Andrew's Course on Anarchy

ANDREW'S COURSE IN ANARCHY: Path One

Introduction

There is probably more rubbish talked about anarchism than any other political idea. Actually, it has nothing to do with a belief in chaos, death and destruction. Anarchists do not normally carry bombs, nor do they ascribe any virtue to beating up old ladies.

It is no accident that the sinister image of the mad anarchist is so accepted. The State, the press and all the assorted authoritarian types, use every means at their disposal to present anarchy as an unthinkable state of carnage and chaos. We can expect little else from power-mongers who would have no power to monger if we had our way. They have to believe that authority and obedience are essential in order to justify their own crimes to themselves. The TV, press and films all preach obedience, and when anarchy is mentioned at all, it is presented as mindless destruction.

The alleged necessity of authority is so firmly planted in the average mind that anarchy, which means simply no government, is almost unthinkable to most people. The same people, on the other hand, will admit that rules, regulations, taxes, officiousness and abuse of power (to name but a few) are irritating to say the least. These things are usually thought to be worth suffering in silence because the alternative--no power, no authority, everybody doing what they pleased--would be horrible. It would be anarchy.

Anarchism

Anarchism is the belief that people can voluntarily cooperate to meet everyone's needs, without bosses or rulers, and without sacrificing individual liberties. A common misunderstanding is that anarchism is the total absence of order; that it is chaos, or nihilism. There are even people who call themselves "anarchists" who have this misperception. Anarchists are opposed to order arbitrarily imposed and maintained through armed force or other forms of coercion. They struggle for the order that results from the consensual interaction of individuals, from voluntary association. If there is a need, anarchists believe that people are capable of organizing themselves to see that it is met.

J. A. Andrews used the example of a group of friends going on a camping trip. They plan their trip, and each person brings useful skills and tools to share. They work together to set up tents, fish, cook, clean up, with no one in a position of authority over anyone else. The group organizes itself, chores are done, and everyone passes the time as they please, alone or in groups with others. People discuss their concerns and possible solutions are proposed. No one is bound to go along with the group, but choosing to spend time together implies a willingness to at least try to work out constructive solutions to the problems and frictions that will inevitably arise. If no resolution is possible, the dissenting individuals can form another grouping or leave without fear of persecution by the rest of the group.

Compare this to the way most organizations function. A few individuals make the important decisions, with or without the approval or input of the rest of the group. Rules and bylaws are passed in the hope of preventing undesirable activities on the part of members. The leadership starts out by addressing legitimate concerns, but is soon corrupted by power. It begins doing what it thinks is best, for itself and the organization, even if it involves concealing its activities from the other members or using deception. The elite attempts to entrench itself by making it difficult for the members to oust it, and constantly works to increase its power. The elite may ban criticism of its leadership and policies, or it may attribute superhuman qualities to itself, far surpassing those of "mere" members. Eventually the elite is no longer under the control of the members, and cannot be challenged. It can run amok with all of the power and resources of the organization, punishing those who dare to defy it. Membership is no longer voluntary, but is imposed on whoever falls within whatever the organization decides is its jurisdiction. Laws and authority which were originally aimed at preventing harm are turned into tools for inflicting harm on whoever is targeted by the elite.

Another problem with laws and rules is that if you do not have voluntary compliance, the unlawful behavior will still take place, whether or not there is a law against it. The outlawed activity will be driven underground or will be protected by the imprecise wording of the laws. Having failed to win people's voluntary cooperation, through education or persuasion, the government passes volumes and volumes of laws, in a hopeless attempt to address and control every possible situation. Sometimes the law is observed as if it were carved in stone, even when the results are clearly ridiculous. An example is the case of the female motorist who was stopped for speeding, and lectured by a police officer at length as she sat there suffering labor pains. The officer thought she was faking the pain of childbirth to escape a traffic ticket! Sometimes the police fabricate charges against people they wish to punish, or they simply beat people as an "attitude adjustment" (if you are not sufficiently terrorized by the police, they consider it an attitude problem). It is also not uncommon for the laws to be overly vague, or to be misapplied. In my town, in obvious violation of their own laws, the police set up roadblocks to stop all motorists, check their sobriety, and search their vehicles for contraband if there is suspicion of any illegal activity after questioning them. This is done under the guise of checking for valid driver's licenses, which is clearly a ruse since there is no indication of any wrongdoing when the people are stopped. But if anyone would refuse to submit to such a search, they would likely be charged with interfering with the duties of a police officer, disorderly conduct, and resisting arrest, plus whatever other charges the district attorney could dream up. If you were to challenge the roadblocks in court, the judge would probably say that the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, does not really mean what it obviously says when it forbids unreasonable searches and seizures, but that it has been interpreted to mean something entirely different. It now means that the government has the power to decide what is or is not reasonable, entirely voiding the purpose of the law. The law means whatever those in power say it means. The courts have ruled, for example, that conscription is not involuntary servitude, and that the government can force you to choose between a military uniform and a prison uniform. And the laws gradually become more and more restrictive, so that people gradually become accustomed to having less and less freedom. Children are assigned identification numbers at birth. Photos on driver's licenses are stored electronically in computers, where they can be accessed at will by law enforcement personnel. Employees must present specified forms of identification to be eligible for employment. Residents of public housing can have their apartments searched without a search warrant. What seems outrageously intrusive today is tomorrow's legislation.

Anarchists do not wish to see traffic fatalities, rapes, or murders. Quite the contrary. They feel the current combination of tyranny and social chaos are responsible for much of the suffering in the world. What anarchists fear is the corrupting influence of power and the inevitable abuse of power. An individual can only do so much damage, but the same person in a position of authority, or worse yet, an organized, systematic application of corrupted power, can wreak horrible damage. Governments have sent millions upon millions of people to their deaths, through wars and persecutions, and have taken away the freedoms of billions of others. And note that the police only prevent crimes in rare situations, such as when a police officer just happens to be at the scene of a crime in progress. The police almost always show up after the crime has been committed. Most crimes go unsolved. Attempting to punish offenders after they have committed their crimes is not a very effective way to protect people. This false "cure" is just an attack on the symptoms without treating the underlying problem - a society that is losing its social consciousness. In other words, the individuals who make up the society have stopped thinking of themselves as being members of a society. If your neighbors are all strangers, and you feel powerless to improve anything, you are not likely to feel that you have a relationship with those around you. The police are not very effective against criminals, but they are extremely effective at controlling the general public. A lone individual has little hope of resisting the depredations of these heavily armed paramilitary organizations. Even if a benign and uncorrupted government was possible, many of us would prefer our freedom, with all of its responsibilities, to being forced to live according to volumes of well intentioned dictates written by others. Care to wear a crash helmet when you drive your car? How about banning bare feet on beaches so no one steps on a sharp rock? And absolutely no walking in remote areas or doing work outside of your profession.

Fred Woodworth has pointed out that the claims of legitimacy made by governments, the justifications used by those in power as to why they have the right to order us about, would be laughable if the results were not so tragic. Any claims to power made by a monarchy, constitutional democracy, theocracy, nationalist fatherland or people's republic are totally bogus since they govern without the consent of the governed. Any constitution, contract or agreement that claims to bind everyone living in the same geographic area, unborn generations, or anyone other that the actual parties to it, are despicable falsehoods. Some governments rule through fear and brute force, while others, as a result of intense pressure from their subjects, have become dependent on winning the support of large sectors of the public in elections in order to stay in power. Bourgeois democracy, democracy controlled by the elite, is preferable to dictatorship, but these republics also rely on coercion to achieve their goals. The political party which wins, with the help of big money, restrictive ballot access, and winner-take-all election laws, does not have the right to inflict its will on those who do not support it. The state machinery uses coercion to compel obedience from its subjects, regardless of which party is at the controls. Democracy is often equated with tolerance, but Hitler was a product of democracy, and slavery and apartheid existed in the U.S. under democracy. Even in an ideal democracy, unwarped by elite control, the majority may actually support the persecution of people with unorthodox ideas.

The public is constantly bombarded with propaganda justifying the existence of the government and explaining the necessity of the current social system, in the schools, the media, and in its own propaganda. But less than half of the eligible voters participate in elections in the U.S. The government loudly proclaims its mandate anyway.

