced forever the
loose talk of women's inferiority. Those who still cling to this fetish do
so because they hate nothing so much as to see their authority challenged.
This is the characteristic of all authority, whether the master over his
economic slaves or man over women. However, everywhere woman is escaping
her cage, everywhere she is going ahead with free, large strides."

The same comments are applicable, for example, to the very successful
experiments in workers' self-management during the Spanish Revolution, To
quote Rousseau: "when I see multitudes of entirely naked savages scorn
European voluptuousness and endure hunger, fire, the sword, and death to
preserve only their independence, I feel that it does not behove slaves
to reason about freedom" [quoted by Noam Chomsky, _Red and Black
Revolution_, issue 2].

A.2.18 Do anarchists support terrorism?

No, and this is for two reasons. Terrorism means either targetin