Most of the objections people have to anarchism as a social system are based on the assumption that people are unreasonable and irresponsible. If this were the case, no amount of police, judges and jails could conjure order out of chaos. People would be routinely killing and robbing one another, and taking advantage of any perceived weakness on the part of others. We would all be certain we were much too clever to be caught. But truly anti-social behavior on the part of individuals is the exception, rather than the rule. Most of us are very well behaved. Much of the destructive behavior we suffer from is committed by individuals who have been raised in the most dire conditions, and who face very limited personal choices due to the material and cultural poverty they were raised in. This occurs across all ethnic groups and in all countries, but some societies are wise enough to attack the conditions that foster destructive behavior instead of merely punishing offenders after the acts have been committed. This is a social problem which needs to be dealt with, not a given fact of human nature. Human beings, and even animals, which are raised in an environment of love, respect and security tend to be good natured and well adjusted. But any creature raised in an environment of fear, cruelty or deprivation will tend to exhibit anti-social behavior. Each society spawns its own predatory individuals. In general, the more atomized and alienated individuals are from their society, the more likely they are to engage in destructive behavior, against others and against themselves. And people cannot be blamed for not identifying with an unsympathetic, and even predatory, society. Some anarchists argue that it is precisely because people have become so maladjusted that no one can be trusted with power over others.

A distinction must be made between socially destructive behavior and behavior which is not coercive, but which is banned by the government for other reasons. Besides the obvious examples of tax and draft evasion, governments, by passing laws, create entire classes of criminals by outlawing certain victimless or vice crimes. Certain activities may be distasteful to some of us, but if they are not predatory or coercive in nature then they are only crimes because the government says they are. But once an activity is outlawed, professional criminals become involved because these activities become highly profitable. This is why criminals were active in the alcohol and gambling trades when they were outlawed, and why they are still active in drugs, prostitution and immigration today. If guns are outlawed, organized crime will have another lucrative trade to pursue. The taxation of alcohol, cigarettes and gasoline has spawned entire bootleg industries.

The for-profit nature of capitalism encourages other forms of anti-social behavior, such as taking advantage of the disorganization of workers by hiring them for as little as possible, working them as hard as possible (sometimes until they break, physically or mentally), and making them pay as much as possible for what they consume. Another example is "externalization of costs", which means getting society to pay the costs while private businesses get the profits, such as the education of workers at public expense; mining, fishing, grazing and lumbering on public land for token payments; government bailouts; strike breaking; and toxic waste clean up. This officially protected form of destructive behavior, known as corporate capitalism, creates a competitive, dog-eat-dog mentality that is extremely disruptive to human solidarity. Some anarchists believe capitalism is malignant by its very nature. Others argue that it is government interference which has made capitalism malignant, by favoring larger, established businesses and creating barriers for small businesses and self-employed people.

Anarchists believe that people should be free to organize themselves as they see fit, but are divided as to which methods are the most just or desirable. Some anarchists claim that everyone has a right to an equal share of the wealth, since it has been produced primarily by generations of wage slaves living under the threat of dire poverty. They see the functioning of society as a team effort. How could a small fraction of the population have honestly gained such disproportional control of the existing assets while the majority has become so totally dependent? They simply couldn't have. As the saying goes, "it takes money to make money," and most of our families did not start us off with large sums of money. What business owners had was money to invest, and/or a willingness to go deeply into debt, while most of us make our living selling our labor power. Employees are treated like just another input into the production process: their labor is "bought" when needed, at the market price, and no longer "purchased" when the need has passed. But since employees need to provide for themselves and their families, regardless of the condition of the labor market or the treatment they receive at the hands of their employers, they live in constant insecurity. This insecurity is why employees form labor unions, or turn to laws and government for protection. So most socialist anarchists argue that the most just way to organize an economy is to treat it like one huge cooperative, shared and operated by all, in the interests of all. Anarchists favor a confederal form of organization, so that each locality or industry would be autonomous, but would be closely coordinated with the other units which make up a society. They believe that each unit will act responsibly in relation to the other units, because cooperation and good faith are in everyone's interest.

The other general category includes anarchists who feel that people should be able to be independent of any organization if they so choose, including economic organizations. They fear socialization of the economy for the same reason they fear the government, because it puts the individual at the mercy of others. They also feel that some individuals are willing to work harder to achieve a higher standard of living than others might be willing to work, and that the more industrious should not be dragged down to the same level as those who choose to work less intensively and live at a more basic standard of living. They feel that the use to which one puts one's earnings is not the business of the rest of society, as long as it does not cause obvious harm to others, and that they should be free to pass their wealth on to others if they so choose. Individuals should be free to be self-employed, or to employ or be employed by others, as long as the arrangement is voluntarily. These anarcho-capitalists argue that the best way to organize the economy is through voluntary economic transactions of whatever type that people choose to make, with everyone taking responsibility for their own well-being. They claim that in a truly free market system, consumers would be able to control the socially destructive activities of business owners by boycotting their products and by buying from more socially conscious competitors.

As different as these views are, it is possible to have an economy that includes both options, plus others not mentioned or even thought of, and to leave people free to choose whichever type of organization they prefer. The economy would function through the voluntary interaction of a multitude of differently organized groupings, each working out for itself the best methods of organization. The socialistically inclined groups could produce goods for their own consumption, and avoid market relationships to whatever extent they feel necessary. Gustav Landauer wrote, "We can establish a great number of crafts and industries to produce goods for our own consumption. We can go much further in this than the cooperatives have gone until now, for they still cannot get rid of the idea of competing with capitalist managed enterprise."1 What is important is that people have a choice, which most of us currently do not have. The various groupings could interact whenever they chose to do so. One serious barrier to cooperation among anarchists is the issue of property rights. At one extreme are those with an almost feudalistic attachment to private, for-profit ownership of the necessities of life, while at the other extreme even the ownership of personal property is seen to be anti-social and elitist. There is quite a bit of room to maneuver between these two extremes, but the question of expropriation of the workplace is the major issue dividing the movement. A communitarian approach would sidestep this issue entirely. These intentional, self-organized communities could not replace the existing system overnight, but eventually they could greatly reduce our dependence on it. Many of the goods currently produced are either unnecessary or are produced in excessive quantities. The use of automobiles, for example, could be greatly reduced through the use of mass transit, bike paths and better urban planning (and this would be a partial solution to the problem of traffic fatalities). And what would anarcho-socialists do with an expropriated cash register factory or mink ranch anyway? If we can't get people to choose to meet their needs cooperatively, buy buying or using cooperatively produced goods, they are probably not sufficiently interested in radical social change.

What about those who argue "abolish work"? Like a perpetual motion machine, or cold fusion, there is no scheme currently known that can provide everyone with what they need which does not require anyone to perform tasks which they find unpleasant. If everyone does only what they enjoy, we would have a huge oversupply of performing artists and athletes, and a serious shortage of dental hygienists and plumbers. Through job sharing and the elimination of unproductive activities, the amount of unpleasant work can be fairly shared and reduced to a minimum. Those who wish to abstain from the consumption of work enhanced products could not reasonably be expected to work. But it seems just as reasonable for those who do a share of the work to deny access to those who voluntarily choose not to work, in the absence of barriers to productive activity such as unemployment, or harsh or dangerous working conditions.

At the present time, since there is not widespread agreement that anarchism is the best form of social organization, it is up to us to spread these ideas and to implement them as best we can among ourselves. It would be impossible to compel people to participate in an anarchist project, since anarchism relies on voluntary cooperation and self discipline to make it work. Once large numbers of people agree that this is the way things should be organized, not even a tyrant can stop them from reorganizing themselves. As Elisee Reclus wrote, "When the miserable and disinherited of the earth shall unite in their own interest, trade with trade, nation with nation, race with race; when they shall fully awake to their sufferings and their purpose... powerful as may be the Master of those days, he will be weak before the starving masses leagued against him." 2

Answers to frequently asked questions

Q: How will people deal with crime, resolve disputes, reach agreements and set standards if the government and laws are abolished?

A: The main purpose of governments and laws are to keep most of us under control so that we can be efficiently milked, like a herd of cows. With the exception of a small proportion of anti-social people, most of us are able to avoid harming others and resolve our disputes without resorting to the authorities. The legal system we have now puts the full force of the state behind the party that manages to win its favor. Many disputes are already resolved through arbitration and mediation, outside of the courts and the legal system. The laws are written and enforced in such a way that the poor are always held accountable for petty crimes such as writing bad checks to pay for groceries, while the authorities can literally get away with murder.

If allowed to, people will always act to protect themselves from violent criminals. This is an involuntary reflex, like raising your hand to deflect a blow. People may decide to form special, recallable groups who are firmly under community control to perform that task as the need arises, or they may choose to do it on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis. But the police, courts and government we currently have are only accountable to the people in the most roundabout way, and they have clearly become a threat to our freedom. They are literally out of control. Self perpetuating elites have appointed themselves to perform our civic duties in our behalf. The amount of crime should drop sharply as soon as productive activity becomes less difficult and oppressive, and people begin to have a sense of belonging to a social unit. To protect the rights of unpopular individuals who are guilty of no real crime, it would be necessary for the community to agree that only acts that cause actual harm to others are subject to the justice of the community. Each community can debate the issue of "actual harm" for itself, and people can relocate according to their preference. People would need to work out a fair and open procedure for resolving disputes and for treating predatory individuals. There is the danger of a community oppressing its members, who would lack recourse to existing laws designed to protect them. We would hope that communities would incorporate respect for the rights of individuals into their processes; we do not expect this important value to mysteriously vanish from social consciousness. On the contrary, personal freedom should actually be respected even more than it presently is if we are successful in spreading our ideas more widely. It is hard to imagine an autonomous community expending the same level of resources on coercion that current governments do. There is an unavoidable tension between the good of the community and individual rights, but anarchists do not feel that one must be sacrificed to increase the other.

If written contracts prevented fraud, we would not have "fine print" or a legal profession. In a free society it is of the utmost importance that people show real compassion and fairness in their dealings with others, or else it won't last very long. Living together in peaceful cooperation is a powerful form of protest against government and police.

Concerning technical standards, these are best agreed upon by the people who do the work and who use the products involved, instead of being decided by corporate officers or government bureaucrats. Many standards are already set by professional associations. If you've ever tried to repair an automobile or link computers you understand how necessary, and how lacking, industry-wide standards are. If a product lacks a trusted "seal of approval" from consumer organizations, consumers can avoid it. Educated consumers can influence what is produced and how it is produced if they act together in large numbers.

Q: How will we defend ourselves from invasion by foreign governments without a government?

A: We could have a truly volunteer and community controlled military, concerned strictly with defending our liberty and not with imposing our will on people in foreign countries. If volunteers want to participate in foreign wars, that would be up to them. We would soon find the world a less dangerous place when other societies no longer fear being attacked by our government and when we stop exporting arms for profit. The absence of government does not mean the absence of organization. It means the absence of coercion.

Q: The situations in places like Lebanon, Somalia, and the former Yugoslavia have often been referred to as "anarchy". Is this accurate?

A: No, these are examples of competing elites struggling against one another for power. The result is chaos. Anarchy is the absence of a controlling elite. A government is the strongest gang of aggressors in a particular area at a particular time. Civil war is what happens when the dominant group is challenged. Anarchy has been a rare occurrence in recent history, since there is usually an elite willing to impose itself whenever it sees the opportunity. Emiliano Zapata, one of the major figures in the Mexican Revolution of 1911-1918, was influenced by anarchist ideas, especially those of the brothers Ricardo and Enrique Flores Magon. He temporarily liberated large parts of Mexico with his army of indian peasants. Following the Russian Revolution of 1917, a mostly peasant, anarchist army led by Nestor Makhno temporarily liberated various parts of what is now Ukraine in battles against several different armies; White, Red, Nationalist and foreign. Korean anarchists established an autonomous zone in Shimin province in northern Manchuria between 1929 and 1931, but were crushed by the Japanese army and Chinese/Russian Communists. During the Spanish Civil War and Revolution of 1936, anarchists liberated areas of Aragon, Catalonia and other parts of Spain. They entered into an uneasy, anti-Nationalist alliance with the Republican government, but were pressured and then forced to abandon their gains. They were then persecuted by both Republicans and Nationalists.

Q: Are people really so good that they can live without government?

A: Are people really so good that they can be trusted to direct a government? Governments have killed far more people than all the criminals, bandit gangs and mass murderers in history, who look like hobbyists in comparison. Anarchists consider governments to be a very powerful form of organized crime. Some governments are worse than others, of course, but they all have the potential for committing atrocities.

Q: Don't anarchists advocate the violent overthrow of the existing authorities?

A: Some anarchists do advocate this, in the hope that people will spontaneously organize themselves once the power of the elite has been broken. However, the contradiction between revolutionary social change and the anarchist ideal of voluntary social relations has always been troubling to some anarchists. In the absence of unanimous opposition to the elite, revolutions always involve coercion against the supporters and sympathizers of the elite, which may be a large proportion of a society. The most coercion is required when a minority attempts to implement radical social change on an unconvinced public. Not only does the old regime need to be defeated without the support of the population, but the new elite must also impose its program on society. The least coercion is required when a revolution is the result of demands made by large sectors of the general public. If the old elite resists, after a brief skirmish it can be pushed aside. Even the government's own troops cannot be relied upon to suppress a popular revolution, since the soldiers themselves come from the same public. Revolutionary violence occurs when demands for change are ignored or suppressed. But many elites are crafty enough to make concessions which split the public and weaken people's resolve. Demands for change within the structure of the existing system lead to compromise and ultimately to broader political support for the system. Demands that the state reform itself in a fundamental way are hopeless, because the very nature of the state is to forever expand its power and its autonomy from its subjects.

Revolutionary anarchists argue that violence against tyranny is a duty and that coercion in the name of a better world is justified. They argue that it is very unlikely that many people, if given the choice, would choose to remain slaves. But after the emancipation of the slaves in the U.S. and of the peasants in Russia, many did just that, and instead of fleeing their masters, remained employed on the same estates. This is why some anarchists prefer a strategy of working to transform society gradually, through education and self organization, so that people will be less and less dependent on employers and the government, and more and more able to organize themselves in non-coercive ways. This point of view sees the current social system continuing mainly due to the absence of practical alternatives and to the comfort of inertia. Most of us are compelled to sell our labor to capitalist employers since workers' and consumers' cooperatives aren't widely established. Likewise, if people hear someone breaking into a neighbor's house, they call the police, since there are no neighborhood based organizations to deal with crime. With an evolutionary strategy, "the new society is built within the shell of the old," which makes for a slow, but smooth, transition. The revolutionary strategy, which promises quicker results, would leave a dangerous vacuum during the period immediately following the revolution, when most revolutions are defeated or else lapse back into a modified version of the old system. Unless a large majority of the population actively supports anarchism, coercion will likely be necessary to abolish the old social order, since people would not yet be convinced that this is desirable. The political struggle, convincing people of the need for change in an anarchist direction, must be won before the old order can be successfully abolished.

Revolutionaries will argue that any significant gradual efforts will be violently suppressed. Perhaps, but if the gradual efforts involve no violence or coercion, it would be politically risky for the government to suppress them. They would have to crack down on people's liberties to such an extent that they would be illustrating to the public exactly the point we are trying to make. We risk less by trying persuasion, including our ideals. There are also practical reasons to avoid the use of violence (with the possible exception of self-defense). The party that resorts to violence first is almost always blamed by the public for causing the conflict. A violent attack on the government would give it another excuse to justify its own existence, the excuse it would need to eliminate us. Armed struggle encourages the formation of a conspiratorial directing elite, which may not be controlled by its supporters (as Fidel Castro said recently, "Revolutionaries do not resign"). Successful armed struggle relies on the use of treachery and violence, and these strategies may carry over even after the original enemy is defeated. And victory does not go to the most worthy, but to the most powerful. Some anarchists simply believe that violence and coercion are morally wrong, and would not use these means, even if there were hope of achieving the desired end.

Historically, violent revolution has achieved modest results at a staggering cost in death and suffering. France, Mexico, the U.S., Russia, China and Cuba have all experienced "successful" revolutions, yet these societies are not substantially freer nor is the working class substantially better off than in Great Britain, Sweden or Canada. But, you may protest, these were not true social revolutions. Conceded. But true social revolutions require the conscious, enthusiastic support of the general public. This support can only be won on the political or educational front and not on the military front. Once there is popular support for anarchist ideas, the only force required will be to disband any government forces which refuse to disperse. You can't win the public's support militarily. You can only frighten people into passivity or rouse them to lash out in a confused, unorganized manner. The case for revolution directed by a vanguard group or party on behalf of the oppressed requires us to argue that the public has either been brainwashed, that they are too ignorant to understand their own self interest, or that they have been beaten into passivity. If any combination of these are true, what good will it do to use armed struggle on their behalf, if they do not consciously support social change? They will either fight against us or passively watch us die. Complex, voluntary, and cooperative social arrangements are unlikely to appear spontaneously. As the anarchists in Spain discovered during the social revolution and civil war there in the 1930's, you cannot direct society and not direct society at the same time. If people do not organize themselves, they will either flounder in chaos and be unable to resist the forces of reaction, or they will allow themselves to be led by politicians. Significant numbers of workers did organize themselves in Spain, but the working class as a whole was not able to achieve the level of self organization necessary for it to do away with the leadership of the revolutionary parties. There can be no revolutionary government that serves anarchist purposes or which can lead to anarchy. The only way to avoid the creation of a new elite is if the mass of society is consciously aware of what it is trying to accomplish.

As the anonymous authors of "You Can't Blow Up a Social Relationship" pointed out, "The total collapse of this society would provide no guarantee about what replaced it. Unless a majority of people had the ideas and organization sufficient for the creation of an alternative society, we would see the old world reassert itself because it is what people would be used to, what they believed in, what existed unchallenged in their own personalities."3 Alexander Berkman wrote, "As [people's] minds broaden and develop, as they advance to new ideas and lose faith in their former beliefs, institutions begin to change and are ultimately done away with. The people grow to understand that their former views were false, and that they were not truth, but prejudice and superstition.... The social revolution, therefore, is not an accident, not a sudden happening. There is nothing sudden about it, for ideas don't change suddenly. They grow slowly, gradually, like the plant or flower.... It develops to the point when considerable numbers of people have embraced the new ideas and are determined to put them into practice. When they attempt to do so and meet with opposition, then the slow, quiet, and peaceful social evolution becomes quick, militant, and violent. Evolution becomes revolution. Bear in mind, then, that evolution and revolution are not two separate and distinct things. Still less are they opposites as some people wrongly believe. Revolution is merely the boiling point of evolution. Because revolution is evolution at its boiling point you cannot "make" a real revolution any more than you can hasten the boiling of a tea kettle. It is the fire underneath that makes it boil: how quickly it will come to the boiling point will depend on how strong the fire is. The economic and political conditions of a country are the fire under the evolutionary pot. The worse the oppression, the greater the dissatisfaction of the people, the stronger the flame.... But pressure from above, though hastening revolution, may also cause its failure, because such a revolution is apt to break out before the evolutionary process has been sufficiently advanced. Coming prematurely, as it were, it will fizzle out in mere rebelling; that is, without clear, conscious aim and purpose."4 The recent riots in Los Angeles are an example of mere rebelling, without a conscious aim beyond venting anger and looting. The uprising in Chiapas, Mexico is an example of a much more developed, but still premature, rebellion. Both of these rebellions were quickly isolated and contained in the absence of widespread popular support. We must work to build the functioning parts of a new society, while maintaining a clear vision of our alternatives. We must not be co-opted by the State on the one hand, nor recklessly overestimate our support on the other. Through education, interaction, and example we can work to gradually rid humanity of statism, nationalism, deprivation, racism, sexism, violence, child and animal abuse, and all the other evils humanity is afflicted with. But we have to get our own act together if we expect people to take us seriously.

In the event that the existing order collapses on its own, people would be free to organize themselves into groups regardless of what the majority is doing. As long as a group is large enough to be economically viable and to defend its autonomy, even relatively small groups could set up new social relations. The issue of violence only arises because of the ruthless suppression of secessionist movements by the world's governments.

Q: What if some people really do prefer having a government?

A: As long as the relationships are strictly voluntary, and not enforced by poverty or force, it would be hard for anarchists to justify suppressing any voluntary association, just as it would be difficult to justify suppressing religions, superstitions or vices. Under what conditions is the use of force justified? Only in response to the prior use of force. But governments, by definition, are institutions of coercion and control, so only if a government supported itself through voluntary donations, or enforced its will by merely asking for compliance, could it conceivably function without coercion, in which case it would not really be a government at all.

"Panarchy" is the name for a society made up of a multitude of diverse but peacefully coexisting forms of social relations. The theory of panarchy is that people have different ideas and preferences about how to organize themselves. Instead of each group trying to achieve the power to impose its ideas and preferences on everyone, each group organizes itself and allows other groups to do likewise. One variant even has people sharing the same geographic space, with each individual acting according to his or her own conscience, in much the same way that different religions coexist in societies that allow some religious freedom. The difference would be the absence of a supreme authority setting rules that all must obey. Of course this would require everyone to respect the choices of others, and to refrain from using coercion or violence. Anarchists would do their thing, and those who wanted to continue to voluntarily submit to a particular type of government could do so. Why won't the statists allow us this same freedom today? Panarchy should appeal to everyone, because as it is now, no one really gets what they want. We all must live under a mish-mash of strictly enforced rules that come out of battles fought on the elite turf of the official political process. Panarchy is letting people "do their own thing".

Q: How do you propose to achieve anarchist social relations?

A: We argue that the proper course for the anarchist movement is to concentrate its efforts on two tasks: educating the public and organizing our own social relations here and now as much as possible. Our objective should not be to overthrow the existing social relations, because those social relations are not viewed as intolerable by most of the public. We need to inform people about our ideas and demonstrate to them that anarchist social relations can actually function. Gustav Landauer suggested that when people saw functioning villages based on voluntary cooperation, the public's envy would result in more and more villages being formed. These voluntary organizations will eventually render the old, coercive institutions useless, and they will be done away with or rendered powerless, like the monarchy and the Church have been in the past. By combining our efforts with other non-statists in a panarchist federation, we could greatly hasten the pace of non-coercive social change.

Q: Is anarchy a goal that can actually be reached, or is it only an ideal to be approximated?

A: If you approximate your ideal well enough, eventually you reach your goal.

ANDREW'S COURSE IN ANARCHY: Path Two

Introduction

On this page I will attempt to resolve some of the fears, misconceptions, and outright lies that have been propagated about anarchism. This is in no way an attempt to speak for all anarchists. It has been said that there are as many definitions of anarchy as there are anarchists, and I want this page to reflect that. As you read this, be careful not to fall into the trap of classifying people with labels. Everyone has their own ideas and morals, and will behave differently. The purpose of this page is to promote a better understanding of anarchism.

Anarchist Principles

Government is an evil and unnecessary institution. The utilization of government as a control device for the population of an area is immoral and inefficient. Anarchy is the alternative to this artificially imposed order. Anarchists envision a libertarian and egalitarian society in which participation is voluntary and mutual aid replaces coercion as the binding force between individuals. Everyone must be allowed to judge for themselves what is right and wrong, and act according to reason and ethics instead of laws and pre-packaged morality. Whose ethics? Each person's conscience. My ethics are: If what you do infringes the rights of someone else, then it is wrong. Anything else is acceptable. Some anarchists believe that anarchy is not disorderly - that it is a much more complex form of organization than the simple hierarchical structure imposed on us by government. Still others view organization as just another tool used my the state to control us.

Anarchist Ideals

Liberty. Freedom. Freedom of conscience, or as Thomas Jefferson said it, the right to "the pursuit of happiness", is said to be the basis for all other freedoms; freedom is the highest ideal of anarchists. With liberty comes equality. Liberty does not truly exist unless it exists for everyone, regardless of race, age, gender, sexual preference, or ideology. All people are born equal, it is existing society that forces us into groups and classes. Government takes away rights. If it did any less it would not be government. Our government takes away our right to bear arms, our right to pursue happiness in whatever form we find it, our freedom of expression, and our freedom to choose what is best for ourselves. Government takes away our liberty. Government also denies us equality, another fundamental freedom, by separating us into classes and discouraging interaction between the classes. If you are born into a poor family, you will probably stay poor; if you are born into a rich family, you will probably be no worse off than your parents. The rich stay in control, and the workers continue to sell their lives to the system. Government also prevents free association by placing arbitrary political barriers between members of different countries as well as economic barriers between members of the same country. Militarism is a tragic example of the barriers between countries. If countries would spend as much effort trying to get along with each other as they spend trying to keep their own affairs in order, there would be much less war. There would also be less war if we settled disagreements between countries by putting the leaders of the countries in the ring and let them fight it out themselves. I'm sure all of us would agree that that method of war is absolutely absurd, but this is almost exactly what we are doing by fighting wars in the first place. Brute strength is no way to settle an argument. By what logic is the more powerful country correct? More often than not, the citizens of one country have no grudge against the citizens of the opposing country, but their governments turn them against each other with propaganda and lies. Soldiers don't stop to think that they are actually taking a human life. If every soldier in the world woke up one morning and decided that how many people one has killed is not really the best way to keep score, we'd all be a lot better off.

Anarchist Society

There are many differing points of view concerning how an anarchist society should be organized, including communist anarchy, collectivist anarchy, Proudhon's anarchy (which consisted of a federal system of autonomous villages), and even capitalist anarchy (an oxymoron in itself). In a communist anarchy, all property is owned by everyone. Theft is therefore eliminated because everyone owns everything; everyone shares common property. Some anarchists criticize all order and restraint, and that all interaction is good because good and evil are arbitrarily defined. Ontological anarchists believe that chaos is the solution - that the hidden order inherent in human interaction will emerge when artificial barriers are completely eliminated. I feel that the most probable and the most truly anarchic of all the systems is individualist anarchy. Individualist anarchists often criticize the tendency to place people into groups, such as blacks, whites, women, men, anarchist, feminists, homosexuals, etc., and expecting that all of the members of a defined group will think or behave in the same way. In fact, everyone is unique and no system will be right for everyone. In an individualist anarchy, people can form whatever kind of community suits them best. An anarchy in which every community was identical would be almost as coercive as majority rule.

A Model of an Anarchist Community?

There is no set model of an anarchist community. In an individualist anarchy, there could be many different systems. If you ask most anarchists, however, they will reply with words like "mutual aid" and "voluntary association". The idea is that people should work with each other instead of for each other, and that an anarchist society would be organized in a more complex way than modern society. Instead of some people being leaders and others followers, people cooperate. Attempts to model anarchist communities before-the-fact cannot be only theoretical, so I will instead answer some questions about an anarchist society which will help to define what an anarchist society could be. The following is taken and slightly modified from Objections to Anarchism, by George Barrett, which appears in The Raven (#12), an anarchist journal published by Freedom Press in London. Freedom Press can be reached at 84B Whitechapel High Street, London E1 7QX.

What will you do with the man who will not work?

In a free society the man who will not work, if he should exist at all, is at least brought on equal terms with the man who will. He is not placed in a position of privilege so that he need not work, but on the contrary the argument which is so often used against anarchism comes very neatly into play here in its favor. It is often urged that it is necessary to organize in order to live. Quite so, and for this reason the struggle for life compels us to organize, and there is no need for any further compulsion on the part of the government. Since to organize in society is really to work in society, it is the law of life which constantly tends to make men work, whilst it is the artificial laws of privilege which put men in such a position that they need not work. Anarchism would do away with these artificial laws, and thus it is the only system which constantly tends to eliminate the man who will not work.

We might perhaps here quote John Stuart Mill's answer to this objection:

The objection ordinarily made to a system of community of property and equal distribution of produce-'that each person would be incessantly occupied in evading his share of the work'-is, I think, in general, considerably overstated . . . Neither in a rude nor in a civilized society has the supposed difficulty been experienced. In no community has idleness ever been a cause of failure. [1]

It is necessary to organize in order to live, and to organize means Government; therefore anarchism is impossible.

It is true that it is necessary to organize in order to live, and since we all wish to live we shall all of our own free will organize, and do not need the compulsion of government to make us do so. organization does not mean government. All through our ordinary daily work we are organizing without government. If two of us lift a table from one side of the room to the other, we naturally take hold one at each end, and we need no government to tell us that we must not overbalance it by both rushing to the same end; the reason why we agree silently, and organize ourselves to the correct positions, is because we both have a common purpose: we both wish to see the table moved. In more complex organizations the same thing takes place. So long as organizations are held together only by a common purpose they will automatically do their work smoothly. But when, in spite of conflicting interests, you have people held together in a common organization, internal conflict results, and some outside force becomes necessary to preserve order; you have, in fact, governmental society. It is the anarchist's purpose to so organize society that the conflict of interests will cease, and men will cooperate and work together simply because they have interests in common. In such a society the organizations or institutions which they will form will be exactly in accordance with their needs; in fact, it will be a representative society.

How would you regulate the traffic?

We should not regulate it. It would be left to those whose business it was to concern themselves in the matter. It would pay those who use the roads (and therefore had, in the main, interests in common in the matter) to come together and discuss and make agreements as to the rules of the road. Such rules in fact which at present exist have been established by custom and not by law, though the law may sometimes take it on itself to enforce them.

This question we see very practically answered today by the great motor clubs, which are entered voluntarily, and which study the interest of this portion of the traffic. At dangerous or busy corners a sentry is stationed who with a wave of the hand signals if the coast is clear, or if it is necessary to go slowly. First-aid boxes and repair shops are established all along the road, and arrangements are made for conveying home motorists whose cars are broken down.

A very different section of road users, the carters, have found an equally practical answer to the question. There are, even today, all kinds of understandings and agreements amongst these men as to which goes first, and as to the position each shall take up in the yards and buildings where they work. Amongst the cabmen and taxi-drivers the same written and unwritten agreements exist, which are as rigidly maintained by free understandings as they would be by the penalties of law.

Suppose now the influence of government were withdrawn from our drivers. Does anyone believe that the result would be chaos? Is it not infinitely more likely that the free agreements at present existing would extend to cover the whole necessary field? And those few useful duties now undertaken by the government in the matter... would they not be much more effectively carried out by free organization among the drivers?

This question has been much more fully answered by Kropotkin in The Conquest of Bread. In this he shows how on the canals in Holland the traffic (so vital to the life of that nation) is controlled by free agreements, to the perfect satisfaction of all concerned. The railways of Europe, he points out, also, are brought into cooperation with one another and thus welded into one system, not by a centralized administration, but by agreements and counter-agreements between the various companies.

If free agreement is able to do so much even now, in a system of competition and government, how much more could it do when competition disappears, and when we trust to our own organization instead of to that of a paternal government?

If you abolish competition you abolish the incentive to work.

One of the strangest things about society today is that while we show a wonderful power to produce abundant wealth and luxury, we fail to bring forth the simplest necessities. Everyone, no matter what his political, religious, or social opinions may be, will agree in this. It is too obvious to be disputed. On the one hand there are children without boots; on the other hand are the boot-makers crying out that they cannot sell their stock. On the one hand there are people starving or living upon unwholesome food, and on the other hand provision merchants complain of bad trade. Here are homeless men and women sleeping on the pavements and wandering nightly through our great cities, and here again are property-owners complaining that no one will come and live in their houses. And in all these cases production is held up because there is no demand. Is this not an intolerable state of affairs? What now shall we say about the incentive to work? Is it not obvious that the present incentive is wrong and mischievous up to the point of starvation and ruination. That which induces us to produce silks, diamonds, jewelry, and toy pomeranians, while bread and boots and houses are needed, is wholly and absolutely wrong.

Today the scramble is to compete for the greatest profits. If there is more profit to be made in satisfying my lady's passing whim than there is in feeding hungry children, then competition brings us in feverish haste to supply the former, whilst cold charity or the poor law can supply the latter, or leave it unsupplied, just as it feels disposed. That is how it works out. This is the reason: the producer and the consumer are the two essentials; a constant flow of wealth passes from one to the other, but between them stands the profit-maker and his competition system, and he is able to divert that stream into what channel best pleases him. Sweep him away and the producer and the consumer are brought into direct relationship with one another. When he and his competitive system are gone there will still remain the only useful incentive to work, and that will be the needs of the people. The need for the common necessities and the highest luxuries of life will be not only fundamental as it is today, but the direct motive power behind all production and distribution. It is obvious, I think, that this is the ideal to be aimed at, for it is only in such circumstances that production and distribution will be carried on for its legitimate purpose... to satisfy the needs of the people; and for no other reason.

Under anarchism the country would be invaded by a foreign enemy.

At present the country is held by that which we consider to be an enemy- the landlord and capitalist class. If we are able to free ourselves from this, which is well established and at home on the land, surely we should be able to make shift against a foreign invading force of men, who are fighting, not for their own country, but for their weekly wage.

It must be remembered, too, that anarchism is an international movement, and if we do establish a revolution in this country, in other countries the people would have become at least sufficiently rebellious for their master class to consider it advisable to keep their armies at home.

If two people want the same piece of land under anarchism, how will you settle the dispute?

First of all, it is well to notice here that this and the next two questions all belong to the same class. This, at least, is based upon a fallacy. If there are two persons who want the exclusive right to the same thing, it is quite obvious that there is no satisfactory solution to the problem. It does not matter in the least what system of society you suggest, you cannot possibly satisfy that position. It is exactly as if I were suggesting a new system of mathematics, and someone asked me: 'Yes, but under this new system suppose you want to make ten go into one hundred eleven times?' The truth is that if you do a problem by arithmetic, or if you do it by algebra, or trigonometry, or by any other method, the same answer must be produced for the given problem; and just as you cannot make ten go into one hundred more than ten times, so you cannot make more than one person have the exclusive right to one thing. If two people want it, then at least one must remain in want, whatever may be the form of society in which they are living. Therefore, to begin with, we see that there cannot be a satisfactory way of settling this trouble, for the objection has been raised by simply supposing an unsatisfactory state of affairs.

All that we can say is that such disputes are very much better settled without the interference of authority. If the two were reasonable, they would probably mutually agree to allow their dispute to be settled by some mutual friend whose judgment they could trust. But if instead of taking this sane course they decide to set up a fixed authority, disaster will be the inevitable result. In the first place, this authority will have to be given power wherewith to enforce its judgment in such matters. What will then take place? The answer is quite simple. Feeling it is a superior force, it will naturally in each case take to itself the best of what is disputed, and allot the rest to its friends.

What a strange question is this. It supposes that two people who meet on terms of equality and disagree could not be reasonable or just. But, on the other hand, it supposes that a third party, starting with an unfair advantage, and backed up by violence, will be the incarnation of justice itself. Common sense should certainly warn us against such a supposition, and if we are lacking in this commodity, then we may learn the lesson by turning to the facts of life. There we see everywhere Authority standing by, and in the name of justice and fair play using its organized violence in order to take the lion's share of the world's wealth for the governmental class.

We can only say, then, in answer to such a question, that if people are going to be quarrelsome and constantly disagree, then, of course, no state of society will suit them, for they are unsocial animals. If they are only occasionally so, then each case must stand on its merits and be settled by those concerned.

Suppose one district wants to construct a railway to pass through a neighboring community, which opposes it. How would you settle this?

It is curious that this question is not only asked by those who support the present system, but it is also frequently asked by the Socialists. Yet surely it implies at once the aggressive spirit of Capitalism, for is it not the capitalist who talks of opening up the various countries of the world, and does he not do this in the very first instance by having a war in order that he may run his railways through, in spite of the local opposition by the natives? Now, if you have a country in which there are various communes, it stands to reason that the people in those communes will want facilities for travelling, and for receiving and sending their goods. That will not be much more true of one little community than of another. This, then, not only implies a local railway, but a continuous railway running from one end of the country to the other. If a certain district, then, is going to object to have such a valuable asset given to it, it will surely be that there is some reason for such an objection. That being so, would it not be folly to have an authority to force that community to submit to the railway passing through?

If this reason does not exist, we are simply supposing a society of unreasonable people and asking how they should cooperate together. The truth is that they could not co-operate together, and it is quite useless to look for any state of society which will suit such a people. The objection, therefore, need not be raised against anarchism, hut against society itself. What would a government society propose to do? Would it start a civil war over the matter? Would it build a prison large enough to enclose this community, and imprison all the people for resisting the law? In fact, what power has any authority to deal with the matter which the anarchists have not got?

The question is childish. It is simply based on the supposition that people are unreasonable, and if such suppositions are allowed to pass as arguments, then any proposed state of society may be easily argued out of existence. I must repeat that many of these questions are of this type, and a reader with a due sense of logic will be able to see how worthless they are, and will not need to read the particular answers I have given to them.

Suppose your free people want to build a bridge across a river, but they disagree as to position. How will you settle it?

To begin with, it is obvious, but important, to notice that it is not I, but they, who would settle it. The way it would work out, I imagine, is something like this:

We will call the two groups who differ A and B. Then-

1) A may be of opinion that the B scheme would be utterly useless to it, and that the only possible position for the bridge is where it has suggested. In which case it will say: 'Help our scheme, or don't cooperate at all.'

2) A may be of opinion that the B scheme is useless, but, recognizing the value of B's help, it may be willing to budge a few yards, and so effect a compromise with B.

3) A, finding it can get no help from B unless it gives way altogether, may do so, believing that the help thus obtained is worth more than the sacrifice of position.

These are, I think, the three courses open to A. The same three are open to B. I will leave it to the reader to combine the two, and I think he will find the result will be either:

1) That the bridge is built in the A position, with, we will say, the half-hearted support of B;

or

2) The same thing, but with letters A and B reversed;

or

3) The bridge is built somewhere between, with the partial support of both parties;

or

4) Each party pursues its own course, independent of the other.

In any case it will be seen, I hope, that the final structure will be representative, and that, on the other hand, if one party was able to force the other to pay for what it did not want, the result would not be representative or just.

The usefulness of this somewhat dreary argument will be seen if it be applied not merely to bridge-building but to all the activities of life. By so doing we are able to imagine growing into existence a state of society where groups of people work together so far as they agree, and work separately when they do not. The institutions they construct will be in accord with their wishes and needs. It will indeed be representative. How different is this from the politician's view of things, who always wants to force the people to cooperate in running his idea of society!

What would you do with the criminal?

There is an important question which should come before this, but which our opponents never seem to care to ask. First of all, we have to decide who are the criminals, or rather, even before this, we have to come to an understanding as to who is to decide who are the criminals? Today the rich man says to the poor man: 'If we were not here as your guardians you would be beset by robbers who would take away from you all your possessions.' But the rich man has all the wealth and luxury that the poor man has produced, and while he claims to have protected the people from robbery he has secured for himself the lion's share in the name of the law. Surely then it becomes a question for the poor man which he has occasion to dread most... the robber, who is very unlikely to take anything from him, or the law, which allows the rich man to take all the best of that which is manufactured.

To the majority of people the criminals in society are not to be very much dreaded even today, for they are for the most part people who are at war with those who own the land and have captured all the means of life. In a free society, where no such ownership existed, and where all that is necessary could be obtained by all that have any need, the criminal will always tend to die out. Today, under our present system, he is always tending to become more numerous.

It is necessary for every great town to have a drainage. Suppose someone refuses to connect up, what would you do with him?

This objection is another of the 'supposition' class, all of which have really been answered in dealing with the first question. It is based on the unsocial man, whereas all systems of society must be organized for social people. The truth, of course, is that in a free society the experts on sanitation would get together and organize our drainage system, and the people who lived in the district would be only too glad to find these convenient arrangements made for them. But still it is possible to suppose that somebody will not agree to this; what then will you do with him? What do our government friends suggest?

The only thing that they can do which in our anarchist society we would not do, is to put him in prison, for we can use all the arguments to persuade him that they can. How much would the town gain by doing this? But there is another way of looking at this question. Mr Charles Mayl, MB (Bachelor of Medicine) of New College, Oxford, after an outbreak of typhoid fever, was asked to examine the drainage of Windsor; he stated that:

In a previous visitation of typhoid fever the poorest and lowest parts of the town had entirely escaped, while the epidemic had been very fatal in good houses. The difference was that while the better houses were all connected with sewers the poor part of the town had not drains, but made use of cesspools in the gardens. And this is by no means an isolated instance.

We begin to see therefore that the man who objected to connecting his house with the drains would probably be a man who is interested in the subject, and who knows something about sanitation. It would be of the utmost importance that he should be listened to and his objections removed, instead of shutting him up in an unhealthy prison. The fact is, the rebel is here just as important as he is in other matters, and he can only profitably be eliminated by giving him satisfaction, not by trying to crush him out.

As the man of the drains has only been taken as an example by our objector, it would be interesting here to quote a similar case where the regulations for stamping out cattle diseases were objected to by someone who was importing cattle. In a letter to the Times, signed 'Landowner', dated 2nd August, 1872, the writer tells how he bought 'ten fine young steers, perfectly free from any symptom of disease, and passed sound by the inspector of foreign stock'. Soon after their arrival in England they were attacked by foot and mouth disease. On inquiry he found that foreign stock, however healthy, 'mostly all go down with it after the passage'. The government regulations for stamping out this disease were that the stock should be driven from the steamer into the pens for a limited number of hours. There seems therefore very little doubt that it was in this quarantine that the healthy animals contracted the disease and spread it among the English cattle. [3]

Every new drove of cattle is kept for hours in an infected pen. Unless the successive droves have been all healthy (which the very institution of the quarantine implies that they have not been) some of them have left in the pen disease matter from their mouths and feet. Even if disinfectants are used after each occupation, the risk is great... the disinfectant is almost certain to be inadequate. Nay, even if the pen is adequately disinfected every time, yet if there is not also a complete disinfection of the landing appliances, the landing-stage and the track to the pen, the disease will be communicated . . . The quarantine regulations . . . might properly be called regulations for the better diffusion of cattle diseases.

Would our objector to anarchism suggest that the man who refuses to put his cattle in these pens should be sent to prison?

We cannot all agree and think alike and be perfect, and therefore laws are necessary, or we shall have chaos.

It is because we cannot all agree that anarchism becomes necessary. If we all thought alike it would not matter in the least if we had one common law to which we must all submit. But as many of us think differently, it becomes absurd to try to force us to act the same by means of the government which we are silly enough to call representative.

A very important point is touched upon here. It is because anarchists recognize the absolute necessity of allowing for this difference among men that they are anarchists. The truth is that all progress is accompanied by a process of differentiation, or of the increasing difference of parts. If we take the most primitive organism we can find it is simply a tiny globule of plasm, that is, of living substance. It is entirely undifferentiated... that is to say, all its parts are alike. An organism next above this in the evolutionary scale will be found to have developed a nucleus. And now the tiny living thing is composed of two distinctly different parts, the cell-body and its nucleus. If we went on comparing various organisms we should find that all those of a more complex nature were made up of clusters of these tiny organisms or cells. In the most primitive of these clusters there would be very little difference between one cell and another. As we get a little higher we find that certain cells in the clusters have taken upon themselves certain duties, and for this purpose have arranged themselves in special ways. By and by, when we get to the higher animals, we shall find that this process has advanced so far that some cells have grouped together to form the breathing apparatus, that is, the lungs; others are responsible for the circulation of the blood; others make up the nervous tissue; and so on, so that we say they form the various 'organs' of the body. The point we have to notice is that the higher we get in the animal or vegetable kingdom, the more difference we find between the tiny units or cells which compose the body or organism. Applying this argument to the social body or organism which we call society, it is clear that the more highly developed that organism becomes, the more different will be the units (ie the people) and organs (ie institutions and clubs) which compose it.

When, therefore, we want progress we must allow people to differ. This is the very essential difference between the anarchists and the governmentalists. The government is always endeavoring to make men uniform. So literally true is this that in most countries it actually forces them into the uniform of the soldier or the convict. Thus government shows itself as the great reactionary tendency. The anarchist, on the other hand, would break down this and would allow always for the development of new ideas, new growth, and new institutions; so that society would be responsive always to the influence of its really greatest men, and to the surrounding influences, whatever they may be.

It would be easier to get at this argument from a simpler standpoint. It is really quite clear that if we all agreed, or if we were forced to act as if we did agree, we could not have any progress. Change can take place only when someone disagrees with what is, and with the help of a small minority succeeding in putting that disagreement into practice. No government makes allowance for this fact, and consequently all progress which is made has to come in spite of governments, not by their agency.

I am tempted to touch upon yet another argument here, although I have already given this question too much space. Let me add just one example of the findings of modern science. Everyone knows that there is sex relationship and sex romance in plant life just as there is in the animal world, and it is the hasty conclusion with most of us that sex has been evolved for the purposes of reproduction of the species. A study of the subject, however, proves that plants were amply provided with the means of reproduction before the first signs of sex appeared. Science then has had to ask itself: what was the utility of sex evolution? The answer to this conundrum lies in the fact that 'the sexual method of reproduction multiplies variation as no other method of reproduction can.' [4]

If I have over-elaborated this answer it is because I have wished to interest (but by no means to satisfy) anyone who may see the importance of the subject. A useful work is waiting to be accomplished by some enthusiast who will study differentiation scientifically, and show the bearing of the facts on the organization of human society.

If you abolish government, you will do away with the marriage laws.

We shall.

How will you regulate sexual relationship and family affairs?

It is curious that sentimental people will declare that love is our greatest attribute, and that freedom is the highest possible condition. Yet if we propose that love shall go free they are shocked and horrified.

There is one really genuine difficulty, however, which people do meet in regard to this question. With a very limited understanding they look at things as they are today, and see all kinds of repulsive happenings: unwanted children, husbands longing to be free from their wives, and... there is no need to enumerate them. For all this, the sincere thinker is able to see the marriage law is no remedy; but, on the other hand, he sees also that the abolition of that law would also in itself be no remedy.

This is true, no doubt. We cannot expect a well-balanced humanity if we give freedom on one point and slavery on the remainder. The movement towards free love is only logical and useful if it takes its place as part of the general movement towards emancipation.

Love will only come to a normal and healthy condition when it is set in a world without slums and poverty, and without all the incentives to crime which exist today. When such a condition is reached it will be folly to bind men and women together, or keep them apart, by laws. Liberty and free agreement must be the basis of this most essential relationship as surely as it must be of all others.

You can't change human nature.

To begin with, let me point out that I am a part of human nature, and by all my own development I am contributing to and helping in the development and modification of human nature. If the argument is that I cannot change human nature and mold it into any form at will, then, of course, it is quite true. If, on the other hand, it is intended to suggest that human nature remains ever the same, then the argument is hopelessly unsound. Change seems to be one of the fundamental laws of existence, and especially of organic nature. Man has developed from the lowest animals, and who can say that he has reached the limits of his possibilities?

However, as it so happens, social reformers and revolutionists do not so much rely on the fact that human nature will change as they do upon the theory that the same nature will act differently under different circumstances.

A man becomes an outlaw and a criminal today because he steals to feed his family. In a free society there would be no such reason for theft, and consequently this same criminal born into such a world might become a respectable family man. A change for the worse? Possibly; but the point is that it is a change. The same character acts differently under the new circumstances.

To sum up, then:

1) Human nature does change and develop along certain lines, the direction of which we may influence;

2) The fundamental fact is that nature acts according to the condition in which it finds itself.

The latter part of the next answer will be found to apply equally here.

Who would do the dirty work under anarchism?

Today machinery is introduced to replace, as far as possible, the highly paid man. It can only do this very partially, but it is obvious that since machinery is to save the cost of production it will be applied to those things where the cost is considerable. In those branches where labor is very cheap there is not the same incentive to supersede it by machines.

Now things are so strangely organized at present that it is just the dirty and disagreeable work that men will do cheaply, and consequently there is no great rush to invent machines to take their place. In a free society, on the other hand, it is clear that the disagreeable work will be one of the first things that machinery will be called upon to eliminate. It is quite fair to argue, therefore, that the disagreeable work will, to a large extent, disappear in a state of anarchism.

This, however, leaves the question only partially answered. Some time ago, during a strike at Leeds (a city), the roadmen and scavengers refused to do their work. The respectable inhabitants of Leeds recognized the danger of this state of affairs, and organized themselves to do the dirty work. University students were sweeping the streets and carrying boxes of refuse. They answered the question better than I can. They have taught us that a free people would recognize the necessity of such work being done, and would one way or another organize to do it.

Bibliography:

1. J. S. Mill, Political Economy Vol. I, p.251. 3. The typhoid and the cattle disease cases are both quoted in the notes to Herbert Spencer's The Study of Sociology. 4. The Evolution of Sex in Plants by Professor J. Merle Coulter. It is interesting to add that he closes his book with these words: 'Its [sexuality's] significance lies in the fact that it makes organic evolution more rapid and far more varied. '

Technology and Anarchy

Some anarchists, such as "anarcho-primitivists", denounce technology as slavery. I firmly believe that technology - using tools to improve quality of life - is a basic characteristic of all human beings. While we must not completely rely on technology and government-funded research for survival, technology and its advancement are important parts of any society. Government is not responsible for scientific advancement. Almost all of the great historical scientific discoveries were made without the "benefit" of government grants. Government funding only allows scientists to be exploited and made to do science to suit the state's purposes. Science should be done for the good of humanity, not the good of the government - you can always depend on government to find a way to make a weapon out of any new technology. When resources are readily accessible to everyone, technology will be free to advance as rapidly or more rapidly than it does now.

The Case for Anarchism

To prove a need for change, one must prove that a problem exists with the status quo, that the problem is inherent in the status quo, that the harm is sufficient to cause concern, and that the proposed change will solve the problem and eliminate the harm. In the following paragraphs I will show that a change to anarchy is preferable to the status quo: coercion.

The Problem Exists

There are many problems with government as a foundation of society. Aside from coercion being unethical, there are many practical reasons why anarchy will work better.

#1: Power corrupts. Anyone put in a position of power is highly likely to use that power to use that power to their own ends, and will not be able to fairly represent the interests of everyone that he or she is supposed to "represent".

#2: The majority does not necessarily know better than the minority. Truth does not change simply because 51% of the people think differently. The majority, who simply think along with the most popular opinion of the day, cannot possibly be placed in charge and expected to look after the rights of the minority. The only way everyone's rights can be protected is if every person is his or her own government, and be restrained only by conscience and reason. We are perfectly capable of making our own conscious choices, and have our decisions made for us by someone else. In this age we have been conditioned to blindly accept coercion as the only way of life.

#3: The class system restrains the rights of individuals by forcing them into positions in society that they may not be best suited for. Someone who is born into the working class will, in all likelihood, do no better than their parents. People born into the upper class can afford to do no work at all while depending upon the exploitation of the working class to support them.

#4: Capitalism is a zero-sum game. Capitalism is a pyramid scheme, based on the assumption that property accumulated by the rich will "trickle down", eventually reaching the even the poorest citizen. it is also based on the assumption that people are by nature competitive, and that a community will be better off if everyone is continually fighting everyone else and no one cares about anyone but him or her self. This is about as foolish as putting thirty people into a locked room with thirty baseball bats and telling them that to "win", they have to hit everyone else harder than they get hit. It won't take them long to realize that they would really all win if no one hit anyone else at all: if they cooperate rather than compete. Capitalism assumes that for one person to be happy (by a capitalist definition, read: rich and powerful), someone else must be made miserable (read: poor and powerless). For the anarchist, happiness does not come from having the most money (dollars, gold, cattle) or having the most control over others. In an anarchist society, no one has to be stepped on in order for everyone to profit. In a capitalist society, everyone does as little work as they possibly can - time is money, after all. An anarchist society, in which everyone is equal and no one can profit from the slavery of others, would be much more efficient.

#5. Government is a wasteful bureaucracy. Government and the ruling class waste the products of the working class's labor, through taxes, enforcement of unnecessary laws, and the rich living in luxury while the poor suffer. The American government pays social security to old rich people, while young poor children are dying on the streets of easily treatable illnesses.

#6. Supply/demand economics doesn't work. The pyramid scheme must eventually collapse. If capitalism works, then why are there people struggling to earn or steal enough to buy enough shoes for all of their children when shoe store owners are complaining that they can't sell enough shoes?

#7. Government creates crime. The government prohibits, and prohibition creates crime. The status quo creates poverty and poverty creates crime. The government artificially increases the prices of drugs by criminalizing them. As Emma Goldman said, "The most absurd apology for authority and law is that they serve to diminish crime. Aside from the fact that the state itself is the greatest criminal, breaking every written and natural law, stealing in the form of taxes, killing in the form of war and capital punishment, it has come to an absolute standstill in coping with crime. It has failed utterly to destroy or even minimize the terrible scourge of its own creation." The government only protects those in control, and cares little about the lower classes. Do you feel that you are protected when you walk through the streets in the "bad" part of town? The government places little value in the poor and inner-city youth.

There is harm in the status quo, and certainly they are enough to cause concern. Society is degrading every day because of classism, racism, ageism, sexism, and innumerable other -isms. Every day, the government seizes more power, supposedly for our own protection. We don't need to be protected from ourselves and we don't need to be protected from each other.

The Problem is Inherent

These problems are inherent in any system based on coercion or competition. They cannot be solved within the present system, partly because of people's attitudes and partly because of the structure of authoritarian government itself.

#1. Power is always corruptive, no matter if the power is in the hands of a dictator, a congress, or a majority.

#2. While we agree that the majority does not have any more right to rule than the minority, a system of minority rule would still by tyranny. No individual or group should be given the right to control any other.

#3. The class system does not have to be imposed directly. Under a capitalist, democratic, "free" society, classes are imposed more subtly, by allowing certain people to accumulate more property than others and allowing them to use it to exploit the rest of the people.

#4. Not just capitalism, but any money economy is based on the passing around of a fixed amount of money. Even if the value of a country's monetary unit gains value, that money is coming from somewhere. Specifically, the money is either coming from other countries or people are doing more work for less money. Any time anyone makes money, they are indirectly taking it away from someone else.

#5. All governments require the expenditure of wealth to operate: to feed their armies, to build killing machines, and to hire police to control their citizens and extort money from them. In an anarchist society, the workers get to reap all the benefits of their labor, without their employers and government taking it away from them.

#6. Poverty is a problem in every country. In an anarchist community, people would trade freely with each other and with the local shoe-makers, and every person would have everything he or she needs. When money and the accumulation of property have been abolished, so too will poverty.

#7. Crime is created by government because all authority causes us to substitute laws for ethics and act only according to what is legal rather than what is acceptable by our conscience.

Anarchy will Solve the Problem

Will anarchy solve these problems? Yes. Power will not be corruptive because power will not exist. Neither the majority nor the minority will rule because each person will govern themselves. Class will finally be eliminated forever, and equality will finally be realized. Political and economic slavery will be abolished. A capitalist society would not simply spring up again because the only people who would want to become members of such a society are the rich, and a capitalist society depends on the exploitation of the working class for its survival. Poverty would be resolved. There are enough goods to go around; the problem not is that the upper 1% of households control more of it than the lower 90%. In an anarchist society, people would not have to be exploited in order for people to profit and society to advance. Voluntary association and mutual aid are certainly preferable to force. Humanity's full potential may finally be realized if we only stop fighting each other and trying to control one another. Anarchy will solve the problems of the status quo, eliminate the harm, and open up immeasurable possibilities.

The History of Anarchism

The rejection of authority dates back to the Stoics and Cynics, and has been around for millenia. However, the terms anarchist, anarchism, and anarchy, from the Greek "an archos" (without a rule), were used entirely in a negative manner before the nineteenth century.

Proudhon and the Mutualists

In 1840, in his controversial "What Is Property", French political writer and socialist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon became the first person to call himself an anarchist. In this book, Proudhon stated that the real laws of society have nothing to do with authority, but stem instead from the nature of society itself. He also predicted the eventual dissolve of authority and the appearance of a natural social order. "As man seeks justice in equality, so society seeks justice in anarchy. Anarchy - the absence of a sovereign - such is the form of government to which we are every day approximating." He was a 'peaceful anarchist'; he believed that within existing society, the organizations could be created that would eventually replace it. Proudhon was born in 1809, originally a peasant, the son of a brewer. His "What Is Property" and "System of Economic Contradictions" established him in the socialist community. Later he went on to write "The Federal Principle" and "The Political Capability of the Working Class".

Although he declared in "What Is Property" that "property is theft", he did not support communism, and regarded the right of workers to control the means of production as an important part of freedom. He never considered himself the originator of a movement, but he did propose a federal system of autonomous communes. He had many followers, but they preferred the title 'Mutualists' to 'Anarchists'; anarchism still bore a negative connotation. Proudhon and the Mutualists, along with British tradeunionists and socialists, formed the First International Workingmen's Association.

Bakunin and Collectivism

"The passion for destruction is also a creative passion" - These words would accurately summarize the position of Mikhail Bakunin and the Collectivists. Bakunin believed that anarchy was only possible through a violent revolution, obliterating all existing institutions. He was originally a nobleman, but became a revolutionary and joined the International in the 1860's, after founding the Social Democratic Alliance and modifying Proudhon's teachings into a new doctrine known as Collectivism. Bakunin taught that property rights were impractical and that the means of production should be owned collectively. He was strongly opposed to Karl Marx, also a member of the International, and his ideas of a proletarian dictatorship. This conflict eventually tore the International apart in 1872. He died in 1876, but the next International that he and the Collectivists started in 1873 lasted for another year. Later, his followers finally accepted the title of 'anarchist'.

Peter Kropotkin

In 1876, when he became a revolutionary, Peter Kropotkin renounced his title of Prince and became successor to Mikail Bakunin. He developed the theory of anarchist communism: not only should the means of production be owned collectively, but the products should be completely communized as well. This revised Thomas More's Utopian idea of storehouses, "From each according to his means, to each according to his needs." Kropotkin wrote "The Conquest of Bread" in 1892, in which he sketched his vision of a federation of free Communist groups. In 1899 he wrote "Memoirs of a Revolutionist", an autobiographical work, and "Fields, Factories, and Workshops", which put forward ideas on the decentralization of industry necessary for an anarchist society. He later proved by biological and sociological evidence that cooperation is more natural than coercion ("Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution" - 1902). Kropotkin's writings completed the vision of the Anarchist future, and little new has been added since.

The Anarchist Movement

Even before Proudhon entered the scene, anarchist activism was going on. The first plans for an anarchist commonwealth were made by an Englishman named Gerrard Winstanley, who founded the tiny Digger movement. In his 1649 pamphlet, "Truth Lifting Up Its Head Above Scandals", he wrote that power corrupts, that property is incompatible with freedom, and that men can only be free and happy in a society without governmental interference, where work and its products are shared (what was to become the foundation for anarchist theory in the years to come). He led a group of followers to a hillside where they established an anarchist village, but this experiment was quickly destroyed by local opposition. Later another Englishman, William Godwin, would write 'Political Justice', which said that authority was against nature, and that social evils exist because men are not free to act according to reason.

Among Italian anarchists, an active attitude was prevalent. Said Errico Malatesta in 1876, "The insurrectionary deed, destined to affirm socialist principles by acts, is the most efficacious means of propaganda." The first acts were rural insurrections, meant to arouse the uneducated citizens of the Italian countryside, but these were unsuccessful. Afterward this activism tended to take the form of individual acts of protest by 'terrorists', who attempted to assassinate ruling figures in the hope of demonstrating the vulnerability of the structure of authority and inspiring others by their self-sacrifice. From 1890- 1901, a chain of assassinations took place: King Umberto I, Italy; Empress Elizabeth, Austria; President Carnot, France; President McKinley, United Stated; and Spanish Prime Minister Antonio C novas del Castillo. Unfortunately, these acts had the opposite effect of what was intended- they established the idea of the anarchist as a mindless destroyer.

Also during the 1890's, many French painters, writers, and other artists discovered anarchism, and were attracted to it because of its individualist ideas. In England, writer Oscar Wilde became an anarchist, and in 1891 wrote "The Soul of Man Under Socialism".

Anarchism was a strong movement Spain. The first anarchist journal, "El Porvenir", was published in 1845, but was quickly silenced. Branches of the International were established by Giuseppe Fanelli in Barcelona and Madrid. By 1870, there were over 40,000 Spanish anarchists members; by 1873, 60,000, mostly organized in workingmen's associations, but in 1874 the movement was forced underground. In the 1880's and '90's, the Spanish anarchist movement tended toward terrorism and insurrections.

The Spanish civil war was the perfect opportunity to finally put ideas into action on a large scale. Factories and railways were taken over. In Andalusia, Catalonia, and Levante, peasants seized the land. Autonomous libertarian villages were set up, like those described in Kropotkin's 'The Conquest of Bread'. Internal use of money was abolished, the land was tilled collectively, the village products were sold or exchanged on behalf of the entire community, and each family received an equal share of necessities they could not produce themselves. Many of these such communes were even more efficient than the other villages. Although the Spanish anarchists failed because they did not have the ability to carry out sustained warfare, they suc